From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 15 23:03:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9G33tA25497; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:03:55 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410160303.i9G33tA25497@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 #492 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:04:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 492 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dialogic SCBUS Conference Volume (John) Re: Privacy Eroding, Bit by Byte (Lisa Hancock) Re: Verizon Planning 3-Million FTTH Connections (Fiber to Home) (AES) Re: Vonage Upgrades Local Unlimited Calling Plan to Premium (M Roberts) Re: Sinclair's Disgrace (Neal McLain) OSU Modified Admission Policy Changes (Charles Gray) Last Laugh! I Am So Sick of the Election (Lisa Hancock) 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: jbaird@statussolutions.com (John) Subject: Dialogic SCBUS Conference Volume Date: 15 Oct 2004 18:15:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am joining two inbound analog lines into a conference using the scbus on a Dialogic d/41epci. I am seeing a significant drop in volume on the conference and would like to know if there is a way to have the Dialogic board boost the gain on the inbound or outbound side. I have tried to use the dx_adjsv() on both channels, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. John ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Privacy Eroding, Bit by Byte Date: 15 Oct 2004 16:07:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lisa Minter wrote [article on privacy] This is a serious issue that bears discussion. But it is not a simple one. Corporations have been storing much data about us on computers for many years. But the Internet and more consistent file standards make it much easier for companies to share the information. And they do. There has been articles about a person's "credit score". There are three large national credit bureaus which collect your payment and loan history. From that they calculate (secretly) a "credit score" which plays a big part in how much you pay in loan interest or even qualify for a loan. Consumers are urged to look at their credit report from these bureaus (for which they must pay a fee!) to check for errors, which are common. The flip side is that collecting information makes it possible to protect business from fraud and allow them to offer many conveniences which consumers want. I doubt most of us would want to give up our credit cards and go back to paying cash or using traveler's checks, or wait weeks just to get a car loan approved. Or, give up ATM cards useable anywhere or automatic toll collection for their cars (like EZPASS). And of course doing business over the web. Information users are not only big corporations, but also small businesses, who legitimately need to know the credit worthiness of customers _before_ they risk their limited resources. Otherwise they'd have to have payment in advance which isn't a good idea. > Now comes the news that federal regulators on Wednesday approved the > injection of microchips under the skin, enabling physicians with the > right gear to know who someone is without having to ask. Yes that is a privacy concern, but there are also strong benefits. Having been an emergency room patient myself, I would've appreciated the ability for the doctors to get my history without me struggling to answer questions while I was ill. More significantly, my mother who had memory problems and was great at tearing off bracelets and the like, could have benefited from such a device. > Google says no personal information will be sent back to the > company. But if it feels like you can't do anything these days without > someone looking over your shoulder, you're not just paranoid. Cheap > computers, blazing fast networks and clever engineers are finding more > and more ways to keep tabs on where you go and what you buy, generally > with your permission. They're even getting better at guessing what > you'll do next. That is very true. A big problem IMHO is that modern computers are too automated, allowing all sorts of programs to start executing automatically. That capability allows viruses to run. As Java/Internet/Windows gets more sophisticated to do more things, the ability for sabotage grows and saboteurs are taking full advtg of it. My recommendation is that laws be passed and enforced to protect the consumer. For instance, credit reports should be free, and providing adverse eroneous information to a credit bureau should be get a fine. "Identify theft" violations should be aggressively prosecuted. A newspaper article said that now only major thefts -- in excess of many thousands of dollars -- are investigated, otherwise it's not worth their trouble. That's wrong. The criminals know it and use it. Information sharing should be tightly restricted and labeled. Today companies give you a pamphlet the size of the NYC White Pages of 0.5 point size type describing their policy and it's impossible to understand. Companies also share with their "business partners and affiliates" which could mean just about anyone and that should be illegal. The govt FTC has a responsibility to keep up with these trends and watch for abuses of consumers or small businesses. Unfortunately, since Pres. Reagan, govt regulation has a bad reputation and agencies are very limited. Further, big business lobbies hard to water down rules. [public replies, please] ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Verizon Planning 3-Million FTTH Cnnections (Fiber to the Home) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:36:32 -0700 In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > The Old Bear wrote: >> In a pitch to spruce up its image and retain customers, Verizon >> Communications and other Bell companies are going door-to-door, >> offering to replace customers' old copper wire with high-speed >> fiber optic lines capable of handling not only phone calls but >> TV programming and Internet connections at six times the speed >> of cable lines. > They're installing it in my neighborhood as a pilot and I'm excited > about it. I've asked but at this time they don't know what the rates > and service packages will be. Only those who request it will get the > fibre since the box at the house is very expensive. Having a very broadband segment of the Information Highway coming straight into my house and home office would be absolutely lovely, and I'd be very glad to pay a decent price for it -- but ONLY if I can use it to exchange tons of bits with absolutely ANY distant partner or service with whom I want to communicate, not if I'm limited to only services or partners that are allowed or provided by Verizon. If you're able to become part of pilot -- hope you are -- an eventual user report to this group will be much appreciated. [As an aside, fiber optics technology is so inherently sweet that although the terminating boxes may initially be expensive, there's no reason at all that they have to continue to be so once a widespread market develops and they become commodity items.] ------------------------------ From: markrobt@comcast.net (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Vonage Upgrades Local Unlimited Calling Plan to Premium Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:39:35 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Dave Close had written: > markrobt@comcast.net (Mark Roberts) writes: >> On your PCS, you should be able to dial them as 10 digits. On both >> SPCS and ATTWS, I am routinely able to dial all calls without the '1'. > I know, but I /can/ dial them as 11 digits. Doing so makes the dialing > plan common with all my other lines. >> I never thought I would advocate this, but the time may have come >> simply to require *all* calls to be dialed with 10 digits, thus >> dispensing with the '1'. > IMHO, that isn't thinking sufficiently far ahead. While most NANP > telcos treat the leading 1 as a number format indicator (an area code > follows), and some treat it as a toll indicator, it is also the > international country code for North America. The trend toward making > all NANP calls "local" is only a preview of the day when all calls, to > any country in the world, will also be "local". When that day arrives, > it will make no more sense to dial 011 before a country code that it > does now to dial 1 before the area code. We should simply dial all > calls with their full international number, country code + area code + > local number. It may be convenient for those of us in the NANP to just > continue to dial the 1 now in preparation for that day. Eliminating > the 1 now only to have to reinstate it later would only be confusing. Well, there's looking ahead and then there's looking waaaaay far ahead. In the European countries where I've been, you still have to dial the country code to get outside the country. I found this out when my luggage got lost en route to Germany and I was calling from my in-laws' house in the Netherlands. There were quite a few calls starting "049"! But at least the access code is uniformly "0", whether in-country or not. I presume that it is the length of the phone number as dialed that determines where it actually routes. Whether that's a step ahead of our NANP/not-NANP distinction is probably a matter of opinion at this point. I also see that Vonage has in fact gone to 7-digit local and 10-digit LD dialing (apologies for line break): http://www.vonage.com/ no_flash/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=215&category=0 Fair use excerpt: We now offer you the convenience of 7-digit dialing when making a call within your same area code and 10-digit dialing when making a call to another area code. [...] For example, if you live in New York City's (212) area code and you want to place a call: * to another (212) phone number, you can now dial xxx-xxxx, instead of 1-(212)-xxx-xxxx. * to a California (760) phone number, you can now dial (760)-xxx-xxxx instead of 1-(760)-xxx-xxxx. If you prefer to use the same dialing pattern for all your calls, 11-digit dialing may still be used. [snip] I don't remember seeing any publicity about this, but there it is. Mark Roberts|"Entire media networks, such as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting, Oakland, Cal| prop up Bush in a way that would make their fellow propagandists NO HTML MAIL| in North Korea and Cuba proud." -- Markos Moulitsas, Guardian Unlimited, 2004-10-12 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:34:43 -0500 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Subject: Re: Sinclair's Disgrace Monty Solomon wrote (quoting Salon.com): > The right-wing network's decision to force its affiliates > to air anti-Kerry propaganda is one of the lowest moments > in the history of television news, says the former head > of the FCC. Just to clarify: Sinclair didn't "order its affiliates" to clear the program; it ordered its *owned stations* to clear it. Sinclair is a group owner, not a network. > Kerry campaign officials aren't the only ones outraged over > Sinclair Broadcasting's order to its 62 television stations > nationwide to preempt regular programming days before votes > are cast Nov. 2 to air "Stolen Honor," a highly charged.... If Sinclair were a network, "Stolen Honor" would *be* the regular programming. A list of Sinclair's owned stations is at . Neal McLain ------------------------------ Cc: Jay Boyington Subject: Oklahoma State University Simplified Admission Requirements Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:00:00 GMT Pat, we would appreciate it if you would post the following update on the MSTM Program. In an effort to simplify the admission requirements, Oklahoma State University has made the following revisions in requirements for candidates for the Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) Program. The requirement for GRE or GMAT examination is waived for part-time student applicants who meet the following criteria: - Two or more years experience in telecommunications - Have a technically-oriented undergraduate degree with a 3.2 (out of 4.0) or higher GPA. Details may be obtained at: http://www.mstm.okstate.edu/prospective_stu/admission_requirements.htm. See also the MSTM sponsorship note toward the end of each issue of the Digest. The purpose of these changes is to attract more working professionals into the MSTM program. The MSTM degree program requires 35 credit hours, all of which may be obtained via distance learning. All class materials are posted to the respective class web sites, and lectures are delivered via streaming video, DVD or VCR tape. Currently, students are enrolled from Virginia to California, and recent students have completed internships (the "Practicum" requirement) in Germany, Guatemala, and Botswana - as well as in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Regards. Charles G. Gray Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications Oklahoma State University - Tulsa (918)594-8433 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Last Laugh! I Am so Sick of the Election Date: 15 Oct 2004 16:21:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Yes, I do appreciate our democracy and those who fought so hard in the past so we may enjoy its fruits today. I'll be voting and I urge everyone to vote in every election. But I am really tired of the present election! The TV has been full of campaign ads. Some of the 3rd party ads from both sides of the aisle have been pretty disgusting, even worse than the toenail fungus ads they've supplemented. Grossly inaccurate. The propaganda artists have come out of the woodwork, with Michael Moore doing his nonsense and now Sinclair doing his. Both pieces are loaded with major distortions and exaggerations. The people who but into that stuff need to get a life. My phone has not stopped ringing from opinion polls and recorded commercials urging me to vote for a particular candidate. My goodness, my own state governor has managed to call me almost every day! I hope he's not upset I hang up on him. They also call for my mother who I took off from the voting roll last January. The only solution is to ask everyone to write in my name. My reason is simple: I want a job that pays $400,000 a year with lots of perks. I support Amk, so they'll be an "Amtrak 1" going around the country. I have some friends and co-workers whom I think would do a pretty job so I'll hire them, unfortunately, most are them are pretty smart and know what a mess they'd be getting into, so they're all turning me down. (My boss mumbled something "if you win then you'll leave?" and promised to vote for me.) Oh yes, I intend to enjoy the companionship of some nice young hot interns, so if that bothers you, too bad. Just remember they're all doing it, probably a lot more sleazy than I would be. So vote for me! Don't you think the govt would save millions in comm costs when I equip the White House with manual switchboards and perhaps an SxS system? When I throw out most of the Xerox machines and computers and make them use Underwood typewriters and carbon paper? [public replies, please] ------------------------------ 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 #492 ******************************