From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Feb 28 17:00:13 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1SM0DD03626; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:00:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:00:13 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402282200.i1SM0DD03626@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 #94 TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:00:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 94 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Court: DeCSS Ban Violated Free Speech (Monty Solomon) Residents Express Annoyance Over Cable Cost Discrepancies (M. Solomon) Picture, Michael Powell in a Bra (John Bartley) 3 Slot Coin Phones (Julian Thomas) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Tony P.) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Nick Landsberg) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Linc Madison) Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: Vonage Question [was: VoIP Phone] (Pete Romfh) Re: Vonage Question [was: VoIP Phone] (Flatus Ohlfahrt) Re: Vonage Question [was: VoIP Phone] (John Levine) Re: Vonage Troubles (John Schmerold) 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: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:27:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court: DeCSS Ban Violated Free Speech By Evan Hansen Staff Writer, CNET News.com A California appeals court on Friday reversed a 4-year-old order barring the publication of a DVD-cracking tool on the Internet, finding the injunction violated the defendant's free speech rights. The case was closely watched as a test of how much protection companies can expect in California for trade secrets that become widely distributed online. The plaintiff, the DVD Copy Control Association, had argued that Andrew Bunner violated its intellectual property rights by posting on the Internet code known as DeCSS that can be used to bypass Hollywood's encryption scheme for DVDs. Bunner's attorneys had countered that the code was no longer a secret by the time he posted it on his Web site. On Friday, California's Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, reversing a trial judge's order first issued in 1999. http://news.com.com/2100-1026-5166887.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:40:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Residents Express Annoyance Over Cable Cost Discrepancies By Connie Paige, Globe Correspondent, 2/19/2004 Boston Globe Hudson selectmen called a Comcast Corp. employee on the carpet at a meeting last month to find out why cable TV bills are higher there than in neighboring communities. Frank Foss, Comcast's manager of government and community relations, explained that it relates to the services provided to Hudson. Selectmen asked Foss to break down costs; they're still waiting. "I'm not really happy about it," said Selectman Joseph Durant. "I don't think I've ever gotten a straight answer out of them, ever." Cable TV companies serving the western suburbs charge different rates even in neighboring communities, sometimes for the same channel lineups. Customers in Hudson, for example, pay $49 monthly for standard cable service, even though they get the same programs as residents in nearby Maynard, where the rate is $47; Stow, $46; and Sudbury, $44.75, according to company rate cards. Standard service includes the networks and sports, children's, travel, and food channels, but no premium fare such as HBO. The same is true for the area around Watertown, where the standard- service Comcast bill is $41.75 per month, while in Needham, it's $43.75; Wellesley, $45.50; and Weston, $46.75, rate cards show. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/19/residents_express_annoyance_over_cable_cost_discrepancies/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:35:14 PST From: John Bartley or K7AAY@ARRL.NET Subject: Picture, Michael Powell in a Bra Yes, Michael Powell in a bra. Some telecom or computer magazine I've read within the past week had a B&W pic of the Chair of the FCC in a bra. I'd heard he wore it at some stag event, and wasn't surprised when I saw it; just trashed the magazine, and forgot about it. Now, I've read the Notice of Rulemaking for BPL (internet service over power lines), and need that picture, because there's nothing like sophomoric humor on the part of Powell to illustrate the cavalier way the FCC is approaching the issue. What issue? Go set your tune your hi-fi to AM, pick a spot between local stations, and turn up the vpolume about half way. Then, try to have a phone conversation over a bad cellular connection with your ear six inches from the speakers, and you will still have an easier time communicating than hams will when we experience the 16 db over S9 interference already demonstrated by BPL. That interference explains why Austria and Japan already tried, then abandoned, BPL. However, this is 'the best government which lobbyist money can buy', so we get the FCC telling us in the Notice they expect power companies to fix the problems, the same power companies who already take *months* to resolve RFI (radio frequency interference) problems with existing tech. The burden of proof of the problem will be on the *ham*. How easy is it to talk to your power company? Hams know it gets much harder when interference problems arise. Hams have to buy all of our own gear to equip ourselves to be able to communicate in emergencies, and we're a part of just about every emergency plan there is. How many hams will learn the special skills needed for shortwave and longwave and make the investment of $$$$ to buy the gear, if all we get is static from BPL? You have to practice just like it's for real to be competent in something so demanding as passing radio traffic, and longwave and shortwave require very different skills than the VHF and UHF short-range frequencies which are unaffected by BPL. Folks, I need this pic to help me prove my point. Anyone remember what magazine that picture was in? Thanks, 73s and best regards, John E. Bartley, III K7AAY telcom admin, PDX - Views mine. celdata cjb net - Handheld Cellular Data FAQ *This post quad-ROT13 encrypted. Reading it violates the DMCA.* ------------------------------ From: Julian Thomas Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:54:42 -0500 Subject: 3 Slot Coin Phones I'm surprised that some of the old stories haven't surfaced yet (possible urban legends) about the ingenuity that students developed in order to avoid actually spending the coins for a call. First, there was 'spinning pennies'. But the story I like best was about the contest for the best device to fake out the registering of coins. The winner -- one of the first examples of thinking outside the [coin]box -- was a simple board with 3 bells mounted to it. Striking the right bell made it sound to the OPR like the corresponding coin had been deposited and registered. Julian Thomas: jt@jt-mj.net http://jt-mj.net In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org -- -- Windows: From the people who brought you EDLIN! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think some phone phreaks built an electronic box do to that, but do not remember its name. You fill in the blank: a _____ box . I do know that Illinois Bell once had a very misprogrammed number; you dialed it (from a regular home phone) and when there was an answer, a recording would say 'the call you have dialed requires a ten-cent deposit, please deposit ten-cents.' Only having two nickels, I would rapidly punch the three and six buttons on my touch tone like this: 'ding-ding (very short pause) 'ding-ding'. Bell's equipment would come back and demand another ten cents. If I just sat there presently a live operator would come on the line and say, 'our equipment did not register your money, deposit it again.' Okay operator, here it is ... and I would press the buttons (3&6) rapidly again. The operator obviously heard what appeared to be coins going in, and she released the call out to the network. As long as I kept making the required ding-ding deposits and then answering the inquiring operator with more ding-dings the call just kept looping around to itself and making the request for money over and over. After doing it about five or six times, the audio transmission quality got so bad I had to just abandon my call. (snicker). I think we played with that off and on for a week or so, eventually tiring of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 05:47:43 GMT In article , alg@aracnet.com says: > Nick - > That was great work! And, of course, you win the Bonus points! Use > them wisely! > Some comments and minor nits: > --- What state was the "Diamond State"? I'm guessing Rhode Island... > (and here's another exquisitely arcane name: "Rhode Island and > Providence Plantations". That was its name when King Charles II > released control of the place). Bzzzzttt ... wrong answer. Diamond State was Delaware, not the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. It is still the official name of the state btw, as a former state employee I ought to know. We were covered by New England Telephone which became Nynex, then Bell Atlantic and now Verizon. Just a slight identity crisis. ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:04:39 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Al Gillis wrote: > Nick - > That was great work! And, of course, you win the Bonus points! Use > them wisely! Thanks ... some responses to your comments interspersed here ... > Some comments and minor nits: > ---The company that held forth in the upper middle states was > Northwestern > Bell, with the two Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska. > --- In the Pacific Northwest of the US it was (what else?) Pacific > Northwest Bell (Oregon, Washington and part of Idaho). In the far > eastern part of Oregon and some places in Idaho there was a little > operation called the Malhuer Home Telephone Company. I used to see > references to it in Oregon PUC tariff filing information) > --- I think the C&P companies were all separate at the end (1984) but > were surely all one company in the early days. How else would they > all get that exquisitely arcane name? (That sort of reminds me of the > full name of the A&P supermarkets: "The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea > Company"! That name certainly has more class than most of the names > in vogue today, don't you think?) I agree, they could have been the same at some point, but don't know for sure. It could have been a similar situation to Southern Bell which split into Southern Bell and South Central Bell at some point because someone felt it was just too large a company. (Funny how it got merged back in again thanks to Judge Green.) > --- What state was the "Diamond State"? I'm guessing Rhode Island... > (and here's another exquisitely arcane name: "Rhode Island and > Providence Plantations". That was its name when King Charles II > released control of the place). I'm pretty sure that Diamond State telephone was Delaware. > > --- Nevada Bell was a separate entity until 1984, when the > Californians got it. Do you suppose Nevada Bell was the smallest BOC > in terms of number of lines? No idea about the number of lines. I am pretty sure tho that Nevada was a separate company in name only. I remember having several meetings at Pac Bell in the early 80's regarding a system to support outside plant trouble-shooting. There was a poster in almost every conference room which read: "Don't forget about Nevada." Could have had to do with regulation as you note below. > --- It's interesting to me that in some cases many states were served > by one company (Mountain Bell and Northwestern Bell, for example) but > in lots of cases a Bell company was confined to a single state. I > suppose this was because of taxes or regulation but it might just have > been some agreements made with previous owners as companies were > purchased before the Kingsbury Commitment came into the fore. > So thanks!! PAT! MARK! Anything to add to Nicks information? > And Pat, thanks for adding your information about back office functions > spread across the System. > (Sorry this is getting so long!) > Al "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Speaking of the old Nevada Bell, did you ever see their telephone book? One book *only* for the entire state. After the front part of the book was devoted to the two or three large cities they serviced, then it went just page after page of toll station listings. The name of the town, followed by either one or two 'toll station' numbers, in one case I think five listings. Four of five such toll station communities listed on each page, and the same redundant instructions listed for each one: "To reach the subscribers in xxxx, dial your zero operator and ask for 'xxxx toll station number xx'. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:23:04 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , Al Gillis wrote: > --- It's interesting to me that in some cases many states were served > by one company (Mountain Bell and Northwestern Bell, for example) but > in lots of cases a Bell company was confined to a single state. I > suppose this was because of taxes or regulation but it might just have > been some agreements made with previous owners as companies were > purchased before the Kingsbury Commitment came into the fore. > So thanks!! PAT! MARK! Anything to add to Nicks information? There was also at least one exception in the other direction: almost all of the "Bell" areas of Texas were in the territory of Southwestern Bell, but the westernmost tip, the area around El Paso, was served by Mountain Bell. (Roughly the same part of Texas that is in the Mountain Time Zone instead of Central.) That area was transferred to Southwestern Bell, now SBC, as part of the Bell System breakup. 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: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:15:28 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications TELECOM Digest Editor noted in reply to writer: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe an appeal to the chairman's >> office would work. It has for me a couple times. Or else filing a >> commission complaint. But really, what made you think they would >> automatically know of your intentions and put you on the $4 plan? >> For them to do that without your okay is also illegal; it is known >> as 'cramming'. This really isn't Verizon's fault at all; try again >> tomorrow with a different rep and see if she will help you before >> you go the appeals route. If you get out of this mess in one piece, >> start reading their advertising more closely, and *always* tell the >> business office your intentions before you make calls like this. >> PAT] > Policies like these are predatory on the part of AT&T. No wonder > they're doing so badly. It looks like they took a few pages from the MCI > playbook. Absolutely predatory on the part of Verizon. The web site should have stated both rates, and in large, clear print stated that the "theft" rate automatically applied unless you called the company and signed up. In this day and age, how can you even trust them to sign you up? ------------------------------ From: Pete Romfh Subject: Re: Vonage Question [was: VoIP Phone] Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:16:34 -0600 Organization: Not Organized Joe Wineburgh wrote: > on the back of the Vonage box to connect to connect to a > pair going round the house to multiple phones> > Has anyone actually set this up and used it this way? I'm > ordering the service and this was exactly what I was > thinking of doing per the comments on the Vonage web site > suggesting it was possible and would like to get some > feedback from others who are using it in this > configuration. > Thanks. > #JOE == Pat's useful info snipped ==== I have this working right now. I replaced my 2nd RBOC line (about $40/mo) with Vonage. The Cisco ATA sits in my closet where the DSL, router, and (home run) wiring all terminate. I just put an RJ-11 on the end of some cross-connect wire, pulled off the jumper coming in from the protector, and punched down the XC wire. On my (2-line) phones L1 is my local (Houston) line and L2 is my (Chicago) Vonage line. I'm driving 5 (electronic) ringers on it with no problem but I'll bet the REN is down around 3. Works fine and is simple for my spouse to understand. Having a Chicago line is handy for my relatives living there and it's fun to call my (Houston) co-workers from saying I'm starting in to work. When I show up in the office 20 minutes later they wonder how I got from Chicago to Houston so quickly. Ocassionally I forget and try to dial a local number on L2 but am quickly reminded by an error tone. Local calls here are 10-digits and Vonage calls are 1+10 digits. I've registered the street address on Vonage's system so a 911 call on L2 will still be correctly identified. Pete Romfh, Telecom Geek & Amateur Gourmet. promfh at Texas dot net ------------------------------ From: Flatus Ohlfahrt Subject: Re: Vonage Question [was: VoIP Phone] Date: 28 Feb 2004 13:11:16 GMT Organization: USAF Ret On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:21:11 GMT, Joe Wineburgh wrote in news:telecom23.93.7@telecom-digest.org: > of the Vonage box to connect to connect to a pair going round the > house to multiple phones> > Has anyone actually set this up and used it this way? I'm > ordering the service and this was exactly what I was > thinking of doing per the comments on the Vonage web site > suggesting it was possible and would like to get some > feedback from others who are using it in this configuration. I've done it and it works fine. And, I've taken it one step further by having the ATA plug in to my Talkswitch Concero. I have four internal branches from the Concero that are automatically managed by hour of the day and type of call, e.g., fax, voice, or calls to be forwarded to my cellphone. It gives me great good pleasure to announce that there is absolutely no physical connection between my 'internal phone company' and BellSouth! Flatus [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had never thought of that, but now I suspect, the Vonage ATA would work quite well as the in/output to the 9-level on a small PBX system. From any phone in the house, dial '9' and get an outside line from Vonage. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 2004 14:28:42 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Vonage Question [was: VoIP Phone] Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > of the Vonage box to connect to connect to a pair going round the > house to multiple phones> > Has anyone actually set this up and used it this way? Yes, that's what I do. I unplugged my second line at the outside box and put a piece of electrical tape over the jack as a hint to any telco guys who might happen by. In my office I have a two line phone with the usual two jacks, one for L1/L2, one for L2 only, so I left the first jack plugged into the wall, and plugged the second jack into the ATA box. The phone bridges the two jacks, so the Vonage line now goes all over the house, and works fine on the two other two-line phones. I think I read somewhere that the ATA can power up to five ringers, but I wouldn't push it. It works fine with three. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, aren't you involved with the sewers there in Trumansburg any longer? You used to have that as part of one of your several .sig files. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:27:56 -0600 From: John Schmerold Subject: Re: Vonage Troubles Spent a couple of hours of unbillable time listening to client complain. Vonage music on hold, Vonage saying they're going to tweak something. No more. I'm going to pick someone else, not sure what yet, but Vonage is growing too fast and they don't have the willingness to say "sorry we're full for now". There are many people that can sell well, many people that deliver well, I should have gone with someone that can deliver well. Sammy@nospam.biz wrote about Re: Vonage Troubles on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:02:27 -0800 saying: > Rich Greenberg wrote: > > >> In article , >> wrote: >>> I've had Vonage for 11 months now, and have used it at two different >>> locations (Cable modem and DSL). >>> I lose dial tone occasionally and have found, every time, that if I >>> reboot the Cisco and perhaps the cable modem, it comes back just fine. >> And if you do nothing but wait about the same length of time, does it >> still come back? > Don't know, because if I need to use it I don't hang around and wait. > From: Joe Wineburgh > Subject: Vonage Question [was: VoIP Phone] > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:21:11 -0500 > of the Vonage box to connect to connect to a pair going round the > house to multiple phones> > Has anyone actually set this up and used it this way? I'm ordering the > service and this was exactly what I was thinking of doing per the > comments on the Vonage web site suggesting it was possible and would > like to get some feedback from others who are using it in this > configuration. > > Thanks. > > #JOE ------------------------------ 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 #94 *****************************