From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 14 02:21:43 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAE7LgH12778; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:21:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:21:43 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411140721.iAE7LgH12778@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 #545 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:20:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 545 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Use Comcast Cable Modem? Go to Jail! (Judy Sammel; Archives Reprint) Canada Not Trying to Kill Web Drugstores, PM Says (Lisa Minter) Livewire: Web Sites Help Ease Grind of Daily Commute (Lisa Minter) Seoul May Ban North Korea College Web Site (Lisa Minter) Re: Pennsylvania Victims Group (Robert Bonomi) Re: Update: Vonage Ring Problem (Tony P.) Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cell (Marcus Falco) What Walmart Knows About Customers (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:11:33 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Use Comcast Cable Modem? Go to Jail! Judy Sammels's Experience The other day here we were discussing the general incompetence of so many folks working in customer service/tech support functions for the cable companies. Someone wrote to say with cable modem (which I happen to have very good experience with) was not always a wonderful way to go. This reminded me of the experience of a lady named Judy Sammel, who wrote an essay which appeared in various sources during 1999-2000 about what happened to her, as a user of Comcast. We put it in the archives here, but have not used it since. You can read it as a feature story in the archives now (since the archives was remodeled a couple weeks ago) but here today is a text based version of her fascinating story; how she was falsely accused of 'fraud and theft of cable service'. If you are considering Comcast for your cable modem/high speed internet service, you will want to read this account. PAT ============================== Chapter 1: In Which I Learn About the Various Divisions of the District Court of the State of Maryland. Thursday, November 19, 1998: It's an ordinary day. I get home from work, picking up the mail as I walk toward my house. I notice that the return address on one of the letters is the District Court of the State of Maryland. As I walk up the front steps, I think, "I just did jury duty last year; they can't be asking me to serve again so soon, can they?" After I settle in at home, I open the letter and read, "You have been summoned to appear as a defendant in a trial...". My first thought is that someone is suing me for something, but then I see at the top of the page 'State of Maryland vs. Sammel, Judith Lynne', and realize that this isn't a person suing me. My second thought is that I've gotten a parking ticket that blew off of my windshield and has gone unpaid, or maybe a speeding ticket from the traffic cameras I've heard about. It's too late to call the Court to see what the case is about, so I have to wait until the next day. The next morning, I call the telephone number that's printed on the letter, and a recording says something like "press 1 for Civil Division, 2 for Traffic Division, 3 for Criminal Division, 4 for information about specific cases," etc. I choose the option for information about specific cases, and the person who answers the phone asks me to read her the case number. After I read it, I hear her say, "Just a minute. Let me transfer you to the Criminal Division." "Whaaaaaaaaat?" I ask, but it's too late. I'm on hold. Someone else picks up the phone, and again I read the case number and ask what the case is about. "Cable fraud, " she replies. Chapter 2: In Which Comcast Cablevision's Administrative Offices in Baltimore are Informed that "At Home" is More Than Just "A Place They'd Rather Be Than At The Office" Unfortunately, I think I know what the problem is. I had signed up for Comcast@home cable modem service last March, but had not signed up for cable TV service. (Last time I checked, this was legal. In fact, it is mentioned specifically as a service in the FAQ list on @home's web site.) But, when they came to install my @home service, they had neglected to install the filter (they call it a video trap) to filter out the video signal; from reaching my home. (I live in a townhouse community, and there is a "pedestal" containing cable connections for several houses -- this is a few houses away from mine.)  The installers had told me that they would return to install the video trap, and that I could enjoy cable TV service until they came back to do so -- they said I should consider it an incentive to sign up for the service. Well, they never came back to install the video trap. Then, in early June, my @home service stopped working. I made several calls to Comcast Cablevision and Comcast@home customer service. Each claimed that it was the responsibility of the other to determine what the problem was, and fix it. During my conversations with Comcast Cablevision and Comcast@home, I told them both that nobody had come back to install the video trap. Finally, Comcast@home agreed to come out and see what the problem was. I told them that they should bring a video trap with them when they came to repair the service. Because of their schedule and my vacation schedule, they didn't come out to repair the service until late June. The repair technician, when he arrived, said that the reason that my @home service stopped working was that someone had disconnected the cable in the cable "pedestal" on my street. He said that it was likely that Comcast Cablevision personnel had done this, not realizing that I had Comcast@home service. When he'd reconnected my service, I asked him about the installation of the video trap. He said he hadn't brought one with him, but would take care of it later. Again, nobody came back to install the device. So, after I receive this letter from the District Court, I figure that Comcast Cablevision has been out to my neighborhood and has seen that I was connected up again (and again not realized that I had Comcast@home cable modem service.) I call the administrative offices of Comcast Cablevision here in Baltimore, and explain the situation. They say that they will have Comcast's attorneys call me to discuss it. I also make the suggestion that they come out and install a video trap on my line so that this won't happen again. They assure me they will send someone out that day to do it. I get home fairly late that evening and find that the video trap hasn't been installed. Since the Comcast administrative offices are closed by this time, I call @home customer service. I call at 10:30 PM and remain on hold until 11:15 PM, at which time a customer service representative takes the call. When I ask about getting a video trap placed on the line, his first response is that Comcast, not @home, should take care of that, and I should call Comcast customer service. I explain to him that, based on my prior experience with Comcast customer service, if I call them, the following situation will likely occur: the Comcast customer service representative will ask for my Comcast account number; I will reply that I have none, since I am only a Comcast@home customer, not a Comcast cable TV customer; the service representative will tell me they can't do anything for me, and I will have to call @home customer service. He then agrees to talk to his supervisor. He returns to the line to tell me that he will place a work order for a video trap to be placed on the line. Chapter 3: In Which I Wait Not-So-Patiently for Comcast's Attorney to Call, and for the Video Trap to be Installed Saturday, November 21, 1998: After I place two calls to their offices, Comcast's attorney who is assigned to my case returns my call to assure me that the criminal charges will be dropped. I mention that the video trap wasn't installed the previous day. Sunday, November 22, 1998: As of Sunday morning, neither Comcast nor @home has arrived to place a video trap on the line. I call Comcast customer service to ask about the status of this, and am initially told that since I am not a Comcast cable TV customer, I have to call @home to resolve any problems. I explain that the situation is related to criminal charges that Comcast has filed against me, and ask the account executive to try to find a way to assist me from her location. She asks for my name and address. I give it to her, and she comes back on the line after a few moments and says that the only name she has listed at that address is that of former occupants of my home (from1989-1992). I explain again that I am not a Comcast cable TV customer, but only a Comcast@home customer, so there would likely not be a record of my name, unless she has records of Comcast@home customers as well as Comcast cable TV customers. She again asks me to hold the line. When she returns, she says that she has checked into the situation with @home, and has found out that the video trap was not placed on the line because the part is out of stock. She says that when parts are shipped, they will send an installer out to put it in. She says that in the meantime, I cannot be held responsible for the signal coming into my home. Tuesday, November 24, 1998: Comcast's attorney leaves a message on my answering machine saying: "I withdrew ... did a request to withdraw those charging documents" . I will soon find out the hard way that the "withdrew ... did a request to withdraw" wording actually means something -- Comcast doesn't have the ability to get criminal charges dropped on their own, even though they're the ones who got the court to file them in the first place. Once the charges are "in the system", Comcast can only *request* that this be done. Chapter 4: In Which A Police Officer Serves Me With A Criminal Summons in Front of an Out-of-Town Houseguest on the Eve of Thanksgiving. Wednesday, November 25, 1998: A uniformed police officer drives up to my house in his police cruiser and delivers the summons to me; it shows 4 counts of cable fraud, with the possibility of 6 months in jail on each count.  I had always wondered why, when someone commits what appears to be a single crime, you hear things about being charged with "10 counts" of something-or-other. In my case, Comcast's visit in June (when they cut off my service) was 2 counts -- one for cable having been fraudulently hooked up, one for fraudulent receipt of service; and a subsequent visit they made in July, during which they saw that service had been reconnected, was again 2 counts. I try to tell the police officer what Comcast's attorney has told me to tell him -- that the charges are being dropped, and that he should call her to verify this -- but he could care less about this -- he just wants a signature on the papers and wants to leave. A friend of mine, who has driven up from Virginia to spend the holiday weekend with me, is sitting nearby in my kitchen watching this sorry event; it's a really humiliating experience. Anyway, by the end of the day, I find that the video trap has finally been installed on the line. Chapter 5: In Which I Come to the Conclusion that Lady Justice is Not Just Blindfolded, But Actually Blind Monday, November 30, 1998: I telephone the State's Attorney's office to see if they have received and processed Comcast's request to withdraw the charges. They tell me that it has been received, and that the State's Attorney's office has disapproved Comcast's request. They tell me that no reason for the disapproval was supplied. I begin to feel like a character in a Kafka novel. I call Comcast's administrative offices in Baltimore and tell them that the State's Attorney has denied the request to withdraw charges. "They can't do that!" the employee that I speak to exclaims. "Well, obviously they can, because ... they have," I reply. Chapter 6: In Which I Determine That an Excellent Way to Pique Someone's Curiosity is to Ask, "Do You Have any Recommendations for a Good Criminal Defense Attorney?" No chapter here, but it's too good of a title to pass up. Actually, I am told by some colleagues who are attorneys that even in a cut-and-dried case like this, I should expect to pay $750 or $1000 for an attorney if I need to mount a defense in court. Chapter 7: In Which I Find Out that the Attorney for Comcast Actually Does Have a Sense of Humor: I speak with the Comcast attorney about my call to State's Attorney's office. She says she was unaware that State's Attorney has denied the request to drop the charges, and that she will write another letter to ensure that the situation is taken care of. She also asks about whether the video trap has been installed and is working correctly. I tell her that everything is blocked except for 2 religious channels, 1 Spanish language channel, and the video portion of E! TV. She says something along the lines of, "I guess the signal of the Lord manages to find its way through somehow." Chapter 8: In Which I Learn That the Cable TV Franchising Authority is Willing to Handle Complaints About Cable TV Issues -- But Only Up To a Point. A friend of mine had suggested that I find out who the Franchising Authority for cable television in Baltimore County is, and that I ask them to assist in the getting the problem resolved. I find out that the Baltimore County Council is the local Franchising Authority. On November 30, I call the County Council's offices and speak to an employee who is assigned to handle cable television issues. I explain the situation; she says she will check into it. On December 1, I speak to her again, and she says she had gotten in touch with the Assistant to the VP at Comcast Cablevision of Baltimore, and he will call her back with information. On December 3, when I speak to her again, she says that the assistant to the VP had assured her that Comcast is working on the problem. She is satisfied with this answer, and encourages me to "call her back to let her know when the problem's been resolved". It's nice to know that the employees of our local elected officials are really concerned about taking such a proactive role in ensuring that the problems of constituents are handled effectively. Chapter 9: Boy, Do I Feel Like A Criminal Thursday, December 3, 1998: One of the other Comcast attorneys calls me to say that the only person at the State's Attorney's office who can take care of the situation is an Assistant State's Attorney who is the Chief of the District Court Division, and that he has been out of the office all week. The attorney gives me the phone number, and tells me I can try to reach him myself. I call the number a few times during the day, and am alternately told that he is out of the office, or that "you're not allowed to call the State's Attorney, you're a defendant!" I leave a message for him, but it is not returned. Also, around this time, I have a bizarre discussion with the Comcast attorney to try to find out why the State's Attorney disapproved the request to withdraw the charges. She explains that procedurally, they cannot withdraw the charges once the trial date has been set, and the summons has been served. She tells me that I should have "avoided being served". I never thought I'd ever get myself into a situation where I had to make a point of avoiding process servers. Anyway, it's true that the trial date had already been set (it was set on the same day Comcast applied for the Statement of Charges, November 17, 1998). But, the summons was not served to me until Wednesday, November 25. The State's Attorney disapproved the request for withdrawal of the charges on Tuesday, November 24, the day before I was served. So, either the State's Attorney's office doesn't know its own procedures, doesn't bother to follow them, or perhaps there's something more nefarious going on; I'm still not sure. Chapter 10: In Which I Get To Speak With Sandra O'Connor's Second-In-Command. Friday, December 4, 1998: No, not *that* Sandra O'Connor. Baltimore County has its own, local, Sandra O'Connor. She's the State's attorney (an elected official) and I've actually voted for her. I speak with her Deputy for Operations. Since he's responsible for the overseeing the District Court Division, he's the one that the Chief of the District Court Division reports to. I explain that Comcast said that the Chief of the District Court Division was the only one who could take care of the situation, but that he's been unavailable for several days.  I ask the Deputy for Operations if he can take care of the situation in his employee's absence. He tells me no -- that I should wait until his employee returns on the following Monday. He tells me that there is nothing in my file to show that Comcast has done anything related to the case since November 24, and that, if Comcast has promised to get the charges dismissed, I should be "on them" to take care of it. Chapter 11: In Which I Get to Sit and Stew About This for Another Weekend Because the Only Person on Earth Who Can Apparently Take Care of this Situation is Either in Training, on Vacation, or Simply Out of the Office, Depending Upon Whom You Talk To. December 5-6, 1998: My demeanor begins to degrade into "don't get mad, get even" mode. I do some research on what the elements of a case of malicious prosecution are. (And, of course, I can do all of my research over the Internet -- at cable modem speeds.) Paraphrasing one article that I read, the elements are: 1. The people that you sue for malicious prosecution have to be the one that got charges filed against you in the first place. 2. The case has to have been decided in your favor, in one way or another. 3. There has to have been a lack of probable cause. 4. There has to have been malice. 5. There have to be damages. Although "malice" in this situation might be hard to prove, one article published on the subject asserts that malice can be implied from a lack of probable cause, and from inadequate investigation and research. "Lack of probable cause" might also be difficult to prove here, but I believe that a good lawyer could argue that the fact that "cables have been connected and Comcast Cablevision was not the one who connected them" is no longer acceptable as probable cause, now that Comcast Cablevision has given @home (or its local affiliate, Comcast Online Communications) the authority to connect them. Chapter 12: Things Finally Start Falling Into Place December 7, 1998: I leave a voice mail message for the General Counsel at Comcast's Corporate Headquarters in Philadelphia telling him I'm unhappy with the way the situation is being handled, and that I'm considering filing a case in civil court for malicious prosecution. I receive a conciliatory call back from him, and also from one of the local Comcast attorneys telling me that the situation is being taken care of promptly. I finally get a call from the Chief of the District Court Division of the State's Attorney's office saying they will "nol pros" the case. It's great; I'm getting to learn some Latin while I'm at it. "Nol pros" is short for "nolle prosequi", which is Latin for "I will not prosecute." I can't believe it's taken over two weeks just to get a verbal agreement from the State's Attorney not to prosecute a case that everyone involved clearly agrees was based on a Comcast error. December 12, 1998: I receive a courtesy copy of a letter from the State's Attorney to the Judge, requesting that the trial date be moved up, and saying that they intend to nol pros. December 22, 1998: I call the District Court, and find out that the Judge has moved the trial date up to January 12, 1999, instead of the original date, which was in March 1999. Chapter 13: In Which I Get an Unsolicited Letter From a Local Criminal Defense Attorney. December 30, 1998: I come home from work to find another interesting letter in my mailbox; this time it's from a local criminal defense attorney. It reads, "Dear Ms. Sammel, When you are charged with a criminal offense, not only can your freedom and liberty be taken away, a criminal record can affect you the rest of your life." The attorney then proceeds to offer his services, and even provides me with a handy little reminder card with my trial date stamped on it. Great. I guess that since the court's records are considered public documents, anyone can come in and get copies of them. I'm afraid to think about what kinds of mailing lists I could end up on as a result of this. Will I start receiving notices asking me if I want to subscribe to *Prison Life* magazine? Chapter 14: In Which I Go to the Trial "Just In Case". Although I've been told by Comcast that I don't need to show up in court on the trial date, I've never received notice from the District Court about this. And, considering that the last paperwork I received from the court said "a warrant for your arrest may be issued" if you don't show up at your trial, I decide it would be best to show up anyway. January 12, 1999: Just when I'm starting to think that Comcast's motto has been morphed  into "Comcast -- Everything You Convict With", the court appearance is pretty uneventful. I show up at 8:30 along with about a dozen other people who are involved in other cases in the same courtroom that morning. According to the list outside the courtroom, it looks like there are a couple of theft cases and a couple of drug cases on the schedule. I'm actually starting to look forward to an interesting morning in court, hearing about all of this stuff, but the State's Attorney calls my case first. I start walking up to the Defendant's table, and hear the State's Attorney say that he's entering a nol pros. I've just reached the table when the judge says, "your case is dismissed, you're free to go," and so I turn back around and leave the courtroom. Chapter 15: In Which The Assembled Readership Gets To Find Out That I Never Got Sent To Jail, But Just Got Threatened With The Possibility Of It Sorry to disappoint those of you who were looking forward to hearing about that part. I gave the "malicious prosecution" scenario a thought, but I'm not really a lawsuit kind of person. Unless I find out that Comcast has been involved in a pattern of cases like these without regard to the consequences, I don't intend to follow up on filing a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Besides, if I want to get my criminal record expunged, it looks like I will need to sign a waiver absolving them of liability for this incident. I am hoping, however, that Comcast will reimburse me for the $30 fee involved in getting my record expunged. Epilogue: Although everyone I dealt with seemed apologetic, and willing to help get this fairly outrageous situation taken care of, I believe that there are still some problems that Comcast and @Home management need to address. For that reason, I decided to write to the Presidents of both companies, and ask them to respond to several issues. ================================ A copy of Ms. Sammel's letter to Comcast officials is on our web site http://telecom-digest.org and more details of this case. It all makes very fascinating reading. So if you are even thinking about signing up with Comcast for cable modem service, it might not hurt to think again after you read this entire report. PAT ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Canada Not Trying to Kill Web Drugstores, PM Says Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:20:03 EST VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Prime Minister Paul Martin denied on Friday that Canada was trying to drive Internet pharmacies out of business, despite Ottawa's recent complaints over drug sales to the United States. Martin also denied the warnings were linked to any effort to improve relations with President Bush, who has objected to U.S. states and cities attempting to use Canada as a source of less expensive medicines. "The two are entirely unrelated," Martin told reporters in Vancouver. Federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh warned in a speech at Harvard University on Wednesday that Canada cannot act as America's "drugstore." Web pharmacies sell about $600 million in prescription drugs to U.S. customers annually. Dosanjh also complained about prescription countersigning, in which Canadian doctors or third-party pharmacists sign off on prescriptions for U.S. patients they have not seen in person. The law requires a Canadian doctor approve prescriptions, and the Internet pharmacies complained Dosanjh will drive them out of business if he blocks doctors from approving mail-order requests. "Minister Dosanjh's comments were directed at the medical fraternity, and simply said to the medical fraternity these are your own rules," Martin said. Physician groups in several provinces prohibit the practice of countersigning, which can provide doctors with a lucrative source of income. Canadian prescription drug prices are capped at the average shelf price in major industrialized nations, and are usually less than in the United States where the prices are unregulated. *** 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 ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Livewire: Web Sites Help Ease Grind of Daily Commute Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:23:45 EST SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Internet not only is transforming the way we shop and search for information, but it also is quietly smoothing the grind of the daily commute. From the San Francisco area's 511.org, which helps connect lone drivers with the riders they need to use commuter lanes and avoid bridge tolls, to Houston's cyberlink to cameras that monitor traffic flow, commuters have a bevy of sites aimed at improving the hours that bookend the 9-to-5 workday. Besides finding out how to carpool as a way to avoid paying the $3 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge toll, users of 511.org (http://www.511.org) can access trip planners, transit schedules and information for bicyclists. A popular section (http://www.ridenow.org/carpool) lists pickup locations for "casual carpooling" -- an activity known as "slugging" in the Washington metropolitan area. This informal, but well- established system helps riders meet drivers in set locations so they can carpool to work. A variety of sites run by official transportation departments as well as online commentators (http://www.slug-lines.com/Slugging/Etiquette.asp) compile etiquette tips for casual carpoolers. As a general rule, line jumping is frowned upon; passengers should remain silent unless spoken to by the driver; and talk of religion, politics or sex is verboten. In the Washington Beltway, the Washington Area Bikers Association (http://www.waba.org/new/help/cap.php) helps pedaling commuters find their best route. Riders of the area's Metro trains recently tapped into the local transit authority's site (http://www.wmata.com) for alternate routes home when a crash disrupted rush-hour schedules. Commuters who want to free up their hands and eyes while filling travel time with literature or news turn to sites like http://www.audible.com/. Audible Inc., a former dot-com star resurrected with help from the technology behind popular digital music players like Apple's iPod, provides subscribers with downloads of "The DaVinci Code," The Wall Street Journal and other content. The Web also treats commuters to a bird's-eye view of traffic conditions -- thanks to sites connected to cameras installed by transportation departments around the United States. The Greater Houston Transportation and Emergency Management Center provides a real-time traffic map with color-coded trouble spots in addition to up-to-the-minute reports on weather, accidents and incidents, road closures and construction projects. The site http://www.houstontranstar.org is among the most sophisticated of its kind. Elsewhere, Metrocommute.com (http://www.metrocommute.com) provides real-time traffic, transit and weather reports for New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston and Hartford, Connecticut, via the Web, e-mail or text messages to mobile phones. And as with almost everything that happens in life, there are Web logs, or blogs, with cybercommentary devoted to the daily commute. Proponents of the car-free lifestyle tap into the Web log BikeForums (http://www.bikeforums.net) to share views with fellow cyclists. Across the pond, Webmaster Annie Mole operates "Going Underground" (http://london-underground.blogspot.com), a daily blog on the London Underground where posters ponder such mysteries as how seven stops and one change can be faster than two stops and one change. The site also features photos from the Tube -- as the subway system is also known. While the Internet cannot eliminate all the headaches of public transportation, it does provide a way to vent poetically, as shown in this Tube haiku favorite selected by Mole: Damn the Circle line Counting minutes ticking by. Killing life's lost time. I'm offered her seat but reject her kind insult. This journey's aged me. The train is filling, Why does your bag need a seat? I am getting stressed. ("LiveWire" is being discontinued. The last column will appear on Dec. 8.) *** 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 owners, in this instance Annie Mole, Livewire and Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Seoul May Ban North Korea College Web Site Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:26:36 EST SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea may ban access to a Web site of North Korea's Kim Il-sung University to stop the communist state's ideology from spreading among the South's Internet-savvy young, an official said on Friday. The move comes amid squabbles in South Korea's parliament over scrapping or revising the National Security Law that restricts contacts with the north. The issue has taken on a bitter ideological tone because North Korea has consistently demanded repeal of the act. "We have received an official request from police to ban access to the Web site and referred the case to an ethics committee," Chung Dae-soon, an Information Ministry official in charge of the case, said by telephone. "If the committee concludes it violates the security law, we would ban access soon," he added. The Korean-language Web site (www.ournation-school.com) offers distance learning and replaces 42 years of educational radio broadcasts, the JoongAng Daily newspaper reported. The site features animated pictures but is a far cry from jazzy South Korean sites and lists courses on the country's ideology and leaders. Kim Il-sung, the late North Korean leader, mixed Marxism and ultra-nationalism to form his country's go-it-alone Juche ideology. He founded the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in 1948 and ruled it unchallenged until his death in July 1994. In the first communist dynastic succession, his son Kim Jong-il inherited power from his father, who has been named "Eternal President." "The Web site is unilaterally cramming young netizens with Juche ideology which runs counter to public sentiment," said a police official who declined to be named. "We need to block access to resources of one-sided information or knowledge which ordinary people can obtain easily." Police had asked the government to block 31 North Korean-related Web sites, he added. The South's president, Roh Moo-hyun, wants to scrap or revise the security law, saying it is a relic of the country's 1970s and 1980s military dictatorships. But the conservative opposition argues the law is still needed because North Korea has never renounced its goal of overthrowing the South by force -- as Pyongyang tried to do when it invaded in 1950, sparking the three-year Korean War. South and North Korea are still technically at war since the conflict ended in armed truce without a peace treaty. *** 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 ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Victims Group From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:22:19 +0000 In article , the esteemed moderator pontificates: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. Sullivan, I thought the rulings of > a federal agency had the effect of law. You, sir, "don't know what you don't know." Enacted regulations of a Federal agency have the 'force of law', *only* when there is a statute that enumerates the area(s) for which the regulations of that agency have the force of law. The 'usual' case is that the law says that you must obey the regulations established by the agency in carrying out the duties assigned to it by that law, and that violation of those regulations is a violation of _that_ statute. Separately, there are 'administrative rulings', resulting from a 'trial equivalent', before an 'officer' of a federal agency. You're stuck with whatever they said in the ruling, *unless* you choose to appeal the ruling, into the regular court system. Now, the FTC, has _no_ *direct* enforcement powers whatsoever. Their _only_ recourse, where they believe their 'rules' have been violated, is to GO TO COURT, and _ask_ the court to order enforcement, or assess penalties. It is the *court* that makes the final determination whether a violation has _actually_ occurred, as well as what the 'appropriate' remedy is. Currently the 'backlog' in that court is running 15-18 months. > Or perhaps, fact that the FTC has filed this lawsuit will influence > the judge already hearing the matters at hand. PAT] Again, the court system *doesn't*work*that*way*. _Legally_, the filing doesn't mean anything other than the FTC _thinks_ it has a case. This is _not_ "proof" of wrongdoing that can be introduced in any _other_ proceeding. Any attempt to cite the FTC filing would be dismissed out-of-hand as 'hearsay'. Prior to the actual trial/ruling in the FTC suit, the _only_ way for their 'evidence' to influence any other Norvergence-related case would be for the FTC, themselves, to file an 'amicus curiae' (friend of the court) brief with the court hearing that other case -- setting out _their_ evidence of wrong-doing by the Norvergence-associated party. This is, unfortunately, =NOT= at all likely to happen. It would hurt the prosecution of FTC's own case, and they have a policy of -not- intervening in 'private' lawsuits. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I don't know about you, but if the FTC or FCC or other federal agency accused me of some wrong doing, I would consider it prudent to stop whatever I was doing. I would not be inclined to continue my activities for the 15-18 months or so it would take for the agency to get me into court. Maybe there is a rare case somewhere where a government agency loses a case, but it is quite rare. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Update: Vonage Ring Problem Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:51:56 -0500 In article , kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net says: > It appears the problem is solved. > I looked at Linksys's datasheet for the RT31P2 router and found you > could vary the ring voltage and frequency (60 to 90 vrms at 10 to 40Hz). > But Vonage locks that on the router. > Finally got a former switch tech when I called support who understood > what I was telling him in that the router is supposed to support 5REN on > the jack on the router. > I told him to crank the voltage to 90 vrms and sure enough -- the > Trimline, Princess and Celebrity all ring when they're plugged in > together. > He mentioned 90 vrms stressing the unit. I told him that if the unit > was stressed by 90 vrms which is telecom industry standard for ring > voltage, and further that the specs for the unit indicate it is > capable of, then the problem lay with their choice of router not the > settings. > So all is functional now. All I have left to do is the dial pulse to > DTMF converter so my Imperial and 302 can connect and I'll be all set. > Tony > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I assume the tech had to unlock your > TA at his end while you were speaking and make that change to 90 vms. > And as far as their choice of router goes, I am not hearing very > good things about the Linksys device. I do not know what Vonage was > hung about with the Motorola TA; it has mostly worked fine for me, > although a couple people with super sensitive ears still complain to > me that I 'drop out' on occassion when talking to them. I just tell > them to put new batteries in their hearing aids. PAT] The unit appears to be working well now. I have noted some peculiarities though. I found either dialing 1+NPA+NXX+XXXX completes calls in < 2 seconds while dialing NXX-XXXX takes 5 to 6 seconds -- they're waiting to time out in that case. I also note that in some instances ringback will continue even though supervision has started. Click to Dial works great. I just wish it would save phone numbers but it doesn't appear to be doing so. Overall the receive audio quality is mostly superb (I do notice a slight background noise that reminds me of the old microwave transmissions systems for LD calls.) and outgoing audio reminds most people of a cell phone less the gaps. I can live with that. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On your Vonage seven digit dialing try adding a carriage return ('#') at the end of your dialing string to speed things up somewhat. In other words, NXX-XXXX# should work a bit faster. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Marcus Didius Falco Sent: Sat, Nov 13 2004 8:26 PM Subject: Re: Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cellular Marek Tomczyk wrote about Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cellular on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:43:32 +0100: > I'm posting this for a friend (Juergen). Find his contact address at > the bottom of this post. Thanks. > Marek > =========== > Hi Telecom Digest, > This October I stayed three weeks in the bay area. I like it a lot, > and this time I even had a GSM1900 (Nokia 6100) phone from my > German provider T-Mobile with me. > The phone worked fine, but I never ever used it to place phone > calls home to Germany and I never ever answered any incoming call. > Why? Quite simple, the charges for outgoing and esspecially inbound > calls are outrageous. Just imagine to pay $1.70 for incoming calls > per minute!!! > So I have decided now to get an American mobile phone on my next > trip to the USA. > I like the offer of AT&T Wireless very much as it provides a long > validity of one year for balances starting at $100. Domestic calling > with the Free2Go service is very reasonable priced, but calling > foreign countries is still expensive. > So the idea is to use a calling card service for this matter. The > AT&T documents say that prepaid calling card service is not > possible with Free2Go. Besides this AT&T says in its terms that > certain numbers can be blocked if "abuse" to the network happens. > Is calling a local dial in number from a mobile phone in America, in > particular from a free2Go phone, abusive usage of the network? > Do you know if calling of local (regular) dial in number from American, > in particular prepaid aka "pay as you go" services is possible? > Can such providers block access to those numbers? > Unfortunately I could not find definitive information about this issue > on the web. > Thanks, > Juergen-Usenet@web.de I have used my Verizon phone to dial 800 numbers, including the one for my calling card. Since the wireless company recovers its regular per-minute charge for 800 numbers, I fail to see why which 800 number you call should be an issue. Since you last used your phone in the US, AT&T wireless has been taken over by Cingular. Cingular may have different terms. Moreover, T-Mobile also provides GSM service, and sells pre-paid plans. Finally, check the roaming charges on your German SIM. Some companies are much cheaper than others. I know of pre-paid SIMs from Switzerland and Monaco that are usable nearly world wide, and generally charge about $1 per minute when roaming. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:36:23 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits By CONSTANCE L. HAYS HURRICANE FRANCES was on its way, barreling across the Caribbean, threatening a direct hit on Florida's Atlantic coast. Residents made for higher ground, but far away, in Bentonville, Ark., executives at Wal-Mart Stores decided that the situation offered a great opportunity for one of their newest data-driven weapons, something that the company calls predictive technology. A week ahead of the storm's landfall, Linda M. Dillman, Wal-Mart's chief information officer, pressed her staff to come up with forecasts based on what had happened when Hurricane Charley struck several weeks earlier. Backed by the trillions of bytes' worth of shopper history that is stored in Wal-Mart's computer network, she felt that the company could "start predicting what's going to happen, instead of waiting for it to happen," as she put it. The experts mined the data and found that the stores would indeed need certain products -- and not just the usual flashlights. "We didn't know in the past that strawberry Pop-Tarts increase in sales, like seven times their normal sales rate, ahead of a hurricane," Ms. Dillman said in a recent interview. "And the pre-hurricane top-selling item was beer." Thanks to those insights, trucks filled with toaster pastries and six-packs were soon speeding down Interstate 95 toward Wal-Marts in the path of Frances. Most of the products that were stocked for the storm sold quickly, the company said. Such knowledge, Wal-Mart has learned, is not only power. It is profit, too. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/business/yourmoney/14wal.html?ex=1258088400&en=0605d1fc88b8ab98&ei=5090 ------------------------------ 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 #545 ******************************