From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 2 22:16:02 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iB33G1I13582; Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:16:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:16:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412030316.iB33G1I13582@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 #577 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:16:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 577 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Judge Dismisses Some Claims Against Qwest (Lisa Minter) New Caller ID Technology to Block Unwanted Calls & Junk Faxes (Ken) Nortel BCM Phone Call Forward Feature (Ronald Gruia) Cisco PGW-2200 SS7 Solution (Shane Breen) Redback SMS 500 Router For Sale (SyncMan) GM Auto's InStar Phone System? (Al Dykes) Cingular Hops on the Fast Track (Telecom dailyLead from USTA) Review of VoicePulse (Lisa Minter) Obscure Phone Number Search (Marcus Jervis) NorVergence Bankrupty (David O. Rodriguez) Re: Hateful, Ugly Spam! (Rick Merrill) Re: Hateful, Ugly Spam! (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile (Linc Madison) Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile (Lisa Hancock) Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate (Ed Clarke) Re: Co-Location Facility Available (dand@thebvg.com) Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Ohio Lawmakers OK Bill That Sends Spammers to Jail (Rick Merrill) Re: Report: FTTP Growing by Leaps and Bounds (Rick Merrill) Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! (Rick Merrill) Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution - Vonage or Packet8 (Ringo Langly) Re: VOIP News Closing Down (Becky) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. 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 Subject: Judge Dismisses Some Claims Against Qwest Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:33:56 -0500 (EST) DENVER - A federal judge has dismissed civil claims against a former president of Qwest Communications International Inc. and some allegations lodged against the telecommunications company in a lawsuit filed by investors. U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn also threw out claims against a former sales executive but left intact allegations that Arthur Andersen's audit of Qwest's 1999 network capacity accounting was misleading. Blackburn ordered that other issues may go forward against Qwest, director Phil Anschutz and some former key executives, including former chief executive Joe Nacchio who has denied wrongdoing. The ruling made public late Wednesday came in a consolidated investors' lawsuit filed in 2001 accusing the company and its executives of misleading investors, and accounting and securities fraud. The dismissed claims were included in an amended complaint filed in February. That complaint added former president Afshin Mohebbi and former sales executive Gregory Casey. Attorney Thomas Egler, who represents the plaintiffs, declined comment Thursday. The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2002 accused Qwest's former managers of massive accounting fraud. Qwest has agreed to pay $250 million to investors to settle the SEC claims without admitting or denying the allegations. In 2003, Qwest erased more than $2.5 billion of revenues and profits from its 2000 and 2001 financial books. It also has put $750 million into reserve, including $250 million to pay the SEC fine, and has access to at least a portion of a $200 million insurance pool. Other company officials also may file claims on the insurance. The ruling came as Qwest has begun negotiating settlements of shareholder lawsuits. Blackburn said the additions of Mohebbi and Casey exceeded the scope of a previous order in the case. Among the claims he dismissed against Qwest were allegations that the company exaggerated the number of its wireless customers, improperly accounted for costs of a video DSL project, and engaged in practices related to putting unauthorized charges on a customer's bill. Still pending are claims that Qwest failed to properly disclose $222 million worth of asset depreciation and a change in its pension rate and improperly recognized revenue from some additional fiber-optic capacity deals in 1999. Blackburn also ruled that some claims against Arthur Andersen could proceed, including an allegation that Arthur Andersen's 2000 audit of Qwest's 1999 fiber-optic capacity deals was materially inaccurate. Arthur Andersen in part had argued that the allegations weren't made in a timely fashion. *** 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: Ken@PrivacyCorps.com (Ken) Subject: New Caller ID Technology to Block Unwanted Calls & Junk Faxes Date: 2 Dec 2004 10:58:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com In response to numerous inquiries about loopholes in the 'Do Not Call' list and the volumes of junk faxes that are being received daily by consumers and businesses alike, we offer our latest press release for the Caller ID Manager:(www.privacycorps.com/products/?id=20) & FAXFIREWALL:(www.privacycorps.com/products/?id=23) NEW CALLER ID TECHNOLOGY BLOCKS UNWANTED CALLS AND JUNK FAXES Caller ID Manager and FAX FIREWALL Allows Only 'Invited' Callers to ring. Telemarketing companies and exempted groups may have found loopholes in the National "Do Not Call" List, but telecom automation provider Privacy Corps thwarts them again with their latest introductions, the Caller ID Manager and FAX FIREWALL. Both compact devices, designed for customers who subscribe to Caller ID, the Caller ID Manager and FAX FIREWALL allows only 'Invited' callers to ring the phone or fax. All other callers are handled as the consumer chooses. Although the devices are customizable, their use is simple. Callers on the consumer's 'Invited' list ring through without interference, while anonymous or unfamiliar callers are either ignored or allowed to leave a message, without ringing the phone. Callers on the consumer's 'Excluded' list cannot ring the phone or leave a message, including cell phone, out-of-state, and international callers. "We call it 'Caller ID with an Attitude!'," says Chase. "Now you can choose who can ring your phone or fax, and when, without the limits and extra monthly charges from your telephone service provider. Using the unit's Caller ID screen, it only takes a push of a button to add callers to the 175 entry 'Included' or 'Excluded' list. And, using the 'Wildcard' feature, the consumer can 'Invite' or 'Exclude' entire area codes, prefixes or number sets. Lists are so flexible that you can 'Invite' everyone and 'Exclude' some, or 'Exclude' everyone and 'Invite' some. "With these devices, intrusive calls and junk faxes are a thing of the past. Even Caller ID Spoofing is totally ineffective with this Caller ID technology." A snap to install, the Caller ID Manager completely eliminates telemarketing calls, predictive dialers, misdialed numbers, hang-up calls, junk faxes, pollsters, political organizations, ex's, creditors, harassment, and every other type of unwanted call. It can also be used as a pre-screening device for large telephone systems designed for business and institutional use, or as a qualifier for modems and remote telephone devices. Additional benefits include 'Do Not Disturb' modes. This feature prevents callers from ringing the phone during chosen hours, such as, bedtime, study or movie time, either on a one-time or daily basis. "The Caller ID Manager is particularly useful for people who keep unusual hours, such as those working the graveyard or swing shifts," says Chase. "During 'Do Not Disturb' hours, 'Invited' callers can leave a message, but the phone will not ring, ensuring total privacy." A secret emergency code is provided in case of emergencies. Based on the same platform, the FAX FIREWALL completely eliminates junk faxes, also by the use of an 'Invited' list, and ignores all others without answering the call. The Caller ID Manager and FAX FIREWALL are the latest additions to the Privacy Corps product line, designed to help residential consumers and business owners better manage their telephone communications and reduce monthly telephone charges. Both of these products are available at the website or by calling (888) 633-5777. (www.PrivacyCorps.com/pages/press.htm) ------------------------------ From: ronald.gruia@gmail.com (Ronald Gruia) Subject: Nortel BCM Phone Call Forward Feature Date: 2 Dec 2004 17:51:49 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi everyone, I had a quick question re. programming the BCM phone (T7316). I want to call forward my phone to my external home phone number when I am working from home. On the manual, the description to forward a call is the Nortel key followed by 4 (to invoke the call forward feature). The display then shows: "Forward to:", and when I try to type 8 (the number to make an external call), the system does not even let me type the area code and number and automatically rings a bell and displays the message "invalid number". I believe that the only numbers that are being allowed for call forwarding are internal extensions (which, obviously, are no good in this situation). Can anyone suggest a work around or a way to set this up quickly? The folks from Bell that setup the system are already gone, so we would need to program this in. Thanks, Ronald [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does your office phone have a speed dial function on it or any way to 'speed dial' your home number from memory? Try NortelKey 4 plus speed dial (your home number). In other words try 'quoting' your number inside another (acceptable to Nortel) key and see if that works. I know that with Javascript you can get away with a lot of c++ commands you could not use otherwise unless you 'quoted' them inside " and ' and { marks. Who knows, it may work with Nortel also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shanebreen@comcast.net (Shane Breen) Subject: Cisco PGW-2200 SS7 Solution (www.doretel.com) Date: 2 Dec 2004 13:34:23 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com DORETEL Communications, Inc. has the following Cisco PGW-2200 SS7 Solution to sell: We can design, install and maintain your SS7 Solution here is some info that will help you better understand why and what the Cisco PGW-2200 can do for your company. The PGW 2200 is an essential component of a service provider''s strategy for migrating to emerging packet voice technologies. The Cisco PGW 2200 provides seamless interoperability between existing time-division multiplexing (TDM) switches and new packet networks, allowing providers to transition to more cost-effective and flexible services even while these new technologies continue to evolve. This seamless interoperability is achieved by introducing the power and dependability of SS7/C7 signaling for interconnect with the packet voice networks. The Cisco PGW 2200 allows providers to interconnect to the PSTN with more cost-effective intermachine trunks (IMT) and SS7 links. The Cisco PGW 2200 brings SS7/C7 signaling that provides significant infrastructure cost savings and time-to-market benefits over those using Primary Rate Interfaces (PRIs) or channel associated signaling (CAS) signaling. This creates an environment that improves a provider''s competitiveness and reduces operational costs. The Cisco PGW 2200, deployed with a voice gateway, also allows providers to deploy new revenue-generating services, such as PSTN access for business and residential packet voice applications. A provider also can sell hosted business services to a number of customers, gaining from economies of scale. All of these applications require a platform that bridges the old-world TDM networks with new world IP-based networks. In addition to operational cost savings and new services, the Cisco PGW 2200 provides a lower first port cost. The distributed nature of Voice over IP (VoIP) solutions allows service providers to deploy a single PGW 2200 and a small number of gateways, and expand as the demand grows. This flexible configuration of the PGW 2200 solutions is a key component of a service provider''s portfolio. It allows them to capitalize on market fluctuations by providing a cost-effective and rapid deployment vehicle. For more info please visit www.doretel.com We are a Cisco Partner. Solutions visit www.doretel.com** Shane Breen Doretel Communications, Inc. Director Of Sales & Marketing Office: 404.755.5721 Cell: 404.808.4022 Fax: 404.521.4639 sbreen@doretel.com AIM: shanebreen2003 www.doretel.com ------------------------------ From: SyncMan Subject: Redback SMS 500 Router For Sale Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:19:28 -0500 Organization: Bell Sympatico SMS-500 Redback router for sale. 19" rack 3RU size ; Its a plain shelf for support and training, dual DC -48V telecom power supplies, Forwarder Engine, Control Engine with moderate memory 100baseT Ethernet card, and slots 4&5 open. This is the telecom hub 48Vdc model, but I include a nice small ACDC power supply and AC cord in the bundle. The router is great for throttling, security ACL and ISP RADIUS authentication; working condition. The unit did operate in a 120 user conditions as a emergency repair replacement for 3-4 weeks in 2003 without a hiccup. One picture is stored at this url; http://www.vif.com/users/radcom/forsale/redback_sms500.jpg AOS txt capture here at this url; http://www.vif.com/users/radcom/forsale/redback_sms500.txt [serial/revision data] The things were $4000 at one time, but now I am taking reasonable offers rather than quote some out-of-context price stale-dated from ebay or trader forums. You pay for shipping/insurance, private sale, no tax. Contact JOHN (in Canada) 613-226-7980 Ext 233 or email r a d c o m (at) c a n a d a (dot) c o m for details. Do not auto-reply to this posting; I'm trying to hide from spam. ------------------------------ From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) Subject: GM Auto's InStar Phone System? Date: 2 Dec 2004 20:35:39 -0500 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Whenever I hear an advert for a GM car that features the built-in phone system I wonder what kind of cell service they use. Someone here proably knows. ISTM that it's got to be analog, for the widest possible coverage, but I thought this was being phased sooner rather than later. What happens then ? a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:50:58 EST From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA Subject: Cingular Hops on the Fast Track Telecom dailyLead from USTA December 2, 2004 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17847&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * Cingular hops on the fast track BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * Verizon to sell Telus stake * U.K. cable firm NTL sells broadcast infrastructure for $2.3B * Global handset sales exceed 167 million units USTA SPOTLIGHT * Fill Your Most Urgent Job Requirements!! EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * Broadband VoIP offers good price, but at a cost * Building an orderly Wi-Fi environment * Wall Street Journal launches mobile phone edition REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * Public telecom networks spark debate Follow the link below to read quick su mmaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=17847&l=2017006 ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:09:05 -0500 Subject: Review of VoicePulse Jack Decker notes: There is a good review comparing VoicePulse with its chief competitor, Vonage, at this URL: http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review2139_intro10702.html As I've mentioned in the past, VoicePulse has the largest number of ratecenters in Michigan in which they offer numbers (among the VoIP companies that actually put their ratecenters served on their web site, anyway). So this review might be useful to some folks who are considering the VoIP option to keep those holiday phone bills down! ------------------------------ From: Marcus Jervis Subject: Obscure Phone Number Search Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:36:55 GMT Maybe this is a question for Carl Moore. This will seem weird, but I am looking for a non-toll-free North American phone number that when reverse-number searched on one of these telephone directory web sites, will produce a response of "Your search returned too many results" (the limit, which it must exceed, is 100 listings): www.411.com www.whitepages.com www.phonenumber.com Example: 800-638-2772 (except this is an 800 number. I need one with a non-800, 888, 877, etc NPA) Just click on Reverse Phone on any of the sites to test a number. The 800 number in the example here is for the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and it has over 100 locations listed in the telco database. So it is a long shot, but somehow I need to find a single non-toll-free number that does the same thing. A local pizza number that somehow yields 101 listings for delivery? Someone out there knows. ------------------------------ From: David O. Rodriguez Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:29:16 -0500 Subject: NorVergence Bankrupty Pat, Per an e-mail I received, the date to file claims for the NorVergence bankruptcy has been extended to Feb 28 2005 at 5:00PM EST. David ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Hateful, Ugly Spam! Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:39:00 GMT Marc Someone via TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Received in my inbox today; just one of several nasty spams: >> Subject: From: Marc in Iraq >> Dear Sir, >> With a very desperate need for assistance, I have summed up courage >> to contact you. Next time you want to post a 419, post the FULL HEADERS please. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I just did not think of it. I was more disgusted by him taking advantage of a soldier. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Hateful, Ugly Spam! Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:54:55 -0500 Marc Someone via TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now isn't this an especially > distasteful twist on the 'help me spend my money' letter? The > reference to http://www.thecentre.it was left alone by me as was > the first name 'Marc'. Do whatever you wish with it. Maybe some > DDOS would be a good example for them? You can get a screensaver > tool to do just that from Lycos. PAT] Patrick, I'm surprised at you! The web site displayed is almost certainly not the scammer's web site but a web mail service similar to Hotmail (well, actually, it looks like some kind of portal, but they probably offer free e-mail.) Most of these scams use free web mail services so the scammer doesn't have to operate their own, more traceable, mail server. Surely had it been Hotmail, you would have realized this and not suggested that it be targeted. Geoffrey Welsh [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good point. Really though, I was more interested in helping get revenge for the poor guy whose name was confiscated. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:47:59 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , Justin Time wrote: > Duhh! Somebody needs to teach this reporter about taxes and how they > are levied and collected. No, actually, the reporter gives a clear and accurate picture of both the current system and the proposed change. > "Charging people for the miles they drive also worries some owners of > hybrid cars, because it could wipe out any gas-tax savings they now > enjoy [because they] would pay the same fuel tax as a Hummer owner." > If the tax is on the gasoline the vehicle consumes, isn't the "fuel > efficient" Prius paying the same 18 cents per gallon the "gas > guzzler" Hummer pays or am I missing something here? You're missing something here. Currently, the Prius owner pays less fuel tax than the Hummer owner per mile driven, because the Prius is more fuel-efficient. Under the proposed plan, the fuel tax would still be a fuel tax -- it would be collected at the pump when you buy gasoline -- but it would be based on miles driven, not gallons of fuel purchased. Also, the proposed tax scheme is not simply a consumption tax on the concrete and asphalt used, because the Hummer also consumes more of those per mile driven than the Prius, simply because it is much heavier and therefore causes more wear on the road surface. There's a fair correlation between fuel consumption and wear and tear caused by a vehicle, since both correlate with vehicle weight. Of course, this plan has zero chance of becoming law. There's no way that people will consent to have government monitoring devices installed in their cars, and the cost of installing the system would be enormous, even if the people were willing. Every vehicle and every gas pump would have to have some sort of device installed, and then there would need to be some sort of central computer system to oversee it all. Besides that, it would unfairly not tax people with out-of-state plates, even if they do all of their driving in California, and double-tax people with California tags who drive out of state and buy gasoline in another state. I once took a 12,000-mile road trip to Quebec and back; I shudder to think what my California fuel tax would have been on the first fill-up back in the state. If the current per-gallon fuel tax doesn't collect enough revenue to maintain the roads, then we need to raise the per-gallon fuel tax or find some other revenue source to augment the gasoline tax. It's that simple, except of course for the part about getting politicians to vote for something sensible but unpopular. Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone takes this per-mile plan seriously. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: CA DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile Date: 2 Dec 2004 12:37:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote: > The idea would mean a significant overhaul of how California collects > taxes to maintain its often-crumbling roads. Under the plan, the state > gas tax -- now 18 cents a gallon -- would be replaced with a tax on > every mile traveled by each car and truck. Sounds like it would be much easier to simply raise the gas tax. I can't help but wonder if they're even serious about this or if this is a joke. Putting tracking devices in every vehicle and then reading said devices would be enormously expensive and a bureacratic nightmare. How would such devices handle out of state driving? The critics are correct that a mileage tax would cease encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient cars. Like it or not, gas taxes have not kept up. Cars overall are more efficient than years ago -- things like front-wheel drive, fuel injection, and plastic instead of metal all improve efficiency. Also, the fuel tax does not go up for inflation. Road costs continually go up as well. Modern roads cost more as land costs go up, as well as more sophisticated safety and traffic features that are added to roads. This isn't a problem just in California but in all states. We like to drive and that costs money, an awful lot of it. Note that the great master highway builder, Robert Moses of NY, wrote that roads should be tolled and support costs -- police/fire/ rescue/traffic court -- should be included as a cost of running a road. Trains and buses are much more efficient in high density corridors, but the country has moved toward low-density sprawl in homes and workplaces which isn't good for transit use. Amtrak is carrying record ridership, but the govt wants to kill it off. We also have many more people going off in many directions as kids are shuttled between divorced parents, kids driving to school and then work/activities afterward, and both parents working and running errands. Before the big social changes of the 1970s there was less people driving as much since the wife could do her shopping in the daytime and the kids took the bus to school. I do think kids should be strongly discouraged from driving to school since there usually are schoolbuses or public transit to take them. They talk about telecommuting and a few people are doing it, but I don't see too much enthusiasm for the vast majority of workers. We had a fellow in poor health that wanted to telecommute but mgmt was not interested and they aren't encouraging the idea. Business still requires face-to-face for the good commuication. ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate Date: 1 Dec 2004 23:12:35 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org In article , T Sean Weintz wrote: > Scott Dorsey wrote: >> Right, these addresses are not in the same space, and they have >> different rDNS. Otherwise, DNSBLs which listed all dynamic space >> would be listing them as well. > Um, they ARE in the same space, and most DNSBLs that claim to list > Comcast dynamic space DO list them, much to my frustration. >> Part of the problem is that ISPs don't use any uniform naming system >> for addresses, so it can sometimes be a real adventure to figure out >> what a given address is until you figure out their naming scheme. And >> there are some out there that don't set any rDNS at all, too. As I recall, the lists of dynamic access space are provided by the ISP involved, not guessed at by someone else. If Comcast has provided these addresses to the list, then it's Comcast's problem/fault. ------------------------------ From: dand@thebvg.com Subject: Re: Co-Location Facility Available Date: 2 Dec 2004 04:47:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Please contact me via email. dand@thebvg.com sueadu@gate.net wrote: > Dear Mr. Townson, > I am hoping you will be able to help me. I have a co-location > facility available with 100 pair lines. Do you deal with customers > in need of this type of facility? It is located in North Miami Beach > -- between Ft. Lauderdale and Miami. I've attached more details on > the specifications for you in this email. > Please let me know if you can help or not. If not, could you redirect > me to the correct person who handles this type of situation? > Thanking you in advance for your response, > ~ Sue Sirianni > Call Processing Systems, Inc. ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:41:38 -0500 After blasting Steve Sobol for making assumtions that observation of the screen saver didn't support, I have to admit that he was right. The site appeared to be down as I wrote my last tirade, but I can reach it now, and one of the pages on the site brags about how the response times of selected spammers' sites have increased. This is not admitting that the goal was DDoS, it was stupid because it escalates a war of immoral behavior and invites retribution from not only the spammers but also their web hosts and ISPs, some of which are in a country whose citizens have in the past engaged in a web defacement war against the West. I blasted Steven for not getting the facts, but I let some of my Utopian dreams infiltrate the 'facts' I presented, specifically that the campaign would do nothing more then increase the spammers' hosting bills and that their hosts and ISPs would not mind because the increased traffic also increased revenue without disruption. I have stopped using the screen saver on my Windoze machine. Geoffrey Welsh ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Ohio Lawmakers OK Bill That Sends Spammers to Jail Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:30:40 GMT Lisa Minter wrote: > SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Ohio legislators sent an anti-spam bill to > Gov. Bob Taft on Tuesday, with the aim of joining other U.S. states > that have laws that put people who flood the Web with junk e-mail > behind bars. A laudable effort, but it will only affect Ohio based spammers, will it not? A state cannot make a law affecting interstate, much less international traffic. I think they should concoct a bill that (like the Lycos attempt) would permit Ohio-based companies to "return fire" (i.e. spam or DOS the spammers) -- what is required is for the legislature to recognize a spammer registry: anyone registered by some due process criteria can then have their servers spammed and DOS'd by Ohio based servers: ALL OF THEM! .... > The worst violators could face a minimum of six months in jail as well > as fines of $25,000 per violation, or $2 to $8 million per conviction > for violating e-mail. Their computer equipment could be confiscated, > and Internet providers could sue for damages. Too bad that they would wind up punishing Ohio-based spammers who only spam out-of-state. > AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham called the Ohio bill "one of the > strongest anti-spam measures in the country." Graham said the bill is > aimed only at the worst offenders who use fraud, deception and evasion > to get their messages in front of consumers. There should be strong penalties for 419 and identity theft! e.g. they should permit the banks to stop all money to 419, etc. > "This is not meant to snag grandma sending her oatmeal cookie recipe," That's sweet, but irrelvant. > The Ohio bill was modeled after the federal CAN-SPAM Act but adds > tougher penalties. Maryland has adopted an anti-spam law with criminal > penalties and Virginia recently used its state law to send a North > Carolina man to prison for sending hundreds of thousands of spam > e-mail messages. It's a start! ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Report: FTTP Growing by Leaps and Bounds Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:34:54 GMT Fl. County Halts FTTP Until Installation Is Safer "Warning: Deploying Verizon's new Fiber To The Premises (FTTP, see previous) in YOUR neighborhood may involve geysers of raw sewage spewing onto your front yard or sinkholes opening and swallowing moving vehicles. Well, Hillsborough County, host to one of the first FTTP trial sites, has ordered Verizon to stop deployment of FTTP until they can figure out how to stop creating sinkholes that open up under minivans with children inside. No word on whether SBC is having similar problems with their fiber roll-out." http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/17/1747208 Slashdot | Fl. County Halts FTTP Until Installation Is Safer Sounds like a little overreaction to me! - RM ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:43:11 GMT Garth Nospam wrote: > LINGO SUCKS! > I had two lines that I needed ported over to their service ... They > strung me along for over the 30 day trial saying that they were > working on it. Then they say Verizon is blocking access to the > lines. "Blocking" was the wrong word. If you look a matrix of all phone companies' numbers that are converted to another phone companies' system there is a complex number of dates at which the conversion (i.e. number portability) will begin. > I call Verizon they say that they would be happy to transfer > my numbers and there is no blocking going on. I call Lingo back and > they say they can't transfer my numbers due to technical limitations > on their end! Then they charge me a $40 cancellation FEE!! > Bastards! And they have no managers to talk with or even a mailing > address! What crap. Keep at 'em until they cough up a refund or a credit or ! a phone. > Also beware if you want to hook up a fax machine to their Voip box it > has to be one that they support. That's a good caution: Does anyone know more about FAX vs. VOIP? > Evil bastards Lingo needs to shape > up get better customer service and maybe they will be worth it! Keep hoping! ------------------------------ From: rlangly@gmail.com (Ringo Langly) Subject: Re: Dropping SBC For a VoIP Solution -- Vonage or Packet8 ?? Date: 2 Dec 2004 13:27:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com rlangly@gmail.com (Ringo Langly) wrote in message news:: > trb_1217@yahoo.com (tgreen) wrote in message > news:: >> Ringo, >> I am looking forward to your review. I recently went through a similar >> VOIP company comparison and I settled on Sunrocket. They are a new >> company, but so far I have had a good experience. I tried them out >> because it seemed pretty risk free -- no sign up, activation, or >> cancellation charges. I hope you have a good experience. I think >> VOIP is going to get pretty big over the next year. > Hi everyone, > Well last night the Packet8 router (or whatever it is) arrived, and in > about 10 minutes it was activated and I had a dialtone. The first > thing I did was run a speedtest on DSLReports.com, and I was sitting > at around 2.4Mbps down and 350Kbps up (nothing else on network > active), which is about normal for me. > I made my first call to my landline (SBC), and the first thing I > noticed was the delay. It was generally less then 1/2 a second, but > it's enough where two people will step on one another while talking. > I called the Packet8 tech support, and they said there generally is > some delay, but it's should be no more then 50-100ms, which is hardly > noticeable. Mine was more like 1/4-1/2 second delay. This doesn't > sound like a biggie, but it breaks-up the casual flow of conversation. > I then started firing-off some of my other applications, like iTunes > (stream is 128K), Azureus (limited to 5K upload and 1500K download), > email, and all my other web-based apps I usually run. With all this > running I did another speed test, and I was down to about 1.1 Mbps > down and 300Kbps up, which is still well within the 20Kbps or so > required by Packet8. > The sound quality is excellent, and caller ID, voicemail, and > everything thus far works great. I even updated the firmware in the > router, but the delay is still there. If anything is the killer it'll > be the delay -- but I'll give it a full try for the next few weeks. > I didn't sign any contract or anything, but it's free for the first > month if I don't like it and send it back -- given I don't go over 300 > minutes. The reasons I want to drop SBC is mainly because I'm paying > $37/month and most VoIP services are closer to $20-$25/month. Plus my > SBC line likes to quit working when it rains, and though I've told SBC > exactly where the problem is they still haven't fixed it. > Bottom line, the delay is annoying, but outside of that the service > works great. I'll post another review later after I use it for a week > or so. > Ringo Hi all, I have tried another feature offered by Packet8 that is rather bad ... They have the option to forward calls to another number if you're not at home, and in testing I forwarded calls to my work phone. From another phone in my office I called home and in about 3 rings my office line rang. Well, once I picked it up the delay was literally 2-3 seconds. I'm thinking the call goes from ma bell to Packet8 to the VoIP router at home then back to Packet8 then back to ma bell -- which creates a MAJOR delay. It's literally not worth using with such a delay. Once again other then the delays the service is great. And I know it's not my broadband because again during the test I had 300Kbps up and 1.5Mbps down according to DSL Reports. Ringo ------------------------------ From: beckcham_5@hotmail.com (becky) Subject: Re: VOIP News Closing Down Date: 2 Dec 2004 16:16:34 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote in message news:: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> ... VOIP, which frankly, I believe is the telecom 'wave of the >> future'. > I hate to be a party pooper, it seems some basic questions remain to > be answered about VOIP. Such as: > 1) The mainstream press (plus my own experience) describe VOIP sound > quality as _almost_ as good as a regular landline phone. When will it > be 100% as good or better as landline 100% of the time? > 2) The mainstream press says VOIP reliability still has a way to go, > and is also dependent on the quality of the broadband connection one > happens to be using. In data communications, it is very common to > encounter "bunch-ups" when a lot of people just happen to hit their > 'enter' key all at once; when this happens, there is a delay. For > data transmission or internet use that is tolerable, but not on a > voice conversation. It was like this in the early days of telephony > when long distance lines were very limited and callers had to be > queued for an available trunk. How and when will VOIP address this > issue so that the reliability of VOIP is equal or better than landline > 100% of the time? > 3) The fact remains that VOIP usually needs the Baby Bells to deliver > most of their calls. Despite what the FCC says, the Baby Bells are > burdened with regulatory obligations, such as accomodating deadbeats > and providing service to every location. I can't help but suspect the > VOIP providers would not be interesting in running their cables or > even providing service to high crime slum areas that the Baby Bells do > support. Further, the Baby Bells have to have human service reps to > handle customer complaints, ironically some coming from the > possibility that VOIP providers failed to provide proper ANI and > innundated customers with campaign calls (as recently described in > this newsgroup). > There have been some posts here recently complaining about long waits > for service for some VOIP providers. It's one thing to be a novel new > technology serving techo-geeks who can live with glitches. I suspect > the high volume campaign callers didn't care if a percentage of calls > failed to go through. But as the service expands into many people > depending on the phone to make a living, such problems won't be > tolerated. In my humble opinion, VOIP has a long way to go, further > than its proponents recognize. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So, there are a few shortomings still > to be dealt with on VOIP. No one has ever claimed it was perfect; > far from it. But the trade offs are worth considering. Like the > Walmart versus the downtown store argument we had; some people may > prefer its inexpensive cost and flexibilty over some of the > traditional telecom 'advantages'. PAT] We recently switched over and got Voip and got rid of our land line. So far we are pleased and would really never know the difference in quality. We haven't gotten our first phone bill yet, but I'm sure I'll be much happier with this one as I have my previous bills. One of the best things about voip: the cost. I don't know a whole lot about all the ins and outs of the voice mail and the features on the web site, but it seems to all be working fine. We rely on our phone to call family and friends, and so far we have had no problems doing that, so we're happy. ------------------------------ 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 #577 ******************************