From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 7 02:53:06 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i776r6026458; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 02:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 02:53:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408070653.i776r6026458@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 #369 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Aug 2004 02:53:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 369 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PDAs Under Attack (Monty Solomon) EFFector 17.28: Freedom Fest Is Here! (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Releases Windows XP Service Pack 2 (Monty Solomon) Best Phone For Use With Vonage Service? (CHL) Number Transportability For VOIP? (Dan) Any Experience With Verizon NJ Centrex? (Chris Chang) Looking For Phones to Use With Centrex (Julie at CG) Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret (Paul Vader) Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret (Lisa Minter) Re: FCC Moves to Ban Spam on Mobile Phones (Michael D. Sullivan) Cinti. Bell buys ATTWS's 19.9% Share of Wireless Network (Steven Sobol) Re: Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out (baracooda) Liability for Neglegent Storage of Data (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Re: US West History (No One) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 11:29:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PDAs Under Attack Kaspersky Labs 05 Aug 2004 Kaspersky Labs has detected Backdoor.WinCE.Brador.a, the first backdoor for PDAs running under PocketPC (based on Windows CE). Brador is a classic Trojan backdoor program: it opens the infected machine for remote administration. Brador is 5632 bytes in size and it infects handhelds running Pocket PC. After the backdoor is launched, it creates an svchost.exe file in the Windows autorun folder, thus maintaining full control over the system every time the handheld is turned on. Brador then identifies the machine's IP address and sends it to the author, informing him that the handheld is in the Internet and the backdoor is active. Finally, Brador opens port 2989 and awaits further commands. Brador is created to allow the master full control over the infected PDA via the port that the Trojan opens. Brador is programmed to upload and download files and execute a series of further commands. Like all backdoors, Brador cannot spread by itself: it can only arrive as an email attachment, be downloaded from the Internet or uploaded along with other data from a desktop. http://www.kaspersky.com/news?id=151142122 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 01:19:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.28: Freedom Fest Is Here! EFFector Vol. 17, No. 28 August 4, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 300th Issue of EFFector: * Freedom Fest Is Here! * JibJab Files Suit to Defend Fair Use Rights * EFF Urgues FCC to Resist a "Broadcast Flag" for Radio * Ohio E-Voting Update: Progress for Election Integrity * EFF Court Docket: What's Next? * Defcon 12 Makes a Splash for Online Freedom * EFF Thanks Automated Workflows * MiniLinks (12): Powell Drops the Regulatory Hammer on VoIP * Staff Calendar: 08.04.04 - EFF Freedom Fest 2004, San Francisco, CA * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/28.php ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 18:12:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Releases Windows XP Service Pack 2 Company Urges Windows XP Customers to Turn on Automatic Updates to Get the Stronger Security, Greater Manageability and Improved Experiences of Landmark Service Pack REDMOND, Wash., Aug. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today announced the release to manufacturing of Windows(R) XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies. This free service pack delivers the latest security updates and innovations from Microsoft, establishes strong default security settings, and adds new proactive protection features that will help better safeguard computers from hackers, viruses and other security risks. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=42956051 ------------------------------ From: leejp@excite.com (CHL) Subject: Best Phone For Use With Vonage Service? Date: 5 Aug 2004 23:48:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I just signed up with Vonage. I installed it tonight and the voice quality was excellent. So far so good. I have 1 "line powered" phone and will be getting a UPS to hold up my cable modem and the Vonage box during power outages. Now ... my understanding is that the phone line coming out of the vonage box can pretty much be used like the line from the phone company. Great! I'll simply disconnect the phone line from Verizon and connect it to th box. I'll be looking for a new cordless phone to go with my new service. Is there a phone/phone system that is particularly suited for making/receiving calls, setting up/retrieving phonemail ... for Vonage Service? I prefer the multi handset type cordless. Also ... the voicemail features are pretty slick. Anyone still using your own answering machine? Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I spent all of $4.95 (four dollars, ninety-five cents) at the Dollar General store downtown for a desk- style Trimline phone for my Vonage. And it has Caller ID in the handset, with three memory buttons, a flash button and a redial button. It was some kind of overstock thing on sale. It even has a 'visual message waiting' indicator on it. (Actually, just a tiny flashing light that blinks off and on each time there is a change in the caller ID display (which means each time the phone rings; the person may have not left a message, but I usually got their number and name that way anyway). A major investment in a phone, yes? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dan04@comcast.net (Dan) Subject: Number Transportability for VOIP? Date: 6 Aug 2004 07:10:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Will I ever be able to sign up for VOIP and keep my existing POTS (landline) phone number? When? Thanks, Dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can do that now, Dan, at least on Vonage and assuming you are in a town of some size, although Independence, KS is not that large at 8000 people. PAT] ------------------------------ From: chrispchang@yahoo.com (Chris Chang) Subject: Any Experience With Verizon NJ Centrex? Date: 6 Aug 2004 07:14:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I'm new to this group but seems like there are a number of knowledgeable telecom folks here. I am opening a small office (6 people with potential to expand to max of 15). In looking at phone systems, we want basic voicemail functionality, caller id and call waiting caller id. I am thinking about using Centrex offered by Verizon NJ instead of purchasing a phone system. Was wondering if anyone had any opinions from experience with using this? We intend to get Centrex compatible display phones so users don't have to deal with switchook/flash button stuff. Appreciate any responses. Chris ------------------------------ From: jvandore@commonground.org (Julie at CG) Subject: Looking for Phones to Use with Centrex Date: 6 Aug 2004 10:10:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I am a computer person who has had telecom foisted upon her. We have a new small office in Connecticut, less than 6 phones. We have decided to go with Centrex for the phone service, and maybe to use SBC's voicemail. I know that I can use ordinary analog phones with centrex, but then in order to access the features the users have to depress the hang-up button and enter codes. These users will find that troublesome. I asked SBC how much the phones were and they said that they would be $250. I am writing to find out if I have a less expensive option. I need: Phone that can easily access centrex features (call transfer, 4-digit dialing, putting callers on hold, etc.) Phone that **either** has message indicator that will talk with SBC's voicemail, to indicate that there is voicemail --OR-- has digital mailbox built in. Phone that can have at least two lines (a "main" line and the user's line) coming in. I have tried to find out whether particular phones have these features, but have been unsuccessful. Any help would be greatly appreciated. julie Director IT Common Ground Community www.commonground.org ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 15:43:06 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations Jack Decker writes: > Yeah, I'm just a rude kinda guy sometimes ... I say what I really > think instead of sugarcoating it. Been that way for years, probably > won't change anytime in the near future. Oh yes, the particular breed of ass who thinks being one is a virture. Welcome to my killfile, loser. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your killfile must be faulty in some way, Paul, since you have obviously received and replied to the last two or three messages from Jack. Call me curious I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: POTS' Dirty Little Secret Date: 6 Aug 2004 10:46:39 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > But Traditional Bell got paid handsomely over the years > for their work at building the infrastructure (albiet not only the > money values of the early 1900's but also the way in which workers > were treated), so maybe it is fair if the rest of us get to share it > now. I'm not sure I call the Bell's profit "handsome". As a regulated monopoly, its prices were set by the government. It was of course to Bell's advantage to have low prices to attract as many customers as possible, HOWEVER, their prices could've been higher without loss of their customer base. In other words, without regulation, they would've made a lot more money. Compared to other technology businesses over the years, the Bell System's profits were quite low. One did not get rich working for or investing in the telephone company. I don't have stock histories, but I dare long term return on investment of the Bell System was much lower compared to say a GE or RCA or IBM. Being regulated did not guarantee success. Railroads were a strictly regulated monopoly but still went broke. Western Union went broke. As to how workers were treated, in the early years I think Bell was the same as other growing industrial concerns. Once WW II started, I think Bell System workers had it better than most other similar workers. They did not get rich, but they had good job security, opportunities for advancement, good training, and safe and pleasant working conditions. For instance, I don't think field installers or repairmen were under tremendous pressure to work fast as some other companies' field crews (at least basee on my own observations and conversations). It also must be noted that Bell spread the costs of its infrastructure over a wide customer base. Bell served everyone in reasonably built-up areas. Today, cable TV and cellular carriers have plenty of unserved zones -- in built-up areas -- since the cost of serving those few zones happens to be very high and it isn't worth it to them to spend the money. Bell certainly had high cost customers it served just the same. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I guess it depends on how you define 'handsome'. I know that AT&T is the **only** company which has had a single letter ('T') as their stock symbol and they have **never** missed a dividend (frequently large) in over a hundred years. In fact, older (1930-ish) magazines and newspapers had adver- tisements which glorified telco's stocks; for example the ad they ran over and over showing an old lady sitting in a rocking chair with a contented look on her face and the caption said how lucky she was that her AT&T stock dividends were looking after her in her old age during the depression. PAT] Then Lisa continues, quoting Charles Cryderman who wrote: > Lisa I have to disagree, competition has done many things for you. You > appear to have access to the internet. I'd expect that none of us > would had competition not come into play with telecommunications. CID, > call waiting and many other innovations wouldn't have been pursued if > it weren't for competition. The Bell System developed and deployed CID, Call Waiting, etc., long before competition. These features were forseen as benefits from Electronic Switching which the Bell System began working on in the 1950s. > One of the problems with a monopoly is stagnation and AT&T was very > stagnate. They had no reason to improve things for the users. Sorry, but that is not accurate at all. Bell Laboratories under the Bell System was well known for continuing inventions and technology development. Otherwise we'd still be using manual candlestick phones. It was the Bell System that developed ESS and cellular mobile telephones. It was the Bell System that continually searched for ways to improve the carrying efficiency of circuits, such as digital transmission and switching. The Bell System's electronic switching systems were so far advanced that Bell had to develop the hardware itself to make them work -- the then state of the art in computer hardware was not adequate to meet their needs. At the time of divesture, the Bell System was quite advanced and was a very different company than even 10 years prior. As to the Internet, that was developed many years ago. The Bell System's data transmission services provided the initial links. The widespread use of the Internet today is the result of cheap electronics. That allowed cheap routers and servers, cheap home computers, cheap phone switching gear, and cheaper mainframes. The cost of electronics has been dropping ever since the transistor was invented. The breakup of the Bell System did not create that price drop. > Their only improvements came in maximizing profits. That's what business is about. As a regulated monopoly, quality service was top priority, even at the expense of profits. In a free market, profits are the only issue. We've seen the loss of many services once provided because they are not profitable in a competitive world. > I agree that E911 is a important service but I also agree with > Jack. This is a local issue and should be paid for my the locals. Some > of these fees paid to the telephone companies are nothing more then > extra money for them. The Universal Service Fund is a rip off ... As I replied, all that is irrelevent. Whatever taxes and obligations there must be met by ALL carriers. If such taxes/fees are wrong, discontinue for all. But at this time, those taxes and obligations do exist. > Lisa, AT&T wasn't being such a nice guy as you think. What they were > doing is subsidizing their major customers on the backs of the little > guys and residential customers. What MCI did was bring that truth in > the open. AT&T's flat pricing policy wasn't a secret -- it was mandated by the government as part of the regulation. Obviously on some sectors AT&T made money but also obviously AT&T lost money on other sectors -- again because the government ordered it so. MCI exploited the fact that AT&T was regulated and it was not. It didn't have to serve high cost city-pairs or provide operator services -- it left that high expense to AT&T which by law had to handle it at low prices. If I open a hotdog stand in front of a luncheonette and don't bother paying taxes, providing my customers restrooms, having my cart health inspected, etc., it will be easy for me to undercut the luncheonette's prices and steal their business. Oh yes -- keep in mind that the government ordered the luncheonette to be open 24/7 even where there's little business to justify that cost, and to carry a varied menu even though there's little demand for some items. As a stand, I need only be there during the most profitable times and sell only the high profit items. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: FCC Moves to Ban Spam on Mobile Phones Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 23:41:35 GMT In article , gpn@suespammers.org says: > Joseph wrote: >> Gee, why doesn't the government give the spammers which office codes >> are for each carrier? > They do. > Well, not the government, but NANPA does. Not that the CO code tells one much about who is the service provider, or even if it is mobile service, now that we have number pooling and number portability. That's (presumably) why the FCC required carriers to list the internet domains used with the phone numbers for incoming SMS (e.g., vtext.com in the case of Verizon Wireless). Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Cinti. Bell Buys ATTWS's 19.9% Share of its Wireless Network Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:03:45 -0500 From Cincinnati Bell's Website: http://www.cincinnatibell.com/corporate/news/news.asp?page=20040805.asp CB gets a good deal on roaming rates from AT&Tingular as part of this deal. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ From: wayne.chiang@gmail.com (baracooda) Subject: Re: Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out Date: 6 Aug 2004 19:11:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com The point that I am trying to get across is that current PC aren't too far away from being a mobile robotic videoconference machine ... wayne.chiang@gmail.com (baracooda) wrote in message news:: > I have a Deskoid Robotic PC design that is ideal for Skype. Check it > out at http://funkycoldamoeba.blogspot.com . I need partners to > co-develop this idea, if anybody is interested, let me know. > VOIP News wrote in message > news:: >> http://www.techcentralstation.com/070104F.html >> Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out >> By Kevin Werbach Published 07/01/2004 TCS >> Somewhere between Sweden, Estonia, and London, a small band of software >> developers is fomenting a revolution. Their product, Skype, >> has been downloaded fifteen million times worldwide in less than a >> year, without any marketing budget. It is provoking consternation >> among government officials. And it has large incumbents worried. >> If that sounds like the profile of peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing >> programs like Napster and Kazaa, it should. Not only is Skype a >> product of the same team that launched Kazaa, the most popular p2p >> file-sharing application, Skype is a p2p tool itself. ------------------------------ From: chsvideo@hotmail.com (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Subject: Liabiltiy For Neglegent Storage of Data? Date: 6 Aug 2004 23:17:21 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi Pat & All - I need some advice & I know it's not completely on topic, but it is kind of close and of all the newsgroups/forums I participate in, this is the closest to being on topic. I realize few of y'all are lawyers, so I won't take any of this as legal advice, but ... I was notified yesterday that my personal data (SSN, name, etc.) was included in a fairly-highly-publicized loss of data (er, "misplacement of data") on the part of the California State University-Office of the Chancellor. A few of the articles on the subject include: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/3618605/detail.html http://www.kfmb.com/topstory27924.html http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/08/04/news/top_stories/23_18_308_3_04.txt or just go to http://news.google.com/ and enter "Cal State Hard Drive" What really peeves me is even though the CSU talking heads claim the data was "password protected" the section of the Civil Code cited in the letter for the notice only requires disclosure if the data lost is not encrypted ... Eek! I _WILL_ be filing a claim with the State Board of Control (the first step before one can sue a state agency) on, among other things, the basis that the Auditor (and by extension the Office of the Chancellor, Civ. Code 2338) was grossly negligent in that: a) The data was allowed on a laptop hard drive to begin with, without my knowledge or consent [It's not entirely clear how they got my SSN to begin with]; b) The data was not encrypted; c) The data was not adequately secured or supervised, and the Auditor should have been plainly aware that the data was not adequately secured; d) My [state] Constitutional Right to Privacy was violated (Cal. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 24); e) The use of my SSN since (IIRC) Jan 1, 2004 may violate certain provisions of California Law (depending on what they were using it for ... I certainly never received the notice also required by those provisions); ... among other things. The primary questions I have are: - As to bullet B, am I unreasonable to expect that IF the data was allowed "out in the wild" it would be encrypted in some way? [I figured this group would be one of the best places on the net to pose this question]; - Any idea of the damages I should seek in the claim? I'm still looking through CA law/case law, and have not yet located any statutory guidance as far as penalties are concerned. - Any claims I've missed? I'm not usually this ... angry ... but quite frankly what was done here was stupid and unnecessary, lacking even basic protection for the data. I've never said this before, but I almost hope some idiot looses their job over this. Thanks for any help, Lincoln [Feel free to reply directly to lking-cliby +@+ lincoln.homeip.net if you prefer] [PS - for those that care, re: Bullet C, the hard drive was left unattended in an office, sitting near a garbage can. There are at least a dozen places on campus that would have provided more security for the data, including several that involve locked safes AND card key access control. One was directly above the office that the data disappeared from. I have access to a miniscule amount of confidential data compared to this and secure it in a much more paranoid manner when not in use: Encrypted on a Jaz disk locked in a lock box, in a locked file cabinet, behind two card access doors -- not far from a CCTV camera. And I work on/attend the same campus as the data disappeared from.] ------------------------------ From: CCIE8122 Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 23:50:15 -0600 Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/ Subject: Re: US West History > In a message dated 5 Aug 2004 05:58:19 -0700, adamsjac@telcordia.com > (Jack Adams) writes: >> Doug Faunt N6TQS wrote in message >> news:: >>> Am I correct in believing that US West was one of the "baby bells"? >>> And what happened to the company, if so? >>> 73, doug >> Yes, the short answer is that it encompassed Mountain Bell and Pacific >> Northwest Bell which covered almost the entire Northwestern quadrant >> of the continental US. > What happened to Mountain Bell's operations in New Mexico and > Arizona, both contiguous to the Mexican border and hardly in the > "Northwestern quadrant of the continental U.S."? > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com USWest merged with Qwest Communications. Qwest a tier-one IXC as well as the LEC/RBOC/baby bell (whatever you want to call it) for the 14-state western region including WA, OR, ID, UT, AZ, MT, WY, CO, NM, ND, SD, NE, MN, IA. kr ------------------------------ 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 #369 ******************************