From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 24 17:28:39 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9OLSdX08381; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:28:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410242128.i9OLSdX08381@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 #512 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:29:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 512 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Identities Stolen in Seconds (Monty Solomon) I Love Bees Game a Surprise Hit (Monty Solomon) City-Wide Wi-Fi Link Considered for Newton, MA (Monty Solomon) FTC Gets Court Order Against Spammer Wallace, et al (Danny Burstein) Verizon Hooked on Cable (Scott) SLIC Tutorial (behzad) Re: Verizon Taking Lessons From Hooterville Telco (Gary Novosielski) Re: Yet Another Telco Tax Proposed (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Sinclair: From Bad to Worse (Linc Madison) Re: Free Speech and Corporations (John Smith) Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns (Wesrock@aol.com) 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: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:51:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Identities Stolen in Seconds By TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN PAUSING in the foyer of a comfortable suburban home two days before Halloween in 2002, Kevin Barrows, a special agent with the F.B.I., could not bring himself to open the front door. He and a team of agents had just spent several hours searching every room in the house, in New Rochelle, N.Y., but they were leaving empty-handed. Months of investigating had led Mr. Barrows to believe that someone was orchestrating a huge fraud from the house, yet he had not found a single scrap of evidence. Still, something bothered him about the furniture in one of the bedrooms. It seemed oddly oversized. So he headed back upstairs for a second look, and his attention focused on an expansive canopy over the bed. When he pushed at the draping, he found that it was weighed down with files. They contained reams of confidential financial information about hundreds of individuals whose identities had been pilfered in an intricate scheme that illicitly netted more than $50 million. Two years later, the New Rochelle home has emerged as a linchpin in what federal law enforcement authorities describe as the biggest case of identity theft ever uncovered in the United States. The scheme was essentially masterminded by just two people: Linus Baptiste, who lived in the house and had contacts with a sprawling ring of Nigerian street criminals, and Philip A. Cummings, his former brother-in-law, who worked as a help-desk clerk at a Long Island software company. At least 30,000 people nationwide were victimized, according to law enforcement authorities and court documents. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/business/yourmoney/24theft.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:00:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: I Love Bees Game a Surprise Hit By Daniel Terdiman Following Wednesday's third presidential debate, an out-of-place poster with a large cartoon image of a grinning bee appeared on the wall of a room packed with spinmeisters brandishing Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards signs. Most people who saw it on CNN that night probably didn't even notice it, but fans of a game called I Love Bees knew it was a shout out to them from a team of the game's players at Arizona State University, the site of that evening's debate. I Love Bees is the latest and perhaps most ambitious of the growing genre known as alternate-reality games. In it, widely dispersed players coordinate to find and answer thousands of ringing pay phones all across the United States and provide correct answers to recorded questions. When all the answers have been supplied, the latest episode in an internet-based War of the Worlds -esque radio serial is unlocked and made available to its rabid fans. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65365,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:59:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Citywide Wi-Fi Link Considered / Internet Virtually Everywhere NEWTON Citywide wi-fi link considered Internet access would be virtually everywhere By Matt Viser, Globe Correspondent | October 24, 2004 Several Newton officials are looking into blanketing the city's 18.5 square miles with wireless Internet transmitters, which would make the city one of several places in the nation -- and the only one in Massachusetts -- to offer the service on such a wide scale. The plan, which an aldermanic committee began discussing last week, would involve mounting routers on telephone poles throughout the city. Anyone within 100 yards of one of the routers would be able to access the Internet using a password. The city would charge about $10 per month to use the service, which could begin to be available in as soon as six months. Installing the routers throughout the city would cost between $370,000 and $740,000, according to initial estimates. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/10/24/citywide_wi_fi_link_considered/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here in Independence, authorities have considered the same thing, but the scale is quite different. Our town is only two miles long by two miles wide approximatly, with between 8000-9000 residents, but I do not think it has ever gotten beyond the talking stage as of yet. Independence High School and the college have both pushed for it, but no one wants to supply the money needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: FTC Gets Court Order Against Spammer Wallace, et al Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:36:10 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC "CONCORD, N.H. - A federal judge has ordered a man known as the "Spam King" to disable so-called spyware programs that infiltrate people's computers, track their Internet use and flood them with pop-up advertising. "U.S. District Judge Joseph DiClerico issued a temporary restraining order Thursday against Stanford Wallace and his companies, SmartBot.net Inc. of Richboro, Pa., and Seismic Entertainment Productions Inc. of Rochester. SmartBot's principal place of business is Barrington. rest at: http://www.portervillerecorder.com/articles/2004/10/23/ap/hitech/d85tku5g0.prt danny " yes, the court order was thursday. dunno why it didn't show up in the news until now " burstein _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Scott Subject: Verizon Hooked on Cable Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:46:15 -0400 Newsday Company plans to use fiber-optic lines to better compete with Cablevision in offering TV and Net services BY HARRY BERKOWITZ STAFF WRITER In a new competitive threat to Cablevision's cable-television and Internet services, Verizon Communications yesterday announced it will string fiber-optic connections directly to homes and businesses in parts of Nassau, Westchester and Rockland counties. The connections will replace copper-wire links and allow Verizon to offer cable TV and faster Internet access. The company said it expects to start marketing cable services next year, including high-definition TV and video-on-demand, and is already negotiating with Viacom and other programmers for content. "I expect that next year we'll not only be in the video business, but we will be a significant competitor to those that provide cable TV services today," said Paul Lacouture, president of the Verizon network services group. Verizon added parts of six states, including New York, to the previously announced three where it had said it is rolling out the connections. The company said it will hook up these areas, totaling 3 million homes and businesses, by the end of 2005 and more in following years. "In suburban New York City, Verizon vs. Cablevision is likely to be a major battleground, testing whether Verizon is able to put together a cable-like video package that is competitively and economically viable," Merrill Lynch analyst Jessica Reif Cohen said. Cablevision Systems Corp. has 3 million cable customers in the New York City metro area, including the three counties that Verizon is targeting. "We compete vigorously and successfully with the phone company today and expect to in the future," said Cablevision spokesman Jim Maiella. Regional telephone companies have tried to add video services in the past but largely gave up in the face of heavy expenses and difficulties attracting customers. This time, the new technology that makes video possible is needed anyway to improve phone and Internet service, Lacouture said. Verizon is spending $800 million on the overhaul this year alone. It is targeting affluent suburban areas, where overhead lines, rather than more expensive underground ones, will be replaced and where customers are more likely to bite. Verizon did not say how much it would charge for video service. It will charge $34.95 or more per month for Internet access that will reach download speeds of up to 5 megabits per second, more than triple the old speeds it has offered, and $44.95 or more per month for speeds reaching 15 megabits per second. In a year, it will have the capability to offer speeds of up to 100 megabits. Cablevision charges $44.95 for its Optimum Online service, which has 1.2 million customers and speeds up to 10 megabits per second. Cablevision also has started competing with Verizon by offering Internet-based phone service called Optimum Voice, which had signed up 115,000 customers as of June 30. ------------------------------ From: bsheikho@yahoo.com (behzad) Subject: SLIC Tutorial Wanted Date: 24 Oct 2004 11:42:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello all, I'll appreciate if anybody address me a tutorial about SLIC "subcriber line interface circuit". I need to know about important spec and architecture. Thanks, B.SH ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Verizon Taking Lessons From Hooterville Telephone Company Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:38:17 GMT AES/newspost wrote: > Why not have instead a Honda lawnmover designed so a small auxiliary > Honda-supplied generator can be bolted on top (or on the bottom) of it? Well, the idea isn't brand new, but that shouldn't be surprising. Back in the seventies, or maybe even sixties, the Toro company came out with a line of yard equipment centered around a one-cylinder four-cycle gasoline engine attached to a handle, with a v-belt pulley on the side, and a mounting plate on the bottom that could be clamped into any of several different bases. The handle had controls for the throttle and a "clutch" that spread the pulley apart, allowing the v-belt to slip. I know there was at least one variety of lawnmower base, a snowblower base, and I think some sort of cultivator device as well. I'm not sure if they ever had a generator, but it would have been a simple matter. It was never a big hit, probably because like so many jacks-of-all-trades, it was the master of none. By today's standards, it was also a pretty unsafe design. ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Yet Another Telco Tax Proposed Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:10:35 -0400 In article , first.last@comcast.net says: > In article , kd1s@yahoo.com says: >> Danny Burstein wrote in message >> news:: >>> In the continuing tradition of government that try to offload taxes >>> onto third parties (that way they're not "raising taxes", you see ...) >>> California has a very real problem with medical costs. The hospitals >>> and other medical providers provide services, but don't take in >>> anywhere near as much money as they claim to be expending. >>> Hospital and medical finances are such a huge mess they put Enron to >>> shame. Normally this isn't a telecom issue but ... >>> The telco point: The usual folk have pushed forward a fee on telco >>> services to cover the shortfall. Quoting from a VOA clip: >>> "A voter initiative that Doctor Higgins calls a "Band-Aid" could >>> provide a short-term fix, and he supports the measure. Appearing >>> on the November 2nd ballot as Proposition 67, it would raise 500 >>> million dollars a year by adding a three-percent surcharge to the >>> cost for telephone calls made in California. >>> To which the curmodgeons retort: >>> "It's the wrong solution for a real problem. This is a phone tax. >>> This is a tax on a service that has absolutely nothing to do with >>> emergency medical care whatsoever. >> It does have some relation. People use the telephone to call the >> emergency services which then deliver them to the hospital. >> But I think too many other taxes have been loaded onto phone bills in >> recent years. In essence it is nickle and diming us to death. >> Now my medical system rant. There are several reasons why medical >> services have gotten so expensive and they have to do with supply and >> demand. Many more people seek medical attention now than they did >> years ago, but infrastructure improves glacially and so cannot keep >> up. > No, that's not it. It has nothing to do with the number of people; more > paying customers would mean more money. > It has much more to do with the services now delivered (and expected): > 30 years ago, if you had congestive heart failure, you died of it. > Today, it is routine that a heart bypass operation be performed, at an > average cost of $23,000, or a a minimum, an angioplasty, at around > $5,000. > 50 years ago, severely premature infants died. Today, many, if not > most, survive after months of hospital care at an average cost of > about $30,000. > 40 years ago, if you were injured, the x-ray was the only diagnostic > procedure besides "tell me where it hurts". Today, tennis elbow is > diagnosed in an MRI, which costs around $2 million to buy, and is > considered as essential in a modern U.S. hospital as bedpans. > --Gene > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I had my two heart attacks back > in the middle 1990's, I lived in the Chicago area and thought the > bills from Northshore Medical Center were pretty awful. There were > angioplasties each time and other treatment as well. But when I got > here to Kansas and had a brain aneurysm (which is more or less a > stroke but not entirely), when I got out of Stormont-Vail Medical > Center in Topeka and the associated Kansas Rehabiitation Hospital > (yes, the nearest brain surgeon was a 125 mile ambulance ride going > down I-70) I got a bill for *three hundred thousand dollars*. Ever > had a hospital or doctor bill with a bottom line of $300,000.00 ? > Not bad, I guess for someone who is comotose for over two months and > in emergency rehabilitation for another month after that. Add about > another $35,000 for a year's stay in a nursing home. How can anyone > afford to get sick these days? PAT] Money well spent, I'd say. How much were you out of pocket? --Gene [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In total, about five thousand dollars. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sinclair: From Bad to Worse Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:30:00 -0700 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , Gene S. Berkowitz wrote: > Well, the Smiths, who control the majority of the stock may own the > stations (and that is questionable also; they have "operating > agreements" with other stations ... to avoid the (eroding) limits on > media ownership); Furthermore, owning majority control of the corporation that owns the stations is a very different thing from owning the stations outright. The stations are owned by a publicly traded corporation. That brings into play the "fiduciary duty" of the management to refrain from conduct that diminishes the value of the stock, even if management owns the majority of the stock. > however they DO NOT OWN the spectrum allocations they broadcast in. Very true. However, the "public interest" part of the license is being watered down about as quickly as the limits on ownership. The bottom line is that the stockholders who object to the actions taken by the Smiths have a strong legal case against them. They placed their own personal political beliefs ahead of their fiduciary duty to their stockholders. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. ------------------------------ From: John Smith Subject: Re: Free Speech and Corporations Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:48:50 GMT Lisa Hancock wrote: > As another poster correctly pointed out, it is Sinclair's network and > he is free to do as he wants (he controls the majority stock) > regarding showing the film. ... > The right of free speech is very important. But it is not unlimited. And Sinclair should be taught that fact. > Free speech is not mob rule, nor compelling someone else to pay or > provide your platform to speak from. You're quite right, but you're arguing against yourself. By allowing Sinclair to use the public "airwaves" without restriction (which are not his, but are in fact public property, a finite resource licensed to him by the people for use in the public good) I am being compelled to provide him a platform to speak from. Who do I see about that? > Another poster stated corporations exist for the good of the public. > I don't know where that came from. It's clear you don't. I chalk it up to a private education. So let's enlighten you. Where that came from was the fact that corporations exist by state charter, and these charters are issued under the proviso that the corporation shall operate in the public good, in exchange for liability protection. If corporations accept this protection, they must abide by the terms of the offer. They are no longer "free". If it's freedom they want, they can do it on their own without this, the oldest form of state welfare. You can be excused for not knowing, of course, because it is so rare for a state, on learning that a corporation has not lived up to its charter, to do anything about it. In fact though, a state could revoke the charter of a corporation for cause -- an act that has been referred to as the "corporate death penalty" -- if it found that the corporation was acting against the public good. Now you know. Lisa Hancock further wrote: > Frankly, it bothered me that some people asserted it was somehow > "wrong" for Sinclair to show his propaganda.... Oh, and P.S.: People can "assert: things, but they can also do a lot more than that. Sinclair has since announced that it will not be airing the show, and will instead present a different one-hour news show entitled "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure, and the Media" which will include some clips from "Stolen Honor" but not the entire film. The company denies that grassroots protests, including those of stockholders and advertisers, which have caused it financial damage running into nine figures since their original announcement, had anything to do with the change. In fact they are now claiming that they never had any intention of airing the whole of "Stolen Honor" from the git-go. Yeah, right. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:27 EDT Subject: Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns In a message dated Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:18:22 +0000, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) writes: >> WWL(AM) and WWL-TV are now located in New Orleans, LA. > Looks like memory has played me false on this one. Further checking > shows it has always belonged to Loyola University, in New Orleans. > (I'm going to have to do some more digging on this -- I'm _sure_ that > WWL was in the Cedar Rapids/Waterloo metro area in the 50's-70's. "I > may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain" applies :) The university-owned > and operated TV station in New Orleans was a CBS network affiliate, as > of 1959. So, WOI-TV was not the only university-owned network TV > affiliate -- but I don't know of any other that was owned/operated by > a _public_ institution. In the late 1930s and 1940s, when I was growing up as a DX fan, WWL (AM, of course) came booming in at night as loud as a local station with the ID "WWL, Loyola University of the South, New Orleans." It was definitely a commercial station owned by a university. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ 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 #512 ******************************