From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 15 23:07:19 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAG47Js05441; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:07:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:07:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411160407.iAG47Js05441@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 #549 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:07:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 549 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Wired News: ID Rule Exists, But Can't Be Seen (Marcus Didius Falco) Wired News: Airlines Ordered to Expose Data (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Wired News: American Passports to Get Chipped (Steve Sobol) D.C.-Area Telecom Market Shows Some Spark (DailyLead From USTA) Re: Supervision For DID Lines? (John R. Levine) Leaving Email Addresses Hidden (Withheld on request) Re: Use Comcast Cable Modem? Go to Jail! Judy Sammel (Rick Merrill) Vonage Tech Support Dead? (DevilsPGD) Employment Opportunity: C++ Scripting/Unix/Java (jobs) Intermittant Panasonic TV Display Problem (Graham Warren) Microsoft Cracks Down on X-Box Changes (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: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:41:33 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Wired News: ID Rule Exists, But Can't Be Seen http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,65154,00.html http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,65154,00.html By Ryan Singel Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,65154,00.html Government lawyers defending the identification requirement at the nation's airports from a lawsuit by privacy activist John Gilmore admitted in a new filing Wednesday that the requirement exists, but argued it cannot be challenged or seen in full because it is a law enforcement technique, not a law. The lawsuit revolves around whether a rule exists that says passengers must show their ID to airline agents before boarding a plane. Gilmore is also trying to get the government to state exactly what the rule, if it exists, says. The government has refused to confirm that the requirement exists or show the exact wording. Justice Department lawyers offered in an earlier filing to show the rule to an appeals court judge in secret without Gilmore's lawyers present. The appeals court denied that motion on Sept. 20. Internet entrepreneur Gilmore first challenged the constitutionality of requiring airlines to ask passengers to show identification in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in July 2002, but the government refused to tell that court whether the rule existed. Gilmore argued that the rule is vague, since no one knows what kind of identification is adequate and the penalties are unknown. He said he opposes Americans being subjected to a secret law. The rule impinges upon the right to travel and leaves people open to unreasonable searches, he added. In Wednesday's filing, the government continued to stonewall about the existence of the identification-or-search requirement. The Transportation Security Administration published notice of the identification portion of the requirement in a little-noticed May 2004 Federal Register http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname_register&d ocid=3Dfr18my04-12>filing about maritime security. That notice, which expanded the reach of secrecy rules for information classified as "sensitive security information," carved out an exception to secrecy for cases when the government needs to publicize a rule to ensure "compliance." "For instance, as part of its security rules, TSA requires airlines to ask passengers for identification at check-in," the filing read. "Although this requirement is part of a security procedure that is sensitive security information, TSA has released this information to the public in order to facilitate the secure and efficient processing of passengers when they arrive at an airport." William Simpich, one of Gilmore's lawyers, questioned the timing and manner of the TSA's filing, calling it embarrassing. "They are trying to hide what they are doing from the American people," Simpich said. The government filed the notice just after Gilmore's original case was dismissed, and Simpich claimed the government hid the notice to avoid future legal challenges since such orders generally have to be challenged within 60 days. Justice Department lawyers also argued that Gilmore cannot challenge the requirement because it is not a law, it is a law enforcement technique. "The identification-or-search requirement is simply a technique used to detect possible violations of the law, such as the prohibition on carrying a weapon or explosive onto the plane," they wrote. "While passengers have a right to know the law (that they cannot bring weapons on board), they have no due process entitlement to advance notice of how the Government might attempt to discover whether the law is being broken." Simpich dismissed that argument as absurd doublespeak. "Drugs are against the law," Simpich said. "So blowing through your house to look for drugs is a law enforcement technique that you can't challenge, either." Gilmore's lawyers have two weeks to file their reply to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which will then set a hearing date. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment on the government's brief, calling it "carefully crafted". Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved. *** 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, Lycos, Inc.. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:42:47 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Wired News: Airlines Ordered to Expose Data http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,65699,00.html?tw=3Dwn_tophead_3 http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,65699,00.html By Ryan Singel Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,65699,00.html Homeland security officials accidentally revealed on Friday that the Transportation Security Administration will soon officially order America's airlines to turn over a month of passenger data to test a new passenger screening system. The final rule ordering the airlines to provide data on all June 2004 domestic flights will be issued formally on Monday by the Transportation Security Administration. The airlines must comply by Nov. 23. The TSA announced in late September its intention to order all 72 domestic airlines to turn over the passenger records -- which can include credit card numbers, phone numbers, addresses and health conditions -- in order to stress-test a centralized passenger screening system called "Secure Flight." Currently, passengers are screened by the airlines, which check itineraries against a set of watch lists provided by the government. The TSA hopes to reduce the number of people flagged incorrectly by performing the checks itself using data fed to it by the airlines and a centralized terrorist watch list. Over 500 citizens and organizations commented on the order, most expressing opposition to the planned test and the system itself. Civil liberties advocates strongly opposed the order, citing privacy concerns and the proposed use of commercial credit databases to verify passengers' identification. The airline industry's response, published after the comment period officially ended, was less visible, but was not much more supportive than most of the other comments. The airlines prefaced their criticism by saying they wanted to work with the TSA, but went on to contend that the order would be expensive and would force them to choose between complying with an American anti-terrorism program or rejecting European privacy laws -- which could potentially prevent them from flying there. The airlines' trade and lobbying organization, the Air Transport Association, initially expressed concerns that the order was technically inadequate and its legal status unclear. The airlines also questioned whether the government had clearance from European Union officials to use data about European citizens. "Our concern is understandable: Airlines cannot be subject to the potentially conflicting demands of TSA's Secure Flight test program and European (or other nations') data protection requirements," wrote ATA Deputy General Counsel James L. Casey. "This clarification is indispensable because U.S. airlines are subject to severe civil and criminal penalties in EU member states if we violate the EU data privacy directive." The final order specifies that airlines can exclude flight records that include segments between the European Union and the United States. But that may not be enough to protect the airlines from European enforcement actions since the law also covers any European on a domestic flight, if that person made the reservation from a computer in the EU. The TSA has briefed the European Commission about the exclusion of international flights and the testing of Secure Flight, according to a TSA official. However, the agency has not received written permission to use European data, as it did when it wanted to formally test CAPPS II, an earlier version of the pre-screening system. That version was scrapped after months of intense criticism of the system by privacy advocates and successive revelations that airlines had secretly turned over data to the agency and its contractors to build the system. Those transfers may have violated the Privacy Act and are the subject of two yet-unpublished Department of Homeland Security investigations. The airlines are not the only segment of the travel industry objecting to the Secure Flight test and the program's development. The Business Travel Coalition, an advocacy group for large corporate travel purchasers, takes issue with the lack of notification to passengers. "We agree with several of (the) privacy groups that these passengers had no knowledge nor were given any ability to approve in advance that their data would be used down the road," said BTC chairman Kevin Mitchell. "In fact the expectation would have been the opposite of what is happening." The lack of notification shows the TSA's lack of transparency and inclusiveness, according to Mitchell. The TSA has been open, said spokeswoman Amy Von Walter, who points to the TSA's notice and comment period for the test order, which were not necessary by law. The TSA systematically responded to many criticisms in the document published today, seeking to assure citizens and interest groups that it was listening to their criticisms. "TSA is aware of, and sensitive to, the need to preserve Americans' freedom while pursuing better security," the agency wrote. "In implementing a new security measure that affects these interests, it is necessary to move deliberately and cautiously." But Mitchell said outreach is not enough and that when the TSA decided to brief his group on Secure Flight, it called on a Friday at 2 p.m. to inform him of a meeting at 3 p.m.. "Give me a break," Mitchell said. "That's not process, that's window dressing." Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved. *** 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, Lycos, Inc. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol Subject: Re: Wired News: American Passports to Get Chipped Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:50:59 -0800 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Marcus Didius Falco wrote: > "The reason we are doing this is that it simply makes passports more > secure," Shannon said. "It's yet another layer beyond the security > features we currently use to ensure the bearer is the person who was > issued the passport originally." Moron. Let's store personal information digitally, and not encrypt it! That'll make it MORE secure! > While there are no laws in the United States prohibiting anyone from > snooping on someone's passport data, Roy Want, an RFID expert who > works as a principal engineer for Intel Research, thinks that the > possibility of identity theft is overblown. > "It is actually quite hard to read RFID at a distance," said Want. Sure it is. Didn't a couple major retail chains have trouble with people reading RFID tags this past year? Why should we believe someone who works for Intel, a company that could potentially profit big from a large deployment of RFID? JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:36:01 EST From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA Subject: D.C.-Area Telecom Market Shows Some Spark Telecom dailyLead from USTA November 15, 2004 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17504&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * D.C.-area telecom market shows some spark BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * Global Crossing posts Q3 loss * China telecom picks Cisco for next-generation network * Cingular enters new phase USTA SPOTLIGHT * USTA Webinar: Phone Facts & Telecom Trends, The 2005 Roadmap! EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * Pentagon to spend billions on Internet network REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * Verizon Wireless, Sprint lower number portability fees Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17504&l=2017006 Legal and Privacy information at http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp SmartBrief, Inc. 1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Supervision For DID Lines? Date: 15 Nov 2004 15:24:57 -0500 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > A question I've been pondering for a while: When you call a DID > number, at what point does the call start to be billed? If things are set up correctly, when it's answered, the same as any other call. Classic DID switches the roles of the central office and the PBX. The PBX provides battery on the line, the CO seizes the line and outpulses the digits, the PBX provides ring tones and supervision, I presume by revsersing line polarity. If it plays a recording but doesn't supervise, you shouldn't be billed unless you have one of those lame LD companies that bills after a fixed time rather than checking supervision. In practice, this wasn't always set up correctly, and I wouldn't be astonished if some of the recordings supervised, although I would check for a LD company fixed time rule first. These days, the preferred way to provide DID is over ISDN, BRI for low volume or PRI for high volume, with the signalling happening on the ISDN D channel, but the principle is the same. ------------------------------ From: Anonymous Subject: Keeping Email Address Hidden in Digest Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:22:41 -0500 Er, could you please prevent my email address from showing up in the issue's Table of Contents too? Thanks, Anonymous [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dear Anonymous, as long as people ask me **in the first line of text in their actual message* to please delete their email address, I do so. If they further ask me to delete it in the Table of Contents in the Digest ASCII text version (which is the main reason or rationale for my existence here) I will do that also. But you need to *remind me every time* in order for me to get it *every time*. Better still, some users here have 'throw-away' addresses they use in their email headers (from which the Table of Contents gets constructed) and then put their real address (if they wish to use it, with 'at' as a symbol and extraneous other verbiage in the real address included in the message itself. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Use Comcast Cable Modem? Go to Jail! Judy Sammel's Experience Organization: Comcast Online Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:49:53 GMT dold@XReXXUseXC.usenet.us.com wrote: > Rick Merrill wrote: >> I think there is a misconception about the "video trap" : it does NOT >> cut out the video, but removes some video reflections so that said >> reflections will not interfere with the cable modem! The "solution" to >> your original problem was simply to Not Connect your TV to the >> cable. - RM > The video trap installed on my internet-only cable was described as > blocking TV channels. It caused problems for my internet connection, > and was "allowed" to be removed because the cable run went directly > from the drop to my cable modem, and I could not attach a TV anywhere. > Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 There are several video traps installed on the analog signal. For example, there is a narrow band one on-the-pole that blocks HBO. At the house there can be another. All these "filters" go in BEFORE the house connection. BUT NONE of those block ALL analog channels -- the only way to do that is to unplug the TV. However, with cable modem AND cable TV there is a short filter that goes on the TV side and not on the Cable side. Therefore this gadget is in the house. But if your TV is not connected, you don't need it. If you do not have it, they can easily read the reflections and tell that you are using the analog signal. You were misinformed, or only partially informed. - RM ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Vonage Tech Support Dead? Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:56:41 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Just wondering if anybody has contacted Vonage within the last month or so and gotten a response? I sent two emails (about different issues) on October 25th. I received ticket numbers, but no response since then, and the issues do not appear to be resolved. I sent another ticket (on a third issue) on November 7th, without any response (including an autoresponder) I have attempted to followup by phone, but both the technical support and the billing departments are experiencing higher then expected call volumes, and I should try again later or contact them via the web. I have attempted to contact sales, waited on hold 20-30 minutes, then the call was dropped. Did somebody forget to feed and water the support folks? FWIW, the issues are: 1) Outbound caller-ID is wrong a significant percentage of the time. 2) Unanswered inbound calls tend to ring forever (long after the caller went to voicemail or gave up) -- In one case it was ringing for several days straight while we were out of town. The phones were forwarded to voicemail after "instant". 3) Since the DST switch, one of my ATAs has the wrong time. This has happened before on that ATA and was fixed within an hour of opening a ticket last time. Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear. ------------------------------ From: jobs@peopleassociates.com Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:57:16 -0000 Subject: Employment Opportunity: C/C++/UNIX/Scripting & JAVA/Oracle/Unix We are URGENTLY looking for the following resource for our client (American MNC) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. If interested, please send your latest resume to jobs@peopleassociates.com with your expected salary & joining date. Also mention the ref no in the subject line. === Job Title : Test Engineer (C/C++/UNIX/SCRIPTING) (Ref: PATE02) ------------------------------ From: graham_warren@hotmail.com Subject: Intermittent Display Problem With Panasonic 32" LCD TV Date: 15 Nov 2004 17:39:01 -0800 Hi, I wonder if anyone has heard of or seen this problem before. I have a 3 month old 32" Panasonic LCD TV. This TV works a treat apart from when viewing the odd TV program with allot of close-ups of peoples heads where intermittenly the skin on their faces seems to float of the face or more correctly their face moves but the skin stays in one place. It's a very wierd problem not totally annoying to me although it seems to irritate my girlfriend more so I do get annoyed (if you know what I mean!) I'm pretty sure it's not a TV display problem as in DVD mode via the component video it does not do it at all in fact the picture using a >3 year old DVD movie is perfect as you would want it. THe problem to crop up more often than not with UK sourced programs i.e. crime drama's, BBC World. But it also very occassionaly (but not all the time) happens with some US programs like Law & Order & SVU. It doesn't seem to happen with locally broadcast TV so I'm picking that's it some sort of broadcast in-compatibility but so far have failed to get rid if it via the TV settings. I also thought it might be an amorphic problem i.e. some wierd distortion casued by the TV display 4:3 in 16:9 but I eliminated this by watching TV in native 4:3 mode until the problem cropped up again. BTW this model TV does a great job of displaying 4:3 in 16:9 compared to some LCD TV's that I have seen. My TV model is a Veria TX-32LX1A. (That's the New Zealand Model number.) The equivalent US TV is I think the Viera TC-32LX20. Thanks, Graham Warren ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:56:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Cracks Down on Xbox Changes By ALLISON LINN AP Business Writer SEATTLE (AP) -- In the days before Microsoft Corp. released the hotly anticipated Halo 2 video game for the Xbox game console, some gamers noticed a sudden spike in the number of people being kicked off the company's online game service. That was no coincidence. With Halo 2 expected to entice a new batch of users to the Xbox Live online gaming community, Microsoft says it got tougher with people suspected of making unauthorized modifications to their Xboxes. Gamers who modify Xboxes usually do so either to be able to cheat on games or use pirated copies, although some also have made changes so they can use the Xbox for other functions, from running Linux to playing music. Cameron Ferroni, general manager of the Xbox software platform, says Microsoft is not interested in suing individual users. But the company does want to banish scofflaws from its online service, Xbox Live. It's hard to know how many of Microsoft's 15.5 million Xbox users have modified their game consoles, although the percentage is believed to be small. Microsoft has a unique glimpse into the approximately 1 million Xbox Live users' computers because, by virtue of signing up for the service, users agree to let Microsoft gather certain information from their machines. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=45027307 ------------------------------ 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 #549 ******************************