From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 10 23:30:26 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7B3UQb16098; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:30:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408110330.i7B3UQb16098@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 #374 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:30:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 374 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VOIP Carriers Calculate Tap Tariff (Jack Decker - VOIP News) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Clarence Dold) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Paul Vader) Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case (Steven J. Sobol) Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent (Paul Vader) Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent (Tony P.) Re: Ups and Downs (Clive Dawson) Re: Any Experience With Verizon NJ Centrex? (Tony P.) Nortel v. NorVergence (Nyran Rose Pearson) NorVergence is Having Popular Leasing Hound and Threaten Me (PelcoSales) Re: Norvergence (Paul Vader) Re: The Convention a Hundred Years Ago (John David Galt) Re: Number Transportability for Transfer to VOIP (John McHarry) What Missouri Did (Charles Cryderman) 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: Jack Decker Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:36:58 -0400 Subject: VOIP Carriers Calculate Tap Tariff Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.boardwatch.com/document.asp?doc_id=57583 Could future law enforcement requirements put an end to cheap and easy VOIP service? The question hangs in the air as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) drafts rules to make it easier for the government to "wiretap" VOIP phone calls. VOIP providers now wonder whether they'll have to make expensive changes to their systems. Meanwhile, public interest groups worry the new rules could inhibit Internet innovation and encroach on consumer privacy rights. Until the FCC explains itself a bit more, however, most carriers won't lift a finger. "For now, we'll just have to wait and see. We may already be in compliance with the new CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act] -- we just don't know," says Michael McKeehan, director of technology policy at Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ). The FCC concluded last week that VOIP providers should be subjected to CALEA -- the law that has forced traditional telephone carriers to redesign their systems to make it easier for the police to eavesdrop on suspected criminals. CALEA, passed by Congress in 1994, also forced the telecommunications companies to pay for the restructuring. In its 96-page notice of proposed rulemaking released Monday, the FCC suggests that VOIP providers would bear any costs for the surveillance equipment. Those costs could be passed onto consumers at a time when VOIP phone services are wooing customers based on price by charging between $20 and $30 a month for unlimited calls. VOIP providers have argued that CALEA should not apply to them. They claim the law was only for telecommunications companies, not information providers (see FCC Rules on VOIP Sort Of). They question the FCC's authority to make a decision without input from Congress and worry whether government agencies, misunderstanding the Internet, will force arduous requirements on their systems. Full story at: http://www.boardwatch.com/document.asp?doc_id=57583 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: dold@Wardriving.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:11:03 UTC Organization: a2i network > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you guys are going to go around > war-driving, at the very least cover yourselves by having a cellular > modem also installed and turned on, so your excuse can be you > thought you were getting its signals, not the signal from a WiFi > card. PAT] In some areas, "open" WiFi is quite popular, and listed on various sites. San Francisco is one such area. Most of the advertised open spots are in residential areas, and are easily confused with someone's inadvertently open network. I don't think that particular argument holds well in the Lowe's parking lot, though. If our featured wardriver had a T-Mobile account, he could claim that he thought he was hooked to the Starbucks on the other side of the parking lot, and didn't realize which network had picked him up. On the other hand, I don't think Lowe's would ever have known he was there if he just checked email and surfed the web at large. And in fact, that isn't the case. He was arrested in along with someone who was seriously hacking Lowe's "... proprietary piece of software called tcpcredit ". This case doesn't really lean one way or the other for convicting someone of wardriving as a standalone offense. They arrested him, possibly in error, as part of a scheme involving some of his poorly chosen associates. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think in any shopping center parking lot his argument would be very convincing. Please correct me on this as needed, but I have been told that wireless routers only have an optimal range of 200-300 feet. When I put mine in recently, I was told I could go outside my house and maybe the house on either side of me or the house across the street and still reach it. But the house on my west side is vacant, a large size double lot separates me from the house on the east side, and I know the people directly across the street from me are very unlikely to know about or care about computers at all, let alone wireless ones. When I go out on my own back porch with a laptop, depending exactly on how I sit in my chair allows me to keep or lose the connection. And this is a very rural area; I would notice almost immediatly any car parked in front of my house or in the alley on my west side. Plus which I have told the router to only respond to the name given to the card, and I have told the card not to broadcast its name, plus I use some encryption, so I feel relatively safe. Now my friend who got me the card and wireless router did say if I mounted a highly directional antenna out of my window I could probably go 'one mile or so' and still get the signal. Is that correct? So when a person parks in a parking lot at a shopping center, how likely is it they will receive signals from some store in the mall? My frame of reference is the only thing like it we have here in town, the Walmart Super Center on the west side of town, and I just cannot picture such a scene there, but maybe I am wrong. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:08:37 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations Monty Solomon writes: > modem type connection. When Mr. Timmins was driving around, his > computer turned on and he saw that visual indicator on his screen that > he within range of *some radio signal*, what could he have possibly > thought it was? Some store, out of the goodness of their heart Not knowing how the Lowe's set up their wi-fi gateway, it's hard to say. Most corporate wifi admins know to name their base stations something recognizable at least, and more often, know to secure it better than this one was. That doesn't shift any of the blame though! A note to wardrivers: Between transparent proxies and Kismet, connecting to apparently open nodes is a great way to get yourself in lots and lots of trouble. At worst, you're in jail like Mr. Timmins. Short of that, if you go to any protected sites, you can assume quite safely that any passwords are now sitting in the owner's logs waiting to be messed with. Welcome to the revenge of the wi-fi owners -- I know at least two people who are running routers that APPEAR to be default-configured open wireless access points, but in fact exist to snare info from dummies who think they can't be traced. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Wardriving Guilty Plea in Lowe's Wi-Fi Case Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:36:12 -0500 Monty Solomon wrote: > By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Aug 5 2004 3:35PM > In what prosecutors say is likely the first criminal conviction for > wardriving in the U.S., a Michigan man plead guilty Wednesday to a > federal misdemeanor for using the Internet through an open wi-fi > access point at a Lowe's home improvement store in suburban Detroit. How much easier life would be for the goobers who run the big corporations if they'd just SECURE THEIR NETWORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Open WiFi networks can be used as an attack vector (viruses, trojans) and anyone leaving their WiFi setups open like this should be held criminally liable. Not that Timmins was right to use the network -- he had no business using it, it wasn't his. But stuff like this can be avoided. EASILY. 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: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:13:22 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) writes: > Using B/VS as an example, "appropriateness" standards dropped > considerably during the seven year run of the show. Toward the end of This is what the v-chip is for. If you want to shelter your children, turn it on. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: US FCC Denies Will and Grace, Buffy Shows Indecent Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:36:50 GMT In article , spambait@spamcop.net says: > Monty Solomon wrote: >> The Federal Communications Commission ruled that two women kissing and >> faking sexual intercourse on "Will and Grace" did not violate >> regulations that limit indecent material to late night hours and bans >> outright obscene material. > One wonders just what IS considered indecent ... > Oh, right. It's anything that Howard Stern says, or the display of a > female nipple on prime-time TV. Now THAT's scandalous. It's all based on community standards. I hate that. This country has such a sick attitude about sex -- it's why we get people like Stern, or Janet's wardrobe malfunction etc. They all try to push the envelope. If they didn't have that to push there wouldn't be a problem. In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > Monty Solomon wrote: >> WASHINGTON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators have >> denied complaints that TV stations violated indecency rules when they >> aired episodes of NBC's "Will and Grace" and UPN's "Buffy the Vampire >> Slayer" with fake lesbian and heterosexual sex, according to orders >> released on Monday. > Well, let's talk about sex. > Having watched both shows, I do not think of them as being "indecent" > as charged in this situation. > However, I feel there is a awful lot of broadcasts that I would > call "inappropriate" for children to see. As I've said before, if it wasn't for the sick and twisted attitude about sex that seems prevalent in the United States there wouldn't be an issue. > Using B/VS as an example, "appropriateness" standards dropped > considerably during the seven year run of the show. Toward the end of > the run, sex and profanity among the characters was very common. > Indeed, Buffy, instead of being the vampire slayer, was nicknamed the > vampire -- [without the "s"]. One episode had B and her boyfriend under > a spell and they spent the whole episode in bed having sex. Sounds like the writing staff must have changed. > Basically, I wish this kind of fare would air later in the evening so > that younger kids don't see it. I think shows where profanity or > sexual situations are shown so loosely send a message to > impressionable kids that this stuff is ok. The networks like to claim > they show "safe sex" and proper situations, but it's still sex. Later would work. The networks are in it to make money, plain and simple. > At one time TV did hold off its more risque offerings until later > in the evening. > I also think standard cable TV, now that it is extremely common, ought > to be under the same standards as broadcast TV. (Premium pay channels > like HBO could do what they want). The answer is in almost every television set made since the mid 90's. It's called the V-Chip. Every show that goes over the public airwaves is flagged with a rating that the V-Chip understands. There's also a way to change the channel, or even shut the television off. There's an idea, instead of moaning and griping to the FCC be proactive about it. There are very few broadcast channels on cable now. It's almost all non-broadcast that gets carried over networks like USA, etc. > What is especially troubling is that whenever anyone suggests this > sort of thing, people get real defensive and scream "censorship!" > "imposition of religion!". That's ridiculous. No one is talking > about bringing back bland shows like "Leave it to Beaver" or make > every show nice and sweet like Full House or Seventh Heaven. On the > other hand, it seems like TV writers go out of their way to use > profanity and sex stories just because they can get away with it. You're wrong. It's you imposing your morality on everyone. That offends me. > [But it is an interesting tell on how times have changed: Beaver could > take his new 13 y/o love interest up to his room, and June didn't give > them a second thought because most kids in those days were pretty > innocent. Today June would not be so comfortable. Back then Beaver's > new friend wore a full dress; indeed, she probably wore more underwear > than today's girls wear as their whole outfit. Look at "Summerland"; > I think June Cleaver would've fainted.] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple years ago, Barbara Billingsley was interviewed on TV Land about the old 'Beaver' series and she said that as immensely popular as the show had been in those days and the countless reruns of it now, there could never be a whole new series 'built from scratch' these days which resembled it. People just would never believe it, she said. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:03:53 -0500 From: Clive Dawson Subject: Re: Ups and Downs Pat, If and when you do get to the bottom of your problems with the cable modem and various boxes, please summarize your findings and solution in the Digest. I'm sure many folks will find the info useful. Thanks, Clive Dawson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have more or less given up on anything to do with networking until my Canadian advisor gets back from his vacation in mid-August. Unlike King Midas, where everything he touched turned to gold, everything I touch turns to shit it seems. I am just limping along with what there is until he gets back, since I want to have *at least one working computer* until then. I cannot handle another day like last Sunday where for a few hours I wound up having nothing, then by accident and the grace of God I got one computer going. It was all so unreal. I still do not know what I did that got it running again, and what there is now, is barely hanging on, sort of thread bare in my opinion. I'll wait until he gets back from vacation and pay for two or three more several hours-long phone calls as he walks me through it once again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Any Experience With Verizon NJ Centrex? Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:34:27 GMT In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > chrispchang@yahoo.com (Chris Chang) wrote: >> Was wondering if anyone had any opinions from experience with using >> this? > Works fine, always reliable no matter what. Fast connections -- that > is, other PBXs sometimes have a few second pause before the number is > passed through. > I don't know about cost, but I suspect Verizon will do things for you > instead of you hiring someone to do them. That can save you the > salary/cost of an inhouse telco administrator, depending on the size > and nature of your business. > If you get your own system, you'll have to shop around and evaluate > quality and reliability and service. Presumably you've heard of the > many problems of that Newark-based private company. Lucent/Avaya gear lasts forever. I'm talking the Partner and even Definity stuff here. I've never had to replace a card on a Partner system. And on the Definity systems I think I replaced maybe one 8 station analog card once. Otherwise, it just ran and ran. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:44:18 PDT From: Nyran Rose Pearson Subject: Nortel v. NorVergence Dear Mr. Townson: I have enjoyed your site quite a bit. In a previous post you mentioned that you had a letter from Nortel Newtorks disavowing any partnership with NorVergence. You were going to make it available, but I have not figured out how to get it. Could you please send it to me, or let me know how to find it online? Also, any information you might have regarding the rumored lawsuit by Nortel against NorVergence would be appreciated. Thank you very much! Nyran Pearson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh my, such a long time ago. I don't think I said that *I* have such a letter, I think it was a reader here who said he had that letter. In any event fast-forward to the present time. Nortel's suit, if it was ever filed, is now moot, since Norvergence itself was forced into involuntary bankruptcy and its remains are threatening its former customers and in turn being sued. Forget about Nortel, that part is ancient history. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Pelco Sales & Service Subject: NorVergence is Having Popular Leasing Hound and Threaten Me Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:52:35 -0700 NorVergence sent our Equipment in and three days later they went under. Now Popular Leasing out of Missouri is threatening me to pay up or else. What can I do? I haven't even had the equipment hooked up. Sincerely, Jeanette [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First of all, some first aid: I hope you did not give Popular Leasing any information on your bank accounts or any hints on how to ACH your bank. If you did, then **immediatly** tell your bank to kill off any ACHs that Popular Leasing may have, or that Norvergence may have given them 'as a courtesy to you.' Any checks out to Popular Leasing not yet cleared your bank, stop payment on them as needed. Next, put a total freeze on your accounts payable relating to Norgergence and Popular Leasing. Then when you have taken care of these semi-emergency tasks, turn over all your paperwork on the matter to your attorney, and make sure the attorney gets all the paperwork, and any representations you may have made to Popular Leasing, or Norvergence. Then put the Matix box or whatever they call it away for safe keeping. **You do have a lawful obligation to keep their property safely for someone to claim it at some future point if they wish if they wish to do so. You of course can charge a reasonable fee for the storage of their equipment.** Now sit back and wait. When they call again, which they probably will, advise them in a courteous manner that the entire thing has been turned over to your attorney who has instructed you to have their calls referred to his office. If it is appropriate, suggest to them that they not talk as smart and rude to attorney as they have to you or they may wind up getting nothing at all. Ensure that everything is plain to them, then instruct them to not contact you further, and replace the telephone receiver. If they again try to call you, insure they heard your instructions (of no further contact) correctly, and replace the receiver again. At that point, if they persist in calling after they have been told your attorney is handling the matter, then *you* have a case against *them* for harassment, etc. It would be a good idea to set aside some sum of money each month to show your good faith in the event the court rules you have to pay something; not to them however, keep the money safe until the court rules or the attorney pronounces, whichever happens first. Oh, and no trickery about settlements either, like US Bancorp is trying to pull off. Let your attorney make those decisions. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Norvergence Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:10:59 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations writes: > Has anyone signed up with Norvergence that had a lease less than 60 > months with U. S. Bancorp? U. S. Bancorp is trying to have us settle > for a lesser amount quickly. We have never had operational land line > service or T1 service from Norvergence. Ha! That's criminal. From what we've seen on other sites concerning the Norv agreements, nothing is in force until service starts. If you have a lawyer, now is the time to use up some retainer. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: The Convention in 1904, One Hundred Years Ago Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:53:32 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Lisa Hancock wrote: > Several good books ("The Century" by Peter Jennings and Todd Brewster > and "Reds" by Ted Morgan) discussed the 1968 riots. Both books > describe in detail how the protest (riot) organizers worked hard to > train their followers to provoke a police response -- that was their > goal. I'm not sure calling the protesters merely "gentle people" is > accurate. This was certainly true, and I can't blame the police for responding as harshly as they did. Indeed, lots of groups use the same or worse tactics today, and I would like to see the police respond much more forcefully to any protest that destroys property, deliberately blocks the movement of lawful traffic, or disrupts a group's use of its own paid-for meeting hall. The target's freedom to continue business as usual is every bit as much a civil and human right as the protestor's freedom to express his views. Still, today's practice of banning people from a campaign appearance in a public park, and even from the sidewalks outside a convention, because they belong to the other party or are wearing T-shifts that disagree with the organizer's message, seems to me excessive. As long as they don't try to disrupt the sponsor's activities or enter his paid-for venue, they have a right to be there and be seen. Limiting protest speech to an enclosure miles away is not the kind of tactic a genuine democratic country would do. And neither is the kind of campaign-speech restriction that McCain- Feingold has saddled us with. I'm glad the OSCE will be sending observers to our election. I'm rapidly losing all trust in the honesty of our system. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Our primary election here in Kansas was last Tuesday, and I went over to our polling place (which used to be at the SEK Senior Citizens Center but they moved it this time to the basement of the Montgomery County Correctional Center. In primary elections of course you have to declare affiliation (not so in November, only in the primary) so I asked the lady for a Libertarian ballot. She said to me "I am sorry, but this time there is not a single Libertarian running for office in Kansas. Make another choice." So I asked for and received a Democratic ballot, and the majority of the ballot was totally blank. Only had electors listed for the President/VP choice, one or two other offices, and one sheriff. I filled in the boxes, returned it to the lady and said may I stand here and take a peek at the Republican ballot? She said okay and held it up for me to see. Chock full of names for various offices, etc. She said "if there had been a single Libertarian running for office I could have given you their ballot, and usually there is one or two running for office, but not this time." As I examined the Republican ballot in her presence (had already gone in the voting area behind the curtain to do my Democratic voting; obviously could not vote again) she said to me, "as you can see, everyone votes Republican around here; all that is except for my neighbor here at the table, who is the Democratic judge of election and a few of you oddballs (a wink in her eyes) who come around every time." We all had a good laugh, and she said "I think there will be some surprising things happen in November." We all (myself, and the three ladies working at the table) agreed with what John Galt said in this message, it is getting very difficult to trust the election system in this country. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Number Transportability for VOIP? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:03:32 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Dave Close wrote: > But beware: the telcos don't seem to communicate with Vonage, or > Vonage has some internal problems dealing with such communications. I > transferred a number last week. The number was out of service for > about 30 hours until I called Vonage (20 minute hold time, 40 minutes > total) to complain. I noticed about the same thing with a transfer to Packet8. I just wrote it off to BS trying to make matters as difficult as possible. They appear to have disconnected after business hours on Friday. It came back up on Packet8 some time on Monday. What have people experienced with other transfers, to CLECs or wireless? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Our local CLEC, Prairie Stream Communi- cations does it all the time. Existing customers who move away from SBC on our local 620-331 exchange keep the very same number. The transfer is transparent. When Prairie Stream first went into business, they assigned totally new (non SBC) subscribers numbers the 620-714 exchange. But Duane, (owner of Prairie Stream) told me he no longer takes 'off the street walk ins'. He says he prefers to let SBC do his credit checking for him. "Let them keep the deadbeats; I only want the good customers and I hate to waste money doing a credit check." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: What Missouri Did Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:52:43 -0400 Pat, Good day to you. What I was talking about when I mentioned the State of Missouri I was talking about the recent election when they made it Constitutionally as marriage between a man and a woman. Knowing your preference, you are no longer a full citizen because you no longer have the right of marriage for your choice. Michigan is also trying to do that. Personally I am not gay nor to I think it is right, but I also know I have no right to dictate to you your choices. Take care old man. Chip Cryderman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, talk about going off topic! Some people say I get off-topic here now and then, but I do not believe a person's sexual preferences are anyone's business but that person. Regards the preferences of persons who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgendered (hereafter referred to as GLBT) I have never discussed my own persuasions -- thinking them no one's business but my own -- until a few months ago when a former reader/participant here felt it should be announced. Anyway, to address your 'concerns': GLBT persons did not suddenly become 'less than full citizens' because of the Missouri changes in its laws. Have GLBT persons *ever* been free to marry in the way you felt they wanted? I don't think so. Therefore, by logical extension, were they ever 'full citizens' instead of only partial citizens? GLBT people are as free to marry as anyone else. When you go to get a license to be joined in Holy Matrimony, the clerk does not ask if you are GLBT; the only inquiry is if your partner is of the opposite gender. If so, then you are free to wed. And believe me, you, there are many gay guys married to lesbian women (or sometimes non-lesbian women; those women are known in street parlance as 'fag hags'), in many cases just to make mock of the government and social requirements of our society, and there are many other GLBT people who don't make an issue of it at all, and just live with whom they wish to live. Then you assure us that you are not gay, and that you don't think it is 'right', which is your right to believe, and you continue by concluding that you 'have no right to dictate the choices of others -- oops! -- I think you said 'your choices'. I agree you do not have that right -- on a personal, one by one level to make my decisions for me nor I for you. This is the 21st century, as my erstwhile reader and writer here in the Digest said, and we should have better things to worry about than the way someone else puts the parts together in the privacy of the bedroom. But, given that we all have to live together in 'society' if you would suggest, as you seem to do, that 'we cannot legislate morality' then I would have to ask you, if we cannot legis- late morality, then what -- pray tell -- *can* we legislate? Or should everything be a simple matter of what you want and what I want? 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 #374 ******************************