From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 1 02:22:47 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i716MkG11834; Sun, 1 Aug 2004 02:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 02:22:47 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408010622.i716MkG11834@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 #358 TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Aug 2004 02:23:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 358 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Australia: New Phone Technology is Voice of Tomorrow (VOIP News) POTS' Dirty Little Secret: Big-Time Downtime (VOIP News) Thanks for Vonage Info. What about Lingo? (Ed Abbott) Killer Phone Numbers in Nigeria (jmayson@nyx.net) Cheapest Incoming-Only Phone Service? (Westchester, NY) (Joel Hoffman) Re: History of TV (was Bare-Bones DNC Coverage) (Garrett Wollman) Re: History of TV (was Bare-Bones DNC Coverage)(Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Voice Logic VP 206 Manual Addendum - Internal Battery (Roger Jacobs) Re: 911, Only Simple 911 at Best (Fred Atkinson) Re: 911, Only Simple 911 at Best (Mike Donnelly) Re: Last Laugh! Interesting Origins (Bill Burns) Visit www.VOIPSupply.com for Cisco, Sipura, Grandstream (Cory Andrews) Latest Conspiracy: Nick Berg Alive (jasonhardy@washingtonpost.com) 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: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:54:46 -0400 Subject: Australia: New Phone Technology is Voice of Tomorrow Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/31/1091080487356.html By Richard Webb August 1, 2004 A Melbourne-developed technology is set to revolutionise the home phone, allowing users to talk for free over the internet, any time, anywhere. The idea of the Surrey Hills-based Freshtel is simple and cheap: it costs $89 for a handset, takes less than 20 minutes to set up, and uses any broadband or asymmetric digital subscriber-line internet connection. Freshtel will begin promoting the new phone to the home market from mid-August. It already has 96,000 users through word of mouth and limited media exposure since the product was trialled six months ago. It is adding new users at a rate of 1000 a day, according to chief executive Michael Carew. While the internet phone system is not new, what appears to be making Freshtel's Firefly "softphone", short for software telephone, attractive is that you don't sound like a Dalek when you speak through it -- it's as clear as a bell -- and it's a doddle to set up and activate. Independent telecommunications consultant Paul Budde said he believes the underlying technology, called voice over internet protocol (VoIP), is the way of the future. "The technology has come to maturity," he said. "The quality and reliability is all there; it's become a serious alternative." Mr Budde said the attractive price would enable the product to quickly establish itself on the market and would soon come packaged with many more services than a standard telephone service could offer. "The technology is going to overtake the current technology very quickly," he said. "There is no doubt in my mind that this is the way phones are going to go." Full story at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/31/1091080487356.html (Free registration required) 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: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:27:10 -0400 Subject: POTS' Dirty Little Secret: Big-Time Downtime Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com As you probably know, one of the claims often made by the shills for the big phone companies is that VoIP is less reliable that POTS ("Plain Old Telephone Service"). Well, it turns out that's not necessarily true -- it depends a lot on where you live and which incumbent telephone company provides service in your area. In this thread on BroadbandReports.com, participants take turns commenting on the reliability of traditional phone service, and for several it's not exactly the "five nines" (99.999% uptime) that the phone companies would like you to believe. http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,10914037~mode=flat 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: poepauv@yahoo.com (Ed Abbott) Subject: Thanks for Vonage Info. What about Lingo? Date: 31 Jul 2004 06:47:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Rob, Thanks so much for your detailed reply. Much obliged. Can anyone answer threeq questions about Lingo VoIP telelphone service? I'm trying to decide between Lingo, Vonage, and other VoIP providers. 1 -- Does Lingo sound as bad as a cell phone? 2 -- Does Lingo sound better than a cell phone but worse than regular telelphone service (POTS)? 3 -- Does Lingo sound as good as a POTS line? Thanks so much to anyone who takes the time to reply, Ed ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Reply-To: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Killer Phone Numbers in Nigeria Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:09:28 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3906607.stm John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:16:56 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Cheapest Incoming-Only Phone Service? (Westchester, NY) Organization: Excelsior Computer Services I just moved to a building that requires a local phone number for the door-intercom system to work. Everyone knows my old (cell) phone number, and I have no reason to change it or stop using it, and I have no need for any home telephone service other than my cell phone, but I need a local number. So I'm wondering: what's the cheapest way to get a local phone number which will forward to my cell? Thanks. -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telcos which provide (Enterphone) service or private contractors which provide (Interphone) service usually generally have it rigged up so that door-to-apartment calls *cannot* be forwarded off premises. You probably would not want to have someone be able to remotely open your door when you were not there; it is a security matter, that is why no forwarding is available on Enter (Inter) phone service. If telco is supplying the service, it works sort of like a gerry-rigged centrex. The lobby phone gets dial tone from the central office and the caller dials usually a two or three digit number associated with your name in the lobby directory. You must tell your visitor your apartment number; it is not obvious from the dialed code number. When you agree to admit the caller and dial a '4' or '6' or whatever, the central office pulses the front door latch to allow it to open so the caller can hang up the phone and walk into the building. If you do not have external phone service, then telco's contract with the building management (which pays for the service) calls for telco to provide you with a phone to operate the door only. Now if your building has the service from a private contractor it is called Interphone since the telco (at least years ago) had a patent on 'Enterphone'. The private contractor usually has a 'computer like box' in the basement or wherever telco enters the premises and the 'box' functions like a little switchboard sort of like telco and all the house pairs terminate in this box with the outside trunk lines coming in. It is quite transparent in that the 'box' just sits there silently when you make an outgoing call; but when an incoming call **from the front door** comes in the box does two things: it tests your line for busy; if you are not talking it gives you a distinctive ring (same as telco; to aid you in identifying the source of the call) and if your line *is* busy it sends you a distinctive call waiting tone (again, same as telco, even if you do not already have call-waiting) so you can flash, the box puts your outside call on hold and gives you the door call. Like telco's (non-subscriber) service where any old phone can be plugged into the place on the wall where the phone plugs in, **no actual phone number is needed** since telco (or the private contractor) provides battery as needed to operate the phone when it gets called from the door. So if your building has one of those two types of service (Enter/Interphone) don't bother with calling telco to get phone service; just plug some cheap phone into the jack; it will ring as needed and allow talking as needed for the front door intercom function. When there is not someone at the door talking to you, the phone will otherwise be dead. In any event (Enter or Inter) **call forwarding will not work**. Contractor's box won't do it and telco won't provide it, mainly for security reasons. But there is a *third* type of front door service, always private contractor. Sort of cheesy, IMO. In that system, front door person dials your code (never actual apartment number) and the premises 'box' does a quick look up of your real seven-digit number then places a phone call to that seven-digit number and bridges them together when you answer (if you are home and do answer). Its sort of like a fancy speed dial type thing. On that kind, you *can* do what you want and have it call forwarded or run to an answering machine or wherever, although IMO it is ill advised for security reasons. Do you want the visitor to know you are not home because the door (speed dial type phone) forwards to wherever? There is an exception to the **no for- warding** rule: If you have a telco centrex type system (the first one, above) fully connected and taking incoming/outgoing calls, etc then TRUE incoming calls (not front door calls) can be call forwarded. Turn call forwarding on as desired, but the front door will still give its funny little ring-ring on the phone and not forward. I guess that is because the programming decision whether or not to forward is made at telco long before the decision as the origin of the call. So find out from your new landlord **what kind** of front door intercom service they have. If it is 'cheap' you want then you may be able to get by just plugging a dead phone into a modular jack and letting the front door do its own thing (types one and two above). If you have to have an *actual phone number* (as in type three) then bear in mind the front door will be as limited as the cheap phone service is. If your line is busy (cheap phones do not get call waiting) then the front door will get a busy signal also, and this 'cheap phone you never use since everyone has your cell phone' may turn out to be sort of expensive as you install call waiting (to pamper the front door) and call waiting to forward everyone else (but hopefully not a bad guy burglar, etc) to your cell phone when you are away from home. If you are dealing with type three above and absolutely must get a working phone number from telco, then I would say never give the number out to anyone (the people who matter would have your cell phone anyway). Just let the phone sit there idly 99 percent of the time. At this point you probably know more about Front Door Intercom Service than most landlords and building managers. Oh, and regards repairs: standard telco contracts on these devices call for a *thirty minute* repair time turnaround if/when the front door intercom goes out of order. Various reasons; all the pairs from central office to the building and the jumpers, etc are *supposed to be dedicated and plainly marked in the c.o.* and in the building basement, but it is not uncommon to get a dorkus installer tech who rips off pairs in older neighborhoods, nor is it uncommon for the cellanoids unlatching the front door to go bad, and telco understands it is a rush/24 hour per day repair job. Hopefully private contractors sense the urgency also. If the landlord does not understand what kind of front door intercom system he has, then try plugging in a dead phone to a jack first and see if it works; if it does then all is cool. Some of them say 'oh, you gotta have a phone to make the door work' and they don't really know what they are saying. Then get back to us as needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: History of TV (was Bare-Bones DNC Coverage Draws Lower Ratings) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:32:34 UTC Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Paul Coxwell wrote: > comment? I *think* WTTW, Channel 11 began as a project of the Museum > of Science and Industry, as an endowed exhibit. At some point or > another ownership transferred to PBS. PBS does not own any stations, and never has. It is a membership cooperative. WTTW and WFMT are owned by WTTW, Inc., a self-perpetuating non-profit corporation. > Regards station ID and such, the rules have changed some also, The rules haven't changed significantly in many years. Stations are required to announce their callsign and community of license hourly, and at sign-on and sign-off of the transmitter. They were formerly required to identify on the half-hour as well, but this was considered such a burden (particularly to non-commercial stations broadcasting classical music) that the rules were changed about thiry years ago to halve the frequency.[1] The legal form of a station identification is the callsign (as shown on the license), followed optionally by the name of the licensee (as shown on the license) and/or the frequency and/or channel number of the station, followed by the community of license (as shown on the license), followed (except at sign-off) by program material (which may include the names of other communities served by the station). In the words of section 73.1201, ``No other insertion is permissible.'' In a small number of cases, announcement of the frequency or channel is not optional (although many stations which are required to do it, don't, and vice versa). > do not know exactly how it works, but at least once per day when they > are broadcasting, stations have to give details about themselves and No, there is no such requirement (except during the public-comment period while a license renewal or station sale is pending). Some TV stations still choose to do this; most full-time radio stations don't. -GAWollman [1] Stations are only required to identify 'as close to the hour as feasible, at a natural break' in programming. Some program directors mistakenly interpret this requirement (assuming they are even aware of it) as meaning that they can define a 'natural break' as the interval between the tenth and eleventh spots in a 16-unit stop set running at :42 after the hour. Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every wollman@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: History of TV (was Bare-Bones DNC Coverage Draws Lower Ratings) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:57:47 GMT In article , paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk says: > I find it fascimating to read about the history of radio and TV > broadcasting. It's interesting enough here in Britain, but obviously > much more restricted due to very tight state-control that existed > then. American broadcast history has so many more interesting turns > to investigate thanks to the multitude of companies and networks that > were operating. >> Chicago Tribune is and always was the (W)orld's (G)reatest (N)ews- >> paper. No one would hear of Channel 11 -PBS- (W)indow (T)o (T)he >> (W)orld for a few more years, until it went on the air about 1955 as >> an exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry, broadcasting five or >> six hours from the auditorium of the museum Monday through Friday. > Presumably WTTW-TV was an independent station for the museum at that > time. Didn't PBS start sometime around the late 1960s? There were noncommercial educational stations long before there was a PBS. I believe PBS emerged in the late 1960s (or possibly early 1970s), after the major educational stations, such as WNET (NY), WGBH (Boston), WETA (Washington), etc. had begun exchanging high-quality program content, and there was interest in Washington to get some of that programming onto educational stations in cities that didn't produce programming. As I recall, it started out with some government funding, but that subsequently dried up. >> When Channel 11 first started broadcasting they were on Monday to >> Friday only, I think a few hours each afternoon with classroom lessons >> for school kids. They were dark -- off the air -- on weekends with >> the exception of Sunday evening from 7:55 PM to 9:05 PM. They would >> turn on their power at 7:55 PM, play the National Anthem, and the >> announcer would give their call sign and say, "Now, this weeks program >> from Chicago Sunday Evening Club at Orchestra Hall." After that >> religious service ended at 9 PM, the same announcer would come back >> on and sign the station off the air with the obligitory announcements >> about station, owner, frequency, power, etc and again the National >> Anthem. They stayed at Museum of Science and Industry until the early > What exactly were the FCC rules regarding required announcements in > those days? Obviously stations had to announce their call signs at > appropriate times (a practice which still leaves many British tourists > not used to U.S. broadcasting somewhat confused!), but what about > other details? Were station, power etc. required at regular > intervals, or just at start-up and closedown? Station ID announcements (call sign, city, channel) were ordinarily required every half hour. I think there was a requirement of a more detailed announcement (ownership, mainly) once a day, which was typically done at either startup or shutdown, or both. The inclusion of specific frequencies (beyond the channel), power, and other information was not required by FCC rules, as far as I can recall. Nor was there any FCC requirement of a national anthem. The anthem plus the detailed announcement was a tradition widely followed, however. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know the history of PBS/NPR > (the later is the radio version of PBS. PBS = public television and > NPR = public radio.), but I know it has changed a lot over the years > also. Maybe someone who knows PBS/NPR history better than I could > comment? I *think* WTTW, Channel 11 began as a project of the Museum > of Science and Industry, as an endowed exhibit. At some point or > another ownership transferred to PBS. I cannot say for sure, but I > think PBS in Chicago got started as the result of a gift from Mr. > Ryerson. What was called WBOE (as in Board of Education [of the City > of Chicago]) became an NPR affiliate about the same time in the > late 1960's. I do know that the earliest PBS stuff was black and > white (like all television) and even when they moved into the Ryerson PBS doesn't own any stations. It is a funding mechanism for program development and distribution. PBS, likewise. They are the functional equivalent of networks, but without any owned and operated stations. The stations are owned by local nonprofits. For example, WETA in Washington is not owned by PBS; it is owned by the Washington Educational Television Association. WTTW was started in 1955 by the Chicago Educational Television Association; the organization is now "Window To The World Communications, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation governed by 45 trustees representing the greater Chicago community." . According to the website, its first broadcast was from a temporary studio in the Banker's Building in Chicago, not the museum. It worked with the Board of Ed to produce college courses and other educational programs. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: raj@lauhala.com (Roger Jacobs) Subject: Re: Voice Logic VP 206 Manual Addendum Internal Battery Replacement Date: 31 Jul 2004 00:20:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com More good news: The lead acid backup battery was worn out -- I successfully replaced it with a RadShack #23-952 6V 600 mAh and the unit can now survive a power failure without forgetting it's settings. raj@lauhala.com (Roger Jacobs) wrote in message news:: > I bought a VP 206 on eBay and was pretty confused until I found this > very helpful manual addendum. It was in google cache and might not be > around for long, so I have reposted it here: > http://omnisphere.com/support-docs/voice-pro-manual-addendum.pdf ------------------------------ Reply-To: Fred Atkinson From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: 911, Only Simple 911 at Best Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:55:28 -0400 As for the power outage effect on Vonage, I've thought about that issue as well. However, you can probably come up with a lot less expensive solution than a full universal power supply. The Vonage unit doesn't require much power. I'd suggest that you also use the backup power to power the cable modem. It won't do you any good to backup the power on the Vonage unit and not do it to the cable modem, too. I worked for a company that sent data over a satellite. They spent an enormous amount of money to install a diesel generator to support their computers (the ones that were primarily for sending data to the satellite link. They were linked to the satellite uplink site via a telco provided leased data line. When the day finally came that the commercial power failed, the computers kept right on processing. Then we got calls from the customers who weren't getting their data. It appeared that the satellite uplink had failed. Upon investigation, they discovered a telco station package in the basement. It was plugged into commercial power only. The truth was, they had anticipated this. And to that end, they had run an AC receptacle from the generator to the telephone room in the basement and had telco plug their station package into it. But, apparently some telco guy had come in there at a later time and for some unknown reason, he'd moved the unit from the orange receptacle to a standard receptacle on the building power. By the time they figured out what had happened, the commercial power was already restored. All that money had been spent only to suffer another outage. They moved telco's station package back to the orange receptacle and put up a sign cautioning the telco guys not to move the unit off the generator to standard commercial power (perhaps it would have been better to remove the commercial receptacles from the wall altogether leaving only the orange receptacle from the generators as a source of AC power). But, there was not a repeat performance, thankfully. People don't think about the fact that the providers of these services have to run their equipment on the same power when they consider redundant power for their equipment. Speaking of forethought, I once worked for a paging company that had paging transmitters deployed in a lot of different places across the country. When we would employ an electrician to run a new AC breaker to our transmitter, we insisted on single gang receptacles (not duplex) on each circuit. Why? Because someone comes into that area and sees an available plug (on a duplex receptacle) wouldn't think anything about plugging into it. Suddenly, the power requirements of whatever he has plugged into it (a utility light or equipment that pulls a few amps of current) and our transmitter operating on the same breaker is now over the current rating of the AC breaker and the breaker blows. Now, your paging transmitter is down and your customers are unhappy. All because some workman came along and plugged into your power circuit. Of course, you still run the risk of having someone unplug it to use the receptacle (they may not realize the impact of unplugging your equipment) and your equipment is down. But, we rarely experienced someone unplugging someone else's equipment. For the most part, workmen and other radio technicians working in the same area tend to shy away from unplugging equipment not belonging to them. You may not think these things are all that important during the planning stages. But when the day comes that you suffer an outage because you didn't think about it up front, it can be painful. And even if you did consider these issues, there is always the chance that there was something you didn't consider. Fred ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 02:53:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Mike Donnelly Subject: Re: 911, Only Simple 911 at Best Pat, I am not interested in starting a flame war in your newsgroup. Feel free to pass this along to Jack at address withheld. Jack Pat, please conceal my e-mail address. > On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:15:13 GMT, Mike Donnelly > wrote: >> charlie@cdsdetroit.com (charlie3) wrote in >> news:telecom23.353.10@telecom-digest.org: >>> problems to VOIP phones; more and more cell phones and >>> VOIP phones are going into use and many will replace >>> traditional copperline phones, regardless of 911 >>> concerns. Public officials will find solutions to 911 >>> calls originating from cell and internet phones. >>> I'm simply no longer willing to pay for a 100 year old >>> POTS phone when I can get five times the functionality >>> and unlimited US minutes for a lower price from Vonage. >>> With a cell phone for backup my internet phone does not >>> have perform exactly like a traditional phone. >> Hope you never need emergency services any time in the >> near future. > You know, every time I read a comment like this, my gut > reaction is to want to strangle the writer (figuratively > speaking, of course). First for the obvious reason that he > is trying to impose his own sense of values on others, but > also because it's such a pathetically stupid statement. > I mean, to me people who say things like this sound like > they want us to live in a rubber room with a 100% reliable > phone with a big red speed dial button programmed for > "911." One could just as easily say "I hope you never go > outside to check your mail without taking a cordless phone > along" or "I hope you never decide to take a walk in the > woods." The point I am making, in case it isn't obvious, > is that (if we are reasonably normal people) we ALL have > times -- and probably many more than we think about -- > where we are NOT near enough to a telephone that it would > do us any good if we had a heart attack or some other > emergency. > I don't have a wireless phone (in my situation I really > have no pressing need for one). I sometimes take walks in > the woods, I go out to the outside shed and putz around or > do some task outside, and I never have a phone with me and > am often out of view of anyone else. Oh the horror, I might > have a heart attack and not be able to call 911! Well you > know what, if that's my time to go, it's my time to go, and > I don't need any goody two-shoes know-it-alls trying to > tell me that I am being irresponsible by not having the > level of communica- tions that they think I should have. > In fact, people like that sometimes almost make me wish I > could check out a bit sooner. If they succeed in making > the world a perfectly safe place to live, but one in which > you have no options left because someone else has dictated > all aspects of how you must live, why would I want to keep > on living? I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't > escape a world like that fast enough! I'm just waiting for > these people to start trying to get "unsafe" recreational > activities banned, like hang-gliding or rock climbing or > motorcycling or any of the hundreds of other things people > enjoy doing but that have the potential to get them killed. >> BTW, what happens to VOIP when there is a power outage? Is >> there anything similar to "lifeline service"? My 100 year >> old POTS phone still works. I know because I have had to >> use it several times during outages. > Bully for you. No one is asking you to give up your 100 > year old POTS phone if that's what floats your boat. But > you have absolutely no right to decide that I or anyone > else needs to have that level of service. I don't WANT to > be 100% safe 100% of the time. A life like that would be > boring as hell, not to mention that the cost of living > would be far higher. I didn't decide anything for you or anyone else. I am responsible only for what I imply. YOU are responsible for what YOU infer. I am only suggesting that people need to understand the limitations of the newer technologies. > What about the Amish people who don't even have telephones, > nor for that matter cars to drive to a hospital at 70 MPH > in an emergency? Would you be the one to tell them that > they need to conform to your acceptable way of living? > If I, or anyone else wants to have phone service from > VoicePulse or Vonage or any of those companies, and we know > what the limitations of 911 are and are willing to accept > them, it is none of your damn business! Take your > finger-wagging to someplace where it's appreciated, though > I cannot imagine where that might be. > Sorry if the above seems a bit strong, but sometimes I just > get really sick of hearing from people who want to suck all > the LIFE out of living because all they can think about is > safety, and not only for themselves, but they want to pass > their obsession on to others. Nope, not at all. I'm just arguing for informed consent. I am sure Vonage customers are told what they are getting in the way of new features, but do all of them realize what they are doing without? If you want to live on the edge KNOWLINGLY, that's OK. I don't really care. I am not the one with the obsession. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Jack, the possible, but unlikely > problem of 'what to do in an emergency when all you have is Vonage' > is just a red herring anyway. The main problem with so many of > those people is that they are shills for an old, dying method of > communications where 'the telephone company' is the be-all, > end-all way of doing business. They have such a love affair with > POTS; a system which won't die soon enough IMO. PAT] Heck I'm no shill for anybody. Been retired for five years. I just suspect that not all Vonage customers have the technical understanding of the folks in this group. Mike Donnelly [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is a good point. I think as a worst case scenario some people discover the power line behind their house is down and they cannot use Vonage 911 'automatically' to call authorities tp report it. I've suggested before that 'there outta be a law' requiring *everyone* to take a year or so of lessons at telephone school as part of their general education. The world would be a better place as a result. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Burns Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Interesting Origins Date: 31 Jul 2004 16:19:09 GMT Organization: FTL Paul Vader wrote: > Lisa Minter writes: >> In the 16th and 17th centuries, most things were shipped by boat. > The word in question, which I won't use to avoid content filters, > has its origins in English at least 300 years earlier than that. > Research people, research! The first cite of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated Y1K -- the year 1000! Bill Burns, Long Island, NY, USA mailto:billb@ftldesign.com Undersea Cable History Website: http://atlantic-cable.com ------------------------------ From: sales@b2llc.com (Cory Andrews) Subject: Visit www.VOIPSupply.com for Cisco, Sipura, Grandstream, VOIP Gear Date: 31 Jul 2004 09:57:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com www.VOIPSupply.com offers a wide selection of VOIP related hardware at great discounts. www.VOIPSupply.com ------------------------------ From: jasonhardy@washingtonpost.com Subject: Latest Internet Rumor: Nick Berg Alive Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 02:12:38 GMT Organization: Cox Communications Conspiracy theories of Nick Berg being alive and well in Iraq have today been proven true. Aljazeera have released video footage of the supposedly beheaded American captive. The clip was first "discovered" on an Islamic website in Malaysia and has now been released by American Journalists colaborating with Aljazeera. The evidence speaks for itself and can be viewed firsthand here. http://www.greentea.625.co.kr/NickBerg.zip [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only can the evidence speak for itself and can be viewed, as a special gift to new readers at greentea.625.co.kr we will give you -- whether you ask for it or not -- a virus and add you to our spam mailing list. 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 #358 ******************************