From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Dec 18 19:03:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iBJ03pI00543; Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:03:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:03:51 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412190003.iBJ03pI00543@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 #606 TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:04:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 606 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ISP "Wins" Billion Dollar Anti-Spam Lawsuit (Danny Burstein) Re: VOIP (Rick Merrill) Re: VOIP (Dave VanHorn) Re: VOIP (Clark W. Griswold, Jr.) Re: VOIP (Tony P.) Re: VOIP (John Levine) Re: Cingular Migration (Klay Anderson) Re: Cingular Migration (John Levine) Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? (DevilsPGD) Re: Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use') (Barry Margolin) Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Oppose In-Flight Cell Phone (John D. Galt) Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? (John Levine) Re: Wireless in Cherryvale (John Levine) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now (AES/newspost) 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: Danny Burstein Subject: ISP "Wins" Billion Dollar Anti-Spam Lawsuit Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:21 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC ("wins" in quotes because getting the money is unlikely, and the initial judgment is based on defaults/no shows.) "Spam suit nets $1 billion" By Todd Ruger and Kay Luna "CLINTON, Iowa A federal judge awarded a Clinton Internet service provider more than $1 billion in judgments Friday in a lawsuit against companies who used his equipment to send so-called spam e-mails. "It is believed to be by far the largest judgment ever against companies accused of sending unsolicited commercial e-mail via the Internet, said those who track such practices. " 'It's definitely a victory for all of us that open up our e-mail and find lewd and malicious and fraudulent e-mail in our boxes every day,' said Robert Kramer, the owner of CIS Internet Services in Clinton. [ snippety snip, rest of very comprehensive article at: http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id1041776 ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: VOIP Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:30:32 GMT jim@giganews.com wrote: > I'm considering VOIP for my home but realistically, how many phones > can it support? I've read from 2 sites, 3 and 5 phones so I was > hoping what your experience has been? Does it matter who the provider > is to answer this question? I presume the phones are the same used as > before voip. Just in case, can you buy one base unit with multiple > hand sets ? It matters what TA (telephone adapter) you use: some only support 1 REN and some support 3 REN (ringer equivalency number). Remember that these are the base sets only, so if you have a cordless baseset it can support multiple handsets. The providers will tell you (most likely) "one phone". - RM ------------------------------ Reply-To: Dave VanHorn From: Dave VanHorn Subject: Re: VOIP Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:40:47 -0500 How do they handle 911 calls when the power is out? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Either they do not handle them at all (the usual, default situation) or, if they planned ahead of time for such contingencies they have a backup battery they use. You can buy a backup battery (such as used for an orderly shut down on computers) but use it to power the VOIP TA, the modem and nothing else. Then the VOIP phone will continue to work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. Subject: Re: VOIP Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:05:25 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com jim@giganews.com wrote: > I'm considering VOIP for my home but realistically, how many phones > can it support? I've read from 2 sites, 3 and 5 phones so I was > hoping what your experience has been? Does it matter who the provider > is to answer this question? I presume the phones are the same used as > before voip. Most VOIP Terminal Adapters (TAs) that I have seen will support between 3-5 REN. REN stands for ringer equivilence number. A REN of 1.0 is roughly equal to the current needed to drive 1 mechanical bell ringer in an old 500 style telephone. Modern electronic "chirp" ringers are in the neighborhood of 0.3 REN, so driving multiple phones is usually not a problem. That said, I think someone here recently reported that their VOIP service had lowered the max REN of their TA through a config option. It apparently took a phone call to get it raised. > Just in case, can you buy one base unit with multiple hand sets ? Yes. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: VOIP Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:51:17 -0500 In article , jim@giganews.com says: > I'm considering VOIP for my home but realistically, how many phones > can it support? I've read from 2 sites, 3 and 5 phones so I was > hoping what your experience has been? Does it matter who the provider > is to answer this question? I presume the phones are the same used as > before voip. Just in case, can you buy one base unit with multiple > hand sets ? I have five phones connected to my VoIP router (A Linksys RT31P2). The phones are: A Radio Shack 43-3544 900MHz cordless; Western Electric 2940 Celebrity; Western Electric 2226 Trimline; Western Electric 2702B Princess; Western Electric 302 - Receive Only but will be able to dial once I pick up a SMART-1 adapter. No problems at all. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 2004 21:36:05 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: VOIP Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I'm considering VOIP for my home but realistically, how many phones > can it support? It depends on the terminal adapter. I have Vonage with a Cisco ATA-186 and it supports three phones fine. > Just in case, can you buy one base unit with multiple hand sets ? Most VoIP carriers give you a terminal adapter into which you plug a phone rather than a standalone phone. You can always throw money at the problem and plug in a high-end cordless phone that supports multiple handsets. You can also buy ring boosters that increase the number of phones you can plug in. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Klay Anderson Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:07:24 -0700 Organization: Klay Anderson Audio, Inc. Subject: Re: Cingular Migration In article , jrefactors@hotmail.com wrote: > Then what's the point to migrate? There are so many advertisments > encourage AT&T Wireless customers to migrate to Cingular, that's my > confusion. In my case, I had to in order to change my phone to a RAZR. No problems though, other than long on-hold times to get the deal straight and BS promises about shipping times. A few newbies in the cubicles were not too sure how to do it, but all were cheerful and eventually I got it done. For the same AT&T business plan on my particualar phone, Cingular was US$20 per month cheaper, so I am not complaining. Regards, Klay Anderson http://www.klay.com +801-942-8346 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 2004 20:38:39 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Cingular Migration Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I am AT&T customer. AT&T customers have the option to unchange the > plan or migrate to Cingular. Then what's the point to migrate? Cingular's point is that they would like all of their customers to have profitable new plans and use GSM phones. If you like your plan, there's no reason to change it. If you have a TDMA phone, at some point you'll probably have better service if you switch to a GSM phone, since Cingular is rapidly moving their network to GSM. But it's been my experience with Cingular that I can walk in and say that I want a new phone but I don't want to change my plan, and they'll say OK. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:35:32 -0700 Organization: Octanews In message Tony P. wrote: > I love how the cable companies harp on the fact that satellite > transmission can be interrupted by rain, and then one of their own > carried stations goes off the air because you guessed it, weather > interfered with the cable companies OWN satellite reception. While true, it takes a lot more weather to take out a 6' dish then a 20" dish. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use'...) Organization: Symantec Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:15:30 -0500 In article , Neal McLain wrote: > Given this history, I don't see how it's possible that anyone familiar > with the industry could have claimed that "there would not be any > commercials; it is all paid for by your cable fees." Without distant > independent commercial stations like WGN-TV and WOR-TV, the cable > industry wouldn't have had a salable product. Of course they weren't talking about broadcast channels that were piped in by the cable system -- those would obviously have the same content as over-the-air. The no-commercials expectation was for all the premium channels that were created just for pay cable distribution. Since we have to pay extra to get those, there was an expectation that these fees would obviate commercials. But the only channels that have stayed true to this vision are some of the movie channels, like HBO and Showtime. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:14:10 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Joseph wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:42:50 -0500, Marcus Didius Falco > wrote: >> The Association of Flight Attendants warns widespread use of wireless >> devices in the confined space of an aircraft cabin potentially could >> interfere with an aircraft's communications and navigation systems, >> compromise safety and increase conflicts between passengers and crew >> member. > Well, as has been written many times before it's unlikely that use of > cell phones will interfere with avionics. > It's more likely the second part "increase conflicts between > passengers and crew member." Why would they expect conflicts? Do they intend to try to enforce rules against cell phone use after those rules are repealed, or what? If they're talking about complaints from other passengers, perhaps they should divide the plane into "phoning" and "non-phoning" sections, now that the smokers are gone. At least phoning won't pollute the breathing air of the people in the non-phoning section. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 2004 20:42:53 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > A number of people 'think' they have a problem with their VoIP > provider, BUT the problems only occur when talking to someone on a > CELL phone. In my case, I have observed lousy voice quality when picking up my Vonage voice mail on the voice prompts which are, I presume, coming directly from Vonage's servers. I haven't noticed cell phone voice quality being much worse than it is elsewhere. I do have one more clue: people tell me that even when I can barely understand them, they can understand me fine, so the problem is on the inbound side. I don't understand that at all, since my net connection is equally fast in both directions (it's a T1) and I usually have more outbound traffic from web servers than inbound. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 2004 21:02:18 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Wireless in Cherryvale Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > What kind of wireless service do they have in Cherryvale? I was > there a week or two ago and tried three times to make a call. The Wireless Travel Guide gives this info for Montgomery county. The A-side AMPS carrier is Alltel with CDMA and analog, and the B side is US Cellular with TDMA and analog. There's also some 1900 MHz carriers, but your 5165 is 800 MHz only. Your phone should roam OK on US Cellular since it's a TDMA phone, but Cingular programs in a list of preferred carriers, and if Alltel is preferred more than US Cellular, it could be trying to do analog on Alltel rather than TDMA on US Cellular. You can try dialing 611 to see who you get. If it's Alltel, that explains the crummy service. If it's US Cellular, who knows, might be a distant tower, might be a problem between Cingular and US Cellular authorizing your phone. ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:11:24 -0800 In article , Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote: > AES/newspost wrote: >> I've read news stories in the past about cellphone jammers or blockers >> for use in restaurants, theaters, library reading rooms, etc. >> Anyone have any leads on portable, battery-powered versions? > I share your implied problem with inconsiderate cell users. However, > based on your address, you should know that these devices are illegal > in the US. While the odds of getting caught using them are quite > small, especially if used in a mobile situation (ie, in your pocket), > people have been prosecuted in other countries (a dealer in Scotland & > a church in Mexico). You correctly sensed the implied (and in fact primary) message behind my post: I have very little interest in sitting through a five-hour transcontinental flight, trying to read, sleep, or just relax, while multiple cellphone users all around me do deals in penetrating voices all through the flight. I suspect others will feel similarly, and wonder how the airlines will deal with the issue. Assuming that the airlines probably won't deal straightforwardly with the problem, or will be unwilling to forgo the add'l revenue in flight cellphone service can offer, I've tried to think of realistic solutions and/or counter-measures, but haven't come up with much that seems promising in the list: * Earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones for all the other passengers [uncomfortable, and more seriously don't really work all that well] * Airlines set up a couple of enclosed "phone booths" somewhere on the plane, for those who have to play this game [unlikely, because of revenue seating lost, but maybe.] * Cellphoners required to use some kind of silent throat mikes and whisper [technically feasible?] * Limiting cell phoning to first class? [Maybe some would pay extra for the opportunity, driving up FC sales -- but other FC opponents might squawk equally loudly.] * Jammers, as per initial query [which I suspect will happen, if the problem gets bad enough.] * And of course finally the "Charles Bronson response": Bring a large battery-powered "boombox" tape deck with a really annoying musical selection as your carryon, and if the cellphone noise pollution around you gets too annoying just turn it on LOUD and decline to turn it off, pointing out politely to neighbors and cabin crew that if the cellphone guys can noise pollute, so can you. [Unfortunately I have more in common with Walter Mitty than Charles Bronson, so it's not likely to happen]. Inflight cellphone use does seem to me one of those problems where some number of passengers will certainly be rude and inconsiderate enough to make it a problem; the airlines will be craven and greedy enough not to deal with it; and air travel will deteriorate even more than it already has [Dulles main terminal at 4:30 pm yesterday afternoon was a sight not to be believed]. ------------------------------ 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 #606 ******************************