From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 23 20:08:04 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8O084P10796; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:08:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409240008.i8O084P10796@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 #443 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:08:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 443 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Verizon Wireless BroadbandAccess (Monty Solomon) CDT Headline: Senate Committee Approves Spyware Bill (Monty Solomon) AT&T Wireless, MercuryMD Give Healthcare Professionals Fast (M Solomon) Re: Out of Area Calls (Tom Smith) Re: Out of Area Calls (Truth) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Justin Time) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (John McHarry) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Charles Wilber) Re: Tap For V.90 Modem Line? (Robert Bonomi) BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS (Truth) Re: LNP For a Move (Valerie in FL) Re: The Wal-Mart Supremacy (John David Galt) Free VOIP and Data Networking Resources (tekjockey) SIPZOO Offers Free No Obligation Trial of Global Broadband (VOIP News) Canada: Ingram: CRTC Should Butt Out (Jack Decker - VOIP News) 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: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:51:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Wireless BroadbandAccess Verizon Wireless, Nortel Networks Launch EV-DO BroadbandAccess 3G Network in Additional U.S. Markets BEDMINSTER, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 23, 2004--With Monday's upcoming launch of Verizon Wireless' third generation (3G) wide-area BroadbandAccess network in 14 major metropolitan areas and 24 airports in the United States, Verizon Wireless is offering large enterprises, small-medium businesses and mobile professionals the fastest commercially-available wide-area fully mobile data experience in the nation. BroadbandAccess allows customers to conduct business anywhere in the BroadbandAccess coverage area via a secure, true high-speed data connection with typical user download speeds of 300-500 kilobits per second (kbps). BroadbandAccess is powered in part by CDMA2000 1xEV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized) 3G wireless equipment from Nortel Networks (NYSE:NT) (TSX:NT). As part of the network build nationwide, Nortel Networks upgraded Verizon Wireless' existing base stations and modules and provided associated services. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43806738 Verizon Wireless and Lucent Technologies Launch EV-DO Data Services in Additional U.S. Markets - Sep 23, 2004 08:01 AM (BusinessWire) BEDMINSTER, N.J. & MURRAY HILL, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 23, 2004--With Monday's upcoming expansion of Verizon Wireless' third-generation (3G) wide-area BroadbandAccess network to include 14 major metropolitan areas and 24 airports across the United States, Verizon Wireless is offering its enterprise customers mobile high-speed data services that are changing the way people do business. Developed with a range of users in mind, the BroadbandAccess network allows large enterprises, small-medium businesses and mobile professionals to conduct business anytime, anywhere in the BroadbandAccess coverage area via a secure, true high-speed data connection with typical user download speeds of 300-500 kilobits per second (kbps). The BroadbandAccess network is based on CDMA2000 1xEV-DO equipment, software and services provided in part by Lucent Technologies (NYSE:LU) Beginning Monday, the BroadbandAccess network will be available in Atlanta; Austin, TX; Baltimore; Kansas City, KS/MO; Los Angeles; Miami/Fort Lauderdale, FL; Milwaukee; New York; Philadelphia; Tampa, FL and West Palm Beach, FL., in addition to Washington, DC, San Diego and Las Vegas and 24 airports from coast to coast. Lucent, one of Verizon Wireless's primary network infrastructure suppliers, said it is pleased to support the launch in a significant number of the new markets with equipment, software and services, as well as data and research that is part of Lucent's Market Advantage Program. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43806821 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:52:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CDT Headline: Senate Committee Approves Spyware Bill From: info@cdt.org Senate Committee Approves Spyware Bill The Senate Commerce Committee approved a revised version of the Burns-Wyden "SPYBLOCK" Act on September 22. The bill would give the FTC authority over a variety of spyware-related activities, and would make covert installation of software illegal. Anti-spyware legislation has now been approved by Committees in both the House and Senate, and is awaiting consideration by the full membership in both houses. September 23, 2004 Text of S 2145 [offsite]: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.02145: CDT's Spyware Page: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/spyware/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:35:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Wireless, MercuryMD Give Healthcare Professionals Fast Give Healthcare Professionals Fast Access to Patient Data - Sep 23, 2004 01:30 PM (BusinessWire) REDMOND, Wash. & DURHAM, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 23, 2004--AT&T Wireless and MercuryMD, Inc. are teaming to provide medical professionals with wireless access to critical patient information on PDAs and PocketPCs while on-the-go, the companies announced today at MercuryMD's Second Annual Customer Summit. Through this relationship, the MData(R) Enterprise System from MercuryMD has been enabled for the AT&T Wireless nationwide GSM(TM)/GPRS wireless data network for use with popular handheld devices. Beginning today, physicians and other healthcare professionals now can use a palmOne(TM) Treo(TM) 600 or an Audiovox PPC 4100 to wirelessly and securely access real-time patient information such as demographics, lab results, medication lists, and other reports in any of 7,500 cities and towns in the U.S. in which AT&T Wireless has coverage. The AT&T Wireless-MercuryMD solution, which features MData's SyncEverywhere(TM) technology, is being demonstrated at MercuryMD's Customer Summit. AT&T services are being offered for sale at the MercuryMD event and will be available through the AT&T Wireless enterprise sales organization afterwards. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43815832 ------------------------------ From: Tom Smith Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:13:26 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet gladyretired@yahoo.com wrote: > However, once in a while, I get calls that are "out of area" with no > phone number shown. > My question is -- is there a way to block these from ever getting to > the phone unless the caller IDs themselves? Yes, if your phone company offers "call intercept." Such callers hear a message that their call has been intercepted and they must identify themselves. They are put on hold and you hear a distinctive ring as well as see "call intercept" on your CID. If you choose to answer the phone, you hear the playback of the caller's reply to the request for identity. You are then given a menu of options: Accept the call. Decline the call. Send it to voice mail. Have the caller told to put you on their do not call list. If you just decline the call, the caller is told their is no one available to take the call. If you have known callers whose calls, for whatever reason, show up on your CID as "out of area," you can provide them a pin that permits them to bypass the call intercept drill. It cost me $4.95 a month. It was great. But for whatever, reason I no longer get "out of area" calls, so I recently decided to drop the call intercept and save the $4.95 a month. Of course you can choose to just ignore "out of area" calls. But I had some such calls that I wanted to answer. I tried to decide which ones to answer and which to decline by time of day. I had first hand information about my failures for answering calls I wished I had not. But obviously I had no information on how many calls I would have answered if I had only known the identity. Then one day I did not answer an "out of area" call, and to this day, I regret it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone, I think John Levine, answered me on this point a couple days ago. I said I had tried sending 'out of area' to fax, etc. His response was "you must not get many 'out of area calls from COCOTS (and a few other types of systems)' ..." Yes, I do, and that is one reason I quit doing that manual diversion method on 'out of area'. I used that 'call intercept' feature when I had Southwestern Bell (SBC) and it worked exactly as you described it. I should have remembered that as one option when responding to the original writer but somehow neglected to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Truth Organization: http://www.x.com Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:29:15 GMT >> So you think. This is nothing more than coincidence. The biggest >> telemarketers (such as long distance phone companies) are EXEMPT from >> these lists. > Could you point to the section of the law or FTC regulations that > provides the exemptions? Because there is no such exemption, and > you're just wrong. People like you, who don't even bother to do research or CHECK before they call someone wrong never cease to amaze me. Next time, go to google.com and CHECK before you call someone a liar. "There are some exemptions, for example, as you might expect, telephone companies can still call you to solicit you and so can banks and credit card companies," Cohen said. Also still allowed to call are: charities, insurance companies and politicians." Then, keep in mind MOST telemarketers don't abide by laws or do not call lists ANYWAY! By keeping their number from showing on caller ID (which is also against the law now, but they continue to do) or using a fake number like 111-111-1111 (which I have seen many times myself) you don't know what company to report for violating Federal Law anyway. > If you are getting calls from companies with which you are not > currently doing business (or with whom you are doing business and > have told them to stop), you can sue them under the TCPA. THINK before you start typing! You have to know WHO they are before you can sue someone! ASKING them who they are doesn't work. You have to play long games with them pretending to be interested in what they are selling so you can figure out who they are, but then you have no caller ID to prove they called either, the laws only protect them, not the victims. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that a law making telemarketing ILLEGAL would have made more sense than a DO NOT CALL LIST. Or having a DO CALL LIST in which the 2 or 3 people in the world that like to get telelmarketing calls could sign up on a permission list, rather than make millions of people sign up saying they don't want to be harassed. THINK! > The only significant exemptions are for established business > relationship and non-profits. Bullshit. Check the FCC or FTC websites for the complete law and read through all the exemptions as I did a long time ago when I was active in promoting to the public what a farce this stupid law was, and how MOST of the telemarketers we get calls from are EXEMPT for the do not call list. Doesn't matter if you have an established relationship with them or not. > FYI, I haven't gotten a call from a long distance company in years, Because you are probably one of the stupid people that HAS a long distance company connected to your phone line so that you can pay hundreds of dollars a year even if you never make one single long distance phone call. Intelligent people have NO long distance company connected with their home phone lines at all, and use one of the THOUSANDS of 10-10 numbers that have NO MONTHLY FEES or charges and you can change companies for each call made, just by using a different 10-10 number. If you canceled the long distance company you have now, you will indeed get several calls a day for MONTHS from that company trying to get you back. This is a FACT that I, and everyone I know has gone through. If you try to say this is not true, then you can only be one of their employees or a telemarketer yourself. > I guess you don't get many calls from COCOTs or outside the country. Sure do, and they all show up on caller ID, even when from outside the country. In fact, MANY telemarketers are calling from India and Canada now, and they show up just fine on caller ID if they are not breaking the law and preventing their number from showing up. > There's a lot more reasons than telemarketers for a call to come > up out of area. The only reason you get that anymore is from telemarketers, and one other exception with calling cards or using some 10-10 numbers which don't pass your number through. ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: 23 Sep 2004 06:46:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com jdj wrote in message news:: > A BART cop ordered riders to turn off their FRS radios while in the > station and on trains to keep the trains from crashing. > This reminds me when they ordered people to turn off receivers or face > jail years earlier. At the time they claimed their own radios were > "special" and so could be used on trains. I later verified with their > own radio shop that there was nothing special about their radios. > Of course, the above is fallacious but it occurs to me that similar > threats could be made against anyone in possession of a radio while > boarding a plane. > Eight years ago I was not allowed to board with a general coverage > receiver because "it could make the plane crash". They let me keep my > Casio stereo radio and a scanner. > Has anyone faced a situation where security or police have threatened > people with radios? > Are there any hams who have boarded planes with radios? > I wonder what makes them think that even an unpowered radio is such a > threat? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Security and police are often times > very heavy-handed, often times just to make up for their personal > feelings of inadequacy. Have you ever been told *as a passenger, not > the driver* in an automobile not to use your cellular phone because > it 'might distract the driver'? I can sort of see why they do not want > drivers to use cell phones in cars, but before they enforce that too > strongly, they should look at their own radio use in the car: driving > a hundred miles an hour chasing someone, while talking on the radio, > yet a citizen is not supposed to obey traffic rules and speed limits > and talk on a cell phone? PAT] Ahh, but Pat the police just enforce the laws they don't have to obey them. In Washington DC, it is now illegal to operate a cell phone without a hands-free device. Violators of the "Distracted Driver Law" as it is known can be fined $100 for the first infraction. But what about the police officers driving around town, especially near police headquarters at 3rd and Indiana avenues NW or the District Courthouse at 5th and Indiana who pull out into traffic, make illegal u-turns in the middle of the block, double and triple park, block fire hydrants, park in handicapped spaces while working at desk jobs in police hq with a "court tag" in the window and a myriad of other things they turn around and write tickets to ordinary schmucks for doing the exact same things? If the police department wants to enforce the law, then they need to clean up their act and begin to obey the same laws they are enforcing. But then, who is going to give a cop a ticket? Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:58:05 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net jdj wrote: > Are there any hams who have boarded planes with radios? > I wonder what makes them think that even an unpowered radio is such a > threat? I was challenged once in Canada when I had a handy talky in my carry on. I had to go back to the Air Canada desk and get a permission slip. They just want to make sure you know not to operate it in the air. I have used it while flying a light plane with no problems, but I can see where they don't want to be flying a sewer pipe full of operating unknown rf devices down the glideslope on a messy night. It probably wouldn't mess anything up, but it might. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 2004 08:28:13 EDT From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains > Are there any hams who have boarded planes with radios? I've never had any problem boarding planes with my handheld amateur radios. I've done it many times. Charlie Wilber (N1AOK) Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Tap For V.90 Modem Line? Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:42:23 +0000 In article , Zorpetus wrote: > Is there any modem connection sniffer hardware/software? > I mean a device (tap) that could be connected to a phone line, > and to record network traffic made over dial-up connection over > that telephone line (for V.90 protocol for example). I am not > reffering to those "com port sniffer" or "modem sniffers" that > have to be installed on the "target" PC, but something that would > be used outside the house, by tapping the telephone lines. > Any hint and/or link is more than welcome! For the Bell 103, Bell 113 and or the various Bell 202 protocols, such a device is fairly easy to accomplish. Its even practical for Bell 212 signalling, and friends. At speeds above 2400 bps, it _is_ 'theoretically' possible, but, shall we say, 'cost prohibitive'. As in the 'if you have to ask, you can't afford it' range. PLUS it has to be re-calibrated, by a skilled tech, for _each_ call. ------------------------------ From: Truth Organization: http://www.x.com Subject: Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:35:29 GMT > As CBS News faces one of the worst public embarrassments in its > history, experts say that the damage to the network's news division > could be significant -- and costly. BUSH "leaked" the fake documents to Viacom/CBS because Bush has been after them for a long time. Then he "leaked" that the documents were fake, and now instead of the attention being on BUSH for lying about serving in the military, the attention is on DAN RATHER. Just this week, Bush, under his appointed FCC officials, placed a record fine on Viacom/CBS for the Janet Jackson Breast incident during the Super Bowl. NOTE (VERY IMPORTANT!) that ONLY the CBS owned television stations will be fined, all the other stations that carried the exact same incident will NOT be fined! Bush is angry over Viacom/CBS for not firing Howard Stern (who started anti-Bush speech this year) and for releasing the photos of his military torturing prisoners in Iraq on CBS 60 minutes. Note these fake documents were not "leaked" to FOX NEWS or CLEAR CHANNEL, but to CBS/VIACOM. Red Flag anyone? ------------------------------ From: Valerie in FL Subject: Re: LNP For a Move Organization: BellSouth Internet Group Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:15:03 -0400 It can be done. BellSouth will do it, for businesses at least. I don't know about Verizon. Good luck finding a service rep who will know what you're talking about, and how to do it. What you're actually talking about is Foreign Central Office, where the original CO and the new CO are in the same rate center. In Foreign Exchange, the new CO is in a different rate center. LNP does make FCO obsolete, but not FX. Valerie in FL Tony P. wrote in message news:telecom23.440.1@telecom-digest.org... > I'll be moving from a true Providence rate center in Providence, to a > Providence rate center in Cranston. (401-621 to 401-46x or 401-94x). > Here is my question. Since they're both the same rate center could I > request to keep my current numbers under LNP? > It'd work the same as real LNP that being when someone dials a number > it looks at a database to see what switch the call should be passed > to. In essence it makes Foreign Exchange service a thing of the past > but I'll be it's still tarrifed that way. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: The Wal-Mart Supremacy Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:22:18 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Lisa Hancock wrote: > Pat, you've touched a raw nerve with your observations about the > vacant store fronts and what people "love". > Creating "historic districts" and historic preservation is a big thing > these days in towns and cities. People want to preserve those old > drugstores and buildings. But people don't want to pay the cost of > that preservation. They expect old "Doc Smith" to stay around forever > and run his little drugstore -- without change -- even though everyone > shops at the CVS/Walgreen/Eckerd whatever. They expect old Mrs. Jones > to keep her quaint old farmhouse as is even though she needs to > modernize it and sell it to get money to living in a nursing home. You've inspired me to share with c.d.t a letter I recently wrote to my regional planning agency in response to their latest grandiose "smart growth" 20-year plan for the area. > To: blueprint@sacog.org > Subject: Comments on the blueprint at www.sacregionblueprint.org Your so-called blueprint is the worst combination of wishful thinking, misguided pop ecology, and sheer presumptuous paternalism I've seen in many years. Let's start with your "Growth Principles". > 1. Transportation Choices: Developments should be designed to encourage > people to sometimes walk, ride bicycles, ride the bus, ride light rail, > take the train or carpool. Use of Blueprint growth concepts for land use > and right-of-way design will encourage use of these modes of travel and > the remaining auto trips will be, on average, shorter. First off, it is a well established fact that most people prefer the freedom and convenience-they've-already-paid-for of driving, and always will drive, even if you force them into "transit oriented developments" and make driving as big a pain as you possibly can. Portland proves this. Moreover, the alleged science behind demanding that people reduce their automobile use is bogus. Public transit, because it must run mostly empty in order to provide even minimal convenience to its riders, uses more energy and produces more pollution than driving solo. See, for example, http://home.earthlink.net/~saveportland/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car4.htm Because "smart growth" keeps a lot of existing unbuilt land out of the housing market, it also results in greatly increased housing prices, as shown at http://www.rppi.org/urban/102199.html In my view, this is not an accident. All "urban planning" bureaucracies are basically an OPEC-like cartel operated by and for the owners of existing homes for the purpose of keeping their prices ridiculously, astronomically high at the expense of two other equally deserving groups: the owners of unbuilt land and all other residents or potential residents of the area the bureaucrats control. If there were justice in the world, federal antitrust police would come in and shut down your agency permanently. But most of all, it is simply wrong for any government body to have an agenda about how individuals choose to travel. It's our time and money to spend the way we want, and you have no business standing in the way. I say, cut back RT to serve only those who are unable to drive, and use the rest of our gas tax and car registration money on what we paid it for -- to BUILD MORE FREEWAYS and expand (widen and speed up) our arterial and through streets as well. > 2. Mixed-Use Developments: Buildings homes and shops, > entertainment, office and even light industrial uses near each other > can create active, vital neighborhoods. This mixture of uses can be > either in a vertical arrangement (mixed in one building) or > horizontal (with a combination of uses in close proximity). These > types of projects function as local activity centers, contributing > to a sense of community, where people tend to walk or bike to > destinations and interact more with each other. Separated land uses, > on the other hand, lead to the need to travel more by auto because > of the distance between uses. Mixed land uses can occur at many > scales. Examples include: a housing project located near an > employment center, a small shopping center located within a > residential neighborhood, and a building with ground floor retail > and apartments or condominiums on the upper floor(s). Aside from its presumption, this agenda presents a serious problem. It is important, both for crime prevention and to avoid nuisances such as noise, for a resident to be able to know who belongs near his home at night, so he can challenge (and if necessary, have the police remove) anyone who doesn't belong there. Mixed use developments (and to a lesser extent, all multi-family dwelling places) take this power away from residents. A British police study proves that this increases crime: it can be viewed at http://www.operationscorpion.org.uk/design_out_crime/policing_urbanism.htm > 3. Compact Development: Creating environments that are more > compactly built and use space in an efficient but aesthetic manner > can encourage more walking, biking, and public transit use, and > shorten auto trips. Even if these were acceptable goals, Portland shows that they don't happen. The only efficiency that really matters is people's ability to save time and personal energy by parking within a few feet of their front doors, and it is monstrous to want to deny people that ability and talk as if doing so were a public service. When I have to park four blocks away, are you going to show up and volunteer to carry my groceries in? I didn't think so. > 4. Housing Choice and Diversity: Providing a variety of places > where people can live apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and > single-family detached homes on trying lot sizes creates > opportunities for the variety of people who need them: families, > singles, seniors, and people with special needs. This issue is of > special concern for the people with very low-, low-, and > moderate-income, often our teachers, other public employees and > professionals, as well as retail employees, service workers and other > people for whom finding housing close to work is challenging. By > providing a diversity of housing options, more people have a choice. That much is true. But it's presumptuous of you to claim to be giving people that choice when in reality, your "smart growth" regulations are all about taking it away from people in the name of preserving open space (what for?), bogus ecology, and the paternalistic view that we all ought to exercise more. You planners are not the ones giving us these choices. We had them until you set up shop and started robbing us of them. Now we have practically none. > 5. Use of Existing Assets: In urbanized areas, development on > infill or vacant lands, intensification of the use of underutilized > parcels (for example, more development on the site of a low-density > retail strip shopping center), or redevelopment can make better use > of existing public infrastructure. This can also include > rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings, denser clustering of > buildings in suburban office parks, and joint use of existing public > facilities such as schools and parking garages. Again, this is a bogus argument in two ways: you're not giving building users any opportunities they didn't already have, and to the extent that efficiency matters, people are already choosing that efficiency when they spend their money. Most of the so-called historical buildings in this area have little to no historic value, and are inefficient to use because they were built in the horse-and-buggy era and have too little parking around them. Many are also the biggest impediments to widening of the streets they're on. Please stop wasting the money of their owners (forced by law to preserve them against their will) and taxpayers, and let the needed "wrecking ball therapy" occur so that we can have large, modern, sensible places to shop, and wide streets on which to drive to those places. > 6. Quality Design: The design details of any land use development - > such as the relationship to the street, setbacks, placement of > garages, sidewalks, landscaping, the aesthetics of building design, > and the design of the public right-of-way (the sidewalks, connected > streets and paths, bike lanes, the width of streets) - are all > factors that can influence the attractiveness of living in a compact > development and facilitate the ease of walking and biking to work or > neighborhood services. Good site and architectural design is an > important factor in creating a sense of community and a sense of > place. A "community" or "sense of place", where it exists, does not happen because government forced developers to build in certain ways. It happens when the residents feel comfortable with their neighbors. That's not going to happen because of architecture, especially the kind you advocate, where homes are moved closer to public walks, reducing privacy and quiet, and car access is made more difficult deliberately. Do those things to a resident and you've shown him that you, "the community", are his enemy (a deliberate impediment to the comfort he's paid for in his home) and often his neighbors become so too. A home is not a home unless the resident is allowed to use it all without sacrificing his comfort or his privacy. > 7. Natural Resources Conservation: This principle encourages the > incorporation of public use open space (such as parks, town squares, > trails, and greenbelts) within development projects, over and above > state requirements; along with wildlife and plant habitat > preservation, agricultural preservation Again, what is the space being saved for? This principle does nothing to help preserve humanity's life support system (which is the only sensible purpose of environmental concerns). The things it does accomplish are mostly bad: * It subsidizes the sports of recreational hiking and bicycling (mostly the pursuits of upper-income leisure classes who ought to be paying for their own pleasures); * It provides easy routes for burglars to get to, and escape from, your home unseen (see the British police study cited above); * It provides habitats, and access into cities, for all sorts of creatures which are dangerous to man and therefore have no business being allowed to exist outside of zoos (for example mountain lions); * It takes away a resident's right and ability to challenge people who don't belong near his home at night. > and promotion of environment-friendly practices such as energy efficient > design, water conservation and stormwater management, and shade trees to > reduce the ground temperatures in the summer. All these things are already being done, and not because you said to do them. > In addition to conserving resources and protecting species, this > principle improves overall quality of life by providing places for > everyone to enjoy the outdoors with family outings and by creating > a sense of open space. One person's quality of life is another's noisy public nuisance. I'd just as soon those families go somewhere farther away. We have more parks now than anybody chooses to use; I frequently drive by empty ones, even on weekends. With all due respect, I believe the best thing your agency could do for our county and our region would be to disband, and return all decisions about development to the individual property owners to whom they rightfully belong. Sincerely, John David Galt [address and phone] ------------------------------ From: terrence.wong@gmail.com (tekjockey) Subject: Free VOIP and Data Networking Resources Date: 23 Sep 2004 10:37:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com ###Learn VOIP (H323, MGCP, SIP), LAN (ethernet, fiber, copper), WAN (T1/ T3) , ROUTING (BGP, OSPF, EIGRP)### http://www.compointsolutions.com ##Great for TECH PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WHO NEED TO KNOW MORE## Updated Daily - Tutorials, news, resource links and pdf's on learning voip. Fresh content - updated daily! Vist the links and feed your appetite for knowledge! http://www.compointsolutions.com Stop By, Learn Stuff, Tell a Friend!... :-) ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:02:07 -0400 Subject: SIPZOO offers Free No Obligation Trial of its Global Broadband Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://208.187.226.208:8080/sipzoo/newsdetail.jsp?newsid=13 SIPZOO offers Free No Obligation Trial of its Global Broadband Telephone Service. PORTLAND, OR--(MARKET WIRE) September 22, 2004 Nettel Holdings Inc. (OTC BB:NTTL.OB - News), Berlin and Frankfurt Stock Exchanges (NT7, WKN 727487) SIPZOO offers Free No Obligation Trial of its Global Broadband Telephone Service. After the Free Trial is over, customer can continue using the service for only $9 per month thereafter. During the free trial, no credit card is needed. For $9 per month customers receive up to 2,500 local and long distance calls to any where in the U.S. High usage customers can upgrade their account to the $29.95 per month plan and will be able to make Unlimited Calls to anywhere in the U.S. or Canada. In addition, the $29.95 per month plan includes a choice of a phone number from over 220 US area codes. SIPZOO allows our customers to pick their own phone number and it does not have to be in the same area code as where you live. The telephone number provided by SIPZOO has the same features and options that are currently available with any local telephone company. This includes Call Forwarding, Caller ID, Three-way calling, Call Transfer, Call Waiting, Call Return, Speed Dial, Anonymous Call Rejection, Hunt group, Voicemail, And many more choices. In certain areas, SIPZOO offers Local Number Portability so customers have the option to transfer of their current phone number including their cellular number from their traditional telephone provider to SIPZOO. For an extra monthly fee, customer can choose to have their phone number in over 28 countries worldwide. The complete list of countries and cities available at this time are on the website at http://www.sipzoo.com. SIPZOO Broadband Telephone service uses a technology called Voice-over-IP to allow consumers to make and receive calls. However with SIPZOO, a computer is not required to make or receive the calls, so it makes calling as easy as picking up the regular phone, even cordless phone and dialing the number. The only requirement to use the service is a DSL or Cable Internet connection and any ATA (Analog Terminal Adapter). An ATA adapter can be provided by SIPZOO if the customer does not have one. To starting using the service you plug one end of the device into any telephone, the other end into your broadband service, and you have immediately got a regular dial tone just like your traditional telephone company. We hope you enjoy our newest offer, by giving it a try! For additional information on SIPZOO Broadband Telephone service, please visit our website at http://www.sipzoo.com. [Comment: This is from this company's availability page at http://208.187.226.208:8080/sipzoo/availability.htm] AVAILABILITY SIPZOO currently offers local telephone number in over 14 countries: Asia * Hong Kong * Japan * Korea , South * Taiwan * Additional locations will be added in the near future Australia * Sydney * Melbourne Europe * Austria * Belgium * Bulgaria * France * Germany * Ireland * Italy * Netherlands * Poland * Spain * Sweden * Switzerland * United Kingdom , London * Additional locations will be added in the near future Central America * Mexico * Guatemala * Additional locations will be added in the near future South America * Brazil * Additional locations will be added in the near future United States * California * New York * Oregon * Texas * Washington * We are currently adding additional locations in the U.S. So * don't worry if SIPZOO is not currently in your city. Canada * Vancouver , BC * Calgary , Alberta * Toronto , Ontario * Montreal , Quebec Additional locations will be added in the near future [Comment: This is the first I've heard of this company, but I don't think any other company offers local access numbers in as many countries outside North America. If you look into this, please use all the normal caution when dealing with a new/unknown company.] 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: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:55:56 -0400 Subject: Canada: Ingram: CRTC should butt out Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/RTGAM/20040922/wmathlater0922 Breaking News from The Globe and Mail Ingram: CRTC should butt out MATHEW INGRAM The federal regulator with a name almost as large as its mandate, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, is holding hearings into Internet telephone service, also known as 'voice over Internet protocol' or VOIP. Everyone has something at stake in this game, from incumbent telcos such as Bell Canada and Telus to cable providers such as Rogers and Shaw and small startups such as U.S.-based Vonage. And, as usual, the CRTC's instinctive response is to exercise its regulatory muscles -- in other words, precisely the opposite of what it should be doing. Although it has a complicated-sounding name, VoIP simply turns telephone calls into digital ones and zeroes and then streams them out over the Internet along with all the other digital flotsam and jetsam. Regular telephone service creates a dedicated connection between two people using the old copper phone-line network. While Internet phone service is not quite as reliable, it is substantially cheaper, and in most cases the quality of a phone call is virtually identical. VoIP can also be integrated with other Internet services such as e-mail. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the broadcast and telecom regulator wants to regulate Internet phone calls. After all, the CRTC is a regulator, and what are regulators for if they can't find new things to regulate? Like any business, the commission is looking to expand its reach, and the Internet is a perfect candidate. It's new, it's potentially revolutionary, but at the same time it's also a lot like the stuff they already regulate. It comes over a cable or phone wire, after all, and now you can make phone calls on it -- it's a slam dunk. Of course, the CRTC hasn't actually said that it will regulate Internet telephone service. That's what the hearings are for, so the commission can gauge the mood of the various interest groups, etc. before doing what it had more or less decided to do already anyway. And it's pretty clear what the regulator wants to do, thanks to a public notice of its "preliminary view" on the subject, which came out in April. In it, the CRTC said that it felt its "existing regulatory framework should apply to VoIP services" and that Internet phone providers "should be treated for regulatory purposes as local exchange services." Contrast this with the approach taken by the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, which is the rough equivalent of the CRTC. The FCC is also looking at how it should deal with the rapid growth of Internet telephone services, and is holding hearings with various interested groups, but FCC chairman Michael Powell and other senior members of the commission have said that they favour a hands-off approach to the issue. "We should take non-regulation of the Internet as a regulatory imperative," he said, which is a fairly unusual thing for a regulator to say. Full story at: http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/RTGAM/20040922/wmathlater0922 ------------------------------ 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 #443