From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 10 01:18:44 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAA6Ii523744; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:18:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:18:44 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411100618.iAA6Ii523744@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 #539 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:18:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 539 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Packet8 Service Provider 8x8, Inc. Issues Statement on FCC (Lisa Minter) VoicePulse Optimistic After Positive FCC Ruling (Lisa Minter) Ohio Consumers' Counsel Reacts to FCC's Decision (Lisa Minter) Global Crossing Statement on FCC Action (Lisa Minter) FCC Declares Vonage(R) VoIP Service Is Interstate (Lisa Minter) Panasonic KX-TD 500, Please Help (73553) Establishing Local Access Numbers in US (MK) Beheaded Trolls, etc (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Explanation (Dearing) Re: Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Explanation (I Beard) Re: Long Distance Service in California (Joseph) Re: Any News on the Feds v. Norvergence? (William Van Hefner) I Have VOIP2 and Experience Flawless Service (Frank Reynolds) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:23:56 -0500 Subject: Packet8 Service Provider 8x8, Inc. Issues Statement on FCC http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2004/0002399969&EDATE= Packet8 Service Provider 8x8, Inc. Issues Statement on FCC VoIP Ruling http://www.8x8.com SANTA CLARA, Calif., Nov. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- 8x8, Inc. (Nasdaq: EGHT), the Packet8 broadband voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and videophone communications service provider, issued the following statement regarding today's Federal Communications Commission decision that VoIP services like Packet8 are interstate in nature, thereby preempting efforts by state and local authorities from regulating such services. Bryan R. Martin, Chairman and CEO of 8x8, Inc., stated: "The FCC made a historic decision today for the future of Internet-based telephony services like Packet8. By declaring that these services are interstate by their very nature, and asserting federal jurisdiction over how such services are regulated, the FCC has taken a decisive step towards ensuring that innovative new IP-based applications, services and choices will be available to all consumers." 8x8 has been lobbying the FCC and other federal officials since September 2003, when it began receiving letters from several state regulatory agencies asserting jurisdiction over the Packet8 voice and video telephony service. Today's decision from the FCC enables VoIP service providers like 8x8 to avoid negotiating rates, rules and services with separate and individual state governments and continue to offer new, competitively-priced Internet phone services to residential and business broadband subscribers. About 8x8, Inc. VoIP (voice over internet protocol) service provider 8x8, Inc. offers internet-based telephony solutions (http://www.packet8.net) for individual residential and business users as well as small to medium sized business organizations. In addition to regular Packet8 VoIP service plans, priced as low as $19.95 per month for unlimited anytime calling to the U.S. and Canada, 8x8 now offers the Packet8 DV 326 VideoPhone, the industry's first stand alone broadband consumer videophone. Packet8 Virtual Office, 8x8's VoIP system for small to medium sized businesses, is a hosted PBX solution comprised of powerful business class features. For additional company information, visit 8x8's web site at http://www.8x8.com. NOTE: 8x8, the 8x8 logo, Packet8, the Packet8 logo and Packet8 Virtual Office are trademarks of 8x8, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. SOURCE 8x8, Inc. Web Site: http://www.8x8.com ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:33:25 -0500 Subject: VoicePulse Optimistic After Positive FCC Ruling http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2004/0002399768&EDATE= Commission Rules in Favor of Innovation JAMESBURG, N.J., Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- The FCC today ruled in favor of choice, competition and innovation by preempting state regulation of Voice-over-IP phone services provided by companies like VoicePulse. Remaining consistent with the FCC's deregulatory policies, the order lifts the burden of complying with 50 different regulatory bodies which could have stifled the emerging technology. "We're pleased that the FCC recognizes the potential of VoIP and welcome their continued support in bringing services like VoicePulse to the consumer," said Ravi Sakaria, VoicePulse's President & CEO. "The ruling is an important first step towards defining a new framework to support and encourage the growth of the industry while benefiting and protecting the consumer." VoicePulse allows consumers to use their existing cable or DSL Internet connection for phone service. The service includes traditional features such as Caller ID, Call Waiting, Call Forward and Voicemail as well as a host of advanced features such as Distinctive Ring, Call Filters, Telemarketer Block and Anonymous Call Block. Consumers need only a high-speed Internet connection and an ordinary touch-tone telephone to use the service. VoicePulse uses Voice-over-IP technology to deliver broadband phone service. VoicePulse's services include: * Unlimited local, regional and US long distance calling for $24.99 per month * Unlimited local, regional and 200 US long distance minutes for $14.99 per month * Advanced features including Voicemail, Telemarketer Blocking, Do Not Disturb, Anonymous Call Rejection, Distinctive Ring * Voicemail with optional e-mail delivery of messages as sound attachments * Choose your own area code * Low international calling rates * http://www.voicepulse.com/ About VoicePulse VoicePulse is a New Jersey based communications company that uses its VoIP network to deliver advanced features and high-quality phone service to residential and small-business consumers. The company leads the industry in delivering innovative features and excellent customer service. For more information about VoicePulse, please visit http://www.voicepulse.com. VoicePulse is a trademark of VoicePulse Inc. For more information about VoicePulse, please contact: Rima Vaghasiya 732-339-5100 rima@voicepulse.com SOURCE VoicePulse ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:29:47 -0500 Subject: Ohio Consumers' Counsel Reacts to FCC's Decision on Jack Decker Comment: As you read this and similar statements by "consumer groups", bear in mind that some of these organizations stand to lose a lot of their influence, and perhaps their entire reason for existence, if wireline telephony goes away. You will know which ones are possibly thinking of their own job security first, and what is best for consumers second, if all they can do is knock today's FCC decision.] http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2004/0002399895&EDATE= Ohio Consumers' Counsel Reacts to FCC's Decision on Internet-Based Telephone Services http//www.pickocc.org COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision that limits the authority of individual states over Internet-based telephone services (called Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP). The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC) believes that it is important that states have the ability to enact consumer protections and safeguards for this fast-growing technology. The following statement can be attributed to Janine Migden-Ostrander, Consumers' Counsel: "With traditional local telephone competition in jeopardy, the last thing consumers need is for their new choices to lack any safeguards. While there is still uncertainty about how much of a role states will ultimately be able to play, the FCC took away any authority for them to require VoIP companies to provide customers with 9-1-1 emergency services. When it comes to consumer protections and public safety issues, states should be in the driver's seat and need to act." About the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (OCC), the residential utility advocate, represents the interests of 4.5 million households in proceedings before state and federal regulators and in the courts. The state agency also educates consumers about electric, natural gas, telephone and water issues and resolves complaints from individuals. To receive utility information, brochures, schedule a presentation or file a utility complaint, residential consumers may call 1-877-PICKOCC (1-877-742-5622) toll free in Ohio or visit the OCC website at http//www.pickocc.org . SOURCE Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel Web Site: http//www.pickocc.org ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:31:43 -0500 Subject: Global Crossing Statement on FCC Action http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2004/0002399891&EDATE= http://www.globalcrossing.com FLORHAM PARK, N.J., Nov. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Global Crossing (Nasdaq: GLBC) issued the following statement, which should be attributed to John Legere, CEO, on the Federal Communications Commission's declaratory ruling today. "We are pleased that the FCC is continuing its efforts to regulate VoIP services with a 'light touch.' We believe this approach will foster continued innovation and investment in IP networks and services. "The ever-quickening acceleration of technological change in the telecommunications industry demands a regulatory process that is swift, efficient and final." As the industry evolves towards an IP environment, Global Crossing recommends its REFORM agenda to begin adapting today's regulatory tools to tomorrow's regulatory challenges. Global Crossing's REFORM agenda is comprised of six pillars: * Rationalizing inter-carrier compensation. * Establishing a swift and efficient dispute resolution forum. * Formulating clear and simple rules and regulations. * Overhauling universal service. * Redefining public interest obligations. * Maintaining authority over essential bottleneck facilities The company believes that the few simple rules and safeguards outlined by REFORM will provide for a largely deregulated environment that will benefit both consumers and the telecommunications industry as a whole. ABOUT GLOBAL CROSSING Global Crossing (Nasdaq: GLBC) provides telecommunications solutions over the world's first integrated global IP-based network. Its core network connects more than 300 cities and 30 countries worldwide, and delivers services to more than 500 major cities, 50 countries and 6 continents around the globe. The company's global sales and support model matches the network footprint and, like the network, delivers a consistent customer experience worldwide. Global Crossing IP services are global in scale, linking the world's enterprises, governments and carriers with customers, employees and partners worldwide in a secure environment that is ideally suited for IP-based business applications, allowing e-commerce to thrive. The company offers a full range of managed data and voice products including Global Crossing IP VPN Service, Global Crossing Managed Services and Global Crossing VoIP services, to more than 40 percent of the Fortune 500, as well as 700 carriers, mobile operators and ISPs. Please visit http://www.globalcrossing.com for more information about Global Crossing. CONTACT GLOBAL CROSSING: Press Contact Becky Yeamans + 1 973-937-0155 PR@globalcrossing.com Analysts/Investors Contact Laurinda Pang + 1 800-836-0342 glbc@globalcrossing.com SOURCE Global Crossing Web Site: http://www.globalcrossing.com ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:35:13 -0500 Subject: FCC Declares Vonage(R) VoIP Service Is Interstate, Preempts http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2004/0002399599&EDATE= FCC Declares Vonage(R) VoIP Service Is Interstate, Preempts States From Regulating VoIP http://www.vonage.com Vonage CEO Jeffrey A. Citron Says Increased Clarity in the Broadband Telephone Marketplace Means Subscribers Will Enjoy More Innovation, Greater Savings WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found that Vonage's Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone service is "interstate" in nature, meaning that individual states cannot regulate Vonage as it would a traditional telephone company, nor regulate the rates, terms and conditions of Vonage's service. Vonage CEO Jeffrey A. Citron responded to the news. "This forward-thinking decision from the FCC assures that competition from VoIP is here to stay. Now we can focus our resources exclusively on building an even better service- rolling out E-911 for all our subscribers, innovating new features and new devices for VoIP, and expanding aggressively around the globe. Because the FCC has acknowledged the reality of the Internet-which knows no state boundaries and no borders-more people will enjoy the benefits of Internet phone service." "Clarity for the VoIP industry benefits not only the U.S. economy, but will also drive broadband penetration. The value proposition is clear-our customers pay less for the combination of high-speed Internet and Vonage phone service than they do for traditional phone service plus clunky dial-up Internet. It's an upgrade that saves consumers money, simplifies their lives and gives them features they can't get from traditional phone service. The FCC has ensured that more consumers will enjoy the benefits of this upgrade by providing clarity in the marketplace," added Citron. The vote was 3 in favor, with 2 concurring votes, leading to a unanimous declaration that that Vonage's form of IP-to-PSTN communications is an interstate service, asserting their sole jurisdiction over its Internet-based service. The ruling is the third in a series of IP-enabled services petitions, which establish the role of the FCC in the regulation of the changing telecommunications landscape. The order is expected to be issued in two to three weeks. Please visit http://www.fcc.gov for more information about this landmark ruling. About Vonage(R) Vonage is redefining communications by offering consumers and small businesses an affordable alternative to traditional telephone service. The fastest growing telephony company in North America, Vonage is sold directly through http://www.vonage.com and retail partners such as Amazon.com, RadioShack, Best Buy, Circuit City, Staples, Fry's Electronics and Office Depot. With more than 300,000 lines in service, over 5 million calls per week are made using Vonage, the easy-to-use, feature-rich, flat rate phone service. Vonage is headquartered in Edison, New Jersey. For more information about Vonage's products and services, please visit http://www.vonage.com or call 1-VONAGE-HELP. SOURCE Vonage Web Site: http://www.vonage.com ------------------------------ From: 73553 Subject: Panasonic KX-TD 500, Please Help Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:11:46 GMT Hi, Does anyone know how to change the ring type for incoming trunk lines on a kx-td500 phone system. My company HATES the default ring and I do not see where to change it. Thanks ------------------------------ From: meshko@gmail.com (MK) Subject: Establishing Local Access Numbers in US Date: 9 Nov 2004 20:41:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, How do comapnies like ISPs roll out hundreds of local access numbers all over the country? Do they really have local points of presence all over the US? I talked to our phone company but they claim that the only option is to do call forwarding but that sounds very, very expensive. What is the right way of doing this? TIA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:00:36 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Beheaded Trolls, etc In a message in issue 537, palee@riteaid.com on Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:51:44 -0500 responded to Editor Re: Who Sends This Around? >> In TELECOM Digest V23 #536, our Esteemed Editor wrote (in part): >> Anyone else know anything about this guy? palee responded: > All you need to know about this guy can be found at > http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm I noted in response to palee: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've a hard time accepting that fellow > (at AOL) definition of 'trolling' or even if it is a valid thing. It > seems to me that what many people call 'trolling' is nothing more > than their explanation of why something they personally disagree with > should not appear on the net. I've been called a 'troll' a few times > and all I can say is that some of us speak and write the way we do > because it is our personality. Some of us (most of us, I would hope!) > write and express ourselves from our personal experiences, the fact > that sometimes what we have to say offends the virgin ears, eyes and > brains of some readers is an unfortunate by-product of that. The fact > that some people are offensive in this way should not mean we should > always dismiss them as a 'troll' rather than read what they have to > say (or not). I am still curious to know if anyone has ever met this > person or has some idea of his background, etc, other than just > dismissing him as a 'troll'. PAT] and Charles Cryderman responded in the same issue (537): > Pat, > First off, the way things are going, please remove my return > e-mailaddress. > Now on to my remarks. This guy is just plan nuts. I went and did a > google on this and found his entire rant. Near the beginning he > states: > "PERVERTED FBI agents RAPED, TORTURED, SEXUALLY ABUSED ME for THREE > YEARS and BEHEADED ME which is 10000 times worse than the SEXUAL ABUSE > of prisoners by Lyndie England." > Now I am no doctor or an expert on how the mind works but for some > reason I have a hard time believing anything this joker had to > say. This is because of this one paragraph. How many people do you > know that can live to tell about themselves being "beheaded" Not many > is my guess. Well to tell the truth, none. > Chip Cryderman Now my problem today is this: that phrase "and BEHEADED ME" did *not* appear in the original text sent by what palee referred to as the 'troll'. The _original text_ as seen in mid-October and early November versions of the message (and Google has a million copies of it on line in their archives, it would seem) read like this " ...ABUSED ME for THREE YEARS, which is 10000 tunes worse than the ..." The first instance I found of the altered version of the message to include ... and BEHEADED ME ... was November 6, in a message posted to alt.hackers from 'eworly@vanadoo.fr' which altered the original message posted by this user when they were known as 'vicky' on the net and became 'keith'. In an update to the original diatribe posted that day or earlier by 'keith' he explained why he changed his email name from 'vicky' to 'keith'. It was because, he alleged, the FBI had forced one or two ISPs to cancel his email password to 'get even with him'. That copy of the updated (but still same old message) I saw at the end of October did not have the 'beheaded me' comment in it. The first reference I saw to 'beheaded' was in a reply/rebuttal added to the thread in alt. hackers by eworly@vanadoo.fr where it had been clevery edited in to the original sentence by *someone*, and eworly@vanadoo.fr was the first person I could find who used that altered phrase in quoting the message. What you wish to make of the message (he is/is not a troll) (he is/ is not a crazy person) is everyone's own judgement call. But, if you will pardon me, it is just too damn bad when a person goes and sits in the filthy, stinky toilet stall called "Usenet", and not content with what someone else has scribbled on the wall has to cleverly edit it to make it appear ridiculous, as it it were not ridiculous on its own merit, prior to alteration. So if you wish to go read the message again, please ignore that 'and BEHEADED ME' addition, which the original author did *not* include. PAT ------------------------------ From: John P. Dearing Subject: Re: Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Explanation Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:24:11 GMT Adam Harbour wrote: > Hi, > I switched from Verizon to Ztel local service last year and in the > process lost my caller id service. I am the only person in my street > that does not have it but ZTel told me that it is not available in my > area. Here is the explanation from the ZTel engineer. Can somebody > read and understand it and tell me if it is BS or true and what I > would have to do to get caller id service back. I really need it for > both my business and home use. > ----------------------- > "Attempt to add any form of caller id to this ani not available ; > spoke to repair/ not in switch, not on service order that migrated > them to ztel/ spoke to business office and verified that no form of > caller id is available in this switch/ npa nxx/ spoke to customer to > try to explain there are only a certain # of cid spots in each switch > and per Verizon this is no longer available in this switch/ cannot add > cid closing ticket - have called and advised customer. " I'm wondering if Ztel is a "reseller" that is simply just repackaging Verizon dialtone and is then selling that to you at a discount. There are several ways for CLECs to provide service. One is to lease the "loop" from the ILEC (Verizon) and put *their* dialtone from *their* switch and then port your number over to their switch. This is an unbundled loop. Another way for the CLEC (ZTel) to enter into a relationship with the ILEC (Verizon) to unbundle the entire service (VZ switch, services, and loop) and resell that to you. I believe this is called UNE-P (Unbundled Network Element -- Platform). There are things that can and can't be done with UNE-P. It may be that Caller-ID is considered by Verizon to be an advanced feature and isn't offered to the CLEC to be resold. Same thing with Verizon VoiceMail and DSL. You have to be a Verizon customer first to qualify for the "value added" features. Go back to ZTel and ask them precisely *how* your service is being provided. If they can't/won't help you, you can always go back to Verizon. John P. Dearing A+, Network+ To reply: Just drop "YOURPANTS" in my address! 8-) ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: Lost Caller ID Switching Local Service - Need Explanation Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:25:37 -0500 Adam Harbour wrote: > Hi, > I switched from Verizon to Ztel local service last year and in the > process lost my caller id service. I am the only person in my street > that does not have it but ZTel told me that it is not available in my > area. Here is the explanation from the ZTel engineer. Can somebody > read and understand it and tell me if it is BS or true and what I > would have to do to get caller id service back. I really need it for > both my business and home use. [SNIP] > "Attempt to add any form of caller id to this ani not available ; > spoke to repair/ not in switch, not on service order that migrated > them to ztel/ spoke to business office and verified that no form of > caller id is available in this switch/ npa nxx/ spoke to customer to > try to explain there are only a certain # of cid spots in each switch > and per Verizon this is no longer available in this switch/ cannot add > cid closing ticket - have called and advised customer. " Adam, The comments the tech provided are very sketchy and even contradictory. But it would would appears the the tech is trying to claim the that when you switched to Ztel, your number was moved to a different central office swtich (and he is very likely correct) and that switch that your number has been moved to is not fully SS7 compliant, and is not capable of caller ID. In layman's terms, Ztel probably cheaped out and is using bargain-basement, substandard equipment in your area, that can't handle caller ID functions. I find that explanation a little hard to believe, but it is possible. You mention everyone else in your neighborhood has caller ID. Have they too switched to Ztel, or are they still with Verizon? If still with Verizon, then the explanation you've been given is likely. If you DO have neighbors with Ztel and they do have Caller ID, then it's possible this tech doens't know what he's doing. In any case, if CID is important to you, I'd dump Ztel. If you really don't want to be with Verizon, there are plenty of VoIP providers where you can port your number to (Vonage, Packet8, Lingo, and possibly your local cable company) that do in fact provide CID services. You might get better rates, too. E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Long Distance Service in California Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:42:21 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On 8 Nov 2004 11:42:44 -0800, becky210@hotmail.com (becky) wrote: > I just disconnected from SBC long distance. What other long distance > service is available? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So much is available, we could not > begin to list it all. Have you considered VOIP service which is > about as inexpensive as you can get these days, depending on your > volume of usage, etc. There are *much better* deals out there than > SBC for sure. Maybe someone will write you with some suggestions. > PAT] For regular LD providers I've always had good luck with http://abtolls.com who compare the different LD providers and actually give you the "real" rate vs. the advertised rates including USF and other fees (such as monthly fees.) You should be able to find at least one or two providers that you can get service from for as low as 3 cents per minute with no monthly fees. Watch out for monthly fees! ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: William Van Hefner Subject: Re: Any News on the Feds v. Norvergence? Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:56:36 -0800 Organization: Vantek Communications, Inc. Satchel, There is a press release that the Federal Trade Commission just issued regarding the Norvergence case at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/11/norvergence.htm . A copy of the actual filing of FTC vs. Norvergence is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423184/041104norvergecmplt.pdf . I found it rather amazing that at least one company agreed to pay as much as $340,000 for the Norvergence "Black Box". Exactly why a company would sign such a huge deal without at least showing it to their lawyer (who should have suspected fraud from the get-go) is beyond me. The complaint itself mainly seeks injunctive relief, in order to release former Norvergence customers from their "Matrix Box" leases. They have a pretty solid case for that, I believe. Unfortunately, the FTC did NOT seek any temporary injunctive relief, which means that any company that does not make lease payments until the case is settled is still technically liable, and can be sued by the banks holding the leases. Thus, it is quite possible that during the interval period, those who are contractually bound to make payments may very well be sued by these lease holders, lose, and have such lawsuits upheld by freezing a company's assets, taking cash out of their bank accounts, etc. Needless to say, this was a major "oversight" by the FTC. Those who live in a handful of states (Florida, Texas, New Jersey) are in luck though. Each of those state's Attorney Generals have launched suits against the leasing companies, and residents who hold contracts in those states are not required to make lease payments, pending the outcome of their investigation. Other states like New York, Illinois and Colorado have also launched their own investigations, but have not provided their state's consumers with any temporary injunctive relief. The FTC complaint also seeks restitution of legal fees for Norvergence customers, fines, penalties, and barring Norvergence from offering leases again in the future. There is just one problem though. THERE IS NO NORVERGENCE!!! The company was dissolved under Chapter 7 Bankruptcy law. Other than the leasing companies, there is no one left to sue. Norvergence has no one to represent them, because they no longer exist. Period. Any consumer who is hoping to get any type of compensation or restitution in this matter is basically SOL, insofar as the law goes. At best, they may be able to get out of the rest of their lease payments. The law does not provide for restitution from a corporation that no longer exists. The only way such a thing could be done is if a complaining party can prove that the officers and shareholders of the company intentionally set out to defraud them criminally. In that case, consumers could go directly after the corporate officers and shareholders of Norvergence. This is commonly known as "piercing the corporate veil". In this particular action, no entity that I am aware of has targeted the officers or shareholders for personal liability or criminal prosecution though. It is very rare for any entity or government agency to be able to be able to prove criminal intent in cases such as these, so most don't even try. It would probably bust the budget of most states or even the FTC itself to hire enough lawyers to be able to build a winnable case of this kind. Even if they did, the officers and shareholders of Norvergence likely have their money packed away in Swiss bank accounts by now, so any award would likely be meaningless to consumers. The moral of this story is, don't depend on the government to bail you out of a bad business deal, no matter how screwed up it is. Once they have your money, it is likely gone for good. Do your due diligence on matters of such importance. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in matters such as these. William Van Hefner Editor - http://www.thedigest.com > From: dor@writeme.com (Satchel Paige) > Subject: Re: Any News on the Feds v. Norvergence? > Date: 8 Nov 2004 21:34:47 -0800 > Organization: http://groups.google.com > What kind of recourse do I have? I originally reported Norvergence > to the FTC in September of 2003. I then posted Norvergence's fraud > here to warn everyone about them and to ask everyone to report > Norvergence to the FTC as well. Norvergence sued me. And because I > could not afford to travel from California to New Jersey, let alone to > hire a New Jersey attorney, a default judgement was passed against > me. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good question. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. Van Hefner, with no more Norvergence, who is there now to enforce any judgment obtained against Satchel Paige? Or is the judgment entered against him now technically at least the property the Bankruptcy Trustee as one of the 'assets' due the creditors of Norvergence, i.e. miscellaneous recievables due Norvergence. My other question is, consider the poor business people who paid out good money to the finance companies. If, as we suspect, the leases are all overturned by the court, then cannot the victims of the fraud (the business people) turn on the finance companies and banks and sue them for the return of what they *did* pay? In other words, the banks and finance companies get it twice: once from (no more) Norvergence and once from 'debtors' suing them to get back what they paid in on their leases. I really hope the banks and finance companies get the screws turned on them so badly; you know at least some of them had to be in on the scam along with Norvergence. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Frank D. Reynolds Subject: I Have VoIP2 and Experience Flawless Service Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:26:31 -0500 I have read the negative comments by some people about the thresholds of VoIP2's "Small World" plan, and I disagree with their comments. I have had VoIP2's service from the companies inception, I have never had a problem with their service or billing. I call various parts of the world on a daily basis, and use a substantial amount of time on the phone. If I have not had a problem, why have others? Remember, there are always two sides to every story. ------------------------------ 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 #539 ******************************