From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 26 14:24:46 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9QIOkO28800; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:24:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:24:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410261824.i9QIOkO28800@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 #514 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:25:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 514 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cracking the Wireless Security Code (Monty Solomon) Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers (Gary Breuckman) Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers (Clarence Dold) Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers (jtaylor) Re: Citywide Wi-Fi Link Considered/Internet Everywhere (Tony Pelliccio) Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns (Robert Bonomi) Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Neal McLain) Baseball Broadcast Station? (jtaylor) The State of VoIP (Lisa Minter) More About Poly D. Creatures (Paul A Lee) 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: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:08:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cracking the Wireless Security Code By Joel Snyder and Rodney Thayer Is it possible to deploy a secure wireless LAN with technology available today? That question preys on the minds of IT executives who are tempted to deploy enterprise WLANs, but are hesitant because of security concerns. So we assembled 23 wireless products from 17 vendors and ran them through a battery of tests aimed at getting the answer. Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) is very weak in many products, and we don't recommend using it other than in very specialized cases. WEP's successor, Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) has flaws but provides solid security when combined with 802.1X authentication and deployed carefully. Ultimately, 802.11i, the standard that replaces WEP and WPA, will provide all the tools needed to protect WLANs. To their credit, vendors are aggressively shipping products at all prices that support enterprise-class security features. Two-thirds of the products tested support 802.1X, and vendors are moving rapidly to comply with 802.11i standards. http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2004/1004wirelessmain.html ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:54:58 -0400 In article , monty@roscom.com says: > By Hiawatha Bray > If you have wireless Internet access at home, your next-door neighbor > could have it as well, without paying for it. He can just use yours. > No problem if he's just shopping on Amazon.com or e-mailing Grandma. > But what if he's sending spam messages or downloading kiddie porn? > It happens, and that should surprise nobody. WiFi wireless networking > systems can provide Internet service up to 300 feet away, with signals > that can punch through brick walls. So anybody within range can get a > taste of your bandwidth, and use it for any purpose, noble or > malignant. It's up to them. > Actually it's up to you. With a little effort, you can seal off your > WiFi router from unwelcome guests. If you leave it unprotected, it > could become a hangout for a variety of digital sleazebags. > http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/10/25/take_the_trouble_to_block_wifi_poachers/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have some comments and questions > about this: On my Wi-fi card (Netgear MA-521, 32-bit cardbus) I was > lucky for a while to get twenty feet away, in other words, my > computer area and into the next room. But I could barely get outside > my house, and certainly not into my parlor or my bedroom. A cheap > piece of cardboard and tinfoil (serving as a reflector to push the > signal around helped with that.) Now I can get my parlor/bedroom > areas, my back porch/back yard and *most* of my front yard. I have > noticed that when I get out to the sidewalk on the street in front > of my house, when my signal is still there but mostly unuseable, on > the 'site survey' tab on the MA-521 diagnostics, I see listed not > only my base unit, but also the base unit of the guy directly across > the street from me. I can move my mouse onto either of these locations > (mine or his), click for connection and connect with either one. > I assume this is how 'hackers' (i.e. spammers, kiddie-porn downloaders) > work, am I correct? When I have clicked on his base-station (and like > mine, he gets maybe a couple hundred feet, out into the street and > onto the sidewalk on *my side* then his gives out also) I get a > message on my screen saying 'to connect with this channel please enter > the proper encryption.' I use 128-bit encryption, which I guess is > what he uses also. Right or wrong? I have no idea what *he* uses for > encryption and I surely have not told anyone what I use. I am not > going to sit out on the sidewalk in front of my house, which the one > place I can contact his station and try to hack out his encryption > password, etc. I would not have the patience for it. But unlike him, > I guess, I also told my base station 'do not broadcast your own name'. > Tell me if I am correct: when I get to the one point on the sidewalk > where I can pick him up, my 'site survey' not only lists me, but also > lists him. I assume -- tell me if right or wrong -- if some other > person with a WiFi card (other than *myself*) came to the same spot > they would see his station -- 2WIRE895 -- waiting for someone to > provide the proper encryption, but they would NOT see me. Right or > wrong? I see myself listed, because it is me, but having it set to > 'not broadcast your own name' keeps others from seeing me. Right or wrong? > Now what else should I do, or can I do within reason, to stay protected? > The house next door to me, across the alley to the west is vacant. But > let's say tomorrow it got rented to 'hackers', spammers and kiddie- > pornography downloaders; yes, unlikely, but still ... unlike the house > across the street where distance separates us, the house across the alley > from me *is* within radio range; a warm, comfortable, off-the-street, > out of your car hiding place. Is there anything I can do other > than 'do not broadcast your name' and 128-bit encryption for protection? > Or is it a needless worry? PAT] Yes. If supported by your wireless access point or router, enable MAC authentication. Then, connections will only be accepted from wireless adapters (such as your Netgear card) that you specify to the router by their MAC address, which is printed directly on the card, usually near the FCC label. Of course, the MAC address can be spoofed, so this one isn't perfect either. You can disable DHCP, and use a static address. Why let your router hand out addresses to anything that asks? The SSID (2WIRE895) may not be regularly broadcast, but it can still be found in sniffed packets. By disabling SSID broadcast, you are hiding from casual users, but a more determined individual may be lured by the presence of the signal; finding no SSID, he migt just start sniffing, wondering what you're hiding. Encryption (either 40- or 128-bit) is simply used to prevent eavesdropping. The appropriate key is required (26 hex digits for a 128-bit key). Unfortunately, the WEP encryption used with 802.11b (11 mb/s) wireless has a flaw that permits the key to be derived simply be collecting enough packets (passive receive). If the usage is low, this might takes weeks. If the traffic is high enough, like at a corporation or university, it might take less than an hour. I change keys every few weeks. --Gene [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I found that my NetGear does allow for what it calls 'access control' which means for it to answer only to *my card*, *my MAC address*, so I turned that on also. I think however, there is a limit to the return on my investment in making things secure. Reason is, if anyone was parking in the alley next to my house, I would hear them soon, and in my usual snoopy way (like all my neighbors) peer out the window to see who was there. Sometimes I go most of a day without having *any car at all* drive down Poplar Street, let alone drive in our alley way and sit there for a period of time. If anyone moved in the vacant house next door to the west, I would find out about it same day, just as I did when the folks moved in on the other side of the street and down one house to the east. And I am *not* interested in improving my signal to the point I could walk even four or five blocks away and pick it up. Blame that perhaps on my brain aneurysm, but I get so tired of walking around the area, so far, particularly carrying a laptop; I really don't see anyone around the immediate (four or five block area) who would appear to me to even know what computers are about, let alone have a radio- transmission from one. I think WiFi is only practical if you have a laptop anyway, is that correct? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Breuckman Subject: Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:26:04 -0500 Organization: Puma's Lair - catbox.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > if some other person with a WiFi card (other than *myself*) came > to the same spot they would see his station -- 2WIRE895 -- waiting > for someone to provide the proper encryption, but they would NOT see > me. Right or wrong? I see myself listed, because it is me, but > having it set to 'not broadcast your own name' keeps others from > seeing me. Right or wrong? That's right, but if you have encryption turned on it really doesn't matter. Not broadcasting your SYSID can allow you to hide without using encryption, some places use that so they can tell folks they WANT to use the network the SYSID, but not others. Using encryption is the way to go. You might want to pick a different channel, if someone is nearby on the same channel. That might improve your range. Gary Breuckman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So if I use 128-bit encryption and no SYSID then I get twice as good a chance as not, don't I, and using 'access control' so base only responds to *my* MAC address. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@XReXXTakeX.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:54:14 UTC Organization: a2i network TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have some comments and questions > about this: On my Wi-fi card (Netgear MA-521, 32-bit cardbus) I was > lucky for a while to get twenty feet away, in other words, my > computer area and into the next room. But I could barely get outside > my house, and certainly not into my parlor or my bedroom. A cheap > piece of cardboard and tinfoil (serving as a reflector to push the > signal around helped with that.) Now I can get my parlor/bedroom I don't think that is atypical. "punch" "brick wall" and "802.11" don't belong in the same sentence. Is the tinfoil an EZ-10 from http://www.freeantennas.com ? > I assume this is how 'hackers' (i.e. spammers, kiddie-porn downloaders) > work, am I correct? When I have clicked on his base-station (and like The hacker or poacher would probably have a program called Netstumbler running, a gps connected to a laptop for automatically marking locations of signals, and a better antenna than the one you have. > message on my screen saying 'to connect with this channel please > enter the proper encryption.' I use 128-bit encryption, which I > guess is WEP comes in 64 and 128 bit varieties. For typical residential use, you have done the right thing, and so has your neighbor. > place I can contact his station and try to hack out his encryption Other than guesswork, there are software packages that can crack the WEP code, but they require a hefty amount of data to flow across the link, using, in part, a known portion of the encoded packet that keeps repeating to help crack the rest. You probably don't send that much data in a short enough period of time to keep anyone parked out in front long enough to crack your WEP code. There are too many unsecured residences, and valuable businesses, to bother cracking yours. > password, etc. I would not have the patience for it. But unlike him, > I guess, I also told my base station 'do not broadcast your own > name'. That has almost no effect in your case ... It would prevent some scanners from finding you, but if they found him and sat there, they would find you soon enough. Pretty much all blocking your SSID does is make it harder for you to connect using Windows XP, which really likes to see the SSID. > Now what else should I do, or can I do within reason, to stay protected? For a residence, I think you've done all you need to do. You might cahnge your WEP code every once in a while. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, it is an EZ-10 from freeantennas.com and it may be my imagination, but I *think* it is making things better, and things do seem to be better, *I think*, so I guess that is what counts. And, I just recently turned on 'access control', a condition in the Net Gear where the base only responds to my MAC address. If someone wants to park in my driveway (off the alley) or park in front of my house -- and hope in both cases I did not see them and wonder about them -- or rent the vacant house next door and move in without my seeing them or any computers and then discover my unannounced signal and work out the encryption then (based on that information) figure out a way to forge my MAC address and then proceed to 'borrow' my resources, then God Bless them. They are a better man than I -- which wouldn't be very hard, considering my partial paralysis, my inability to put things together in my head for more than a few seconds at a time, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Take the Trouble to Block WiFi Poachers Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:10:49 -0300 Organization: MCI Canada News Reader Service TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon by writing in news:telecom23.513.9@telecom-digest.org: > Now what else should I do, or can I do within reason, to stay protected? > The house next door to me, across the alley to the west is vacant. But > let's say tomorrow it got rented to 'hackers', spammers and kiddie- > pornography downloaders; yes, unlikely, but still ... unlike the house > across the street where distance separates us, the house across the alley > from me *is* within radio range; a warm, comfortable, off-the-street, > out of your car hiding place. Is there anything I can do other > than 'do not broadcast your name' and 128-bit encryption for protection? > Or is it a needless worry? PAT] If your access point came with a firewall then set it up so that it'll only allow access from the card you use in your laptop. You will need the number assigned to the card called a MAC or "physical address". Although this can also be spoofed, it takes a much smarter variety of intruder to sucessfully do this to you, and like burglary, you don't need to be able to keep the burglars out, you just need to make it easier for them to go burgle someone else. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I just a couple days ago turned on 'access control', as the Net Gear refers to it. I do not know if 'access control' has anything to do with the firewall or not, or just what the base station is willing to accept/act on. Same difference, I guess. If the base station is not willing to ask the WAN for some files to start with, then the files won't be sent. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kd1s@yahoo.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Citywide Wi-Fi Link Considered / Internet Virtually Everywhere Date: 25 Oct 2004 14:46:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com This would be a sweet thing to have here in Providence. The city is only about 20 square miles and has plenty of places to put WiFi nodes. The interesting part of this is that as a condition of its franchise agreement in the state I believe Cox has agreed to wire all state and municipal agencies for the bubble. So could the municipal use their Cox IP feed to dole out to citizens for a small fee, or even for free? It would be interesting to see how this would pan out. Tony Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > 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] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My next question on this thread pertaining to proposed 'city wide' WiFi setups is this: Suppose San Francisco, or Newton, MA or Independence, KS or any of the more enlightened communities installs such a thing. What then prevents 'hackers' or spammers or kiddie porn downloaders (to name just three species of no-goods) from doing their thing and charging it all to the city authorities who installed it to begin with. I would suppose there would have to be 'passcodes' based on the MAC addresses of the citizens would there not? The WiFi base would have to be told to only respond to the MAC addresses in its files and somehow keep track of who did what which brings up a lot of privacy concerns. Then you talk about people sniffing at things: there sure would be a lot of sniffing around for MAC addresses to spoof wouldn't there? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:05:45 EDT Subject: Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns In a message dated Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:06:02 -0000, markrobt@comcast.net Mark Roberts) writes: > It's not unique. KOMU-TV was and is still owned by the University of > Missouri, and is the NBC affiliate for Columbia and Jefferson City. > From 1953 until 1956, it was the only station in the area and carried > all three networks. From 1956 until 1971, it was also the secondary > ABC affiliate for the market. > Its newsroom is staffed by School of Journalism instructors and > students, who report and produce the station's newscasts. > It had a jam-packed schedule, with the late afternoon "downtime" from > the network being filled with ABC programming. Likewise, the "Tonight > Show" was joined in progress at 11 pm for many, many years in order to > fit an ABC program in at 10:30 pm. > It also had the dubious distinction of being the last NBC affiliate The University of Missouri also publishes a commercial daily newspaper in competition with a locally-owned one, with not only its newsroom but its advertising department staffed by School of Journalism instructors and students. Certainly real world training for both news editors and reporters and also advertising salesmen and saleswomen. The privately-owned newspaper feels strongly it is unfair competition. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: 'K' v. 'W' Television Station Callsigns From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:10:20 +0000 In article , J Kelly wrote: > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:18:22 +0000, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com > (Robert Bonomi) wrote: >> WOI-TV was in operation _long_ before 'Iowa Public Television' came >> into existence. In point of fact, WOI-TV was the _first_ TV station >> in the state broadcasting on a regular schedule. > WOI was in fact on way before Iowa Public Television. IPTV began in > 1969 when the State Educational Radio and Television Facility Board > purchased KDPS-TV (Des Moines Public Schools) Channel 11 in Des Moines > and changed the callsign to KDIN-TV. The network was known as Iowa > Educational Broadcasting Network (IEBN). Seven other stations > followed over the next 8 years, and one more was added in 2003 when > they acquired channel 36 in Davenport. In 1976 the name was changed > to Iowa Public Broadcasting Network, and was changed to Iowa Public > Television in 1982. The first expansion was the addition of Channel 12 (KIIN TV), in Iowa City. By circa 1975, there were KDIN, KIIN, and at least 7 UHF 'repeater' stations across the state. With a decent directional antenna, virtually every place in the state was within reception range of one of the transmitters. The 'repeater' stations were very high-tech (for their day), *automated*, systems. A high-gain channel-11 antenna pointed towards Des Moines, coupled to a carrier-operated-relay, that triggered the transmitter into operation. If KDIN was on the air, the repeater stations came up, and rebroadcast the signal; when KDIN shut down for the night, the repeaters turned themselves off, too. Well, *MOST* of the time. Late one night, in the fall of 1973 (74?), I was DX hunting with my little B&W, *rabbit-ears*only* TV, in my apartment on the outskirts of downtown Des Moines. Here is this *snowy* picture on channel 11 -- old gangster movie. Took quite a while for a call-sign to come by WQXI. Just for grins, I _called_ the station, to let them know they had a viewer "way out in Iowa". This got to be a _very_ strange phone converation. The station _chief_engineer_ was working the night shift that night, and actually answered the phone, =himself=. He got *real* upset, and asked me _exactly_ what I'm seeing, what kind of a monstrosity I'm using for an antenna, *exactly* where I am, etc., etc. The more detail I provided in answer to the questions, the _more_upset_ he was getting. Finally, we get through the panic, and he explains -- several weeks previously, 'skip' conditions had been 'just right', and their signal had been hitting Iowa with enough signal strength to *trigger* some of the IEBN repeaters. Most notably the one in northwest Iowa, from who's 'viewpoint', Atlanta was nearly in a straight line with Des Moines. This led to an incredible stack of paperwork, to mollify the FCC. Here was 'retransmission'/'rebroadcasting' of a commercial TV station, *without* the permission/consent of the originating station. Here was _commercial_ content on an 'educational TV' repeater channel. etc., etc., ad nauseum. Oh yeah, those remote 'repeater' stations were automated enough that they did _not_ have an 'engineer on duty' at the transmitter site. The 'local' engineer had remote monitoring gear at his house, or wherever. Note: this was *monitoring* capability, _only_. He did *not* have anything like a 'kill switch' for the transmitter -- could *not* shut it down, except from on-site brute-force controls, if the master station (or what the hardware *thought* was the master station :) was 'on the air'. As a result of _that_ 'design stupidity', the "problem" recurred _again_ the next night. And several following nights. Which made the paperwork swamp *MUCH* worse. Now it wasn't a _single_ 'inadvertent' error, but a repeated pattern of "illegal" behavior. He had just finished up (i.e., a day or two previously) _his_ stack of paper- work related to the problem, *believing*it*to*be*finally*resolved*, and was relaxing as things got back to normal -- and this phone call comes in from IOWA, where somebody is seeing his station, *AGAIN*(!!) In that light, the 'upset' was quite understandable -- and he _did_ relax considerably when it was established that I _was_ watching on channel *11* -- not on some repeater output frequency. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:47:38 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? DevilsPGD wrote: > Shaw cable is (or was, I don't have my TV connected to my DCT > right now) using channel 1 as a digital channel for themselves. > Analog cable still starts at 2 though. Some analog cable systems start (or used to start) at Cable Channel 1. Three analog frequency plans are approved by the FCC for use by the cable TV industry: IRC Incrementally-related carriers HRC Harmonically-related carriers STD Standard The IRC and HRC plans include Cable Channel 1. Details at . IRC and HRC are rarely used today; however, many so-called "cable ready" television sets still include some means to receive them: either an obscure little switch or an option in the setup menu. Neal McLain ------------------------------ From: jtaylor Subject: Baseball Broadcast Station? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:26:16 -0300 Organization: MCI Canada News Reader Service Yeah, it's probably not absolutely telecom related (they don't have the reporters on the 'phone to the station at hockey games anymore, either), but my neighbour has a good SW radio and wants to hear the Red Sox win. He lives in Halifax, Nova Scotia, I suggested 1080 Hartford, but are there any better options? (I also asked a few days ago on rec.radio.shortwave, alt.sports.baseball, and alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox; no response anywhere. With the s/n ratio and wide-range knowledge of this group I figger it's much more likely an answer will pop up.) ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:43:55 -0400 Subject: The State of VoIP http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2004/10/22/voip_1.html The State of VoIP by Andy Oram I often go out seeking fertile intersections of technological innovation, new businesses, and policy debates. This month, I found just such an intersection at the Fall 2004 Conference and Expo of the Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition. It bubbled over with a rich, interactive mix of implementers, vendors, service providers, customers, standards committee members, regulators, public interest representatives, and press. Organizer Jeff Pulver predicted over 5000 people -- twice the number who came last year -- to pass through the show. The presence of more than 200 vendors on the exhibit floor showed that a lot of people expect VoIP to generate a lot of money. More on that later. You may think you know Voice Over IP. It's the technology that lets you phone Cairo from San Francisco as casually as you send an email. And it lets you bypass those nasty charges that the FCC levies on behalf of rapacious local phone companies. But wait! The FCC and the local phone companies love VoIP! FCC chair Michael Powell came up to Boston for the Tuesday morning session of the VON conference, saying such things as, "You are bringing about a revolution, like the American revolution, bringing power to the people....We need to create a new constitution regulating VoIP that reflects that revolution. If we do, we will be rewarded as our forefathers were ... VOIP has ignited a fire under a stalled industry." And the day before, a spokesperson from Verizon gleefully called VoIP a disruptive technology (not a trait that one would expect to endear VoIP to an established incumbent) and touted it as a selling point for DSL. So what's going on? To get some perspective on what VoIP means to different people, we have to look at some of the technical challenges, then at its business prospects, and finally at regulatory issues. Full story at: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2004/10/22/voip_1.html ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: More About Poly-D Creatures Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:34:31 -0400 Organization: Rite Aid Corporation In TELECOM Digest V23 #505, our esteemed Editor wrote (in part): > ...how many toes does a cat have on its paws? Some people > would say 'five', which is normally the correct answer. But > some cats have *six* toes on one (or all four) feet. The > vernacular name for such cats is 'polydex'... > I guess it is some genetic thing going back a million years > or so. "Polydactyly" [polly DAK tih lee] is the name of the condition; animals affected by it are described as "polydactyl" or "polydactylous". It occurs in cats, humans, and other critters. One or two extra fingers or finger-like growths of cartilage beyond the "pinkie" finger is the more common form. An extra thumb is rarer, and an extra middle, index, or ring finger (usually a cartilaginous projection from a finger) is the rarest form. Polydactyl people and cats were thought to be witches in medieval Europe, and as such, were frequently put to death. Count Rugen, the villain in "The Princess Bride" who was played by Christopher Guest, was polydactyl. I have known at least three polydactyl people, all of whom had their polydactyl fingers surgically removed in infancy. The only one with extra toes kept them; his parents were told that removing them could make it more difficult to walk, because of the way the toes had formed. He wore something like a 'EEEE' shoe width. One of these acquaintances, a mild-mannered fellow I went to high school with, was later shot and killed during the last of his dozen or so bank robberies in the Denver area. He had been nicknamed "the gentleman robber" (as I recall) for his conduct during his crimes. Not gentlemanly enough to keep him from getting shot, it seems. (The examples above are not meant to imply any predilection toward antisocial behavior by polydactyl people.) Lots of good Google hits on "polydactyl" -- too many and too much variety to try to include here. Can't think of a telecom tie-in, I'm afraid. Call this "Friday trivia" ... Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer Rite Aid Corporation HL-IS-COM (Telecomm) V: +1 717 730-8355 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 F: +1 717 975-3789 P.O. Box 3165, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3165 W: +1 717 805-6208 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except today is Tuesday, not Friday, but that's okay. Little Nicholas (the first one who was always so loving and friendly to humans) was polydactyl as I mentioned before. But he *never* went outside, I think he was afraid of being outside. PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #514 ******************************