From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 17 21:42:36 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9I1gZ316023; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:42:36 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410180142.i9I1gZ316023@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 #494 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:43:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 494 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Blockbuster Eyes Netflix, Plans Price Cuts (Monty Solomon) British Court Orders IDs of Downloaders (Monty Solomon) A Song About AT&T's Dave Dorman? (Jessica) Inexepnsive Remote Forwarding by Auto Attendant Over Vonage Line (Vish) Re: Vonage Upgrades Local Unlimited Calling Plan to Premium (Dave Close) Re: Can't Move 800 Number to Vonage (Tim@Backhome.org) Re: Click Fraud Threatens Web (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Computer Users Face New Scourge (Phil McKerracher) Re: Verizon Planning 3-Million FTTH Cnnections (John Levine) Re: Robot Dialer Question (Scott Peterson) Re: Can't Move 800 Number to Vonage (Fred Atkinson) I Need a Long Distance Provider (Michael Muderick) Drivers Try an Anti-Photo Finish (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Toshiba and 3-COM Ethernet Card (David Clayton) Re: Toshiba and 3-COM Ethernet Card (R. Jones) Re: Toshiba and 3-COM Ehternet Card (GlowingBlueMist) Share Day for October 2004 (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:10:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Blockbuster Eyes Netflix, Plans Price Cuts By DAVID KOENIG AP Business Writer DALLAS (AP) -- Blockbuster Inc. says it will undercut rival Netflix Inc. on the price of renting DVDs over the Internet, and the stock of both companies fell Friday _ Netflix shares plunged 41 percent _ as investors reacted to a budding price war. Netflix announced late Thursday that it would cut its monthly subscription for DVD rentals to $17.99 from $21.99 on Nov. 1 and expected only to break even next year because of tough competition. That would make Netflix cheaper than Blockbuster, which charges $19.99 a month. It took Blockbuster less than 24 hours to respond. On Friday, chief executive John Antioco said in an interview that later this month Blockbuster will cut its price to $17.49 for customers who keep up to three DVDs out at a time. The price war broke out less than two months after Dallas-based Blockbuster, the world's largest movie-rental company, jumped into the online-ordering, mail-delivery DVD business that Netflix pioneered. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=44309251 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:11:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: British Court Orders IDs of Downloaders By JANE WARDELL Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) -- The High Court in London has ordered Internet service providers to hand over the names and addresses of 28 alleged music pirates to Britain's trade body for the recording industry. The British Phonographic Industry Ltd., or BPI, Friday welcomed the court order by Justice William Blackburne as the first step to suing people it accuses of promoting the illegal downloading of copyrighted music. The ruling is a victory for both the BPI and its umbrella organization, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, IFPI, which announced earlier this month that its affiliates were filing a total of 459 lawsuits against alleged Internet pirates in Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Austria. The lawsuits target people alleged to have put hundreds of copyright songs onto Internet file-sharing networks and offered them to millions of people worldwide without permission. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=44306117 ------------------------------ From: f21r_announce@yahoo.com (Jessica) Subject: A Song About AT&T's Dave Dorman? Date: 16 Oct 2004 16:30:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hmmm ... is this song about AT&T's CEO Dave Dorman?? "Dave Says" http://www.cdbaby.com/mp3lofi/loublack-02.m3u http://www.cdbaby.com/LouBlack ck ------------------------------ From: visniranjan@hotmail.com (Vish) Subject: Inexepnsive Remote Forwarding by Auto Attendant Over Vonage Line Date: 16 Oct 2004 18:17:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi all, I have a small business with a single Vonage line. This line has 3 way calling and call transfer functionality. The call transfer instructions from Vonage are: Just press the flash button or switch hook on your Vonage line telephone. Dial #90. Dial the phone number where you want the call transferred. Then hit #. Hang up the phone and the transfer will take place. I want to buy an inexpensive auto attendant that will announce the name of our company and based on callers need (1 for John, 2 for Peter, 3 for David) transfer the call to a remote number (home, cell etc.) The device will sit in a basement and will always be unattended. Any suggestions for an inexpensive auto attendant that will do the trick? Thanks in anticipation for your answers. Vish ps: If I must get a second Vonage line, I will. ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Vonage Upgrades Local Unlimited Calling Plan to Premium Date: 16 Oct 2004 22:29:52 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California markrobt@comcast.net (Mark Roberts) writes: > I also see that Vonage has in fact gone to 7-digit local and > 10-digit LD dialing ... Of course, when dialing a 7-digit number, there is a time-out before call completion. At least when the first three digits match a possible area code, which these days is nearly all calls. And they don't seem to accept # to terminate dialing. That just gives a reorder tone. You can't dial 1+NXX-XXXX, so the leading 1 is significant. But this dialing plan makes Vonage essentially identical to Sprint PCS. Dial as 7, 10, or 11 digits, as you like. But dialing 7 can be chancy since it isn't clear if they assume your home NPA or the one where you currently are located. (Of course, a cell phone doesn't need a time-out to determine number length.) All in all, always dialing 10 or 11 is the only safe action, and 11 is the only reasonably universal technique. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: Tim@Backhome.org Subject: Re: Can't Move 800 Number to Vonage Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:20:44 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications Sort of like Pat says, you can get the present administrator of your 800 number to re-route it to your Vonage number. That doesn't involve Vonage at all. Fred Atkinson wrote: > Greetings, > A couple of months back, I called Vonage and spoke to their number > portability group. I was a bit surprised at the result. > I have a personal 800 number translated to my home telephone number > (not through Vonage). I wanted to get it rerouted to Vonage and my > Vonage telephone. > Their portability group said that they could not do that. They would > gladly provide me with a toll-free number and tranlate it to my > telephone, but they would not take an existing personal toll-free > number and have it pointed to Vonage. > I tried to get them to explain the reason they won't do this (when > they will get an existing number pointed at them). But, I am still > very much in the dark about it. > Does anyone have any feedback about this? > Fred > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who is the present owner of your 800 > number? I know you are the end-user of it, but who is the *owner*? You > said it is 'currently translated to ring your home number' but you > want it to ring your Vonage number. Why don't you contact the *owner* > of the 800 number -- the company to whom you pay the bill each month > -- and get *them* to route it to your Vonage number. You said it was > translated to wherever ... just tell that company your new home number > is (Vonage number). 800 numbers do not work the same as regular > numbers in this regard. Vonage 800 numbers offer you one hundred > minutes per month as part of the $4.99 monthly fee to have one. Then > additional (Vonage 800) minutes are four or five cents each. If based > on your usage, that is a better deal than you currently have, then > take the Vonage number instead. If your present deal is better for > you, based on your useage, or it is some vanity number you wish to > keep, then tell your company -- the *owners* -- to handle the > translation for you to your new Vonage location. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But, as Fred pointed out later in a reply to the Digest, he has to pay for calls to his 800 number (no matter where it terminates) *and* he has to py for the minutes of usage on his Vonage line. He was hoping to combine the two sets of charges by having Vonage handle both parts of his service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Click Fraud Threatens Web Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:56:53 GMT Lisa Minter posted on that vast internet thingie: > Someone could make the argument that watchdogs have better things to > do. But click fraud -- endlessly clicking on ads to generate cash or > hurt a competitor -- is a serious threat to the web business, and no > one's doing much about it. Commentary by Adam L. Penenberg. We have reported "inconsistant" charges to Overture only to be brushed off and similar situations with Google with about the same result that they give a song and dance about how great their fraud protection is but they don't actually do anything about it. They want me to send my weblogs to them and then wait for weeks. They are charging me for stuff they don't have logs for? Let sites like Overture and Google be held legally responsible for fraud and watch how fast they suddenly find ways to plug the leaks. Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Uniden 2line 5.8GHz cordless If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: Computer Users Face New Scourge Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:35:52 GMT Lisa Minter wrote in message news:telecom23.481.10@telecom-digest.org: > ... Harris spent days trying to fix the computer, but ... shelled > out $1,000 for a new computer ... If Internet users got grades > for the effort they take to maintain their computers, Harris would > be a straight-A student ... Well, not really. Most likely, he hasn't been patching his computer with security updates, given those symptoms. He hasn't found and used the readily-available free tool for removing this particular worm. And he bought a whole new PC rather than simply doing a clean installation!!! I would say grade B at best - no, make that a fail, since his computer is completely non-functional. He didn't even consult someone who knew what they were doing before buying a new PC. That's like servicing your own car leaving out the bits you don't understand, then buying a new car because someone let the tyres down and you can't work out how to use the jack and can't find the manual. > ... He made sure to use e-mail on the Web rather than a program that > downloads it ... He avoided installing instant messenger... This is just FUD, it's quite possible to download mail and use instant messaging safely. Everything has risks, but you inform yourself about them, take precautions and carry on with life. You do make backups, don't you? Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2004 19:59:15 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Verizon Planning 3-Million FTTH Cnnections (Fiber to the Home) Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > [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.] The price will certainly come down but they're unlikely ever to become as cheap as the boxes they use for copper POTS. One is that it'll always need some sort of transceiver to turn the outside fiber signal into whatever you use in the house. Even if it ends up being fiber to the TV or whatever, you can't just twist fibers together the way you can copper wire. You need a carefully manufactured and installed splitter and usually an amplifer since the amount of power in optical fiber is quite low. The other is power. Since the late 1800s, POTS phones have been line-powered which makes them quite reliable. Even if the city power goes out, the phones still work so long as there's power at the phone company central office. CO's usually have battery banks with a backup gas or diesel generator. If your FTTH phones are going to be anything like that reliable, the box will have to include a UPS, and the batteries in a quality UPS aren't cheap. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Scott Peterson Subject: Re: Robot Dialer Question Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:31:28 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: scottp4.removethistoreply@mindspring.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Scott Peterson : > Are you certain that if you hang up the > phone and wait 20-30 seconds the line won't release on its own? Even > that is irritating, but I can see why if you attempted to hang up and > then (after 5-10 seconds) lifted the receiver again, the party would > still be there. No 3-way calling, call waiting or other special features. I hung up the phone and picked it up at about 1-minute intervals just to see how long it would last. Scott Peterson As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public schools. ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Can't Move 800 Number to Vonage Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:20:42 GMT Organization: Road Runner - Columbia Well, maybe now that we are discussing it, they will rethink their approach. Whatever happened to 'The customer is always right'? Fred ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: I Need a Long Distance Provider Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:49:34 -0400 My LD provider charges a monthly minimum. We don't always reach that minimum. I'm looking for a provider with a low per minute rate, calling card, and will let me take my 800 number from my other provider and no minumums or fees. I asked here about COGNI but got no responses. Has anyone heard of it? Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks, Michael Muderick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:02:39 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Drivers Try an Anti-Photo Finish Pat, A couple of days ago you asked whether the sprays to prevent photographing license plates worked, and if so, how they did. These can be used by people who want to avoid tickets for speeding, running lights, or avoiding tolls. In some states such tickets have been overturned because the companies reading the film get a percentage of the fines, thus giving them a financial incentive and conflict of interest. I found the following in my files. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A222-2004Jul20.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A222-2004Jul20?language=3Dprinter washingtonpost.com Drivers Try an Anti-Photo Finish By Don Oldenburg Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 21, 2004; Page A01 If you inspected Will Foreman's SUV, you might notice how clean and shiny his Maryland license plates are. But you probably wouldn't detect the clear glossy coating the Howard County resident sprayed on them eight months ago to thwart traffic cameras from snapping readable photos of his tags. "It must work," says Foreman. He has not received a traffic camera ticket since using a $29.99 spray called PhotoBlocker. Foreman, owner of Eastover Auto Supply in Oxon Hill, also coated the plates of his eight delivery trucks. He says they previously drew $1,200 in photo-radar fines but none since the application. And he has had no complaints from customers who have bought about 700 cans of the spray at his shop. "If it didn't work, we would've heard about it," he says. Furman Eldridge of Cheverly bought PhotoBlocker a year ago as "a defense mechanism." He has enough faith in it that he says he gave a can to his pastor. "I've always been a law-abiding citizen," he says. "You don't want people speeding, but I don't think it should flash you if you're just going five miles over the limit." As jurisdictions increasingly turn to automated red-light and speed-radar cameras, products promising consumers stealth protection have multiplied. Dozens are on the market. In addition to the products' effectiveness, their use raises legal and ethical questions for consumers. Cheaper than radar detectors (which are illegal in the District and Virginia), sprays such as PhotoBlocker, Photo Fog ($24) and PhotoStopper ($19.99) are advertised as reflecting the flash back at automated cameras to overexpose the license plate. The photo is said to look like a picture taken with a flash in front of a mirror -- glared. Other products cover license plates with plastic shields. The Reflector ($19.95) uses reflective sparkles embedded in clear plastic. The PhotoShield ($25) uses a thin prismlike lens. The License Plate Loover ($8.95) blocks the camera's view with an angled louver effect. These products sell mostly online, although some have found their way to auto parts stores. PhotoBlocker, for instance, is sold online at PhantomPlate.com and at 10 independent auto supply dealers between Baltimore and Centreville -- and at one car wash. "It sells okay. If I could sell it for $5, I could sell a whole lot more," says Harold Berger, owner of Kenilworth Car Wash in Hyattsville. "The people who usually buy it have gotten tickets. People don't want to spend $30 unless they got burned. It's like paying for a ticket upfront, only less." Joe Scott, marketing director for PhantomPlate, the Alexandria firm that makes PhotoBlocker, says about 100,000 cans have sold in four years. And with traffic camera programs multiplying faster abroad than in the United States, his product is now sold on six continents. "Sales have been phenomenal," he says. The big questions are: Do these products work, and are they legal? Former Baltimore police officer Bob Kleebauer conducted his own road test. Late one night in March, he drove to the intersection where his wife got a photo-radar ticket. His license plate coated with PhotoBlocker, he waited until no cars were coming, then ran the light. He took that "$75 chance" because he believes red-light cameras are revenue traps targeting decent people, says Kleebauer, now a telecom salesman. "Ninety-nine percent of the drivers who get caught are law-abiding citizens who do it accidentally. You are approaching a yellow light and you have a tenth of a second to brake or go. Make the wrong decision and they got you." His test finding: "The flash went off behind me, but I've never received a ticket." The Denver Police Department, at the behest of Fox News, conducted a road test two years ago and found that PhotoBlocker was effective, plate covers less so. Similar results were found by TV news programs in Great Britain, Australia and Sweden. Five Washington area police departments declined to or didn't respond to requests that they conduct roadside tests for The Washington Post. Those who responded said they didn't have time and wouldn't want to promote a product that may be illegal or interferes with law enforcement. "We'd have to shut down the streets and traffic, and all of our red-light cameras are at major intersections," says Capt. David Mellender of the Fairfax City Police Department, which uses seven red-light cameras. "And if it does work, we don't want them to know about that." Fairfax County has 13 red-light cameras and plans to add two more by year's end. Bud Walker, an officer with the county's police department, says a field test "could be seen as an endorsement, and as a public institution we can't do that." Despite the television news tests, there's little consensus about the effectiveness. Ray "Radar Ray" Reyer, whose online firm Radarbuster.com sells Photo Fog and PhotoStopper, says roadside and weather conditions and camera angles can affect clarity. And the "flash-back" sprays have no effect against digital cameras that don't flash, like the ones Howard County recently began installing. "We would safely estimate 75 percent effectiveness," says Reyer, a retired 20-year veteran of the Maricopa County, Ariz., police department who markets mostly radar detectors. Speed Measurement Laboratories -- consultants to police departments and radar and radar-detector makers worldwide -- has tested most products designed to defeat photo enforcement, including car waxes and stealth sprays that claim to make cars "invisible to radar," photo-flash devices designed to flash back at cameras and the high-gloss tag sprays. "There's a lot of good people in the industry who are honest and a lot of charlatans. But it doesn't work, that's the bottom line," says Carl Fors, owner of the Fort Worth company. The bounce-back-the-flash concept does work sometimes, he says, but only on positive images traffic cameras produce. "If we reverse the image, go to a negative image, we can read every letter on a license plate," he says. Fors says the firms that make and operate radar camera systems and analyze the photos for municipalities routinely check negatives where license plates look unreadable. "Going to the negative image is no big deal," he says. PhotoBlocker's Scott concedes that adjusting the images can "sometimes" reveal the tag numbers, but "these companies will just throw out anything that's questionable. They don't want to have to dispute it in court and it's not cost-effective for them." Richard Kosina, director of engineering at Affiliated Computer Services, maker of most of the photo-radar cameras active in the District, Maryland and Virginia, says magnifying the image or adjusting brightness and contrast to make glared or blurred plate numbers legible is easy. But, he adds, those adjustments aren't usually necessary. "In the case of sprays, we know they don't work ... and we've tested every spray that's there," he says. Says Ray Reyer: "That's his perspective. There have been cities and towns that have banned the spray. Illinois just did. The reason they're doing this is because they're losing revenue. Why else would they?" For some law-abiding consumers, effectiveness may be a moot point. Many jurisdictions insist that such products are prohibited by laws that ban obstructing license plates. Ads for such products typically include a disclaimer about their legality. Anne Witt, director of the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles, thinks the products are "not legal in the District." D.C. laws require that license plates be "maintained free from foreign materials and in a clearly legible condition" and ban the attachment of anything that obstructs any part of the tag. The "illegible tag" fine is $50. The District's automated red-light and speed-enforcement programs are in full gear. Red-light cameras, now at 39 locations, have ticketed more than 450,000 drivers and collected $27 million in fines since the program's inception in 1999, according to the D.C. police Web site. The department's photo-radar speeding program, using mostly mobile cameras, has issued 993,000 tickets and collected more than $53.6 million since it began in 2001 -- including more than $10 million in 2004. Virginia outlaws any cover that obstructs the license plate, but the law doesn't specify clear spray coatings. However, Tim Murtaugh, spokesman for Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, says state law bans "colored glass, colored plastic or any other type of covering" installed over a license plate in a way that alters or obscures. "We believe this would apply" to the sprays, he says. Scott argues that a loophole makes PhotoBlocker legal. "The law says you cannot obstruct your license plate," he says. "This spray only prevents a flash camera from taking a picture. If you look at it with the naked eye, you can't tell it's on there." Maryland's law is more specific, prohibiting "use, advertising and sale of license plate covers that distort a recorded image of any of the characters of a vehicle's registration plate recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system." Says Kevin Enright, spokesman for Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr.: "There is no question that using these products is illegal under Maryland motor vehicle laws." John Carr, who has maintained a "State Traffic and Speed Law" Web site since 1997, says many states also have "very broad laws" about interfering with police. But Scott has another point to make: Even if laws target anti-photo sprays, police would be hard-pressed to identify who is using them. "There is no way to identify which plates are coated and which are not," he says. Copyright 2004 The Washington Post Company *** 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, Washington Post Company. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Toshiba and 3-COM Ethernet Card Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:20 +1000 David Clayton contributed the following: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the BIOS set up on the Toshiba > CDS-220 there is a toggle for 'PC Card Controller Mode' and the two > choices given are 'Card Bus/16-Bit' and 'PCIC Compatible'. Which would > you have me use? I am reasonably certain the 3-COM card is a 16 bit > card; at least it does not say '32-bit' on it as my other 3-COM card > (a model C575-TX) says on it. The C575-TX card does not respond at all > in the Toshiba; at least the 574 card did when I was running Win 95 on > that machine. Worked fine under Win 95, but admittedly it did not work > at first there either until an experienced person helped me with it, > but then the green light came on and all was well. > Now the green light still comes on (with Win 98) when I plug in the > eithernet cable, the machine still toots at me when the card is > (un)plugged in or out, but no data goes anywhere. I got the 574 driver > from the 3-COM site on another machine, put it on a floppy, then > installed the floppy in the Toshiba. When I installed the driver I > told Win 98 I had the disk, and directed its attention to 'A', where > it loaded up just fine. At least when I installed it, when finished > the computer tooted and the green light came on. Properties has no > yellow exclamations or red X marks. What is still going wrong? PAT] I'd try deleting the PCMCIA controller in Win 98, then do a re-boot and let it auto-install again. Do this after you change those BIOS settings (if you want to experiment with them) -- the Cardbus mode is the later one and probably should be ok but it may be worth trying the other option. I've experienced "weird" things with the PCMCIA stuff on laptops where it looks ok but just doesn't work properly, and sometimes letting Windows re-install it with the hardware auto-detect process helped. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (Remove the "XYZ." to reply) Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is an oddity for you: on a hunch, I took the NetGear Wireless 802.11 card out of its regular home in the IBM Think Pad where it normally resides and tried it in the Toshiba. When I had Win 95 in the Toshiba the computer totally ignored the NetGear wireless card; would not deal with it at all, despite loading the drivers, etc. But in the same installation of Win 98 which is there now, the Toshiba took to it immediatly. I loaded the drivers on the CD, bingo, it started right up. Ditto, another card I have here called 'Xircom Combination Ethernet/56 K Modem' (for which I also have a CD with drivers.) Not only that, but when Windows Update saw the Xircom card it produced an updated driver for it from a couple years ago. Meanwhile, the two 3-COM Ethernet cards will *not* work in the Toshiba 220-CDS under Win 98, although the older one of the two (model C874-TX) did work in the Toshiba under Win 95 with some effort. The two 3-COM cards do work just fine in the IBM Think Pads however. I never fail to be amazed and perplexed by computers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:33:21 -0700 From: R. Jones Subject: Re: Toshiba and 3-COM Ethernet Card (1) Do not publish any of my e-mail addresses, including those that may show up on this message. (2) It sounds like you have the network card drivers installed but have not gone into Start Menu -> Control Panel -> Network and setup a TCP/IP protocol to talk to the new ethernet card. Without that, and maybe one or two other similar items in the network control panel box, you would see things like you have described. Good luck. TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to David Clayton: > TELECOM Digest Editor contributed the > following: >> Anyone know why the ethernet card can see the network okay, but the >> computer cannot see the ethernet card? (Well, it apparently can see >> the card, it toots when the card goes in or out, etc.) I will >> appreciate any answers. > I seem to remember that there were two "modes" for the PCMCIA > controller in the PC, one an older mode and a newer one that didn't > work with some older PCMCIA cards (PCMCIA vs "Cardbus" mode maybe, I > can't really recall ...) > I cannot remember exactly where you changed it -- I think in BIOS when > the laptop starts up -- but it may be worth having a look for this sort > of thing somewhere. > Regards, > David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com > Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. > (Remove the "XYZ." to reply) > Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag > you down to their level then beat you with experience. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the BIOS set up on the Toshiba > CDS-220 there is a toggle for 'PC Card Controller Mode' and the two > choices given are 'Card Bus/16-Bit' and 'PCIC Compatible'. Which would > you have me use? I am reasonably certain the 3-COM card is a 16 bit > card; at least it does not say '32-bit' on it as my other 3-COM card > (a model C575-TX) says on it. The C575-TX card does not respond at all > in the Toshiba; at least the 574 card did when I was running Win 95 on > that machine. Worked fine under Win 95, but admittedly it did not work > at first there either until an experienced person helped me with it, > but then the green light came on and all was well. > Now the green light still comes on (with Win 98) when I plug in the > eithernet cable, the machine still toots at me when the card is > (un)plugged in or out, but no data goes anywhere. I got the 574 driver > from the 3-COM site on another machine, put it on a floppy, then > installed the floppy in the Toshiba. When I installed the driver I > told Win 98 I had the disk, and directed its attention to 'A', where > it loaded up just fine. At least when I installed it, when finished > the computer tooted and the green light came on. Properties has no > yellow exclamations or red X marks. What is still going wrong? PAT] ------------------------------ From: GlowingBlueMist Subject: Re: Toshiba and 3-COM Ethernet Card Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:35:27 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in message news:telecom23.488.16@telecom-digest.org: > Most of you know I have a mish-mash of a network here, with a > combination of various *old* computers running Win 98 and Win-2000, > and a NetGear router. Here is today's dilemma: > My very old, original computer is a Toshiba 220 CDS laptop. It was > running with Win 95 until a few days ago. Dreadfully slow and small, > with only 123 megs processing speed, and 32,512 KB memory (circa > 1995-96) when it booted up. Under Win 95, it was hooked into my > overall network with a 3-COM card, PCMCIA type, model 574-TX. (I think > that is a 16 bit card. ) It was working fine, the Toshiba could see > the internet, and the rest of the LAN as well. > I formatted the hard drive, and started over, to upgrade this computer > to a Win 98. All went pretty well, although it is still a very > sluggish, older computer. But, the 3-COM ethernet connection is not > working. I've tried installing it a few times, I have the driver for > it from 3-COM and the little green light on it tells me it is working > (the '100' is lighted. The computer toots when I remove or install the > hardware. Properties tells me the driver is correctly installed. The > icon for the slots tells me the 3-Com card is there.) But, it just > won't work! ipconfig and winipcfg both claim there is no card in the > slot. When I attempt to configure things to use the LAN instead of the > dialup modem (also a PCMCIA card in the slot right above the Ethernet > card) it won't be allowed. By the way, the modem PCMCIA card works > fine. > Anyone know why the ethernet card can see the network okay, but the > computer cannot see the ethernet card? (Well, it apparently can see > the card, it toots when the card goes in or out, etc.) I will > appreciate any answers. > PAT I have had similar problems upgrading older hardware to W98 myself and found that I had the least problems when I pulled all of optional cards from the case, like modem, Ethernet, game port cards, sound card, and then do a fresh install of W98, not an upgrade. Start with the minimum needed to get the computer to read your W98 system disk and start a fresh install. Once the computer was a working W98 box I would power down and install ONE of the cards, usually the sound card if I am using one. Power up and let the system find and install the sound card. Shut the system down and repeat the procedure with the Ethernet card. Continue in this fashion until all accessory cards are installed and working. My usual problems with installing W98 in older boxes is a mixture of interrupts and memory conflicts that W98 was not able to sort out when all of the cards were installed prior to installing W98 OS. Much of the older hardware was not fully plug and play compatible but by adding one of the cards at a time you can usually make W98 figure out a card conflict and deal with it before you proceed with the next card. I know it's time consuming to install a system this way but it's worth a try and it has kept me from trashing some older equipment that worked just fine after loading it the "one-card-at-a-time" way. ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day For October, 2004 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:00:00 EDT Instead of changing the Digest over to an advrtising supported forum, I have always elected to keep it as a user supported forum, and for the most part keep it spam and virus free. I am *only* able to do this because of financial support from readers here, and if you would rather not see these messages every month, then please pitch in and help now and then! Consider it sort of like public radio, which goes on for days at a time trying to raise money ... and maybe I should adopt the same system. Turn over the entire Digest once or twice a year to fund raising (entire issues, etc) and stop doing it when the budget for the year has been raised. But for now, I will stick with the present system of devoting a few messages at the end of each month to raising money for the Digest publication expenses. Out of 400-500 messages per month, in a spam, virus free environment, two or three (only) devoted to fund raising. You know who you are; please provide some help here financially. You can use Pay Pal to donate with a credit/debit card by going to our web site http://telecom-digest.org and at the bottom of the home page look for the PayPal 'donate' button. Or if you prefer, send a check or money order to Patrick Townson/TELECOM, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050. The amount you send is entirely up to you. You know best how much you can afford and whether or not this Digest has any value for you. Thank you very much. Patrick Townson, Editor/Publisher TELECOM Digest ------------------------------ 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 #494 ******************************