From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 11 04:50:03 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8B8o3D19169; Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:50:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409110850.i8B8o3D19169@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 #424 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:48:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 424 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Web Data Transfer to Handsets Made Easier (Monty Solomon) Web Sites Keep Tabs on Campaign Giving (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Technology Powers Leading Broadcast Tools; IPTV (M Solomon) CDT Urges Caution on Wiretap Mandates for Internet (Monty Solomon) CDT Policy Post 10.14: Federal Court Strikes Down PA Law (Monty Solomon) Spammers Hijack Sender ID (Monty Solomon) EPIC Alert 11.17 (Monty Solomon) EFFector 17.33: Misguided Copyright Bill Moving Thru Congress (Solomon) Re: TXU to Link Customers' Rates to Scores (Stanley Cline) Re: Congress Hangs Up on VoIP for 2004 (Jack Decker) Re: My New DVR From Cable One (Paul Vader) AT&T CallVantage VOIP Service - Area Code Choices (burgerwars) Re: AT&T - What a Bad Company Are You! (Bill Turlok) Re: Intel Outlines Strategy for Making Net Smarter, Safer (baracooda) Re: More Thoughts About RCA (Julian Thomas) For Sale: Panasonic KXTG4000B Phone System w/ Cordless (Joe Bartoldus) PayPal to Levy Fines for Gambling, Porn (Lisa Minter) U.S. Judge Rejects Law to Block Child Porn on Web (Lisa Minter) 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, 10 Sep 2004 23:16:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Web Data Transfer to Handsets Made Easier By MAY WONG AP Technology Writer PALO ALTO, Calif. (AP) -- Have you ever gone online to get driving directions, only to leave the printout behind? Have you made movie plans, but forgot to jot down the show times? Or do you simply need an easy way to feed phone numbers to your cell phone? A trio of entrepreneurs believe they have a solution. With cell phones becoming more like computers and people carrying them wherever they go, the founders of Vazu Inc. have developed what they consider an easy way to transfer phone numbers and other data from PCs and the Internet onto handsets. They quietly released their first product earlier this year for users to transfer contact information from desktop address books without any special cables or software. With little publicity, "Vazu Contacts" won rave reviews and garnered thousands of users in 40 countries. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43626984 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:29:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Web Sites Keep Tabs on Campaign Giving By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- As a Washington journalist during the 90s, I made frequent treks to the Federal Election Commission to inspect cabinets full of campaign-finance reports to find out who was giving to whom. Though some data were available through a proprietary online system, those $20-per-hour access fees added up. Candidates, meanwhile, had to be cajoled into providing data on disc _ many flatly refused, while one responded to a colleague's request with ancient 8-inch floppies that fit no modern computer. Times have changed. I'm jealous of all the information available over the Internet _ most of it for free. Even President Bush's campaign site has a searchable database of his contributors. That doesn't make finding data easy. But what's out there is a welcome start. There's no matching the FEC's own site for completeness _ and confusion. In most cases, you get multiple ways to view data on contributors to House, Senate and presidential campaigns, political parties and special-interest groups. You can view PDF files or scanned images of paper reports, going as far back as 1993. Or you can view data as data _ on-screen, or downloaded for viewing in a spreadsheet program like Excel. This is great for serious analysis. But for the merely curious, the FEC site can be daunting. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43614613 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:32:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Technology Powers Leading Broadcast Tools; IPTV Microsoft Technology Powers Leading Broadcast Tools and IPTV Solutions at IBC2004 Microsoft Demonstrates First Set-Top Boxes for IPTV Platform; Windows Media 9 Series Showcases Advanced End-to-End High-Definition Encoding and Playback Solutions; Broad Microsoft Involvement in Industry Standards Initiatives AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today at IBC2004, the International Broadcasters Convention, Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) is highlighting a range of new broadcast technologies and delivery solutions built for the Microsoft(R) TV Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), Windows Media(R) 9 Series and Windows(R) CE platforms. Microsoft announced significant progress in its IPTV-based initiatives, unveiling the first set-top boxes to support its IPTV platform from Thomson. In addition, Microsoft's Mobile and Embedded Devices Division announced eight additional original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that will use Windows CE to power their IP set-top boxes. Microsoft's Windows Digital Media Division announced that leading product vendors will demonstrate end-to-end, high-definition (HD) encoding and playback solutions using Microsoft Windows Media 9 Series, showcasing real-time software- and hardware-based HD encoding solutions, as well as Microsoft's gaining momentum in standards development organizations. IPTV Gains Momentum, Powered by Microsoft TV and Windows CE The Microsoft TV Division has developed an end-to-end IPTV software platform that enables broadband network operators to deliver better TV services and connected experiences across devices in the home using their existing and next-generation networks. Leading network operators worldwide, including Bell Canada, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., SBC Communications Inc. and Swisscom/Bluewin, plan to test and deploy next-generation pay-TV services based on the Microsoft TV IPTV platform. At IBC2004, Microsoft is showcasing its leadership in the growing IPTV industry with announcements of partner deployment progress and demonstrations of the platform integrated with technology from leading vendors that are working to make IPTV a reality. In addition, Microsoft and Thomson are announcing availability of the first IPTV-enabled set-top boxes for Microsoft's current IPTV customers, and TANDBERG Television is unveiling the first demonstration of its EN5920 real-time hardware encoder integrated with the Microsoft TV IPTV platform. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43610567 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:16:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CDT Urges Caution on Wiretap Mandates for Internet Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, CDT executive Director Jim Dempsey warned that the FBI is the wrong agency to put in charge of technology design for the broadband Internet, and that the 1994 CALEA statute is the wrong framework for addressing law enforcement concerns about tapping communications over the Internet. September 08, 2004 CDT Testimony, September 08, 2004: http://www.cdt.org/testimony/20040908dempsey.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:18:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CDT Policy Post 10.14: Federal Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online from The Center For Democracy and Technology (1) Federal Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Law That Blocks Innocent Web Sites (2) Court Decision Issued in Legal Challenge Filed by CDT, ACLU (3) Pennsylvania Child Pornography Statute Raised Legal and Technical Problems (4) Child Pornography Deserves More Effective and Focused Law Enforcement Efforts http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_10.14.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:34:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Spammers Hijack Sender ID Microsoft's E-mail-filter technology, Sender ID, is unpopular with open-source advocates but popular with spammers, who are using it to bypass other filters. By Thomas Claburn On the heels of the repudiation of Microsoft's Sender ID E-mail-authentication scheme last week by two major open-source software groups, spammers are doing the opposite: They're embracing the very standard intended to curb their abuses. According to E-mail security vendor MX Logic Inc., spammers are trying to make their messages appear more legitimate by adopting the Sender Policy Framework (SPF), which recently became part of Microsoft's Sender ID proposal. To comply with Sender ID, companies publish a list of authorized E-mail servers for the domains they control. That list is used by those receiving E-mail to make sure the purported server of origin matches the one listed in the message header. Because spammers may forge header information to disguise the origin of their messages, their spam would fail this test. But since spamming is legal, those spammers not engaged in phishing or other fraud may choose to accurately identify their mail servers to avoid filtering based on Sender ID compliance. And that seems to be what's happening. Based on a sample of 400,000 spam messages, MX Logic found that 16% had published SPF records. http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=47102042 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:41:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 11.17 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 11.17 September 10, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.17.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] EPIC Files Briefs in Support of Driver and Financial Privacy [2] Bill Introduced to Make 9/11 Commission Recommendations Law [3] Census Bureau Revamps Policy on Data Sharing [4] EPIC Files Comments on Use of Voter Social Security Numbers [5] Bush Establishes Civil Liberties Board [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: Your Evil Twin [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.17.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:43:14 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.33: Misguided Copyright Bill Moving Through Congress EFFector Vol. 17, No. 33 September 10, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 305th Issue of EFFector: * Misguided Copyright Bill Moving Through Congress * EFF Files Brief in Email Privacy Case: Councilman Case Should Be Heard Before Full Court * Log Not, Subpoena Not: No-Logging Policy Helps Indymedia Protect Free Speech * Maryland E-voting Update - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly * Only 54 Days Until the Election - Register to Vote Now! * MiniLinks (14): Save Betamax by Calling Out the Induce Act * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/33.php ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: TXU to Link Customers' Rates to Scores Organization: Roamer1 Communications Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:43:40 GMT On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:12:19 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > DALLAS (AP) -- TXU Energy, the largest electric utility in Texas, will > peg some customers' rates to their credit scores, charging them more > if they have fallen behind on telephone, power or cable television > bills in the past. The thing is -- for the most part, utilities don't report regular payment histories to credit reporting agencies; they typically only report charged-off accounts. No electric, natural gas, cable TV, satellite TV, local telephone, long distance, or wireless phone provider I've ever used has reported anything, with one exception: AT&T does report payment history for stand-alone calling card accounts (i.e., those not associated with a 1+ long distance account.) Here in Georgia, where natural gas service was deregulated in Atlanta Gas Light service areas, some natural gas marketers -- including the one I use -- impose a higher "customer service charge" (one of the three elements of most natural gas bills here, the other two being pass-through "base charges" from AGL for use of AGL's pipes and charges from the marketer for actual gas consumption) on those with poor credit, but don't charge a higher per-therm rate on "standard" plans. Some special rate plans designed for high-usage customers are limited to those with good credit, though. As for telecom: most CLECs are a lot more picky than ILECs when it comes to credit, and wireless carriers have widely differing standards -- it isn't at all uncommon for one carrier to require a large deposit ($300 up to $1000) from a prospective customer while another carrier will require a smaller deposit or none at all from the same person. A lot of "discount" LD resellers say they check credit history, but I've seen only one or two that actually have. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some CLECs, like our own Prairie Stream Commnications here in Independence have a different approach. Duane, the owner of Prairie Stream said to me he 'lets' SBC run his credit checks for him (!). He hates to bother with that effort and expense himself, so he no longer takes 'walk in, off the street' customers. All he accepts are people who already have SBC on their home or office phones who wish to be converted to Prairie Stream (at a much lower rate, of course.) He says that as long as SBC had the phone turned on for the party he accepts them as transfers in. I asked him if that did not mean he still would get occassional 'marginal customers' of people who were slow paying SBC but had not yet been cut off by SBC. He said not usually, since SBC refuses his conversion requests when the party owes SBC more than a month past due, which SBC claims is their right. He said that suits him okay anyway, and said "its like a win-win situation. The subscriber gets a good deal from me at a cheaper rate and can keep his 620-331 number (under portability rules); I am assured of getting my money; and SBC gets to keep the deadbeats." So in essence SBC does his credit checks for him. Oh, and I *still* get 'we want you back' letters from SBC every couple months or so, each deal they offer to get me back is more outrageous (in my favor) than their previous offers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:37:07 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Congress Hangs Up on VoIP for 2004 Pat, please withhold my e-mail address as usual. By the way, for some reason I did not receive two consecutive issues of the Digest in e-mail, and had to go to your web site to read them, which is the reason my response to this post is a bit delayed. On 9 Sep 2004 09:28:25 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > Jack Decker wrote in message: >> There you go again, Lisa. Does your memory only retain information >> for a month or so > When a poster resorts to rude comments like this, it means they have > no rational argument. No, Lisa, it does not mean that at all. It means that the poster is getting frustrated that you choose to use my messages as a springboard to promulgate your faulty logic. It was not my intent to be deliberately rude, only to point out that ever so often you come forth with your nonsense, I rebut it, and a month later you're back saying the same thing (and AGAIN replying to one of my posts). In any case, I feel I have made a very rational argument, the "rude comments" were just a free extra. > Whether you like it or not, the fact is that VOIP is getting a free > ride by avoiding the taxes and regulatory burdens other telephone > carriers have to make. Either eliminate all obligations from > everyone, or make everyone bear there. That is NOT a fact. It is your opinion, and it is based on faulty logic. In the first place, even cell phone companies do not have the same regulatory burdens as are imposed on landline phone companies. In fact, even among wireline companies, large ILEC's, small ILEC's, and CLEC's all have somewhat different regulatory burdens. In attempting to make your point, you keep trying to gloss over the fact that "other telephone carriers" (and there is still a very open question of whether a VoIP company should even be considered a "telephone carrier") do not share one unified set of regulatory burdens. > Now understand I am most certainly NOT saying you represent sleazy > businesses. What I am saying is that if we had you and someone who > WAS being paid to advocate sleazy businessess standing side by side, > it would be hard to tell the difference between them, at least from > what they were advocating re: VoIP. It's that whole duck test thing > -- at a distance something could look like a duck and appear to waddle > like a duck, but the possibility exists that it might be a goose or > some other duck-like bird. [I hope you don't mind I borrowed your > prose from your 8/5/04 note--it seems to work well in this context.] Well if you are going to reference that message, let's quote what was said in context. You wrote: > I am not connected with the phone company nor do I consider myself > a "shill" for them. And I replied: > Lisa, you may not consider yourself a shill for them, but if one were > to apply the "duck test"... well, let's just say that sometimes it > would be awfully hard to discern the difference between what you write > and what a shill for the phone company might write . Note that I did NOT infer that you were involved in anything "sleazy." So when you refer to "sleazy businesses", I assume that's your opinion of VoIP companies and you are saying that I sound like I'm being paid to represent them, which of course I am not. But you see, that's the basic difference between you and I. Because if I were to look at the history of VoIP and the history of the ILEC's, I'll bet I could find a lot more reasons to apply the label "sleazy businesses" to the large incumbent phone companies. Just here in Michigan there have been a number of cases where one of the incumbents has outright lied to customers or potential customers. "Sleazy businesses" that also happen to be monopolies need to be regulated because without regulation, they would gouge their customers, for example by adding on services that the customer didn't order and doesn't want (know of any companies that have ever done that?). Now I am NOT saying that every VoIP company is sleaze free, in fact I'm aware of one or two that in my PERSONAL opinion are more sleazy than even any of the ILEC's (these are small companies that relatively few people have heard of - wonder why?). But the difference is that there is active and vigorous competition in the VoIP marketplace, and when one company does wrong by their customers, those customers have the option to switch to another provider, and to warn others about their bad experiences (as often happens in the VoIP forum on BroadbandReports.com). It is not my intent to have this discussion degrade into personal attacks, so I apologize if you felt my comments were rude. However I would ask that you have the courtesy to not keep responding to my posts as a way of making the same old tired arguments. I get no joy from responding to your tirades, but I just feel as though I can't let your assertions go unchallenged, especially when you attempt to present them as fact rather than your opinion, and especially when you're following up to one of my posts. ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: My New DVR From Cable One Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:32:15 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was told by CableOne (and perhaps I > should have questioned them further, but it didn't really matter to me) > that most or all 'conventional, over the cable recording systems such > as TiVo' would not allow recording of many or most movies which had > restrictions on them.' I figured it was something like that. You were lied to. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ From: burgerwars@yahoo.com (burgerwars) Subject: AT&T CallVantage VOIP Service - Area Code Choices Date: 10 Sep 2004 11:36:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I just signed up for CallVantage. $19.95 a month for six months, plus an early termination fee ($59.95). Reason why I signed up with them instead of Vonage was just because they were able to supply me with a 212 area code number. Vonage could not, and would not. Anyone think I could transfer the CallVantage number to another VOIP service (like back to Vonage or Lingo) or a cell phone, after my $19.95 six month offer is up? ------------------------------ From: Withheld on Request (BillTurlok) Date: 11 Sep 2004 00:24:12 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: AT&T - What a Bad Company Are You! [ Patrick-- PLEASE DO NOT USE ANY PART OF MY E-MAIL ADDRESS WHEN POSTING THIS MESSAGE TO THE DIGEST & NEWSGROUP. The last time I posted, you left my address vulnerable and I had to change ISPs go get away from the spam. Thank you. Bill] > In article , > critica_todo@yahoo.com says: >> AT&T what a bad company are you! Friend of mine has AT&T WorldNet dial-up 'Net access. $19.95 for 150 hours/mo. So, one day about two years ago, he dials in and gets a log-in failure. Well, since this has happened before ... He was in IT in a major hospital chain and worked directly for Dilbert's boss. He got so fed up, was losing his hair and having stomach problems, one day he just went into the boss's office and laid a resignation letter on him. And walked out. Without a parachute. Of any color. Herein lies the problem -- you don't wanna be in your mid 50's looking for a job in any field, let alone IT in the middle of a dot-com bust and recession. So, from time to time, he gets just a little behind with some of his bills, but this was not one of them. So, he calls in to see WTF. After the usual run-around in Voice Jail, he gets someone who tells him he's got an unpaid long distance bill with ATT. But, says he, I don't have AT&T long distance, and haven't had for some time. Well, she says, this one's from 2-3 years ago. He says he doesn't remember leaving anything unpaid from that era, but they're insistent. He must pay the $1.65 (One U.S. Dollar and 65 cents) before they'll turn his internet back on. OK, he says, send me a bill. Well, they say, we can't because you're not an AT&T (LD) customer. But you can pay it with a credit card ... He laffs -- he's shredded all his plastic a long time ago. Catch-22. Well, too bad, they say. But ... they allow, if you'd sign up for AT&T long distance, we could put it on your bill and send it to you, and turn you back on right now. OK, says he, what kinda' plan you got where there's _no_ monthly charge for anything? Well we do have one like that, but it's 35 cents/min. That's ok, he says, I'm not planning on making any calls anyway. So, they sign him up, and in _that_ process, he gets shuttled to another "customer service representative". She says, now that you're an AT&T LD customer, would you like to sign up for our internet access? Ummmmm ... ok ... how much would that be? Just $15.95/mo for unlimited access. Ohhhh Kaaay. You know and I know that they just pulled this "bill" out of their butts -- they're making it all up. It's cheesy and it's sleazy and it's illegal and it's immoral and it's just plain wrong and they all ought to go to jail. But at least they managed to shoot themselves in the foot with this one. They're going to lose any advantage in the first month's bill. Assuming they don't screw up the billing. Again. Fat chance. Oh, one little ray of sunshine. Things had got so bad for him he had to cash in all of his investments just to pay his living expenses and mortgage. A couple of years ago he was pissin' and moanin' about having to bail out of all his WorldCom. At $99.00/share. Ya' gotta' love it. :::::::::::::::::::::: I wrote that when it was current, a few years ago. Update: They did it again!! This time as well as making up phony LD charges, they (contrary to his instructions and his understanding) put him in a plan _with_ a monthly charge, then failed to bill him, then cut off his 'net access, let his (now unserviced) net account get in arrears. And they won't let him pay with a check number 'cause he "doesn't have an account with them", or "it's not the right kind of account". Surely you remember that ATT wants out of the residential business -- they're going to dump it via "attrition". See above for example of ATTrition. Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its just incredible how bad AT&T has gotten in the past few years in their customer service. Maybe a year ago they had commercials on television talking about unlimited local and long distance service, but no prices were given. I called up to inquire what unlimited service would cost me. They refused to tell me! A very sassy young lady first wanted to know where I lived. I told her, that's a logical question. Then she kept insisting "you are with SBC." I told her I was not. She insisted I was, that *her* records showed I was a customer of SBC. I told her "well, obviously I am just a dumb customer who does not even know who his phone service comes through." Then she starts quoting the rates from SBC and how her rates will be so much better (but still no mention of what those rates actually will be.) Then here was the real kicker: she said that in order to 'be considered as a customer' for AT&T service, 'she would need a one hundred dollar cash deposit *in advance*. Not a credit card, not a check, but cash or a money order only mailed to their office (with some long, drawn out, sixteen digit number written on the money order). I said no thanks, and hung up the phone. I heard nothing further for about *four months* until one day I got in the US Mail a letter thanking me for my 'recent inquiry for residential service' and to send them the hundred dollar money order with the reference number 'you were given by our representative'. Those people are nuts. To get my Vonage phone (cheaper and as reliable) all I had to do was go to their web page, produce a credit card and sign up (and the adapter box was here three days later.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: wayne.chiang@gmail.com (baracooda) Subject: Re: Intel Outlines Strategy for Making the Internet Smarter, Safer Date: 10 Sep 2004 18:14:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > Intel Outlines Strategy for Making the Internet Smarter, Safer, > More Reliable and Useful > - Sep 9, 2004 12:15 PM (BusinessWire) > SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 9, 2004--Intel Corporation today > described the significant changes that need to be made to the > Internet's architecture to make it safer, more useful, reliable and > accessible. > In a speech today at the Intel Developer Forum, Intel Senior Vice > President and Chief Technology Officer Pat Gelsinger said that by > adding an overlay network of computational services to the Internet -- > made up of computing and storage resources -- the industry could bring > greater intelligence into and across the network core. This would > transform the Internet from a data transmission pipe into a vast > platform for hosting a wide array of services available to the world's > six billion inhabitants. Gelsinger referred to this approach as the > ability to provide planetary-scale services. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43590452 If Planetlab is the new and improved version of the Internet, maybe this is the new and improved platform for the PC. http://funkycoldamoeba.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ From: Julian Thomas Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:09:09 -0400 Subject: Re: More Thoughts About RCA [Pat - please obscure my email again, thanks]. I tried to send this to Lisa (or is it Jeff??) at hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com but it failed. In <1094853728.162.14846.m12@yahoogroups.com>, on 09/10/04 at 10:02 PM, telecom-news@yahoogroups.com typed: > Subject: Re: More Thoughts About RCA > Date: 10 Sep 2004 06:46:58 -0700 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Julian Thomas wrote: >>> P.S.S. RCA made an attempt in computers; it scared the heck out of >>> IBM because RCA had far more electronics skills than IBM did in the >>> early 1950s. However, RCA did not have the customer support skills >>> of IBM and eventually RCA -- after losing big money -- sold its >>> businss to Univac. >> Nor did they have the mechanical skills that IBM had from their earlier >> EAM business. Peripherals -- especially tape drives -- suffered as a >> consequence. > The Campbell-Kelly book "Computer" says that IBM's very popular 1401 was > popular because of its excellent printer -- a mechanical device -- > rather than the CPU electronics. > It took a heck of a long time for other manufacturers to come up with a > line printer that matched the IBM 1403 printer's quality. > In the Watson autobiography, he says Sarnoff came to IBM to get patents > (that the govornment ordered IBM to release). So, RCA used IBM know-how. > Also, RCA's Spectra was a copy of S/360. I was referring more to the Bizmac series of the 1950's. I'm sure that by Spectra time frame they had either cross-licensed (as you suggest), improved their own capabilities, or just plain bought other equipment (such as the 1403). And, for my $0.02 worth, Honeywell had tape drives on the H800 that were far superior to the IBM 727/729 models. I admit some bias; I worked on the D1000 and the H800 before joining IBM in 1962. http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/h800.html http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/d1000.html As far as the 1401 was concerned, in addition to the excellent quality (and speed) of the 1403, there was also a good card handling machine (1402), it was easy to program, and was alphanumeric across the board (unlike the 650, which had a late-in-life kludge for handling alpha stuff). Electronics were SMS solid state, also a distinct improvement over the previous tube machines. (Further disclosure -- I have programmed the 1401, and was project coordinator for the 1410/7010 emulator on the 360 mod 50). For my email, use the sig. Julian Thomas: jt at jt-mj dot net http://jt-mj.net In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org -- -- Silence is evidence of a superb command of the language ------------------------------ From: phoephus@hotmail.com (Joe Bartoldus) Subject: For Sale: Panasonic KXTG4000B Phone System w/ cordless $300.00 Mint Date: 10 Sep 2004 21:42:39 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Poster is not the seller, please reply to: Email info@planetvinc.com with questions, or call 212-253-1788, ext.4# Planet V Closing Sale: http://www.planetvinc.com/sale ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: PayPal to Levy Fines for Gambling, Porn Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:21:14 EDT The new policy, which takes effect Sept. 24 and applies to both buyers and sellers, marks the first time PayPal has imposed fines for violations of its use policy, spokeswoman Amanda Pires said. In addition to fines that could be applied to each violation, PayPal may take legal action to recover losses in excess of the fines, Pires said in an interview. PayPal processes transactions on the Net and at one time had received almost 10 percent of its revenue from online gambling. But it halted the practice under regulatory pressure after its acquisition by eBay in 2002 and now prohibits the processing of gambling and adult transactions. Now it has decided to enforce that policy with fines. "What you're seeing here is an evolution of our program. We're trying to deter people who would offer PayPal as a way to pay for anything in these categories," said Pires in an interview. Under the new policy, prescription drug sellers who do not have Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites certification from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, and the people who buy from them, also face fines and possible legal action if they do business using PayPal. Pires said the changes were not in response to any sort of pressure from regulators. Eric Jackson, a former PayPal executive and author of the new book "The PayPal Wars," had a different view. He called the new policy "draconian" and said it was likely a two-fold strategy to discourage certain behavior while heading off regulators. "I can only surmise that PayPal is coming under increasing regulatory pressure and has no choice at this point but to take an aggressive posture," Jackson said. "I think they're making an emphatic statement that they're making a clean break from gambling in particular," he said. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance Yahoo News and Reuters News.. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: U.S. Judge Rejects Law to Block Child Porn on Web Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:25:50 EDT Judge Jan Dubois, of the U.S. court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the law was unconstitutional because technology used to block the sites would also prevent users from accessing sites that had nothing to do with child pornography. "With the current state of technology, the act cannot be implemented without excessive blocking of innocent speech in violation of the First Amendment," the judge wrote. The decision could set a national precedent on Internet regulation, said John Morris, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based advocacy group that brought the suit against Pennsylvania Attorney General Jerry Pappert. The other plaintiff was the American Civil Liberties Union. "This will send a strong message across to other states that were looking at this case," Morris said. Maryland, New Jersey and Oklahoma have been considering similar laws, he said. Federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court have several times rejected efforts to curb online pornography, as violations of constitutional free-speech protections. Morris said the attorney general's office secretly issued orders during 2002 and 2003 that told Internet providers to block access to Web server computers that hosted about 400 child porn sites. In the course of implementing the Internet Child Pornography Act, passed in 2002, the providers were forced to deny access to over 1 million other sites that were legitimate, he said. "It's as if the U.S. Postal Service would stop delivering mail to an entire apartment building because one of the residents was accused of doing something illegal," Morris said. But Sean Connolly, a spokesman for Pappert, argued that the technology existed to block access to individual Web sites, and that if legitimate sites were also blocked during the state's enforcement action, it was because the Internet providers were not using the technology properly. "We're disappointed," Connolly said. "We believe the law works well and we're now reviewing the judge's decision before deciding whether to ask the court to reconsider or to appeal." The court ruling is unlikely to make child pornography any more available, Morris argued, because the law was largely ineffective in preventing it. Such sites often move between different server computers, and users employ software that disguises their identity, a technique that makes the blocking technology ineffective, he said. Most of the legitimate U.S.-based Web sites overcame the blocking by moving to other servers, although an estimated half-million foreign based sites that were blocked by the law are still inaccessible, Morris said. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance Yahoo News and Reuters News.. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ 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. 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 #424 ******************************