From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 28 00:22:03 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9S4M3S16019; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:22:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:22:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410280422.i9S4M3S16019@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 #517 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:22:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 517 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Comcast Reports Third Quarter 2004 Results (Monty Solomon) Google AdSense Not Working All That Well (TELECOM Digest Editor) VOIP and Telnet (rshlain@hotmail.com) Re: Inexepensive Remote Forwarding by Auto Attendant Over Vonage (Fred) Re: Cybersquatter Update (Ed Clarke) Re: Cybersquatter Update (Miikka Kiprusoff) Owner of Stolen 'sex.com' Can Sue VeriSign - Court (TELECOM Archives) Re: Home Phones Face Uncertain Future (Joseph) Re: Home Phones Face Uncertain Future (Charlie3) 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: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:30:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast Reports Third Quarter 2004 Results Cable Revenue Increased 10.6% to $4.844 Billion Delivers Record New Product Growth Led by High-Speed Internet Subscriber Additions of 549,100 Digital Cable Subscribers Increased 341,000 to 8.4 Million Cable Operating Cash Flow Increased 14.6% to $1.858 Billion Consolidated Operating Income Increased 39.0% to $686 Million PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) today reported results for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. Comcast will discuss third quarter results on a conference call and webcast today at 8:30 AM Eastern Time. A live broadcast of the conference call will be available on the investor relations website at http://www.cmcsa.com and http://www.cmcsk.com . - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=44527793 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:53:59 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Google AdSense Not Working All That Well If you recall, a couple months ago I was approached by Google to begin putting their ads on the Digest web site. I've tried it, but it really did not impress me a lot, and the results do not seem to be very effective. I am going to try it for another month and if there is no improvement, I will probably just remove the. Some readers don't like it all that much anyway. Google is not doing a very good job of counting my hits (many discrepancies between my own hit counters and theirs) and they (Google) claims only a 1.5 percent rate of page view to click through. And those are the people who are complaining about click fraud being so bad for them! Most everyone I talk to says the ratio of page hits to click ought to be around 3 percent, or maybe 4 percent. PAT ------------------------------ From: rshlain@hotmail.com Subject: VOIP and Telnet Date: 27 Oct 2004 13:04:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com It is possible to have VOIP and be able to connect to machines that have modems and use telnet? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I understand it correctly, VOIP -- or at least Vonage -- can do everything a telephone can do. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Inexepnsive Remote Forwarding by Auto Attendant Over Vonage From: Fred Organization: VixFone Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:21:27 -0500 visniranjan@hotmail.com (Vish) wrote in news:telecom23.494.4@telecom- digest.org: > 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.) It can easily be done by someone who knows how to set up an Asterisk switch -- so it could run on a pc unattended; it runs under Linux, which is pretty robust. The other option is to find a service that does what you need. Fred VixFone.com We specialize in wholesale VoIP to ISPs, auto-attendants, foreign exchange and switch services for business. ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: Re: Cybersquatter Update Date: 27 Oct 2004 22:45:48 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Melvin Klassen: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't have ugly thoughts like that; > ugly thinking is *my* domain. I suspect that the persons running > the stolen web site (internet-history.org) and the persons running > the *real* web site (www.promotechnology.com) are one and the same > otherwise known as 'Bealo Group, SA'. In case you have not checked > it out, the bogus history site run by the cybersquatter is sort of > constructed 'on the fly' with some javascript which looks at what > you asked for (in this case the URL internet-history) and slaps that > phrase at the top of his otherwise page on penis enlargment ads. I > have tried it with a few other inoperative URLs in .org and they > get the same web page nonsense fed in those cases also, with the > bogus URL slapped on the top with a message saying 'you want to > buy this page?' > I had thought that a few months ago one of the registrars had tried > that same stunt, redirecting unused URLs to some sort of 'helpful > page' offering suggestions for where you might find what you wanted > instead. I had thought when that happened and became obvious there > were several people on the net who put much pressure on that registrar > to make them quit doing it. Or maybe I am mistaken; I usually am > these days. That would be "Network Solutions" -- they run the .com and .net registry. Any unused or misspelled domain would end up at their website. Since this was a blatent violation of the social contract ( even though it was perfectly legal ), the organization that writes and maintains the most used DNS software ( ISC - Internet Systems Consortium, software is BIND 8.x or 9.x currently, http://www.isc.org ) came out with an immediate patch to make their name grabbing inoperative. Here are the commands to add to the configuration file of a current version of bind: zone "COM" { type delegation-only; }; zone "NET" { type delegation-only; }; This disables their evil wildcard power grab. If you go look at the Network Solutions homepage, you'll find that they give you a great break on renewing a domain -- $19.99 per year -- if you renew for five years. The fact that this is more than twice what others charge (http://www.godaddy.com for example at $8.95) ... And they are also associated with VeriSign who will give you a great deal on an SSL certificate at $895 per year ( or you could go to GeoTrust and get the equivalent for $229 with renewals at $179 ). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So, if this 'social contract' implies that non-working/unoccupied URLs are to go to at best a very generic 'not in service' screen, then a web site on which a fee had not been paid -- therefore being unoccupied or non-working should go there as well. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:42:39 -0600 From: Miikka Kiprusoff Subject: Re: Cybersquatter Update Reply-To: miikka@calgaryweb.net -----Original Message----- > From: Klassen@UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) > Subject: Re: Cybersquatter Update > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:06:20 UTC > Organization: University of Victoria Original text snipped, leaving Patrick's reply: > I had thought that a few months ago one of the registrars had tried > that same stunt, redirecting unused URLs to some sort of 'helpful > page' offering suggestions for where you might find what you wanted > instead. I had thought when that happened and became obvious there > were several people on the net who put much pressure on that registrar > to make them quit doing it. Or maybe I am mistaken; I usually am > these days. Not at all the same thing, though I see how you might have thought so. The registry operator you're talking about is Verisign, who operates the top level .com and .net domains. Their little scheme worked like this: if somebody typed in a domain name that did NOT resolve -- that was not registered by anybody -- the old practice was for DNS to return a no such domain error message. After they implemented the scheme, it returned a VALID result -- pointing to Verisign's servers. So if you mistyped "microsoft.com" as "microsofft.com", you got Verisign's website. That was deemed to be unfair competition, and rightly so. What has happened in your case is that the registry operator, in this case PIR, threw your domain name back into the pool of available names due to non-payment. Once this happened, a whole 'nother company, Bealo whatevertheheck, PAID TO REGISTER the domain name. They forked out the cash and registered it, as is their right -- as was your right when YOU first registered it (do you recall being asked to prove YOUR right to the name when you first registered it? Why should they have been asked to prove such?) They then arranged to have this domain name point to their (pornographic) servers. Shady and slimy, yes. Illegal and against the rules, no -- unless you've got a trademark in the name or otherwise can prove superior interest in the name -- hard to do without that trademark. > Now this is just an ugly thought of my own, but suppose -- just > suppose -- the Public Interest Registry people had cut some sort of > deal with the Bealo Group SA in Switzerland: We will fork over to > you all the .org names where the owner unwittingly did not pay our > ransom to keep the page alive. You fill the page with offensive ads, > and when the real owner comes back and gets on his knees, begging > and pleading for his page to be released back to him and offering to > pay some outrageous sum of money, you give him (real owner) back the > page and split the profits with us at PIR. > Considering how quickly the cybersquatter moved in and took over > internet-history.org (the day it was taken back by PIR for whatever > reason) I feel there *must have been some collusion between the > registrar PIR and the Bealo Group, SA.* How else would the cyber- > squatter have know to act on it that quickly? Sir, you should have been a writer for the X-Files -- with your bent towards conspiracy theories, the show might still be on the air. There's a much, much simpler explanation for this, Mr. Townson. It's called "WHOIS". You're a long time 'netter, so I won't explain what WHOIS is. But I will remind you that, among other information, WHOIS will tell when the domain is set to expire. For a sleazy operator, that's all the information he needs. He just watches all domains and sees which ones are coming up for renewal. Those that don't renew, he grabs. Most of them, he's probably wasting his money. But a few people do want their domain names back -- and that's when you're asked to pay through the nose. After all, somebody's got to pay for all those domain names he snapped up that nobody actually wants back. :-) > So if the cybersquatter collects several hundred dollars in ransom > money on a site, and he splits (or even gives some percentage of the > money to PIR) that's a better deal for PIR than simply trying to > make do with the pitiful little 'registration fees' ICANN otherwise > authorizes them to rip off from netizens. You're getting perilously close to libel here. Prove that PIR has done this, or retract it. > That, along with the fact that no registrar who > supposedly acts in the public interest (such as the traditional > meaning of the .org domain) -- unless he was totally insane and > lacked any due diligence -- would have given away an internet history > site to the penis enlargement company. I think it might be a good > case for an attorney who likes doing pro-bono things on behalf of > the net. I don't know how many times you need to be told this before it sinks into your diseased brain. PIR "gave" the domain to nobody. They offered you the EXCLUSIVE right to renew the domain name at any time prior to expiration. Your failure to renew it ended your contract with them. At that point, they were free -- and, indeed, *REQUIRED* by their charter -- to sell the name to the first person who asked for it and who was prepared to pay the standard fee. That's what Bealo did. > But by all means, anyone who feels like trying w-get as per the > earlier instructions in this message go right ahead, and don't forget > when you sign up your favorite companies in the us.tf or the net.tf > domains to be sure to not put down Bealo Group SA and > www.promotechnolgy.com as the administrative contacts when asked to > list a contact name. Just as a reminder also, the contact phone number > you should avoid using is +41.227347.210 at Post Office Box 138 in > Geneva Switzerland. PAT] Now this ... I say go for it. :-) These people are slimy sharks, out to boot the screws to people such as yourself and that 9/11 widow and they don't care who they piss off to do it. So by all means, let's give them a taste of their own medicine. But let's just make sure we're putting the blame in the right place. PIR is, as near as I can tell, *ENTIRELY* without blame here. The blame goes 80% to Bealo and 20% to you for not renewing on time. ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson Subject: Owner of Stolen 'sex.com' Can Sue VeriSign - Court Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:12:01 -0500 This message originally appeared here in this Digest a little over a year ago. I thought it was worth repeating now in view of the readers who claim my lawsuit should be against Bealo, SA (regardless of how inconvenient that may be) instead of the easier to reach Public Interest Registry. PAT] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Monty Solomon" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:04 PM Subject: Owner of Stolen 'sex.com' Can Sue VeriSign - Court > By Elinor Mills Abreu > SAN FRANCISCO, July 25 (Reuters) - The owner of "sex.com," > once considered one of the Internet's hottest addresses, can > seek payment from the company that improperly transferred the > domain to a "con man" who later fled to Mexico when ordered to > pay $65 million, a court ruled on Friday. > The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that > "computer-geek-turned-entrepreneur" Gary Kremen can hold VeriSign > Inc.'s (NASDAQ:VRSN) Network Solutions unit liable for handing the > sex.com Web address over to a "con man." > The decision has widespread implications for companies that register > domains, which until now have not been held responsible when Web sites > are switched from their rightful owners, a lawyer for the plaintiff > said. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=35007290 Here is the way I see it: 1) Bealo Group SA are con artists and shysters. 2) I cannot force them to do anything if they are in Switzerland, just as Kremen could do nothing with the defendant having fled to Mexico. 3) In the above case, we see that registrars *can* be held accountable for errors they make. Now you are probably asking 'what errors did Public Interest Registry make?' 1) what makes .ORG different than .COM is the nature of the web site. 2) .ORG was always traditionally defined as for use by non-profit organizations, public service places, etc. ICANN did not just toss .ORG into the same pot as .COM for good reasons; they are to serve different categories of web sites. 3) I will suggest *it is possible* that PIR deliberatly and wilfully chose to accept a porn site into the .ORG domain. I certainly do not think their 'charter' as per ICANN rules allows that. I would like to see the PIR charter, issued to them by ICANN or whoever. I would like to see where in that charter it states that PIR is free to (and as Mr. Kiprusoff states elsewhere in this issue) *must* accept all applicants for web addresses **regardless of the nature of their activities.** We are not speaking about _two_ history web sites squabbling over the same address and which one is the better of the two or 'more entitled' to the address or who got to the registrar first, etc. I would not impose on PIR to sort that out, nor be responsible. But when you have an established web site which meets the criteria in (2) above for placement in .ORG and a web site comes along _the very same day_ which has no place in .ORG to start with -- by traditional net definitions, etc -- who pounces the instant a domain becomes available for whatever reason and PIR makes no effort to clarify the matter at all -- I will suggest is very negligent, if their own charter is the guidepost -- then it becomes an actionable matter. Thank you, Mr. Kiprusoff for mentioning the PIR charter and its obligations and responsibilities. Let's get it out here and look at it, shall we? Either the charter for PIR *does* say those things, and ICANN (which probably choreographed it) is guilty of trying to rewrite years of internet traditions or it does not say those things and PIR is the party fixing to get sued. And if it *does* say those things in reference to the .ORG domain -- note I did **not** say the .COM domain, where anything goes, it seems -- that seems rather careless since Bealo SA could have as easily moved in on an .EDU domain where someone was late paying the bill, unless you are now going to suggest that ICANN wrote up this one very special charter for .ORG which makes it equivilent to .COM in its activities. Oh, and lest I forget, thanks also for your compliment on my writing skills where X-Files was concerned. Anyway, let's go over that charter. You want to fetch it and go first, or should I? PAT ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Home Phones Face Uncertain Future Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:31:16 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:51:05 -0400, Isaiah Beard wrote: > The landline phone's peak has come and gone, but it won't be gone. > Anyone who has complained about the sound quality of a cell phone > connection (nearly all of us, I would think) can attest to this. Over 90% of the time my cell phone voice quality is every bit as good as wireline phone service. On 26 Oct 2004 17:05:28 -0700, dave@compata.com (Dave Close) wrote: > If the original article proves correct, you may find that land-line > phone service will become much less ubiquitous, and much more costly. Not only for home service, but look at pay phones. Pay phones not only are becoming scarce (my local super market just remodeled and they decided that they were not going to install pay phones since they were just being used to make drug sales.) Not only that but since pay phones are getting less traffic the phone companies decided that the solution to that was to increase the rate for local calls by 50% rather than try to find a way to make them viable. Another local mall when they did a remodel also removed all pay phones. The neighborhood near the mall also petitioned the tenant who had the phones in front to remove them. They are more valuable to drug dealers than they are to the man on the street. ------------------------------ From: charlie@cdsdetroit.com (charlie3) Subject: Re: Home Phones Face Uncertain Future Date: 27 Oct 2004 15:11:50 -0700 I ported my home phone to Vonage last spring and haven't looked back. It happens that cell phone coverage is excellent where I am so I use the cell phone as the backup phone. I have Vonage set to simultaneously ring the cell phone and ring the cell phone when the network is out. With these features, Vonage plus cell phone are reliable enough for my purposes. Charlie ------------------------------ 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 #517 ******************************