From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Feb 22 17:09:47 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1MM9l810502; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:09:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:09:47 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402222209.i1MM9l810502@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 #86 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:09:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 86 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Circuit Court Upholds Do Not Call List; Telemarketers Appeal (Editor) MCI Commercial Actors Having Problems Getting Paid (Ray Normandeau) Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: Cable and Satellite Have Blurred Difference Between Networks (Sobol) Re: The Virus Underground (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash (email@crazyhat.net) Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash (notmyrealname@nospam.com) Home Phone System: Talkswitch, KX-TD308 Alternative? (Susan) Re: Reliable, Quality Int'l LD Calling Card? (John Levine) Re: Use a Multiline Phone in a Single-Line Jack (Gary Breuckman) Re: Home Intercom Phone System With Cordless Phone? (SELLCOM Tech) Spam Question (SELLCOM Tech Support) 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 is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:11:44 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Federal Court Upholds Do Not Call List; Telemarketers Appeal Consumers won a big victory this past week when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed claims that the list violates free speech rights and is unfair to businesses. The appeals court said the registry of more than 56 million phone numbers is a reasonable attempt by the government to protect citizens' privacy. "Just as a citizen/consumer can avoid unwanted door-to-door visits by salesmen and peddlers by placing a 'No Solicitation' sign in a cons- picuous, easy to view place in his front yard or on the door of his home and be left alone, we believe this registry, along with technical efforts by telephone companies such as denying 'blocked ID calls' from telemarketers are quite lawful and consitutional. We are convinced that the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from giving consumers this option. The government does not require it, instead it merely allows consumers to have a tool to refuse to listen." Michael Powell, Chair of the Federal Communications Commission and his counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission, Timothy Muris issued a statement expressing their pleasure that "this popular program, like America's dinner hour, will not be interuppted." The court did conclude however, that callers requesting charitable contributions were not as troublesome and would be permitted to continue their work. Likewise, said the court, "we are very reluctant to intervene in what is considered to be political speech and will not impose on political callers. In its news report last week, the *Independence Reporter* added a 'side bar' telling people who wished to register their phone numbers for the DNC list or who wished to register a complaint about a violation could do so at http://www.donotcall.gov or by telephone at 1-888-382-1222. It also warned that "now that the rush from last October is over" and the list is largely in place, each new implemen- tation or addition to the DNC should occur more promptly; but you must allow about 30 days for telemarketers to process additions, etc. It also noted that the FTC administrators of the Do Not Call list would be inclined to be lenient on 'first time' or 'rare' violations of the registry for some unspecified period of time while telemarketers 'worked the bugs out of their systems'. Telemarketers agreed, through their attornies to refrain from calling people on the list while they continued to pursue further appeals to the circuit court's ruling, and they vowed there would be further appeals, as needed to the Supreme Court. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau) Subject: MCI Commercial Actors Having Problems Getting Paid Date: 21 Feb 2004 13:37:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com MSN addy is no good. It is alleged that some NYC SAG actors, recently, may have in some cases, been given bad checks for a SAG commercial done in October. Others may have gotten no check at all. SAG has been contacted. BUT I would like to know how many people have been affected. It is alleged that payroll compnay checks were sent to an office that got SAG members the jobs. It is alleged that, the office claimed to be an talent employment agency when in actuality, and under NYS law it may not be licensed as such. It is further alleged, that without authorization, said office diverted actors' pay checks to their own bank account and that said office then wrote their own checks as repayent for the diversion, and that those are the checks bouncing. If you recently got a bad check for a late 2003 SAG job or have not been paid for a late 2003 SAG job please send me details at: BadCheck@BuzzNYC.us which is a temporary disposible addy. I may be able to put you in touch with a SAG member who may also be a possible victim. UPDATE of Feb 20/2004: It is claimed that actors asking to see copies of original checks with deduction stub for MCI commercial are told that such is unavailable. Actors going to bank in person to cash check from "agency" are told there is "insufficient funds" to cash check. No one has seen copy of any checks from MCI itself. ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Quest to Offer "Naked DSL" Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:56:26 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications Kyler Laird wrote: > Without dialtone, you don't have a connection in the C.O., no > connection -- no ADSL -- very simple. They are not going to provide > you with a free line to carry ADSL, neither will any other operating > company in the country. > --kyler Sorry, you are the one that is confused. C.O.s have had non-dial-tone loops for years, for burglar alarms, "hot lines," etc, you name it. Dial tone is simply a switch service for dial customers to let them know the switch is ready to receive pulse or DTMF customer signalling. DSL requires nothing other than line voltage and a termination in the C.O. to the ASDL equipment. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Cable and Satellite Have Blurred Difference Between Networks Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:26:37 -0600 Monty Solomon wrote: > FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin said he wants to allow subscribers to > pick and choose cable channels. > http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200402201835_APO_V1388 It would be nice, but my old cable company and my current cable company both gave me a box that allows me to password-protect channels on an individual basis, so it's not a really big deal. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Sunday Independence Reporter noted that in a survey of area cable subscribers, most were unaware of how to block channels at the local, or 'box' level. Some knew how to do it, but many subscribers did not know it could be done 'locally' and assumed it had to be done at the cable head end, and they had not bothered to call and ask for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: The Virus Underground Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:31:25 -0500 Organization: Bell Sympatico Scott Dorsey wrote: > Microsoft has long had real problems playing with others in the same > sandbox, and they persistently, repeatedly, constantly implement > features with no thought whatsoever to security. While true, the sadder (and more frightening) truth is that Microsoft is better than most Windows software vendors. > I mean, the whole notion of automatically executing a .exe file in a > mail message being read? What EVER possessed anyone to think that was > a good idea? Ponder Nick Landsberg's point about integration: Outlook Express is integrated with Internet Explorer and uses its HTML rendering engine, which is designed to execute Javascript, Java, ActiveX, and more. Outlook is integrated with Office and uses Word's Rich Text Format engine ... which also supports autoexec macros, inherited from Word days. Each of these components has questionable security security decisions in itself, but combining them without an analysis of the security implications -- which is probably impossible, since there may be no security analysis of the components -- was asking for trouble. > Most of these problems have been patched around, but there is only so > much patching around you can do with a fundamentally flawed system. ... which implies that they would have to start from scratch, and they're not going to do that as long as we keep paying them billions for an overgrown bootloader. But, in addition to design flaws, security is compromised by bugs such as buffer overflows ... implying that they would also have to write bug-free code -- at least in certain modules -- and that, too, seems to be lost among software developers these days. I'm not even convinced that secure software could be developed and sold at a price that would appeal to the mass market. Geoffrey Welsh Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' Commodore PET ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:49:36 -0700 From: In message <> Tony P. did ramble: > The same is true of VoIP -- that call has to be routed through somewhere > -- and you can bet there's a way to monitor. Even though the main path is > over IP it eventually enters a switch somewhere that authenticates the > connection (Wouldn't do to have people who don't pay on the network!) > and then finds a path to the PSTN to route the call. No. I have a Cisco ATA-186 here, if I were to make an IP call to 10.x.x.22 it would go over a VPN to my office, and connect me to my boss. There is no point where that could be effectively monitored without physical access to one of the networks (on either side). Sure, my ISP could be convinced to monitor my packets, but that wouldn't help them break our VPN's encryption. At no time would my call touch the PSTN in any way, shape or form. Ah, the miracle mile, where value wears a neon sombrero and there's not a single church or library to offend the eye. ------------------------------ From: notmyrealname@nospam.com Subject: Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:07:13 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, Dave, it also occurs to me > that the present attacks on VOIP (Internet phone service) by > politicians and others also helps the FBI/Justice people who have a > king-size grudge right now about how difficult it will be to trace > or tap or bug telephone calls using this medium. Don't listen to that > balogna about how the 'poor 911 tax will suffer so badly because of > people getting into VOIP'. They've made more than enough money to > fund every 911 call center in the world many times over; that is, if > they had spent the money properly, not misappropriated it or sqaundered > it on other often times useless projects as part of the overall > goal to have 'no servants left behind'. They just cannot stand having > anything around they cannot have their hands in, can they? PAT] Pat, since you mention the FBI, have you seen this news? "The former chief internal watchdog at the FBI has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl and has admitted he had a history of molesting other children before he joined the bureau for what became a two-decade career. " See the whole article at http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-fbi-child-molester,0,5538886.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines ------------------------------ From: Susan Subject: Home Phone System: Talkswitch, KX-TD308 Alternative? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:51:47 GMT I currently use a Talkswitch and previously had a Panasonic 308 (and still have all the handsets). My family is unhappy with the Talkswitch since you have to memorize all the codes to make it perform the most basic functions (I've tried countless ways to program the wireless phones to make it easier, but nothing beats the simplicity of a hold button that actually puts the phone on hold). Since I have a base investment in the KX-TD, I could reacquire all the KSU equipment -- but it is expensive, and I have the same problem with the wireless phones (unless I buy the very expensive Panasonic digital wireless). Key needs beyond the usual are: one at home business, simplicity for family and guests, intercom so you can tell someone to pick up the phone without yelling, flexibility to mix wired and wireless. Should I stick with the Talkswitch, reacquire the Panasonic -- or is there a better option to consider? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 2004 19:17:52 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Reliable, Quality Int'l LD Calling Card? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Try Cognidial, also sold by Cognigen at ld.net. I've had pretty good luck with them, and their international rates look lower than Accudial's. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------ From: Gary Breuckman Subject: Re: Use a Multiline Phone in a Single-Line Jack Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:14:31 -0600 Organization: Puma's Lair - catbox.com In article , Jameson wrote: > Hi Everyone, > I was just given three GE 2-9405C phones. After doing some online > research, I found that they must have two lines connected in one jack on > the back to operate. They will not just operate on a single line (which > is true, as I have tried it on the single-line jacks in my house). > Because we don't have two phone lines, I would like to know if anyone > has an idea on a way to make a custom cable, or buy an adaptor. > Thanks in advance! > -Jameson > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Often times telephone devices *will* work > on one line but the pin out on the modular connecting cord is wrong. One > line devices usually come only with a cord for 'one line' which is > typically the red/green wires on the first and fourth pins (if they are > present) in the modular cord. You might start by getting four wire > modular cords, such as at Radio Shack. The two inner pins, which usually > relate to the yellow/black wires make the 'second line' work. Or if you > get a six-wire cord, then the scheme is the two outermost pins (1 and 6 > are blue and white) the two middle pins (2 and five are black and > yellow) and the two innermost pins (3 and 4 are green and red). If a > cord like that fits into the base of your phone (so the pins on the cord > touch the pins of the phone when it is plugged in) then your problem is > mostly solved. > If the phone(s) still do not work, look at the box on the wall where the > wires come in and the modular cord plugs in. Assuming the wiring is sort > of standard, the cover plate will have the red/green wires working but > the yellow/black wires will either be tied on to two screws but doing > nothing, or not tied down at all (sometimes). What you will want to do > is 'trick the phone' into thinking it is being served on 'line two' > instead of 'line one'. Swap out the red/green wires in the modular cord > and attach them to the places where the black/yellow wires (that had > been or would be) used for 'line two' if you had such a thing. In other > words, take the live pair you do have coming in and make sure they are > attached to the two center pins by the time it reaches the phone, > typically yellow and black. I'm confused, because all the single-line jacks I've seen use the two center pins for line 1, which are red/green. The cords are usually black-red-green-yellow, reversed to YGRB on the opposite end. Two-wire cords, which as you said come with some devices to avoid problems, also use only the two center pins, red/green. And yes, I've made special cords for two-line phones, split at the wall end into two plugs for single jacks. You can also buy plug-in adapters that look like a modular T adapter but actually split out the two lines to separate jacks and can be used to solve some of these problems. -- Gary Breuckman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right; I stand corrected. When I wrote my original answer, I examined a 'specially built' modular cord that had only the first and last pins it. After reading your reply I sacrificed it and found red/green wires in the two middle places (2 and 3) and yellow/black in the first and fourth places. Someone had diddled with it -- it became obvious someone had extracted the two center pins in order to 'make it work' on some device or another which had wanted the 'second line' only. Anyway, between you and I, I hope we answered the man's inquiry; he has not written back. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Home Intercom Phone System With Cordless Phone? Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:23:48 -0500 Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) posted on that vast internet thingie: > In light of the dicussion about a home phone system (2-4 lines, a > half-dozen extensions, perhaps) that offers intercom connections > between any two phones, I'm wondering: > Is there such a system that will work with a cordless phone? The idea > is that the cordless phone could be one of the stations. Have a look at the Panasonic KX-TG4000b. What range are you looking for? Another nice phone is the TMC ET-4000 for a wired installation that allows any single line cordless phone to be integrated to the system with a module. (We use the ET4000s here at SELLCOM with the Motorola 5.8 phones with the cordless module.) Tom Betz posted on that vast internet thingie: > I may need to put WiFi in an office where I now use a KX-TG4000 > system, and the systems will be incompatible with each other, living > in the same spectrum. It would be nice to be able to stay with > cordless phones. We have had people buy the KX-TG4000b because of its reputation for co-existing comfortably with wireless lans. If that doesn't work the TMC ET4000 is nice and was my pick for use here at SELLCOM (with Motorola 5.8 cordless phones) Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Talkswitch, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Minisplitter log splitter If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I saw a really neat 'home brew' but professional looking intercom built in a phone once several years ago. They used a two-line turn button phone; the telephone (or c.o. line) was on one side of the turn button with the red/green wires. The other side of the turn button was the intercom which ran to an office upstairs. Not everyone knows this, but those old turn button, two line phones had a *third* position as well; the twist button could be pressed down and released. Normally the blue/white pair of wires was attached to that set of contacts, and use that third position as a manual buzzer to notify the other station. The blue/white pair normally was used as a bypass for the call 'on hold' while the other side of the button was in a conversation. But you could just as easily use the blue/white to operate a buzzer at the opposite end. If you had two actual phone pairs instead you had to have a 'side ringer' for one of the two lines, since the same bell could not be used to ring both lines (problems with the current in the line.) But if you were cheap and did not want to buy or (rent from telco) a second, side ringer for the other line, there were also ways to wire the one existing ringer in the phone so that the bell would ring for whichever line was in the *opposite position* of the line you were using. (Harper Theatre in Hyde Park, Chicago, 773-BUTterfield 8-1717; the box office and the business office which was upstairs). PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Spam Question Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:33:45 -0500 Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com OK, we all see the never ending spam promoting sites that are hosted usually in China by way of cn.net or in Russia. The spammers rape ISPs all over with throw away accounts knowing that their foreign site will be up long enough to make it worthwhile. I don't believe it will ever stop until the big US enablers are held responsible for that which they are enabling. If the spam sites were in the US would the US enablers not be held responsible? Want to see spam stop? Hold the US enablers of the foreign spam websites liable and watch how quick the spam becomes unprofitable. When you report spam to the uce@ftc.gov or wherever, also report the US enabler who is providing connectivity to the USA for the spam site. Steve at SELLCOM (the opinions expressed here do not reflect the opinions of anyone else at all; but they SHOULD!) http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Talkswitch, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Minisplitter log splitter If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ 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: 620-330-6774 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 second 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 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 #86 *****************************