From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 8 15:12:23 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i98JCNB28883; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:12:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410081912.i98JCNB28883@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 #476 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:11:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 476 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson U.S. Names Cyber Chief, House Eyes More Clout for Job (Lisa Minter) Cyber-Security Imperative (Lisa Minter) EFFector 17.37: Help Keep CALEA Off the Net (Monty Solomon) Who Can Beat Down Microsoft in the Embedded Systems Market? (Robert) Re: Pennsylvania Railroad's Crew Communication System? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Phishing: Latest Spam/Scam; Very Dangerous (Rick Merrill) Re: Cell Phone Attracts Lightning? (Truth) Re: A New Phone and Techie Controversy at Verizon (Truth) Search Technology | Phone Books (Day Bird Loft) Wanted: I Will Pay You Up To $150 For Your Used Cell Phone! (Charles) Re: VOIP Home Connection (Rick Merrill) Multipled Pairs: (was: VOIP Home Connection) (Nick Landsberg) Re: Power Device via UTP (Chris Hills) 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: Lisa Minter Subject: U.S. Names Cyber Chief, House Eyes More Clout for Job Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:31:56 EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Department of Homeland Security named an acting U.S. cybersecurity chief on Thursday as Congress weighed whether to give the position greater clout to fight hackers, viruses and other online threats. Andy Purdy was named interim U.S. cybersecurity director one week after Amit Yoran suddenly resigned from the post amid reports that he was frustrated with his lack of authority. Purdy was Yoran's deputy and had advised the White House on cybersecurity issues. The House of Representatives was expected later Thursday to vote to elevate Purdy's position within the department, a move backed by tech-industry officials who say the government is not devoting enough attention to online threats. "We need a full-time government official ... with the clout to take America's information infrastructure off the table for terrorists," said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America. "Amit Yoran's decision to leave after one year suggests that the current post of national cybersecurity director does not carry enough weight to get the job done," Miller said. The promotion of the post was added this week to a massive bill that reorganizes the government's intelligence efforts. That bill would also require government agencies to show they have taken security into account when they put in requests for new technology systems. "I think most honest observers would say that there's been very little attention paid, certainly insufficient attention paid, to cybersecurity," said California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren. Under the bill, the 60-person-strong cybersecurity office would no longer be subordinate to the division that oversees efforts to protect power plants, water-treatment systems and other "critical infrastructure." The cybersecurity director would instead report directly to the undersecretary for information analysis and infrastructure protection, one step below Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In the Senate, a similar measure was stripped out of that chamber's intelligence reorganization bill on Wednesday, but lawmakers could insert it back into the final version that heads to the president's desk to be signed into law. ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Cyber-Security Imperative Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:34:15 EDT It's a lamentable state of affairs, but it will probably take years more of identity theft on a massive scale and security breaches of increasing severity to spur common-sense actions that should be taken today. What other explanation seems plausible, in the face of the apparent indifference to a growing list of well-considered recommendations on the issue? In April, the National Cyber Security Partnership issued several reports outlining steps that should be taken to protect personal and property rights on the Internet. The partnership was formed in response to the White House National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace "to develop shared strategies and programs to better secure and enhance America's critical information infrastructure." The laudable work of the partnership is in danger of suffering the fate of so many committee and task force reports: collecting dust. The policies have yet to be broadly embraced and implemented, even by the Department of Homeland Security, despite their clear merit. One of the most important reports issued by the partnership deals with adopting rigorous cyber-security practices as part of corporate governance. "It is the fiduciary responsibility of senior management in organizations to take reasonable steps to secure their information systems," said Art Coviello, president and CEO of RSA Security and co-chair of the Corporate Governance Task Force, in a statement issued with the report. Still, many businesses that should get with the program are hanging back. This is leading U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., chairman of the House subcommittee on technology and information policy, to threaten introducing regulatory legislation, the Corporate Information Security Accountability Act, that would require publicly traded companies to form information security plans. With regulations ranging from HIPAA to Sarbanes-Oxley already on the books, corporations hardly need another compliance headache. And yet that's just what they'll get and what they'll deserve if they don't take action on their own. Some corporate lawyers fear that if security commitments become part of governance procedures, information security failures may constitute negligence. This concern, however, is trivial when compared with the damage that can be done to the nation if the businesses that make up the fabric of the national economy are paralyzed by coordinated cyber-security attacks. Effective tools are available. One is DomainKeys, a mail authentication system that can blunt phishing scams. Developed by Yahoo and under consideration as a standard by the Internet Engineering Task Force, DomainKeys is implemented in the latest versions of Sendmail's MTA (mail transfer agent) software and will be implemented in Yahoo Mail by year's end. Business and government must overcome an evil as daunting as cybercrime denial and get on with securing their IT infrastructures. We're interested in your Opinion. Send your comments to eWEEK@ziffdavis.com *** 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, Ziff-Davis. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 00:01:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.37: Help Keep CALEA Off the Net EFFector Vol. 17, No. 37 October 7, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 309th Issue of EFFector: * Calling All Broadband Providers and VoIP Experts - Help Keep CALEA off the Internet! * BayFF Event - "E-voting and the Upcoming Election" * Court to Rehear Email Privacy Case * Help EFF Fight for the Freedom to Innovate - Give to the BnetD Defense Fund! * FCC out of Our Digital Television Recorders! * WIPO to Support Public Domain, Open Source * Join EFF for "Resisting Government Secrecy in a Time of Terrorism," October 8-9 * MiniLinks (9): Kodak Knocks Sun's Lights Out * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/37.php ------------------------------ From: robertwlkao@pchome.com.tw (Robert) Subject: Who Can Beat Down Microsoft in the Embedded Systems Market? Date: 8 Oct 2004 01:18:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8488 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Railroad's Crew Communication System? Date: 8 Oct 2004 07:34:12 -0700 David Clayton wrote > Of course, I won't mention that a lot of these things seemed to have > happened since the state privatised the train system about 10 years > ago. > Two companies took over about half the system each, one finally walked > away from the contract last year and it cost the state pay big money > to the remaining one to take over and run the whole system. There are elements in the U.S. in think privitizing Amtrak will be more efficient. They ignore the many experiences of the above in the United Kingdom and other countries, and they also forget how bad psgr train service was before Amk such as provided by the Penn Central. In the U.S. the circumstances today are such that public ownership of psgr transit -- both local and intercity -- works better than private ownership. Not all systems are perfect, but it is generally better than pvt run systems in today's world. We may end up with govt owned airlines given how so many are bankrupt. Over the years, some people talked of nationalizing the Bell System on the grounds that as a public utility it ought to be publicly owned. In the case of the Bell System, it generally provided very good service at fair prices. Despite being a very large organization, it generally managed to escape the bureacratic inertia and unresponsiveness of big govt agencies. One reason IMHO was that the Bell System was terrified of being taken over by the govt or split up, so it was motivated to run a tight ship and generally it did. (I know some people disagree, but the Bell System just before divesture was a good company. Too many people apply 2003 or 1953 technology levels to 1983 -- they think Bell should've been at 2003 levels but provided 1953 levels and that is wrong.) Overall, the concept of a regulated monopoly is a good one as long as the regulation is fair. In the case of the Bell System, use was growing and regulation was fair. In the case of the railroads (both freight and passenger), use was declining and regulation was not fair. The railroads were forced to provide very unprofitable services "in the public interest"; I think the Bell System overall escaped that burden or it was so small the rest of the company could carry it. Technology and social life are not constant. A business model of the past will not work today without modification. The tough trick is know what to change and what to keep. Both the private sector and public regulators need to do this. IBM, after getting a good scare, succesfully reinvented itself but in the model of its past. IBM started out as a manufacturer with very strong customer support. Manufacturing hardware isn't that special anymore and today IBM is in customer support (very big in service bureau work now) with manufacturing playing a somwhat lesser role. It appears the "baby bell" companies have generally done well in the new world, while the parent AT&T has not. Unfortunately for AT&T, having a long distance network isn't that big a deal as it once was, just as manufacturing knowhow isn't as big a deal for IBM as it once was. It's a shame AT&T hasn't been able to parlay its core strength -- the long distance network -- into something "above and beyond". ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Phishing: Latest Spam/Scam; Very Dangerous Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:42:53 GMT jdj wrote: > It's not only crackers, spyware and trojans collecting your info ... Don't forget the 419 or identity theft that are now the dominate quantity of spam! - RM ------------------------------ From: Truth Organization: http://www.x.com Subject: Re: Cell Phone Attracts Lightning? Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:26:54 GMT >> In NO WAY can a cellphone being used at a gas station cause an >> explosion. > (The MythBusters TV show did an episode on cell phones and gas > stations. Turns out that people getting in and out of the car sliding > on the seat often generate a static charge, and that is the primary > cause of most gas station fires, Wrong. Even THAT theory is bullshit and they should have pointed that out as well on the program since they apparently didn't make it clear to ALL the viewers. I purposely allow a static shock between me and the car when filling up with gas just to show people with me how ridiculous and full of shit the urban legend is. ------------------------------ From: Truth Organization: http://www.x.com Subject: Re: A New Phone and Techie Controversy at Verizon Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:31:02 GMT >> And one can only imagine how long the battery life is with all this >> crap and backlit screens on these stupid phones today. > And how would you propose to have a screen show up at night? > Moonlight? My cellphone doesn't HAVE a screen at all, you don't NEED one. They didn't have them until recently for the addition of cameras and video games that are not needed to make or receive phone calls and only make the battery discharge faster. > And FYI I have a newer phone with Bluetooth and the battery life on my > phone is excellent even with the addition of Bluetooth. I can get > almost two weeks of standby on my phone. I would only have to charge my phone once a year, now after about 10 or 15 years, the lead acid battery finally needs to be replaced and is not holding a charge anymore. >> A phone is for making and taking calls, we have cameras, TVs, walkmans >> and video game systems to do those things. > For you all a mobile phone is for is to make and receive phone calls. > Other people want other functionality. So then buy cameras and video games and you have it. If I want to cool my beverage or heat my coffee, I don't buy a cellphone that can do those things. Why don't all cameras allow you to make phone calls???? Because that is not what a camera is for, get it? It amazes me how stupid humans really are. ------------------------------ From: loft@pigeons.ws (Day Bird Loft) Subject: Search Technology | Phone Books Date: 8 Oct 2004 10:06:48 -0700 Those in the Telcom industry should read http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/10/emw165619.htm as it is reported in this media release that Phone Books will become a thing of the past. With search engines receiving over 40% of the online advertising revenue -- Telcoms may want to consider joining with a wire service or content provider to enhance their online revenues. Search Technology | Phone Books http://www.iprwire.net ------------------------------ From: c.huckaby@gmail.com (Charles) Subject: Wanted: I Will Pay You Up To $150 For Your Used Cell Phone! Date: 7 Oct 2004 18:57:37 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I desperately need working, late model USED CELL PHONES! I will pay shipping and up to $150 per cell phone depending on make and model! Details: http://www.cell2cash.com Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: VOIP Home Connection Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:41:38 GMT Andy G. wrote: > I am considering signing up for VOIP service and have been reading > websites of the various providers to try to figure out how to wire my > whole house. According to Vonage, you can run a wire from the adapter > to a phone jack and (as long as the line is disconnected totally from > the phone co. and there is no curerent) all jacks would work. I asked > Verizon about this, they said that it's not supported. They cannot "support it" because it involves your inside wiring and Because The Telephone Adapter (TA) can only drive 1 Ringer Equivalent. Some TA may be able to drive 3 RE, according to my research. So you have to add up all the RE in your house correctly or else you may blow the TA when your phone rings. Of course you have to make darn sure that your in-house wiring connects to NOTHING else: unplug all phones until there is No resistance whatsoever across the phone lines. Then plug in the TA and one (1) phone. I am in the process of doing just this right this minute. - RM (transliterate my email address for real one) ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: SPAMhukolautTRAP@SPAMattTRAP.net Subject: Multipled Pairs: (was: VOIP Home Connection) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:34:50 GMT Frank@Nospam.com wrote: >> the way. Wouldn't it be a kick in your posterior to find out telco had >> installed a second line for some neighbor of yours, and had grabbed >> your supposedly unused pair to do the job? [ SNIP ] > Back in those days, you got ring-back by dialing '571-6' in Chicago. > So he dialed the ring-back code and waited for an answer, which > came soon enough. A lady who answered told him she was across the > alley and down the street a block or so, and she told him her phone > had just been installed a day or two earlier. *Someone* -- some > outside plant tech guy had put in that lady's phone but had failed > to go down the alley and open up any multiples on the line. In phone > jargon, a 'multiple' is any place on a cable run where a pair (of > wires) makes an appearance. Its very common in older outside plant > (dating back, lets say to the 1940-50 era) in dense inner city areas, > to do it that way: string one cable with maybe 500 pairs therein > down the alley, open each pair at each possible location or house, > and attach it to the demarc. In the 1940-50 era, things were 'different' > than they are today in terms of people, communities, and telephony. In > those days, as people moved around (not very often, I might add), when > someone moved in somewhere, the pair (within that cable) was given to > them (like today), but other dwelling places on that block or within > the reach of that cable had that pair lifted off *their* demarc. A very > effecient and very inexpensive way of doing things. But, things were > 'different' in those times. Absolutely true, Pat! I worked OSP (OutSide Plant) in the late 60's early 70's in New York City, and what you describe was exactly the sitauation there. By that time, though, the organization had been split into "installation" "repair" and "OSP" (which included cable maintenance). The "repair" organization usually handled "inside wire" troubles and cable maintenance handled "outside wire." (Installation and repair later merged, but I don't recall when.) "Troubles" were categorized mostly as Code 3 (CO problem), Code 4 (Outside Plant), and Code 5 (Inside wiring, which included telephone sets, I think). Each organization was measured by the "Codes". (As you can imagine, there was lots of finger pointing between the organizations.) However, the installation department was measured by the "productivity" of installers, and there was no "incentive" for them to go down the alley and lift the multipled pair off the other demarcs (even though that is what they were supposed to do "by the book"). Meanwhile, back in cable maintenance, when a trouble was being traced (e.g. crosstalk, noise on the line, etc.), it became more and more time-consuming to walk the alley and find *all* the places the pair appeared. (And dangerous if you were in the wrong neighborhood.) [Aside: A classical case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.] As I recall, this situation went on until the phone company was ordered (by the Public Service Commission) to rebate substantial amounts of money to a large number of customers in Brooklyn because repairs were taking too long on average. I don't know what measures were taken to solve this problem, since I worked mainly Manhattan (and mostly with the cable pulling/splicing gangs for the main runs and not the alleys) and left the Plant Department around 1975. NPL "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: Chris Hills Subject: Re: Power Device Via UTP? Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:18:25 GMT T. Sean Weintz wrote: > Crimson_M wrote: >> I know very little about the 802.3 standard and transmission lines, in >> general as I'm a hardware guy. But, I'm curious if you suppose it is >> possible to power a simple, low power device via 100/10BaseT? Consider >> a setup such as, >> Gateway/Router/etc. ========== UTP ========== Device >> Where the device would contain some simple hardware, just enough to >> communicate via TCP/IP and perform some other simple functions. >> I'm just thinking abstractly here and don't have any ideas on specs at >> all ... What do you think? > YES! It is possible. There is in fact a standard for doing exactly > that - the 802.3af "power over ethernet"or PoE standard. > Many devices are supporting this now -- especially IP phones for PBX > systems, wireless access points, and 3com even makes mini ethernet > switches that draw their power from a central switch using PoE. > Lemme know if you want more info. Beware though, not all devices that are 802.3af compliant will work together. For example, a 3Com 4400 PWR will power only other 3Com devices. I found out the hard way. Regards, Chris ------------------------------ 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 #476 ******************************