From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Dec 4 22:28:40 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iB53Ser06805; Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:28:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:28:40 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412050328.iB53Ser06805@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 #579 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:28:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 579 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! (Lisa Hancock) Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! (Fred Goldstein) Re: Using a Fax Machine On a Shared Line With Voicemail (Ken) Re: GM Auto's OnStar Phone System? (Jim Burks) Re: Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 (Rick Merrill) Re: Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 (Joseph) Whose Ad Is This? Advertisers Play with Web Films (Lisa Minter) Bush Signs Internet Access Tax Ban Into Law (Lisa Minter) Supreme Court to Decide Cable Internet Case (Lisa Minter) U.S. Court Says Interior Dept. Can Stay Online (Lisa Minter) VOIP Development Software/SDK - New Updates; Pricing (LanScape Staff) Re: Kicking the Avaya Habit (Tom Betz) Re: Spam Gets Religion (Tom Betz) Re: Fax vrs. VOIP (Lisa Hancock) 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: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! Date: 4 Dec 2004 11:04:31 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Tony P. wrote > I'm 25 days out from my switch to Vonage and my number still hasn't > been ported. > I've been talking to the PUC, Verizon, Vonage etc. What I've gotten > from this is a clear picture of the anti-competitive nature of Verizon > and the structure of Vonage's network. FWIW, a friend of mine switched from Verizon to a competitive carrier several times (back and forth while he made up his mind) and never had any trouble. > It seems that Verizon only has to do rapid LNP with other FCC regulated > carriers. If you're not FCC regulated they can take as long as they want > and delay for whatever reason they wish because they're free of > regulatory burden. If Verizon is not under any legal obligation to make the switch in a timely manner, then it is not their fault and you have no basis to sue them. Suppose the VOIP carrier fails to meet technical standards. Will a subscriber blame Verizon instead of the VOIP carrier? That makes for extra unnecessary and unprofitable work for Verizon which other subscribers have to make up the cost. I'm sorry I'm not sympathetic, but it's a double standard. The FCC declared the VOIP carriers to be free of regulation. That means they're on their own while other carriers have to put up with the expense of regulation. Maybe you could avoid Verizon altogether and use broadband cable instead, as some people are doing. Indeed, it was not that hard for our cable company to lay a replacement broadband fiber optic cable through our area; and now -- in competition to Verizon DSL -- they offer high speed Internet. As such, perhaps another carrier could do likewise and eliminate that "final mile" contention. [Just to set the record, I am not connected with Verizon other than being a subscriber. Indeed, I was unhappy with other LD carriers and switched to Verizon for all services.] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:47:39 -0500 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Lingo Voip SUCKS! Can you please change my address to something munged such as fgoldstein@donotspamplease.com or some such? Thanks! In V23 I578 Tony P. wrote: > It seems that Verizon only has to do rapid LNP with other FCC regulated > carriers. If you're not FCC regulated they can take as long as they want > and delay for whatever reason they wish because they're free of > regulatory burden. Of course. Number portability only applies to telephone companies, either wireline or wireless. You can port your number among phone companies, but not to, say, a supermarket company. Lingo and Vonage have gone to great lengths to declare that while they advertise as phone companies, they do not belong to any legal category of local telephone company. Their choice, actually, though it would be hard to get certificated in all states and deal with every state's different rules. > Vonage basically buys excess capacity on two carriers switches, Paetec > or Focal Communications. Interestingly neither lists their switch type > on the telcodata web site so I'm left to surmise that in my case, > Paetec is just buying UNE from Verizon. That being the case my number > transfer shouldn't take more than a couple days. But Verizon won't > treat it as carrier to carrier as they should. You didn't look at the right database. Paetec has a 5ESS-2000 switch. I think they serve RI out of a switch in Hartford, Connecticut, though they also have one in Massachusetts. You can't lease UNE switching capacity for bulk purposes like this. Vonage or Lingo could, theoretically, simply purchase retail PRI service from Verizon, but it would not be a good business relationship, to be sure, and they would not get as good a price as they get from the various other carriers they use around the country (Focal and Paetec being only two). The point, though, is that technically, the number has to be ported to a Paetec or Focal switch. Vonage is an "intermediary", a bulk consumer of telephone numbers who is neither a carrier nor end user. There's no particular reason why Verizon shouldn't be able to quickly (in the usual time frame, not a month) port a number to either carrier. But it's quite possible that Vonage's processes don't quite mesh correctly with their underlying carrier's, and something got stuck. > A few years from now when the Verizon's and SBC's and Qwests are > marginalized they'll be wondering why they only carry < 25% of the > market. > Years of reliance on tariff and regulation are the reason. Part of it. But also note that Verizon and the other Bells have bought into particular standardized Processes for ordering. These are computerized (OSS -- operational support systems), and designed to facilitate "flow-through" -- place the order and no further human intervention is needed, unless wiring is required. But flow-through processes tend to be brittle. If something's not quite standard, it's hard to make it work. A key system is called LSR (local service request). Competitive carriers are allowed to use this. They're also allowed to "bind" their own software to it. When it works, it's great. But it's far from intuitive, has a zillion obscure codes, and it's hard enough for a human to operate. Binding a competitor's system to it is even harder, since computers don't have the intelligence to figure out every possible obscure combination of actions. I know getting my ILEC phone book listing (non-standard, two numbers on one line, each with a different name) straight has been a nightmare, five years and running with three different owners of the cable/CLEC. The systems just didn't bind right. Finally this year I went to the supervisor and asked about going around their own OSS right into the Verizon LSR screen that feeds the phone book. They have somebody who knows how to work it directly. Maybe they'll get it right this time. Vonage and Lingo are newer operations. It doesn't surprise me that some of these things don't work right yet. [Pat added:] > None of the former Bell telcos give up easily; UNE-C was bad enough > for them, but VOIP is really doing a number on them. I don't think that VoIP really scares them. They won't sell you DSL to run it on until you pay for a "first" phone line anyway -- or maybe a "naked" DSL surcharge. So what's the risk of a second line? The cable companies can sell telephony anyway; they're setting up their own dial tone, and their costs are low. The quality of "parasitic" VoIP like Lingo or Vonage won't be as high as real telephone lines or PacketCable (which has reserved bandwidth). And in any case, the Bells are weaning themselves of LD access revenues anyway. It's only the rural telcos, who get high fees from the LD carriers, who are worried. Some of the rural telcos have their own little group, ARIC, which has sent the FCC a proposal for intercarrier compensation in the VoIP era. It basically says that you will pay high toll fees to call up your ISP (Ye Olde Modem Tax, yet another plea), and will pay them measured usage fees for bytes on your DSL too. All to create subsidies to allow inefficient rural telephone companies in high-cost areas to provide local telephone service for half of what we pay in the city, with their own subscribers only paying a small fraction of the cost. I don't see their proposal going anywhere, but it's those companies who are worried about VoIP, not SBC and Verizon (who have their own products, after all), who are a little sick of subsidizing the rurals themselves. ------------------------------ From: Ken@PrivacyCorps.com (Ken) Subject: Re: Using a Fax Machine on a Shared Line With Voicemail Date: 4 Dec 2004 09:21:08 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com michaelm2030@yahoo.com (Michael Monteiro) wrote in message news:<5a0f4a94.0411270704.7ae93fc9@posting.google.com>: > Problem: I have a fax machine connected to a single, shared voice > line. As it stands, I cannot receive faxes unless I disable my > voicemail. I understand that answering machines can be used with fax > machines on a single line because the fax listens when a call is > answered by an answering machine and then takes over if the call is a > fax transmission. However, this does not work with voicemail. My > provider does not support distinctive ring. Do I have any other > options aside from disabling my voicemail or getting a second line for > my fax? I could get an answering machine, but I'd rather not go that > route. I'd rather keep my voicemail. > btw, my provider is Vonage - VoIP. SIMPLE SOLUTION: Since you receive Caller ID information (www.privacycorps.com/pages/caller-id-information.htm)from your service provider, you can install our FAXFIREWALL (www.privacycorps.com/products/?id=23) which will serve a number of purposes. First and foremost, it will prevent you from receiving junk faxes (www.privacycorps.com/pages/junk-fax-faq.htm) and, by using a Remote (www.privacycorps.com/products/?id=22) you can segregate your voice from fax calls by directing your welcome fax broadcasters (and not junk fax broadcasters) directly to your fax device, without ringing your voice phone. With these devices connected, you should set your fax device, whether it be a fax machine or fax modem, to the lowest number of rings to answer. Secondarily, you will be able to block ALL unwanted calls from ringing your phone by either blocking those you don't want, or by building a list of 'Invited' callers. You will be able to do all of this without any additional services or monthly charges from your telephone service provider, and without having to pay for a dedicated phone line or distinctive ring service, just to receive faxes. The big bonus here, is that you will no longer be bothered by telemarketers, misdialed numbers, pollsters, and other annoying calls while you accomplish your goals and save money every month. If you have any questions or need further information, please visit us at www.PrivacyCorps.com/block-calls or call our customer service department 9AM-5PM PST, M-F. ------------------------------ From: Jim Burks Subject: Re: GM Auto's OnStar Phone System? Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 14:20:28 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Al Dykes wrote in message news:telecom23.577.6@telecom-digest.org: > 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. OnStar uses Verizon Wireless for connectivity. Original version was analog only. Current product uses analog/CDMA. ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:21:39 GMT alan@bloomfieldpress.com wrote: > Bill of Rights Day Celebrations > People across the country are celebrating Bill of Rights Day this > December 15 -- the date the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Why > not celebrate it too! > If you are in the Phoenix-metro area, come join the dinner meeting > that evening, when the Bill of Rights will be read out loud from a > parchment copy. Other activities are planned. Should be a lot of fun, > time to contemplate our rights, break bread with friends, new and > old. Bring your own copy of the Bill to follow along. > If you're not in our neck of the woods, why not organize a lunch or > dinner of your own? > Spend a few hours cherishing the fundamental charter of our > liberties. It's easy, just pick a place, and tell everyone. Did I > say it's easy, or what? If you need some help or ideas, go to > JPFO's website and click on Bill of Rights Day. jpfo.org. Let them > know what you're up to and they'll give you some free publicity > too. > IN PHOENIX: > Bill of Rights Day Dinner > Dec. 15, 2004, 6 p.m. > Hometown Buffet Restaurant > All You Can Eat, under $10. > 1312 N. Scottsdale Rd. > W. side of road, S. of McDowell That's all very well, but what STATE are you in???? [TELEOCM Digest Editor's Note: He said earlier in his message he was in Phoenix, and I guess that means Arizona. *You* start your own event and publicize it on that web site. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Bill of Rights Day Dinner 12/15 Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:40:54 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:43:40 -0500, alan@bloomfieldpress.com wrote: > People across the country are celebrating Bill of Rights Day this > December 15 -- the date the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Why > not celebrate it too! Are we celebrating its demise as well? That seems to be the direction we're going with the present administration in the White House. ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Whose Ad Is This? Advertisers Play with Web Films Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:41:04 EST NEW YORK (Reuters) - When the manager of a coin-operated laundry seduces a mother and daughter and convinces them to skip town, there's bound to be trouble, or perhaps a movie plot. In this case, the story is part of an intricate set of short Internet films improbably designed to attract viewers to a new model of Mercury cars (http://www.meettheluckyones.com). Advertisers are devoting larger budgets to these Web hybrids of entertainment and marketing, hoping to convince consumers they offer not just a product, but also the elusive element of cool. The financial payoff of Internet films, sometimes called Webisodes, may be just as hard to pin down, even as marketers recruit top celebrities and moviemaking talent for the job. "These have really been about brand experiences and are not necessarily campaigns that would do well by direct marketing standards," said Gregg Spiridellis of JibJab studios (http://www.jibjab.com), which creates online animation. "I haven't seen a campaign where there is really compelling content ... that secondarily drives a purchase." JibJab won national fame with its "This Land" spoof on U.S. presidential elections earlier this year. Viewers called up the film and its sequel 80 million times, according to the company, which has also worked on brand campaigns for Sony and Kraft. Spiridellis said Webisodes often work best by intriguing key consumer groups -- some of them influential in passing on a good word about a product -- rather than reaching the widest audience in the traditional model of television commercials. "TV will remain an important medium, but there are times when it's not appropriate, so you need other options," said David Lubars, chief creative officer at ad agency BBDO. Lubars was behind a series of short action films for BMW luxury cars three years ago during his tenure at the Fallon agency. In the films (http://www.bmwfilms.com), actor Clive Owen plays a deft driver escaping tricky situations in a BMW, and many consider them the gold standard of Web ads. Mercury's "Meet the Lucky Ones" is a new effort to excite heavy Internet users about a brand. The film is aimed at 20- to 30-year-olds who are spending more time on the Web than other media. In five weekly episodes that began Nov. 1, viewers follow the destinies of 10 interrelated characters and choose the order in which the story is told. The site gives details on Mercury cars, but the company's Mariner model only appears briefly in the films. "The customer asks to get involved ... and the obligation is to create stimulating content that allows them to come back and back again," said Jeff Grice, director of digital marketing at Wunderman Detroit, the ad agency that created the campaign. Mercury said its short films significantly raised traffic to its site, with more than 1 million visitors in the last month who also spent more time exploring its other contents. AMAZON THEATER Online retailer Amazon.com loaded its home page (http://www.amazon.com) with short films starring movie and television celebrities like Minnie Driver and Chris Noth, turning one of the most expensive Internet properties into a home theater during the holiday shopping season. In previous years, Amazon would use its coveted home page to spotlight products as gift ideas. "Amazon Theater," also designed by BBDO's Lubars, makes no direct plug, but end credits list products seen in the film and where to find them. "We made an investment in thanking our customers and also helping customers discover great content and products," said Kathy Savitt, a vice president at Amazon. Several million viewers clicked on the films in the first two weeks, she said. Other ventures featured comedian Jerry Seinfeld and cartoon hero Superman in vignettes promoting American Express, while Jaguar created a part-animation auto adventure (http://www.x-ingover.com). U.S. advertisers spent $5.6 billion on Internet ads in the first nine months of 2004, according to research firm TNS Media Intelligence/CMR. Internet films are not yet tracked, but executives involved in such projects say their production and promotion expenses can equal those of traditional TV spots. Lubars said ad agencies are gaining the special expertise needed to make Web films work: a combination of Hollywood-style scripting and marketing know-how. Just as important is creating a film that fits a personal computer. "It's got to be stuff you can see in a small box," he said. "And it can't be too long. The longer it has to go through the pipes, it becomes a glitchy, unpleasant experience." Others say the medium must evolve as its novelty fades. "Long-term, the idea of driving consumers to a special site to see a video ad isn't the best strategy," said JupiterResearch analyst Nate Elliott. "You want to go where the consumers are ... drop it into a piece of video content online that people are going to see at ESPN or Yahoo." *** 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: Bush Signs Internet Access Tax Ban Into Law Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:44:09 EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush signed a bill that renews a ban on Internet access taxes on Friday amid praise from lawmakers and trade groups who said the measure would encourage more people to sign up for high-speed broadband service. Bush said repeatedly on the campaign trail this year that a ban on access taxes is crucial to reach his goal of universal broadband access by 2007, enabling more Internet users to download video, music and other bandwidth-intensive content. The ban on access taxes, in place since 1998, expired more than a year ago when congressional lawmakers could not agree whether to make it permanent or merely extend it for three years. Backers at the time warned that Internet use could suffer if tax-happy states imposed new surcharges on the monthly fees that Internet providers like America Online Inc. charge their customers. But some senators said the ban would require states to raise taxes in other areas to make up for the millions of dollars they stand to lose as telephone service and other taxable activities migrate to the Internet. No states or local governments imposed new Internet taxes during the year the ban was not in effect. Congress approved a compromise last month that extends the ban until 2007 and extends it to cover broadband service. Existing broadband taxes will be gradually phased out. "It's an important step forward in bridging the economic digital divide," said Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican and a bill sponsor who attended the signing ceremony at the White House complex. "This measure will help make sure for those of lower income and those who live in small towns and rural areas that they can get connected more easily to broadband," he said. Broadband costs between $30 and $50 per month, compared with as little as $9.95 per month for regular dial-up access. Roughly 25 percent of U.S. adults have broadband access, up from 14 percent in 2002, according to the nonprofit Pew Internet and American Life Project. Overall Internet use during the same period has held steady at around 60 percent. Several technology-industry trade groups also praised Bush's action. (Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky) *** 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: Supreme Court to Decide Cable Internet Case Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:49:13 EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday it would decide what regulations should apply to high-speed broadband Internet service offered by cable companies like Time Warner Inc., a key case that could decide whether such lines must be opened to competitors. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2002 that cable broadband was an information service and therefore free from most regulations that apply to traditional telephone services, which includes broadband. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, relying on its previous ruling that broadband via cable companies had a telecommunications component and should be subject to stricter regulations. The high court will likely hear arguments in March, with a decision due by the end of June. Broadband, also offered by telephone carriers, is catching on among many U.S. consumers who want faster Internet service to, among other things, play music and videos. About 30 million Americans subscribe to the service, but the United States lags about a dozen countries in deployment. President Bush pledged during is campaign that he would push for universal access to broadband by 2007. The FCC argued the appeals court incorrectly overrode the agency and its expertise to oversee and regulate the telecommunications and media industry. It has tried to limit regulations on the service as a way to promote deployment. "High-speed Internet connections are not telephones," said FCC Chairman Michael Powell. "The 9th Circuit's decision would have grave consequences for the future and availability of high-speed Internet connections in this country." But independent Internet service providers and public interest groups have worried that, without some safeguards by the FCC, consumers would have limited choices for broadband service providers. EarthLink Inc., the No. 4 U.S. Internet service provider and a supporter of tougher cable rules, said that, despite the high court's decision to hear the case, it anticipated the appeals court would not be overturned. "This will settle the matter once and for all and finally give cable modem users a choice in high-speed Internet providers," said Dave Baker, vice president for law and public policy at EarthLink. (With additional reporting by Jim Vicini in Washington) *** 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: U.S. Court Says Interior Dept. Can Stay Online Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:51:43 -0500 (EST) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Interior Department can keep its computers connected to the Internet despite the fact that hackers could manipulate royalty payments owed to American Indians for use of their land, an appeals court ruled on Friday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that a lower court in March didn't give the Interior Department enough of a chance to make its case before ordering the agency to pull its Web sites and e-mail systems offline. Though an expert had shown that Indian trust funds could easily be tampered with by hackers, there was no evidence that anyone had actually tampered with the accounts, a three-judge appeals court panel said. Had the lower court considered evidence that the department had taken steps to improve its computer security, "there would have been no factual basis for disconnecting Interior's IT computer systems from the Internet," Appeals Court Judge Judith Rogers wrote. The appeals court has allowed Interior to stay online temporarily while it considered the case. Internet operations at the agency have been shut down three times since 2001, when a court-appointed investigator found that hackers could easily steal money from a system that allocates royalties to 300,000 Indians for use of their land. The blackouts stem from a class-action lawsuit between the agency and Indians who say that it lost track of billions of dollars in oil, gas and mineral royalty payments. A lawyer for the Indian plaintiffs said he would go back to the lower court and ask for a full hearing to determine the security of the Interior Department's computers. Attorney Keith Harper said the appeals court ruling actually helped his case because it found that the court has the authority to order Interior's computers offline if need be. The Interior Department had argued that the court did not have that power. "We strongly believe that there are still extraordinary (computer) security problems and they should be taken offline," Harper said. "This opens the door to that type of review further." In a prepared statement, the Interior Department said it was pleased with the ruling and would continue to upgrade computer security. *** 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: sales@lanscapecorp.com (LanScape Sales Staff) Subject: VOIP Development Software/SDK - New Uupdates and Lower OEM Pricing Date: 4 Dec 2004 10:30:58 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com For SIP/RTP and VOIP application developers: LanScape Corporation has just completed that latest release of our LanScape VOIP Media Engine development software. With this development library/SDK you can develop SIP/RTP based voice over IP applications for any version of Microsoft Windows operating systems. The media engine is more than a protocol stack. It manages SIP and RTP traffic, call states, complex phone functionality, and much more. For those of you wanting to check it out immediately, Google the phrase "LanScape VOIP Media Engine" or go to http://www.lanscapecorp.com/ProductPages/LanScapeVoipMediaEngine.asp If you have to develop a multi line soft phone, voicemail server, media gateway or another similar type of VOIP application for Windows, our VOIP media engine is what you want. We have simplified the licensing and have adjusted the OEM price list for this product. Our goal is to offer you a cost effective development solution that will get you up and running quickly. It will not matter if you are a seasoned VOIP/SIP/RTP developer or a rookie. The VOIP development package we offer really simplifies the development task. To check out what the LanScape VOIP Media Engine can do for your application development, please go to our web site at http://www.lanscapecorp.com and look down the right side of the page for a headline that reads "LanScape VOIP Media Engine -- New pricing schedule in effect!" If you have any question, we ask that you email the sales department with your inquiries. If you would like to review the Media Engine's documentation, just ask and we will get you a current copy of the compiled HTML help file that comes with the product. In the mean time, you might want to look at a slightly outdated version of the API documents located at: http://www.lanscapecorp.com/DevResources/SoftwareDevRef/index.html We have many interesting VOIP applications that will be unveiled soon that are using the LanScape VOIP Media Engine SDK. You will be able to use these applications in your own VOIP systems or use them to extend the capabilities of user communities such as Free World Dialup. (http://www.freeworldialup.com) Thank you and happy VOIP-ing, LanScape Sales Staff ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Kicking the Avaya Habit Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 01:11:11 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Some Quoth Geoffrey Welsh in news:telecom23.578.1 @telecom-digest.org: > Hello, my name is Geoff and I'm an Avayaholic. You might think > that ending a business relationship with the mob or kicking a > drug habit is hard ... until you try cancelling a contract with > Avaya. Been there, done that, back when it was still called AT&T. It took years to get them to stop billing us. Some things never change. George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war. Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands, and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush. The more you know, the less likely you were to vote for Bush. Feeling a draft? For the facts on Iraq, see . ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Spam Gets Religion Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 01:18:48 UTC Organization: Some Quoth Patrick Townson in news:telecom23.575.13@telecom-digest.org: > E-mail recipients are increasingly being offered religious > salvation through bulk, unsolicited e-mail. The first widely recognized Usenet spam was religious in nature. Google Groups has it archived at . George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war. Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands, and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush. The more you know, the less likely you were to vote for Bush. Feeling a draft? For the facts on Iraq, see . ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: FAX vs VOIP Date: 4 Dec 2004 19:17:13 -0800 John McHarry wrote > I believe the issue with FAX over VOIP is that VOIP uses lossy > compression that does not treat FAX modulation gently. This tends to > be a problem over any compressed link. For those who don't know, there are two types of data compression techniques. One type preserves 100% of the original data; the other "lossy" accepts some loss of accuracy for increased compression efficiency. (Others can explain data compression better than I can.) I still use dial-up for certain connections, and even if I had VOIP I would still need to do so. I wonder if I even could. While my arrangement is growing rare these days, using fax machines as dial up is not. How do businesses that depend on VOIP use their fax machines? ------------------------------ 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 #579