From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 10 13:34:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAAIYoX01445; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:34:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:34:51 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411101834.iAAIYoX01445@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 #540 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:34:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 540 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Takes on Oversight of Internet Phone Services (Lisa Minter) FCC Limits State Oversight Of Internet Phone Calling (Lisa Minter) FCC Rules in Favor of Net Phone Industry (Monty Solomon) EchoStar Grosses $102M in 3Q Earnings (Monty Solomon) Re: "We're From the Government"; NSA Recs on Securing Mac (Justin Time) Re: Global Crossing Statement on FCC Action (Henry Cabot Henhouse III) Re: Establishing Local Access Numbers in US (Scott Dorsey) Re: Establishing Local Access Numbers in US (Stanley Cline) Re: SBC Dial-up Internet Modem Speed 28.8 Kbps (Kay Archer) Re: Any News on the Feds v. Norvergence? (Lisa Hancock) Re: I Have VoIP2 and Experience Flawless Service (Rick Merrill) Ownership of Anti-Spam Measure Queried at Talks (Lisa Minter) 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: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:30:20 Subject: FCC Limits State Oversight Of Internet Phone Calling http://www.investors.com/editorial/feature.asp?v=11/10 BY REINHARDT KRAUSE INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY The Federal Communications Commission Tuesday exempted Internet calling services from most state regulation, in a ruling sought by startup Vonage Holdings but also welcomed by big phone and cable TV companies. If the FCC ruling withstands expected court challenges, states will not regulate voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, the way they do traditional dial-tone phone calls. In a filing, Vonage had asked to be shielded from state regulation because VoIP calls are an interstate service. States typically certify phone companies, regulate rates and tax services. While the FCC curtailed the role of states, providers of VoIP services may not avoid some traditional telecom charges and regulations in the long run. That's because the FCC itself and Congress intend to address many key regulatory questions. The issues include whether VoIP service providers must pay fees that subsidize phone services in rural areas or pay "access charges." Those are fees that phone companies collect to connect calls. Despite these lingering questions, some lawmakers hailed the FCC's decision Tuesday. Full story at: http://www.investors.com/editorial/feature.asp?v=11/10 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:35:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Rules in Favor of Net Phone Industry By JENNIFER C. KERR Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators gave a boost Tuesday to the fledgling Internet phone industry, removing a regulatory hurdle that threatened to drive up the cost of making calls through cyberspace. The Federal Communications Commission voted 5-0 for a petition by Vonage Holdings Corp. of Edison, N.J., which had asked the agency to declare the company's product an interstate service, giving the FCC regulatory control. The move exempts Vonage and similar providers of Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, from some key state-by-state regulation that the companies say would add cost. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=44885446 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:39:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar Grosses $102M in 3Q Earnings By SANDY SHORE AP Business Writer ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (AP) -- EchoStar Communications Corp. on Tuesday reported its third-quarter earnings nearly tripled as the parent company of Dish Network, the nation's second largest satellite TV service, added about 350,000 new subscribers. The company also said it would pay a one-time dividend of $1 a share, or a total of $455 million, next month. Based in suburban Englewood, EchoStar said its net income was $102 million, or 22 cents per share, for the quarter ended Sept. 30. That was up from $35 million, or 7 cents per share, during the same period in 2003. Analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call expected EchoStar to earn 23 cents per share. Revenue totaled $1.86 billion, a 28 percent increase over $1.45 billion during last year's third quarter. EchoStar said it had approximately 10.5 million subscribers at the end of the quarter, but reported its churn rate, reflecting the number of subscribers who dropped service, rose to 1.77 percent from 1.72 percent in the previous quarter. In addition, EchoStar said its average subscriber acquisition cost was $421 per subscriber, down from $466 in the third quarter of 2003. EchoStar attributed the drop partially to equipment costs. With more subscribers leasing equipment, the company said it can recover those boxes and reuse them when customers drop the service. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=44878006 ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: "We're From the Government..."; NSA Recs on Securing Mac OS X Date: 10 Nov 2004 05:32:33 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com jdj wrote in message news:: > On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 06:57:38 -0800, Justin Time wrote: >> Danny Burstein wrote in message: > [snip] >>> Yes, that NSA: >>> Title: >>> How to Securely Install and Use Apple Computer Inc.'s Mac OS X >>> Version 10.3.x Operating System (Panther) > [snip] >> But it took them at least 30 more pages to make guesses about that >> other common proprietary operating system -- the one from Redmond Wa. >> with the longest running beta test in history. > Beta????? > I thought it was still in pre-alpha. It's still very unstable. > =-= Nope. Windows is the longest running Beta test in history. Been going on for over 10 years now and they are still trying to stabilize version 1.0 Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: Henry Cabot Henhouse III Subject: Re: Global Crossing Statement on FCC Action Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:07:54 -0800 We have Global Crossing internet T1's at 3 of our buildings ... perhaps this is why all 3 have lagged and gone to crap in the past month ... I mean, come on, ping times to yahoo and 4.2.2.2 at 3 am with *no* traffic from us hitting 90 to 300 ms? Lisa Minter wrote in message news:telecom23.539.4@telecom-digest.org: 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: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Establishing Local Access Numbers in US Date: 10 Nov 2004 09:43:31 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) In article , MK wrote: > 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? Some of them really do have local POPs all over the country. AOL certainly does. Sometimes they will get lines extended out of area in more rural locations, to get a single POP to handle a larger location. When Netcom still existed, they had a closet in the back of our local library where their POP hardware resided. They also had them throughout Europe and it was very nice to be able to go travelling and call into the Netcom shell machines with a local number in London. Most smaller ISPs don't have the infrastructure to support this kind of thing, and so they contract with a POP provider like MegaPOP, that supplies POP service to a lot of different ISPs. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Establishing Local Access Numbers in US Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:10:14 -0500 Organization: Roamer1 Communications Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On 9 Nov 2004 20:41:11 -0800, meshko@gmail.com (MK) wrote: > 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 Few ISPs own their own modems in every market they serve, and many, including some of the biggest ones, own no modems at all; ISPs usually buy access to modems on a wholesale basis from a handful of companies that specialize in that product -- most notably MCI/UUNet and Level 3. These companies generally have a single physical POP per region (three to five states for the larger companies, maybe two to three per state for some of the smaller regional ones, like Pac-West and O1 in California) and either a) backhaul PRIs from various cities and towns to their POP (most common with MCI/UUNet), or b) are a CLEC and order access trunks from their POP to tandems and end offices in the areas where they have numbers. If you're trying to get local numbers in a range of cities, most CLECs offer "superPOP" or "wide area" services that will provide you with numbers in multiple local calling areas that come in on the same PRIs or T1s. If you only need a few numbers (say, for your home or a small office) and expect relatively low call volume, nearly any VoIP provider can provide you numbers, thanks to the fact that the companies that provide numbers and modems to ISPs and numbers to VoIP providers tend to be one and the same. :) There's generally no reason to resort to remote call forwarding unless you're trying to get local numbers in an area served by a small independent ILEC that CLECs can't touch. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Kay Archer Subject: Re: SBC Dial-up Internet Modem Speed Only 28.8 Kbps in Westland, MI Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:10:22 -0600 N Joltt wrote in message news:telecom23.537.8@telecom-digest.org: > Dial-up speed 28.8 Kbps is the abosulate maximum. Most of times it is > just 26.4, sometimes 14.4 or even lower. So if you want to rent an > apartment in Westland, Michiagn, just be aware of this fact. SBC would > not do anything about it, because the voice bandwidth up to 3K is all > they care about. As long as they meet the voice line quality, any more > improvement for other purposes (such as dial-up Internet access) is > deemed unnecessary. And due to (or because of) that, they're > aggressively promoting DSL in my area. What an irony. This is going to be true of _any_ telephone service. As long as your faxes (14.4kbps) are not garbled they will not work on your phone lines. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think most people prefer cable internet > service over DSL. Is SBC saying a service provided by their company, > (SBC/Yahoo Internet) is 'unnecessary' ? If you go with cable internet, > then you can probably drop SBC entirely if you wish, and go with one > of the CLECs in your area. That's what I did over a year ago, it has > worked out quite well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Any News on the Feds v. Norvergence? Date: 10 Nov 2004 07:03:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com dor@writeme.com (Satchel Paige) wrote: > 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. You probably need a lawyer. Did they attempt to execute the judgment and did you have to pay them money? If so, I don't think you'd be able to get that money back. If they did _not_ execute the judgement you're probably ok, but you would still need to consult a lawyer about it. Possibly you may need to file a counter claim 'for the record' to protect yourself but again a lawyer has to advise you. As an individual, you have the right to file criminal charges against the principals of the corporation. But as others mentioned, this isn't easy. Again, a lawyer would have to advise. William Van Hefner wrote > 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. Merely filing for bankruptcy does not grant bankruptcy. Has that relief and authorization to liquidate been granted? Normally, the creditors would get their say in court as to dissolution of the assets. > ... 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. I'm surprised "most don't even try" to go after officers of a corporation with suspicious activities. I agree it wouldn't be an easy task, but not doing so would leave the door open for whitespread white collar fraud: open a business, take everyone's money and hide it, then declare bankruptcy. It seems a reasonable question to ask what happened to all the money the leasing companies paid to N/V for which nothing was returned. It seems reasonable that the officers of the corporation be called in with their financial records -- including salary and capital withdrawals --to explain the cashflow of the business and to answer questions and provide documentation if an expenditure seems questionable. > 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. It would take some effort, but I don't think a budget busting effort. The prosecution of Enron and Arthur Andersen officers is going slowly, but it is going on and people have been sent to prison. Perhaps a combined effort of the leasing companies and the government might work. > 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. Prison terms have a way of opening up such bank accounts. > 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. True. BTW, in one newspaper report, a leasing company representative claimed they weren't responsible for what the customer bought with the lease money, anymore than if a wall caved in a house that was mortgaged. But that's not quite true. When you buy a house with a mortgage, the mortgage company does go out and perform an appraisal and inspection. Sometimes the mortgage application is rejected because the appraised value is too low or there are significant repairs required. In other words, the mortgage companies won't loan you $200,000 to buy a $100,000 house. ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: I Have VoIP2 and Experience Flawless Service Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:33:38 GMT Frank D. Reynolds wrote: > 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. Do they bill you a month in advance and direct to your credit card? > 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. ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Ownership of Anti-Spam Measure Queried at Talks Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:07:40 EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Internet companies have begun to change the way e-mail works in order to weed out spam, but experts on Tuesday clashed over whether the underlying technology should be controlled by any one company. At a meeting hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, advocates of open-source technology questioned whether a standard patented by Microsoft Corp. should be incorporated into the fabric of the Internet, where free, open-source software has long dominated. Others said they didn't care which standard was adopted as long as it provided a way to highlight legitimate e-mail in a sea of spam, estimated by Microsoft to be 80-85 percent of total email traffic. "We want to make sure our guys have the ability to communicate with their consumers, period," said Louis Mastria, spokesman for the Direct Marketing Association, which represents 5,000 bulk mailers. Senders of unsolicited spam and deceptive "phishing" attacks commonly use fake addresses to slip through content filters. Microsoft officials estimate that 81 percent of all mail coming into its Hotmail system is "spoofed" in this way. Microsoft and companies like Cisco Systems Inc. have developed different methods to verify e-mail to determine that a message from, for example, joe@example.com actually comes from example.com's mail servers. E-mail providers like Time Warner Inc. have begun to test Microsoft's standard, which is invisible to everyday users. Yahoo and Cisco's approaches are more technically demanding and will take longer to implement. Microsoft has sought to combine its proposal with another popular standard developed by entrepreneur Meng Wong, but splits appeared in September when open-source advocates said they were reluctant to use Microsoft-patented technology, even though the dominant software company said it would not charge for its use. David Kaefer of Microsoft said the patent "sets up a legal framework for people to do business with one another, for people to not end up in a situation where they end up in legal disputes." But the Apache software used by most Web servers has flourished without patents, said Daniel Quinlan, vice president of Apache SpamAssassin. Harvard University's Scott Bradner said the legal language put forward by Microsoft clouded what should have been a technical discussion among engineers looking for a reliable standard. "The license was written in lawyer, it wasn't written in human," he said. Microsoft has since revised its standard and won the support of technology companies including Sendmail Inc., whose open-source software is widely used to run e-mail systems. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ 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 #540 ******************************