From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 30 15:44:14 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2UKiER10936; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:44:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:44:14 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403302044.i2UKiER10936@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 #151 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:43:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 151 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Level 3 Announces Wholesale VoIP Customer Agreement With 8x8 (VOIP News) AT&T Ushers in New Era in Communication With Launch of AT&T (VOIP News) VoicePulse Announces Plans for Encrypted Phone Service (VOIP News) Re: Nuisance Recorded Phone Calls (No Spam) Re: Nuisance Recorded Phone Calls (John Bartley) AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill (Carl Moore) 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: VOIP News Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:27:14 -0500 Subject: Level 3 Announces Wholesale VoIP Customer Agreement With 8x8 Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-30-2004/0002137119&EDATE= Broadband VoIP and Video Communications Company Purchases Level 3's Local Inbound and Voice Termination Services SANTA CLARA, Calif., March 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Level 3 Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: LVLT) today announced at the Spring 2004 VON Conference & Expo that 8x8 (Nasdaq: EGHT), a broadband VoIP and video communications service provider, has purchased wholesale VoIP services from Level 3. 8x8 (http://www.8x8.com) purchased (3)VoIP(SM) Local Inbound and (3)Voice(R) Termination services from Level 3. 8x8 serves residential and business customers through a suite of offerings under the Packet8 and Packet8 Virtual Office brands that include broadband telephone service for residential customers, consumer videophones and virtual office PBX solutions for small businesses. "Packet8 is a worldwide communications service available today to anyone with broadband Internet access," said Barry Andrews, president of 8x8. "The quality and broad market coverage of Level 3's advanced VoIP solutions are enabling us to quickly deliver feature-rich, cost-effective voice and video services to our growing base of business and residential customers." "We're pleased that 8x8 has selected Level 3 as its primary provider of wholesale VoIP solutions," said Sureel Choksi, president of Softswitch Services for Level 3. "Level 3 has a full set of wholesale VoIP offerings that give 8x8 and other customers the control they need to develop and quickly roll-out new products and services." (3)VoIP Local Inbound service significantly reduces communications costs for call center operators, conferencing providers, and other enhanced service providers that require a reliable local-calling infrastructure. The service complements both (3)VoIP Toll Free(SM), Level 3's new toll-free, nationwide calling solution, and its worldwide (3)Voice Termination service. "Level 3's wholesale VoIP solutions enable our customers to develop new services at significantly lower cost and with traditional phone quality," said Kevin Dundon, senior vice president of Wholesale Voice Services for Level 3. "Customers can create their own products using multiple Level 3 wholesale VoIP services as building blocks." The (3)VoIP Local Inbound service rides Level 3's patented softswitch platform, which has successfully processed more than 300 billion minutes in voice and data calls since 1999. The service also utilizes Level 3's extensive local networks, offering industry-leading geographic coverage. The (3)VoIP Local Inbound service enables customers to: * Establish local presence in 73 markets across the United States; * Design and deliver new applications quickly and cost-effectively; * Streamline call flows; * Deploy and maintain application servers at a single location. (3)Voice Termination service, originally launched in December 1999, enables PTTs, inter-exchange carriers, enhanced service providers, cable operators and other companies to terminate calls in the U.S. and abroad. (3)Voice Termination was the world's first long-distance voice service that offered customers voice quality indistinguishable from traditional telephone networks, but with the efficiencies and inherent cost advantages of IP. In December 2003, Level 3 significantly expanded its softswitch-based (3)Voice Termination service by enabling customers to hand off traffic directly to Level 3 using an IP interface, further lowering their fixed network costs and capital expenses. Level 3's expanded voice capability allows IP-to-IP interconnection with the Level 3 network at the high levels of security required for voice traffic. Level 3 is an industry pioneer in the development of VoIP technology and services. Today the company offers a broad suite of wholesale, business and residential IP-based voice solutions over a robust softswitch-based network platform that carries more than 30 billion minutes of IP-based voice and data calls every month. For more information about Level 3's portfolio of VoIP services, please stop by VON booth #615, or visit http://www.Level3.com. About Level 3 Communications Level 3 (Nasdaq: LVLT) is an international communications and information services company. The company operates one of the largest Internet backbones in the world, is one of the largest providers of wholesale dial-up service to ISPs in North America and is the primary provider of Internet connectivity for millions of broadband subscribers, through its cable and DSL partners. The company offers a wide range of communications services over its 22,500 mile broadband fiber optic network including Internet Protocol (IP) services, broadband transport and infrastructure services, colocation services, and patented Softswitch managed modem and voice services. Its Web address is http://www.Level3.com. The company offers information services through its subsidiaries, Software Spectrum and (i)Structure. For additional information, visit their respective Web sites at http://www.softwarespectrum.com and http://www.i-structure.com. The Level 3 logo and (3)Voice are registered service marks and (3)VoIP and (3)VoIP Toll Free are service marks of Level 3 Communications, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries. 8x8, Packet8 and Packet8 Virtual Office are trademarks of 8x8, Inc. SOURCE Level 3 Communications, Inc. Web Site: http://www.level3.com Photo Notes: NewsCom: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990721/LVLTLOGO PRN Photo Desk, 888-776-6555 or 201-369-3467 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:40:40 -0500 Subject: AT&T Ushers in New Era in Communication With Launch of AT&T Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Note: I took the subject line for this message from the headline on the press release itself, but it seems to me that AT&T is quite full of themselves if they think it is they who are ushering in the "new era." Several other companies, including VoicePulse, Vonage, and Packet8, have beat them to that claim, and several reviews I have read suggest that those other companies do it better. Certainly, anyone interested in VoIP should compare the features and prices of the other companies before going with AT&T, and it wouldn't hurt to spend a little time at places like the BroadbandReports.com VoIP forum reading the user reviews on the various providers. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-30-2004/0002137485&EDATE= AT&T Ushers in New Era in Communication With Launch of AT&T CallVantage Service Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston First Major Cities to be Served Introductory Promotion Offers Unlimited Calling and Advanced Features at 50 Percent Off Regular Price of $39.99 Per Month DALLAS, March 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AT&T today launched its residential Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone service, called AT&T CallVantage(SM) Service, providing the residents of Texas a high-tech alternative for their personal communications needs. Starting today, AT&T's CallVantage Service will begin setting the benchmarks for what the company believes will be the industry's most reliable and innovative broadband phone service in the country as it becomes generally available to consumers in the Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston metropolitan areas. The service will be expanded to serve the San Antonio metropolitan area over the next several weeks through a controlled introduction with additional markets in the state and the nation to follow early this summer. Yesterday, the company also announced the local availability of AT&T CallVantage Service in parts of New Jersey. "AT&T already provides traditional residential local service to more than 4 million households nationwide, but AT&T CallVantage Service marks the beginning of an exciting new era in telecommunications that gives customers another competitive choice," said Cathy Martine, AT&T senior vice president for Internet Telephony, Consumer Marketing and Sales. "AT&T will continue to lead the adoption of VoIP services by both businesses and consumers as it delivers the next generation of communications that our customers demand." AT&T CallVantage Service requires a customer to have a high-speed Internet connection to the home. While most households have access to these broadband connections through their local cable or telephone company, only about one in five subscribe nationally. In Texas, broadband penetration runs close to this national average with higher pockets of penetration in some of its major metropolitan areas according to data from TNS Telecoms. VoIP applications might just be the "value-add" that consumers are seeking to justify their investment in broadband, Martine said. AT&T CallVantage Service is different than traditional phone services because it uses IP-based networks instead of traditional circuit-switched phone networks to make calls. That means AT&T CallVantage not only can offer customers typical features such as call waiting, three-way calling, and call forwarding -- all free of charge -- but far more advanced ones as well. Indeed, consumers will get unprecedented convenience and control with innovative features including: * "Call Logs," which tracks incoming and outgoing calling with "click to dial" capability; * "Do Not Disturb," which allows customers to receive calls only when they want, while letting emergency calls ring in; * "Personal Conferencing," which enables users to set up a meeting with up to nine additional callers; * "Locate Me," which enables home phones to find customers by ringing up to five phones all at once or one right after the other; * "Voicemail with eFeatures," which allows customers to hear their messages from any phone or PC and forward the voicemail to anyone on the Web via e-mail. All that is required for service is an easy-to-connect, plug-in telephone adapter (TA) provided by AT&T, and a broadband Internet connection and regular telephone supplied by the customer. It is simple to use and easy for consumers to install -- typically in 10 minutes. AT&T CallVantage Service works with most any cable modem or digital subscriber line (DSL) broadband connection. The TA is compatible with most home computer networks and may be used in conjunction with various home network routers. And, the adapter can be used from almost any location where there is a telephone and a broadband connection. That gives customers the ability to take their telephone numbers with them wherever they travel. To kick-start the AT&T CallVantage Service launch, AT&T will offer a special introductory rate of $19.99 a month for six months to those who subscribe by May 31, 2004. This promotional rate includes a complete calling solution that provides unlimited local and long-distance domestic calling, including calls to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, discount rates for international calling, and a suite of advanced features that customers have never experienced before. AT&T CallVantage will cost $39.99 a month thereafter. The company plans to add many more advanced features over the next 12 months. As a special incentive, the company will offer AT&T CallVantage customers one month of free service (maximum of 12 months) for each referral and sale made through its "Refer-a-Friend" program. The company's commitment is to expand AT&T CallVantage Service to 100 major markets by year's end as part of AT&T's growing strategic focus on IP- based communications services. The company expects to sign up 1 million business and consumer customers by year-end 2005. "Imagine extending this set of features to your entire family and the connectedness that functionality will provide. With an IP-based service, imagination combined with software opens up enormous possibilities," Martine added. AT&T CallVantage Service is an innovative service that promises to transform the way people communicate. A core concept to the service, built on AT&T Labs patented technology, is the ability to quickly introduce new features and capabilities to the platform. "New technologies like VoIP in no way substitute for the important, pro- competitive local phone policies that are needed to be established by the Texas Public Utility Commission under the Federal Communication Commission's Triennial Review Order," said Tom Pelto, AT&T vice president of law and government affairs. "Without question, VoIP is the future of telecommunications in this country, however, the Unbundled Network Elements Platform (UNE-P) is the present and remains the gold standard that has allowed some 1.8 million Texans to select a competitive local phone service provider. Voice is the killer application and UNE-P is the only way today to get it into the bundle. "Healthy competition is the engine that will drive investment and innovation that leads us to the future," he said. "Without UNE-P, you would not have seen the wave of innovation to introduce VoIP. Without UNE-P, you will not see VoIP grow, nor will Texans experience the full array of attendant benefits and investment." With the addition of AT&T CallVantage Service, AT&T offers consumers a broad range of communications services designed to meet almost any need and budget. AT&T's portfolio of offers includes everything from new and innovative services like broadband telephony to traditional bundled packages of classic local, long distance and Internet services. The company plans to support the marketing of AT&T CallVantage Service with an extensive communications campaign that will include mass market advertising on television, radio and in print and through direct mail, viral marketing and online. Television and print advertising begins in Texas tomorrow. To learn more about AT&T CallVantage Service, consumers can visit http://www.att.com/CallVantage or call 1-866-816-3815 extension 64525. About AT&T For more than 125 years, AT&T (NYSE: T) has been known for unparalleled quality and reliability in communications. Backed by the research and development capabilities of AT&T Labs, the company is a global leader in local, long distance, Internet and transaction-based voice and data services. The foregoing contains "forward-looking statements" which are based on management's beliefs as well as on a number of assumptions concerning future events made by and information currently available to management. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on such forward-looking statements, which are not a guarantee of performance and are subject to a number of uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside AT&T's control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. For a more detailed description of the factors that could cause such a difference, please see AT&T's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. AT&T disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. This information is presented solely to provide additional information to further understand the results of AT&T. SOURCE AT&T Web Site: http://www.att.com/CallVantage How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VoIPnews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: VoIPnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:03:48 -0500 Subject: VoicePulse Announces Plans for Encrypted Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-30-2004/0002137086&EDATE= VoicePulse Announces Plans for Encrypted Phone Service Broadband Phone Service Allows Customers to Make Secure Phone Calls SANTA CLARA, Calif., March 30 /PRNewswire/ -- VON (VOICE ON THE NET) CONFERENCE AND EXPO, -- VoicePulse Inc., one of the nation's leading providers of broadband phone service, and Sipura Technology, manufacturer of the feature rich SPA-2000 phone adapter, today announced plans to secure customers' broadband phone calls using encryption. The new capability leverages technology built into the SPA-2000 as well as modifications to VoicePulse's own softswitch, developed in house. "The lack of encryption in consumer VoIP offerings has been a growing concern among users," said Ketan Patel, VoicePulse executive vice-president. "For the first time, customers will be able to pick up a telephone and carry on a conversation that is protected from eavesdropping - electronic or traditional. This is something that was rarely available even to PSTN phone users." Unlike consumer VoIP offerings to date, the new capability will protect customer phone calls by encrypting the portion that travels over the public Internet -- a frequent request by residential consumers, and an absolute requirement for business users. VoicePulse is the first company to announce plans to offer this level of security, due to be implemented in the second quarter of 2004. VoicePulse allows consumers to use their existing cable or DSL Internet connection for phone service. The service includes traditional features such as caller ID, call waiting, call forwarding and voicemail as well as a host of advanced features such as distinctive ring, call filters, telemarketer blocking and anonymous call rejection. Consumers need only a high-speed Internet connection and an ordinary touch-tone telephone to use the service. VoicePulse uses Voice-over-IP technology to deliver the next generation of broadband phone service. VoicePulse's services include: -- Unlimited local, regional and 200 US long distance minutes for $14.99 per month -- Unlimited local, regional and US long distance calling for $24.99 per month -- Traditional features such as Caller ID, Call Waiting with Caller ID, 3-Way Calling, Call Transfer, Call Return, Caller ID Blocking, Repeat Dialing -- Advanced features including Telemarketer Blocking, Do Not Disturb, Anonymous Call Rejection, Distinctive Ring. -- Voicemail with optional e-mail delivery of messages as sound attachments -- Choose your own area code -- Low international calling rates About Sipura Technology: Sipura Technology, Inc., located in San Jose, California, delivers products that are economically and functionally designed for large-scale global Voice over IP deployments. By providing exceptional value, Sipura offers customers high quality products that support rapid service adoption with secure and sustainable growth. Web address: http://www.sipura.com About VoicePulse: VoicePulse is a New Jersey based communications company that uses its VoIP network to deliver advanced features and high-quality phone service to residential and small-business consumers. The company leads the industry in delivering innovative features and excellent customer service. For more information about VoicePulse, please visit http://www.voicepulse.com. VoicePulse is a trademark of VoicePulse Inc. http://www.voicepulse.com For more information, please contact: VoicePulse Inc. Rima Vaghasiya Phone: (732) 339-5100 ext. 1 rima@voicepulse.com Sipura Technology Sherman Scholten Phone: (408) 572-5674 sherman@sipura.com SOURCE VoicePulse Inc. Web Site: http://www.voicepulse.com http://www.sipura.com ---------------------------------------- How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:00:18 -0500 From: No Spam Subject: Re: Nuisance Recorded Phone Calls PAT: Your information on RespOrg is correct, but these calls are probably not intentionally 'nuisance' calls. The number belongs to CCA, a financial services organization. I called them on behalf of a 'concerned user' of one of my systems, and they explained that they are not a sales or telemarketing organization. If they are calling a number in error, they are happy to remove said number, however, I explained to them that I just needed to confirm the nature of the call, and would let the end-user decide how to proceed. I suspect that they are trying to contact someone (who may or may not be you) for a legitimate reason. Your description reminded me of the time that Citibank called me because the noticed an unusually high quantity of transactions on my card. I had started my Holiday shopping. I would suggest giving them a call to confirm if they're calling you, or if they have a 'wrong number'. The 'nuisance' coordinator at x210 said she'd be more than happy to remove the 'dialled' number if they were calling it in error. If you'd like to authorize me to contact them on your behalf, email me privately with which of your numbers they dialled. J On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:14:35 EST TELECOM Digest Editor discussed Nuisance Recorded Phone Calls: > I have lately been getting one or two calls daily from a recorded > message which identifies itself as 'customer service' and claims to > have an important matter to discuss with me. I am to call back to > 'customer service' at 877-706-5624. For several days, I just ignored > it, treated it as a nuisance to petty too complain about very much. > I found is impossible to block the number from calling me. I was not > even able to track down *who* owned the number. > But I found something of value today and it may be useful for you as > well. The 'Resporg' (or Responsible Organization) Identification Line > can tell you which telco has the line in question. Dial 800-337-4194 > (recorded menu) and enter the entire ten digit number (800,888,877, > 866-xxx-xxxx) you are inquiring about. Confirm your entry when > requested. The recording will then read out the name of the resporg > and the number to call for troubles with it. I found out that my > nuisance calls were originating via Allnet, in Dallas, TX and the > number to call to report troubles, etc is 800-466-4600. > I hope this detail will be of value to readers. > PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:22:58 PST From: John Bartley or K7AAY@ARRL.NET Subject: Re: Nuisance Recorded Phone Calls I recognize the MO. It's a collection agency. They called me looking for another John Bartley who had stiffed his dentist. I advised them that I was not the John Bartley they were looking for, and they went away. However, I did obtain their e-mail address, and sent them an e-mail I also BCC'd back to myself to document the conversation, in case the dentist appears in my credit history as the source of a false bad debt. 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.* [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In regards to your note about calls from CCA in (a suburb of) Dallas, TX what I was able to find out is either they are as division of Southwestern Bell *or* Southwestern Bell is somehow affiliated with them. I dumped SBC out of my home totally almost a year ago, in May, 2003. I *had* a full service package from them (local service, long distance, DSL, and Cellular [via Cingular Wireless]). I had it all for about two years, under the my personal number, the main billing number at my home, except the cell phone. More than a year ago, I began to have a lot of trouble with SBC, to the point I had to call the business office at least once each month, to lodge complaints. The bills just kept getting higher and higher. They were getting money two ways: a large credit balance on my account (several hundred dollars sent in advance to pay for a year of DSL) and when that money was all used, then they had auto debit from my bank account here in Independence. One month they got paid TWICE. I sent them a check, then they went in the same month and got another payment from the bank. They claimed it was an accident, and offered to refund my money. It never showed up. Then once, because of my age and disability they decided I was eligible for 'Lifeline'? service and quoted certain rates. They did not keep any of those promises. Although they claimed that *60 would block unwanted/anonymous calls from getting through, they said (in a later conversation) that if a caller presented 000-000-0000 as their calling number ID, it was not an anonymous call, therefore they could not help me further with it. They told me DSL could be obtained for $29 per month instead of $49 per month, but then continued to bill me $49 and said the earlier quote was a 'mistake', that I was not eligible, because although I do have Cingular Wireless it did not 'appear on the same phone bill'. When I decided to switch entirely to Prairie Stream (our local area telco) SBC stalled forever, and was not going to allow me to switch since I had DSL. They said I was 'ineligible for conversion'. So I dumped DSL and all SBC service totally, going with cable modem from Cable One who is also going to be offering phone service soon. No sooner had I gotten rid of SBC entirely and was working on the bad taste in my mouth, I began getting requests from them to come back. DSL for $29, no questions, full package of telco for a very low rate, *and* a free fifty dollar gift card to sign up. About a month after I had left them totally, they went again to my bank trying to get more money, and because I told bank not to pay them further each month, they decided to place me for collection. Some days I would get two pieces of mail from them in the same day; one piece offering a great deal to return to them, and a second piece saying pay us the $117 you owe. I asked them for a complete breakdown of how they arrived at the $117 figure, and to deduct the overpayment from a few months earlier (bank draft in a month when a check also went in) and I got nothing from them at all, just more offers of great bargains if I would leave Prairie Stream and come back to them. I told CCA (out of some suburb in Dallas) to please get me a total, final, detailed balance due, deduct the overpayment and tell me how much was still due. They said 'call SBC and ask them to get the matter straightened out.' Well, SBC will not even talk to me since I am not a customer of theirs any longer. I have suggested to CCA they should not use an autodialer to call numbers and play recorded messages about 'customer service' without first identifing who they are calling, that they should give caller ID when they call, and that they should cease calling on request. I think there are laws against all those forms of behavior. I have suggested SBC should simply go ahead and sue me; let it come to a head so they can be shown for the liars and fools they are. Oh, one last thing ... a couple months ago, I got tired of this and sent them a fifty dollar money order with a note saying "despite your lies and misrepresentations, if I still owe you anything after you have applied the credit due to me, then use this fifty dollar money order, and file is considered closed." I never heard another word from them until CCA started calling March 9 except for one more 'we miss you' letter with bargains galore if I would return and accept more of their lies, etc. Now it appears they cannot locate the $50 I sent even though I marked my telephone number on the bill and enclosed one of their dunning notices. I guess they feel *I* should get in line at the customer disservice department at SBC and go through the whole thing once again. CCA said they would ask SBC for my file and a copy of my bill, but to allow 2-3 weeks for it to arrive. "Then we will call you and expect payment in full." I guess even though as the lady claimed to me, 'SBC will have to look in their records for something that far back' (a year ago) I am expected to have all my own records from a year ago at my fingertips so I can send them immediate payment (of how much ever is left, minus my credit and my fifty dollar payment at the end.) Why does *anyone* stay with the large telcos if they can find other more effecient bunches like Prairie Stream or Vonage? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:47:59 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Did you see that story in New York and elsewhere? Someone accidentally ran a phone bill up to $2500 because of a mistaken belief that a call to an AOL number within 973 in New Jersey was a free local call. The story had the note about the usual need to use leading 1 if it's a toll call, and also said that's not always the case "in some East Coast service areas". Remember about use of 7D for all calls (even toll) within a NJ area code. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #151 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 31 00:00:35 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2V50Y616168; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:35 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403310500.i2V50Y616168@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 #152 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:59:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 152 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Manchester, UK Exchange Fire (Jim Burks) <<================ More Fire News from Manchester, UK Fire (TELECOM Editor) <<========== Re: Western Union Clocks (Wesrock@aol.com) Cellular Tower Leases (Roy) Re: HDTV - Looking at an All-Digital World (jmayson@nyx.net) San Francisco ballpark becomes WiFi Internet hub (Monty Solomon) Re: "Virtual" Call Forwarding (Sammy@nospam.biz) Re: A Better Way To Squelch Spam? (jmayson@nyx.net) VOIP Seeks Its FCC Level (VOIP News) Vonage Sues AT&T for Trademark Infringement (VOIP News) VoIP Reaches Out, Wirelessly (VOIP News) SPA-3000 Unveiled by Sipura Technology at the Spring VON (VOIP News) 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: Jim Burks Subject: Manchester, UK Exchange Fire Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:14:47 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com A fire damaged a major BT cable tunnel in central Manchester, UK early Monday morning. This seems to be their equivalent of the Hinsdale, IL fire of the '80s in the US (see TELECOM Digest archives for details). Significant disruption of the phone network at least 100 miles from Manchester in some areas. Estimates are 150,000 lines affected, including the city ambulance dispatch radios, a number of call centres and web hosting centres. My company's high capacity leased lines in the area are still down as of Tuesday evening. News links: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/36645.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/36652.html http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/stories/Detail_LinkStory=85790.html http://www.cybertrn.demon.co.uk/guardian/ Jim Burks Collierville, TN jburks2 (et) midsouth.rr.com ------------------------------ From: Editor writes: > Participating PBS stations transmit the time signal on Line 21 of the > Vertical Blanking Interval. > My Sony VCR sets itself withing about 5 minutes. I doesn't make the > DST changes until I cycle the power for some reason. My (Panasonic) doesn't make any changes until you cycle the power. A couple of months ago my power was off for a time and when it came back on it was totally confused. Finally I got the manual out and discovered that was document ... except it seemed to me the power going off and then coming back on at some later time *was* cycling the power. I cycled the power off and on manually and the time came up very promptly. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: roy.inc@verizon.net (Roy) Subject: Cellular Tower Leases Date: 30 Mar 2004 17:27:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I want to buy cellular tower leases, is there a directory of cell tower lease owners? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: HDTV - Looking at an All-Digital World Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:53:18 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > The digital television (DTV) transition is moving into more American > homes via over-the-air broadcasting, cable TV, satellite and other > formats. Nearly 7 million U.S. households have bought digital TV > monitors and other display devices to take advantage of this > opportunity. Another 11 million homes are expected to buy DTV > equipment this year, and the number will grow to about 34 million > households by the end of 2006. To discuss the opportunities and > challenges, Vision spoke with a true DTV pioneer, Peter Fannon, vice > president, technology policy and regulatory affairs, > Panasonic/Matsushita Electric Corp. of America. I just don't get it. They expect Americans to pay a steep price for clearer mind-numbing crap? Quoting from TurnOffYourTV.com: "The whole point of DTV and HDTV (high definition television) is to offer a clearer TV signal -- at a price. And the price will be steep in two ways: First, the actual cost to the consumer for the new DTV products. And second, the cost to the environment as thousands of perfectly useable televisions are rendered useless and placed in trash heaps. The point of the TurnOffYourTV.com web site is for people to unplug from the tube, get rid of their television sets and replace them with books, exercise and rewarding interpersonal activities -- not to trash the television and replace it with a more expensive one." http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/digitaltv/digitaltv.html I'd just as soon let all of the analog stations go dark and forget the medium ever existed. But I'm the only one in my house who has this opinion. :-/ John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:00:34 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: San Francisco Ballpark Becomes WiFi Internet Hub SAN FRANCISCO, March 30 (Reuters) - The old ballgame is getting some new technology. Baseball fans bored by the slow pace of a game or wanting more statistics and information will be able to connect computer devices via wireless computer networking, or WiFi, at San Francisco Giants home games this year, the team announced on Tuesday. The Giants' stadium is, after all, called SBC Park, for telecommunications giant SBC Communications Inc. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40967313 ------------------------------ From: Sammy@nospam.biz Subject: Re: "Virtual" Call Forwarding Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:14:54 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications _William_ wrote: > Question: > ================= > Does anyone know of a company that allows me to "port" (using the new > number portability capabilities) my existing landline phone number to > them and then allows me to forward that to a different number without > having to maintain an actual phoneline. Interesting question. The LECs have offered a feature since the early 1980s called "Remote Call Forwarding," which is only a logical presence in an area where you want a local presence. But, that would mean having a local number in the remote area forwarded to your physical number. Since number porting is local, I doubt what you are seeking would fall under the local number portability rules. ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: A Better Way To Squelch Spam? Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:01:12 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > Here's a way to do it. Let anybody issue money stamps. Let the > issuer keep the money. Let them use the money to build the necessary > server infrastructure, and if it's profitable, fine. A "stampette" > is, in effect, a one-time certificate, and the issuer is a certificate > authority whose certificates can't be cached. I'm estimating a price > of few thousand stampettes per dollar. I shouldn't have to pay even a penny because of spammers. I believe any system constructed to "stop spam" will get bypassed and abused. I don't understand why Internet users can't take it upon themselves to stop spam. I figure if *I* can do it, anyone can. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:51:13 -0500 Subject: VOIP Seeks Its FCC Level Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=50174 The regulatory status of voice over IP (VOIP) is still undecided, even after one service's victory with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), according to speakers at the Voice Over the Net (VON) conference. Kicking off a day-long session [ed. note: a mighty long session, that] on policy and regulation, speakers reiterated the argument that VOIP is fundamentally different from telephone service and should be regulated differently. The FCC has agreed -- for now. VOIP service Free World Dialup (FWD) was granted a February petition to be considered a data service rather than a telecommunications service (see VOIP to Star at FCC ). That puts FWD, and anything looking just like it, under Title I regulation for information services, as opposed to the more restrictive Title II for telephone service. (FWD is offered by Pulver.com, the same company that organizes VON). But that's no reason for proponents of easily accessible VOIP to celebrate yet, said Blair Levin, managing director of Legg Mason Inc. who was chief of staff to former FCC commissioner Reed Hundt. Full story at: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=50174 ---------------------------------------- How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:04:57 -0500 Subject: Vonage Sues AT&T for Trademark Infringement Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com My comments follow the excerpt ... http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8309500.htm By Martha McKay, The Record, Hackensack, N.J. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 30 - Vonage says AT&T is taking advantage. The Edison-based Internet telephone start-up claims AT&T stepped on its cyber-turf when AT&T named its new Internet phone service "CallVantage" and registered some Web site names that sound close to Vonage's name. Vonage makes its claims in a lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Trenton. The suit accuses AT&T of trademark infringement, among other things. "It's about the brand name," said Vonage spokeswoman Brooke Schulz. "We're concerned that our brand is being infringed upon and we're concerned there will be confusion in the marketplace." AT&T introduced "CallVantage," a service similar to Vonage's broadband phone service, in December and began selling service in New Jersey and Texas this month. AT&T chose the name CallVantage "with the intent of causing confusion, mistake, and deception as to the source of its products and services, and with the intent to present its products and services as emanating from, or being associated with, Vonage," the lawsuit said. AT&T spokesman Gary Morgenstern would not comment on the case except to say: "We think the lawsuit is totally without merit and we think we'll prevail in court." Vonage's additional claim against AT&T involves the practice by companies of purchasing the rights to Web site domain names with similar spellings to their own. Experts say companies may do this to ensure that potential customers who incorrectly type a Web site name will either be redirected to the correct site, or get an error message. Full story at: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8309500.htm Comment: First the standard disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, and what follows is my personal opinion only. Having said that, and disregarding the domain name issue for the moment, on the face of it this appears to be one of the dumbest trademark infringement lawsuits I've ever heard of. Not only is there very little similarity between "Vonage" and "CallVantage", but the folks at Vonage surely must realize that AT&T is not some small company that can be easily bullied into changing their product's name. I can think of a lot of company names that are a lot more similar than this. For example, first there was VoicePulse, then a few weeks later, VoiceGlo. There is a company called Broadvox, and more recently a company called Broadvoice (those last two are so similar that someone commented that maybe one of them should buy a blimp, so we can tell them apart!). But, in my opinion, the only way someone could confuse "CallVantage" with "Vonage" is if they were really drunk or something. Now, the practice of purchasing a misspelled version of a competitor's trade name is probably much more questionable, and if that were the sole issue I would not be making these comments. But somehow, I really doubt that Vonage is going to be able to force AT&T to change its product's name. (For those outside the U.S. who may not understand the blimp reference -- there are two U.S. tire manufacturers that have had similar names for decades. One, Goodyear, has a blimp (actually I think more than one) that's often used for aerial video shots at sporting events, etc., and is probably one of the more recognized icons of the advertising world. The other one, Goodrich, once ran an advertising campaign that mentioned the blimp and said, "We're the OTHER guys.") ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:19:58 -0500 Subject: VoIP Reaches Out, Wirelessly Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1557451,00.asp By Sebastian Rupley The talk at the VON (Voice On the Net) conference this week in Silicon Valley is not just about Voice over IP (VoIP) technology, but the coming convergence of Wi-Fi wireless LAN technology and VoIP services. That melding is already leading to the development of new products and services, with many more expected later this year. VoIP is already in the middle of a major comeback, and most observers think that's because widespread broadband adoption and other more reliable high-data-rate technologies have finally made sound quality and ease of use good enough for phone calls placed over the Internet. VoIP is saving businesses and consumers money, and is also raising sticky issues, such as whether the Federal Communications Commission should levy tariffs on VoIP players. According to Arizona research firm In-Stat/MDR, over 5 million people will subscribe to VoIP services by 2007 five times more than there were in 2002, a trend which could represent a trouble spot for other kinds of telecommunications companies. Full story at: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1557451,00.asp ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:17:01 -0500 Subject: SPA-3000 Unveiled by Sipura Technology at the Spring VON Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.sipura.com/Documents/SipuraPressRelease005.pdf SPA-3000 Unveiled by Sipura Technology at the Spring VON Conference VoIP Phone Adapter + PSTN Gateway Functionality Combines Advanced Media Gateway with Sophisticated Call Routing and Authentication in an Ultra Compact Design SAN JOSE, CA. March 30, 2004 Expanding on the phenomenally successful SPA-2000 and the just released SPA-1000 Voice over IP telephone adapters, the SPA-3000 continues to deliver on Sipura Technology's mission to provide market leading, best-in-class VoIP end points providing freedom and opportunity to service providers and end users. The SPA-3000 will feature VoIP adapter functionality found in the SPA-2000 and SPA-1000 with the additional benefit of an integral connection for legacy telephone network hop-on, hop-off applications. SPA-3000 users will be able to leverage their broadband phone service connections more than ever by automatically routing local calls from cell phones and land lines to a VoIP service provider and vice versa. A typical user calling from a land line or mobile phone will be able to reduce and even eliminate international and long distance telephone charges by first calling their SPA-3000 via a local phone number or by using a telephone connected directly to the unit. The advanced authentication and call routing intelligence programmed into the SPA-3000 will connect the caller via the Internet to the far end destination with security and ease. At the far end, calls can be answered immediately or further processed as a local call to any legacy land line or mobile phone allowed by the SPA-3000 dial plan. By combining the all features and functionality of a Sipura phone adapter with the power of a land line connection, the SPA-3000 is a welcome addition to our growing line of voice over IP endpoints, said Jan Fandrianto, Sipura president and CEO. The SPA-3000 may also be used for life line applications. For example, depending on the service provider's set-up, callers who dial 911 can be automatically routed via the IP or legacy telephone network. If power is lost to the unit or the VoIP service is down, calls will still be sent to a traditional carrier via the FXO interface. Sipura is currently working with several service providers to further define requirements for life line support in products such as the SPA-3000. In addition to the hundreds of programmable features available with VoIP phone adapter functionality, the SPA-3000 will provide specific features to allow calls to be routed to and from the FXO interface. Some of the features available on the SPA-3000 include: - Multiple, Configurable Dial Plans Activated for Individual or Groups of Users - Single and Dual Stage Dialing - FXO / VoIP Line Sharing The SPA-3000 will be available in North America in May 2004, from Internet telephony service providers and authorized Sipura Technology distributors. Beginning in April, a paid beta and evaluation program will be offered to customers via Sipura Technology's web site. The list price of the SPA-3000 is $169.95 About Sipura Technology: Sipura Technology, Inc., located in San Jose, California, delivers products that are economically and functionally designed for large-scale global Voice over IP deployments. By providing exceptional value, Sipura Technology offers customers high quality products that support rapid service adoption with secure and sustainable growth. Web address: http://www.sipura.com Contact: Name: Sherman Scholten Company: Sipura Technology Phone: (408) 572-5674 Email: sherman@sipura.com ### ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #152 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 31 01:15:34 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2V6FX917445; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:15:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:15:34 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403310615.i2V6FX917445@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 #153 TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:14:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 153 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Fire Coverage From Manchester, UK Continued (TELECOM Editor) <====== VoIP Provider to Block Eavesdroppers (VOIP News) Re: Cellular Tower Leases (John Levine) Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2500 Phone Bill (Marcus Jervis> 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: Editor Subject: Fire Coverage From Manchester, UK Continued Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 UCT Here are some news reports from the UK newspapers for Tuesday, March 30 and Wednesday, March 31 regards the telephone exchange fire in Manchester, UK on Monday. PAT BT fire disrupts emergency services By Tim Richardson Posted: 29/03/2004 at 13:41 GMT A major cable fire in Manchester has brought chaos to the region as emergency services struggle to cope with a communication blackout. According to the BBC, emergency services have been stretched after the fire damaged communication links. Greater Manchester Ambulance Service said it was struggling after the fire damaged its radio network while some 999 services have also been hit. And because so many phone lines have been wiped out, there are concerns that people will be unable to access 999 services in the event of an emergency. At this early stage it's impossible to gauge the full extent of the incident that has wiped out more than 130,000 telephone lines. The Register has received a number of reports from readers about companies hit by the fire and unable to access their systems. From banks to airlines, it seems the fire has brought many companies to their knees. Mobile phone operator Vodafone said that some of its network had been hit and that it's working with BT to reroute calls elsewhere. While a statement on utility giant Powergen's website reads: "We're sorry but the Powergen website is currently unavailable. This is due to a major telecommunications failure in the North of England. We're working hard to restore the service as soon as possible. Our apologies again for any inconvenience caused." Fire crews are still dealing the incident deep down in tunnels beneath the centre of Manchester. Black smoke is reportedly billowing out as firefighters use emergency generators to ventilate the tunnels. Said BT in its latest statement: "A fire in deep level tunnels running beneath the streets of central Manchester has caused extensive damage to cables and widespread disruption to phone services in Manchester and the surrounding area. "The fire is affecting some 130,000 homes and businesses in the centre of the city. BT is currently assessing the extent of the damage and working to reroute and restore as many services as possible. "However, the true extent of the repair will not become clear until the fire authority have declared the site safe and BT engineers can gain access to the tunnels. It is not possible at this stage to say how long it will be before all services are fully restored." The fire broke out around 2.00am causing "extensive damage". ® ===================================== BT denies cable fire was in A-bomb exchange By Tim Richardson Posted: 30/03/2004 at 11:28 GMT While BT was tackling its underground cable fire yesterday, the burning issue for many Web watchers was whether the blaze was in an old telephone exchange buried deep below Manchester and designed to withstand a twenty-kiloton atom bomb. The Register was flooded with emails yesterday from people convinced that the fire had broken out in what is known as the "Guardian Underground Telephone Exchange". According to this fascinating insight into Manchester's Cold War past the "Guardian" was built in 1954 some 34m underground and was designed to withstand a Hiroshima-size atomic explosion and ensure that communications could continue in the event of Manchester being flattened. Yesterday, BT officials denied that the fire was anywhere near the underground exchange. Today, though, a spokesman told The Register: "The tunnel in which the fire broke out was built at the same time as the former underground 'Guardian' exchange - in the 50s. "The exchange no longer exists - it was decommissioned in the early 70s and all the gear removed. "The tunnel is and always has been a cable tunnel between the two BT (then GPO) buildings - Dial House and Rutherford House." No one at the telco was available at the time of writing to say if the tunnel was part of the bomb-proof underground structure. ® =================================== Cold-War History in Manchester The Guardian Underground Telephone Exchange Ever since I moved to Manchester in 1986 I've heard rumours about secret underground installations under the city centre. I particularly remember being told on several occasions about a secret nuclear bunker under Piccadilly Gardens. I have since found out that there is some truth behind these rumours. This web site reports my findings. Warning The Guardian Underground Telephone Exchange is NOT open to the public. Attempting to gain unauthorised access is trespass. Often it is very dangerous too: on more than one occasion people have died in the process of trying to gain access to such sites. If you attempt to enter a defence related site, even an apparently unused one, you should expect an unpleasant encounter with military police. Please do not pester site owners to gain access, this causes irritation to many of them. Instead, please join one of the specialist societies that can organise visits properly. Most of what I found out came from the excellent and highly recommended book: War Plan UK: The Secret Truth about Britain's "Civil Defence" by Duncan Campbell Published by Paladin Books in 1983 (Unfortunately it is now out of print) This book includes a map and description of the Guardian Underground Telephone Exchange and deep level tunnel system in Manchester. Duncan Campbell has kindly given me permission to reproduce this information here: I have had to remove the map at the request of the Geographers' A-Z Map Co Ltd. Manchester Guardian is an underground telephone exchange in the centre of Manchester built in 1954. It is 112 feet (34m) below ground and cost £4 million to construct. The main tunnel, one thousand feet long and twenty-five feet wide (300m by 7m), lies below buildings in Back George Street, linking up to an anonymous and unmarked surface building containing the entrance lifts and ventilator shafts. There are also access shafts in the Rutherford telephone exchange in George Street. Its purpose was to resist a Hiroshima sized twenty-kiloton atom bomb, and preserve essential communications links even if the centre of Manchester had been flattened. A deep level tunnel system runs east and west from Guardian. A mile-long (1.3km) tunnel runs west to Salford, and a thousand-yard (700m) tunnel runs to Lockton Close in Ardwick, where a modernised ventilator building marks the south-eastern extension of the Manchester deep level tunnels. In the event of an attack warning, Guardian's main entry shaft was to have been sealed by a thirty-five-ton concrete slab that could be positioned over the entrance. Staff could escape either by using built-in hydraulic jacks to lift the slab (if covered with debris) some weeks after attack, or via the deep level tunnels to Ardwick and Salford. Emergency stores contained six weeks' supply of food rations, and Guardian had its own artesian well, generators, fuel tanks, and artificial windows and scenery painted onto rest-room walls. The exchange was to survive even if the city it served was destroyed. The Manchester Guardian telephone exchange and deep level tunnels were one of several such systems built in the 50s. Similar installations can be found under London (Kingsway) and Birmingham (Anchor). By the time the exchange and tunnels were complete they were entirely vulnerable to more powerful Soviet H-bombs. I decided to try to locate and photograph the shafts and surface buildings described in "War Plan UK". To my surprise I found the surface buildings still intact, although they seemed to be in a bad state of repair. Their existence is still not common knowledge in Manchester. I wonder how much is left of the underground installations. Ardwick Shaft The entrance to the ardwick shaft can be found in a small fenced off enclosure in Lockton Close in Ardwick. Lockton close is first right off Grosvenor Street, which is off Downing Street. The entrance is adjacent to the Mancunian way, and I wonder whether the deep level tunnels where damaged by the extension of the Mancunian way which was added a few years ago. Karel Hladky, a visitor to this page made the following comment: "I don't think that the foundations of the new Mancunian Way - London Road flyover piers would go as deep as this - it is a steel bridge and would be a fair bit lighter than a concrete one". Perhaps this is why the new flyover was not a concrete construction, so as not to interfere with the tunnels (also see the reply to this site from BT). Ardwick Shaft Note the padlocked blast-proof doors and the ventilation louvers. These relatively new "No Parking" road markings in front of the entrance to the fenced enclosure may indicate it is still in occasional use (see the reply to this site from BT): Ardwick Shaft - Entrance to Compound Salford Shaft The entrance to the Salford shaft can be found in a small fenced off enclosure on Islington Street between Chapel Street and North Star Drive in Salford (close to Salford Crescent). As can be seen the design of the entrance building and enclosure are very similar to those found at the Ardwick Shaft despite being a couple of miles from Ardwick. Salford Shaft Salford Shaft City Centre Entrance and Ventilator Shaft Building This is the city centre building containing the entrance lifts and ventilator shafts above the Guardian telephone exchange. This building is located on George Street between Princess Street and Dickinson Street. That is just behind the Odeon Cinema on Oxford Street. This is the entrance to the car park on George Street. Entrance Building - George Street The sign on the gate reads: POLICE NOTICE NO PARKING AT ANY TIME enquiries - 55 GEORGE ST 236-0430 Looking over the wall I saw a BT van parked in the car park which makes some sense given the telecommunications function of the site, although I would not expect the exchange to still be in use. Perhaps BT are just using the car park for their vehicles (see the reply to this site from BT). This is the building viewed from James Street. Entrance Building - James Street This would be the main loading bay into the building, possibly used for the installation of large telephone exchange equipment. The lift-shaft and thirty-five-ton concrete slab described in "War Plan UK" must lie just behind this door. Entrance Building - James Street Note the tall chimney-like ventilation shaft required to provide a supply of fresh-air to the underground installations below. The sign on the door reads: FIRE EXIT NO PARKING DAY OR NIGHT Apart from the two "No Parking" signs the building is completely unmarked. A visitor to this site was inspired to take some more pictures of this structure in the city centre. Rutherford Telephone Exchange This is Rutherford House on George Street, just behind Piccadilly Plaza. This is the renamed and renovated Rutherford Telephone Exchange, and as such contains shafts allowing access to the underground Guardian Exchange. Rutherford Telephone Exchange Some of the ground-floor windows seem to have very strong grills or shutters behind them. Perhaps this building was strengthened to make it blast proof as some other surface telephone exchanges were in the mid 70s. I recently (Jan 2002) received an email which indicates that the information about Rutherford House containing an entrance to the bunker is incorrect: "Your reference to Rutherford House as being one of the entrances is wrong. The main entrance is behind the doorman's office in a building across the Road, 26 York Street. The other entrance was in George Street. The building contained a passenger lift and a crane for winching materials to the tunnel below. I worked in Guardian 1966-69 and it was a very depressing place of work. If the weather was bad during winter, I could go 5 days without seeing daylight. Dark in the morning going to work and dark going home. Most people who worked down there wore glasses. Eyestrain brought on by fluorescent lighting." Information from another site: Guardian was a Trunk Non-Director exchange, opened 8.0 a.m. 7th December 1958. A second and larger Trunk Unit, 'Pioneer' was brought into service during November & December 1959, to complete the Trunk Mechanisation in Manchester. Manchester Civic Society Article Certain members of the Manchester Civic Society had a guided tour of the Guardian Exchange in 1997. Their newspaper, the Forum, carried an article about this tour in its December 1997 edition. The Civic Society have kindly given me permission to reproduce this article here: Underground Manchester - An Undiscovered World Beneath Our Feet. Pictures Taken Within the Underground Exchange I have obtained some pictures taken inside the underground telephone exchange. Unfortunately these are of a rather poor quality and I don't know when they were taken. I was particularly surprised to see the piano and pool table in the recreation room. They were planning to have quite a relaxing time sitting out armageddon down there! (but see the reply to this site from BT). THESE PICTURES ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MANCHESTER CIVIC SOCIETY AND WERE NOT TAKEN DURING THEIR VISIT TO THE EXCHANGE. Pictures Taken During the Construction of the Underground Exchange I have obtained some pictures taken during the construction of the underground telephone exchange. These pictures were kindly sent to me by BT in Manchester who also sent a reply to some of the points made on this site. I have recently (March 2002) obtained some more pictures taken during the very early phase of construction and some taken later but before the exchange equipment was installed. THESE PICTURES ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MANCHESTER CIVIC SOCIETY AND WERE NOT TAKEN DURING THEIR VISIT TO THE EXCHANGE. Final Comments As the Guardian underground telephone exchange and deep level tunnels still exist under the streets of Manchester and are no longer in use, I believe they should be opened to the public as a cold-war museum. It is essential, in my opinion, to preserve this recent history so that past mistakes are not repeated. Alternatively, the exchange could be converted into an interesting venue for a club or bar by some entrepreneur, as so many other derelict buildings in Manchester have been. See the reply to this site from BT. If anyone reading this has any more information on the underground installations in Manchester please email me at: atomic@cybertrn.demon.co.uk For a comprehensive list of the UK's Cold War defence infrastructure and related information visit the The Research Study Group pages. Duncan Campbell's home page has information on his current research and investigations. Readers of this page may also be interested in the Protect and Survive web site, an archive of UK civil defence material which also includes a comprehensive list of cold-war related links. Copyright 2002 © George Coney - Cybertron Limited Last updated March 12, 2002 *** 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 owners, in one instance, George Coney, Cyberton Limited, in the other instance, The Register Newspaper. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:02:51 -0500 Subject: VoIP Provider to Block Eavesdroppers Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-5181428.html By Ben Charny CNET News.com SANTA CLARA, Calif.--Net-phoning provider VoicePulse says it plans to use encryption to secure calls, part of an industry trend that could pull in business customers but raise problems for law enforcement wiretaps. VoicePulse said the new feature will prevent electronic or traditional eavesdropping on customers' phone calls. It encrypts the part of the call that travels alongside other data on the public Internet, the first time this approach has been taken by a commercial voice over Internet Protocol service provider (VoIP), according to VoicePulse. VoicePulse President Ravi Sakaria said he believes the company's competitors, which now include AT&T, will also make it standard to protect the data in calls from being captured by outsiders. He said it will ease privacy concerns, satisfying current subscribers and making voice calling over the Internet more palatable to potential business customers. "Encryption will not cost extra, and we do intend to encrypt every call on all plans," Sakaria said. "As a service provider, we feel that providing encryption is a requirement, not an option." [.....] broadband telephony service providers have said they intend to comply with any law enforcement request, where it's technically feasible. Adding encryption "makes it no harder, or easier, to capture calls," Sakaria said. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-5181428.html or http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040330.gtvoip0330/BNStory/Technology/ How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 2004 05:30:53 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Cellular Tower Leases Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I want to buy cellular tower leases, is there a directory of cell > tower lease owners? Thanks. I doubt it. We tower owners are a very miscellaneous lot. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Marcus Jervis Subject: Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:38:38 +0000 Carl Moore wrote: > Did you see that story in New York and elsewhere? Someone > accidentally ran a phone bill up to $2500 because of a mistaken belief > that a call to an AOL number within 973 in New Jersey was a free local > call. The story had the note about the usual need to use leading 1 if > it's a toll call, and also said that's not always the case "in some > East Coast service areas". Remember about use of 7D for all calls > (even toll) within a NJ area code. Here it is: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/technology/033004_aptech_phonebill.html or: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apfeature_story.asp?category=1120&slug=Phone%20Bill ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #153 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 31 14:11:42 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2VJBgo19826; Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:11:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:11:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403311911.i2VJBgo19826@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 #154 TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:11:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 154 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Leading Vendors Deliver IP Phones, VoIP Devices on Windows (VOIP News) FCC Policy-Maker Lays Out VOIP Problem (VOIP News) VON Keynote Speech: FCC Enters Year of VOIP (VOIP News) Programming Partner Mail VS R4.0 (Evan Mann) Teaching My Mother About Making Long Distance Calls (Heywood) Excel Communications (William Robison) Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill (John Levine) Re: A Better Way To Squelch Spam? (Paul Vader) Re: Cellular Tower Leases (Mark Atwood) Internet Links Teachers, Parents and Students (Lisa Minter) 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: VOIP News Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:56:52 -0500 Subject: Leading Vendors Deliver IP Phones and VoIP Devices on Windows Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-31-2004/0002138346&EDATE= Leading Vendors Deliver IP Phones and VoIP Devices on Windows CE Microsoft Will Extend VoIP Platform in Next Version of Windows CE SANTA CLARA, Calif., March 31 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today at the Spring 2004 Voice on the Net (VON) Conference & Expo, Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) announced upcoming voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) features for Windows(R) CE 5.0 (previously code-named "Macallan"). The company also announced that leading vendors are delivering a wide variety of VoIP-based client devices and services -- such as desktop and wireless phones, IP set-top boxes, residential gateways and thin clients -- running the Windows CE operating system. New device and equipment manufacturer partners developing IP phones and VoIP devices using Windows CE include Atrium C&I Co. Ltd., Bast Inc., Intermec Technologies Corp., Inter-Tel Integrated Systems Inc., LG Electronics, Mikasa Shoji Co. Ltd., NEC Infrontia Corp., Netsys Corp., Reddline Systems Inc., RV Technology Ltd., Uptech Ltd., Wooksung Electronics Inc. and ZTE Corp. These partners chose Microsoft because Windows CE enables innovative telephony applications and tight integration with desktop and server applications. The updates to the VoIP platform in Windows CE 5.0 will decrease development time for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) via expanded componentization, integrated collaboration features, and an advanced application programming model and user interface. Windows CE 5.0 will further enable enterprises and network service providers to offer compelling telephony services to customers through easy integration with existing infrastructure, sophisticated call functionality and a configurable telephony user interface. "We are extremely excited about the breadth of IP phones and VoIP devices being delivered by a broad range of manufacturers on Windows CE," said Scott Horn, director of the Embedded Devices Group at Microsoft. "As voice and data services continue to merge across networks, enterprises and service operators are deploying innovative IP phone and VoIP devices that will help increase productivity and access to information in the office and at home. The new features in Windows CE 5.0 will support manufacturers with an even more flexible and integrated platform for developing a broad variety of VoIP-enabled client devices." Strong Partner Momentum "With strong customer interest, we recently shipped our Inter-Tel Model 8690 advanced IP phone on Windows CE, which creates a framework for our customers to integrate business-specific applications," said Jeff Ford, president of Inter-Tel Integrated Systems. "We are expanding our relationship with Microsoft to build our next generation of advanced IP phones on Windows CE, which are designed to make it easier for our enterprise customers to integrate their existing IT infrastructure with our telephony solution." Additional VoIP features coming in Windows CE 5.0 will enable increased productivity for customers via multiparty audio conferencing, Exchange Server integration with contact search and calendar functionality, and unified messaging. New features such as automatic provisioning and user identification will help IT departments simplify deployment and administration of IP phones and VoIP devices. "Windows CE 5.0 will enable us to easily build our upcoming IP phone product line while providing premium features such as instant messaging, alerts and multimedia services to our customers and end users of our phones," said Gyoo-Soo Lee, chief research engineer at LG Electronics. "As IP phones become multifunctional communication devices, the feature enhancements in Windows CE 5.0 will enable us to more quickly and cost-effectively develop smart IP phones." System integrators including BSQUARE Corp., HCL Technologies Ltd., Datacraft Asia Ltd., Net2Com Ltd., TABLETmedia Inc. and Zinwell Corp. are using the Windows platform to provide deployment and integration support for enterprises and service operators around the world. These new industry partners join previously announced manufacturers BCM Computers Co. Ltd., Casio Computer Company Ltd., Hitachi Ltd., Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Symbol Technologies Inc. and Tatung Co., which are delivering innovative IP phones and VoIP-enabled devices running Windows CE. One example is Mitel Networks Corp.'s 5230 IP appliance, which enables location transparency across the network, allowing users to associate any workstation as their own. Leading telephony and Internet service providers are using the Windows platform to provide innovative, revenue-generating services while reducing customer support costs and increasing user satisfaction. "Utilizing our global network and advanced routing technologies, Vonage offers innovative, feature-rich and cost-effective telephony services," said Cyrus Driver, vice president of wholesale sales at Vonage. "The recent deployment of our soft phone based on Windows CE enables rich services that integrate with desktop and server applications, allowing our customers to be more productive." About Windows CE Windows CE 5.0 will be Microsoft's newest and most advanced real-time embedded operating system for rapidly creating the next generation of 32-bit smart, connected and small-footprint devices such as consumer electronics devices, gateways, industrial controllers, mobile handheld devices, IP set-top boxes, VoIP phones and thin clients. Building on the reliable foundation of previous versions of Windows CE, new technologies included in the upcoming release enable platform developers to unleash their innovation through rich multimedia capabilities, increase their development efficiencies, and reduce time to market. More information, including Technology Preview kits, is available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/. SOURCE Microsoft Corp. Web Site: http://www.microsoft.com ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:53:51 -0500 Subject: FCC Policy-maker Lays Out VOIP Problem Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1558347,00.asp By Mark Hachman SANTA CLARA, Calif. A Federal Communications Commission policy-maker underlined the financial implications of voice over IP in a speech here Tuesday. For months, FCC Chairman Michael Powell has argued that the government should take a hands-off approach to VOIP, which uses the Internet Protocol (IP) to transmit voice information. But if VOIP takes off, the government will lose an important source of revenue that is being used to fund the communications needs of the poor, said Bob Pepper, chief of policy development for the FCC during a speech at the Voice On the Net show. The problem is that universal service, used to provide a basic level of telecommunications services to underserved markets, is funded through interstate calls. Calls made between states can yield only a few cents in fees per call, but the total obviously adds up, Pepper said. In 2001, $99.3 billion worth of interstate calls were made, Pepper said. And, as wireless and VOIP calls become more popular, the source of universal service funding will decrease. The habit is affecting American culture, Pepper said. "The only time I ever pay a long-distance bill is by accident," he said. "I use a cell phone. The incremental cost to call long distance is zero; I think of it as free. Why should I pay $4.95 a month and then get charged by the minute when I can call on my cell phone for free?" Full story at: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1558347,00.asp How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:40:01 -0500 Subject: VON Keynote: The FCC Enters the Year of VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.convergedigest.com/regulatory/regulatoryarticle.asp?ID=10667 VON Keynote: The FCC Enters the Year of VoIP "If last year was the year of spectrum, this is the year of VoIP," said Robert Pepper, Chief of Policy Development at the FCC. In the first three months of this year, the FCC has issued an historic declaratory ruling on VoIP (the Pulver.com petition), initiated a Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) rulemaking proceeding on VoIP, and launched a far-ranging Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) concerning "Everything over IP" (EoIP). In addition to the Pulver.com petition (now resolved), there are also at least five other declaratory rulings still pending on critical VoIP questions (AT&T, Level 3, Inflexion, Vonage and SBC). This burst of regulatory action is not unexpected. Pepper said the FCC had been watching VoIP with interest for years but had decided not to jump into action in order to give the technology time to evolve. Its hand was forced however, when the state of Minnesota and others began their own regulatory actions against Vonage and other nascent VoIP providers. Full story at: http://www.convergedigest.com/regulatory/regulatoryarticle.asp?ID=10667 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: Evan Mann Subject: Programming Partner Mail VS R4.0 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:11:40 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida I have a ACS R4.0 and a Partner Mail VS R4.0 with 4 port card. I'm unfamiliar with the VS mail so I was hoping someone can give me a few tips on setting it up. Ive only setup PC Card VM's and those seem to work differently. ------------------------------ Subject: Teaching my Mother How to Make Long Distance Calls From: Heywood Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:08:32 -0600 Hi! My mother has Ameritech service in 248-651 (Rochester, MI) and she pays about a buck a minute long distance because she uses the default. I will be visiting her home next week, and I'm looking for suggestions on what to change it to. She may do one LD call per week or so, so good rates and a small monthly LD "access fee" would be ok. And, I'm in Canada so calls to Canada should also be reasonable - although I've been trying to explain to her how to call my 1-888 number. Dial arounds are not an option, this is a woman who has trouble with Touch-Tone (tm) phones. Those who wish to reply via email could email me at fred at nepean dot com. just use the same subject line so I'll spot it amidst the spam. Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or how about a good *low* rate with no monthly access fee if possible? Or how about some minimum amount of time included in the service package for 'free' each month? Is your mother on SBC? I think you can get 60 minutes per month of long distance in a package each month for a few dollars. PAT] ------------------------------ From: William Robison Subject: Excel Communications Organization: Universitry of Iowa Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:17:25 GMT I attended a presentation by Excel Communications last night. They appear to sell telecom services (local, long-distance, internet, cell). The presentation was for prospective sales people, but it had all the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme. Sign up for $400, sign up more sellers and get a substantial "incentive", The people you sign up sign up more and you get a different kickback, etc. Has anyone out there encountered this organization, or have anything to relate with respect to Excel? Many thanks, -Willy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We used to get a lot of messages about Excel here, but not so much in recent years that I know of. Most of the mail in the past referred to them as a pyramid scheme; not so many people making long distance calls as busy signing up still other agents is the way I heard it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 2004 16:55:13 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Did you see that story in New York and elsewhere? Someone > accidentally ran a phone bill up to $2500 because of a mistaken > belief that a call to an AOL number within 973 in New Jersey was a > free local call. I saw the story, and it makes no sense. The story was filed from Denver, about a Denver guy arguing about the bill with Qwest which is the phone company in Denver. All calls within 973 are intra-LATA. Unless someone made the unusual choice of another carrier for intra-LATA toll, they'd be billed by Verizon on the Verizon local phone bill. It looks to me like what happened was that the guy's daughter set up her PC in New Jersey to call a 973 access number, brought the computer back to Denver, forgot to change the settings, so it kept calling the NJ number. It's hard to see how someone could run up a $2500 bill at NJ intralata rates which are under 10 cpm, but it's not hard if it's non-plan interstate rates which can still be 25 cpm or more. Too bad he didn't sign up for Qwest's flat rate long distance for $25/mo. North Jersey has overlays and permissive dialing, so any call within the 973/862 can be dialed either as 10D or 1+10D, with everything else being 1+10D. Rather than attempt to memorize and program in long lists of local prefxes, the easiest thing to do is to set up your PC to dial everything as 1+10D. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, does this story sort of have the marks of an urban legend? Yes, there was a newspaper account of it, and newspapers do not usually write fiction (the New York Times and the Boston Globe being two exceptions) but has anyone ever identified the person who got this humongous telephone bill or audited how the telco heard the sad story then refused to make an adjustment, etc? These situations used to 'come up' all the time in the past with BBS lines and in the early days of Compuserve. Someone always dialed an inappropriate number then got a terrible bill for it, etc. I am not sure I can buy all that bologna. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: A Better Way To Squelch Spam? Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:57:16 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations William Warren writes: > The cost of paying for email will be dwarfed by the savings that > result from it: not just the lowered cost of an (already overtaxed) > infrastructure, but the much higher human cost in wages, agravation, > and time. That's only true if the plan actually works. Since 99.999% of all spam is sent out these days by other than the spammer's resources, these dumb schemes are hurting everyone BUT who they're supposed to. Privacy is not the issue here -- theft of resources is. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Tower Leases From: Mark Atwood Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:12:15 GMT John Levine writes: >> I want to buy cellular tower leases, is there a directory of cell >> tower lease owners? Thanks. > I doubt it. We tower owners are a very miscellaneous lot. This sounds like a business opportunity crying to be filled. Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure mra@pobox.com | you've done anything at all. http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess I am missing something here. Exactly *what* does a person who 'buys cellular tower leases' or 'sells cellular tower leases' do? Is that like Dobson here in Liberty, Kansas (suburb of Independence)? Mr. Dobson has the 'Cellular One' brand name in this area of the county, but one of his subsidiary companies is the cellular tower southwest of town. In addition to 'Dobson Cellular One' he rents tower space to the other carriers around town. Is that what your hypothetical buyer/seller would be doing? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Internet Links Teachers, Students and Parents Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:00:00 CST A story in the Independence Reporter for Sunday, March 24, 2004 told about the work of Bob Tincher, Technology Coordinator for the Independence, Kansas public schools. Bob serves as webmaster for http://www.indyschools.com and the story also told about the web pages maintained by the various teachers in the schools here such as Doran Smith, chemistry and physics teacher at Independence High School. Teachers can send/receive email with parents, students and other faculty members. Teachers use their individual web pages at http://www.indyschools.com to post class assignments and course description and other news. Each school (the three elementary schools, the middle school and the high school) maintains a mailing list/newsletter for parents. Go to the main front page for the Independence School District then after noting the calendar of events, continue on to each individual school, then each teacher's web page. High school students at Independence High School began http://www.indyschools.com about eight years ago (1995) as a class project, and it since has developed into a large web site. About 45 teachers in our school district participate with web pages of their own for communication with parents and students. Lisa Minter ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #154 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 1 03:16:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i318G4c04940; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 03:16:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 03:16:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404010816.i318G4c04940@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 #155 TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Apr 2004 03:16:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 155 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson April Foolproof: AT&T Alerts Consumers About Latest Scams (M Solomon) Liberal Talk Radio? No One Will Buy it (Monty Solomon) Verizon Wireless to Cut Bulk, Cost of Bills (Monty Solomon) Search Engine Google to Offer Free E-Mail (Monty Solomon) Another Wrinkle: Permitted Numbers/Parents May Soon Decide (M Solomon) Teen Girl Charged With Posting Nude Photos on Internet (Monty Solomon) Congress Takes Aim Yet Again at P2P Users; Film at 11 (Monty Solomon) Clear Channel Hires Jesse Jackson as Host For Talk Radio (Monty Solomon) Amazon Patents Cookies (Monty Solomon) Pulver: VoIP Lacks Coolness (VOIP News) Re: Fire Coverage From Manchester, UK Continued (Tony P.) More Cell Phone Courtesy - Don't Hold up Other Customers (Carl Moore) Picture Phone Purgatory (Eric Friedebach) Bogus Collect Calls From Longview, Texas? (Carl Moore) Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill (Tom Hudson) Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill (John Levine) Wireless Equivalent to Crossover Network (Daveman750) Re: Excel Communications (John Levine) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:47:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: April Foolproof: AT&T Alerts Consumers About the Latest Scams April Foolproof: AT&T Alerts Consumers About the Latest Scams MORRISTOWN, N.J., March 31 /PRNewswire/ -- This April Fool's Day, AT&T wants to warn consumers about some of the latest scams being perpetrated on the unsuspecting public. "Awareness certainly helps consumers from being bilked," said Robert Cruz, consumer affairs director for AT&T. "We try to be vigilant about detecting new fraud and alerting consumers so they won't fall prey to ever more resourceful lawbreakers." Beware of the following schemes: Star-7-2, billing back to you: You receive a call from a stranger posing as a telephone technician or telling you that he has been arrested for driving with a suspended license and is in jail -- or is in a situation that requires your immediate help. "I need to reach my wife and tell her what happened so she can pick up our two kids. Would you dial *72 and then her number?" Star-7-2 is a custom feature for call forwarding. When the customer dials *72 followed by a telephone number, it activates the call forwarding feature causing all your incoming calls to ring at another number. At the end of the other line -- whether calls have been forwarded to a landline, a cell phone or a payphone -- the original caller's partner-in-crime is able to accept all collect and third-party calls, while telling your own legitimate callers that they have the wrong number. You get billed for all calls made because your number is the one from which they are forwarded. This ingenious scam, which even overrides cell phones inability to get collect calls, may go on for several days before you become aware it has occurred. *72, Not for you: Do not accept collect calls from individuals you don't know, regardless of who they claim to be. Also, never activate *72, the call forwarding feature, unless you yourself wish to have calls forwarded elsewhere. Within the sound of my voicemail: Hackers can compromise your voicemail system in order to make fraudulent collect, third party or direct-dial calls. Hackers make use of an out-calling feature on many systems that allows them to make the calls at your expense. It isn't until you receive notification from your telephone company's security group, notices something different about your voicemail greeting, or receive a large bill that you realize you have become a victim. To prevent this: * Always change the default password provided by your voicemail vendor. * Choose a complex voicemail password, of at least six digits, so it's difficult for a hacker to guess. * Don't use obvious passwords such as an address, birth date or phone number. * Change your voicemail password often. * Check your announcement regularly to ensure the greeting is indeed yours. (Owners of small businesses should consider disabling the auto-attendant, call-forwarding and out-paging capabilities of voicemail (if these features are not used), because those features also can be hacked. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40974362 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have heard of cases where some hacker got illicit control of a voicemail box or system and changed the outgoing greeting on one or more boxes to say something like this: "Operator ... collect calls to this number will be accepted." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:41:31 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Liberal Talk Radio? No One Will Buy It By Jay Severin, 3/30/2004 AFTER YEARS of contemptuously dismissing talk radio as a vast, embarrassing wasteland of doltish, bigoted, old, angry, overweight, religious white men named Chuck, liberals suddenly want a piece of the action. Coming soon to a radio near you, the Liberal Talk Network. Well, my "progressive" pals, prepare to confront a shocking fact: Talk radio is a business. As in must make a profit. Success requires capturing a vast audience, and more. As a business enterprise, it is virtually meaningless whether your listeners agree with you politically. Your audience must attract major advertising dollars. That's right -- we're not in NPR land anymore, Toto. Al Franken, your latest great white hope, declared your mission: "We're going to put it to Bush." You're off by one crucial letter: To win this game, you don't have to beat Bush, you have to beat Rush. He and his cohort are far more formidable than you imagine. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/30/liberal_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:56:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Wireless to Cut Bulk, Cost of Bills By Peter Howe, Globe Staff, 3/31/2004 Verizon Wireless is trying to cut costs by sending its 37.5 million customers streamlined bills that no longer provide information on which numbers have been called and for how long. For a family with two phones and 800 minutes of calling time, a Verizon Wireless spokeswoman said the new streamlined bill would be two pages instead of the current 23. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/03/31/verizon_wireless_to_cut_bulk_cost_of_bills/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:59:44 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Search Engine Google to Offer Free E-Mail By MICHAEL LIEDTKE AP Business Writer MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (AP) -- Search engine Google Inc. announced Wednesday it would launch a free, Web-based e-mail service to compete against popular services from rivals Yahoo! Inc. and Microsoft Corp. Google's service, called "Gmail," will include a built-in search function that will let people search every e-mail they've ever sent or received. According to company executives, users will be able to type in keywords to sort e-mails or find old missives. And it will come with 1 gigabyte of free storage _ more than 100 times what some popular rivals offer and enough to hold 500,000 pages of e-mail. Officials at Yahoo and Microsoft's Hotmail division declined to comment on Google's entry into a new category. But analysts said that Google _ whose technology is behind nearly four out of every five Web searches _ could shake up the free e-mail market. Yahoo dominates the niche, with 52.6 million unique users per month in the United States, according to a February survey by online research firm comScore Media Metrix. Microsoft's Hotmail service is next, with 45.4 million users. AOL has 40.2 million paying users. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40981937 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So what is to prevent me from typing in your name and seeing all your old archived email? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:58:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Another Wrinkle: Permitted Numbers / Parents May Soon Decide By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff, 3/28/2004 WOBURN -- Rather than yell at their children for using too many wireless minutes, and threaten to shut off the phones, parents may soon be able to go online and control not only how much the kids use the phones -- but when and even whom they can call. Boston Communications Group Inc. , a company that provides back-office order-processing systems for prepaid wireless plans to big US wireless carriers, rolled out a new software package this month called "Mobile Guardian." The program would give parents or corporate finance managers a package of tools to regulate phone use. By going to a website, people using the system could register multiple phone numbers and put weekly or monthly limits on the minutes each one can be used. When a subscriber got within 10 or 20 minutes of using up the allotment, he or she could be alerted with an e-mail message, a short advisory to the phone, a voice mail alert, or all three. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/28/another_wrinkle_permitted_numbers/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:13:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Teen Girl Charged With Posting Nude Photos on Internet PITTSBURGH (AP) - A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:24:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Congress Takes Aim Yet Again at P2P Users, Film at 11 http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2004-March/000571.html Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:47:02 -0600 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: [Politech] Congress takes aim yet again at P2P users, film at 11 [ip] Copy of PDEA: http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/pdea2004.pdf http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5182898.html House panel approves copyright bill March 31, 2004, 4:55 PM PST By Declan McCullagh A House of Representatives panel has approved a sweeping new copyright bill that would boost penalties for peer-to-peer piracy and increase federal police powers against Internet copyright infringement. The House Judiciary intellectual property subcommittee voted for the "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act" (PDEA) late Wednesday, overruling objections from a minority of members that it would unreasonably expand the FBI's powers to demand private information from Internet service providers. The PDEA -- the result of intense lobbying from large copyright holders over the past six months -- has emerged as a kind of grab-bag that combines other proposals unsuccessfully advanced in the past. One section that first surfaced last year punishes an Internet user who makes available $1,000 in copyrighted materials with prison terms of up to three years and fines of up to $250,000. If the PDEA became law, prosecutors would not have to prove that $1,000 in copyrighted materials were downloaded -- they would need only to show that those files had been publicly accessible in a shared folder. One part of the PDEA that did not appear in earlier bills would require the FBI to "facilitate the sharing" of information among Internet providers, copyright holders and police. "I am sure (that its sponsor) does not mean to expand the powers of the FBI," Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said during the subcommittee hearing. "The concern I have is that this is very ambiguous. The language itself could lead an aggressive FBI to a different conclusion." Lofgren's attempt to amend the PDEA failed by a 4-14 vote. [...remainder snipped...] Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:42:59 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Clear Channel Hires Jesse Jackson as Host For Talk Radio Show From Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2004 By Sarah McBride Clear Channel Communications Inc., the radio company that frequently comes under fire for its large donations to Republican politicians and allegedly conservative bent in programming, is taking a high-profile step in the other direction. The company has signed up former Democratic presidential candidate the Rev. Jesse Jackson as a host for a Sunday-morning talk-radio show based in Chicago, the nation's third-biggest radio market after New York and Los Angeles. It also will run in New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Norfolk, Va. In addition, Clear Channel plans to test programming from a new liberal radio network, Air America, in the Portland, Ore., market. http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=2950 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:47:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Amazon Patents Cookies United States Patent 6,714,926 Benson March 30, 2004 Use of browser cookies to store structured data Abstract A web site system implements a process for storing selected data structures within browser cookies. The data structures may contain a variety of different types of data elements, including N-bit integers and other non-character elements. A version tracking scheme provides forward and backward compatibility between client and server software. The process is implemented without the need for any browser extensions, and without the need for users to download any special code to their computers. Inventors: Benson; Eric A. (Seattle, WA) Assignee: Amazon.com, Inc. (Seattle, WA) Appl. No.: 494712 Filed: January 31, 2000 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,714,926.WKU.&OS=PN/6,714,926&RS=PN/6,714,926 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:51:36 -0500 Subject: Pulver: VoIP lacks coolness Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0330pulver.html Pulver: VoIP lacks coolness By Tim Greene Network World Fusion, 03/30/04 Delegates to the VON 2004 conference were told that Apple's Steve Jobs needs to step in to boost the popularity of voice over IP. The trouble with VoIP is that nobody knows how to make it wildly popular a la Apple's iPod, says Jeff Pulver, who runs the VON shows. "It's really challenging. We don't want to just replicate what we have [with traditional voice phones]," Pulver said. "I'd love to see Apple join absolutely to make it cool." Full story at: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0330pulver.html ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Fire Coverage From Manchester, UK Continued Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:36:51 GMT In article , ptownson@telecom- digest.org says: > Here are some news reports from the UK newspapers for Tuesday, March 30 > and Wednesday, March 31 regards the telephone exchange fire in > Manchester, UK on Monday. > PAT > BT fire disrupts emergency services > By Tim Richardson > Posted: 29/03/2004 at 13:41 GMT > A major cable fire in Manchester has brought chaos to the region as > emergency services struggle to cope with a communication blackout. > According to the BBC, emergency services have been stretched after > the fire damaged communication links. > Greater Manchester Ambulance Service said it was struggling after > the fire damaged its radio network while some 999 services have > also been hit. > And because so many phone lines have been wiped out, there are > concerns that people will be unable to access 999 services in the > event of an emergency. > At this early stage it's impossible to gauge the full extent of the > incident that has wiped out more than 130,000 telephone lines. > The Register has received a number of reports from readers about > companies hit by the fire and unable to access their systems. From > banks to airlines, it seems the fire has brought many companies to > their knees. > Mobile phone operator Vodafone said that some of its network had > been hit and that it's working with BT to reroute calls elsewhere. > While a statement on utility giant Powergen's website reads: "We're > sorry but the Powergen website is currently unavailable. This is > due to a major telecommunications failure in the North of England. > We're working hard to restore the service as soon as possible. Our > apologies again for any inconvenience caused." So in essence this cuts off subscribers, radio networks, emergency services and wireless services. Looks like amateur radio ops in that area of the U.K. are going to be plenty busy. The thing people don't realize is the critical nature of trunk circuits. Without those switches of any kind are simply remote islands with no connectivity to other islands. So wireless can still be used so long as they're on the same cell, but with the advent of PCS and smaller cells that limits their use. A few years ago then Bell Atlantic accidentally cut off E-911 trunks near the answering point. That was an ugly mess that got resolved within a few hours. But imagine if you will that most of the trunk circuits are carried underground and are usually well marked, particularly those near rail systems, along highways, etc. And it's impossible to protect. Got to wonder what caused the fire. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: According to the Manchester Fire Brigade, the fire was probably due to electrical sparks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:01:24 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: More Cell Phone Courtesy - Don't Hold up Other Customers For as long as it's good, there is this web reference: http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2004/03/31hanginguponcell.html Some businesses have had to ask customers not to use cell phones when doing business, say, at a supermarket checkout or a sandwich shop. There have apparently been cases where a person at the head of a line at a sandwich shop would be taking orders over his/her cell phone, thus holding up other customers. There is a list provided of courtesies to be mindful of; they include the now-familiar one about churches, libraries, etc., and the relatively-recent one about cell phones with cameras (don't take pictures which you yourself would not want to appear in). To ward off arguments (say, this "being a free country", which someone is quoted as saying in the above reference), I suggest we keep looking to the generic courtesies. For example, in a non-phone case, I have found it annoying during a music rehearsal when I am playing as part of such rehearsal and there is talking going on where I can hear it. ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Picture Phone Purgatory Date: 31 Mar 2004 12:53:02 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Alicia Ferrari, 03.31.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - When new megapixel and megapixel-plus camera phones from many vendors start emerging in the U.S. market in the coming months, older phones with a fraction of the resolution are bound to lose their luster. But for now, the top-selling Nokia 3650, launched in the United States in March 2003, remains top of the line. Practically every mobile phone manufacturer under the sun has plans to break the megapixel barrier, among them LG, Samsung, Sony Ericsson -- the joint venture of Sony and Ericsson -- and Kyocera . http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/03/31/cx_af_ii_0331tentech.html Eric Friedebach /Tonight's Skywarn training cancelled due to... weather?/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:33:26 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview, Texas? I have been sent the following web reference: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04020/263322.stm which was still valid just before I wrote the message you are reading. The sender, as well as a woman from Verona, PA (in the website reference, which turns out to be the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), complains of being charged for a collect call from Longview, Texas which he/she is sure they never accepted. The sender sent me a telephone number on the 903-381 prefix in Longview, and I have heard that calling that number connects to a computer modem. The sender had written to me on the basis of finding a September 2002 message where I complain of making a legitimate call (AT&T calling card) from Connecticut to Delaware, but the bill, in referring to "PAYPHONE" (okay so far), said it was in Texas at 903-381-6832 (same prefix, but not same last four digits sent to me by the above-mentioned sender), and I *today* called that number (the one from MY bill) and I also got a computer modem. In my case, I was on the side of a road between Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut, and if I change the first digit of the area code to a 2, I get a prefix which is in Bridgeport (sorry I'd have to go back to Connecticut to try to pinpoint where I was -- it was on right side of westbound US 1 at some convenience store). ------------------------------ From: Tom Hudson Subject: Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:27:24 -0600 I experienced this problem a few years ago when I set up my wife's prodigy account on a new computer. I wasn't paying enough attention and I allowed the prodigy setup to pick a phone number for Leavenworth KS, just 15 minutes away across the state line. Oddly, the call to Leavenworth didn't require dialing a "1" even though it was long distance through SWB at 20 cents a minute. Our local company was sprint. After not looking at the bill for a couple of months (and leaving the connection up all the time), we got slammed with $800 of charges and the phone company refused to negotiate. I also had an equally frustrating experience with Compuserve a few years ago when my account was magically switched from a flat rate plan to a per minute plan. They insisted that I switched the plan and that I was liable for the charges. Despite disputing the credit card for months on end, neither myself nor American Express could make any headway with those people. "No one at Compuserve, even the president himself, has the authority to amend the bill" I was repeatedly told. This was when Compuserve was still owned by HR Block. Tom Hudson ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 2004 04:32:34 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, does this story sort of have the > marks of an urban legend? Yes, there was a newspaper account of it, > and newspapers do not usually write fiction (the New York Times and > the Boston Globe being two exceptions) but has anyone ever identified > the person who got this humongous telephone bill or audited how the > telco heard the sad story then refused to make an adjustment, etc? The AP story identifies the guy and his daughter by name, and says Qwest agreed to settle the bill for $375. I would think that was generous except that he could have signed up for flat rate long distance for $25 and the calls would have cost $0 above that. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-30-aol-phone-bill_x.htm 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 ------------------------------ From: dsimcha@yahoo.com (Daveman750) Subject: Wireless Equivalent to Crossover Network Date: 31 Mar 2004 20:11:49 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Is there any cheap way to get a wireless equivalent to a simple crossover network for sharing a dialup connection and files between only two computers? Thank you. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 2004 04:18:28 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Excel Communications Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I attended a presentation by Excel Communications last night. They > appear to sell telecom services (local, long-distance, internet, > cell). The presentation was for prospective sales people, but it had > all the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme. Sign up for $400, sign up more > sellers and get a substantial "incentive", The people you sign up sign > up more and you get a different kickback, etc. It is a pyramid scheme, but since they sell an actual product, it's a legal multi-level-marketing pyramid scheme. Every time someone's asked me to look at Excel, I've come to the same conclusion: it's long distance just like everyone else's long distance, but at a rather high price since they have to pay that mountain of MLM commission overhead. If you think you'd enjoy selling long distance service to your friends and relatives for twice what they could get it for elsewhere, I suppose it's a reasonable business. 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 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #155 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 1 14:52:15 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i31JqF008481; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:52:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:52:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404011952.i31JqF008481@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 #156 TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:49:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VON Keynote: ITXC Sees Unstoppable Momentum for VoIP (VOIP News) Microsoft Unveils Windows CE With VoIP (VOIP News) Michigan on the Wrong Track? (VoIP) (VOIP News) Cable's IP Telephony Conundrum (VOIP News) Has Covad Changed The VoIP Rules? (VOIP News) New Voip Adapter Offers Old Fashioned Operator Service (VOIP News) Codec Negotiation (Alfonso) Buying Books on the Net (C. Smith) I Want to Block Anonymous/Name Unavailable/Unwanted Calls (D. Mattingly) Flat Rate Plans and Modems; was Re: AOL Connection Leads (No Spam) Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill (Carl Navarro) Remember Last January was: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview (C Moore) Press One To Score Points (Eric Friedebach) Re: Teaching my Mother How to Make Long Distance Calls (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview, Texas? (Clarence Dold) Re: Amazon Patents Cookies (Barry Margolin) Re: Excel Communications (John A. Weeks III) EFFector 17.11: EFF Opposes RFIDs in Passports (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:30:15 -0500 Subject: VON Keynote: ITXC Sees Unstoppable Momentum for VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=10678 VON Keynote: ITXC Sees Unstoppable Momentum for VoIP For the next two years, people will continue to purchase VoIP primarily for cost savings rather than for advanced feature sets, predicted Tom Evslin, Chairman and CEO of ITXC, in a keynote at the Spring VON conference in Santa Clara, California. To be really useful, advanced features require deployments at both ends of the call. Evslin figures that once penetration rates reach somewhere around 15% an inflection point will occur and people will start to buy VoIP in order to have the same advanced features as the early adopters. In the mean time, momentum continues to build. Evslin presented a "Top 7" List of indicators that VoIP is hot again. http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=10678 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:43:41 -0500 Subject: Microsoft Unveils Windows CE With VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com [Article #1:] http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5182217.html Windows CE gets call for Net phones By Ben Charny CNET News.com SANTA CLARA, Calif.--Microsoft said Wednesday that major manufacturers, including NEC and LG Electronics, intend to create Internet phones with the newest version of Windows CE, Microsoft's operating system for small devices. The first substantial wave of phones from the equipment makers is expected in about three months, Microsoft Product Manager Balz Wyss said. The manufacturers are among 22 new licensees Microsoft announced Wednesday for its latest Windows CE software, which is a stripped-down version of the Windows operating system intended for handheld devices, set-top boxes and other limited-function computing devices other than PCs and servers. The new CE software, version 5, contains much improved technology for making phone calls on the Net with voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), according to Microsoft. Internet Protocol is the most popular method of sending data from one computer to another. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5182217.html [Article #2:] http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=129656&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=6&liChannelID=7&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1 Thursday 1 April 2004 Microsoft unveils Windows CE with VoIP Microsoft will unveil enhancements to the VoIP capabilities of Windows CE in the upcoming version 5.0. The operating system forms the basis of Microsoft's platforms for embedded, automotive and mobile computing. A lot of suppliers want to add VoIP as an application to wireless handhelds and other devices, said John Starkweather, a product manager in Microsoft's Embedded Devices Group. In the latest version of Windows CE, Microsoft has added multiparty audioconferencing capability, unified messaging and integration on Exchange Server with calendar and contact searching features. They complement what has been a simpler set of telephony features built in to CE 4.2. Full story at: http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=129656&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=6&liChannelID=7&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:35:49 -0500 Subject: Michigan on the Wrong Track? (VoIP) Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Comment: The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a libertarian think tank (they prefer to describe themselves as "a research and educational institute") headquartered in Midland, Michigan. http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6483 Michigan on the Wrong Track? Early in her new administration, Gov. Jennifer Granholm won high marks for addressing tough issues without damaging Michigan's business climate. She closed a nearly $2 billion budget gap with some real spending cuts and without resorting to general tax increases. Gov. Granholm said all the right things about retaining jobs, and even ordered her Department of Environmental Quality to speed up air quality permits for industry. The Mackinac Center awarded the governor a "B-" for her first year. However, a number of recent Granholm administration actions threaten to put Michigan on the wrong track in terms of improving our economic vitality. Hopefully these missteps are aberrations, but it is not too early to raise a red flag by listing some of the bad policy moves: [.....] Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). Arguably, one of the leading causes of our recent economic downturn was the destruction of $2 trillion worth of market valuation in publicly traded telecom companies, leading to the loss of 500,000 jobs in the past three years, as outlined by Mackinac Center Director of Science, Environment, and Technology Policy Diane Katz in a recent report. The destruction came about because federal and state regulators have tried to shoehorn 21st century telecommunications networks and technologies into a 19th century regulatory model. "VOIP" is a new technology that transmits voice over the Internet. It has the potential to reignite the telecom sector if the regulators keep their hands off. Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for a "light regulatory touch." The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) may have a different idea, however. MPSC Chair Peter Lark is a Granholm appointee. In a recent press report announcing potential new VOIP regulations he said, "The commission has the responsibility to telecommunication customers in Michigan to protect ... users of Voice over Internet Protocol ... " If past performance is any measure, new regulations are most likely to "protect" VOIP users by making sure there aren't any. Full article at: http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=6483 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:10:18 -0500 Subject: Cable's IP Telephony Conundrum Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/apr04/apr04-2.html The Industry's Postponed PacketCable 1.x Push May Prove Too Little, Too Late By Michael Harris, president, Kinetic Strategies, and publisher, Cable Datacom News The good news is that cable multiple system operators (MSOs) are finally rolling out IP telephony. Large commercial deployments are underway by Cablevision Systems and Time Warner Cable, and other operators like Rogers Cable have unveiled plans to follow suit. The bad news is that a horde of telecom players is also entering the fray, exponentially increasing competition for residential voice services. Compounding problems, the PacketCable 1.x technology that MSOs are belatedly deploying increasingly seems old-fashioned, rather than cutting-edge. Full story at: http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/apr04/apr04-2.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:23:27 -0500 Subject: Has Covad Changed The VoIP Rules? Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.telecomweb.com/broadband/feature.htm Has Covad Changed The VoIP Rules? The first IP-based competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) with a nationwide reach is about to be born, an event that could change the VoIP landscape. Covad Communications Group [COVD] is buying VoIP provider GoBeam for $48 million in stock. The deal is expected to close in about 60 days. The deal mates GoBeam's VoIP phone service and Covad's national broadband network. That contrasts sharply with the current situation, where just about every would-be VoIP player is forced to ride the wires of an ILEC. "For really the first time there's actually going to be a company that's going to be able to provision all aspects of the VoIP business over their own facilities," says Steve Lail, Covad's vice president of voice deployment. Moreover, Lail says Covad still is willing to accommodate competing VoIP carriers, even though it will be a VoIP carrier itself. That gives the VoIP industry an alternative to dealing with the ILECs. That, in turn, has significant implications for the current battle at the FCC and in the courts over whether ILECs should be required to open up their newest broadband networks to VoIP carriers. With Covad sitting as an alternative, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the ILECs may reconsider their refusal to accommodate VoIP competitors, rather than see the revenue go to Covad. Full story at: http://www.telecomweb.com/broadband/feature.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:37:29 -0500 From: VOIP News Subject: "Hello, Central!" VoIP Adapter Brings Old-Fashioned Ease Of Use Meucci Enterprises Introduces New VoIP Adapter "Hello, Central!" VoIP Adapter Brings Old-Fashioned Ease Of Use to Internet Telephony Unit is Packaged in Attractive Real Oak Wood Box SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 1 /VoIP Newswire/ -- Meucci Enterprises today announced at the Spring VON Conference the availability of its new VoIP endpoint designed specifically for residential use. Named the "Hello, Central!" model, and packaged in a real oak wooden box with real bell gongs reminiscent of the old-time telephone ringer boxes, this VoIP adapter is designed to be displayed as a conversation piece rather than hidden away in a utility closet. The authentic reproduction of a hand crank on the side of the unit not only adds to the nostalgic look, but also actually powers a small internal generator that can be used to recharge the backup batteries in the event of a power failure. Although the unit is much larger than most VoIP adapters, the space inside is not wasted -- it contains a fully functional microcomputer designed specifically for speech generation and recognition. This means that when a user picks up a phone, instead of hearing a dial tone, they will hear the voice of an operator, saying "Number, Please" just as real operators used to do in manual telephone exchanges in the first half of the 20th century. The unit accepts voice input from a connected telephone, and will place a call to any number spoken into it. If the number is busy, the unit will say, "that line is busy, please try again later." It can be programmed for variations, for example, instead of asking the caller to try again later it can offer to keep trying the call and ring the caller's phone when a connection is made. Programming the unit is via a voice response mechanism or by accessing a web page interface. The unit is capable of providing custom calling features, but in a unique manner. For example, if call waiting is enabled, the "operator" will break into a call in progress and announce the incoming call, and ask the user to accept or reject it. When used in a home with children, the device can be programmed so that if a call attempt is made after a certain hour, it will say something like, "The telephone exchange closes at eleven o'clock, and accepts emergency calls only after that hour," thereby aiding parents in enforcing a curfew on outgoing telephone calls. The unit can take messages, and otherwise provide all the functionality of voicemail. The only difference is that the unit accepts voice commands. For example, a user can say, "Delete that message", rather than having to remember which button to press to delete the message. In answer to complaints about current VoIP adapters not being able to ring all the phones in a home, the bell on the adapter box is an actual, working, and very loud bell, reminiscent of the telephone bells heard in old black-and-white movies. "As loud as the bell is on this unit, you should be able to turn off the ringers on all the phones in your home and still hear a call come in," said Antonio Meucci, executive director of product development at Meucci Enterprises. A VoIP Adapter With An Attitude While some may prefer the nostalgic simulation of an operator at an old-time manual telephone exchange, others may prefer the unit's other choice in operators: Ernestine. Based on the famous Lily Tomlin character, Ernestine provides a bit of comic relief mixed with sarcasm while making calls. For example, if you say a number that's not valid, Ernestine will inform you that "Perhaps you should ask your mommy to help you use the telephone." If you happen to utter an off-color word while giving the number you wish to call, Ernestine may say, "Profanity! I am not required to listen to such language while on duty!" and hang up on you. And of course, instead of the normal ringback tone, you'll hear "one ringy-dingy ... two ringy-dingies..." No matter which operator is chosen, the unit can be trained to remember certain spoken names, and dial an associated number. So you can train it to recognize "Call Dad," or "Connect me with Bill Smith," and the unit will place the call to the appropriate number. Caller ID can be displayed in the normal manner on a Caller ID telephone, or the unit can be set to have the "operator" announce the calling number after the receiver is lifted off the hook. For example, if "Ernestine" is the chosen operator, she will ask "Is this the party to whom I am speaking" and upon hearing an affirmative response, she will announce the calling number and ask the answering party to accept or reject the call. One word of advice from Mr. Meucci: "Don't ever tell Ernestine that you are not the party to whom she is speaking. Just don't do it." Special Introductory Offer The first 100 people to order the "Hello, Central!" VoIP endpoint will receive upon request, absolutely free and without additional charge, an older 500-series telephone set with a dial blank instead of a dial. These phones are exactly like the phones used by telephone subscribers in manual telephone exchanges back in the 1950's. They are provided to show that it is possible to make full use of the "Hello, Central!" VoIP adapter without the need for a dial, Caller ID display, or most of the other gizmos found on modern telephones. "Using the Hello, Central! adapter is simplicity itself, because it can be completely controlled by the spoken word." For those who may not care to use a voice interface, the unit will also accept numbers dialed using any rotary dial telephone. Contact: Meucci Enterprises Sciocco Di Aprile Florence, Italy [Jack Decker's Note: These VoIP adapters make great gifts at Christmas ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I want a dozen. Can I get them for friends, etc? PAT] ... on Ground Hog Day, or on April Fool's Day!] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh! Maybe this should have been a Last Laugh item, eh? PAT] ------------------------------ From: alfvillarreal@hotmail.com (Alfonso) Subject: Codec Negotiation Date: 1 Apr 2004 09:54:43 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi guys, I'm a new guy in the town and I introduce myself: Alfonso. Currently I'm trying to send calls with H.323 from an IVR platform to one AS5300 gw to another Gk which routes the calls to any part in the calls. The problem is that the AS5300 isn't negotiating the codec with the Gk when the termination end has normal/slow start. Does any one could help me to try find why ? I have this in my voip dial-peer: dial-peer voice 201 voip description *** IVR Calls *** . . . voice-class codec 1 And my voice-class codec is: voice class codec 1 codec preference 1 g729r8 codec preference 2 g729br8 codec preference 3 g723r63 codec preference 4 g723r53 codec preference 5 g723ar63 codec preference 6 g723ar53 Do you have some idea why this isn't working properly ? Thanks in advance. Rgds. ------------------------------ Subject: Buying Books on the Net From: C. Smith Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:31:09 GMT I have bought dozens of books on the Net and, so far (touch wood), without any problems. I have paid for most of transactions by credit card. On occasions (at the suggestion of the bookseller), I have emailed my CC number in two halves, by separate emails. Is this sound practice for me and for the retailer? And am I exposing myself to unnecessary risk? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That may be a good suggestion, but I think a better one might be if the merchant collected your credit card number *one time only*, encrypted it, then on future purchases asked if you wish to use the 'same card as last time', and if you said 'yes', the put the charge through to it without you having to pass the details a second time. Another good suggestion would be what a one of the local banks here in Independence does. They issue 'debit cards' (like most banks, with a Visa/MC style account number) but they serve like a 'firewall' against your real bank account and source of money. Mine has a zero balance in it all the time, or maybe ten or twenty dollars. If I see something I want to purchase on the net, you can always 'pretend' a debit card is a credit card, and use that 'credit card' number to make the purchase. Then the bank transfers enough money to cover that purchase into the 'firewall account'. Hackers and other malefactors who want to rip off my 'bank account' on the net see that firewall there and rip into it thinking they will make a bundle, only to find maybe three or five dollars in the whole thing at best, if that much. A variation on this is the PayPal debit card which is good for a couple things: I put money into it from the telecom account; it becomes immediatly spendable from my personal account via PayPal debit card (they have a MasterCard style number) and there is *so little* in there at any time, I could care less if some theives take it. (Well, not really, but you see the idea.) Maybe it is all a moot point: I very seldom have any spare money, other than the proceeds of my social security disability check for the month, not yet removed by the bank for other autodebits such as utilities, the SRS housekeeper I have to pay a little for each month, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dennismattingly@hotmail.com (D. Mattingly) Subject: I Want to Block Anonymous/Name Unavailable/Unwanted Calls Date: 1 Apr 2004 06:33:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I hope I am posting this in the correct group. I want a simple device for my home that will prohibit "Name/Number Unavailable" calls from ringing through and any other numbers I wish to add. I have this service from Verizon, but it will only let me block numbers from residential land-line phones. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I do not think it is just 'residential land-line phones' that can be blocked, but those are the kind of phones most likely to NOT have special equipment on them to bypass blocking attempts. For instance, I have found Vonage and my two cell phones can both be blocked ** if star-67 is used to call my personal home phone from any of them **. I have a feature like you on my line to 'block anonymous calls', and if I *deliberatly and willfully* use star-67 from any of them, they get blocked also when calling my personal phone. But the problem comes when the caller either makes no attempt to hide but either sends a bogus number such as all zeros OR the distant telco is unable to block. All zeros or other deliberate camouflouge is supposed to be illegal these days when its a telemarketer. Complaining to telco is futile. What I would like to see is Mike Sandman or another vendor develop a box to be plugged in at the head end which was trainable: all zeros, other ridiculous number, nothing at all, out of area, or other numbers I teach it are all rejected. Either just ring open forever, or preferably go off hook one or two seconds -- enough to start supervision and run up the phone bill of the caller -- then hang up. No apologetic recording, nothing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:03:08 -0500 From: No Spam Subject: Flat Rate Plans and Modems; was Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 On 1 Apr 2004 04:32:34 -0000 John Levine wrote about Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill > The AP story identifies the guy and his daughter by name, and says > Qwest agreed to settle the bill for $375. > I would think that was generous except that he could have signed up > for flat rate long distance for $25 and the calls would have cost $0 > above that. > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-30-aol-phone-bill_x.htm The fine print I have seen on several of these plans specifically excludes modem calls. ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:23:16 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On 1 Apr 2004 04:32:34 -0000, John Levine wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, does this story sort of have the >> marks of an urban legend? Yes, there was a newspaper account of it, >> and newspapers do not usually write fiction (the New York Times and >> the Boston Globe being two exceptions) but has anyone ever identified >> the person who got this humongous telephone bill or audited how the >> telco heard the sad story then refused to make an adjustment, etc? > The AP story identifies the guy and his daughter by name, and says > Qwest agreed to settle the bill for $375. > I would think that was generous except that he could have signed up > for flat rate long distance for $25 and the calls would have cost $0 > above that. Not exactly. The fast talker at the end of the spot for flat rate LD states that internet access is not included in the rate plan :-) Some lady in Chicago found that out. She had been calling her ISP before the change and after got a huge bill for ISP calls. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:33:19 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Remember Last January (was Re: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview) In writing about the bogus collect call problem (Longview, Texas), I also pointed out my concern about a Texas telephone number showing up in the "From" part of a legitimate call I made on AT&T calling card from Connecticut to Delaware. Don't forget the post just this past January where I pointed out that I made AT&T calling card call from rest area just inside Canada on 450-246 prefix but the bill showed somewhere else within 450 area. ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Press One To Score Points Date: 1 Apr 2004 08:56:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 03.31.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - After the Golden Globes, the Oscars and the Grammies, please welcome the Mobies, the first distinctions to reward...the best mobile phone games by category. Never heard of them? Not surprising since they took place for the first time last week at the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association trade show in Atlanta. Keep an eye out in the future, though: The event may not yet be broadcast on major television channels, but it is a clear sign that the mobile gaming industry is gaining heft. If you're still playing a black-and-white worm game on your mobile phone to kill a few minutes on the train, you may be surprised to learn that the mobile gaming industry is shaping up to be big business. The Yankee Group says there are already 27 million U.S. users playing games on their handsets. While the technology research firm says revenues are still "well south of $1 billion" -- tiny in comparison to the $12 billion gaming industry -- the segment has huge potential. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/03/31/cx_al_0331phonegames.html Eric Friedebach /Old enough to remember when MTV played music videos/ ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Teaching my Mother How to Make Long Distance Calls Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:23:08 -0500 Organization: Primus Canada Heywood wrote: > Dial arounds are not an option, this is a woman who has trouble with > Touch-Tone (tm) phones. How about investing a few bucks in a telephone with memory dial? Surely your mother wouldn't have a problem with pressing a button with your name beside it, and you could program it to dial whatever number you like. Geoffrey Welsh Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' Commodore PET ------------------------------ From: dold@BogusXColl.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Bogus Collect Calls From Longview, Texas? Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:14:20 UTC Organization: a2i network Carl Moore wrote: > telephone number on the 903-381 prefix in Longview, and I have heard > that calling that number connects to a computer modem. Don't COCOT phones take incoming calls for reprogramming via modem? I thought they didn't answer for lots of rings, but they would answer with modem tone. That could have been a legitimate pay phone. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Amazon Patents Cookies Organization: Looking for work Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:36:06 -0500 Monty's subject line is *extremely* misleading. This patent is not about cookies in general. It's about a specific technique for encoding structured, binary data into the text-based cookies. The web application makes use of a generic routine that takes a data structure and a schema file to perform the translation; additional claims cover mechanisms for tracking different versions of the data structure, so that users who have old cookies saved on their computers can be supported automatically, and things like encrypting the cookie. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Excel Communications Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:11:00 -0600 From: John A. Weeks III Organization: Newave Communications In article , William Robison wrote: > I attended a presentation by Excel Communications last night. They > appear to sell telecom services (local, long-distance, internet, > cell). The presentation was for prospective sales people, but it had > all the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme. Sign up for $400, sign up more > sellers and get a substantial "incentive", The people you sign up sign > up more and you get a different kickback, etc. William ... if you would like to know more, please send me E-mail so we can keep this out of the Digest. To give brief answers to your points ... 1) All successful organizations from GM to the US Army are delta shaped organizations, with a few highly placed people on top who make the big bucks, and lots of worker bees at the lower level making it happen. 2) Excel pays commissions in advance. For example, they know how many customers a typical sales rep will sign up, how much those customers will spend each month, and how long they will stay with the company. Excel then does the math, and pays you the commission up front. There is so little profit in long distance that it would otherwise take years for folks to see any reasonable paychecks, to this advanced commissions puts a little jazz into it. 3) There is no fee to become an Excel sales rep. There are other ways to join, including a package that includes a bunch of marketing materials, training classes, and management services. The level that you quote is to become a paid company trainer and go around the country training new sales reps. That fee pays for the advanced training classes that you need to take to be able to train others. 4) A pyramid scheme is where there is no product involved, rather, money coming in goes to pay other members. This is illegal. The poster child for this was the Ponzi scheme, where new "investors" put in their money, and that was used to pay the rate of return that was promised to existing members. Excel does not pay out a single dime until a sales person makes a sale to a number of customers, and those customers use the service to generate revenue and commissions, so everything is 100% legal -- nothing shady or grey area about it. John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 08:38:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.11: EFF Opposes RFIDs in Passports EFFector Vol. 17, No. 11 March 31, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 283rd Issue of EFFector: * EFF Opposes Radio Tracking Technology, Biometrics in Passports * Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Sections 201 and 805 * EFF's Deep Links - The Weblog * MiniLinks (16): Canada's Copyright Revolution: As Good As It Gets * Staff Calendar: 04.06.04 - Fred von Lohmann speaks at Columbia University Law School, New York, NY * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/11.php ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #156 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 2 03:54:23 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i328sM129560; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 03:54:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 03:54:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404020854.i328sM129560@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 #157 TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Apr 2004 03:53:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BroadVoice Announces the Launch of Broadband Voice Service (VOIP News) Vonage Apparently Now in Canada; Offering Canadian Numbers (VOIP News) Hot-spot Wi-Fi Business (D. Jones) Carrier Class Managed Ethernet Switch; Mission Critical Apps (mktg) Exporting America (John Stahl) Norvergence Documentary (Eric Claiborne) Re: Flat Rate Plans and Modems; was Re: AOL Connection (Tony P.) Re: Excel Communications (J Kelly) Re: Buying Books on the Net (John A. Weeks III) Re: I Want to Block Anonymous/Name Unavailable/Unwanted (John Chmerold) Re: Teen Girl Charged With Posting Nude Photo on Internet (Linc Madison) Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill (John Levine) Re: Amazon Patents Cookies (Me) Google Says "Gmail" is No Joke, But Lunar Jobs Are (Monty Solomon) US Court Rejects Revisiting Cable Broadband Ruling (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 14:14:03 -0500 Subject: BroadVoice Announces the Launch of Its Broadband Voice Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Comment: Before doing business with this company, I suggest you read the comments (both pro and con) on the VoIP Forum at BroadbandReports.com . There seems to be a lot of controversy concerning the way this company has promoted itself, and the operation of its service during the beta test period, and that's all I'll say about it. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040401005464&newsLang=en April 01, 2004 11:55 AM US Eastern Timezone BroadVoice Announces the Launch of Its Broadband Voice Service for Consumers and Small Businesses; New Company Offers Unlimited Calling at Unprecedented Value LOWELL, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 1, 2004--BroadVoice, a new kind of Communications Company, today announced the immediate availability of its voice over internet protocol (VoIP) service. Coupled with an existing high-speed Internet connection, the company's service allows consumers to make and receive phone calls anywhere in the world. Subscribers benefit from unlimited domestic calling options, lower international rates, and a suite of advanced features not found with either traditional telephone service or other VoIP providers. The announcement, which occurred at the Voice on the Net (VON) conference in Santa Clara, CA introduces an unprecedented value proposition to the VoIP community and consumers at large. Entry prices are the best the market has to offer and include an Unlimited In-State plan for just $9.95 a month and an Unlimited USA calling plan for $19.95 a month. BroadVoice subscribers can choose a direct-dial telephone number from any of the 30 states and 1,300 cities and towns the company currently offers, regardless of the user's geographic location. All BroadVoice accounts come with voicemail, caller ID, call waiting and a suite of 21 other advanced calling features (more than any other VoIP provider) at no additional charge. All features are available through the company's interactive communications portal. Full press release at: http://www.broadvoice.com/areacodes.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:58:32 -0500 Subject: Vonage Apparently Now in Canada and Offering Canadian Numbers Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com I found out via a message posted on BroadbandReports.com that Vonage is now doing business in Canada, or at least their Canadian web site is up and running: http://www.vonage.ca/ As in parts of the United States, they tend to "cherry pick" the most populous ratecenters, offering only a very few ratecenters in each province they serve. Strangely, in Ontario they do not show Toronto (Canada's largest city) or any ratecenter close to Toronto -- the only four ratecenters they offer right now are Kitchener, London, Ottawa, and Hamilton. They apparently have NO numbers in Toronto, Windsor, Sarnia, Barrie, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, etc. Customers in one country (Canada or the U.S.) can only have a number in the other country as a "Virtual Number" -- that means that their primary Vonage number must be in their home country. That might be a problem for some users because on an outgoing call, it's the primary number that shows up on the called party's Caller ID display. Also, regional calling plans are based on the primary number. Rates shown on the Vonage Canada site are $45.99 for the Premium Unlimited Plan, $34.99 for a Province Unlimited Plan, and $19.99 for a Basic 500 Plan. Presumably, those amounts are in Canadian dollars. There is also a "Regulatory Recovery Fee" of $1.95 per line, so bear that in mind when comparing prices to other companies that don't charge this fee. One reply message in the thread I saw notes that 911 is "coming soon" and that Toll Free Plus (incoming toll free numbers available at an extra monthly charge to U.S. customers) is apparently not available, and that there seems to be other differences in the offerings in the two countries as well. If you live or work in Canada, and Vonage has a number in a ratecenter you want, then it might be a good deal. Otherwise, there are less expensive U.S.-based VoIP companies that offer unlimited calling to both the U.S. and Canada, and that may even be willing to do business directly with customers in Canada (Packet8 comes to mind, but that is not a recommendation, because I've read mixed reports about their service quality). The thread on BroadbandReports.com is here: http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9848404~mode=flat [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: USA customers of Vonage are able to choose 416/Toronto numbers for Virtual numbers however, if they wish. And the prices they quote on their Canadian web page are quoted in Canadian dollars. USA customers can also have virtual numbers in area codes in various Canadian cities. Also, on vonage.ca I do see where Canadian residents can have 416/Toronto code numbers if desired. ------------------------------ Subject: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business From: D. Jones Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:32:11 GMT I would like to operate a profitable hot-spot (Wi-Fi) service for my community. People would access my network for a $1 a day in our communities cafe's and parks. I'm thinking to have about 8 hot spots. How much would a hot spot cost to run? Also, how could I collect payments? Is there a hot-spot management system out there? ------------------------------ From: mktg@garrettcom.com Subject: Carrier Class Managed Ethernet Switch for Mission Critical Apps Date: 1 Apr 2004 15:57:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com GarrettCom's new model Magnum 6K16 Managed Ethernet Switch provides a compact package and configuration flexibility and is available with fan cooling and rack mounting, ideal for the carrier class customer. One rack-mount option is to mount two units side-by-side in a 19" rack for redundancy and hot back-up systems in mission-critical applications. For more information go to: http://garrettcom.com/6k16.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:55:40 -0500 From: John Stahl Subject: Exporting America A friend was telling me yesterday that he had a problem with his Palm PDA which necessitated calling Palm customer service. When he connected through their 800-customer service number, he soon found that he was talking to a gentleman in India. My friend's experience prompted me to do a search to see if anyone is keeping the count of all the companies who are outsourcing labor outside the USA. I was surprised (and appalled) when I located, on the CNN Internet site, an extensive list of these companies. The CNN site describes their list as: "Here is a list of companies we've confirmed are "Exporting America." These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers." Since the list is too large to reproduce in an email, here is the URL so you can see for yourself the corporations who have done so: (just "click" on the name) URL: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/frameset.exclude.html John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you should mention this. A story in the Independence Reporter for Monday of this week listed one such office that surprised all of us who saw it: The State of Kansas, Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (known locally as SRS) has 'outsourced' its client services operations to India also. That is, when I call the 800 number to inquire about my SRS benefits under Kansas Medicaid, etc, I am dealing with someone in India. The story in the Reporter really questioned that. "Is there no one here in Independence or Coffeyville working for six or seven dollars an hour who can't handle this?" Topeka (state capitol)'s answer: Yes, but we can get it a lot cheaper in India." Amazing. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Norvergence Documentary Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:41:08 -0500 From: Eric Claiborne Hello, We have been approached by Norvergence for a proposal to be our all-in-one data/telephone service provider. In doing research on this company, I came accross this document on your website. Here is the link: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/reports/norvergence2.doc I was kind of concerned about something like this with this company. So far, we have been told about the 5-year deal and the equipment you mention in the document. This document seems authentic but it does not claim the source of the person who did this research. I just want to make sure this is a valid analysis of Norvergence's services. Please let me know and thank you for your information on this. Eric F. Claiborne Knox Nursery, Inc. I.S. Manager 407.293.3721 eclaiborne@knoxnursery.com www.knoxnursery.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I referred Mr. Claiborne to other articles in our archives and elsewhere on the net, both good and bad about the company. He reviewed these with his co-workers and then responded a few hours later: Subject: RE: Norvergence documentary Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:07:56 -0500 From: "Eric Claiborne" Thank you very much for you work in these matters. On such a sensitive issue of phone/data systems we have decided that a contract with this company is not worth ANY risk. We started to get leary when the answer to every question was "YES". That is usually the trademark of a B.S. artist. With the information we read from you and other sources, we cancelled our plans with them. Thanks again, Eric F. Claiborne Knox Nursery, Inc. I.S. Manager 407.293.3721 eclaiborne@knoxnursery.com www.knoxnursery.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's my job here, Mr. Claiborne, to collect facts and experiences our readers have with various telecom companies, including Norvergence. I am glad our archives was useful to you. http://telecom-digest.org PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Flat Rate Plans and Modems; was Re: AOL Connection Organization: ATCC Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:28:12 GMT In article , nospam@resi.com says: > On 1 Apr 2004 04:32:34 -0000 John Levine wrote about > Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill > >> The AP story identifies the guy and his daughter by name, and says >> Qwest agreed to settle the bill for $375. >> I would think that was generous except that he could have signed up >> for flat rate long distance for $25 and the calls would have cost $0 >> above that. >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-30-aol-phone-bill_x.htm > The fine print I have seen on several of these plans specifically > excludes modem calls. I find the whole modem/fax surcharges to be ridiculous. Both are designed to utilize the 3Khz bandwidth of a standard phone line. And with regard to fax, most of those calls are < 5 minutes. Granted, when mux'ing all those calls a data/fax takes up the full 3Khz bandwidth, as opposed to other calls only taking it up a fraction of the time. But there is so much excess capacity in LD circuits that this shouldn't be an issue at all. Just wait until the RBOC's go whole hog into VoIP. ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Excel Communications Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 17:25:54 -0600 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:11:00 -0600, John A. Weeks III wrote: > 2) Excel pays commissions in advance. > Excel does not pay out a single dime until a sales person makes a > sale to a number of customers, and those customers use the service > to generate revenue and commissions, You seem to contradict yourself here. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Buying Books on the Net Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 14:43:30 -0600 From: John A. Weeks III Organization: Newave Communications In article , C. Smith wrote: > I have bought dozens of books on the Net and, so far (touch wood), > without any problems. I have paid for most of transactions by credit > card. On occasions (at the suggestion of the bookseller), I have > emailed my CC number in two halves, by separate emails. Is this > sound practice for me and for the retailer? And am I exposing > myself to unnecessary risk? The risk is that the merchant (or whoever ends up with the card number) will use it again in the future without your permission. One way to protect against this is to use a one-time only credit card number. Major cards, such as Citibank, will allow you to go to their web site, where you put in your transaction information, and they issue a new credit card number that is good for one time only, to the merchant you specifiy, for the amount you specify. This eliminates the risk of using the card number again. > dollars. If I see something I want to purchase on the net, you can > always 'pretend' a debit card is a credit card, and use that 'credit > card' number to make the purchase. Two items to note. (1) Debit cards do not have any of the same protections that credit cards would otherwise have. In fact, corporate debit cards have almost no protections for fraud. (2) Once someone gets your debit card info, they can keep spamming your account, and might get future deposits that you put in, or at least generate overdraw notices or cause other debits to bounce. ==================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ==================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 17:28:52 -0600 From: John Schmerold Subject: Re: I Want to Block Anonymous/Name Unavailable/Unwanted Three products come to mind. I use the first, want to move to the second and believe the third would make an excellent basis for a cheap Sandman box. http://identafone.com http://www.voicecallcentral.com http://vocp.sourceforge.net The reason I want to move to the second one is because it will allow you to send undesirable calls to voicemail. We use the first one at the computer store. Since we sell locally, I don't want calls from anywhere but 314 & 636 area codes. It's beautiful, no sales calls, no surveys, no free magazine subscriptions. The only calls we get are from our clients. Problem is that from time to time we have a client that has their caller id blocked or is calling from a 2-way that doesn't issue caller id. So, we'd like to assign someone to listen to the voice mails -- perhaps when they are sitting in the restroom -- yes I'm a tyrant. Now if I could only find a legal cell phone blocker ... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Teen Girl Charged With Posting Nude Photos on Internet Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:47:35 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , Monty Solomon wrote: [The story tells briefly of a 15yo girl who has been arrested for posting photos of herself "performing a variety of sexual acts" on the Internet. She has been charged with "sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography."] Well, I should certainly hope that the authorities will be consistent and charge this horrible miscreant as an adult! It's rather like cases in Britain when the age of consent for two men was 21, even though it was 16 for a boy and a girl or for two girls. If a 20yo man was in a relationship with an older man, the younger one would be charged *as an adult* with the crime of facilitating the exploitation of a minor -- himself!! 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. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 2004 01:48:55 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: AOL Connection Leads to $2,500 Phone Bill Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> The AP story identifies the guy and his daughter by name, and says >> Qwest agreed to settle the bill for $375. >> I would think that was generous except that he could have signed up >> for flat rate long distance for $25 and the calls would have cost $0 >> above that. > Not exactly. The fast talker at the end of the spot for flat rate LD > states that internet access is not included in the rate plan :-) > Some lady in Chicago found that out. Um, Colorado != Illinois, and Qwest != SBC. I just spent 20 really boring minutes looking through the Qwest tariffs, and found the part that describes the unlimited LD service. It's actually 5 cents/min for the first 500 minutes, zero cents/min after that. It doesn't say anything about calling ISPs, but it does say that you can only use your residence phone for residence uses, and that flat rate really means 5,000 minutes per month. If you use more than that, they can demand that you prove that you're not misusing the service. Since 5000 minutes is 7 hours a day, 7 days a week, that doesn't seem like a really onerous limit unless you're using your phone as a long distance baby monitor.* Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. * - A few years back when my daughter was quite small, she slept in her car seat in the car a lot better than she slept anywhere else. I had an analog AMPS car phone and a plan with unlimited nights weekends, so we'd often park the car in the driveway where we could see her from the house, call the house from the car phone and leave her on the speakerphone until we heard her wake up, as much as two or three hours later. ------------------------------ From: Me Subject: Re: Amazon Patents Cookies Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 02:22:08 GMT And I thought it was an April Fool's joke :) Barry Margolin wrote in message news:telecom23.156.16@telecom-digest.org: > Monty's subject line is *extremely* misleading. This patent is not > about cookies in general. It's about a specific technique for > encoding structured, binary data into the text-based cookies. The web > application makes use of a generic routine that takes a data structure > and a schema file to perform the translation; additional claims cover > mechanisms for tracking different versions of the data structure, so > that users who have old cookies saved on their computers can be > supported automatically, and things like encrypting the cookie. > Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu > Arlington, MA > *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 01:46:29 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Google Says "Gmail" is No Joke, But Lunar Jobs Are http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2004/04/01/rtr1320652.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:05:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: US Court Rejects Revisiting Cable Broadband Ruling WASHINGTON, April 1 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court has refused to reconsider its decision that regulators mistakenly insulated cable companies that offer high-speed Internet from extensive regulations, like providing consumers a choice of Internet service providers. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in October that the Federal Communications Commission should have classified cable broadband as a telecommunications service instead of an information service. The court late on Wednesday denied requests to rehear the case. The FCC could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40987018 ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #157 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 2 20:46:18 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i331kIF06764; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:46:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:46:18 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404030146.i331kIF06764@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 #158 TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:46:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 158 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Rate Hikes in Sheep's Clothing - Consumer Groups Rally (VOIP News) VoIP Letters to the Hill (VOIP News) Re: Vonage Apparently Now in Canada and Offering (VOIP News) Sununu Bill Allows Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP News) Bill Would Exempt Most VOIP From Regulation (VOIP News) VoIP Reaches Out, Wirelessly - Two Hot Net Technologies (VOIP News) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (Tony P.) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (Clarence Dold) Lawful Intercept (Marco Ponte) Stopping Nuisance Calls (Mark Crispin) VOIP News Question (Tom Lowe) Re: Norvergence Documentary (William Warren) Re: Western Union Clocks (Lawrence Jones) Vonage, Bad Experince, Really is Terrible, Maybe the Worst (G) Re: Buying Books on the Net (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) 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: VOIP News Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:27:42 -0500 nSubject: Rate Hikes in Sheep's Clothing - Consumer Groups Rally Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41691 Consumer groups rally against 'fees' Written by Karl Bode As previously discussed, BellSouth recently added a "regulatory cost recovery" fee of $2.97 to customer DSL bills. Letters informing customers of the change caused a long discussion over the tactic in our BellSouth forum. The fee is not assessed by the government, and consumer groups argue it's simply a rate hike in sheep's clothing. The biggest problem is that the fee isn't included in the cost that these companies are advertising. Critics charge this allows the companies to advertise one rate, charge another, and then blame the government when you get angry. We've been changing our own price comparisons to reflect this. While just yesterday we praised SBC for their decision to offer higher speeds and lower their rates, the reality is those price reductions are simply being offset by new hidden fees. Surcharges ranging from $1.84 to $5.83 a month are being added to customer bills, depending on which of SBC's 13 states you live in. If you don't see the fee yet, you will when your contract comes up for renewal. The justification for the fee from both companies is that the Universal Service Fund, and other regulatory efforts are draining their coffers. "Given the dramatic way that it has increased in the last couple of years, we have found it necessary to break it out," says SBC spokesman Joe Izbrand to the Dallas Morning News. Consumer groups argue that the USF is simply part of the cost of doing business in the United States, and should be included in the overall price of service. "It's a price increase," bluntly notes Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America. [Comment: At least one VoIP company does this also. Vonage adds a "Regulatory Recovery Fee" of $1.50 per line to their monthly rate. It's not assessed by the government, and not included in the advertised price.] Full story at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41691 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:52:55 -0500 Subject: VoIP Letters to the Hill Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1028225.htm] Late yesterday, nine small VoIP providers and the VON Coalition, of which AT&T is a member, sent a letter to key policymakers on the Hill and at the FCC urging them to avoid placing old telephone rules on this new service. Below is the letter delivered to the Senate. A separate letter was addressed to Reps. Joe Barton, John D. Dingell and Charles "Chip" Pickering. As you all know, the FCC is poised to rule on a petition deciding how much phone-to-phone VoIP providers will have to pay to access the Bell network. Full story (including text of letter) at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1028225.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:52:45 -0500 Subject: Re: Vonage Apparently Now in Canada Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Forwarded message: Date: 2 Apr 2004 05:41:30 -0000 From: John Levine To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [VoIP News] Vonage apparently now in Canada and offering Canadian numbers In-Reply-To: <5.06794476509094.114.978631258011@1.00006684993781> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Strangely, in Ontario they do not show Toronto (Canada's largest city) or > any ratecenter close to Toronto That appears to be a mistake. If you go through the signup menu, it offers area code 647 numbers in Toronto. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:36:22 -0500 Subject: Sununu Bill Allows Voice Over Internet Protocol Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.politicsnh.com/press_releases/2004/April/4_2voip.shtml SUNUNU BILL ALLOWS VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL TO GROW FREE FROM STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATION WASHINGTON, DC -- United States Senator John Sununu (R-NH) today (4/2) reviewed components of Senate legislation that encourages the growth of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) by clarifying its status as an information service and limiting state regulation of this innovative voice communication technology. Sununu, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, was joined by Congressman Chip Pickering (R-MS) at a press round-table in the Capitol on April 2 where they outlined provisions of the Senate and corresponding House legislation and took questions from the press. "Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) - technology that enables efficient, cost-effective delivery of voice communications over Internet broadband networks - is at a critical stage in its development, but its potential to serve consumers, business, and society is enormous," said Sununu. "Unfortunately, some interests would like to impose an outdated and stifling regulatory framework on this service, rather than allow VoIP to continue to expand freely." "Burdensome state and federal regulations could easily prevent VoIP from delivering on its promise of cost savings, versatility, and innovation for consumers. That is why I propose a clear, but limited federal role to enable future growth of this technology," Sununu continued. "Congress must establish federal authority in this area, provide direction for any action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and preclude individual states and jurisdictions from regulating VoIP. This guidance, which my legislation provides, will help ensure a greater degree of market certainty, and more importantly, will help ensure that a misguided approach to VoIP does not develop." Key provisions in the bill will: Treat VoIP as an information service. Doing so will help establish a level playing field for all forms of data; Establish federal jurisdiction over VoIP applications. Allowing state and local jurisdictions to impose costly and unnecessary regulations on this technology will discourage investment and development; and Protect VoIP data from federal and state taxation. Imposing oppressive taxes on VoIP will serve only to block further emergence of this technology. On previous occasions, Sununu has addressed his concerns about the future of VoIP at a February 24, 2004 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the issue and at the January 9, 2004 International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada . ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:31:32 -0500 Subject: Bill Would Exempt Most VOIP From Regulation Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/04/02/HNvoipreg_1.html By Grant Gross, IDG News Service April 02, 2004 Most voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services would be exempt from state taxes and regulations and be treated by the U.S. government as a lightly regulated information service under legislation that U.S. Senator John Sununu plans to introduce by early next week. Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, has drafted a bill that defining most VOIP services as information services, like most other Internet-related services, under congressional and U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. The Sununu bill would exempt VOIP from most regulations governing traditional voice telecommunications, including federal law-enforcement wiretap regulations and access charges typically shared among telecom providers. Sununu and Representative Charles "Chip" Pickering Jr., a Mississippi Republican who plans to introduce a similar bill in the House, said the legislation is necessary to give clarity to VOIP vendors and customers, even though the FCC began a rule-making proceeding on VOIP in mid-February. FCC Chairman Michael Powell has also called for VOIP to be exempt from state regulations, but the legislation could help avoid the court battles that have followed other FCC telecommunications decisions, Sununu said. Full story at: http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/04/02/HNvoipreg_1.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:39:54 -0500 Subject: VoIP Reaches Out, Wirelessly - Two Hot Net Technologies Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/wireless_voip_pcmag_040402.html VoIP Reaches Out, Wirelessly Two Hot Net Technologies Converge for New Mobile Phone Calls By Sebastian Rupley PC Magazine April 2 The talk at the VON (Voice On the Net) conference this week in Silicon Valley is not just about Voice over IP (VoIP) technology, but the coming convergence of Wi-Fi wireless LAN technology and VoIP services.That melding is already leading to the development of new products and services, with many more expected later this year. Full story at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/wireless_voip_pcmag_040402.html ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:00:15 GMT In article , djones0315@hotmail.com says: > I would like to operate a profitable hot-spot (Wi-Fi) service for my > community. People would access my network for a $1 a day in our > communities cafe's and parks. I'm thinking to have about 8 hot > spots. How much would a hot spot cost to run? Also, how could I > collect payments? Is there a hot-spot management system out there? First think of the infrastructure. Yuo'd need some type of well equipped Wi-Fi router or two, and the access points associated with it. Then of course you'll need some form of security above and beyond basic WEP and not broadcasting the SSID. For that I'd suggest BlueSocket but it isn't in any way cheap. Equipment, I'd say is about $15K to $30K or so. Then there's the broadband connection -- anywhere from $100 to $1000 a month. ------------------------------ From: dold@Hot-SpotXW.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:50:28 UTC Organization: a2i network D. Jones wrote: > I would like to operate a profitable hot-spot (Wi-Fi) service for my > community. People would access my network for a $1 a day in our > communities cafe's and parks. I'm thinking to have about 8 hot > spots. How much would a hot spot cost to run? Also, how could I > collect payments? Is there a hot-spot management system out there? The first thing that comes to mind is to become a hotspot for an established carrier. That would relieve you of all of the bookkeeping. Al you would do is provide the spot[s]. http://www.boingo.com is one of them. There is a steady stream of this same question in the Usenet News Group alt.internet.wireless . A search of that newsgroup via Google lists 63 threads on the subject: http://makeashorterlink.com/?E16F62AE7 Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: marco_ponte@yahoo.com (Marco Ponte) Subject: Lawful Intercept Date: 2 Apr 2004 05:46:54 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I'm writing a paper on Lawful Intercept in today's telecom ip based networks (access providers, internet providers, ...) I know about standards that describe different functionalities (e.g. the famous H1, H2 and H3 handover interfaces) Now, I'm wondering at what part of the network this interception best takes place : at the DSLAM, access routers, edge routers ... and what are reasons to implement one or the other. If possible, send replies by e-mail. Greetings. ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Stopping Nuisance Calls Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:00:34 -0800 Organization: University of Washington There is an option for stopping nuisance calls that hasn't been widely discussed. If your phone company has Do Not Disturb service, you can set up your DND schedule so that it is 24 hours/day. Consequently, nobody can call you unless they know a four-digit code that you decide upon. The disadvantage is that if you have a forwarding (e.g. to voice mail or a cell phone), DND will happily transfer to it. So prerecorded telemarketers will then leave their crap on your voice mail (or worse you cell phone). So be sure to cancel all forwardings first. There is an option which you can enable to allow callers who don't know the code to press "*" and give their name, and then you get to decide whether to take the call or not. Of course, this mainly works for people who have a very small number of legitimate callers and thus it scales to "whitelist" in this way. My phone line has been very peaceful since I went this route. My friends and family know my code and their calls go right through, but no more wrong numbers and no more damn telemarketers who think that the do-not-call law doesn't apply to them. What's more, it's not only more effective, but is also a lot cheaper than the No Solicitation, Security Screen, etc. services. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ Subject: VOIP News Question Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:18:57 -0500 From: Tom Lowe No offense, but if the VOIP news is already in a mailing list of it's own, what's the point in posting it to this group as well? I love the news provided by them, but not enough to read it twice. I would encourage you to keep a list of relevant mailing lists that your subscribers may be interested in signing up for and send it out to the list every so often, or post it on your web site or something else, but don't duplicate stuff. Thanks for listening! Tom ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Norvergence Documentary Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:05:23 GMT Eric Claiborne wrote in message news:telecom23.157.6@telecom-digest.org: [snip] > Thank you very much for you work in these matters. On such a > sensitive issue of phone/data systems we have decided that a contract > with this company is not worth ANY risk. We started to get leary when > the answer to every question was "YES". That is usually the trademark > of a B.S. artist. With the information we read from you and other > sources, we cancelled our plans with them. [snip] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's my job here, Mr. Claiborne, to > collect facts and experiences our readers have with various telecom > companies, including Norvergence. I am glad our archives was useful > to you. http://telecom-digest.org PAT] Pat, QUICK! Hit them up for a sponsorship!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's very crass! If everyone who had ever benefitted from our archives had become a 'sponsor', I would be a very wealthy person. Not because I am so smart (I am not) but because of the collective wisdom to be found in this newsgroup. Anyway, I did not come up with the Norvergence information on my own; I just serve as a large humanoid filing cabinet for all that stuff. 'Tis very true, a lot of things have to be paid for around here, not the least of which is my own willingness to sit here anywhere from two to eight ot ten hours per day organizing the 'wisdom', dumping out the tons of spam and virus crap which comes through, and trying to arrange the rest of it in a reasonable way. I *did* mention to the Knox Nurseries that a sponsorship would be welcome, but the rest of it has to come from them. I generally however do not tie the two together; search our files, then pay for it. We used to say and believe when Usenet usership and traffic was about one tenth of what it is now that this was a PUBLIC network for USERS. I believe we should continue that policy. Do you remember when *I* (and many others) back in the 1980's used to say 'wait until the day comes when *everyone* is hooked up to the net.' ? Well, we are just about getting to that point. Instead of taking such a crass direction of making (or very strongly suggesting) that people who use our files then pay some set fee for doing so, (gee, are there any Internet sites which do that; have a cashier at the front door, etc?), I prefer just to leave it up the friends and supporters of this Digest to look out for its (and my) welfare. Those who want to do that either use a credit card to make a payment through PayPal at http://telecom-digest.org or else they mail a gift as they find approriate to Post Office Box 50, Independence, KS 67301 and recieve my thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com Subject: Re: Western Union Clocks Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:13:01 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > My (Panasonic) doesn't make any changes until you cycle the > power. A couple of months ago my power was off for a time and when it > came back on it was totally confused. Finally I got the manual out > and discovered that was document ... except it seemed to me the power > going off and then coming back on at some later time *was* cycling the > power. My Panasonic sets the time when you power it *off*, not on. It seems to me that it actually said that in the manual, too. I suspect the reason is that the process can take a bit of time and they didn't want to keep you from doing whatever you were trying to do when you turned the VCR on, so they wait until you're no longer using it. -Larry Jones Years from now when I'm successful and happy, ... and he's in prison ... I hope I'm not too mature to gloat. -- Calvin ------------------------------ From: info414@yahoo.com (G) Subject: Vonage, Bad Experince, Really is Terrible, Maybe the Worst Date: 2 Apr 2004 10:18:36 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Vonage has some serious problems and here they are ! You phone does not work for ALL the following reasons, which cumulatively can amount to more than a few HOURS a week! 1. If power is out; 2. If cable is out; 3. Every once in awhile Vonage system is down; 4. If Vonage modem has a glitch; 5. If your cable has a glitch. If your phone loses dial tone you do not get it back unless you reboot the Vonage modem, which you do not know is out of order unless you check it. Once you reboot it, it takes two or three minutes, because Vonage only poles you one every few minutes, NOT ONCE EVERY FEW SECONDES, like any normal system would do. Voip is a great technology for campus wide utilization, but Vonage is going to go belly up fast with this application of the technology. Beware of saving a few dollars and losing a lot of business/friends with this technology. G [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But for those readers who have not experienced this series of disasters with their electricity, cable modem, etc and want to check out Vonage, I can give you an e-coupon good for a month of free service.(Whatever kind of service you decide is best, you get the second month of it for free with an e-coupon. Just write ptownson@telecom-digest.org and request it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:32:29 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Buying Books on the Net Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > The risk is that the merchant (or whoever ends up with the card > number) will use it again in the future without your permission. One The other risk is that someone will break into the merchant's database. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #158 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Apr 3 18:07:42 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i33N7gj14480; Sat, 3 Apr 2004 18:07:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 18:07:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404032307.i33N7gj14480@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 #159 TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Apr 2004 18:07:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 159 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Feds Tell States 'VoIP is Ours' (VOIP News) AT&T, Comcast Support VoIP Legislation (VOIP News) New Sipura SPA Version 2.0 Firmware Available (VOIP News) Re: Excel Communications (Gary) Re: Vonage, Bad Experience, Really is Terrible, Maybe Worst (Frank) Re: Vonage, Bad Experience, Really is Terrible, Maybe Worst (S Garland) Re: Western Union Clocks (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Sununu Bill Allows Voice Over Internet Protocol (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (Clarence Dold) Re: Wireless Equivalent to Crossover Network (Kenneth P. Stox) Walmart Card Balancing Mix up Causes Major Headache (TELECOM Editor) Media For Sale (Mike L) iTunes Case Study - Digital Media Project (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:56:41 -0500 Subject: Feds Tell States 'VoIP is Ours' Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Jack Decker note: (I sent this out earlier with a bad subject line - that'll teach me to do cut-and-paste operations when I'm half awake. Sorry for the duplication, but I did want to get this out with a proper subject line). http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5184603.html By Ben Charny and Declan McCullagh CNET News.com Sen. John Sununu announced on Friday long-awaited Internet phone legislation that would effectively eliminate state and local authorities' ability to tax and regulate broadband phone calls. The bill, which is expected to draw fire from state governments, says all authority over regulating VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) services is "reserved solely to the federal government." The measure, VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act, also imposes some curbs on the Federal Communications Commission's ability to extend to VoIP much of the thick quilt of rules and requirements that govern the traditional phone network. For instance, it bans imposing certain "access charge" taxes, but does require the FCC to levy VoIP universal service fees that will be redirected to provided discounted analog phone service to low-income and rural Americans. Sununu's proposal also addresses the controversial issue of VoIP wiretapping, saying that VoIP companies that provide links to the existing telephone network -- a category that would include Vonage, for instance -- must provide some "access to necessary information to law enforcement agencies." But the access requirement, a key concern of the FBI, would not apply to instant messaging applications or peer-to-peer services like Skype. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5184603.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:13:05 -0500 Subject: AT&T, Comcast Support VoIP Legislation Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Two press releases commenting on the VoIP legislation introduced by Senator Sununu and Congressman Pickering: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2004/0002140211&EDATE= AT&T Welcomes Introduction on VoIP Legislation WASHINGTON, April 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The following statement may be attributed to Peter Jacoby, AT&T Vice President of Congressional Affairs: Sen. Sununu and Congressman Pickering have demonstrated a strong vision for the future with the introduction of this legislation today. These bills provide an excellent place for the Congress to join the discussion on VoIP. They have presented a deregulatory approach that both acknowledges the need to reform the current subsidy system and allows this nascent service to flourish and bring the benefits of competition and innovation to the telecommunications marketplace. SOURCE AT&T Web Site: http://www.att.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2004/0002140315&EDATE= Statement From Comcast Corporation PHILADELPHIA, April 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Comcast issued the following statement today regarding legislation introduced today by Senator John Sununu and Rep. Chip Pickering: We commend Senator Sununu and Rep. Pickering for their leadership on VOIP telephony policy. Consumers will benefit if this exciting technology is free to develop without burdensome regulation. VOIP will help cable companies to provide widespread facilities-based phone competition, leveraging the $85 billion we have collectively spent on network upgrades since 1996. Keeping VOIP free of the kind of regulation developed for a monopoly telephone era is essential to ensure that VOIP investment will continue and competition will grow. SOURCE Comcast Corporation Web Site: http://www.comcast.com ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:02:02 -0500 Subject: New Sipura SPA Version 2.0 firmware available Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Highlights of the upgrade are here: http://www.sipura.com/Documents/SPA_Version_2_Highlights.txt Sipura states that it is not necessary to upgrade to version 2.0 unless you require one or more new features. Also, it is not necessary to upgrade your SPA if your device is remotely provisioned by a service provider. But if you own a Sipura and you're not using it with a commercial VoIP service, and you need one of the new features, you can find the upgrade at this address: http://www.sipura.com/support/index.htm ------------------------------ From: roadtoadkw@msn.com (gary) Subject: Re: Excel Communications Date: 2 Apr 2004 20:32:31 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com J Kelly wrote in message news:: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:11:00 -0600, John A. Weeks III > wrote: >> 2) Excel pays commissions in advance. >> Excel does not pay out a single dime until a sales person makes a >> sale to a number of customers, and those customers use the service >> to generate revenue and commissions, > You seem to contradict yourself here. It's obivious you don't know what your talking about jkelly, unless you know the way the residuals are paid, you don't know what your talking about. As soon as someone switches over to the Excel's telecom services, a check or record is made and the rep or sponsering rep and uplines are paid by the end of the week on some commissions and by the month on some of the commissions, there are weekly and monthly weeks that are generated when a new customer or marketing rep has joined or requested the telecom service. If your with any other telecom service provider you're still paying at or near the same as Excel price, Excel just pays it back to the rep, while your other telecom pays it back to their big marketing or sales scheme's including big name athletes, etc.; you're paying one way or the other, just with Excel you're getting a part of it back and the more customers or reps you have the more money you get back. Ask your telecom back for some of the monies you payed for your services and they will laugh you in the face so to speak, so become a customer and help someone else recieve a residual income that will last forever, or become a rep and get a piece of the pie yourself; that's what it's all about. www.payyourselfnow.com/garyowens www.excelir.com/gowens2 ------------------------------ From: Frank@nospam.biz Subject: Re: Vonage, Bad Experince, Really is Terrible, Maybe the Worst Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 06:11:25 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications G wrote: > Vonage has some serious problems and here they are ! > You phone does not work for ALL the following reasons, which > cumulatively can amount to more than a few HOURS a week! > 1. If power is out; > 2. If cable is out; > 3. Every once in awhile Vonage system is down; > 4. If Vonage modem has a glitch; > 5. If your cable has a glitch. > If your phone loses dial tone you do not get it back unless you > reboot the Vonage modem, which you do not know is out of order unless > you check it. Once you reboot it, it takes two or three minutes, > because Vonage only poles you one every few minutes, NOT ONCE EVERY > FEW SECONDES, like any normal system would do. Voip is a great > technology for campus wide utilization, but Vonage is going to go belly > up fast with this application of the technology. > Beware of saving a few dollars and losing a lot of business/friends > with this technology. You sound like you work for a competitor, perhaps AT&T? I have had Vonage for 13 months, now, on a cable modem and it is up and running almost 100% of the time. Then again, only two people call me on it. Otherwise it is for extensive outbound calls. I keep a wireline presence for my incoming calls. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Vonage not so terrible From: no_email_address@hotmail.com (Sara Garland) Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:38:56 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net > You phone does not work for ALL the following reasons, which > cumulatively can amount to more than a few HOURS a week! > 1. If power is out; > 2. If cable is out; > 3. Every once in awhile Vonage system is down; > 4. If Vonage modem has a glitch; > 5. If your cable has a glitch. I've had Vonage since August and I've had about 4 hours of downtime total. My cable company is apparently very good, and I've never experienced Vonage being down while I was home. I've had to reset the cablemodem a few times, but that wasn't a Vonage-specific problem. I have experienced problems with some of the features, though. I can't get *69 to work well, but the website does give accurate information (after the fact) about calls that came in. I have no complaints, but I've got some money saved because of Vonage. Your mileage may vary. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:35:59 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Western Union Clocks Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > My Panasonic sets the time when you power it *off*, not on. It seems > to me that it actually said that in the manual, too. I suspect the > reason is that the process can take a bit of time and they didn't want > to keep you from doing whatever you were trying to do when you turned > the VCR on, so they wait until you're no longer using it. [way off topic, of course, but:] Or perhaps the reason is that the only time you need an accurate clock on a VCR is when you're recording, and most VCR's only record when they're off. Personally, I've always HATED this "feature," having many times programmed my VCR (perhaps even successfully) to record, but then left it on. I suspect many other people also don't record what they want because they leave the VCR on. -Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:49:22 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Sununu Bill Allows Voice Over Internet Protocol Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > Key provisions in the bill will: > Protect VoIP data from federal and state taxation. Imposing > oppressive taxes on VoIP will serve only to block further emergence of > this technology. It's "reporting" like this that does injustice to the truth. Of course "oppressive taxes" are bad. But (1) not all taxes are oppressive; (2) the taxes will not "serve only to block...", as, for example, they could also serve to level the playing field with other telephony conduits or require that people using VoIP contribute their fair share to the common network whose use they enjoy; but most importantly, (3) the second sentence is not a provision; it's propaganda. Protecting VoIP from taxation may or may not be a good idea, but without clear reporting and without a differentiation between data an opinions, it will be hard to have a serious discussion. -Joel ------------------------------ From: dold@Hot-SpotXW.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 20:26:54 UTC Organization: a2i network Tony P. wrote: > First think of the infrastructure. Yuo'd need some type of well equipped > Wi-Fi router or two, and the access points associated with it. Then of > course you'll need some form of security above and beyond basic WEP and > not broadcasting the SSID. For that I'd suggest BlueSocket but it isn't > in any way cheap. Why would you want to have security like WEP? No public hotspot that I've used has any encryption. > Equipment, I'd say is about $15K to $30K or so. We have a different idea of what he's trying to do, I guess. I would say closer to 10% of that. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Kenneth P. Stox Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC. Subject: Re: Wireless Equivalent to Crossover Network Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:30:51 GMT Daveman750 wrote: > Is there any cheap way to get a wireless equivalent to a simple > crossover network for sharing a dialup connection and files between > only two computers? You will need to configure both machine's wireless interfaces to use ad-hoc mode. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:46:30 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle On Thursday evening, a major problem happened with Walmart Stores and their credit/debit card processing. I do not usually shop at Walmart Supercenter here in Independence but on Thursday evening had to get some ink for my printer after the stores which carry it downtown were closed. I love to use my PayPal debit card, since Paypal pays 1.5 percent cash back on sales, and I can check its status right on line anytime. Of course I can use it 'like a credit card' for purchases on the net, and I never have more than a few dollars in it at any time. Anyway, I went out to Walmart SuperCenter, got my printer ink and a ream of paper. The purchase came to $36.72 (I do not know WHO keeps claiming that Walmart is 'so much cheaper than the stores downtown' but they do.) Anyway, today, Friday, I was checking my PayPal account and saw not one! not two! but three charges from Walmart for the $36.72, leaving me $72.44 in the 'hole', since I *only* move what money I need to that PayPal account, plus or minus a couple dollars. Naturally I got on the phone right away to PayPal and asked them, "how did that happen, the account is a debit card with a 'credit limit' of only the balance in the account. How did those additional two charges get approved instead of declined as I would have expected." Pay Pal said the reason it showed as 'approved' rather than 'declined' was because Walmart had 'forced it' in order to balance their card sales totals for the night. She blamed it on Walmart, saying 'they had a big mix up Thursday night in their card balancing.' I called Walmart/Independence and the customer service lady said it was not their fault, it was their credit card processor who screwed everything up. She said every Walmart store got a memo on the fax today explaining what had happened and that it 'was being corrected over the weekend, and to tell any customers who asked that it was NOT Walmart's fault'. I still decided to check with the credit card processor, who because the size and severity of the screw up opened an 800 toll free line to deal with customers tonight who happen to use their computers to examine their credit/debit card balances, and went crazy when they saw the mess. Just as I suspected, the credit card processor refused to confess to the blame either, saying "it was not us, it was Walmart who caused this mess, and we are not going to have Walmart blaming us for causing this." PayPal also had a standard response to read to customers saying that **everyone will get full credit either overnight or by Monday for the incorrect charges**. Walmart and the credit card processor said the same thing. They all said 'do not pay attention if your computer screams at you about 'get money in your account to cure this negative balance mess'. Apparently either Walmart Stores or the card processor ran the 'batch' two or three times instead of ONCE Thursday night, and a lot of people were affected. Credit cards were charged two or three extra times, and debit cards the same way. Debit cards which went negative as a result or credit cards which went over limit as a result were 'forced' to balance. Its all being ironed out now. I hope Walmart and/or the card processor find out who caused this and make a human sacrifice of them. (Update, Saturday afternoon, 4:30 PM CST: I got a phone call from the credit card processing office people. They are still working feverishly trying to get this straightened out; it was much worse than just Walmart Stores apparently. ) PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 03:59:19 GMT From: Mike L Subject: Media For Sale Organization: Shaw Residential Internet I have several different media for sale: 5" 640 MB optical disks (aka PD disks) 3" 125 MB optical disks (sometimes referred to as optimagneto) 3" 230 MB optical disks (sometimes referred to as optimagneto) 720K floppy disks 1.44 MB floppy disks without read/write tab For info call (780) 437-1253 or email ebenezer@shaw.ca Thanks. Mike L ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 16:28:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: iTunes Case Study - Digital Media Project iTunes Case Study Overview In recent months, iTunes, Apple's Online Music Store, has become the pacesetter in the digital media marketplace. Its business model responds to many of the current legal and technological challenges in online media distribution. The Digital Media Project's Green Paper, iTunes: How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital Media, provides an in-depth look at this service from the perspective of comparative law. Members of the Digital Media Team examined different legal and regulatory regimes from a range of countries to deterimine how iTunes and services like it are likely to fare under different sets of norms. By focusing on the specific iTunes example, the Case Study offers a concrete view of the way law, technology, and business model interact in the post-Napster world. The Case Study has focused on four important regulatory issues: * Interaction between Copyright and Contract Law * Digital Rights Management * Digital First Sale Doctrine * Fair Use Doctrine http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/itunes ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #159 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Apr 4 16:12:41 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i34KCfi22617; Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:12:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:12:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404042012.i34KCfi22617@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 #160 TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:12:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Why Sun Threw in the Towel in Mankind vs. Microsoft (Monty Solomon) Tech Heavyweights Explain How to Destroy the Internet (Monty Solomon) Re: Excel Communications (John Levine) Re: Excel Communications (Ray Normandeau) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Tony P.) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Horsley) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (AES) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Dold) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (Tony P.) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (Gene S. Berkowitz) Net Calling Makes Waves (VOIP News) Archives - Telephone Directories (Jo Falconer) New Members and New Chairman at the Fixedline MMS Forum (Press nRelease) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:24:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Why Sun Threw in the Towel in Mankind vs. Microsoft By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco Principles are fine things to have, but only if you can afford them. With its stock declared a 'junk bond' and finishing a terrible quarter, Silicon Valley's leading Microsoft antagonist Sun Microsystems has now decided it can't. The news will have surprised the company's lawyers, who only this week were girding themselves for the next round of litigation. It appears that for almost $2 billion, Microsoft has bought its way out of a lot of trouble. In truth however, both parties realized that the EU decision, which is still pending appeal, was a watershed. Microsoft doesn't have any more nasty surprises to face from the US, EU or States, and Sun realized that it couldn't push any more severe penalties out of the process. What could Sun achieve by proceeding with its 2002 lawsuit? The lawsuit asked for $1 billion in damages; today's settlement yields Sun $700 million for antitrust issues - less than what it wanted -- and a further $1,250 million covering patent royalties -- which is more than what it wanted. But the hardest thing for Sun to swallow will be its pride. McNealy had presented the fight in apocalyptic terms: Mankind vs Microsoft. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/36777.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:39:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Tech Heavyweights Explain How to Destroy the Internet By Thomas C Greene in Washington A group of tech celebs gathered on Capitol Hill this week to brief Congressional aides on how Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can, and probably will, make a complete mess of the Internet in about a year's time. At issue are likely revisions to the 1996 Telecommunications Act and FCC regulations, which, thus far, have managed to do scant violence to the Net. Unfortunately, changes now being contemplated, urged by telecomms and media behemoths and their lobbyists, may soon alter that happy state of affairs. Broadband users are particularly at risk, because they enjoy little of the consumer choice available to dialup users. One can connect to a phone line and reach any of hundreds of dialup ISPs. Broadband users have no such luxury. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/22/36744.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think these 'tech celebs' know what they are talking about. (a) the internet is already a mess, and has been bad for a few years and is getting worse with spam and virii and other things. And (b) regards broadband not having choices, I can reach any dialup ISP I want. I can either direct my computer to connect with any of those ISPs in the form of http://any-ISP or I can use my dialup connection (although much slower) to get there as well. But who really wants to these days, as crappy as so many sites are. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 2004 05:46:32 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Excel Communications Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > If your with any other telecom service provider you're still paying at > or near the same as Excel price, ... Uh, no. Excel's Nickel Nation costs $5 per month and 5 cents per minute with an outrageous five minute (25 cent) minimum per call. Other plans have even higher per minute rates. 800 service is $3.50/mo and 19 cpm. And don't forget the bogus $1.30/mo "carrier cost recovery" charge which Excel keeps. There are some bundled local resale plans, but they're not available where I live (nobody resells my tiny telco's service) and they don't look particularly cheap compared to Verizon's prices. I'm currently paying ECG 4.9 cpm, one minute increments, no monthly fee or minimum, and if I got around to calling them up and asking for their new plan, that'd drop to 3.5 cpm. These rates are not the lowest available, but they also provide my 800 service for 49 cents/mo and the same 4.9 cpm rate, and their service is decent. ECG and Excel both charge 9.1% USF, no difference there. It'd take an awful lot of MLM kickbacks to make Excel cheaper than normal LD service. I think I'd rather just pay less and not have to build a pyramid. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau) Subject: Re: Excel Communications Date: 4 Apr 2004 12:04:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com How about giving some sample Excel rates right here!! ?? I use OneSuite and can call to Hong Kong for two cents a minute. To Canada cost more though. Anyone have opinions on why? See https://www.onesuite.com/ Long distance at 2.9 Cents Per Minute for USA calls and to Canada for 3.5CPM. If you don't use the 800 number access, rate is even cheaper! It is basically a prepaid phone card but you can do away with the PIN for calls from home. Program it as a speed dial, you don't even have to remember their number. No monthly fee or minimum. There is a surchage for calls from payphones. If you use the promotion code "034720367" we both get some free miniutes. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:33:18 GMT In article , ptownson@telecom- digest.org says: > Anyway, today, Friday, I was checking my PayPal account and saw not one! > not two! but three charges from Walmart for the $36.72, leaving me > $72.44 in the 'hole', since I *only* move what money I need to that > PayPal account, plus or minus a couple dollars. > Naturally I got on the phone right away to PayPal and asked them, "how > did that happen, the account is a debit card with a 'credit limit' of > only the balance in the account. How did those additional two charges > get approved instead of declined as I would have expected." Pay Pal > said the reason it showed as 'approved' rather than 'declined' was > because Walmart had 'forced it' in order to balance their card sales > totals for the night. She blamed it on Walmart, saying 'they had a > big mix up Thursday night in their card balancing.' > I called Walmart/Independence and the customer service lady said it > was not their fault, it was their credit card processor who screwed > everything up. She said every Walmart store got a memo on the fax today > explaining what had happened and that it 'was being corrected over the > weekend, and to tell any customers who asked that it was NOT Walmart's > fault'. Neither one is going to give you a straight answer, meanwhile you're on the hook for the $72.44. The processor was more than likely First Data Merchant Service, I've dealt with them and they're bandits. > I still decided to check with the credit card processor, who because > the size and severity of the screw up opened an 800 toll free line to > deal with customers tonight who happen to use their computers to > examine their credit/debit card balances, and went crazy when they > saw the mess. Just as I suspected, the credit card processor refused > to confess to the blame either, saying "it was not us, it was Walmart > who caused this mess, and we are not going to have Walmart blaming us > for causing this." > PayPal also had a standard response to read to customers saying that > **everyone will get full credit either overnight or by Monday for the > incorrect charges**. Walmart and the credit card processor said the > same thing. They all said 'do not pay attention if your computer > screams at you about 'get money in your account to cure this negative > balance mess'. In the interests of not pissing everyone off, WalMart through it's obvious weight around and got the card processor to roll back the charges. > Apparently either Walmart Stores or the card processor ran the 'batch' > two or three times instead of ONCE Thursday night, and a lot of people > were affected. Credit cards were charged two or three extra times, > and debit cards the same way. Debit cards which went negative as a > result or credit cards which went over limit as a result were 'forced' > to balance. Its all being ironed out now. What it looks like is the batch was run three times, and each time failed and was resent. It was probably communication problems. > I hope Walmart and/or the card processor find out who caused this and > make a human sacrifice of them. > (Update, Saturday afternoon, 4:30 PM CST: I got a phone call from the > credit card processing office people. They are still working > feverishly trying to get this straightened out; it was much worse than > just Walmart Stores apparently. ) Once something goes into the clearinghouse that is a card processor it takes a mighty effort to get it back out. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:46:02 GMT > ..."not anyones fault"... Ah yes, takes me back to the good old days when I worked in the payroll/MIS area at Florida Atlantic University. The management folks would tell us computer grunts, "Use this data set tonight", or "Turn on/off the flag for this or that deduction tonight". Then it would turn out they were wrong, all the checks were screwed up, so they would have to fix it in the next check and always included a note about how "a computer error" was to blame :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:54:39 -0800 In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > On Thursday evening, a major problem happened with Walmart Stores and > their credit/debit card processing. I do not usually shop at Walmart > Supercenter here in Independence but on Thursday evening had to get > some ink for my printer after the stores which carry it downtown were > closed. Pat, will this show up on comp.risks? (which is an important place for this kind of screw-up). Or to phrase this differently, shall we both watch and see what further news about this shows up on comp.risks? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know if it will show up on Computer Risks or not. I haven't communicated with Dr. Neumann for quite a long time. If it does, you can let me know if you wish. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@WalmartXMi.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 04:52:57 UTC Organization: a2i network TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > (Update, Saturday afternoon, 4:30 PM CST: I got a phone call from the > credit card processing office people. They are still working > feverishly trying to get this straightened out; it was much worse than > just Walmart Stores apparently. ) And were they claiming that the "others" were caused by WalMart, or were they ready to accept their own liability? Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They -- all of them -- Walmart, PayPal and First Data Merchant Services were full of double talk today and a lot of nonsense. I called PayPal again today, and when the person from India or wherever they outsource their 'customer service' to gave me a lot of blather and refused to give me a supervisor or anyone to talk to I told him just to cancel out my PayPal accounts, since obviously they were no more trustworthy than any other web site which collects credit card numbers and bank accounts. He insisted it was 'someone elses fault', but refused to say who and refused to give me a super- visor. So I told him to tell whoever *is* the supervisor that I am not going to use their services any longer, since I cannot trust them. I also went over to Walmart and talked to the local store manager and the district area manager who happened to be there today and told them 'thank you for reminding me why I never go to Walmart if there is any other store still in town providing the same merchandise.' Walmart has made a total disaster of our downtown area. They have driven so many of our businessmen out of business. Furthermore, they have managed to increase our crime statistics a lot also. In the police activity column in the Reporter each day, it used to be once or twice a week police had something to say; usually an underage kid drinking or maybe a driver who was drunk. Now there is not a day goes by in the police column but what police arrest one or more people for shoplifting at Walmart. And last week police arrested a cashier at Walmart who had stolen a thousand dollars from the cash register. It was in the Reporter. I told the district manager today when I was there that he needs to work hard at cleaning up the local store there to get rid of the riff raff hanging around and the dishonest employees as well. And downtown is like a ghost town now, no one shopping at all. And yes, it was First Data Merchant Services, whose latest line was 'you will get the credit when we get a chance to issue it sometime soon.' They could not produce any supervisor today either. I told them and Paypal (who has already started nagging me to 'cure my negative balance') that I would prefer to get sued so they could all get exposed for the fools they are. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:43:41 GMT In article , dold@Hot- SpotXW.usenet.us.com says: > Tony P. wrote: >> First think of the infrastructure. Yuo'd need some type of well equipped >> Wi-Fi router or two, and the access points associated with it. Then of >> course you'll need some form of security above and beyond basic WEP and >> not broadcasting the SSID. For that I'd suggest BlueSocket but it isn't >> in any way cheap. > Why would you want to have security like WEP? No public hotspot that I've > used has any encryption. You need to somehow authenticate the users, and keep out those who aren't paying. WEP can't be used as you'd have to constantly change the key. Instead you get a solution like Blue Socket. That's the expensive part of the system. ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 23:54:50 -0500 In article , dold@Hot- SpotXW.usenet.us.com says: > Tony P. wrote: >> First think of the infrastructure. Yuo'd need some type of well equipped >> Wi-Fi router or two, and the access points associated with it. Then of >> course you'll need some form of security above and beyond basic WEP and >> not broadcasting the SSID. For that I'd suggest BlueSocket but it isn't >> in any way cheap. > Why would you want to have security like WEP? No public hotspot that I've > used has any encryption. ... which means, in effect, don't read or write anything over that link that you don't want anyone/everyone else in or near the coffee shop to read also. --Gene ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 09:52:56 -0400 Subject: Net Calling Makes Waves Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/business/8353031.htm By Ellen Lee CONTRA COSTA TIMES Ryan Bennett trekked through Sweden, Iceland and Denmark last year, but no one calling him would have known it. He took his telephone and his 510 area code number with him, allowing anyone to ring his number and reach him as though he were home in San Leandro. All he had to do was hook up a small adapter to a high-speed Internet connection and link his telephone to the box. The box stored his identification, including his telephone number, so that Bennett could dial a friend in the Bay Area as though he were placing a local call, and the friend could do the same. Full story at: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/business/8353031.htm How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 19:55:33 PST From: Jo Falconer Subject: Archives - Telephone Directories Hi, I am looking for old telephone directories (from 1970) to find the address details of a relative of mine that died in America in 1972. The trouble is, I do not know the state he was living in, when he died. Is there anywhere on the internet where one can search for details in old phone directories? Thanks for your help, Jo Falconer Australia The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it. - Moliere ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:18:50 +0400 From: Editor (PressReleaseNetwork.com) Subject: New Members and New Chairman at the Fixedline MMS Forum PRESS RELEASE NETWORK http://www.pressreleasenetwork.com Berne, Switzerland - Apr 4, 2004 (PRN): As the popularity of fixedline MMS increases so does the number of companies joining the F-MMS Forum. Just recently the Forum welcomed another round of new members, among them Alcatel (France) and Huawei (China). To Stan Willemsen, the newly appointed chairman of the F-MMS Forum, a clear sign that the activities of the Forum are focussing on the relevant issues. According to market forecast fixedline MMS is predicted to grow at the astronomical rate of 200% p.a. A siren call neither operators nor industry can resist, as they are both eagerly looking for new market opportunities. No wonder they are joining forces to give F-MMS a good headstart. With over 40 members the F-MMS Forum is becoming an important driving factor in the MMS market. A first success of the Forum consisted in laying the groundwork for F-MMS standards in cooperation with ETSI thereby ensuring the future interoperability of services and equipment. At this year's CEBIT MMS capable corded terminals and handsets based on DECT technology gave an impression of what will shortly be available on the market for residential and business use. Further activities by the F-MMS Forum are planned. Interoperability, market research and promotion are some of the issues that figure on top of the items list. At the last Steering Committee Meeting in February the responsibility to guide the Forum through these tasks was handed over to a new chairman, Mr. Stan Willemsen, an employee of Siemens AG. His predecessor, Mr. Erich Schmidt, himself an employee of Siemens AG as well, was thanked for his efforts and the good results, which were achieved during his chairmanship. Mr. Schmidt will take new exciting responsibilities within Siemens. With its new chairman and its new members the F-MMS-Forum is set to take up new challenges -- and there are, no doubt, plenty of them waiting out there. About F-MMS Forum The objective of the Fixed Line MMS Forum is to introduce Multimedia Messaging Service in the fixed network in order to enhance attractiveness by adding new services (including voice -- data services). This will lead to fixed - mobile convergence applications while ensuring interoperability between fixed and mobile networks. The non-profit organisation is based in Berne, Switzerland. Since its creation end of 2002, more than 40 companies from all over the world joined the Forum. These companies represent the core of the global messaging activities. For more information, contact: Heinz Ochsner F-MMS Forum Secretariat and Press Office P. O. Box 7465 3001 Berne Switzerland Tel: +41 (32) 6212692 Fax: +41 (32) 6212691 Email: info@fixedlinemms.org Website: http://www.f-mms.org Editor & CEO Press Release Network http://www.pressreleasenetwork.com ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #160 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 5 02:53:56 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i356ruC26558; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:53:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404050653.i356ruC26558@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 #161 TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:54:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tech Trends May Come Together (VOIP News) Setting up Internet Phone Service Not Costly (VOIP News) High-Speed Calling: Internet-Based Phone Service Goes (VOIP News) Regulators Weigh Whether New Services Fall In Their Realm (VOIP News) How India is Saving Capitalism (Monty Solomon) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (John R. Levine) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (Clarence Dold) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Rich Greenberg) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Nick Landsberg) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Tony P.) Re: Excel Communications (John A. Weeks III) Some Interesting Telecommunication Books on Ebay (Ray) Trying to Locate Robert K. Johnson Jr. (Lewis) 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: VOIP News Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:43:26 -0400 Subject: Tech Trends May Come Together Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2062678,00.html Wi-Fi wireless Internet access and voice-over service could bring free or inexpensive calls By Associated Press NEW YORK -- Two hot technology trends -- Wi-Fi wireless Internet access and voice-over-Internet service -- could come together soon with Wi-Fi phones that promise free or very inexpensive calls. Voice-over-Internet carrier Vonage Holdings Corp. is testing Wi-Fi handsets it hopes to sell by fall. The devices would look like cordless phones and would likely be used in homes with Wi-Fi networks. Rival Net2Phone Corp. is six months into a test of technology aimed at turning Microsoft Corp.'s Pocket PCs into Wi-Fi cell phone replacements. Full story at: http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2062678,00.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:53:49 -0400 Subject: Setting up Internet Phone Service Not Costly Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~10834~2062675,00.html Free software downloadable By John Moran - HARTFORD COURANT Ray Wade, a computer systems operator in Atlanta, sounds puzzled as he answers my phone call. He doesn't get many incoming calls on this line. That's because Wade's phone isn't connected to the telephone network. It's connected directly to the Internet. I've dialed Wade's phone more or less at random from a list of hundreds of people who have signed up for free Internet telephone accounts. All that's required is a broadband Internet connection, a free downloadable software program, an account with an online phone provider and a PC equipped with microphone and speakers. Wade's Internet phone connection comes courtesy of a service called Free World Dialup, often abbreviated as FWD. Full story at: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~10834~2062675,00.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:35:34 -0400 Subject: High-Speed Calling: Internet-Based Phone Service Goes Mainstream Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~10834~2062849,00.html By Eve Mitchell, BUSINESS WRITER NOEL FRANK LIKES to talk to his friends and family both in the U.S. and Canada. Now, the Oakland resident has found a way to talk to them as much as he wants without racking up a big long-distance bill. Frank is one of the growing number of consumers making inexpensive voice calls via his high-speed Internet connection and a regular phone instead of the traditional phone network that has been around since the telephone was invented more than 125 years ago. "I have family spread out around the U.S. and Canada. That was one of the reasons. And the other reason I'm doing it is for entrepreneurial activity. Some time the business I'm working on may end up on the East Coast," said Frank. Full story at: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~10834~2062849,00.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:08:02 -0400 Subject: Regulators Weigh Whether New Services Fall Within Their Realm Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2062848,00.html By Eve Mitchell, BUSINESS WRITER IF IT SOUNDS like a phone call and rings like a phone, should it be regulated like a phone company? That's the question facing regulators looking into the growing business of sending voice calls over the Internet. At issue before the Federal Communications Commission and the state Public Utilities Commission is whether VOIP, or voice over Internet protocol, providers like Vonage and Packet8 should be classified as telecom providers. Such a move would open them up to regulation and fees that don't apply to them now. A PUC staff report has concluded that VOIP is a telecom service but commissioners have yet to act on the recommendation. If VOIP is ultimately classified as a telecom service, providers would have to collect from their customers fees to support Universal Service Fund programs, pay access charges to traditional phone companies for using their networks, and provide enhanced 911 service for customers. VOIP providers are already trying to come up with solutions to meet 911 requirements. And because VOIP calls travel over the Internet instead of the traditional circuit-switched network, VOIP providers also are exploring ways to comply with federal wiretapping laws. Full story at: http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11271~2062848,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those public servants never give up, do they? They'll be damned if they can't have VOIP service to screw up the way they have screwed up landline telco over the years. Anyway, I thought a couple days ago I read here that (a) the FCC had decided that VOIP was not going to be subject to those regulations and/or (b) the federal government was pre-empting all the state and local agencies and going to take it over exclusively for themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 01:59:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: How India is Saving Capitalism For one Silicon Valley company, hiring Indian programmers wasn't about greed, it was about survival. A special report from Chennai, globalization's ground zero. Editor's note: This is the first of a series of reports on the offshoring of white-collar jobs, reported on location in India. By Katharine Mieszkowski April 1, 2004 | CHENNAI, India -- CollabNet's story is symbolic of a larger truth about the the globalization of white-collar jobs -- particularly those in the technology sector. If Silicon Valley now faces an uncertain future as a center for software development, the seeds of that uncertainty were planted not in India or China or the Philippines, but right at home. The build-out of the Internet and the tremendous advances in computer technology over the last decade have opened up new passageways between disparate economic realities. And no one has embraced one of the central premises of the Internet age -- easy interconnection between everybody -- more than software engineers. The immense strength and vitality of the open-source software phenomenon is a clear testament to that. It wasn't so-called "Benedict Arnold" CEOs or greedy shareholders or even the ruthless laws of economics that crafted these new virtual workplaces where job performance is measured purely by your output on the screen, no matter where you log on from. Technological innovation and investment opened up the doors for coders in India and China and everywhere else. It is one of the tremendous ironies of the digital era that the easy flow of capital and labor to every inch of the globe, made possible by the superhuman efforts of American and European programmers, has ended up wreaking havoc on the job security of those very programmers. Got a problem with that, Silicon Valley? Don't blame India, and don't blame the CEOs. Blame yourself. http://salon.com/tech/feature/2004/04/01/collabnet/ ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Date: 4 Apr 2004 16:35:48 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Why would you want to have security like WEP? No public hotspot >> that I've used has any encryption. >> ... which means, in effect, don't read or write anything over that >> link that you don't want anyone/everyone else in or near the >> coffee shop to read also. WEP doesn't secure you against other people on the same wlan. If you want security, you use ssh or ipsec to make an encrypted tunnel back to your home network. At one point I was looking into setting up a hotspot at my local coffee joint (see http://www.gimmecoffee.com/contact.php, the one at the lower left, sort of like Starbucks except with good coffee) and I found some open source Linux routing stuff that wouldn't have been too hard to adapt to hotspot accounting. In my case, my goal was more to ensure the viability of the store than to make money, so my plan was to print up tickets each with a code that was good for an hour's connect time, and have the barista give out a ticket on request whenever someone bought something. If you want to sell access, poking around on the web I found several packaged billing systems that you can either buy, or that they'll provide and split the revenue with you. ------------------------------ From: dold@Hot-SpotXW.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 04:23:37 UTC Organization: a2i network Tony P. wrote: > You need to somehow authenticate the users, and keep out those who > aren't paying. WEP can't be used as you'd have to constantly change > the key. I misunderstood the post. I thought you were suggesting that WEP wasn't sufficient, not that it wasn't the right solution at all. > Instead you get a solution like Blue Socket. That's the expensive part > of the system. I didn't recognize Blue Socket. I see that it is in use on at least a few college campuses. There aren't any prices listed on their web site. There would be other sub-$1000 hardware solutions to consider, but I suppose Blue Socket could be considered along with Cisco solutions, if that were the size endeavor being undertaken. http://bluesocket.com Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: 4 Apr 2004 16:20:23 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , AES/newspost wrote: > Or to phrase this differently, shall we both watch and see what further > news about this shows up on comp.risks? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know if it will show up on > Computer Risks or not. I haven't communicated with Dr. Neumann for > quite a long time. If it does, you can let me know if you wish. PAT] Pat, since you were involved in this personally, why don't you submit it to Peter for the Risks Digest? Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com + 1 770 563 6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I am sort of busy right now with some other things; I have a lot of spam to clean out of the archives which manages to sneak in there every day, and deal with my sister and her son (my nephew)'s problems, etc. People are free to copy whatever they want from here (and god knows, some people take it wholesale like the Nigerian telecom digest people), so if its found to be interesting enough I should imagine it will find its way to Risks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:39:45 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Tony P. wrote: > In article , ptownson@telecom- > digest.org says: [SNIP] >> Apparently either Walmart Stores or the card processor ran the 'batch' >> two or three times instead of ONCE Thursday night, and a lot of people >> were affected. Credit cards were charged two or three extra times, >> and debit cards the same way. Debit cards which went negative as a >> result or credit cards which went over limit as a result were 'forced' >> to balance. Its all being ironed out now. > What it looks like is the batch was run three times, and each time > failed and was resent. It was probably communication problems. What it looks like to me is that: a) The programmers who programmed the batch fouled up, either issuing a bogus error message or aborting the continuance of the batch when (possibly) some single item was badly formatted. There is a concept of "commit transaction" in any well-designed system. If you are going to abort the whole run when you discover an error you should back out all the previously committed transactions from that run. (This is why database systems have rollback logs.) b) The technicians who were running the batch were not properly trained to do a backout when something failed. (Which brings up the question of the programmers again and it also casts doubt upon the wisdom of management to hire the least-trained help available as well as not to train them). See signature for bottom line. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sunday afternoon I went over to the Independence Walmart Supercenter and the District Manager, local store manager and assistant managers all grew so weary of dealing with me they printed out a copy of the 'confidential memo to Walmart personnel' they received from their head office for me, after they had trimmed *their names* and the *senders names* from the top of the email. The email otherwise reads like this: Subject: Walmart Customers Affected by Computer Disruption at First Data; Special Toll Free Number Opened for Customer Inquiries Source: Comtex News Network (PR Newswire via Comtex) On Thursday, April 1, First Data (NYSE: FDC)experienced a computer hardware problem that affected MasterCard and Visa transactions at Wal-Mart. In some instances, the problem resulted in *triplicate* postings to consumer debit and credit card accounts. First Data has been processing corrections to the affected accounts since Friday, April 2. First Data opened a toll free hotline for customers at 1-888-893-0626 (as of 8 pm Friday night) to assist consumers. First Data apologizes to Wal-Mart and its customers for the inconvenience. This is a global issue with Visa/MasterCard debit and credit cards and concerns some Customer/Members being charged three times for their purchases processed by First Data Merchant Services on 4/1/04. This is not a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. issue. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. only submitted ONE charge for processing and was only paid ONE time. Visa and MasterCard have sent notifications to their issuing financial institutions, asking that any overdraft/NSF charges related to the dupliate or triplicate transactions should be removed from the Customer's account. Action required: Any Customer/Member experiencing overdraft or NSF charges or sales authorization failures due to this problem *only on 4/1 or 4/2/04* should call 1-888-893-0626. For transactions involving an immediate purchase where customers are declined because of insufficient credit or insufficient funds on hand **due to this error only**, please call 479-273-4357 for evaluation and manual credit approval if warranted. We believe all reversals of this error should be completed by 4/5/04, but all Walmart managers and cashiers should be made aware of this issue. (There then followed a long paragraph entitled 'About First Data' which I am not including here which talked about all the wonderful things going on in Denver with FDC.) ================= Its too bad Walmart's first response was to simply deny any of this and tell people to contact their own 'credit card issuer'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:40:52 GMT In article , tom.horsley@att.net says: >> ..."not anyones fault"... > Ah yes, takes me back to the good old days when I worked in the > payroll/MIS area at Florida Atlantic University. > The management folks would tell us computer grunts, "Use this data set > tonight", or "Turn on/off the flag for this or that deduction > tonight". > Then it would turn out they were wrong, all the checks were screwed > up, so they would have to fix it in the next check and always included > a note about how "a computer error" was to blame :-). That's what comes of putting the finance guys in charge of the I.T. guys. It's been like that wherever I've worked and always had entertaining consequences. At one point I worked for a retail business and was responsible for their accounting and POS systems. The president of the company considered himself a financial genius of sorts. I've been gone from the place for about 3 years. While I was there, I worked with the controller and tamed the POS/Accounting interfaces to the point where we'd get regular distributions and things would actually balance out. We could actually say what our cash position was at any given time. Once both of us left it went straight down hill. From what I hear, they haven't been able to get the POS distributions into the accounting system for months. It's because the company president, being the know it all, has completely fouled the entire system. In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to dold@WalmartXMi.usenet.us.com: > And yes, it was First Data Merchant Services, whose latest line was > 'you will get the credit when we get a chance to issue it sometime > soon.' They could not produce any supervisor today either. I told > them and Paypal (who has already started nagging me to 'cure my > negative balance') that I would prefer to get sued so they could all > get exposed for the fools they are. PAT] Go for it. They will not take the bait so instead, contact your local television station. Most of them now have a consumer unit that aggressively goes after these things and makes a big public stink about it. Because this involves three national names it will probably get uploaded to the network. On the flip side, you state attorney general or the district attorney more than likely has a consumer unit. I'd suggest giving them a call too. As to FDMS, I set up several merchants with various 'banks' and 95% of them were tied in via FDMS. It's because they basically own the transport network for all transactions. And they have their share of problems, believe me. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first of the two credits back to my PayPal account came through Sunday evening on the computer. The second credit appeared a few minutes ago, at 1:00 AM Monday morning. PayPal had dutifully given me 55 cents 'bonus cash back' for each of the two erroneous transactions. I will see if tomorrow they reverse those as well; probably they won't. But this whole exciting weekend has been an excellent example of *why* I keep a 'financial firewall' in place, and only keep enough money in my 'working debit card' (the plastic I use for internet purchases and other small items where plastic is the preferred [or only realistic] method of payment) in my account. Imagine if I had used an open ended credit/debit card and instead of Walmart (a reasonably honest, even if ineffectual) merchant I had used one of the internet guys. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Excel Communications Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:51:44 -0500 From: John A. Weeks III Organization: Newave Communications In article , John Levine wrote: > I'm currently paying ECG 4.9 cpm, one minute increments, no monthly > fee or minimum, and if I got around to calling them up and asking for > their new plan, that'd drop to 3.5 cpm. These rates are not the > lowest available > It'd take an awful lot of MLM kickbacks to make Excel cheaper than > normal LD service. I think I'd rather just pay less and not have to > build a pyramid. Keep in mind that most people are on the most expensive plan that their carrier offers. The reason is that folks convert to companies like AT&T and MCI, and their discount program is discontinued after a year or two. They end up on some default plan. I have seen folks on MCI plans that pay 25 cents a minute plus a monthly access fee, and they have been on these plans for years. In comparison, any other rate plan looks like a good deal, Excel included. Most of these carriers are quite content to rape their smaller customers. LD is a funny business ... you can find rates as low as 2.5 cents per minute and as high as $2.50 cents a minute for the very same minute of long distance time carried on the same fiber optic lines. I don't know of any other product that has a two order of magnitude price variation like this. ==================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ==================================================================== ------------------------------ From: rayj00@yahoo.com (Ray) Subject: Some Interesting Telecommunication Books on Ebay Date: 4 Apr 2004 16:54:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have a 5 volume set of books entitled "Telephone Communication Systems". These were put out by Western Electric in 1970. They cover early telehone exchanges as well as a slew of other information. These would make a nice addition to anyones technical library. This set is in NEW condition and could probably be considered antique. Please go to ebay and check out the desciption if you are interested. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4202098340 Thanks, Ray ------------------------------ From: Lewis Subject: Searching for Robert K. Johnson Jr. Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:41:16 -0600 Patrick, I recently noticed an e-mail thread that included some messages from a Robert K. Johnson Jr. I have been trying to locate an old Air Force friend by that name who went to work for IBM in the early '70s. I lost touch with him at that time. His e-mail address was deleted by request in the online thread. I wonder if you would do me the favor of forwarding this message to him to allow him the opportunity to respond to me if he would choose to do so. The guy I'm looking for was from the Detroit area and stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base, an officer and navigator. He was also an avid skier. A Mississippi native, I was at Ellsworth in the missile wing. Please let me know if you're willing and able to forward this to him. Thanks. Lewis McCool Dolores, Colorado lmccool@sprynet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it is the one I am thinking of I will pass it on now. No guarentees is the right one. I think the only reason he asked to be anonymous was because of the Norvergence problem. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #161 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 5 15:38:42 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i35JcgS04653; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:38:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404051938.i35JcgS04653@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 #162 TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:38:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #427, April 5, 2004 (Angus TeleManagement) Cox Closes Wiretap Hole For VoIP (VOIP News) VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (VOIP News) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (Kyler Laird) MCI's Post-Bankruptcy "Big Splash" (Navigate) New ALCATEL OMNIPCX 4400 Knowledge Base (Simon Templar) Re: Walmart Mixup Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Mark Atwood) Re: Walmart Mixup Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Mark Crispin) Re: Walmart Mixup Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Clarence Dold) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:55:14 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #427, April 5, 2004 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 427: April 5, 2004 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com ** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: www.cygcom.com ** GROUP TELECOM: www.360.net ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: www.primustel.ca ** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca ** TELUS: www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** TSX Won't Order MTS Vote ** Virgin and Bell Join to Target Youth Market ** Vonage Launches Canadian VoIP Service ** Primus Expands VoIP Service, Adds 9-1-1 ** Aliant Must Tariff "Packages" ** CRTC Issues First Expedited Rulings ** Competitors Want DSL Ruling Extended ** Vonage Sues AT&T over VoIP Brand ** Free Broadband Trial for School Boards ** Start-Up Offers Hosted VoIP for Business ** Call-Net Wants Telus Agreement Annulled ** Aliant Offers Higher-Speed DSL ** Pier 1 and Pulver to Subsidize VoIP Start-Ups ** Cellphone Users to Get Olympic News ** Broadband Promised in Fort Frances Area ** Allstream Intros Hosted Call Centre ** Bell Cuts Price for High-Speed Internet ** Ottawa Invests in Integrated Phone ** Cygcom to Sell Pronexus Software ** Telecom Consulting Firm Closes ** Couch Potato Report Available ** Are Internet Phones Business-Ready? ============================================================ TSX WON'T ORDER MTS VOTE: The Toronto Stock Exchange has denied a request from Enterprise Capital Management that it order a shareholder vote on Manitoba Telecom Services' plan to acquire Allstream. (See Telecom Update #425 and 426) The TSX says it saw no evidence that the MTS management failed to meet its fiduciary obligations. ** Enterprise says it is "disappointed but not surprised" and will evaluate options for future action. ** In a move to placate income trust advocates, MTS says it will set its annual dividend at $2.60 per share after the acquisition. This is 40 cents higher than it promised when the Allstream deal was announced three weeks ago. VIRGIN AND BELL JOIN TO TARGET YOUTH MARKET: The Virgin Group and Bell Mobility have formed a jointly owned company to offer prepaid wireless service and handsets to young people under the Virgin Mobile brand. A similar venture in the U.S. has won 1.75 million customers in two years. VONAGE LAUNCHES CANADIAN VOIP SERVICE: U.S. Internet telephony provider Vonage launched service in Canada on March 31. Pricing: $46.99/month for unlimited North American use; $34.99 for unlimited in-province calling and 500 minutes elsewhere; $19.99 for 500 minutes. Local number portability and 9-1-1 are not yet available. PRIMUS EXPANDS VoIP SERVICE, ADDS 9-1-1: Primus Canada says its Internet telephony service, TalkBroadband, now offers local numbers in Victoria, Winnipeg, Quebec City, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Halifax, Mississauga, and St. Catharines in addition to the seven previously announced cities. It provides 9-1-1 calling in 14 cities, but only if the phone is in a registered location in the exchange associated with the telephone number. ** Monthly rates have been reduced for customers who pay $139.95 to purchase a TalkBroadband modem outright: ** Residential: Basic, $15.95; Power Bundle, $25.95; Ultimate Bundle, $30.95. A new $45.95 Unlimited Bundle provides all local features and unlimited calling within Canada and to the U.S. ** Commercial: Basic, $25.95; Power Bundle, $32.95; Elite Bundle, $38.95. ALIANT MUST TARIFF "PACKAGES": Responding to a complaint filed by EastLink, CRTC Telecom Decision 2004-21 says that Aliant's "Value Packages" are bundles that require tariff approval. The telco must either file tariffs by April 19 or discontinue providing the bundles to existing customers. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-21.htm CRTC ISSUES FIRST EXPEDITED RULINGS: On Friday the CRTC issued decisions in the first three competitive disputes handled under the Commission's new expedited process (see Telecom Update #426). ** 2004-22: Bell Canada "failed to comply with the bundling rules" when its Customer Service Reps incorrectly told customers that they must subscribe to Bell local service to qualify for the "Bundle from Bell." Bell must now file quarterly third-party reports on CSR accuracy. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-22.htm ** 2004-23: Telus's "Student Bundle" does not need to be separately tariffed, but the promotion should not have implied that it offered additional savings beyond the tariffed "Residence Value Bundle." www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-23.htm ** 2004-24: Shaw must provide its higher speed Internet service to Cybersurf for resale in one of its six serving areas within 45 days, and in other areas within 14 days of Cybersurf's written request, until Shaw actually provides third-party Internet access throughout the serving area. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-24.htm COMPETITORS WANT DSL RULING EXTENDED: FCI Broadband and Maskatel want the CRTC to rule that incumbent telcos cannot refuse high-speed Internet service to customers who obtain local phone service from a competitor that has its own local facilities. This would extend Telecom Decision 2003-49, which applied only when the competitor obtains the local loop from the telco. www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2004/8622/f18_200402321.htm VONAGE SUES AT&T OVER VoIP BRAND: Internet telephony provider Vonage has asked a U.S. District Court to order AT&T to change the name of its new Internet telephone service. Vonage says the similarity of "CallVantage" to "Vonage" will confuse consumers and weaken Vonage's trademark. ** AT&T began offering CallVantage in parts of New Jersey and Texas last week, and said it would be in 100 markets by year-end. FREE BROADBAND TRIAL FOR SCHOOL BOARDS: The Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network (ORION) is offering school boards in the province free trials of the high-speed network. There is no further obligation to sign on to the network after the trial. Interested Boards should e-mail info@orano.on.ca. START-UP OFFERS HOSTED VoIP FOR BUSINESS: OneConnect, a new subsidiary of Globalive Communications, has begun offering hosted Voice over IP to businesses in Toronto and Montreal. The company's services, based on Nortel's Multimedia Communication Server 5200, include Virtual PBX, Video Calling, Whiteboarding, and Find Me/Follow Me options. www.oneconnect.ca CALL-NET WANTS TELUS AGREEMENT ANNULLED: Call-Net wants out of the agreement under which it leases components for Wide Area Ethernet service from Telus. It has asked the CRTC to annul the contract, saying the terms are unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory. www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2004/8622/c25_200402347.htm ALIANT OFFERS HIGHER-SPEED DSL: Aliant's new Ultra High- Speed Internet access, which provides downloads at up to 3 Mbps, costs $54.95/month with no contract. Customers who sign a 12-month contract pay $44.95/month and get the first three months free. PIER 1 AND PULVER TO SUBSIDIZE VoIP START-UPS: Vancouver- based Peer 1 Network and Pulver.com have formed a joint venture -- the VoIP Acceleration Project -- to fund the bandwidth and co-location needs of new VoIP companies in the beginning stages of their business. For more information see www.pulver.com/colo. CELLPHONE USERS TO GET OLYMPIC NEWS: CBC and Montreal-based messaging developer Lipso Inc. have teamed up to deliver news on the Athens 2004 Olympics by text messaging. Cellphone users will be able to register in advance, or get information on demand using shortcodes. BROADBAND PROMISED IN FORT FRANCES AREA: Bell Canada has announced plans to extend broadband Internet to communities in the Fort Frances, Ontario, area. The telco says it is partnering with the Pwi-di-goo-zing Ne-yaa-zhing Advisory Services and Industry Canada under the federal Broadband for Rural and Northern Development (BRAND) Pilot Program. ALLSTREAM INTROS HOSTED CALL CENTRE: Allstream has announced a "unique Hosted Contact Centre solution," which provides ACD, IVR, speech recognition, and CTI capabilities over traditional or IP infrastructure, charged on a per-seat basis. BELL CUTS PRICE FOR HIGH-SPEED INTERNET: Bell Canada has reduced the rate for its Sympatico High Speed Ultra service by $10, to $59.95/month, and increased speeds for most customers to 4 Mbps (download) and 800 Kbps (upload). OTTAWA INVESTS IN INTEGRATED PHONE: The federal government has announced a $9.5-million "strategic investment" in an R&D project to develop the Sierra Wireless Voq Professional Phone, which will combine features of a personal digital assistant, wireless e-mail device, and mobile phone. CYGCOM TO SELL PRONEXUS SOFTWARE: Cygcom Integrated Technologies has signed an agreement to distribute telephony and speech software tools developed by Ottawa-based Pronexus Inc. TELECOM CONSULTING FIRM CLOSES: Schooley Mitchell Telecom Consultants, a Stratford, Ontario-based company that claimed to have over 150 franchises in Canada and the U.S., appears to have closed its doors. Individual franchisees are discussing how to proceed, but they tell us the head office is no longer operating. The company did not reply to our requests for comment. COUCH POTATO REPORT AVAILABLE: An updated report on "The Battle for the North American Couch Potato" is now available from the Convergence Consulting Group. www.convergenceonline.com ARE INTERNET PHONES BUSINESS-READY? In the April issue of Telemanagement: Gerry Blackwell tests Local IP phone services from Primus and Vonage; John Riddell examines the latest trends in IP-PBXs; BCE and the Cable TV Association debate technology substitution and telecom regulation. ** Telemanagement is available to subscribers only. Telemanagement Online subscribers can access this issue, and an extensive library of past issues, columns, editorials, and feature reports, at the Online Home Page. ** To subscribe, or to add online access to your existing subscription, call 800-263-4415 x500 or go to the Online Subscription Page. www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub-online.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2004 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:32:27 -0400 Subject: Cox Closes Wiretap Hole For VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5184774.html By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com Police can now wiretap Internet phone calls on Cox Communications' network, kicking off a new era for law enforcement. The cable and broadband provider turned to security specialist VeriSign to supply the know-how, the latter announced Monday. Law enforcement officers can now eavesdrop on every call made by Cox's nearly 1 million voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone subscribers. Police can already tap calls on 12 of Cox's 13 telephone markets because they rely on traditional phone equipment equipped with eavesdropping abilities. But in December, Cox deployed VoIP, a much cheaper alternative that uses the unregulated Internet. Roanoke, Va., is the first of several small markets where Cox is deploying VoIP technology. Full story at: http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5184774.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:38:32 -0400 Subject: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5184599.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed By Ben Charny CNET News.com Broadband Net-phoning services pushing aggressive expansion plans are discovering a harsh reality: Some residential Internet service providers in the United States currently can't guarantee the bandwidth required to handle calls effectively. AT&T Vice President Kathy Martine said she learned that lesson the hard way during recent trials of the company's CallVantage Net-phoning plan, which it hopes to introduce in 100 markets this year. Some customers' broadband connections just weren't good enough to provide "AT&T-like" quality, she said. So the company was forced to help the broadband providers fix their connections. Now AT&T Labs is "doing a lot of statistical modeling and analysis on that so we can, in fact, prove where the problems are in the future," Martine said recently. "But the reality is, it's only as good as the broadband connection to your home." VoIP backers such as Cisco Systems insist that the industry has solved problems that once plagued the technology. But those claims tacitly assume the presence of high-quality broadband networks, something industry insiders admit they don't always encounter when deploying service in residential markets. United States spoiled by Ma Bell VoIP's quality problems aren't a big deal in Europe or Asia, where the cost of traditional phone lines is so high that dialers are expected to eagerly embrace VoIP in the home and put up with the lost calls and dropped words. But Americans are a different story. They've become used to the century-old telephone networks, which operate so well that even during power outages there may still be a dial tone. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5184599.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have discovered one thing about my Vonage service which is a problem. Even though it usually does okay, I get the dropped words problem whenever I am trying to run too many jobs at once here. Left alone on the cable, Vonage seems to do very well. But usually I am running my weather station http://weatherforecast.n3.net or http://weatherforecast.us.tf and my computer room live camera http://patricktownson.us.tf most of the time. Both of these services take .jpg images and transfer them to my California web site using FTP (under their alias 'n3.net' and 'us.tf' names) every fifteen seconds or so. Often times also I am using a secure form of telnet or rlogin to work on this Digest at MIT. Whenever weather or the office cam decide it is time to do a transfer via FTP I can count on the words on Vonage getting lost. I can set my watch by it, every fifteen seconds or so. They are on other machines, (the Windows 98 and Windows 95 computers) but still using the same NetGear router and cable modem. I wish there was a way that Vonage could take priority and slow down or automatically stop the other jobs when it was talking. I asked Mike Flood, general manager of Cable One here in Independence about this. His answer was I need a 'bigger pipe', which of course he said he could sell me. I now have what he termed 'half size' (or some words like that) with 500 K and he said I should get a 'full size pipe'. (More money of course). Does that make sense to anyone? I guess the full size is twice the 500 K. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business From: Kyler Laird Organization: Insight Broadband Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:08:17 GMT > but I suppose Blue Socket could be considered along with Cisco > solutions, if that were the size endeavor being undertaken. My experience has been that users are *much* happier if they don't have to install any new software in order to use a service. This is especially true for people using company laptops (which might be "locked down," preventing them from installing anything anyway). I've watched users choose to use PPTP over 802.11b because they saw that they could just use software that was already on their systems. It seems like an obvious answer. It should be easy to implement with a Free system also, although the usual MS protocol, MPPE, requires a bit more effort to invoke there. http://www.opentech.at/howtos/pptp.html (MPPE also has some more weaknesses but I don't think that's significant for this application.) --kyler ------------------------------ From: dmudd@navigateinternational.com (Navigate) Subject: MCI's Post-Bankruptcy "Big Splash" Date: 5 Apr 2004 09:44:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Anyone heard about the "big splash" MCI is planning when they come out of bankruptcy around the end of April? In 2003 they rolled out "The Neighborhood" during the MCI Heritage tournament, and I heard they have something up their sleeves again this year. ------------------------------ From: le_prelude@yahoo.fr (simon templar) Subject: New ALCATEL OMNIPCX 4400 Knowledge Base Date: 5 Apr 2004 10:12:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi all, I just created a new place where 'we' (alcatel engineers) could exchange experience, and share our knowledge with other. You can find it at http://www.gadot.net There is a link on the top left to the ALCATEL KNOWLEDGE BASE Enjoy ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle From: Mark Atwood Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:51:59 GMT Nick Landsberg writes: > Its too bad Walmart's first response was to simply deny any of this > and tell people to contact their own 'credit card issuer'. PAT] Probably what happened was that Walmart didn't think they had done anything wrong (and they hadn't). First Data was probably stonewalling and lying to them as well. Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure mra@pobox.com | you've done anything at all. http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:35:13 -0700 Organization: University of Washington On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Nick Landsberg: > Its too bad Walmart's first response was to simply deny any of this > and tell people to contact their own 'credit card issuer'. PAT] They probably didn't know anything other than a lot of customers were complaining and that their (Wal-Mart's) IT department insisted "we didn't cause it." In such circumstances, that advice would be appropriate: have the customer complain to their card issuer, get a dispute going, and let the goblins whose job it is to work out such things straighten it out. This would solve the problem immediately for most credit card holders. Of course, it would not solve the problem for credit card holders near their limit, or for debit card holders; the funds would be in limbo for those folks. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: dold@WalmartXMi.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 18:36:56 UTC Organization: a2i network AES/newspost wrote: > Or to phrase this differently, shall we both watch and see what further > news about this shows up on comp.risks? It was mentioned on the CBS Hourly News carried on KCBS-AM radio in San Francisco. It mentioned the dates involved, the only store was WalMart, and that the corrections had been applied to people's accounts. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had two credits coming; the first one came through Sunday night about 10 PM; the second one came through about 1 AM Monday morning April 5. PayPal has not, as of yet taken back the 'bonus money' they gave me (55 cents times two transactions, or $1.10 total) for the two bogus transactions. What I do not understand is why an outfit like Walmart, as big as they are, does not process their own Visa/MC paper, sending it directly to Visa/MC instead of going through a third party place like First Data Merchants? Isn't FDMC in this case a sort of 'bottom feeder' a lot like the 'operator service companies' who intercept what Bell is doing and get their own rake off at more expense to the end user (in this case, Walmart?) I had thought places like First Data Merchants were mostly intended for small people. For example, when I first checked into the idea of using credit cards here in the Digest, First Data said they would lease me a terminal, accept 'no signature, no swipe, no card presented' transactions, etc, for some monthly fee. It would have been ideal for me, but then PayPal came along and said they could do it better and at no charge to me. Why would Walmart need a company like that to handle their credit card stuff? PAT] ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #162 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 5 22:35:29 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i362ZTt08558; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:35:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404060235.i362ZTt08558@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 #163 TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:35:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson See Voip (VOIP News) US Bills To Protect VoIP From Regulation (Jack Decker) Book on How the Internet/WWW Works? (AES/newspost) Re: How India is Saving Capitalism (Clarence Dold) Linx "Casper" Chip Available Sept. 2005 (Christopher Calder) Wiring Old Intercoms (Rich) Need Big Picture of Fixed Line Telecom System (relyah@hotmail.com) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (AES) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (G Welsh) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (J Levine) Apparent Hidden Advertisements in the Telecom Digest (Phil Earnhardt) Re: High-Speed Call: Internet-Based Phone Service Goes Mainstream (AES) Re: Cable Modem Hackers Conquer the Co-ax (Martin McCormick) SP2 to Cause Microsoft Support Call Flood? (jmayson@nyx.net) BellSouth Shakes Google's Hand (jmayson@nyx.net) 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: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:29:18 -0400 Subject: See Voip Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/8358167.htm By Michael Bazeley Mercury News When was the last time you ooohhed and aaahed at your telephone? Probably never, right? Because let's face it, the traditional home phone may be amazingly reliable, but its coolness factor is almost zero. This might be the year that changes. Internet phone service -- also known as VoIP for Voice over Internet Protocol (pronounced 'voyp') -- has been widely available to consumers for more than a year through small companies such as VoicePulse, Vonage and Packet8. So far, Americans have been slow to sign on. About 25 milion homes have broadband access where VoIP would work, but only about 200,000 have bought the service, notes Jeff Pulver, founder of the free VoIP service called Free World Dialup. "If anyone thinks we've gone mainstream, they should reconsider," he said last week at a Silicon Valley conference dedicated to VoIP. But the next 12 months could see a breakthrough. Vonage is moving its service into hundreds of Circuit City stores across the country. AT&T has now formally entered the market in two states (more will follow soon). And other big names will enter the market by the end the year, including Time Warner Cable. Full story at: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/8358167.htm How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:13:57 -0400 Subject: US Bills To Protect VoIP from Regulation Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33326.html By Jay Lyman TechNewsWorld Despite the contentions from the growing VoIP industry, Yankee Group senior analyst Zeus Kerravala told TechNewsWorld that VoIP is indeed another flavor of telephone service because people still talk to one another, even if the technology travels over IP. Providers of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services may get their way, preventing state governments from taxing or regulating them, if proposed U.S. federal legislation is approved. Parallel bills from Sen. John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) and Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Mississippi) could keep VoIP classified as an information service and free from state regulation. VoIP is being used by both consumers and corporations to replace or integrate existing circuit-switch telephone network use. While there is a general consensus that VoIP should not be overly or heavily regulated, there are concerns that the Internet services might become too deregulated. Gartner analyst Ron Cowles said he questions the need for the proposed legislation because the states are already precluded from oversight by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is contemplating its own VoIP oversight. "Honestly, I don't know what's really behind these," Cowles told TechNewsWorld. "Why would we want more laws on that kind of stuff?" The analyst answered his own question on the cause of the legislation -- pointing out that "it's because of lobbying" -- but still questioned the need for it. [Comment: Okay, let me explain it for Mr. Cowles: We would want these laws because the incumbent phone companies (ILEC's) far too often have managed to have their way with state legislatures and regulatory agencies. If they could, they'd have the states regulating VoIP out of existence, or at least delay it until they could enter the market. Here in Michigan the Public Service Commission has started an investigation into VoIP, and allowed only a miserly two week period for comments, which just today was extended for two more weeks after McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc filed a motion for extension of time in which to file its comments in this proceeding. We simply cannot afford to have 50 different state legislatures and 50 different public utility commissions implementing regulations on companies which may not even have a presence in their states, particularly given that any such regulations or legislation is very like to, at least in some cases, be inspired by the efforts of ILEC lobbyists. The rural telephone companies, some of whom are notorious for gouging their customers (with high rates and small local calling areas), particularly want to see VoIP regulated. They're also at the forefront of opposing access charge reform, by the way. Even the FCC may be vulnerable to undue influence from the ILEC's, and from other entities that benefit from the current outdated taxation and compensation schemes. For example, the Universal Service Fund has rightly been described as a form of "corporate welfare", yet those who are recipients of it are going to fight to keep that scheme intact, whether it makes sense or not. Recipients of taxpayer and ratepayer funds will hardly ever acknowledge that their source of funding is highly questionable. The FCC is going to be hearing from all those special interests. So basically, this legislation would clarify that these special interests aren't going to get their way for once; that we are not going to be saddled with a regulatory regime intended for old technology. And remember, just because it has been proposed doesn't make it a done deal -- I expect it will be hotly debated on the floor of the House and the Senate, if indeed it ever gets out of committee.] Full story at: http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33326.html ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Book on How the Internet/WWW Works? Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:16:19 -0700 I'm a technically sophisticated type (EE PhD), use the Internet/WWW all the time -- but I really don't understand how it all "works", from an organizational or descriptive or structural/functional or governance viewpoint more than a technical or protocol viewpoint. (I'm not even totally clear on what the difference is between the "Internet" and the "WWW".) For example, when I or anyone else sends bits over the Internet: -- What segments of hardware (wires, cables, routers, fibers) do these bits typically pass through on the way from my laptop to the recipient's machine? -- Who _owns_ all these segments? -- Who _pays_ who to _use_ these segments? -- What rules or agreements govern who can access or use these segments? -- Routers: Who operates them? Why? How do they get paid? What general rules do they have to obey? How do they get authorized? -- How does an ISP become an ISP? What do they have to do? -- How does this whole world-wide structure all get managed, controlled, and especially built and paid for? and a lot of similar questions. So, can anyone recommend a book or other reference for the technically savvy but general reader on this? (Not a "how too use it" book; not a detailed reference on the IP or other protocols; just a "how it all works" description.) ------------------------------ From: dold@HowXIndiaX.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: How India is Saving Capitalism Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 18:38:19 UTC Organization: a2i network Monty Solomon wrote: > For one Silicon Valley company, hiring Indian programmers wasn't > about greed, it was about survival. A special report from Chennai, > globalization's ground zero. Our company recently concluded that India no longer offers the cost savings that it once did, and chose instead to expand in North America. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: ccalder1@yahoo.com (Christopher Calder) Subject: Linx "Casper" Chip Available Sept. 2005 Date: 5 Apr 2004 12:17:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com "Casper" chip available Sept. 2005 I just received a e-mail from Linx Electronics and their new HDTV receiver chip that turns ghosting into a positive signal will be available in Thompson Electronics products in September of 2005. http://www.linxelectronics.com/products/lx2004rx.asp - Linx They are sending out sample chips to other manufacturers the end of this month. I hope Sony and the makers of Intel LCOS sets will use the chips. It will be available built into sets as well as in set top tuners. The cost is said to be the same as current chips. The Casper chip is said to pick up difficult signals 85% of the time in contrast to current chips which pick up those signals only 18% to 50% of the time. You will not need a directional antenna with the Linx Casper chip. HDTV reception should be better and easier in all ways than analog reception. Christopher Calder ------------------------------ From: rerstad@faegre.com (Rich) Subject: Wiring Old Intercoms Date: 5 Apr 2004 12:24:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have a set of old Couch intercoms I want to install in our 1912 house. I am able to get a little life out of them with a 12V battery, but I had understood that to ring, I'd need AC power. But, I've found that these ring on DC -- but I haven't been able to figure out how to hook them up right. There appear to be four possible points to wire the intercom, but I'm not sure what wires should go where. I've had no luck locating any wiring diagrams or any discussion of these intercoms, for that matter. Any suggestions would be appreciated! Rich ------------------------------ From: relyah@hotmail.com Subject: Need Big Picture of Fixed Line Telecommunications System Date: 5 Apr 2004 12:32:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I need to get some information about PSTN which should include the following information: 1. access layer 2. signalling layer 3. transmission layer I would like to know how the above three are linked together. A picture would be perfect! Where on the internet can I get such information ? Can anybody help ? Regards, Loic ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:09:03 -0700 In article , Mark Atwood wrote: >> Its too bad Walmart's first response was to simply deny any of this >> and tell people to contact their own 'credit card issuer'. PAT] > Probably what happened was that Walmart didn't think they had done > anything wrong (and they hadn't). First Data was probably > stonewalling and lying to them as well. But with all the very bad PR Walmart has been having recently (literally locking their night time employees in their stores, for G_d's sake), it probably would have been a lot wiser to make a lot of very apologetic noises, express their great dismay at whatever has gone wrong, say they hope it's not their fault but they promise to look into it immediately and make things right no matter what, etc etc. ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:14:25 -0400 Organization: Primus Canada > But this whole exciting weekend has been an > excellent example of *why* I keep a 'financial firewall' in place, and > only keep enough money in my 'working debit card' (the plastic I use > for internet purchases and other small items where plastic is the > preferred [or only realistic] method of payment) in my account. > Imagine if I had used an open ended credit/debit card and instead of > Walmart (a reasonably honest, even if ineffectual) merchant I had > used one of the internet guys. PAT] Actually, the lesson that really stood out for me is that your "financial firewall" didn't work! Even though you were using a debit card with only enough money for one transaction, the vendor was able to "force" the transaction, leaving your account in the red. What's to stop a merchant from "forcing" through whatever transaction they want, regardless of your safety? If the merchant and/or transaction processor did not admit culpability, you'd be on the hook for the dough ... sure, you could walk away from it and it wouldn't affect your bank balance but it would probably show up on your credit report. I, like many people, get along OK but would lose a lot (and set off a chain reaction of unfortunate consequences) if my credit rating were to change from pretty good to pretty bad when the balance I walked away from became a red flag in my report. Geoffrey Welsh Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' Commodore PET [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nothing would prevent them from denying culpability or marking my credit record. Likewise, nothing would prevent me from countersuing (if they chose to sue) and telling the world about them through the various agencies for same such as Better Business Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, Small Claims Court, etc. Certainly there is a risk either way, but if you are like me, and have very little actual money, it is prudent to clutch carefully onto what little you have. Maybe it is precisely because I have so little actual cash money, credit bureau reports do not frighten me very much. PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: 5 Apr 2004 18:44:36 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > What I do not understand is why an outfit like Walmart, as big as > they are, does not process their own Visa/MC paper, sending it > directly to Visa/MC instead of going through a third party place like > First Data Merchants? Isn't FDMC in this case a sort of 'bottom > feeder' a lot like the 'operator service companies' Processing credit card merchant transactions is a very specialized business, and there aren't a whole lot of companies that do it, with FDMS being one of the largest ones. Their web site says they did 12 billion transactions last year. I don't know of any merchants that do their own processing, and a lot of banks contract it out, too. My smallish bank contracts out to First Data, too. So far, they haven't screwed up any of my charges, knock on plastic. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whatever happened to the small merchant with a storefront who sells thing occassionally getting a credit card for payment where the person signs the little slip of paper and the merchant stores these slips of paper away in the event of a dispute and the (swiped) card transaction goes to Visa/MC for processing? A larger store, such as Walmart for example would so something similar but on a much larger scale. Does *anyone* turn their charges into Visa/MC directly these days? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Apparent Hidden Advertisements in the Telecom Digest Date: 5 Apr 2004 13:05:50 -0700 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] In article , Our Moderator says: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But for those readers who have not > experienced this series of disasters with their electricity, cable > modem, etc and want to check out Vonage, I can give you an e-coupon > good for a month of free service.(Whatever kind of service you decide > is best, you get the second month of it for free with an e-coupon. > Just write ptownson@telecom-digest.org and request it. PAT] I'd been wondering about these comments that you had been putting in the Vonage messages. I just went to http://www.vonage.com/features_affiliates.php . These coupons you're offering are apparently part of Vonage's affiliates program; you apparently receive between $10 and $40 for every customer who signs up with Vonage after using one of your coupons. The moderator's apparent compensation for promotion of a telecommunications product in the Digest is a conflict of interest. At the very least, if you receive payments from Vonage, you need to disclose that financial interest every time you post such a promotion. If I misunderstood -- if the e-coupons you are offering are not part of the Vonage affiliates program -- I apologize in advance for presuming that they were. You've told us in the past that the TELECOM Digest follows the funding model of PBS or NPR stations where they have periodic "pledge breaks". I would be outraged if these broadcasters started sprinkling hidden advertisements in their normal programming. I fondly hope that you will maintain the same integrity with the TELECOM Digest. Thanks, Pat. phil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do generally follow the NPR/PBS model except that where NPR (like our local classical music station KRPS 89.9 FM) tends to have seven or ten days of mostly pledge stuff with a small sprinkling of music inserted once a year, I stay with mostly 'programming' all the time and insert a 'pledge request' message once a month or so. Also, like NPR/PBS there are various categories of donors, but I consider that part a little crass, and don't really make an issue out of that part. The vast majority of PBS/NPR contributors, like the vast majority of mine, send in small amounts from time to time and receive thanks from the station (or myself). On KRPS, the donors who make 'larger than average' contributions are given a half dozen little thirty second or so blurbs on a non-commercial basis to wish happy birthdays, or happy anniversaries, etc. Slightly larger contributors such as small businesses (on KRPS) are given in one or two sentences as the 'sponsors' of programs. No 'commercials', no program interuptions, just a simple statement at the start of the program that X is the sponsor, and blah, blah. Major corporate donors are well known in the literature and programming efforts on NPR/PBS. That is sort of how I do things, only as I said, I do not make any distinction between class of donors, except regular, generous donors (such as Mike Sandman, Judith Oppenheimer, etc) are mentioned in each issue. I do not give premiums, or such. That is very crass to me. Just because some guys cannot give as much as others does not mean they should be ignored or mistreated. A *very big, very powerful* donor, or patron of mine would be given more space of course. This was the case with Microsoft a few years ago. Mike Rowesoft was the only one of those I have ever had, and everyone here was told about it, and asked (as a personal favor to me) to kindly refrain from being too abusive of the company. They are no longer around here. Now, your next question no doubt is where does Vonage fit into this picture. Vonage has two programs: an 'Affiliates' program and a 'Refer a Friend' program. They are quite similar, but different. I am **not** an Affiliate. An Affiliate is paid in cold, hard cash money once per month, gets a 1099 tax return annually, and the commissions are subject to the new customer sticking around for three months and paying his bills (to Vonage). A prospective 'Affiliate' fills in some paperwork for Vonage and has to stick to their terms. I think -- am not sure -- an 'Affiliate' gets $40-50 for each one of those signed up. Cold, hard cash once per month. If I were an 'affiliate' I would have a banner on a web page for them, etc. The other category is one that was used on me (when I first started with Vonage), which any new customer using my e-coupons can use and which I certainly use liberally. If I use 'refer a friend' to get you to try Vonage, I get a month of free service *at the service level I use* equal to a month of the service *you sign up for*. Example: My own Vonage phone bill is about thirty dollars per month. You sign up, I get 'next month' free, and you get a month free. You have no other obligations; you get a month free of whatever you paid for to start with. I get no money, ever, just (in my case) an infinite number of 'next month free' for my redeemed e-coupons. You might choose to purchase from Vonage the 'super extended deluxe business package' or whatever they call it, quite expensive IMO, forty dollars per month or something. I get my 'next month free' although the service I use is the 500 minutes per month long distance thing which costs $14.99 to which is added my virtual number, $4.99 and the 'regulatory recovery fee' which everyone has to pay. You of course get a free month also. But Vonage never pays me cash, since I am not an Affiliate. Nor do I hang up any banners for them. What I do have from Vonage is an infinite number of e-coupons redeemed for an infinite number of 'next month free' things. I have not paid for my Vonage service since the day I bought my ATA-186 adapter box and paid for the first month service. By the time I was into my paid for second month free, my own issued e-coupons were rolling in. I have not paid a nickle since, and I have at least a couple year's worth of redeemed e-coupons waiting to be used. When I now and then have occassion to chat on the phone with Vonage (very rarely) I can almost 'hear' their eyes bulge out of their heads when they see my account pop up on the screen, and the rows and rows of credit memos going past still waiting to be redeemed for a 'month of free service'. I use the redeemed e-coupons as fast as I can; I changed my service to get a virtual number out of Chicago which I do not need (plus my local Kansas number) and to get a virtual 800 number which is a nice frill but hardly neccessary. Now instead of having three or four years worth of waiting e-coupons, I only have a year or two of them, because of how frivilously I spend my money. (?) But if YOU sign up with Vonage and become eligible to use 'Refer a Friend' and your friends sign up, you'll soon be in the same position as myself. The reason is because VOIP is where things are at these days as you must know. The handwriting is on the wall for Traditional Bell; they've only got a few years left, at best. I hope this answers your questions. PAT] ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: High-Speed: Internet-Based Phone Service Goes Mainstream Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:25:03 -0700 > http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~10834~2062849,00.html > By Eve Mitchell, BUSINESS WRITER > NOEL FRANK LIKES to talk to his friends and family both in the > U.S. and Canada. Now, the Oakland resident has found a way to talk to > them as much as he wants without racking up a big long-distance bill. > Frank is one of the growing number of consumers making inexpensive > voice calls via his high-speed Internet connection and a regular phone > instead of the traditional phone network that has been around since > the telephone was invented more than 125 years ago. I've read between a dozen and a hundred news stories like this in the past few weeks (one in the San Jose Merc this very morning) and am still not clear on the basic questions: -- If I acquire one of these VOIP hardware/software packages for my DSL-connected home computer, or subscribe to one of the commercial services like Vonage, can I now phone not just other VOIP users, but anyone with a regular phone, anywhere, just as I can with my regular phone? -- Or only people with their own VOIP installations? -- Or only people with their own VOIP installations who are using the same brand of VOIP gadgetry? -- Or does it depend? (and on what?) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, and you are going to be seeing a lot more VOIP reports in the papers and on the net in months to come. VOIP is the 'killer application' of this century, IMO. It is every- thing the telephone itself was at the start of the 20th century, and the traditional wired telephone is quickly becoming obsolete. As Jack Decker said recently when he started the VOIP News on Yahoo, this generation may well be the last one to know what a wired tele- phone is all about. After all, how many readers here remember seeing or sending or receiving a telegram? To try and answer your questions, the more flexible the VOIP application the more you can do with it. I prefer Vonage because it uses the telephone public switched network as needed. Vonage to Vonage calls are make on their own network, but thats only a very small percentage of the calls. With a VOIP system like Vonage you can reach anyone with a 'telephone' at all. I do not say that just because I get some considerations for the redeemed e-coupons (I frankly do not expect to ever pay for VOIP again in my old age; see the other message this issue about credits stacked up everywhere in my name; so instead of getting an e-coupon from me get it from someone else in the 'Refer a Freind' program if you wish; write ptownson@telecom-digest.org if you have no other friends to help you out.) With Vonage the calls are *practically free*. If practically free is not good enough and you want a limited subset of VOIP for totally free, then consider FWD (Free World Dialing) by Jeff Pulver. His is only good for other folks with the same software installed. Well, I stand corrected. At Christmas time, he was giving free calls anywhere by having the VOIP call 'drop off his network' and go on the public telephone network as needed. And I think he now has a deal with another VOIP service to interchange traffic by means of dialing some prefix at the very start. You buy one of his hardware boxes with a phone, then all the calls are free **on his network**, plus or minus. I think you will begin seeing more and more of the smaller VOIP companies begin interchange agreements with the others in order to be able to get away from Damnable Bell whenever possible, but interchange is not all that common yet. That's sort of why I have stuck with Vonage (although my Windows 98 has FWD on it also); mainly the flexability of it since 90 percent of the world is still on wired phones and the ease of use (standard eleven digit dialing, easy interchange to a Bell phone, etc. Yes, I *do* get paid with Vonage (if you consider that when I die sometime soon my estate will consist of a jillion redeemed e-coupons for 'next month free' on Vonage is payment) and Mr. Pulver does not give e-coupons (in fact I think once he said that the whole idea of coupons for a month of free service was a cheap gimmick) so I would pick between one of those two VOIP carriers myself. But VOIP is where things are at. Just ask Congress or the FCC if you don't believe me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: martin@okstate.edu (Martin McCormick) Subject: Re: Cable Modem Hackers Conquer the Co-ax Date: 5 Apr 2004 15:27:24 -0500 Organization: Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK Net-ops > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although I do not know the particulars > of this, I do know that Mr. Mike Flood, the general manager of Cable > One, here in Independence told me 'that was all taken care of recently' > when I asked him 'what prevents everyone on the cable from showing up > in my Network Neighborhood, and the other way around. There may be limits on the type of traffic that can go from node to node, but here is a partial answer. There are a couple of ways the cable is a little more secure than you might think, but not as secure as we'd like it. Your local section of the cable is apt to be like the LAN or Local Area Network in a building. Traffic on that section of cable is said to be in the same VLAN or broadcast domain. All the Internet addresses for everybody in that section of the cable will most likely start with the same network number. Somebody might be 192.168.3.4 and somebody else 192.168.3.7. You can probably see your neighbor's traffic if it is not encrypted and he/she can see yours. The reason why you don't see everybody's traffic on the cable for a whole town is because there are limits to how much traffic can safely fit on to any given segment of the cable system. If everybody was on one huge VLAN, you not only could spy on everybody else, but the packet traffic would eventually reach a point at which collisions would paralyze the whole network. What you end up with is a sort of compromise in which the cable company engineers fit as many customers on to a segment as they can without reaching the point of gridlock. I believe that a congestion rate of about 30% is the beginning of the melt-down phase. If you get above this level, the collisions and countermeasures to allow stations to re-transmit happen so often that the network is overloaded and slows to a crawl. If you have DSL, your traffic looks more like traffic on a switched Ethernet network. In a switched network, the only traffic you see on your port is broadcast traffic for the network or traffic meant for you specifically. You can't see your neighbor's packets at all. It isn't practical for the cable company to deploy switches everywhere so they break their Internet number ranges in to several smaller groups and those groups are what get put in to the segments of cable. Another advantage to having a subnetted network on a cable system is that a malicious customer or malfunctioning modem can't tie up the entire cable system. He may trash his segment, but that is still a lot better than trashing the entire cable system in the whole city. In short, the cable system may deliver entertainment from a central point called the "head end" to each house, but the data portion of the system behaves more like a bunch of small LAN's to both keep down congestion and isolate faults. This explanation is terribly oversimplified because there are even more technical measures that the cable company can use to prevent data broadcasts by one modem to others, but this is a start. It is certainly advisable to encrypt when you can and be smart and not send sensitive information across the cable when you can't encrypt. -- Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK Information Technology Division Network Operations Group [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two points here: One, OSU (Oklahoma State University/Stillwater) has an excellent masters degree program in telecommunications, and I **strongly suspect** the telecommunica- tions program is coming aboard here as a sponsor real soon. To address Mr. McCormick's main point, I am on Cable One and I do not see a thing on my 'network neighborhood' except my own site's stations. I live in a private house, with two cable drops on the same line; my computer room, my bedroom (a television set) and my living room (television set and radio.) The bedroom and living room are wired in series; my computer room is in parallel to the other drop. I would say there are about a dozen households in the block or two around me. Anyway, if someone moved in the empty house next door with cable on their computer, would they see me naked here, or would they only see the NetGear router on 192.168.0.1 ? Or ....? Mr. McCormick, can you talk about this a bit further? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:39:35 -0500 From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: SP2 to Cause Microsoft Support Call Flood? Organization: Nyx Net, The Spirit of the Night http://news.com.com/2100-1002_3-5185106.html?tag=nefd_top "Microsoft can expect thousands of extra technical support calls after the release of its security update for Windows XP this summer, according to security analysts." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:38:23 -0500 From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: BellSouth Shakes Google's Hand Organization: Nyx Net, The Spirit of the Night http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5185076.html "BellSouth announced on Monday that it has teamed up with Google to provide search capabilities to its Internet and broadband customers." ------------------------------ 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. ************************ OSU -- Oklahoma State University -- also helps with the Digest through a grant each month. Their School of Telecommunications provides an excellent opportunity to get that degree you have always wanted. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #163 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 6 14:28:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i36ISpA16507; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:28:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:28:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404061828.i36ISpA16507@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 #164 TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:28:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (VOIP News) Full Text of TIA Press Release and Link to CPUC Filing (VOIP News) TIA Supports VOIP Bills (VOIP News) The Internet Surveillance Cash Cow (VOIP News) U.S. Player Offers Phone Service Over Internet [in Canada] (VOIP News) Michigan Public Service Commission Grants Time Extension (VOIP News) PRIMUS Canada Enhances TalkBroadband Internet Phone Service (VOIP News) Cox Implements VeriSign for VoIP CALEA Compliance (VOIP News) Skype is Not Hype (VOIP News) Small Players Team Up In Big VoIP Play (VOIP News) How the Government Helped Build America's Media Might (Monty Solomon) Planned Nielsen Changes Criticized (Monty Solomon) Broadband Legal Limbo Lingers (Monty Solomon) Putting 40,000 Readers, One by One, on a Cover (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:53:45 -0400 Subject: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Even though this probably off-topic a bit, I think it is very illustrative of how fast things are changing in the telephone industry. A lot of people are sick to death of being gouged by the ILEC's, and they are "voting with their feet." I'm sure that VoIP companies will pick up a good percentage of the remaining wireline customers as the industry matures. http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.cfm/ID/420003 Cell phones exceed land lines in Maine LEWISTON - While the number of wireless phone subscribers continues its climb in Maine to 519,000 in January, the number of land-based phones is dropping.Cell phone subscribers in the state now exceed the number of Verizon telephone lines running into Maine homes, according to spokesman Peter Reilly. "Prior to the late '90s, all we saw for decades was positive line access growth," Reilly said. "It's safe to say traditional telephony is on the decline." Cell phone use in Maine is increasing rapidly even though it is one of the least-covered states for cell phone use. Only Alaska, Vermont and North and South Dakota had less mobile phone coverage, according to a Federal Communications Commission checkup at the end of 2002. Full story at: http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.cfm/ID/420003 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:33:44 -0400 Subject: Full Text of TIA Press Release and Link to CPUC Filing Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tiaonline.org/media/press_releases/index.cfm?parelease=04-35 Press Release TIA Supports Legislative Efforts to Preempt State Regulation of VoIP; Files Comments with California PUC Contact: Sharon Grace (703) 907-7721 sgrace@tiaonline.org Arlington, Va. -- The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) is encouraged by the introduction of federal legislation aimed at protecting voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) from unnecessary and piecemeal regulation. On April 2, 2004, U.S. Senator John Sununu (R-N.H.) and House Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) each introduced similar companion versions of the VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004. The bills would establish federal jurisdiction over VoIP and would free VoIP from much of the regulation currently applied to legacy telephone services. At the same time, they seek to safeguard or not disturb important national policy objectives such as universal service and law enforcement access. They also restrict state or local taxation of VoIP. The legislation defines a VoIP application as the use of hardware, software or network equipment for real-time two-way or multidirectional voice communications over the public Internet or a private network utilizing Internet protocol. It excludes VoIP applications that both originate and terminate on the public switched telephone network. Meanwhile, TIA today filed comments with the California Public Utilities Commission, which has initiated an investigation into VoIP regulatory requirements. In the comments, TIA argues that the State of California lacks authority to regulate VoIP applications, because the inherent interstate nature of such communications makes it impossible to classify them as intrastate telecommunications or telephone services. Furthermore, the comments note the efforts under way at the federal level to determine the appropriate national regulatory framework for IP-enabled applications, including VoIP. TIA President Matthew J. Flanigan observed, "As a nation, we are at a critical crossroads for the future of communications. IP-enabled applications and broadband connectivity offer exciting opportunities and are poised to dominate the future of communications. The question we face in this country, however, is whether we will saddle emerging technologies with the regulatory baggage of the past or liberate them and afford them the opportunity to soar to new heights. "It also is an issue of national competitiveness," continued Flanigan, "as the U.S. fights to maintain a leadership role in developing and deploying new technologies. It is imperative that we have one national policy on VoIP, and that such a policy not stifle the nascent and competitive IP communications market. TIA looks forward to working with the Congress, the Administration and the FCC to work towards this end." View TIA's California PUC Comment Filing http://www.tiaonline.org/media/press_releases/uploads/TIACalifPUCApr04.pdf ### The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) is the leading trade organization serving the communications and IT industry, with proven strengths in standards development, domestic and international public policy, and trade shows. Through its worldwide activities, TIA facilitates business development opportunities and a competitive market environment. The association provides a forum for its member companies, the manufacturers and suppliers of products and services used in global communications. TIA represents the communications sector of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA). Visit us at http://www.tiaonline.org. P.A. Release 04-35/04.05.04 2004 Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 2500 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 907-7700 | Fax: (703) 907-7727 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:53:16 -0400 Subject: TIA Supports VOIP Bills Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=50589 ARLINGTON, Va. -- The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) is encouraged by the introduction of federal legislation aimed at protecting voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) from unnecessary and piecemeal regulation. On April 2, 2004, U.S. Senator John Sununu (R-N.H.) and House Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) each introduced similar companion versions of the VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004. The bills would establish federal jurisdiction over VoIP and would free VoIP from much of the regulation currently applied to legacy telephone services. At the same time, they seek to safeguard or not disturb important national policy objectives such as universal service and law enforcement access. They also restrict state or local taxation of VoIP. The legislation defines a VoIP application as the use of hardware, software or network equipment for real-time two-way or multidirectional voice communications over the public Internet or a private network utilizing Internet protocol. It excludes VoIP applications that both originate and terminate on the public switched telephone network. Meanwhile, TIA today filed comments with the California Public Utilities Commission, which has initiated an investigation into VoIP regulatory requirements. In the comments, TIA argues that the State of California lacks authority to regulate VoIP applications, because the inherent interstate nature of such communications makes it impossible to classify them as intrastate telecommunications or telephone services. Furthermore, the comments note the efforts under way at the federal level to determine the appropriate national regulatory framework for IP-enabled applications, including VoIP. Full story at: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=50589 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:31:46 -0400 Subject: The Internet Surveillance Cash Cow Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8394 A few large companies and entrepreneurs stand to profit from the FBI's bid for a wiretap-friendly Internet. By Annalee Newitz , SecurityFocus Apr 5 2004 9:21AM Pundits and policy-makers are arguing over the legal implications of the FBI's recent petition to the FCC about how to implement the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. But the Bureau's push to get broadband providers covered under CALEA, which currently applies only to telecom carriers, stands to benefit more than just government spies: a domestic eavesdropping industry stands waiting to sell Internet wiretapping tools and services to cable and DSL companies. John Morris, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, worries that the FBI's petition will mean that "any new technology that might substitute for phone calls needs to be cleared and approved by the FBI before it can be deployed." These new technologies include VOIP and IM, which are often difficult to wiretap. Former federal agents like Warren will have a leg up on the competition in a tech marketplace regulated by law enforcement's needs. Full story at: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8394 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 03:18:38 -0400 Subject: U.S. Player Offers Phone Service Over the Internet [in Canada] Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1081203009120&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851 U.S. player offers phone service over the Internet Vonage VoIP service challenges Primus Prices falling with competition in market TYLER HAMILTON TECHNOLOGY REPORTER Prices are already starting to fall as competition takes hold in Canada's budding voice-over-Internet phone market. The Star has learned that Edison, N.J.-based Vonage Holdings Corp., which has been talking about entering the Canadian market for nearly a year, has quietly launched Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, phone service in six provinces, including five cities in Southern Ontario. Vonage is the second company to launch a residential VoIP service on a national scale. In January, Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. announced its TalkBroadband Internet phone service, with prices ranging from $19.95 to $34.95 for second-line local service bundled with calling features. Long-distance packages are charged on top. Full story at: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1081203009120&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 03:20:21 -0400 Subject: Michigan Public Service Commission Grants Time Extension Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://cis.state.mi.us/cgi-bin/mpsc/vieworder.cgi?filename=/mpsc/orders/comm/2004/u-14073_04-05-2004.htm S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the matter, on the Commission's own motion, to commence an investigation into voice over Internet protocol issues in Michigan. Case U-14073 At the April 5, 2004 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing, Michigan. PRESENT:Hon. J. Peter Lark, Chair Hon. Laura Chappelle, Commissioner ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION On March 16, 2004, the Commission issued an order requesting comments on a number of important issues regarding voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) activity in Michigan. Telecommunications service providers subject to Commission jurisdiction were instructed to file their comments by April 2, 2004. All other interested parties were encouraged to voluntarily file comments by the same date. On March 29, 2004, McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (McLeodUSA), filed a motion for extension of time in which to file its comments in this proceeding. McLeodUSA expressed its strong desire to participate in this proceeding, but cited a number of factors, including several large Commission proceedings currently underway, that are impeding its ability to fully participate. Consequently, the company requested a two-week extension. The Commission finds that McLeodUSA's motion should be granted. The Commission is interested in obtaining a full discussion of the important issues identified in its March 16, 2004 order and finds that it is in the public interest to extend the deadline. Because a number of interested parties, however, may be subject to the same resource and time constraints cited by McLeodUSA, the Commission will grant the motion for all interested parties. All parties who have not already done so, may now file their comments in this proceeding by April 21, 2004. The Commission FINDS that: a. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 1986 PA 32, as amended, MCL 484.1101 et seq.; 1991 PA 179, as amended, MCL 484.2101 et seq.; 1969 PA 306, as amended, MCL 24.201 et seq.; and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended, 1999 AC, R 460.17101 et seq. b. McLeodUSA's motion for extension of time in which to file comments is granted. c. Providers of telecommunications services subject to the Commission's jurisdiction should file comments in regard to the VOIP issues identified in the Commission's March 16, 2004 order by April 21, 2004. d. Other interested persons should voluntarily file comments regarding the VOIP issues identified in the Commission's March 16, 2004 order by April 21, 2004. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: A. McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc.'s, motion for extension of time in which to file comments is granted. B. Providers of telecommunications services subject to the Commission's jurisdiction shall file comments regarding the voice over Internet protocol issues identified in the Commission's March 16, 2004 order by April 21, 2004. C. Other interested persons shall voluntarily file comments regarding the voice over Internet protocol issues identified in the Commission's March 16, 2004 order by April 21, 2004. The Commission reserves jurisdiction and may issue further orders as necessary. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [..... signature block omitted.....] Suggested Minute: 'Adopt and issue order dated April 5, 2004 granting an extension of time to file comments in this investigation of voice over Internet protocol issues, as set forth in the order.' ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:40:14 -0400 Subject: PRIMUS Canada Enhances TalkBroadband(R) Internet Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com I was tipped off to this via an item in Patrick Townson's "Telecom Digest": http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2004/05/c7804.html PRIMUS Canada enhances TalkBroadband(R) internet phone service with 911, expands local competition to 8 more cities - PRIMUS Canada extends TalkBroadband (TM) service for consumers and businesses to include local numbers in Victoria, Winnipeg, Quebec City, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Halifax, Mississauga (Cooksville) and St. Catharines. - 911 emergency service to be provided in all TalkBroadband local calling areas - Now more Canadian consumers have a true alternative to traditional local service, starting at $15.95 per month with purchase of voice gateway hardware - New TalkBroadband long distance package allows calling to 20 overseas countries including China, Hong Kong, France, Germany and the UK for as low as 2.5 cents per minute - New Unlimited Bundle introduced for $45.95 per month, including all local features and unlimited calling within Canada and to the U.S. Full press release at: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2004/05/c7804.html TELECOM Digest & Archives at: http://telecom-digest.org ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:24:06 -0400 Subject: Cox Implements VeriSign for VoIP CALEA Compliance Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=10715 Cox Communications has implemented VeriSign's NetDiscovery Service to help ensure compliance of its VoIP-based cable telephony services with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA requires carriers to assist Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) in lawfully authorized surveillance. To comply, carriers often have to purchase dedicated hardware, have trained operation staff and are called upon to maintain connectivity with a variety of LEAs. Full story at: http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=10715 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:05:07 -0400 Subject: Skype is Not Hype Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8357609.htm San Jose Mercury News, Calif., Mike Langberg Column By Mike Langberg, San Jose Mercury News, Calif. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News This new Internet service really does let you make computer-to-computer phone calls anywhere in the world absolutely free, and the audio quality is outstanding. There are some significant drawbacks, however, that will keep Skype from becoming hugely popular in the United States. If you've already heard about Skype (www.skype.com), it's probably because its two European founders, Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, previously created the peer-to-peer file-sharing service Kazaa, which has emerged as the single biggest facilitator of global music piracy. Skype, in contrast, is strictly legitimate and is already attracting the kind of serious supporters -- venture capitalists with big bucks, equipment suppliers offering partnership deals -- who would never have gotten within a mile of the outlaw Kazaa. Launched in a pre-release beta Aug. 23, 2003, the official 1.0 release of Skype isn't expected for several months. But I decided last week was a good time to take a look because many of the early bugs have been ironed out and there's been a lot of news lately about Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. Most notably, AT&T launched a VoIP service last week; I'm planning to review AT&T's CallVantage once it reaches California, which should be in about a month. [Comment: Above and beyond the problems with Skype described in this article, my opinion is that any service that relies on the computer's audio circuitry will not be around for long. The reason is that for optimal sound quality, both ends really need to use a headset - otherwise you get audio feedback loops from speakers to microphone. But in order to use a headset, you have to disconnect your speakers and standalone microphone (if any) from your computer's sound system. And even if you somehow work around that, if you let your computer play streaming audio or background music while you work, you have to shut that down every time you take a call. So, any form of VoIP that uses the computer's audio circuitry becomes doggone inconvenient to use after a while. I'll bet a lot of people install it, play with it for a little while, and then abandon it. The USB VoIP handsets are a much better idea, but until the pricing comes down to the level of, say, a mouse or a keyboard (which is to say, free after rebate on the day after Thanksgiving), there won't be wide adoption of those. $59.99 (the price of the USB handset on the Skype web site) is way too much to pay just to try out a service (consider that in contrast, OfficeMax is offering a fully functional 13-memory speakerphone, for use with traditional phone service or with a hardware VoIP adapter, for $10 or FREE after rebate this week. Why is the USB phone so high in comparison?). The thing that made instant messaging (ICQ) a killer app was precisely that you could send a friend to their download site and five minutes later they'd be fully functional, with NO added expense or great amount of effort required. The reason something like Skype won't be as successful is that people will be reluctant to buy USB handsets (and perhaps a USB hub to make room for the handset on an older system), and in any case, they'll have to go somewhere to buy them, so the convenience factor just isn't there. And I suspect that a lot of people won't tolerate that kind of application taking over the functionality of their computer's sound system for very long.] Full story at: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8357609.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:53:47 -0400 Subject: Small Players Team Up In Big VoIP Play Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/news/article.php/3335601 By Michael Singer Several smaller companies that specialize in making voice over Internet protocol networks are banding together to provide an alternative to the larger carriers like AT&T and Vonage. The wild growth in the VoIP (define) sector has seen the Baby Bells and cable firms hopping aboard the bandwagon. The likes of SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest are all planning VoIP offerings and, according to the Synergy Research Group, the boom has created a 50 percent growth rate in the worldwide market for enterprise IP telephony, generating almost $864 million in vendor revenue last year. Forrester Research statistics also paint a rosy picture. The analyst firm says VoIP's Internet Protocol-PBX (define) will continue to grow through 2007 to 1.7 million lines from 100,000 lines today. Similarly, a report from research firm Stratecast Partners, says by 2007, the U.S. VoIP market is forecast to grow to more than five million subscribers, a five-fold increase over 2002 levels. Full story at: http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/news/article.php/3335601 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:18:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: How the Government Helped Build America's Media Might In the two decades since President Reagan named Mark Fowler chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the government has been steadily moving away from the role that Starr thinks it should play By Nicholas Lemann When did the press become the media? It seems to have happened sometime during the last generation-long enough ago, anyway, for us to have forgotten that "media" is plural. But people who use "the media" as a more encompassing term for "the press" (because it includes broadcast journalism, too) may find it hard to get used to the even more encompassing way it's used by scholars of communications: for them, it takes in just about any channel through which information is transmitted. As you're reading this, you are probably near a telephone, a television set, a computer hooked up to the Internet, a radio, a pager, a mailbox. Some of those things receive and some can also send; some are meant for person-to-person communication and some for interacting with institutions. They're all forms of media. In order to overcome ingrained habits of thought, suppose we remove all ideas about journalism from our minds - don't worry, we'll reinstall them later - and then contemplate the media. We immediately start to think about those machines whose wondrous inventors - Samuel F. B. Morse and Alexander Graham Bell and Guglielmo Marconi - we all learned about as schoolchildren. But the technology picture is still too simple, so let's delete the machines from our minds, too. What's left? The media start to look like an array of political, economic, and social arrangements, each of which, in a different way, turns people into a public. http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=3016 http://newyorker.com/critics/books/?040412crbo_books ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:33:40 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Planned Nielsen Changes Criticized Planned Nielsen Changes Criticized By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and STUART ELLIOTT Washington THE N.A.A.C.P. and leading members of Congress from both parties, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, have added their voices to the growing number complaining that the proposed changes in how Nielsen gathers local television ratings will drastically undercount the number of black and Hispanic viewers. But Nielsen Media Research, whose ratings have been used for decades to help set TV advertising rates, takes issue with the critics, asserting that the number of households sampled with African-American and Hispanic viewers will actually increase under the proposed changes. Senator Clinton, Democrat of New York, in a letter yesterday to Susan D. Whiting, president and chief executive of Nielsen, urged a delay in plans to adopt, effective April 8, the new methodology in New York. The change involves adopting locally the so-called people meters Nielsen has used since 1986 to gather national ratings data. The people meters would replace the paper diaries Nielsen has provided to viewers in local markets since 1950, as well as set-top boxes that are not as technically sophisticated. Nielsen intends to switch New York, Chicago and Los Angeles to local people meters as part of plans to have all the 10 largest local markets using them by next year. One big market, Boston, shifted to people meters in 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/business/media/31adco.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:39:40 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadband Legal Limbo Lingers From Multichannel News, April 5, 2004 By Ted Hearn Federal broadband policy took another hit last Wednesday, less than a week after President Bush called for affordable nationwide broadband access by 2007. The setback came in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to allow the Federal Communications Commission to use certain legal standards to shield cable-modem service from potentially intrusive regulation. The 9th Circuit's decision had the effect of perpetuating the legal limbo hanging over cable-modem service since 1999, and probably introduced more uncertainty over whether FCC chairman Michael Powell can graft his cable policies onto digital subscriber line (DSL) services provided by the Baby Bell phone giants. Legal clarity is nowhere within sight. The current litigation could putter along for a few more years, at the conclusion of which the FCC might find it necessary to modify its policies. Those new policies would undoubtedly trigger a new round of litigation. Somewhere along the line, Congress could always step in with a new law. One more factor to weigh: a victory by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the November presidential election could lead to the installation of a committed pro-regulatory FCC majority that could force cable to share its broadband facilities with the competition. The legal jockeying is expected to continue by this Wednesday, as the FCC or National Cable & Telecommunications Association is expected to ask the 9th Circuit to stay its decision while the case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.freepress.net/news/article.php?id=3010 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 01:53:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Putting 40,000 Readers, One by One, on a Cover DAVID CARR When the 40,000 subscribers to Reason, the monthly libertarian magazine, receive a copy of the June issue, they will see on the cover a satellite photo of a neighborhood -- their own neighborhood. And their house will be graphically circled. On one level, the project, sort of the ultimate in customized publishing, is unsurprising: of course a magazine knows where its subscribers live. But it is still a remarkable demonstration of the growing number of ways databases can be harnessed. Apart from the cover image, several advertisements are customized to reflect the recipient's particulars. The cover article, written by Declan McCullagh, suggests that while databases can lead to breaches in privacy, it allows Dell to provide instant credit to computer buyers, grocery stores to stock goods that their customers want, and mortgage lenders to keep their rates down. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/business/05reason.html ------------------------------ 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. ************************ OSU -- Oklahoma State University -- also helps with the Digest through a grant each month. Their School of Telecommunications provides an excellent opportunity to get that degree you have always wanted. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #164 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 6 17:20:46 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i36LKkW18806; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:20:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404062120.i36LKkW18806@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 #165 TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:20:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Jeff Pulver's Comments on the Sununu VoIP Bill (VOIP News) Centigram Series 6 Voicemail (Tim Howell) Re: Book on How the Internet/WWW Works? (John Levine) Re: Excel Communications (J Kelly) Re: Regulators Weigh Whether New Services Fall Within Realm (M Sullivan) For the Person Asking About Setting Up an Internet Cafe (Tony P.) Problems With VOIP Dropping Words (Jack Decker) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Zwanzig) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Tony P.) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Thomas) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Dold) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Leighton) Re: Walmart Mixup Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Wesrock) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (John R. Levine) Re: Apparent Hidden Advertisements in the Telecom Digest (C Cryderman) 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: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 13:20:45 -0400 Subject: [VoIP News] Jeff Pulver's comments on the Sununu VoIP Bill Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Jeff Pulver expressed his opinion on the Sununu VoIP Bill on his blog, which can be found at: http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/index.html] Here is what he wrote: My take on the Sununu VoIP Bill I like it! :-) Overall the VoIP Bill is what I expected to see, a nice show of support and place holder setting forth a strong statement to allow VoIP to grow relatively free of excessive regulation, particularly unaffected by a host of onerous state regulations. I think it is pretty good to have this as the first proposed piece of legislation on the topic, but I don't really expect any immediate action from Congress beyond a few hearings and press statement this year or early next year. Than again, as I've learned, "Nothing is Impossible!" This bill (and the Pickering version in the House), will be very important to help people frame the regulatory debate. I look forward to additional meetings on Capitol Hill and taking part in future hearings on this subject. Posted by jeff at 06:16 PM How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: tim@fefcful.org (Tim Howell) Subject: Centigram Series 6 Voicemail Date: 6 Apr 2004 10:41:21 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Can anyone post instructions on how to change the length of a DTMF digit and the length of the gap between DTMF digits on a Centigram Series 6 voicemail server? Thanks! --TWH ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 2004 05:40:43 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Book on How the Internet/WWW Works? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > So, can anyone recommend a book or other reference for the technically > savvy but general reader on this? (Not a "how too use it" book; not a > detailed reference on the IP or other protocols; just a "how it all > works" description.) If you can find a copy of my "Internet Secrets", 2nd edition, there's a couple of chapters on just those topics. 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: J Kelly Subject: Re: Excel Communications Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:12:28 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 4 Apr 2004 05:46:32 -0000, John Levine wrote: >> If your with any other telecom service provider you're still paying at >> or near the same as Excel price, ... > Uh, no. Excel's Nickel Nation costs $5 per month and 5 cents per > minute with an outrageous five minute (25 cent) minimum per call. > Other plans have even higher per minute rates. 800 service is > $3.50/mo and 19 cpm. And don't forget the bogus $1.30/mo "carrier > cost recovery" charge which Excel keeps. LOL! I pay $.05 with NO monthly fee, no minimum, and it is capped at $20. Use more than 400 minutes and the rest are free. I'm quite happy with it. The provider is the same as my local service. Qwest. Never had a problem with their LD service. Their local service had some nightmares for awhile, but they fixed it and compensated me nicely for their screw up. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Regulators Weigh Whether New Services Fall Within Their Realm Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:49:19 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to an article in VOIP News: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those public servants never give up, do > they? They'll be damned if they can't have VOIP service to screw up > the way they have screwed up landline telco over the years. Anyway, I > thought a couple days ago I read here that (a) the FCC had decided > that VOIP was not going to be subject to those regulations and/or (b) > the federal government was pre-empting all the state and local > agencies and going to take it over exclusively for themselves. PAT] The FCC has not decided what to do about phone-to-phone VOIP yet. It has held that pulver.com's non-interconnected Free World Dialup isn't a telecommunications service, but it has begun a rulemaking about what to make of this new thing that is threatening to break out of the mold of the 1934 Act. Legislation is being introduced (most recently by Sununu of NH -- I wonder who wrote it for him? My guess is the carrier with the TouchTone(TM) code 288 that wants to convert all of its service to VoIP and exempt it from access charges) that would specifically exempt all VoIP service from telecommunications regulation at the state and federal level, but a bill is about as good as a warm bucket of s*it. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: For the Person Asking About Setting up an Internet Cafe Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:22:14 GMT Read! This is very interesting even if it did happen in Ireland. John Allman allmanj at houseofireland.com Mon Apr 5 09:33:39 IST 2004 Some of you who were on #linux on Friday will know part or most of this story already as I witnessed some of it (while drinking a truly delicious hot chocolate). For those of you who don't, the following is a report written up by a friend of mine on his succussful (or at least, it's looking good) attempt to stop and catch a 419 scammer. I feel it's worth the read. John From: Steffen Higel To: John Allman , [This is long, and is quite heavy on the technical discussion. Skip the bits you don't understand. It gets interesting.] I work for a busy Dublin Internet cafe, doing some sysadmining and general computer maintenance. On Sunday the 28th of March, I got a rather distressing email from a sysadmin in a large U.S. University. Spamcop had blacklisted our server's external IP address. Abuse mail for the server in question gets sent to my college account (bad practice, I know, but it's a part time job). My college uses Spamcop as a blacklist source. You can probably tell what happened... Anyway, said email included the full headers of an email which was natted by our server pretending to be from the widow of Mr. Jonas Savimbi, offering the recipient a share of an unspecified large sum of money. The usual panicked thoughts kick in... "Have I fiddled with something which has left us as an open relay?", "Has our server been cracked?", "Have I been sleep-spamming again?". A more reasoned examination of the headers showed that the mail had originated from one of the IP addresses that we assign dynamically to people who bring laptops into the cafe. This is something of a nightmare for cafe operators, we can hardly block outbound smtp but then again it isn't possible for us to manually check every single mail either. Maybe rate limiting is a valid technical solution. Or a contraption which hits the user on the head for every mail they send. So if they send 1 an hour, it's a mild nuisance. But if they send 100 a minute, it'll probably kill them. A peek through the logs revealed: Mar 26 15:04:16 server dhcpd-2.2.x: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:40:f4:5d:aa:f7 via eth1 Mar 26 15:04:17 server dhcpd-2.2.x: DHCPOFFER on 192.168.1.70 to 00:40:f4:5d:aa:f7 via eth1 Mar 26 15:04:17 server dhcpd-2.2.x: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.70 from 00:40:f4:5d:aa:f7 via eth1 Mar 26 15:04:17 server dhcpd-2.2.x: DHCPACK on 192.168.1.70 to 00:40:f4:5d:aa:f7 via eth1 Mar 26 15:04:20 server dhcpd-2.2.x: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.70 from 00:40:f4:5d:aa:f7 via eth1 Mar 26 15:04:20 server dhcpd-2.2.x: DHCPACK on 192.168.1.70 to 00:40:f4:5d:aa:f7 via eth1 Bingo. I had something to work with. The network card is one based on a Cameo 32bit chipset. Matches up quite nicely with these: Return-Path: Received: from 192.168.1.70 (server.XXXXXX [XXXXXXX.29]) byXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) with SMTP id i2QFrgi0002755 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:53:44 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: "michelle savimbi" From: "michelle savimbi" To: Subject: urgent response Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:53:26 +0000 Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C221EC.6C64F7B0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000ams X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 I asked around, and a man, described as being black (or is the word African-American these days?), roughly 30, with an accent which seemed half London and half African had been in the cafe with a laptop and had a number of visitors call into his booth and had been there at the given time. I hate spam more than I hate crackers. I hate spam more than I hate virus writers. I wanted to catch this guy in the act and I wanted to see him hauled off in a paddywagon. We contacted the police, who unfortunately didn't seem willing to do anything about it unless we caught someone in the act of doing something illegal. The daily staff in the cafe were instructed to let me know if said individual turned up again, though honestly, who could be that stupid? My hopes weren't high. Evidently, a 419er is that stupid. The very next Friday (2nd of April 2004) he turned up again. I was on the bus at the time, just about to go in for another day of world altering research. I ran down as fast as I could and was told that he was on the second floor and hadn't plugged in yet because he wanted one particular booth which is somewhat secluded and was willing to wait. I sat myself down at a computer in another room, started tailing the daemon.log and waited for the telltale entries. I took a quick flick through the tcpdump manpage, just to make sure I didn't screw up. 20 minutes later, it started to happen. He plugged in, and his Windows XP laptop started to blabber away. WindowsUpdate, Netbios, passport logins. Nothing much happened for a while. The odd DNS request here, the occasional search: GET /search.php?Keywords=male%20erection&p (I'm not messing!) on 64.21.81.131, which seems to belong to some direct marketing whorehouse. He logged into this as well: 66.180.174.12, which seems to be some sort of mail harvesting database. The login is done over SSL, so I can't find out more. If any militant anti-spam vigilantes want to get a good look at how these people organize themselves, that's probably a good place to start. Then, he spent a bit of time on http://www.emailspidereasy.com. Don't you just love the fake google-textads? He logged into mail.com next, using the email address kendoda at accountant.com. Whatever hash they use for passwords was aaka7zxkcNo. Then, he logged into his yahoo mail account. This was probably to check the account that in which he receives those mails. It looks like the rest happened over SSL. Then it started. The screen started showing an awful lot of smtp traffic heading out onto the net. I knew that I had to let it go, even if it meant another 48 hours of being blacklisted. If it meant he could be convicted of committing a crime, then I figured it was worth the price. I hope those who received the mail also feel that way. (sorry :-/) Before I phoned my contact in the Gardai, I had to make sure that he was actually sending out his vile wares. I scped the partial dumpfile onto my laptop, and opened it up in ethereal. Guess what? 220 serverXXXXXXXXXX ESMTP Postfix HELO 192.168.1.70 250 serverXXXXXXXXXX MAIL FROM: 250 Ok RCPT TO: 250 Ok DATA 354 End data with . Reply-To: "michelle savimbi" Subject: Trouble With VOIP Sometimes Dropping Words Pat, please conceal my e-mail address as usual. At 03:38 PM 4/5/2004 -0400, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have discovered one thing about my > Vonage service which is a problem. Even though it usually does okay, I > get the dropped words problem whenever I am trying to run too many > jobs at once here. Left alone on the cable, Vonage seems to do very > well. But usually I am running my weather station > http://weatherforecast.n3.net or http://weatherforecast.us.tf and my > computer room live camera http://patricktownson.us.tf most of the > time. Both of these services take .jpg images and transfer them to my > California web site using FTP (under their alias 'n3.net' and 'us.tf' > names) every fifteen seconds or so. Often times also I am using a > secure form of telnet or rlogin to work on this Digest at MIT. > Whenever weather or the office cam decide it is time to do a transfer > via FTP I can count on the words on Vonage getting lost. I can set my > watch by it, every fifteen seconds or so. They are on other machines, > (the Windows 98 and Windows 95 computers) but still using the same > NetGear router and cable modem. I wish there was a way that Vonage > could take priority and slow down or automatically stop the other > jobs when it was talking. > I asked Mike Flood, general manager of Cable One here in Independence > about this. His answer was I need a 'bigger pipe', which of course he > said he could sell me. I now have what he termed 'half size' (or some > words like that) with 500 K and he said I should get a 'full size > pipe'. (More money of course). Does that make sense to anyone? I > guess the full size is twice the 500 K. PAT] Pat, if you have 500K upload speed that should be more than adequate, since even G.711 (the highest bandwidth protocol) only uses about 90K. The problem is that your other applications are managing to totally saturate your outgoing bandwidth. First check to see if there's any way to throttle the software itself - some FTP software will let you throttle uploads, but many other kinds of software don't have that feature. Beyond that, you may find some helpful ideas at these pages on BroadbandReports.com: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41603 http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/38267 http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9751570~mode=flat Somewhere in those three pages, or one of the pages linked from them, you should be able to find a way to resolve your problem. Jack ------------------------------ From: zbang@radix.net (Carl Zwanzig) Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:26:34 -0000 Organization: RadixNet Internet Services PAT asked: > or $1.10 total) for the two bogus transactions. What I do not understand > is why an outfit like Walmart, as big as they are, does not process > their own Visa/MC paper, sending it directly to Visa/MC instead of > going through a third party place like First Data Merchants? Isn't > FDMC in this case a sort of 'bottom feeder' a lot like the 'operator > service companies' who intercept what Bell is doing and get their own Because Visa/MC are issued by individual banks, not by a single entity like amex. Visa Int'l and MC are pretty much only licensing organizations, they don't do any processsing. WallyWorld would have to interface to every bank that has issued the cards. This is similar to why banks send foreign checks to the federal reserve or another large bank for clearing, instead of to each issueing bank. (At one time, the fed was contracting large regional banks to process checks for them. Riggs in DC comes to mind.) z! ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:27:45 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whatever happened to the small merchant > with a storefront who sells thing occassionally getting a credit card > for payment where the person signs the little slip of paper and the > merchant stores these slips of paper away in the event of a dispute > and the (swiped) card transaction goes to Visa/MC for processing? A > larger store, such as Walmart for example would so something similar > but on a much larger scale. Does *anyone* turn their charges into > Visa/MC directly these days? PAT] It used to be that the money wasn't actually transferred from your card issuer to the merchant until the merchant had submitted the signed charge slip. Now everything moves at near light speed. And so you get triple dips into your account. It's only going to get worse over time. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:47:13 +0100 From: Graeme Thomas Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle [ Pat: please remove my address from this is you send it to the digest. It's OK to leave my name. ] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whatever happened to the small merchant > with a storefront who sells thing occassionally getting a credit card > for payment where the person signs the little slip of paper and the > merchant stores these slips of paper away in the event of a dispute > and the (swiped) card transaction goes to Visa/MC for processing? A > larger store, such as Walmart for example would so something similar > but on a much larger scale. Does *anyone* turn their charges into > Visa/MC directly these days? PAT] Visa/MC try hard not to have any direct dealings with merchants. They may allow it occasionally, but I'm sure they charge a great deal for the privilege. The normal procedure (even for small merchants) is for them to sign up to an acquiring institution -- often their local bank -- for credit card services. As John Levine remarked, often small banks subcontract the work to specialist companies like First Data. The card transaction from the swiped (or, these days, dipped) card is routed first to the acquirer. They then route it to the network (Visa, etc), who ship it to the issuer (the card-holder's bank). There are supposed to be protections in place from having batches of transactions submitted multiple times. It's hard, though, to find out reliably if this is the case. Fortunately it's relatively easy to track down such things once they've happened, and reversing the transactions themselves is easy. Coping with the consequential damage (such as PAT's $1.10 profit) is way harder. Graeme Thomas [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As of today, Tuesday afternoon, PayPal has not yet seized their $1.10 back from my account. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@WalmartXMi.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:35:57 UTC Organization: a2i network dold@walmartxmi.usenet.us.com wrote: > It was mentioned on the CBS Hourly News carried on KCBS-AM radio in San > Francisco. It mentioned the dates involved, the only store was WalMart, > and that the corrections had been applied to people's accounts. It made KTVU-Fox TV in Oakland. ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:17:14 -0500 Organization: MRRP In article , johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> What I do not understand is why an outfit like Walmart, as big as >> they are, does not process their own Visa/MC paper, sending it >> directly to Visa/MC instead of going through a third party place like >> First Data Merchants? Isn't FDMC in this case a sort of 'bottom >> feeder' a lot like the 'operator service companies' Because Visa/MC do not process credit cards, they are just marketing companies, the cards are issued by banks ( the meaning of "bank" is a little hazy with credit cards), the merchant then contracts with a "processor" which then bills the various "banks" and then deposits the funds in the merchants bank account. American Express and Discover are done a little differently, but the end result is about the same. -Hudson http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess from what you are saying, that VISA (formerly known as BankAmericard) is no longer a Bank of America in San Francisco product, as it was back in the 1950's and 60's. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:35:07 EDT Subject: Re: Walmart Mixup Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle editor@telecom-digest.org (Pat Townson) wrote in two separate messages: > ... What I do not understand > is why an outfit like Walmart, as big as they are, does not process > their own Visa/MC paper, sending it directly to Visa/MC instead of > going through a third party place like First Data Merchants? Isn't > FDMC in this case a sort of 'bottom feeder' a lot like the 'operator > service companies' who intercept what Bell is doing and get their own > rake off at more expense to the end user (in this case, Walmart?) I > had thought places like First Data Merchants were mostly intended for > small people. For example, when I first checked into the idea of > using credit cards here in the Digest, First Data said they would > lease me a terminal, accept 'no signature, no swipe, no card > presented' transactions, etc, for some monthly fee. It would have > been ideal for me, but then PayPal came along and said they could do > it better and at no charge to me. Why would Walmart need a company > like that to handle their credit card stuff? PAT] - - - - - > Whatever happened to the small merchant > with a storefront who sells thing occassionally getting a credit card > for payment where the person signs the little slip of paper and the > merchant stores these slips of paper away in the event of a dispute > and the (swiped) card transaction goes to Visa/MC for processing? A > larger store, such as Walmart for example would so something similar > but on a much larger scale. Does *anyone* turn their charges into > Visa/MC directly these days? It was my understanding that there is no "Visa/MC" entity, in the sense you are using the term, to send them to. Visa and MC are associations of financial institutuions which interchange their transactions with one another. The transactions go to a processing and interchange agent, of which First Data is the largest. In turn the processing agent relays them to the various banks that issue Visa and MasterCard. (There was a big flap a number of years ago when JCPenney wanted to enter their transactions directly, as though they were a bank.) As far as I know, every Visa or MasterCard is issued by a bank or other financial instittution which is a member of those associations, and the transactions are interchanged between the association members, not through a great "Visa/MC" in the sky. Perhaps others can contradict or expand on this, which is seems to be on-topic as it intimately involves telecommuniciations and its processing. (It seems to me than in the time when all credit card transactions were done on paper, the actual slips were sent between banks, often represented by associations which handle the business for their members.) Wal-Mart and many other merchants now operate in a totally paperless mode, and you sign on a pad which captures the image of your signature electronically. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At our Walmart Supercenter here, unless they changed procedures lately, (I rarely ever go there, I hate the place) if the plastic is used as a 'debit' card the clerk has you put in your pin on a keypad. If the plastic is used as a 'credit' card the clerk prints out a little receipt and has you sign it. If the plastic just has a bank name on it, they usually assume it is a credit card. PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Date: 6 Apr 2004 15:09:14 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Cell phone subscribers in the state now exceed the number of Verizon > telephone lines running into Maine homes, according to spokesman > Peter Reilly. Verizon is not the only landline telco in Maine. There are plenty of independents. I would be surprised if there were more cell phones than landlines, since in large parts of rural Maine, your cell phone just plain doesn't work. ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Apparent Hidden Advertisements in the Telecom Digest Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:11:04 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V23 #163 Phil Earnhardt wrote: > You've told us in the past that the TELECOM Digest follows the funding > model of PBS or NPR stations where they have periodic "pledge breaks". I > would be outraged if these broadcasters started sprinkling hidden > advertisements in their normal programming. I fondly hope that you will > maintain the same integrity with the TELECOM Digest. I don't know about you but this past Saturday morning I was watching "New Yankee Workshop" and right after it was over there were 5 minutes of commercials for things like "Stanley Tools" and "Home Depot". They were no just mentioning them for their support but were full fledged advertisements a good two minutes each. So Pat, take heart, you are not going that far and I see no reason for you not to add your comments after these items. Remember folks, we should be grateful to have someone with as much experience as Pat working this Digest for us. I will never understand the way we Americans treat the elderly. They get old and we throw them away, forgetting all the knowledge they can impart to us young whipper- snappers. Thanks for the job you do Pat. Chip Cryderman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for your kind words. I *do* try to be mindful of the 'old Usenet customs' (and some customs I invented on my own) here when it is practical, but things around here have changed **so much** over the past twenty years or so. I still do not like putting in the pitch (or 'pledge' messages) now and then, but I do what I have to do in order to survive. When I first saw the original message from p.a.e. here (first time I read it was when I was editing it) I thought I was going to be accused of implanting spy cookies or pop-up ads or selling the mailing list secretly (all of which I have been approached to do at one time or another). PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ OSU -- Oklahoma State University -- also helps with the Digest through a grant each month. Their School of Telecommunications provides an excellent opportunity to get that degree you have always wanted. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 End of TELECOM Digest V23 #165 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 6 22:30:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i372UwX21108; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:30:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:30:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404070230.i372UwX21108@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 #166 TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:31:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Alex) Final Report on Blackout (Daeron) Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed: (T. Gerald Dyar) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (J Levine) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (S Sobol) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Thomas) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (CharlesH) One Nation Under Internet Protocol (VOIP News) Nouvelle base de connaissances pour les PABX Alcatel (Simon Templar) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:10:07 -0500 From: Alex Subject: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Hi all, Many years ago, I used to find the RJ11 splitters that seperated the two pairs of lines into Line 1 and Line 2 for dual-line phone jacks. Now'days, I'm having trouble locating one. I've even talked to folks from SBC and they say the splitters aren't common anymore and are hard to find. Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of lines. Thanks in advance. Alex. ------------------------------ From: doug_mentohl@yahoo.co.uk (Daeron) Subject: Final Report on Blackout Date: 6 Apr 2004 12:38:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Blackout remedies languish, panel says Lorraine Mirabella April 06 2004 The nation's worst blackout ... could have been prevented and could reoccur if a series of recommendations ... are not adopted. The Task Force sent its final report to President Bush and Canada's prime minister . An interim report released in November by the U.S. Department of Energy blamed a constellation of failures at Ohio's FirstEnergy Corp. as the principal trigger. It pointed to the loss of three high-voltage transmission lines in northern Ohio -- which short-circuited after the lines sagged onto untrimmed trees -- and to a failure of Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. operators to recognize and contain the problem ... http://www.baltimoresun.com/technology/bal-te.bz.grid06apr06,0,5223403.story?coll=bal-technology-headlines ------------------------------ From: T. Gerald Dyar Subject: Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:03:31 GMT I posted this message on comp.dcom.telecom.tech with no luck so I thought I'd try here. My daughter lives in a very old row house in the Philadelphia area and the inside wiring is a mess. I live in CT but on my next visit to her I want to bring down my telephone test set and check out the inside wiring to find out what needs fixing. She's already determined, using the NIC, that the problem is not with the tel line coming in. Since I'm from CT I need the local number there, nearest to 215-887 to get the 1004 hz, miliwatt, test tone. Contact me direct if you don't want to divulge this to the world. Thanks, Gerry ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: 6 Apr 2004 17:46:40 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess from what you are saying, that > VISA (formerly known as BankAmericard) is no longer a Bank of America > in San Francisco product, as it was back in the 1950's and 60's. PAT] Nope, since about 1976 it's belongs to Visa Internnational which is owned by the 21,000 banks that issue Visa cards. Now that you mention it, the Bank of America isn't the Bank of America any more, either. In 1998 it was absorbed by Nationsbank, an aggressive east coast bank, which renamed the combined entity to Bank of America because the name was so well known. Now Bank of America-Nationsbank is absorbing Fleet Bank, a regional bank in the northeast which had already vacuumed up a lot of banks in New York and New England, with the whole mess to be called Bank of America. So the old San Francisco bank is still in there somewhere, but there's a whole lot of other stuff as well. 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: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:41:29 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Hudson Leighton : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess from what you are saying, that > VISA (formerly known as BankAmericard) is no longer a Bank of America > in San Francisco product, as it was back in the 1950's and 60's. PAT] My VISA Check Card is a Bank of America product, but that's because it's a Bank of America debit card connected to a Bank of America checking account. BTW, I thought BofA was still headquartered in SFO too, until very recently. I learned that when they merged with NationsBank (headquartered in Charlotte), Charlotte became the headquarters for the merged company. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:02:13 +0100 From: Graeme Thomas Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle [ Pat: Please remove my address from this if you want to publish it in the digest. Leaving my name in is OK. ] In article , Hudson Leighton writes: > Because Visa/MC do not process credit cards, they are just marketing > companies, the cards are issued by banks ( the meaning of "bank" is a > little hazy with credit cards), the merchant then contracts with a > "processor" which then bills the various "banks" and then deposits the > funds in the merchants bank account. Visa and MasterCard are consortia of issuing and acquiring banks. They are not just marketing companies, although it's true they do a lot of that. They own their own networks, and humungous processing centres. The way it typically works is as follows. When you buy something, the card terminal sends a AUTHREQ (authorization request) to the merchant's acquiring institution. The message is then routed through the appropriate network to the issuing bank, who check to see if there are sufficient funds in the account. The amount of the transaction is blocked in the account, which means that it's still there, but spoken for. The acknowledgement is sent back, by the same route, to the merchant. If everything is OK, there will be a 6-digit authorization code on the slip. At the end of the day, the whole batch of transactions is sent as a "financial" to the network. There is a vast sort/merge, and the rebatched transactions are sent on to the issuers. The net payments are made overnight, and that's when the merchants get their money. The blocked amounts are reinstated to the accounts, and the real transaction amounts are deducted from each account. (It can happen that the authorized amount and the transaction amount differ.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess from what you are saying, that > VISA (formerly known as BankAmericard) is no longer a Bank of America > in San Francisco product, as it was back in the 1950's and 60's. PAT] No. It's an international consortium. In article , Wesrock@aol.com writes: > It was my understanding that there is no "Visa/MC" entity, in > the sense you are using the term, to send them to. Visa and MC are > associations of financial institutuions which interchange their > transactions with one another. That's not really true. Visa and MC own their own processing centres, which route all the transactions. They will even do quite a lot of the work for smaller member banks, for a fee. > Perhaps others can contradict or expand on this, which is seems > to be on-topic as it intimately involves telecommuniciations and its > processing. (It seems to me than in the time when all credit card > transactions were done on paper, the actual slips were sent between > banks, often represented by associations which handle the business > for their members.) Wal-Mart and many other merchants now operate in > a totally paperless mode, and you sign on a pad which captures the > image of your signature electronically. If the customer disputes the charge, then the "paperwork" all follows. Even if the original paperwork was on dead trees, the transfers are usually done electronically. As a matter of curiosity, as soon as you dispute the charge the merchant repays the money (it's deducted from his account), and he only gets it back if the resulting investigation shows that the dispute was false. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At our Walmart Supercenter here, unless > they changed procedures lately, (I rarely ever go there, I hate the > place) if the plastic is used as a 'debit' card the clerk has you put > in your pin on a keypad. If the plastic is used as a 'credit' card > the clerk prints out a little receipt and has you sign it. If the > plastic just has a bank name on it, they usually assume it is a credit > card. PAT] The decision on whether to use a signature-based system or a PIN-based system is done by the card issuer. You can have PIN-based credit cards, or signature-based debit cards, although I admit both are rarer than the other way around. In the UK we're moving (oh so slowly) to "chip and PIN". Each payment card will be a smart card, with a secure chip on it, and all security will be PIN-based. The transaction mechanisms are subtly different from the one I just outlined, but with much of the same flavour. One difference is that the card can, under some circumstances, authorize transactions on its own behalf, without setting up a connection to its issuing bank. The smart cards are being touted mainly as a security feature ("an end to all fraud"! ha!), but they will reduce network traffic. Graeme Thomas ------------------------------ From: hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: 7 Apr 2004 00:56:59 GMT Organization: http://newsguy.com In article , Hudson Leighton wrote: > In article , johnl@iecc.com (John R. > Levine) wrote: >>> What I do not understand is why an outfit like Walmart, as big as >>> they are, does not process their own Visa/MC paper, sending it >>> directly to Visa/MC instead of going through a third party place like >>> First Data Merchants? Isn't FDMC in this case a sort of 'bottom >>> feeder' a lot like the 'operator service companies' > Because Visa/MC do not process credit cards, they are just marketing > companies, the cards are issued by banks ( the meaning of "bank" is a > little hazy with credit cards), the merchant then contracts with a > "processor" which then bills the various "banks" and then deposits the > funds in the merchants bank account. > American Express and Discover are done a little differently, but the > end result is about the same. > -Hudson > http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess from what you are saying, that > VISA (formerly known as BankAmericard) is no longer a Bank of America > in San Francisco product, as it was back in the 1950's and 60's. PAT] Visa started out as BankAmericard from Bank of America. Many years ago it became an independent company. They act as a clearing house for Visa transactions, between the merchant's bank and the bank issuing the Visa card. They have several huge data centers around the world to handle those millions of transactions/day. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 13:13:58 -0400 Subject: One Nation Under Internet Protocol Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/2010-7352-5185413.html By J. William Gurley "Gonna keep on tryin' Till I reach the highest ground." --Stevie Wonder, Higher Ground Take a trip to Korea or Japan, and you will immediately have a new appreciation for the definition of broadband. There, it is not uncommon for a consumer's Internet connection to breathe a blazingly fast 10-plus megabits per second. In Japan, Yahoo BB goes a step further, trumpeting a full 45-megabits-per-second offering for a cool $37 per month (about 3,892 yen). Still not amazed? Korea boasts a mind-boggling 80 percent broadband penetration rate, while the United States still ambles around half that. That said, even the states' 42 percent penetration rate is deceptive, as the U.S. version of broadband is a far cry from these Asian fire hoses. What is most striking about the notion of a 45-megabit Internet Protocol connection is the overwhelming universality of such an incredibly high-speed packet-based conduit. Into it melt all forms of media and communications: voice, data, video and any other application or service you might imagine. There is no need to consider bringing multiple connections or service providers into your home, for this network can do everything you need and more. Early signs in Japan are consistent with this notion. Yahoo BB announced a stunning 80 percent attachment rate on its IP-based phone service. It is now promoting an IP-based set-top box for the ultimate in personalized television. One cannot help but wonder if we are headed for a similar fate in the United States -- a single super high-speed pipe into the home that carries all media forms over a simple, standard IP connection. [.....] Additionally, the many state municipalities around the country are eager to place their hands on voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. A poorly executed policy could in fact "increase" the long-term pricing on voice services for all users. For example, would you really tax a free service? The regulators are supposedly looking after the best interest of consumers, but it is hard for them not to look after their own longevity as well. [Comment: I am so glad to see that I'm not the only one who's had this thought. Many state Public Utility Commissions have a division entirely dedicated to regulating telephone service, and if traditional telephone service as we know it goes away, they may be left with nothing to regulate -- unless, of course, the states decide that there is a need for some quality-of-service standards for broadband providers that need enforcement. I don't think that's at all an unrealistic scenario; as broadband becomes more important in our lives state officials may well demand accountability for service outages, particularly if no truly viable competition develops among broadband providers in most areas of a state. People will have the essentially the same types of complaints they have about phone service - service outages, billing issues, what constitutes a minimal quality of service - and I fully expect that as state regulators are relieved of their role as the overseers of voice traffic, in at least some states they may take on the larger role of regulating broadband providers. I can almost certainly see a call for regulation if broadband providers deliberately attempt to "break" the IP network in an effort to protect their video (and potentially voice) revenue streams, as is suggested later in this article. The day I can't use a VoIP provider of my choice because the cable company is deliberately messing with their packets is the day I'll be first in line calling for their heads on a platter, and if it takes state or federal regulation to make them behave, then so be it. I'm certain that not everyone share my opinion on that (particularly those in the libertarian think tanks that like to make so much noise on such issues), and whether state-level regulation would have an ultimately desirable outcome is certainly open to debate. And of course the broadband providers would fight any such attempt at regulation tooth-and-nail, but if they start messing with packets they'll bring it on themselves. Anyone, one would hope that none of the efforts we see to regulate VoIP at the state level are in reality driven by the desire of regulators to keep their jobs. One would hope that, but that's not necessarily the way I'd bet. This is an interesting article and worth reading, even if you don't agree with every point made (neither do I).] Full story at: http://news.com.com/2010-7352-5185413.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: le_prelude@yahoo.fr (simon templar) Subject: Nouvelle base de connaissances pour les PABX Alcatel Date: 6 Apr 2004 19:02:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Bonjour tout le monde, Je viens de mettre en route un site web avec une base de connaissances (en cours de creation) des switches OmniPCX 4400 et ENTREPRISE ALCATEL. J'espere que tout le monde s'en servira, et que ca nous facilitera la vie ! http://www.gadot.net En haut a gauche de la page, il y a un lien "ALCATEL". A+ ------------------------------ 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. ************************ OSU -- Oklahoma State University -- also helps with the Digest through a grant each month. Their School of Telecommunications provides an excellent opportunity to get that degree you have always wanted. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #166 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 7 14:30:00 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i37ITxS03734; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:30:00 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404071830.i37ITxS03734@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 #167 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:30:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VeriSign NetDiscovery Service Implemented by Cox Comm (VOIP News) Cable Not Planning to Tangle With Net Phone Service - Yet (VOIP News) Time Warner VoIP Details (VOIP News) Congressmen Introduce Bills to Stop States from Regulating (VOIP News) Mobile Software Ties Wi-Fi, VoIP For Free Calls (VOIP News) Obituary: Inventor of Telephone Answer Machine Dies at 92 (Friedebach) Skype's Cell Division (Eric Friedebach) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Jeff Spidle) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (lars) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Carl Navarro) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (AES/newspost) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Paul Vader) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Joseph) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Ed Clarke) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Phil Earnhardt) Re: Trouble With VOIP Sometimes Dropping Words (Hank Karl) 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: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:02:48 -0400 Subject: VeriSign NetDiscovery Services Implemented by Cox Communication Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-05-2004/0002140799&EDATE= Service Tested and Implemented in Advance of New FCC Rules to Broaden CALEA Ruling to Include VoIP and Broadband Internet Services MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., April 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN), the leading provider of critical infrastructure services for the Internet and telecommunications networks, and Cox Communications, a multi-service broadband communications company with approximately 6.6 million total customers, today announced that Cox has implemented VeriSign NetDiscovery(TM) Services to help ensure compliance of its Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)-based cable telephony services with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). Cox Communications launched its 12th telephony market in December 2003 in Roanoke, Va., and its first using VoIP technology. Eleven other Cox systems offer Cox Digital Telephone using circuit-switched technology, all CALEA-compliant since first introduced in 1997. VeriSign NetDiscovery Services, which was tested and implemented to support the Cox data network infrastructure used in VoIP deployments, assists Cox in meeting CALEA compliance through an outsourced model of service, which will minimize Cox's capital and operational expenditures. To implement the service, VeriSign worked with the VoIP network infrastructure vendors supplying to Cox and integrated the end-to-end NetDiscovery solution. Cox's announcement underscores VeriSign's commitment and ability to provide carriers and service providers with the necessary services they need to introduce integrated next-generation communications services and comply with CALEA. This announcement also marks VeriSign's first CALEA compliance implementation with a major cable provider. VeriSign will utilize its heritage in security, Internet infrastructure and telecommunications to aid cable providers via a unique managed communications services model to quickly deliver the integrated, next-generation services that wireless, cable and wireline subscribers are demanding. "VeriSign provides a full spectrum of other tools and services aimed at top-tier carriers, including NetDiscovery," said Bill Dame, director of network switch engineering at Cox Communications. "Cox has always considered CALEA compliance as a top priority in our circuit switched markets, and realized that CALEA in new markets served by VoIP would be a challenge. VeriSign came in with a total solution, using the same equipment we had evaluated, and made it easy and cost effective." Vernon Irvin, executive vice president of VeriSign Communications Services, said: "Being the leader in managed security services, VeriSign is delivering a service via its NetDiscovery platform to Cox Communications in order to assist them with CALEA compliance. VeriSign can help all types of service providers meet their legal obligations both securely and at a low cost." CALEA requires carriers to assist Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) in lawfully authorized surveillance. To comply, carriers often have to purchase dedicated hardware, have trained operation staff and are called upon to maintain connectivity with a variety of LEAs. VeriSign's NetDiscovery Service greatly streamlines the CALEA compliance requirements and eliminates the need to purchase costly equipment. The service offers a secure and streamlined administration, along with a multitude of connectivity options that make it easy to fulfill lawful interception mandates and take the burden and expense of compliance out of a service provider's hands. By outsourcing the service to VeriSign, service providers maintain continuous, hassle-free compliance. Greg Caressi, vice president of Frost & Sullivan said: "It used to be that to satisfy regulations, a carrier had to do it themselves. VeriSign's NetDiscovery Service offers carriers a safe, secure and trusted way to reach CALEA compliance without having to utilize a great deal of internal resources." For more information on VeriSign's NetDiscovery http://www.verisign.com/telecom/products/network/netDiscovery.html About VeriSign VeriSign, Inc., delivers critical infrastructure services that make the Internet and telecommunications networks more intelligent, reliable and secure. Every day VeriSign helps thousands of businesses and millions of consumers connect, communicate, and transact with confidence. Additional news and information about the company is available at http://www.verisign.com . SOURCE VeriSign, Inc. Web Site: http://www.verisign.com How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:03:47 -0400 Subject: Cable not Planning to Tangle With Net Phone Service - Yet Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1081318358280250.xml The cable industry is not thrilled companies such as Vonage and AT&T are trying to sell Internet phone service to its high-speed data customers. But would cable operators try to use technology to block out interlopers? It's feasible, but not likely, according to a recent research report by Merrill Lynch. Big Cable only has to look back at the example of Excite@Home, which was supposed to be a pumped-up version of America Online. Customers had to pay for a package that included fast online access and homegrown content from Excite@Home. But people who preferred chat rooms and channel offerings from AOL, or a stripped-down connection to the Web, hated the idea of paying extra for something they didn't want. Wireless gains ground in long-distance race If you want to know the state of the long-distance industry, look no further than a recent consumer survey by the Yankee Group. The Boston-based consulting group found wireless customers make 43 percent of their long-distance calls on their mobile phones. That's bad news for companies such as AT&T, MCI or Sprint, even though they all sell wholesale long- distance service to wireless carriers. The reason: Profit margins for wholesale contracts are a lot smaller than selling service to Aunt Tilly in Tulsa. The survey found 50 percent of households with wireless subscribers have significantly reduced the use of their home phones in favor of cell phones. Phone offerings by cable companies are expected to cut into traditional calling plans even more. "These trends have precipitated the death of distance and eventually will result in the death of the minute as the measure of the market," Katie Griffin, a Yankee Group analyst, said in a statement. Translation: Get used to flat- rate pricing schemes the wireless industry pioneered. Full story at: http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1081318358280250.xml ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:19:05 -0400 Subject: Time Warner VoIP Details Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41858 Several markets ready for launch Written by Karl Bode According to sources, Time Warner's VoIP launch is very close, with several markets ready to go live in May. Time Warner has spent the past year making the rounds, trying to get regulatory approval for the upcoming launch of its "digital phone" service in its 31 markets - and beyond. Full story at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41858 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 13:33:51 -0400 Subject: Congressmen Introduce Bills to Stop States from Regulating, Taxing Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/44h682359.html Rep. Chip Pickering (R.-Miss.) and Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) on Friday introduced bills that would prohibit states from imposing taxes and fees on Internet-based phone service and place the technology under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Among other provisions, the Senate bill states the FCC shall ensure VoIP providers contribute to the USF either directly or indirectly based on a flat fee; however, the regulator can make exemptions. The House bill is less specific, stipulating the commission may put in place a contribution method based on the assignment of telephone numbers or other methodologies. The bills also includes provisions related to 911 emergency services, law enforcement's ability to monitor calls, telephone access for disabled people and improving the reliability of the technology. Full story at: http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/44h682359.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:54:55 -0400 Subject: Mobile Software Ties Wi-Fi, VoIP For Free Calls Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040406S0002 By W. David Gardner, TechWeb News A new way to merge two disruptive technologies--Internet phoning and Wi-Fi--was introduced Tuesday, in the form of mobile-PDA software from Skype Technologies. Called PocketSkype, the free software enables users of Microsoft PocketPC-based handhelds to connect to Wi-Fi access points to make free VoIP calls. "PocketSkype is essentially the same core as our desktop software," said Niklas Zeenstrom, CEO and co-founder of the Stockholm-based Skype, in an interview. "The user interface is different." PDA manufacturers have noted the possibilities of taking advantage of VoIP and Wi-Fi technologies in one simple hardware package, and some firms have even begun manufacturing such devices. However, there has been a gap -- no enabling software. Zeenstrom said he created PocketSkype to fill that gap. Full story at: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040406S0002 ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Obituary: Inventor of Telephone Answering Machine Dies at 92 Date: 6 Apr 2004 19:33:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Associated Press, April 5, 2004 MILWAUKEE -- Joseph James Zimmermann Jr., who invented the telephone answering machine in 1948 and patented it a year later, has died at the age of 92. Zimmerman died last Wednesday, and funeral services were scheduled today, April 7, at St. Mary's Church in suburban Elm Grove. Zimmermann said in a 1949 interview with the Milwaukee Journal that he got the idea for the device as the owner of an air conditioning and heating company when he could not afford to hire a secretary to take calls when he was out of the office. The first machine, the Electronic Secretary Model R1, was made up of a box that lifted the telephone receiver from its cradle when the phone rang, a box containing a control panel with a 78 rpm record player inside that played a recorded greeting and a wire recorder on top of the second box for recording a series of 30-second messages. http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4705283.html Eric Friedebach /Old enough to remember when MTV played music videos/ ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Skype's Cell Division Date: 6 Apr 2004 19:37:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 04.06.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - By threatening to make extravagant phone bills a distant memory, voice-over-Internet Protocol technology, also known as VoIP, has become the most ominous cloud hanging over the future of traditional phone companies. In recent months, giants like AT&T and Verizon Communications have responded to its threat by launching their own discount VoIP services. Meanwhile, cell phone carriers thought they were relatively safe. That assumption may yet turn out to be wrong: Skype, a company founded by the developers of the file-sharing service Kazaa, announced this morning that it is bringing the disruptive technology to handheld devices. "We knew it was just a matter of time before VoIP services came to mobile devices," says Jane Zweig, chief executive of the Shosteck Group, a telecom research firm. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/04/06/cx_al_0406skype.html Eric Friedebach /Old enough to remember when MTV played music videos/ ------------------------------ From: Jeff Spidle Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 21:41:55 -0500 Check Radio Shack Part 279-402 or 279-432 Splits a 2 line jack into line 1, line 1&2, line 2 outputs. Alex wrote in message news:telecom23.166.1@telecom-digest.org: > Hi all, > Many years ago, I used to find the RJ11 splitters that seperated the > two pairs of lines into Line 1 and Line 2 for dual-line phone jacks. > Now'days, I'm having trouble locating one. I've even talked to folks > from SBC and they say the splitters aren't common anymore and are hard > to find. > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these > splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line > is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of > lines. > Thanks in advance. > Alex. ------------------------------ From: lars Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:30:52 -0400 Organization: Alstown Reply-To: lars http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F008%5F008%5F001%5F004&product%5Fid=279%2D402 Radio Shack 279-402 line 1-2 in line 1, line 2, and line 1-2 out All rj11 connectors. Alan Larsson KC2GOC / NYSING-413 http://www.alstown.com Webmaster, Genesee & Ontario Model-N-Gineers Ntrak http://www.ggw.org/gno ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:51:14 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:10:07 -0500, Alex wrote: > Hi all, > Many years ago, I used to find the RJ11 splitters that seperated the > two pairs of lines into Line 1 and Line 2 for dual-line phone jacks. > Now'days, I'm having trouble locating one. I've even talked to folks > from SBC and they say the splitters aren't common anymore and are hard > to find. > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these > splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line > is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of > lines. The part you're looking for is an SE-267B. Here's the reference from Suttle: http://www.suttleonline.com/trad_adapters_modular.html#tadapters Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:32:41 -0700 In article , Alex wrote: > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these > splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line > is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of > lines. Radio Shack or Fry's? ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:51:29 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations This is a cheap item you can pick up at any Radio Shack. It looks exactly like a one-line splitter though, so make sure you pick up the right item. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:00:38 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:10:07 -0500, Alex wrote: > Hi all, > Many years ago, I used to find the RJ11 splitters that seperated the > two pairs of lines into Line 1 and Line 2 for dual-line phone jacks. > Now'days, I'm having trouble locating one. I've even talked to folks > from SBC and they say the splitters aren't common anymore and are hard > to find. > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these > splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line > is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of > lines. If you can't find it why not make one yourself? All you need is two standard jacks, a length of cable with one end having a modular "pinch" plug and the other end having spade lugs. Open the jacks and attach green/red spade lugs to the green red on one jack, take the yellow/black spade lugs and attach it to the green/red terminal on the other jack. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: 7 Apr 2004 11:31:38 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org In article , Alex wrote: (Deleted) Last time I bought one, I got it at Radio Shack. One plug in, three sockets out -- pair one, pair two and both pairs (pass thru). ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:58:25 -0600 Organization: Kaos OnLine Coalition They're right in the Radio Shack catalog. Look at http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F008%5F008%5F001%5F004&product%5Fid=279%2D432 You can see the "L1" "L2" and "L1 + L2" on the image of the splitter on that page. They list it for $8.59. Or just type 3-way jack into the keyword form on www.radioshack.com There's a Mad Magazine-type joke I made up about RS. For years, these guys have used the slogan: "You've got questions. We've got answers." The real slogan is: "You've got questions. We've got radios." > Alex. --phil ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Trouble With VOIP Sometimes Dropping Words Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:59:38 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:06:49 -0400, Jack Decker wrote: > Pat, please conceal my e-mail address as usual. > At 03:38 PM 4/5/2004 -0400, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have discovered one thing about my >> Vonage service which is a problem. Even though it usually does okay, I >> get the dropped words problem whenever I am trying to run too many >> jobs at once here. Left alone on the cable, Vonage seems to do very >> well. But usually I am running my weather station >> http://weatherforecast.n3.net or http://weatherforecast.us.tf and my >> computer room live camera http://patricktownson.us.tf most of the >> time. Both of these services take .jpg images and transfer them to my >> California web site using FTP (under their alias 'n3.net' and 'us.tf' >> names) every fifteen seconds or so. Often times also I am using a >> secure form of telnet or rlogin to work on this Digest at MIT. >> Whenever weather or the office cam decide it is time to do a transfer >> via FTP I can count on the words on Vonage getting lost. I can set my >> watch by it, every fifteen seconds or so. They are on other machines, >> (the Windows 98 and Windows 95 computers) but still using the same >> NetGear router and cable modem. I wish there was a way that Vonage >> could take priority and slow down or automatically stop the other >> jobs when it was talking. Pat, do you have the Cisco ATA186 or the Motorola TA that Vonage supplies? If you have the Motorola TA, and you hook it between your cable modem and your router, it should enforce QOS (that is, it will take priority as per your wish). If you have the Cisco TA, see if Vonage will swap it for the Motorola TA. If you're really interested in some details of how good your VoIP connection is, try going to www.testyourvoip.com and running the test, try to do it so the other traffic coming out of your PC happens in the middle of a test. www.voiptroubleshooter.com also offers a lot of advice. >> I asked Mike Flood, general manager of Cable One here in Independence >> about this. His answer was I need a 'bigger pipe', which of course he >> said he could sell me. I now have what he termed 'half size' (or some >> words like that) with 500 K and he said I should get a 'full size >> pipe'. (More money of course). Does that make sense to anyone? I >> guess the full size is twice the 500 K. PAT] > Pat, if you have 500K upload speed that should be more than adequate, > since even G.711 (the highest bandwidth protocol) only uses about 90K. > The problem is that your other applications are managing to totally > saturate your outgoing bandwidth. First check to see if there's any > way to throttle the software itself - some FTP software will let you > throttle uploads, but many other kinds of software don't have that > feature. > Beyond that, you may find some helpful ideas at these pages on > BroadbandReports.com: > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41603 > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/38267 > http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9751570~mode=flat > Somewhere in those three pages, or one of the pages linked from them, > you should be able to find a way to resolve your problem. > Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a Cisco ATA-186 and there is *no way* to run it to the head of the line, when used with (either) a Linksys router or (my present) NetGear router. The Cisco simply has to take a position on the router, or maybe I could get another router or 'cable splitter' or something to shove it into the cable modem *first* then run the line to the NetGear with everything else (less the ATA). Should I conclude from what you are saying, that the Motorola TA has that condition as part of it, i.e. it feeds into the cable, then also feeds 'the other way' not only to the telephone instrument but also allows a 'pass through' to a router from there? That would be ideal, if all I had to do was swap TA boxes and re-arrange some wiring. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ OSU -- Oklahoma State University -- also helps with the Digest through a grant each month. Their School of Telecommunications provides an excellent opportunity to get that degree you have always wanted. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #167 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 7 16:56:24 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i37KuOl10960; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:56:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:56:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404072056.i37KuOl10960@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 #168 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:55:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Cybersquatters Beware", Chantelle Newhook (Rob Slade) SS7 MSU and SIF (marzi) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (Jack Hamilton) Re: Skype is Not Hype (Jack Hamilton) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (DevilsPGD) Re: Voiceglo Chooses Terremark's NAP of the Americas (Len S.) Re: Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed (Tony P.) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Leighton) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Wesrock) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (J Kelly) Re: Radio Signals (Carl Moore) ACLU Suit (was Re: David Nelson) (Carl Moore) Advice on Choice of Career (Chris Kinney) MS in Telecommunications Management Program, Oklahoma State (Boyington) User Request for PTSN Information (Charles Gray) Norvergence in the News. Again? Yes Again! (Benjamin) 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:19:09 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Cybersquatters Beware", Chantelle MacDonald Newhook BKCYBSQT.RVW 20031118 "Cybersquatters Beware", Chantelle MacDonald Newhook, 2002, 0-07-090579-7, U$19.95/C$24.99 %A Chantelle MacDonald Newhook chantelle@disputewinners.com %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 2002 %G 0-07-090579-7 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$19.95/C$24.99 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070905797/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070905797/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070905797/robsladesin03-20 %P 290 p. %T "Cybersquatters Beware" The introduction talks about branding, and the fact that companies can do it very inexpensively on the Internet. Chapter one explains trademarks, as well as the domain name system. The Uniform Domain name dispute Resolution Process (UDRP) is outlined in chapter two (along with other similar mechanisms), and key elements necessary to winning a dispute are noted. Successive chapters present a number of cases involving different types of principals and principles: companies (in three), institutions and individuals (in four), celebrities (five), sex (six), complaints and comments (in seven), generic names (eight), and an amalgam, in chapter nine, of airlines, banks, wineries, and other companies that have not prepared for the disputes. Chapter ten deals with the process of going to court with domain name disputes. Trends and indications in decisions are reviewed in chapter eleven. The book does provide a good compilation of advice on a complex and poorly understood topic. There is one proviso: the text frequently makes the point that the race is not always to the justified, nor the legal battle to the prepared. However, as current wisdom has it, the prepared side is the one to bet on. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKCYBSQT.RVW 20031118 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu Where are we going? And why are we in this hand basket? http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: maurizio_marzotti@yahoo.it (marzi) Subject: SS7 MSU and SIF Date: 7 Apr 2004 06:56:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi All, I'm not so much used to SS7. I've a following question: If the number of MSU tx or RX is zero in a quarter, how many sif/sio can I expect into the same period? I suppose zero, is it correct? Thanks in advance, Maurizio ------------------------------ From: Jack Hamilton Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:19:54 -0700 Organization: Copyright (c) 2004 by Jack Hamilton. Reply-To: jfh@acm.org johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> Cell phone subscribers in the state now exceed the number of Verizon >> telephone lines running into Maine homes, according to spokesman >> Peter Reilly. > Verizon is not the only landline telco in Maine. There are plenty of > independents. I would be surprised if there were more cell phones > than landlines, since in large parts of rural Maine, your cell phone > just plain doesn't work. But rural areas, by definition, are not heavily populated, so there wouldn't be many landlines in rural Maine either. Cell phone access doesn't matter for tourists and visitors -- if you go somewhere there's no cell phone coverage, you can't have a landline installed in your car. Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security. And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security. Edward Gibbons ------------------------------ From: Jack Hamilton Subject: Re: Skype is Not Hype Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:25:12 -0700 Organization: Copyright (c) 2004 by Jack Hamilton. Reply-To: jfh@acm.org VOIP News wrote: > [Comment: Above and beyond the problems with Skype described in this > article, my opinion is that any service that relies on the computer's > audio circuitry will not be around for long. The reason is that for > optimal sound quality, both ends really need to use a headset - > otherwise you get audio feedback loops from speakers to microphone. > But in order to use a headset, you have to disconnect your speakers > and standalone microphone (if any) from your computer's sound system. No, you need to disconnect only the speakers. There won't be any feedback into a standalone microphone if the sound is coming through a headset. If you use a headset anyway because you want better sound than comes through the cheap speakers that came with your computer, or you don't want to disturb the neighbors, there's no expense except the microphone. > And even if you somehow work around that, if you let your computer > play streaming audio or background music while you work, you have to > shut that down every time you take a call. Which would be the polite thing to do during a call in any case. Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security. And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security. Edward Gibbons ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:12:23 GMT In message <> Alex did ramble: > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these > splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line > is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of > lines. I picked up a couple from Radio Shack a few weeks ago. Alternatively, it's fairly simple to wire your own if you have access to a cable crimping tool, or happen to see a telco employee making a service call and you have $10 you want to part with. HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken; A lifetime commitment for a pig ------------------------------ From: lens_world@www.com (Len S.) Subject: Re: Voiceglo Chooses Terremark's NAP of the Americas Date: 7 Apr 2004 02:02:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Buyer beware with Glophone ... The Glophone, webphone can be very troublesome. Tech support doesn't appear to know how to sort out problems as I've had a problem with a paid account that they have not been able to resolve - basically blocking me from using what I paid for. Non-Refundable Payments (or Donations to Glophone) The T's & C's stipulate that your payment for the service (aside from the equipment purchases) is non-refundable. I'm assuming this includes your "pre-payment" as well. If you're unsatisfied, well ... it would be nice if they thanked you for your donation. Proceed at your own risk ... and read the T's & C's better than I did (I would not have signed up if I read this). Is this another technology that won't fly because it cannot deliver? L VOIP News wrote in message news:: > http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040322005116&newsLang=en > March 22, 2004 08:30 AM US Eastern Timezone > Voiceglo Chooses Terremark's NAP of the Americas as Connectivity Hub > for Its Global VoIP Infrastructure > [Comment: One thing you will find about this list is that when I see > false and misleading statements in corporate propaganda, I will have > no hesitation to call your attention to them. Thus is the case here - > I know of at least two other providers that can be used over dial-up > connections, though I do not believe that either officially supports > them, probably because dial-up connections are sort of like Forrest > Gump's box of chocolates ... you never know what you're gonna get, > and some dial-up connections are doubtless too slow to support even > the highest compression codecs. > But, Packet8 has let it be known that their service can work over a > dial-up connection, and VoicePulse's low bandwidth setting (available > only to customers with the newer Sipura SPA-2000 adapters) would also > work over dial-up, providing the customer has enough savvy to set up > Internet Connection Sharing. So VoiceGlo's assertion in this press > release that "Among all of the proven VoIP providers, Voiceglo's > technology is the only one that permits use with dial-up connections" > is simply not a factual statement. They *may* offer somewhat better > performance over dial-up than the others, although personally I'd even > have some doubts about that, but they certainly are not the "only > one."] > Full story at: > http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040322005116&newsLang=en ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:57:15 GMT In article , tgdyar@sbcglobal.net says: > I posted this message on comp.dcom.telecom.tech with no luck so I thought > I'd try here. > My daughter lives in a very old row house in the Philadelphia area and > the inside wiring is a mess. I live in CT but on my next visit to her > I want to bring down my telephone test set and check out the inside > wiring to find out what needs fixing. She's already determined, using > the NIC, that the problem is not with the tel line coming in. > Since I'm from CT I need the local number there, nearest to 215-887 to > get the 1004 hz, miliwatt, test tone. > Contact me direct if you don't want to divulge this to the world. Why not just buy a cheap toner off of ebay? From the description you're giving I'd say this is what you're trying to accomplish, tracing of a line. Even a new one is < $50.00. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He does not even really need to do that much. Just attach a good battery or a little pocket size radio at the demarc (less the working phone line of course) then go up and down the line with a buttset or receiver listening for the radio or the battery. There is nothing sacred about the 1004 hz tone signal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:47:42 -0500 Organization: MRRP > At the end of the day, the whole batch of transactions is sent as a > "financial" to the network. There is a vast sort/merge, and the > rebatched transactions are sent on to the issuers. The net payments > are made overnight, and that's when the merchants get their money. > The blocked amounts are reinstated to the accounts, and the real > transaction amounts are deducted from each account. (It can happen > that the authorized amount and the transaction amount differ.) OK, this explains what happens when I push the close button on the credit card machine at the end of the day. -Hudson http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:58:03 EDT Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > Now that you mention it, the Bank of America isn't the Bank of America > any more, either. In 1998 it was absorbed by Nationsbank, an > aggressive east coast bank, which renamed the combined entity to Bank > of America because the name was so well known. Well, as an "east coast" bank it already had a strong presence in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, and I am sure many other states nowhere near the east coast, so while its headquarters is in Charlotte, N.C., its acquisitions had made it much more diverse. > Now Bank of America-Nationsbank is absorbing Fleet Bank, a regional > bank in the northeast which had already vacuumed up a lot of banks > in New York and New England, with the whole mess to be called Bank > of America. So the old San Francisco bank is still in there > somewhere, but there's a whole lot of other stuff as well. Didn't the name Fleet Bank cease to exist earlier this week when the acquisition was complete? That is, I think it is all now B of A. In Texas, both B of A and NationsBank had branches. When NationsBank acquired B of A (renaming itself B of A), the old B of A branches simply became Texas branches of the combined bank, no longer distinguishable separately as part of the San Francisco operation. That was probably true most places. Steven J Sobol wrote: > BTW, I thought BofA was still headquartered in SFO too, until very > recently. I learned that when they merged with NationsBank > (headquartered in Charlotte), Charlotte became the headquarters for > the merged company. NationsBank, headquarted in Charlotte, *bought* B of A, and apparently had never considered moving its headquarters. Graeme Thomas wrote: > The decision on whether to use a signature-based system or a PIN-based > system is done by the card issuer. You can have PIN-based credit > cards, or signature-based debit cards, although I admit both are rarer > than the other way around. In the U.S.A. many, probably most, banks issue a card bearing either the Visa or M.C. logo and the bank's logo. The customer can choose whether to use the signature method or the PIN method. (And the merchant can decide whether to accept such cards using the signature method. Some merchants -- led by Wal-Mart -- won an anti-trust suit against Visa and MasterCard to void the portion of the merchant contract requiring them to route all such transactions through Visa or M.C. at much higher transaction charges for the signature method.) Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have a very nice branch of Bank of America here in town, at Penn and Locust Street. The lady told me they have checking accounts at no charge for old people as long as their social security money is on direct deposit to that bank. I've thought about moving my account over there from Commerce National Bank, but Commerce is much closer to my house and has a 24 hour drive through auto teller I can use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:56:12 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:02:13 +0100, Graeme Thomas wrote: > The way it typically works is as follows. When you buy something, the > card terminal sends a AUTHREQ (authorization request) to the > merchant's acquiring institution. The message is then routed through > the appropriate network to the issuing bank, who check to see if there > are sufficient funds in the account. The amount of the transaction is > blocked in the account, which means that it's still there, but spoken > for. The acknowledgement is sent back, by the same route, to the > merchant. If everything is OK, there will be a 6-digit authorization > code on the slip. I'm curious about "blocking". Does anyone know what happens if I call a hotel and reserve a room for sometime in the future, say six months, and I use a debit card to guarantee the room, do they generally block your card for the amount of that room? Or do they not do anything with you card number until check in time. I only have a debit card and I have an aversion to using it for hotel reservations, but maybe I shouldn't be concerened about it. I have used my PayPal debit card at check-in time and they blocked 5 days worth of the room cost to it at that time. They did not unblock it when I paid the total at the end of the week, only charged the final amount. The blocked charge "falls off" the PayPal card after 10 days if it isn't finalized by the merchant. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:31:57 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Radio Signals Responding to a Nov. 2002 message: I have had cases where KYW (Philadelphia news-radio, 1060 AM) got bounced to me in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, and North Carolina. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've never heard KYW do that, but I do on rare occassion get WLS (890 AM) from Chicago here in Independence and I used to get KOA out of Denver a lot in Chicago. And when WAIT (820 AM) in Chicago used to be a daytime only station, as soon as they flipped the switch at night a station out of Toronto (CJ-something) used to boom in almost every night. Here in Independence almost nightly, in addition to KOA (Denver) we also hear some *very loud* rock station out of Calgary, Alberta. We *used to get* WGN (720 AM) out of Chicago here in Indy 24 hours it seems until the Cuban people parked on that frequency and drove them away. Now 720 AM is just heterodyne, 24 hours per day. Radio signals are funny creatures. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:52:41 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: ACLU Suit (was Re: David Nelson) I see a story today that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against the Transportation Security Administration over "no-fly" list. Among the people brought together in the suit was a 34-year-old lawyer David Nelson from Belleville, Illinois. It mentions " he's not the David Nelson the government believes is a threat", and I don't know just what threat is posed by someone called David Nelson. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor David Nelson. One of them is the son of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson; they were such good parents, I wonder where they went wrong with David or how he got in so much trouble, if that's the one the government is after. Wouldn't it be wild if the troublesome one (in the government's opinion) was not David Nelson at all, but just some guy who chose that name for an alias. People are always picking on John Smith (yes, there is such a real person, only about ten million of them) in the same way. I wonder why our government does not regard John Smith as a trouble maker also. Oh, come to think of it, I imagine they do, at least until the first Tuesday in November when 'they' get kicked out -- *on their ass* ! PAT] ------------------------------ From: chris_kinney@hotmail.com (Chris Kinney) Subject: Advice on Choice of Careers Date: 6 Apr 2004 21:16:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am considering a career in this particular field and you wonder if anyone in the group has some helpful hints or suggestions for you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well for a career in telecommunications you need to start with an education in same, and one I can strongly recommend is the Master's Degree program at Oklahoma State University. OSU is now a sponsor here at the Digest, and I am beginning now to get their stuff on line on our web site and the Digest. In a message in this issue of the Digest, Jay Boyington of OSU tells a bit about their program. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: MS in Telecommunications Management program, Oklahoma State, on From: Jay Boyington Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:48:44 -0500 Mr. Townson, You'll find the content below. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. Thanks again for your time and assistance. http://www.mstm.okstate.edu: Take the next step in your career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35 credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including data, video, and voice networks. The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning. Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at 405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at http://www.mstm.okstate.edu Jay Boyington Assistant Director MS in Telecommunications Management 102 Gundersen Hall Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-9000, Fax 405-744-7474 www.mstm.okstate.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much, Mr. Boyington, and welcome aboard. I especially appreciate the efforts of Charles Gray of your faculty connecting us together. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: User Request for PSTN Info From: Charles G Gray Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:49:20 -0500 Pat, I cc:d you on this when I first sent it, but the attachment was too big. This was in response to a request a few days back for information on the public phone network. I saw your request for info in the Telecom Digest. I teach at Oklahoma State University in the master of science in telecommunications management (MSTM) program. One of my classes is Telecommunications Industry Overview, where I give students the "50,000 foot view" - really a broad-brush approach. I have one session on the PSTN and switching. I will attach the PowerPoint slides that I use in that class for your information. If you choose to use them in any way other than personal, please credit the Okla State Univ MSTM Program, and my copyright. BTW, they are just plain black and white. I usually have some distance learning students, and lots of flashy graphics or color slows down their connections. I just try to keep it simple. Regards, Charles G. Gray Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications Oklahoma State University - Tulsa (918)594-8433 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. Gray, thanks for your offer. What I would like to do is put your pictures, charts and slides in the Telecom Archives if you wish to share them. The reason your email failed due to size was because prior to all the spam and virus attacks I used to get things of various sizes in email. MIT agreed with me to begin limiting telecom email to fifty thousand bytes to cut back on the multi-mb and multi-gig spam and viruses that were rolling in each day. Now instead, I get much spam and viruses daily but only 49,999 bytes or less long. Not so unweildy, and easier to do battle with. You have my other address, use it to get me whatever you wish to share with readers here. And thanks again for agreeing to sponsor the Digest regularly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Benjamin Subject: Norvergence in the News, Again? Yes Again! Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:41:22 -0600 I have many forums and sites, giving good and bad reports of Norvergence. I work for one of the Banks that has been financing the Matrix phone system. I am just curious about Norvergence. If you could sent me any info that would be great thank you. Benjamin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although we have had good and bad reports here in this Digest, most of the reporting has been bad news. I suggest you look in our archives http://telecom-digest.org at the 'reports' and 'technical' sections. Under the reports, look at the files on Norvergence, where there are, among other items a paper on Norvergence claiming fraud with the Matrix box. Also you may wish to look through the *recent* back issues files of this Digest (same area, see the back issues section) and scan for 'Norvergence' for a few dozen more messages in the recent past. Perhaps a careful study of our archives will help your bank detirmine how to continue with its financing plans for Norvergence. You're welcome, and please feel free to report any decisions you make, etc, if you consider it anyone's business here. If its notchur.biz that's cool also. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ OSU -- Oklahoma State University -- also helps with the Digest through a grant each month. Their School of Telecommunications provides an excellent opportunity to get that degree you have always wanted. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #168 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 7 23:58:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i383w5225318; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 23:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 23:58:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404080358.i383w5225318@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 #169 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Apr 2004 23:57:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PC Magazine Review of VoIP Services (VOIP News) Canada CRTC Initiates VoIP Hearings (VOIP News) ENUM Still Stalled in US (VOIP News) Re: User Request for PSTN Info (William Warren) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Thomas) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle (Sobol) Re: Skype is Not Hype (Chip G) Re: Obituary: Inventor of Telephone Answer Machine Dies (William Warren) Re: Radio Signals (William Warren) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (John Levine) Re: Dropped Words With VOIP (Hank Karl) IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today (Lisa Hancock) Phone Card Retail Business (C. Nelson) The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales (Monty Solomon) Last Laugh! I Did Mention Ozzie & Harriet Earlier (Carl Moore) 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: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 13:09:54 -0400 Subject: PC Magazine Review of VoIP Services Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com I think I may have mentioned this before, but we've had several new subscribers (hey, if you like this list, feel free to tell your friends and associates, we can always accommodate more readers!), and I've seen two different reminders about this article this morning. So, for those who may have missed it, PC Magazine is running a review of various VoIP services in their May, 2004 issue - but, you can also read it online: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115053,00.asp Or, if you want to read it all on a single page (not recommended if you're running at 800x600 screen resolution or lower, since it runs off the edge of the screen), use this link: http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,115053,00.asp How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 13:13:55 -0400 Subject: Canada CRTC Initiates VoIP Hearings Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040407.gtcrtc0407/BNStory/Technology/ Globe and Mail Update OTTAWA-GATINEAU, April 7 The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has provided its preliminary views on the regulatory framework applicable to voice communications services using Internet Protocol, and has initiated a proceeding to examine the regulatory requirements for the provision of these services. The commission considers that there is a need to set out its views on the regulatory regime applicable to the provision of those services. Full story at: http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040407.gtcrtc0407/BNStory/Technology/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:40:24 -0400 Subject: ENUM Still Stalled in US Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.cbronline.com/currentnews/c1ba1096a4c7819180256e6f0032d4bb By Kevin Murphy Public deployment of ENUM, the three-year-old standard for using telephone numbers over the internet, is still a way off in the US, despite the fact that many people think it will be an essential component of widespread voice over IP adoption. The US government came out in favor of accelerating ENUM plans in February 2003, but little has happened since, as the telecommunica- tions, cable and internet industries try to hammer out the details of how implementation should happen. Interested parties organized into a group called the ENUM Forum have agreed that the best way to introduce ENUM in the US would be to form a limited liability corporation, which would receive contractual authority to run ENUM from the government. But there is still disagreement over how the ENUM registries contracting with this LLC would be required to operate. The complex issue takes into account political boundaries and competition and revenue concerns. Full story at: http://www.cbronline.com/currentnews/c1ba1096a4c7819180256e6f0032d4bb ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: User Request for PSTN Info Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:27:39 GMT Charles G Gray wrote in message news:telecom23.168.15@telecom-digest.org: > I saw your request for info in the Telecom Digest. I teach at Oklahoma > State University in the master of science in telecommunications management > (MSTM) program. One of my classes is Telecommunications Industry > Overview, where I give students the "50,000 foot view" - really a > broad-brush approach. [snip] Professor Gray, Please give the group your opinions on these forward-looking questions. TIA. 1. Will VoIP become a serious alternative to circuit-switched telephony? A. If VoIP is viable, do you predict it'll be used with dedicated "telephones", or with PC's? A combination? B. If VoIP is not the future transport mechanism, what is? 2. Will the SS7 network be replaced by IP? There are tremendous savings available with the more common IP equipment replacing the SS7 routers, but telcos move at glacier-like speeds, and tend to resist change. Will their hearts melt for Cisco? 3. Do you support the Negroponte Switch, i.e., do you agree that everything now on wire will become wireless, vice versa? Are geostationary satellites a special case of the swith to a "wired" paradyme for over-the-air broadcasts? 4. What does the growth in fiber capacity mean for the traditional LECs? Will Shannon's theories about the switching vs. capacity balance be realized with the death of the "traditional" circuit-switched exchange? What will that mean to the consumer, or the businessman? 5. Will there be a backlash against the idea of "always on" connectivity that the cellular network makes possible? We've already heard of theaters jamming cellphones, but I'm more interested in your opinion of the users' reactions to having an electronic leash in their pocket all the time. Do you think that society will start to value privacy more than communication? Thank you for your time. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:05:41 +0100 From: Graeme Thomas Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle [ PAT: please delete my email address, as usual. ] In article , J Kelly writes > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 00:02:13 +0100, Graeme Thomas wrote: > I'm curious about "blocking". Does anyone know what happens if I call > a hotel and reserve a room for sometime in the future, say six months, > and I use a debit card to guarantee the room, do they generally block > your card for the amount of that room? Or do they not do anything > with you card number until check in time. I only have a debit card > and I have an aversion to using it for hotel reservations, but maybe I > shouldn't be concerened about it. I have used my PayPal debit card at > check-in time and they blocked 5 days worth of the room cost to it at > that time. They did not unblock it when I paid the total at the end of > the week, only charged the final amount. The blocked charge "falls > off" the PayPal card after 10 days if it isn't finalized by the > merchant. I believe that the hotel is only supposed to put through a nominal amount, to check that the card is valid, rather than (say) the cost of the room. It would not surprise me if some hotels tried the card for something like the full room cost. The issuing bank will remove unsatisfied authorizations after a certain time. That time is up to the bank, but Visa used to recommend 45 days (and perhaps still does). That period was determined during the old days, when payments were made from paper slips, which could take weeks to come through. The delays were particularly noticeable from foreign transactions. When the hotel finally gets around to charging you (at check-out time) any previous authorizations should get cancelled automatically. I would not be astonished were this to fail sometimes, either. A potential problem with blocked amounts comes from "pay at pump" fuel stations. They typically do an authorization for the maximum amount they'll dispense. In the UK, with my card, that's £60, or around $110. The financial transaction, at the end of the day, is only for the fuel dispensed, of course. The differences can mount up. Graeme Thomas ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:45:27 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Wesrock@aol.com: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have a very nice branch of Bank of > America here in town, at Penn and Locust Street. The lady told me they > have checking accounts at no charge for old people as long as their > social security money is on direct deposit to that bank. I've thought > about moving my account over there from Commerce National Bank, but > Commerce is much closer to my house and has a 24 hour drive through > auto teller I can use. PAT] My wife had a nasty experience years ago with the BofA branch on Seventh Street in Victorville, CA, but most of the other area branches are great, including the one in Apple Valley and the two Victorville branches that aren't on Seventh. I'm mightily impressed with the way they take care of us these days. They're huge, but at least around here, they don't act huge. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ From: Chip G Subject: Re: Skype is Not Hype Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 02:15:13 GMT Jack Hamilton wrote in message news:telecom23.168.4@telecom-digest.org: > VOIP News wrote: >> [Comment: Above and beyond the problems with Skype described in this >> article, my opinion is that any service that relies on the computer's >> audio circuitry will not be around for long. The reason is that for >> optimal sound quality, both ends really need to use a headset - >> otherwise you get audio feedback loops from speakers to microphone. >> But in order to use a headset, you have to disconnect your speakers >> and standalone microphone (if any) from your computer's sound system. > No, you need to disconnect only the speakers. There won't be any > feedback into a standalone microphone if the sound is coming through a > headset. If you use a headset anyway because you want better sound > than comes through the cheap speakers that came with your computer, or > you don't want to disturb the neighbors, there's no expense except the > microphone. >> And even if you somehow work around that, if you let your computer >> play streaming audio or background music while you work, you have to >> shut that down every time you take a call. > Which would be the polite thing to do during a call in any case. Or you could use the really cool Plantronics MX-10 (I don't work for Plantronics but do believe that they have some pretty cool and great quality stuff). The MX-10 allows you to simulataneously connect the audio jacks from your PC and the audio connection from your telephone so you can use one headset to simultaneously listen to both PC and telephone. If you want the external PC speakers too, simply use a splitter on the audio out jack from the PC. ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Obituary: Inventor of Telephone Answering Machine Dies at 92 Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:49:45 GMT Eric Friedebach wrote in message news:telecom23.167.6@telecom-digest.org: > Associated Press, April 5, 2004 > MILWAUKEE -- Joseph James Zimmermann Jr., who invented the telephone > answering machine in 1948 and patented it a year later, has died at > the age of 92. According to Jay Leno, Zimmermann's last words were "Doc! Pick up!". ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Radio Signals Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:11:09 GMT Carl Moore wrote in message news:telecom23.168.11@telecom-digest.org: > Responding to a Nov. 2002 message: I have had cases where KYW > (Philadelphia news-radio, 1060 AM) got bounced to me in Michigan, > Ohio, West Virginia, and North Carolina. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [snip] Radio signals are funny creatures. When I was the Engineer at a "sundowner" local AM station, I got a request from a group of radio buffs, asking that our station participate in a trial to see which of the members could hear us at night. Of course, a daytime station has to sign off at sundown, but there's a loophole: from Midnight to local sunrise is the "Experimental Period", when anybody can fire up even if they're only a daytime licensee. I was due for a major phone-equipment changover a couple of weeks later, which required my presence during the graveyard shift. So, I wrote back, said "Sure!", and borrowed a morse-code practice oscillator to use for ID's. The station in question had a directional array: two towers fed at different phase angles, to "protect" a station in Canada on the same frequency. The great majority of the station's power was directed westward, with a "notch" aimed at the Canadian licensee, but because the array was fed with an adjustable "phaser", i.e., an phase-shifting coil/capacitor network, I could "steer" the signal pretty much anywhere I wanted. No point in aiming it East: that was just the Atlantic. So, from Midnight to 1 AM, I aimed our signal NorthWest, from 1 AM to 2 AM, West, etc., while the telco techs ripped out their old cable entrance and "rodded" the pipe to fit a new cable that we all hoped would cure a persistent problem with RFI getting into the neighbors' phones. We got 17 "QSL" cards from the SWL enthusiasts, which must have been a large success rate, because their association sent me a copy of the newsletter in which they talked about the "phenominal" results. When it got to about 5:30 AM, I shut down, return the phaser to it's normal settings, and the AM DJ showed up in time for the 6 AM start (we had a "Pre-Sunrise Authorization"). I never told the SWL club that I'd been steering the array around the compass all night; what the hell, they felt good to get a "rare one", and I had time to kill. Radio signals may be funny creatures, but radio Engineers are funnier. Bill ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 2004 21:11:18 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Verizon is not the only landline telco in Maine. There are plenty of >> independents. I would be surprised if there were more cell phones >> than landlines, since in large parts of rural Maine, your cell phone >> just plain doesn't work. > But rural areas, by definition, are not heavily populated, so there > wouldn't be many landlines in rural Maine either. Not a whole lot, but considerably more than zero. Not all of the independents are in the boondocks either, e.g. Casco and Old Town. > Cell phone access doesn't matter for tourists and visitors -- You must know different people than I do. The ones I know depend heavily on their cell phones when travelling. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:43:14 -0400 From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Missed Words and VOIP Organization: Nine-9s Hi Pat, You wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a Cisco ATA-186 and there is > *no way* to run it to the head of the line, when used with (either) a > Linksys router or (my present) NetGear router. The Cisco simply has > to take a position on the router, or maybe I could get another router > or 'cable splitter' or something to shove it into the cable modem > *first* then run the line to the NetGear with everything else (less > the ATA). Should I conclude from what you are saying, that the > Motorola TA has that condition as part of it, i.e. it feeds into the > cable, then also feeds 'the other way' not only to the telephone > instrument but also allows a 'pass through' to a router from there? > That would be ideal, if all I had to do was swap TA boxes and > re-arrange some wiring. PAT] Yes, I suggest swapping TA boxes. The Motorola has two Ethernet ports, one goes to your cable modem, the other to your router. I don't think that putting the Cisco ATA before your router will do much good, even if you could get two IP addresses from your ISP (one for the router, the other for the Cisco ATA.) See http://www.vonage.com/small_business/installation_multiple.php Also see http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/vt1000v/ Hank Karl Eastern Regional Manager www.Nine-9s.com +1 (203)207-0047 (v) Hank.Karl@Nine-9s.com +1 (215)243-7320 (f) email my cellphone: page.Hank.Karl.2@Nine-9s.com Representing: http://www.telchemy.com/ VQmon Voice over IP Quality Monitoring software http://www.telesoft-intl.com/ ISDN, T1 RBS, E1 R2 CAS, Frame Relay, ML-PPP, X.25, http://www.agoralabs.com/ elemedia(tm) H.323, Video Codecs, and Audio Codecs http://www.tntss.com/ dynamicsoft(tm) SIP [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I do not intend to even ask for a second IP address just to service the Vonage phone, since that would cost me another fifty dollars per month, or more than double the effective cost of my Vonage phone, and Cable One would not accept 'next month free' coupons from Vonage, nor do they issue such things on their own. If I find anyway in the various links which were given here a couple issues ago about 'throttling' the other software when Vonage wants to be there, or if somehow moving the ATA to the head of the line makes a difference (like you, I cannot really imagine it would unless the other things can be slowed down temporarily), then I will do that. It is very rare I actually get incoming calls on Vonage, and when I am going to make outgoing calls I can reach over to the Win 98 and Win 95 and slow them down manually. Maybe I can get some sort of 'cable splitter' (the Motorola TA perhaps?) and maybe the other programs, while they splash and walk all over the internal LAN would not do so on the cable itself. I really dunno now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today Date: 7 Apr 2004 13:23:39 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com It was 40 years ago today (4/7/64) that IBM announced its System/360 line of mainframe computers, introducing an architecture still used today and breaking new ground. S/360 was built with the idea of teleprocessing and soon it was used for considerable data communication. The Bell System's had a lot of business from this, both dial-up and private lines. I don't think S/360's precedessors, such as the 7090, did much teleprocessing except in very specialized circumstances. The S/360 architecture of channels and interupts worked well with teleprocessing requirements. The growth of S/360 fueled Bell System work in modems and data transmission. Today we take all the following for granted, but it was a major technological and software achievement for IBM to achieve the following features in 1964. The success of S/360 and its successors in the marketplace made computers a commonplace item in industry and government. The principles of its architecture and operating system, described below, were included in the PC. S/360 had several advantages: 1) A uniform machine for both science and business applications. Science/engineering requires high speed numeric processing, typically using fixed binary words. Business requires character manipulation, typically using single alpha-numeric characters grouped in varying lengths. Companies could now use a single machine to do both kinds of work efficiently. 2) A uniform machine for both large and small applications. To keep hardware costs down, small machines had limited storage addressing and command sets. The architecture of S/360 made it possible for economical small machines to be sold that were compatible with large machines. This meant as customers grew and required more powerful computers, they need not rewrite their applications. 3) Hardware emulation of earlier computers. This allowed customers to continue using older applications until they got around to converting them. (Many never bothered to convert). The use of hardware (microcode) emulation allowed the old applications to run faster on the new machine without change. 4) Multi-tasking. Computer CPUs were extremely fast, much faster than mechanical printers, disks, and tapes. S/360 allowed for several programs to run at the same time, making more efficient use of the machine's full resources. For example, on-line programs could run while batch jobs were running. Multi-tasking required a sophisticated hardware approach to keeping applications separate and serviced. 5) A sophisticated operating system: While earlier machines had some control programs, S/360 had sophisticated support services. Simple machines had none. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember when Amoco credit card phased out their manual accounting operation and went with S-360 in 1964 or so. Geeze, forty years ago ... :( PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Phone Card Retail Business From: C. Nelson Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 20:47:07 GMT I am trying to setup my own business website for selling international/domestic prepaid phone cards. It will work like this: User enters the name of the country he/she wants to call and this site give all bunch of phone card plans and then user enters Credit card information to buy the card. In return this site give 1-800 number and a unique account number/pin number to make a call. This unique nubmer expires after certain minutes of call and user has to buy online again to make more calls. from what I understand there are consolidators or wholesale companies through which all the big and small telecommunication companies sell their prepaid calling cards. They are not going to sell cards to somebody like me who is retailing $50,000 worth of cards in a month. I am trying to find the list of these consolidators or wholesale companies. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 23:15:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales - An Empirical Analysis Felix Oberholzer Harvard Business School Koleman Strumpf UNC Chapel Hill March 2004 Abstract A longstanding economic question is the appropriate level of protection for intellectual property. The Internet has drastically lowered the cost of copying information goods and provides a natural crucible to assess the implications of reduced protection. We consider the specific case of file sharing and its effect on the legal sales of music. A dataset containing 0.01% of the world's downloads is matched to U.S. sales data for a large number of albums. To establish causality, downloads are instrumented using technical features related to file sharing, such as network congestion or song length, as well as international school holidays. Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales. ... http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:20:21 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Last Laugh! I Did Mention Ozzie and Harriet Earlier You put in a bracketed Editor's Note in the message I sent about ACLU Suit. An earlier message from me mentioned that David Nelson (son of Ozzie & Harriet) was indeed stopped, then recognized and allowed to proceed. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, Carl, I know you did, which is what inspired me to think of him when I gave my response. Poor David Nelson. I guess his mother would remember him as the black sheep in the family, if that was his real name. Probably most of the mothers of David Nelson are wondering where they went wrong in his upbringing. I guess all we can do is keep our fingers crossed and hope this long nightmare will end on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, when 'they' get unceremoniously kicked out *on their ass!* We should only hope. But things are looking pretty grim. It is very rare that someone seated is removed but it has happened. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ OSU -- Oklahoma State University -- also helps with the Digest through a grant each month. Their School of Telecommunications provides an excellent opportunity to get that degree you have always wanted. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #169 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 8 14:24:57 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i38IOvm03990; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:24:57 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404081824.i38IOvm03990@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 #170 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:25:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Yahoo! Reports First Quarter 2004 Financial Results (Monty Solomon) US Cable Ruling Stay Sought While High Court Mulls (Monty Solomon) Nielsen Bows to Pressure, Delays 'People Meters' (Monty Solomon) How the Government Helped Build America's Media Might (Monty Solomon) Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask Expert (Monty Solomon) Sununu Issues Remarks on VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004 (VOIP News) FCC Urged to Keep VoIP Regulation-Free (VOIP News} VON 2004 Draws Near Record Attendance (VOIP News) CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (VOIP News) Skype's Cell Division (VOIP News) Re: Skype is Not Hype (Jack Decker) Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (Chainsman) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (Joe Wineburgh) Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Hassle (Kaminsky) Re: Phone Card Retail Business (Ray Normandeau) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Michael D. Sullivan) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:24:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Yahoo! Reports First Quarter 2004 Financial Results SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 7, 2004-- Company Posts Revenues of $758 Million, Operating Income of $132 Million, Operating Income Before Depreciation and Amortization of $211 Million "Yahoo!'s performance surpassed even our high expectations, delivering the most successful quarter in the Company's history," said Terry Semel, chairman and chief executive officer, Yahoo!. "With our products more popular than ever before, we have experienced success across our entire business including strong growth in our fee-based and marketing services." -- Revenues were $758 million in the first quarter of 2004, compared to $283 million in the same period of 2003. -- Revenues excluding traffic acquisition costs ("TAC") were $550 million in the first quarter of 2004, compared to $283 million for the same period of 2003. -- Gross profit for the first quarter of 2004 was $476 million, compared to $240 million for the same period of 2003. -- Operating income for the first quarter of 2004 was $132 million, compared to $55 million for the same period of 2003. -- Operating income before depreciation and amortization for the first quarter of 2004 was $211 million, compared to $85 million for the same period of 2003. -- Cash flow from operating activities for the first quarter of 2004 was $236 million, compared to $99 million for the same period of 2003. -- Free cash flow for the first quarter of 2004 was $197 million, compared to $78 million for the same period of 2003. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41032261 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:33:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: US Cable Ruling Stay Sought While High Court Mulls WASHINGTON, April 6 (Reuters) - Cable operators said on Tuesday they were seeking to suspend a ruling that would subject their Internet offerings to extensive regulation while they take their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week a U.S. appeals court refused to reconsider its decision that regulators mistakenly insulated cable companies that offer high-speed Internet from regulations that could force them to offer a choice of Internet providers. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco had ruled in October that the Federal Communications Commission should have classified cable broadband as a telecommunications service instead of an information service. On Tuesday, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and several cable operators asked the appeals court to stay its decision, due to go into effect Wednesday, until the high court decides if it will hear the appeal. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41024127 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:35:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nielsen Bows to Pressure, Delays 'People Meters' By Kenneth Li NEW YORK, April 6 (Reuters) - Nielsen Media Research on Tuesday postponed the launch of its "people meter" viewer-tracking system, bowing to intense political pressure and what it said were threats from global media conglomerate News Corp. (AUS:NCP) (NYSE:NWS). The launch of the electronic system to monitor local TV watching had been set for this week, but Nielsen said it would delay the rollout until June 3 and in the meantime would seek to address concerns that the system undercounts minority audiences. Nielsen, a New York-based unit of Dutch market research company VNU (AMS:VNUN), is introducing the new method of measuring viewership in local TV markets to replace its traditional method of having viewers keep a paper diary of the shows they watch. News Corp., which controls Fox Television Stations, DirecTV satellite service and 20th Century Fox movie studio, complained in March that the new system would undercount minorities. One of Fox TV's strengths is a lineup of programs that attract black and urban audiences. Early results from tests in February of a smaller sample of homes showed staggering drops for some shows popular with black viewers. "The Parkers" on the UPN network, which is carried by Fox-owned stations, fell by 62 percent. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41025714 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:34:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: How the Government Helped Build America's Media Might BOOKS SPHERES OF INFLUENCE by NICHOLAS LEMANN The New Yorker Issue of 2004-04-12 When did the press become the media? It seems to have happened sometime during the last generation-long enough ago, anyway, for us to have forgotten that "media" is plural. But people who use "the media" as a more encompassing term for "the press" (because it includes broadcast journalism, too) may find it hard to get used to the even more encompassing way it's used by scholars of communications: for them, it takes in just about any channel through which information is transmitted. As you're reading this, you are probably near a telephone, a television set, a computer hooked up to the Internet, a radio, a pager, a mailbox. Some of those things receive and some can also send; some are meant for person-to-person communication and some for interacting with institutions. They're all forms of media. In order to overcome ingrained habits of thought, suppose we remove all ideas about journalism from our minds -- don't worry, we'll reinstall them later -- and then contemplate the media. We immediately start to think about those machines whose wondrous inventors -- Samuel F. B. Morse and Alexander Graham Bell and Guglielmo Marconi -- we all learned about as schoolchildren. But the technology picture is still too simple, so let's delete the machines from our minds, too. What's left? The media start to look like an array of political, economic, and social arrangements, each of which, in a different way, turns people into a public. This is the perspective that the Princeton sociologist Paul Starr forces on us in his ambitious new book, "The Creation of the Media: The Political Origins of Mass Communications" (Basic; $27.50). Starr, who has a practical acquaintance with the subject as co-founder of the liberal monthly The American Prospect (and whom I know professionally), has roamed through a vast scholarly literature to produce a history that stretches from 1600 to 1941. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?040412crbo_books ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:43:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask an Expert By Lisa Baertlein SAN FRANCISCO, April 7 (Reuters) - When you search the Web, do you find lots of information, but not the answer to your question? If so, you're not alone. Without a doubt, it has gotten much easier to tease the answers you seek from the vast reaches of the Internet, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. For example, new local-search features on the major engines run by Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) make it much easier for people to find pertinent information about their favorite neighborhood restaurant. Still, users must know to narrow local searches by plugging in the restaurant name along with a ZIP code or city and state. While such searches often turn up less irrelevant noise than in the past, they can still be clunky -- and at times deliver results about restaurants thousands of miles away. So how effective is Web searching? - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41030028 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:29:23 -0400 Subject: Sununu Issues Remarks on VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004 Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.politicsnh.com/press_releases/2004/April/4_6sun.shtml WASHINGTON, DC United States Senator John Sununu (R-NH) gave the following remarks on the floor of the United States Senate on April 6, 2004, regarding his recently introduced legislation entitled 'The VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004' (S. 2281): "Madam President, I rise to speak today on legislation I introduced this week called the VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004. This is legislation that deals with the issue of voice communications sent using Internet protocol that many Members of this body may not be familiar with or may not have heard a great deal about; but it is a new technology that takes advantage of the growing broadband networks that are in place in this country to send voice messages, much the same as one might send an e-mail or an instant message. It is a growing area of technology and innovation, but it is one where there is not a very clear path regarding regulatory and taxing jurisdiction, and there are not a lot of laws on the books that clearly address this new technology. "In order to encourage continued investment in and continued use of this application and this system for sending voice traffic, and in order to make sure consumers continue to have the benefits of lower costs, new features, and better service that is the potential of this technology, I have introduced legislation this week. "First and foremost, S. 2281 declares this is a technology that uses national and global broadband data networks, the Internet, that we have all read and heard so much about by this point in time. It recognizes these are international networks, global networks, and therefore we should have Federal jurisdiction in this area. "Second, it takes the step of preempting States from regulating in this area, the area related to voice-over-Internet-protocol applications, because what we do not need is a patchwork of 50 different sets of regulations that would stifle the innovation, the investment, and the productivity we all hope will come from this technology. "Even worse, the regulations some States have already begun to try to apply are not regulations developed for the Internet, broadband, or a voice-over-Internet-protocol application. They are really designed for a copper wire circuit switch telephone network that was invented 100 years ago and for which most of these State regulations were developed in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. It is an outdated system and we should not be trying to force old regulatory structures on this new technology. "Third, the VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004 that I have introduced will clarify the definition for information services, for VOIP applications, in a way that can be easily understood given new and emerging technologies. "I was not in Congress at the time, but Congress wrote the 1996 Telecommunications Act that talked about information services and telecommunications. Quite frankly, it did not envision these kinds of voice applications being offered over the public Internet or over private networks. So as a result, we have had lawsuits, not surprisingly. In America, if one is unsure of what is happening, if one does not like the law, get a lawyer and sue, but we have had lawsuits because of the lack of clarity in some of these definitions. My bill would clarify the definition of voice-over- Internet-protocol. It states clearly what it is and what it is not from a regulatory perspective, and then treats it much like we would any other information service that uses Internet protocol, whether it is an e-mail, an instant message, or sending other data over the Internet . "This bill does address a lot of key concerns regarding telecommunications and the old telephone circuit switch telephone network. The bill makes sure that voice-over-Internet -protocol providers participate in existing Federal universal service programs. In other areas, such as E-911 emergency calling, and disability access, the bill calls for an industry group to work out the implementation of these important features for the new technology. S. 2281 will make sure we do not apply the old access charges to this new technology. We put forward a requirement for the FCC to work out a new system for intercarrier compensation and, of course, we recognize law enforcement will need access to these new voice-over-Internet-protocol applications and state it has to be the same or better access but no less than the access available for information services that currently exist today. "Finally, the bill protects consumers by ensuring that this new service won't be taxed at the State level. Everyone knows the more you tax something, the less you get. If you want to discourage investment, innovation, and capital from moving into important new services like this, then raise the taxes and discourage that investment. From my perspective, this would be the wrong direction. "I think this bill provides for enormous opportunity for consumers, including robust features and functions, more options, and lower prices. "It is important to note that we have narrowly tailored this bill to deal with the voice-over-Internet-protocol applications. It should be clear that is not an effort to rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act. "I urge my colleagues to take a look at the legislation and step forward. Let me know your views and thoughts. We are likely to have hearings on this bill in the Commerce Committee in the coming months. I look forward to a vigorous and substantive debate." How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:34:48 -0400 Subject: FCC Urged to Keep VoIP Regulation-free Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5186747.html By Declan McCullagh CNET News.com Dozens of conservative and lower-tax advocacy groups on Wednesday urged the Federal Communications Commission to protect Internet telephone services from crushing regulations. In a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, the organizations asked him to make sure that the weighty quilt of regulations blanketing traditional phone services will not apply to fledgling voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) companies. "We urge the commission to send a clear signal of forbearance on new taxation and regulation," said the letter's 34 signers, which included many groups that are influential within the Republican Party. Among the signers are the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Republicans United for Tax Relief, and the Family Research Council. Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5186747.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:58:31 -0400 Subject: Spring VON 2004 Draws Near Record Attendance Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-07-2004/0002148002&EDATE= 3,500 Participants Pack Sold-Out Exhibit Hall to Discuss Explosive Developments in VoIP; Several Major Corporate VoIP Products Announced MELVILLE, N.Y., April 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Pulver.com announced today that the Spring VON 2004 Conference, held from March 28 - April 1 in Santa Clara, CA, was an enormous success, and the largest VON Conference of the post 9/11 era, a reflection of the rapid-fire developments in the industry during the past year. The sold-out exhibit hall featured 130 exhibitors (a 40 percent increase over last year) and the 3,500 participants from over 950 companies and 30 different countries was double last year's total. "Spring VON proved that Voice on the Net is here to stay -- for consumers, for businesses, for vendors, for service providers, for capital markets and for innovators," said Jeff Pulver, CEO of pulver.com. "The buzz around the conference was so loud you needed earplugs." The VON Conference has become the premier IP Communications event in the country, a distinction echoed by the fact that dozens of the 950 companies in attendance -- large and small -- chose to unveil significant news and product announcements at the show. Highlights include: * AT&T announced that it was launching its residential VoIP phone service, AT&T CallVantage Service, which provides the residents of Texas with innovative broadband phone service. * Level 3 Communications announced that it was launching two new residential VoIP services to more than 300 of the largest markets in the U.S. by the end of 2004. * Microsoft announced upcoming VoIP features for Windows(R) CE 5.0 and that leading vendors are delivering a wide variety of VoIP-based client devices and services running the Windows CE operating system. * Pulver.com and Peer 1 Network announced the VoIP Acceleration Project, a joint venture that will provide assistance to start-up companies in the VoIP industry. * Sylantro Systems Corporation announced the deployment of the first hosted communications offering that allows service providers to address the consumer VoIP market and the business IP Centrex market through the same proven, carrier-class platform. The tremendous interest surrounding the event coincided with the industry's ongoing maturation and increased attention from regulators, traditional phone service providers, cable companies, Wall Street and Congress. Spring VON 2004 effectively brought all of these stakeholders together to discuss, explore and debate the industry's crucial issues, as well as offer speakers and attendees a unique opportunity to network with one another and demonstrate new products and services. "The IP Communications industry understands that the tremendous innovations underway pose important and difficult issues for policymakers and investors, and pulver.com remains strongly committed to providing a platform for bringing stakeholders together to work towards smart solutions to these challenges," emphasized Pulver. "We're going to do it right this time. Good technology and good public policy are not mutually exclusive." Spring VON also showcased a veritable "who's who" of IP Communications leaders, including keynotes from Alcatel, AT&T, Avaya, Cisco, ITXC, Microsoft, Level 3 Communications, Nortel, Siemens, Texas Instruments, Vonage and Verizon. The conference was covered by a record number of media and analysts, and investment house Goldman Sachs used the opportunity to showcase VoIP to their customers through the conference. As testament to this year's success, VON Europe (June 7-10, London) is sold out, and the exhibit floor for Fall VON (October 18-21 in Boston, MA) is nearly sold out. About VON Conferences Today, expected attendance at the United States VON's, held in the fall and spring, reaches over 3,000. A smaller VON is held in Europe each summer as well. Attendees include leading technologists and business people from major telephone and networking companies, as well as small Internet start-ups. Hundreds of speakers and exhibitors complement registered delegates to establish a vibrant atmosphere of networking and learning. Jeff proudly proclaims a zero "walking-dead" index -- in other words, everybody you encounter will be a potential supplier, customer, partner, or competitor. This is a focused industry conference, not a flashy show for disinterested outsiders. About Pulver.com Jeff Pulver founded pulver.com at the end of 1994. In addition to producing the highly successful VON conferences, pulver.com is engaged in many activities that promote the growth of communication technology. The pulver.com website (http://www.pulver.com) is a key source of information for those in the IP Communications industry and The Pulver Report (http://pulver.com/reports) has over 65,000 subscribers for whom it is a primary source of news and information on the latest developments in emerging net technologies. Mr. Pulver is the founder of: The VON Coalition, pulverRadio, RevUp Records and co-founder of: Vonage and WHP Wireless. SOURCE Pulver.com Web Site: http://www.pulver.com http://pulver.com/reports ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 21:44:24 -0400 Subject: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com I like Canada and I like Canadians in general, but I am sure glad sometimes that I don't have to live under the regulations imposed by the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), which makes some really boneheaded decisions from time to time (I assure you this isn't the first!). In my personal opinion they are as bad as any U.S. government agency you can think of, and then some. http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&lid=1&sid=55273&adBanner=Networking CRTC: VoIP is just phone service 4/7/2004 5:00:00 PM - Commission sets regulatory framework. Rogers, GT, Primus respond by Neil Sutton A preliminary report from the CRTC suggests voice over IP will be regulated no differently than other types of phone service currently available in Canada. As far as both the incumbent and the competitive local exchange carriers are concerned, VoIP will be no different than TDM from a regulatory point of view. This adheres to the CRTC's track record of regulating a service rather than the technology that makes it possible. [.....] Iain Grant, principle with consulting firm The Seaboard Group, agrees that the CRTC notice is congruous with previous decisions, but "I think we've got a bit of a problem in that I think IP is really quite different," he said. "This is not your father's telephone. The commission is looking at IP service with yesterday's gimlet eyes and is trying to apply 19th century thinking to a 21st century problem." He said the CRTC may have shoehorned VoIP into existing legislation because it doesn't have any alternative. Full story at: http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&lid=1&sid=55273&adBanner=Networking ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:38:16 -0400 Subject: Skype's Cell Division Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Forwarded from TELECOM Digest V23 #167: From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Skype's Cell Division Date: 6 Apr 2004 19:37:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 04.06.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - By threatening to make extravagant phone bills a distant memory, voice-over-Internet Protocol technology, also known as VoIP, has become the most ominous cloud hanging over the future of traditional phone companies. In recent months, giants like AT&T and Verizon Communications have responded to its threat by launching their own discount VoIP services. Meanwhile, cell phone carriers thought they were relatively safe. That assumption may yet turn out to be wrong: Skype, a company founded by the developers of the file-sharing service Kazaa, announced this morning that it is bringing the disruptive technology to handheld devices. "We knew it was just a matter of time before VoIP services came to mobile devices," says Jane Zweig, chief executive of the Shosteck Group, a telecom research firm. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/04/06/cx_al_0406skype.html Eric Friedebach /Old enough to remember when MTV played music videos/ TELECOM Digest information: http://telecom-digest.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 02:14:25 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Skype is Not Hype At Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:25:12 -0700, Jack Hamilton wrote: > VOIP News wrote: >> [Comment: Above and beyond the problems with Skype described in this >> article, my opinion is that any service that relies on the computer's >> audio circuitry will not be around for long. The reason is that for >> optimal sound quality, both ends really need to use a headset - >> otherwise you get audio feedback loops from speakers to microphone. >> But in order to use a headset, you have to disconnect your speakers >> and standalone microphone (if any) from your computer's sound system. > No, you need to disconnect only the speakers. There won't be any > feedback into a standalone microphone if the sound is coming through a > headset. If you use a headset anyway because you want better sound > than comes through the cheap speakers that came with your computer, or > you don't want to disturb the neighbors, there's no expense except the > microphone. Okay, I was thinking of the headsets that come with an attached microphone, but even in that case you are right, you could continue to use your regular microphone. However my point still holds - in most cases it is REAL inconvenient to have to reach behind the computer and unplug the speakers and plug in a headset (and then reverse the process when you want to listen to other forms of audio). I think folks are going to get real sick of that process real fast - at least I know I would. >> And even if you somehow work around that, if you let your computer >> play streaming audio or background music while you work, you have to >> shut that down every time you take a call. > Which would be the polite thing to do during a call in any case. Well, under normal circumstances you could just turn the volume down, not shut it off completely. This is a larger problem with live streaming audio, because if it's a popular audio feed and you have to shut it down, you may not be able to re-acquire the feed after you disconnect. Even with an audio file stored locally, if you shut the player off you lose your place. Granted, on some systems you could just pause the audio, if your audio circuitry is non-blocking (will allow two programs to access it at the same time) and if you remember to press "pause" rather than "stop", but it still wouldn't be an issue if you weren't using your computer's audio circuitry for VoIP. Maybe for some people all of this wouldn't matter at all, but it sure would for me. And know there are probably ways around these problems -- for example, I've seen ads for a kit that moves your audio jacks to the front of the computer, provided you have a free external drive bay -- it snaps into the drive bay slot on the front panel. But again, most people won't go through all that trouble and expense, unless Skype offers some awfully compelling reason to do so. Jack Decker ------------------------------ From: Chainsman Subject: Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck Date: 8 Apr 2004 08:01:28 -0700 Organization: http://netscape.net/ I have Vonage and have tested it with Verizon DSL (G.lite) with 132k fixed-speed upload, and Cox High-Speed Internet with about 230k variable-speed upload. The Motorola VoIP machine does QoS and priority queuing but only if it's the last device before the modem. Since the activity on your home network is what is causing the dropouts and dropped calls you can use the built-in firewall and NAT function of the Vonage machine which has built-in logic to always prioritize the VoIP traffic over your network traffic. Even if your internet provider ignores the QoS, and indeed a cable modem network QoS is meaningless due to the nature of how uploads work, the Vonage box will make every attempt to handle the VoIP traffic at a higher priority thus making your calls sound better on both ends. Give it a try and let us know how it works for you. ------------------------------ From: Joe Wineburgh Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:59:10 -0400 I contacted Peter Reilly (the VZ spokesperson quoted in the article) for clarification and it looks like the numbers were VZ wireline customers vs. all wireless customers (not just VZ wireless). His reply: ------------------------------------------- Mr. Wineburgh, I was the Verizon spokesman quoted in the AP story. The comments I made were based upon information from the following sources. The landline numbers represent the 483,612 Verizon Maine residential access lines in service for 4Q-2003, as reported at Verizon's Investor Relations website http://investor.verizon.com/business/wireline.html . The number of wireless subscribers in Maine reported in the most recent FCC Report on Local Competition http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html was 524,246 for June, 2003 and represents customers from all reporting cellular carriers in Maine. Note that this latest FCC reported number is different from the number of Maine wireless subscribers offered in the article, written by Kathryn Skelton of the Sun Journal in Lewiston, ME. I hope this information helps to answer your questions. Peter ----------------------- So I guess the question now is, do the other independant telcos represent more than 40,633 customers. JOE ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:26:15 -0700 From: The Kaminsky Family Reply-To: kaminsky@kaminsky.org Organization: None Whatsoever Subject: Re: Walmart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Causes Major Hassle > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have a very nice branch of Bank of > America here in town, at Penn and Locust Street. The lady told me they > have checking accounts at no charge for old people as long as their > social security money is on direct deposit to that bank. I've thought > about moving my account over there from Commerce National Bank, but > Commerce is much closer to my house and has a 24 hour drive through > auto teller I can use. PAT] Are you eligible for any local credit union? If not, are there any decent savings and loan associations (or savings banks, which I grew up with in New York City, but haven't seen any of in California where I've spent the last 24 years)? In my experience, a commercial bank such as B of A is always paying lower rates on savings (and checking) accounts than savings and loans, although around here there is more variance among the savings and loans than among commercial banks. Credit unions also have a larger spread, but tend to pay better interest than the savings and loans. It works the same way on loans -- the best interest rates tend to come from the credit unions, the worst from the commercial banks (unless you are borrowing a few million -- that does catch their attention). Ditto on fees -- they're highest at the commercial banks, and lowest at the credit unions. The biggest credit unions now offer checking accounts (usually called "draft" accounts) as well as the long-established savings accounts (usually called "share" accounts, because having one makes you a part owner of the credit union). I hope this helps. I seem to remember you saying something about not having much money makes you want to hold tighter to what you have -- which made it somewhat surprising to me that you would bank at a commercial bank. Good luck, and keep up the good work. Mark [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, there is a little bit of history here, but I am not at all reluctant to change it as needed. Commerce National Bank (like First National Bank) have been Independence institutions since the start of the 20th century. In fact, Commerce has engraved in the stone over its door 'Citizen's National Bank' which used to be its name until around 1990 when Commerce Bank of Kansas City/St. Louis bought it and took it over. My mother and father had their accounts at 'Citizens' for many years and my mother still refers to the place as 'Citizens National Bank' even though it has been Commerce for maybe fifteen years now. Six or eight months after Black Thursday -- the date in late November, 1999 when I had my brain aneurysm (I guess three months in a coma, in Stormont Vail Medical Center in Topeka, followed by two months in an emergency, accelerated rehabilitation program at Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital and a year after that in a 'nursing home' [or so they called it; dungeon was more like it] would entitle me to refer to the last day on which I was still a whole person as 'black Thursday') -- while I was still in a Zombie-like trance, and unable to do much of anything for myself, it was assumed by State of Kansas I would probably remain in a vegatative state for the rest of my life. The SRS asked my mother to function at that time as a guardian and third-party payee with Social Security. Things were that grim for me. I'm not complaining per se, just stating the facts as they were then. It made sense for my mother to inquire of the manager at Commerce and open a third-party payee relationship for me with that bank. Things have since changed for me for the better (I still limp around, use a cane whenever I go out of my house [not often] and still avail myself of the services made available to disabled and older persons by City of Independence and State of Kansas [SRS housekeeper, meals on wheels, free taxicab rides around town]) but things are looking better. Social Security had a psychiatrist from UK at Lawrence, KS come here to examine me while I was still a Zombie, and his professional detirmination was that I will never fully recover from Black Thursday. The neurological damage or 'brain disease' was just too extensive. Mother/SRS are no longer my guardians; I now (since the start of 2002) have been on my own, free to do my banking, etc as I please. Commerce is still around; my mother's reputation there left me with no reason to change banks. The Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1990's when **so many** of them went belly up and/or were absorbed out of 'good will' by larger, healthier financial institutions has always left me a little leary of that form of banking. We have a few of them around town here, including First Federal S&L, Prairie States S&L, Kansas Teachers Credit Union, others. Their employees are all very decent, small-town people. Heck, even the five (total) employees at First National Bank of Independence are quite decent. They all have ATM machines and all issue plastics, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau) Subject: Re: Phone Card Retail Business Date: 8 Apr 2004 08:36:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com C. Nelson wrote in message news:: > I am trying to find the list of these consolidators or wholesale > companies. Discount Long Distance Digest Telcom Deals & Steals. Find the BEST deals in phone service including pre-paid cards. See how telcos are stealing. http://www.THEDIGEST.COM ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 04:57:53 GMT In article , alex@totallynerd.com says: > Hi all, > Many years ago, I used to find the RJ11 splitters that seperated the > two pairs of lines into Line 1 and Line 2 for dual-line phone jacks. > Now'days, I'm having trouble locating one. I've even talked to folks > from SBC and they say the splitters aren't common anymore and are hard > to find. > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these > splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line > is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of > lines. > Thanks in advance. > Alex. White 2-Line Coupler $3.97 RadioShack #279-439 Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #170 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 8 19:52:35 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i38NqZt06691; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:52:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404082352.i38NqZt06691@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 #171 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:53:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 171 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VoIP Security: Stakes Get Higher As Deployments Grow (VOIP News) Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net (VOIP News) Canada Likely to Regulate VoIP (VOIP News) Official CRTC News: CRTC initiates Proceeding on VoIP (VOIP News) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (Paul A Lee) Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? (David S. Roland) Re: ACLU Suit (was Re: David Nelson) (Lisa Hancock) Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today (Randolph J. Herber) Re: Missed Words and VOIP (Hank Karl) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (Charles Cryderman) Re: Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask Expert (J Bartley) Re: Radio Signals (Miikka Kiprusoff) 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:50:45 -0400 Subject: VoIP Security: Stakes Get Higher As Deployments Grow Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/it/0404/Featuresiemens.htm BY JOEL A. POGAR With the world awash in VoIP headlines over the past few months, mainstream media are declaring 2004 to be the year of Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP for short. Lost in the noise, however, are real concerns about VoIP security; concerns that should be growing as VoIP implementations carry more and more of our voice communications. VoIP technology has come a long way in recent years, no longer the 'science project' one RBOC CTO called it just two years ago. Vast improvements in quality of service and reliability have made its deployment practical across enterprise and public networks alike. With the convergence of voice and data networks, come cost-saving benefits, communication flexibility, and the promise of new productivity-enhancing applications. ANOTHER MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB But VoIP security still has a ways to go. By itself, VoIP does not introduce any new vulnerabilities security experts haven't seen before; it only poses new security issues they have to manage. In a traditional analog environment, physical access to a switch or wiring closet was usually needed to intercept communications between two parties. Today sending packetized voice over a data network can make voice communication more accessible and easier to intercept, especially given the range of malicious toolsets any hacker can find on the Internet. Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/it/0404/Featuresiemens.htm How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:17:43 -0400 Subject: Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/technology/circuits/08stat.html?ex=1082001600&en=95d3f3f62e6024b4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net By DAVID POGUE VERY time an important piece of our lives goes electronic, much is gained, but something is lost, too. Audiophiles say that compact discs don't sound as warm as vinyl records. Home theaters are neat, but don't offer the communal fun of a movie theater crowd. And no matter how efficient e-mail may be, it can't touch the joy of receiving a handwritten letter on fine stationery, thoughtfully composed and concluding with the words "check enclosed." So stand back. The latest life component to make a radical, Internet-driven shift is ordinary home telephone service. This development is annoyingly called voice-over-Internet protocol, or VoIP, which means "calls that use the Internet's wiring instead of the phone company's." When you sign up, you get a little box that goes between your existing telephone and your broadband modem (that is, your cable modem or D.S.L. box, a requirement for most of these services). At that point you can make unlimited local, regional and long-distance calls anywhere in the United States for a fixed fee of $20 to $40 a month (plus the cost of your broadband Internet service, of course). Overseas calls cost about 3 cents a minute. These figures aren't subject to inflation by a motley assortment of tacked-on fees, either; voice-over-Internet service is exempt from F.C.C. line charges, state 911 surcharges, number-portability service charges and so on. Now, nerds have been making PC-to-PC Internet calls for years, using their computers' microphone and speakers. But VoIP is different: you dial and talk using a conventional phone. The computer doesn't even have to be on. The gold rush began last year when a startup called Vonage offered a $35-a-month calling plan. Soon it was joined by a crowd of similarly little-known services with names like VoicePulse, Packet 8, Broadvox and VoiceGlo. Recently, though, some much bigger names began taking the technology seriously [.....] [Comment: And now one more paragraph from the article, with comments inserted, and followed by a short plug:] While you're contemplating the drawbacks of Internet calling, consider this: most VoIP adapters accommodate only one handset per line [Comment: Huh? All VoIP adapters I know of will handle at least three standard phones on a line, and sometimes more as long as you are careful not to draw too much ringing current]. Many Internet phone customers wind up buying cordless phone systems that permit several handsets to communicate with a single base station.] (Some fans hire an electrician to install the adapter where the phone lines enter the house, so that it affects all phone jacks, but that's a complex and iffy approach.) [Comment: No it isn't! Many people do it themselves, perhaps by going to "How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home" at http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html and following the instructions there.] Full story at : http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/technology/circuits/08stat.html?ex=1082001600&en=95d3f3f62e6024b4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:53:09 -0400 Subject: Canada Likely to Regulate VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.cbronline.com/currentnews/84220d4727e2b75a80256e700032e261 While hands-off regulators in the US are currently of the view that voice over IP should be subject to minimal government oversight, to the north their Canadian counterparts are coming to the opposite conclusion. Full story at: http://www.cbronline.com/currentnews/84220d4727e2b75a80256e700032e261 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:44:21 -0400 Subject: Official CRTC News Release: CRTC Initiates Proceeding on VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2004/r040407.htm CRTC initiates proceeding on VoIP Services; issues preliminary view OTTAWA-GATINEAU In a public notice issued today, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has provided its preliminary views on the regulatory framework applicable to the voice communications services using Internet Protocol that are referred to below, and has initiated a proceeding to examine the regulatory requirements for the provision of these services. In Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2, Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol, the Commission invites interested parties to comment on the Commission's preliminary views and on any other pertinent matters, as well as to participate in a public consultation. Voice communications services using IP, or Internet Protocol, now allow subscribers to make voice calls over a broadband connection, for example with a conventional phone-set attached to an adaptor or an IP telephone. In light of the availability of voice communication services using IP and calls from carriers for the clarification of the regulatory rules, the Commission considers that there is a need to set out its views on the regulatory regime applicable to the provision of those services. In the Commission's preliminary view, voice communications services using IP that provide universal access to and/ or from the Public Switched Telephone Network and utilize telephone numbers that conform to the North American Numbering Plan (referred to in the PN as VoIP services) have characteristics that are functionally the same as circuit-switched voice telecommunications services. Consistent with its principle of technological neutrality, it is the Commission's preliminary view that its existing regulatory framework should apply to VoIP services, including its determinations related to forbearance. The Commission also considers on a preliminary basis, that to the extent that VoIP services provide subscribers with access to and/or from the Public Switched Telephone Network, along with the ability to make and/or receive calls that originate and terminate within the geographic boundaries of a local calling area as defined in the incumbent local exchange carriers' (ILECs) tariffs, they should be treated for regulatory purposes as local exchange services, and be subject to the regulatory framework governing local competition, established in Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 and subsequent determinations. In this public notice, the Commission also expresses preliminary views on the following three matters: (i) the applicability of existing tariffs, and requirements to file tariffs; (ii) the provision of 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 service, message relay service and privacy safeguards; and (iii) the applicability of the national contribution collection mechanism as introduced in Changes to the contribution regime, Decision CRTC 2000-745, 30 November 2000. Call for comments and Public Forum. The Commission invites written comments on its preliminary views provided in today's public notice, as well as on any other matters that may be pertinent to the regulatory framework for VoIP services. Those who wish merely to file written comments in this proceeding may do so by submitting their comments in writing to the Commission by April 28, 2004. Parties who wish to participate more fully in the proceeding must notify the Commission by April 16, 2004. They may file comments, copying all other parties, by April 28, 2004, take part in the public consultation to be held May 19-20, 2004 in Gatineau, Quebec, and file reply comments, copying all other parties, by May 28, 2004. Please read today's public notice for more information on how to participate in this proceeding. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is an independent public authority that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada. Reference document: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 General Inquiries: Tel: (819) 997-0313, TDD: (819) 994-0423, Fax: (819) 994-0218 Toll-free # 1-877-249-CRTC (2782), eMail: info@crtc.gc.ca TDD - Toll-free # 1-877-909-2782 Copies of today's documents are available through our Internet site (http://www.crtc.gc.ca) or by contacting the public examination room of any CRTC office. These documents are available in alternative format upon request. ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:58:39 -0400 Organization: Rite Aid Corporation In TELECOM Digest V23 #166, Alex wrote (in part): > Many years ago, I used to find the RJ11 splitters that > seperated the two pairs of lines into Line 1 and Line 2 for > dual-line phone jacks. > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells > these splitters? Allen Tel #AT267C-WE, about $4 at Graybar Electric, will break out the two lines on an RJ14 jack into two RJ11 jacks. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: David S. Roland Subject: Re: RJ11 Line 1/2 Splitter - Do These Still Exist? Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:35:58 -0600 How many do you need? Alex wrote: > Hi all, > Many years ago, I used to find the RJ11 splitters that seperated the > two pairs of lines into Line 1 and Line 2 for dual-line phone jacks. > Now'days, I'm having trouble locating one. I've even talked to folks > from SBC and they say the splitters aren't common anymore and are hard > to find. > Does anyone know of a supplier that still produces or sells these > splitters? I'm not talking about a y-splitter where one analog line > is split to two, but one that physically splits the two pairs of > lines. > Thanks in advance. > Alex. <<---- Ask me about the (Rabbit) Residential Information Appliance ---->> Advanced Intelligent Networks Corporation Box 31195 Aurora, Co. 80041 Telecommunication Application and System Software Office: (720) 858-8200 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: ACLU Suit (was Re: David Nelson) Date: 8 Apr 2004 10:34:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Carl Moore wrote > I see a story today that the American Civil Liberties Union > has filed suit against the Transportation Security Administration > over "no-fly" list. Balancing civil liberties against public safety is always a tough call. I don't know where to draw the line. I believe, for example, that telephone calls (voice and data, including the Internet) ought to be sacrosanct and immune from monitoring from both government and private interests. But on the other hand, if the government had the power to monitor phone calls and used it to learn about and prevent 9/11, would it be worth it for the government to have that power? I think so. The FBI was once chastised for spying on anti-war groups. But, interestingly, people didn't seem to mind when they used the same tactics against KKK type groups. Preventing the murders and brutality of such groups is a good thing. And, some "peace groups" were quite violent -- blowing up buildings and killing people in the name of "peace". So where do we draw the line? How do we protect freedom and public safety at the same time? Sadly, a lot of people who venture an opinion on this subject have ulterior motives. Many advocates of "civil liberties" are actually interested in "freedom" to do subversive and destructive activities that will hurt others. They want to achieve their political objectives by shoving them down other people's thoughts. This applies to both the 'right' and 'left'. Many advocates of "public safety" have their economic or political agenda at work too. It's ironic had advocates of one position suddenly shift depending on the underlying issue. For example, some who usually applaud extreme "civil disobediance" suddenly object to it when it's practiced against abortion clinics (and vice versa). People tend to focus on the government, but the powers of the private sector are of interest, too. A major employer demanded and received the _home_ telephone records of its employees to search out leaks to a newspaper. Your employer can eavesdrop all he wants while you're at work. But should he be allowed to check up on your private life, too? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:06:40 +0000 (GMT) From: herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov (Randolph J. Herber) Subject: Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory My first computer systems were IBM 7040, 7044, 7090, 7094 and 1401. After about a year, I encountered my first IBM System 360 machines and since then have have worked with most of the S/360 line (models 22, 30, 40, 44, 50, 62, 65, 67, 75, 85 and 91) and many of the S/370 and S/390 lines which are follow-on architectures. I have worked also on the RCA Spectra 70/45 with similar architecture and on many of the Amdahl machines from the V6 to the 5890 models which were capable of running the IBM S/360, S/370 and S/390 operating systems. In article , Jeff nor Lisa wrote: > It was 40 years ago today (4/7/64) that IBM announced its System/360 > line of mainframe computers, introducing an architecture still used > today and breaking new ground. > S/360 was built with the idea of teleprocessing and soon it was used > for considerable data communication. The Bell System's had a lot of > business from this, both dial-up and private lines. I don't think > S/360's precedessors, such as the 7090, did much teleprocessing except > in very specialized circumstances. The S/360 architecture of channels > and interupts worked well with teleprocessing requirements. The > growth of S/360 fueled Bell System work in modems and data > transmission. The IBM S/360 architecture is not well suited to character mode teleprocessing as the CPU cost for handling an I/O interrupt is quite high. TSS typically used about 10 000 instruction executions to handle an I/O interrupt and OS (yes, IBM named their flagship mainframe operating system simply 'Operating System,') typically required about 30,000 instruction executions to handle an I/O interrupt. This is why IBM teleprocessing on the IBM S/360 architecture machines has always used either block mode terminals such as the 3270 terminals or front-end communications processors such as the IBM 3705 to present to the mainframe processor character mode terminals such as for example the DEC VT100 the appearance of being block mode terminals. At AT&T Bell Labs, using both IBM and Amdahl mainframes, running AT&T UNIX/370, IBM AIX/370 and Amdahl UTS (all AT&T UNIX System 5 variants) and a number of communication processor types (IBM System 1, IBM 3705, Amdahl 4705, DEC PDP-8 and DEC PDP-11, sometimes with custom I/O cards), we (meaning AT&T, IBM and Amdahl and including I) spent considerable time, money and effort learning how to use character mode terminals with IBM S/360 architecture mainframes effectively, efficiently and economically in the UNIX mode of terminal I/O where each character typed might require central CPU action. It was not easy; it was solved. What the IBM mainframe architecture was, is and probably will continue to be good at is very high bandwidths to memory and I/O (both storage and communications), a truly general purpose instruction set and a very extensive set of operating systems, applications and libraries. As for the IBM 7040, 7044, 7090 and 7094 machines, which shared a similar but not common architecture, they actually were quite good at block mode I/O including communications and were commonly used by the US military for signal processing (of course, the DSPs of today are _much_ more capable as the 704x were about 500KIPS and about 250 KFLOPS and the 709x about double that). But, because they are word-oriented machines with word addressing, they are extremely poor at character processing. But, you still see today some artifacts of those machines, just as the size of the Hollerith tabulating cards' size was determine by the size of the US dollar note in the 1880's as they were designed for the 1890 US census. These machines had a 36-bit word size and a 6-bit character size (BCDIC (no E; that came with the IBM S/360 and its 8-bit character) and no lower case) which resulted in 6 characters per word. This caused the statement number field in Fortran to be 5 characters with the continuation character in the fixed, low-order position of that word and the card sequence number field starting in column 72 as these were also word boundaries. Similarly, many of the characteristics of COBOL derived from the architecture of the IBM 1401 which is a variable-length field, character-oriented machine. Instructions are variable length from 1 to 8 characters. The first character is the operation code following optionally by any combination of the following in the stated order: source address with indexing if implemented, destination address with index if implemented and a modifier character. There were rules for implied addresses if an instruction used an address or addresses and those addresses were not present. But, these machines were slow: each character processed, even the characters in the instructions, required 11 microseconds of CPU time. The machine could have 1 to 16 one thousand decimal character memory banks. > Today we take all the following for granted, but it was a major > technological and software achievement for IBM to achieve the > following features in 1964. Yes, it was. What made it such a success was this was the first architecture from IBM that was available with a very wide price and performance range were the vendor promised that if one wrote their programs to a certain not particularly difficult standard then the program would execute correctly across the entire range and where the architecture was reasonably good for I/O, numerical computation, data movement and character processing. It was one of the very first such architectures in the world. IBM received several surprises with these machines. Operating System proved to be much harder than they expected to write (at one time IBM had over 2000 programmers working on its development). They already shipped some machines to customers before they learned just how hard it was to write that operating system. This resulted in Basic Processing System, Tape Operating System and Disk Operating System before Operating System/PCP was sent to the customers. IBM at that time mostly leased their systems. They expected that the switch over to System 360 would occur as the leases on the older machines expired over a span of about five to seven years. The customers surprised IBM: they canceled their leases even with penalty clauses over about a 18 month span. To fund both the Operating System development, the lease turn-over and the expanded manufacturing of the new machines, IBM ``bet the company.'' They raised by various means about USD 4 000 000 000 at a time when IBM was worth about USD 7 000 000 000! If they could not pay off the loans and bonds, IBM would be bankrupt. IBM had to make it work! And, IBM did. The rest is history. > The success of S/360 and its successors in the marketplace made > computers a commonplace item in industry and government. The > principles of its architecture and operating system, described below, > were included in the PC. > S/360 had several advantages: > 1) A uniform machine for both science and business applications. > Science/engineering requires high speed numeric processing, typically > using fixed binary words. Business requires character manipulation, > typically using single alpha-numeric characters grouped in varying > lengths. Companies could now use a single machine to do both kinds of > work efficiently. The floating point arithmetic was designed so that the instructions could be emulated by an 8-bit microprocessor reasonably efficiently which meant that the number of different normalizing shifts had to be minimized. By using hexadecimal radix, this meant there would be only one shift size: 4 bits and the remainder would be character movements. This permitted a major increase in the dynamic range of the floating point number which addressed some problems from the IBM 7090 10**38 dynamic range. Two unfortunate results from that decision is a significantly reduced significance as a hidden bit could not be used and because on average two bits of the mantissa could not be used because of the hexidecimal normalization resulting 21 bits of significance instead for example the 25 bits of DEC VAX or IEEE 754 32 bit floating point numbers. But, IBM did implement later 128 bit floating point numbers and instructions using a pair of 64 bit floating point numbers. The System 360 Model 30 used a 8 bit microprocessor (about the size of two large US refrigerators) and an internal program to emulate the entire System 360 instruction set. > 2) A uniform machine for both large and small applications. To keep > hardware costs down, small machines had limited storage addressing and > command sets. The architecture of S/360 made it possible for > economical small machines to be sold that were compatible with large > machines. This meant as customers grew and required more powerful > computers, they need not rewrite their applications. No, specifically, except for such models as the 22 and the 44, all machines _could_ have all instructions. Some models had optional floating point instructions, for example. But, those models could have them! If the instructions were not implemented in microcode or hardware, then it was practical to accept illegal operation code interrupts for those instructions and emulate them in the operating system supervisor program. (Remember the Intel 80387 floating point unit and how it was emulated in some personal computers?) > 3) Hardware emulation of earlier computers. This allowed customers to > continue using older applications until they got around to converting > them. (Many never bothered to convert). The use of hardware > (microcode) emulation allowed the old applications to run faster on > the new machine without change. In particular, the IBM 7040, 7044, 7090, 7094, 1401 1410, 1460 and 7080 (a 1460 implementation using 7090 techology and having channels). > 4) Multi-tasking. Computer CPUs were extremely fast, much faster than > mechanical printers, disks, and tapes. S/360 allowed for several > programs to run at the same time, making more efficient use of the > machine's full resources. For example, on-line programs could run > while batch jobs were running. Multi-tasking required a sophisticated > hardware approach to keeping applications separate and serviced. Also, multi-processing (multiple CPUs) and large numbers of channels. The later models on which I worked could have and use 256 channels. > 5) A sophisticated operating system: While earlier machines had some > control programs, S/360 had sophisticated support services. Simple > machines had none. Program memory isolation, dynamic program loading and large memory models come to mind. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember when Amoco credit card > phased out their manual accounting operation and went with S-360 > in 1964 or so. Geeze, forty years ago ... :( PAT] Randolph J. Herber, herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov, +1 630 840 2966, CD/CDFTF PK-149F, Mail Stop 318, Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., PO Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500, USA. (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:54:40 -0400 From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Missed Words and VOIP Organization: Nine-9s On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:43:14 -0400, Hank Karl wrote: > Hi Pat, > You wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a Cisco ATA-186 and there is >> *no way* to run it to the head of the line, when used with (either) a >> Linksys router or (my present) NetGear router. The Cisco simply has >> to take a position on the router, or maybe I could get another router >> or 'cable splitter' or something to shove it into the cable modem >> *first* then run the line to the NetGear with everything else (less >> the ATA). Should I conclude from what you are saying, that the >> Motorola TA has that condition as part of it, i.e. it feeds into the >> cable, then also feeds 'the other way' not only to the telephone >> instrument but also allows a 'pass through' to a router from there? >> That would be ideal, if all I had to do was swap TA boxes and >> re-arrange some wiring. PAT] > Yes, I suggest swapping TA boxes. The Motorola has two Ethernet > ports, one goes to your cable modem, the other to your router. > I don't think that putting the Cisco ATA before your router will do > much good, even if you could get two IP addresses from your ISP (one > for the router, the other for the Cisco ATA.) > See http://www.vonage.com/small_business/installation_multiple.php > Also see http://broadband.motorola.com/consumers/products/vt1000v/ > Hank Karl Eastern Regional Manager www.Nine-9s.com > +1 (203)207-0047 (v) Hank.Karl@Nine-9s.com > +1 (215)243-7320 (f) email my cellphone: page.Hank.Karl.2@Nine-9s.com > Representing: http://www.telchemy.com/ VQmon Voice over IP Quality > Monitoring software > http://www.telesoft-intl.com/ ISDN, T1 RBS, E1 R2 CAS, Frame Relay, > ML-PPP, X.25, > http://www.agoralabs.com/ elemedia(tm) H.323, Video Codecs, and Audio > Codecs http://www.tntss.com/ dynamicsoft(tm) SIP > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I do not intend to even ask for a > second IP address just to service the Vonage phone, since that would > cost me another fifty dollars per month, or more than double the > effective cost of my Vonage phone, and Cable One would not accept > 'next month free' coupons from Vonage, nor do they issue such things > on their own. If I find anyway in the various links which were given > here a couple issues ago about 'throttling' the other software when > Vonage wants to be there, or if somehow moving the ATA to the head of > the line makes a difference (like you, I cannot really imagine it > would unless the other things can be slowed down temporarily) then I > will do that. It is very rare I actually get incoming calls on Vonage, > and when I am going to make outgoing calls I can reach over to the Win > 98 and Win 95 and slow them down manually. Maybe I can get some sort > of 'cable splitter' (the Motorola TA perhaps?) and maybe the other > programs, while they splash and walk all over the internal LAN would > not do so on the cable itself. I really dunno now. PAT] Pat, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The Cisco and Motorola boxes are different. The Cisco is just a TA, and has one ethernet port which goes to a "downstream" port on your router. The Motorola TA is also a router. you put it between the cable box and your existing router. Its not exactly a "cable splitter". The router part of the Motorola TA should give priority to the traffic coming from its POTS ports. While the other programs will use as much bandwidth as they want, the Motorola TA should queue those messages up and give priority to the voice messages in the upstream direction. For example, if you send a file that takes a dozen or so 1500 byte IP packets over a 100baseT (or even 10baseT) connection from your PC to your Router to the Motorola TA, the Motorla TA should queue them up because your access link is limited to 500K upstream. When a voice packet is ready to go, it will be given priority and placed at the head of the queue (behind any other voice packet that may already be there). I don't know how they handle the downstream direction, but they have several options (like holding off on ACKs so downstream traffic is throttled.) I really recommend that you read this page: http://www.vonage.com/small_business/installation_multiple.php (note that AFIK you can't do this with the Cisco device). ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:43:57 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V23 #168 J Kelly inquired: > I'm curious about "blocking". Does anyone know what happens if I > call a hotel and reserve a room for sometime in the future, say six > months, and I use a debit card to guarantee the room, do they > generally block your card for the amount of that room? Or do they > not do anything with you card number until check in time. I only > have a debit card and I have an aversion to using it for hotel > reservations, but maybe I shouldn't be concerened about it. I have > used my PayPal debit card at check-in time and they blocked 5 days > worth of the room cost to it at that time. They did not unblock it > when I paid the total at the end of the week, only charged the final > amount. The blocked charge "falls off" the PayPal card after 10 > days if it isn't finalized by the merchant." I have tried to use a "debit card" to reserve a hotel room and retinal car and was told by both that banks do not permit "debit cards" to be used for those purposes. If you don't use a credit card they told me I couldn't have the reservations. Chip Cryderman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think your mistake here is when you talk to those people referring to your mode of payment as a 'debit card' instead of a 'credit card'. Instead, refer to your mode of payment as 'my VISA card' or 'Master Card' is . Since (when you are calling on the phone) they are not going to see the plastic or any logos on it, they won't know the difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Bartley Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:53:04 -0800 Subject: Re: Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask an Expert This article only scratches the surface. The new Local Search at Google http://local.google.com When I enter BBQ and my zip code, it does find the best BBQ restaurant in town: Buster's Texas Style Barbecue (503) 652-1076 17833 SE McLoughlin Blvd Milwaukie, OR 97267 1.0 mi S - Directions It also lists, right next to that family restaurant: PORTLAND ESCORTS, ADULT GUIDE, ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ... Adult Help Wanted Wants YOU....! Post your Resume ... lovelyescorts.com - and more related pages. Lemme tell ya, Busters was underthrilled with their new virtual neighbor when I gave them a heads up. And, there is no reason for the adjacent listing, as that other 'enterprise' does not have a phyisical presence anywhere near Milwaukee ... it's in the next county up. On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:43:37 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom wrote: > Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask an Expert > By Lisa Baertlein > SAN FRANCISCO, April 7 (Reuters) - When you search the Web, do you > find lots of information, but not the answer to your question? If so, > you're not alone. > Without a doubt, it has gotten much easier to tease the answers you > seek from the vast reaches of the Internet, but there is still plenty > of room for improvement. > For example, new local-search features on the major engines run by > Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) make it much easier for > people to find pertinent information about their favorite neighborhood > restaurant. > Still, users must know to narrow local searches by plugging in the > restaurant name along with a ZIP code or city and state. While such > searches often turn up less irrelevant noise than in the past, they > can still be clunky -- and at times deliver results about restaurants > thousands of miles away. > So how effective is Web searching? > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41030028 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:16:44 +0100 From: Miikka Kiprusoff Subject: Re: Radio Signals Reply-To: miikka@calgaryweb.net A list of AM radio stations in Calgary, Alberta: 660 - CFFR, "66-CFR" golden oldies 770 - CHQR, "QR77" all-talk 960 - CFAC, "The Fan 960" all-sports-talk 1010 - CBR, CBC Radio One 1060 - CKMX, "Great Music, Great Memories" 1140 - CHRB, community radio Which one of these blowtorches is the "very loud" rock station you speak of? I'm pretty sure neither CJAY nor CKIK or even CKIS ("Jack"), this city's "rock" stations, are making it all the way down to your neck of the woods, as they're FM stations. Of these, only CJAY would be considered "loud". On a trip to Scotland, I walked into a bed and breakfast that turned out to be owned by an ex-pat Calgarian. When I got there in early afternoon, he was listening, via the internet, to the morning show on CJAY. I walked in the door and the first thing I heard in this quaint bed and breakfast in Scotland was Gerry Forbes telling a fart joke. > Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:31:57 EDT > From: Carl Moore > Subject: Re: Radio Signals > Responding to a Nov. 2002 message: I have had cases where KYW > (Philadelphia news-radio, 1060 AM) got bounced to me in Michigan, > Ohio, West Virginia, and North Carolina. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've never heard KYW do that, but I do > on rare occassion get WLS (890 AM) from Chicago here in Independence > and I used to get KOA out of Denver a lot in Chicago. And when WAIT > (820 AM) in Chicago used to be a daytime only station, as soon as they > flipped the switch at night a station out of Toronto (CJ-something) > used to boom in almost every night. Here in Independence almost > nightly, in addition to KOA (Denver) we also hear some *very loud* > rock station out of Calgary, Alberta. We *used to get* WGN (720 AM) > out of Chicago here in Indy 24 hours it seems until the Cuban people > parked on that frequency and drove them away. Now 720 AM is just > heterodyne, 24 hours per day. Radio signals are funny creatures. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My recollection of hearing Calgary was about twenty years ago more or less. Have any of those stations changed their format in recent years? PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #171 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 9 01:48:08 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i395m8T08854; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 01:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 01:48:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404090548.i395m8T08854@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 #172 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Apr 2004 01:48:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 172 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VoicePulse Expanding Rate Center Availability (VOIP News) As Goes VoIP, So Grows Softswitches (VOIP News) California Becomes VoIP Regulatory Battleground (VOIP News) Skype's Cell Division (VOIP News) Jeff Pulver Blog Entry on CRTC (VOIP News) Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 - Regulatory framework (VOIP News) Forbes: VoIP Revolution Underway (Sam_Chen) Re: Apparent Hidden Advertisements in Telecom Digest (Steve at SELLCOM) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (Clarence Dold) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (Tony P.) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (Michael D. Sullivan CPU Load on Catalyst4006 (Joe Shen) FCC Backs Nextel Paying More For Swap - W.Post (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:37:20 -0400 Subject: VoicePulse Expanding Rate Center Availability Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com There's no official announcement about this yet, but several people have reported that VoicePulse sent them a notification that there were new ratecenters available in their area code. When something official comes along we'll let you know, but in the meantime, if you've been waiting for a certain ratecenter to become available, you may wish to check VoicePulse's web site to see if that ratecenter has been added. How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:05:58 -0400 Subject: As Goes VoIP, So Grows Softswitches Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3337911 By Ron Miller The market for softswitches, the platforms that connect wireline phone calls to IP networks for Voice over IP, is poised for explosive growth through 2008, after a jump of more than 42 percent in 2003, according to In-Stat MDR. But all that growth is contingent on how fast VoIP goes mainstream. Norm Bogen, director of networking for In-Stat MDR and the author of a new report about the softswitches ("Softswitch Architectures Evolve as VoIP Goes Mainstream"), said he expects VoIP to hit the mainstream sooner than expected. "All of the major carriers are deploying it on a trial basis or for real revenue right now. They are all going to do it and they will all need these switches," Bogen said. Full story at: http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3337911 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:49:56 -0400 Subject: California Becomes VoIP Regulatory Battleground Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5187436.html By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com Small Net phone service providers were united but alone back in October, when they began fighting California utility regulators who wanted them to follow traditional phone rules. But six months later, Vonage, 8x8 and others have been joined by some powerhouse telephone companies -- which shows just how important the battle in California has become to determining whether states should regulate Internet phone service providers. Verizon, SBC, cable provider Cox Communications, Sprint, Level 3 Communications, AT&T and Nextel Communications are among the companies now recommending that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) take, at best, an extremely light regulatory approach to most Net phone service providers, according to comments the companies made to the CPUC. The comments were made public this week. "Do not develop detailed policy at this time," Verizon stated in its comments. "There is no current looming threat" from voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), so no regulation is necessary, Cox told the commission. Full story at: http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5187436.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 02:48:42 -0400 Subject: Skype's Cell Division Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.forbes.com/networks/2004/04/06/cx_al_0406skype.html Aude Lagorce, 04.06.04, 3:27 PM ET NEW YORK - By threatening to make extravagant phone bills a distant memory, voice-over-Internet Protocol technology, also known as VoIP, has become the most ominous cloud hanging over the future of traditional phone companies. In recent months, giants like AT&T and Verizon Communications have responded to its threat by launching their own discount VoIP services. Meanwhile, cell phone carriers thought they were relatively safe. That assumption may yet turn out to be wrong: Skype, a company founded by the developers of the file-sharing service Kazaa, announced this morning that it is bringing the disruptive technology to handheld devices. "We knew it was just a matter of time before VoIP services came to mobile devices," says Jane Zweig, chief executive of the Shosteck Group, a telecom research firm. Full story at: http://www.forbes.com/networks/2004/04/06/cx_al_0406skype.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:46:19 -0400 Subject: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 - Regulatory Framework Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 Ottawa, 7 April 2004 Regulatory Framework for Voice Communication Services Using Internet Protocol Reference: 8663-C12-200402892 and 8663-B2-200316101 The Commission has received both an application and a letter requesting it to address the regulatory requirements for the provision of voice communication services using Internet Protocol (IP). With this public notice, the Commission provides its preliminary views on the regulatory framework applicable to those services. The Commission is of the preliminary view that voice communication services using IP that utilize telephone numbers based on the North American Numbering Plan and provide universal access to and/or from the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (referred to in this public notice as "VoIP" services) have functional characteristics that are the same as circuit-switched voice telecommunications services. In the Commission's preliminary view, its existing regulatory framework should apply to VoIP services, including its determinations related to forbearance. The Commission considers, on a preliminary basis, that to the extent that VoIP services provide subscri bers with access to and/or from the PSTN along with the ability to make and/or receive calls that originate and terminate within the geographic boundaries of a local calling area as defined in the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' (ILECs) tariffs, they should be treated for regulatory purposes as local exchange services, and be subject to the regulatory framework governing local competition, established in Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 and subsequent determinations. In this public notice, the Commission also expresses preliminary views on the following three matters: (i) the applicability of existing tariffs, and requirements to file tariffs; (ii) the provision of 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 service, message relay service and privacy safeguards; (iii) the applicability of the national contribution collection mechanism as introduced in Changes to the contribution regime, Decision CRTC 2000-745, 30 November 2000. Interested parties are invited to provide co mment s on the Commission's preliminary views and any other pertinent matters and to participate in a public consultation. Full text of notice at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pt2004-2.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:30:38 -0400 Subject: Jeff Pulver Comments on CRTC Ruling Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com This is from The Jeff Pulver Blog at http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/index.html April 07, 2004 CRTC: Legacy Rules should Apply to VoIP The CRTC just ruled that new IP Communication Service Providers in Canada should meet the same requirements as traditional telephony providers. While the CRTC's "preliminary view," will be subject to public comment, this is not a good starting point from the perspective of would be communication disruptors who wish to do business in Canada. Canada faces some of the same social policy issues as the United States and it was my hope that the CRTC would have followed the leadership of the FCC rather than following in the footsteps of Panama. The CRTC's public hearing on VoIP will be taking place May 19-20 in Gatineau, Que., where the CRTC has its headquarters, at the same time when VON Canada will be taking place in Toronto. Posted by jeff at 01:31 PM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My point of view is that Canada is not the United States, and while Panama is not the best 'example' for anyone to follow, the United States F.C.C. is certainly not the best either. Let Canada remain Canada and do things the way it sees best. PAT] ------------------------------ From: schen5547@yahoo.com (sam_chen) Subject: Forbes: VoIP Revolution Underway Date: 8 Apr 2004 18:49:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com 4/26 edition of Forbes has a feature on how VoIP and soon VoIP over Wi-Fi are the first real threat to the revenue of the Baby Bells on their home turf -- the local calling market. Some choice excerpts: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In a world of Net phones, local monopolies and duopolies will no longer exist; Internet consumers will have every telco in the country competing to win their business ... As voice revenue fades, carriers must use the same cheap networks to sell a bundle of other services instead. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "I believe that IP-based services such as [Voice over Internet] should evolve in a regulation free-zone," [FCC Chairman Michael Powell] said. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "If you don't do it, next year or the one after that you won't be playing in the game," says Qwest Chief Executive Richard C. Notebaert, who shocked the industry last fall by announcing plans for Qwest to become the first regional Bell company to offer cheap Internet-based phone service. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Looks like Qwest is the only ones who get this. They, along with Vonage and Savvis, could start becoming major competitors in wired areas like Verizon's and SBC's regions. What does everyone think about VoIP over Wi-Fi? VoIP is already huge and has a bright future, but more and more Wi-Fi networks are locked down, secured, or require payment to access -- what are the chances you'll happen to be in an open wireless zone on any consistent basis? ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Apparent Hidden Advertisements in the Telecom Digest Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:22:07 GMT Phil Earnhardt posted on that vast internet thingie: > The moderator's apparent compensation for promotion of a > telecommunications product in the Digest is a conflict of interest. That's silly. 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, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, he really was not being silly; he expressed a legitimate concern. I hope I explained myself to his satisfaction. If phone bills were the only thing in the world I had to worry about, and Vonage was paying them all (they are, where VOIP is concerned) and they were slipping me a little extra on the side (which they are not) to tamper with the messages here and *only* print postive things about them and negative things (or nothing at all) regards their competitors then he would have a legitmate beef. And he would not know either way unless he asked, which he did. But I have a lot of expenses and concerns in addition to my VOIP phone bills (which I could easily get along without if I absolutely had to). Speaking of VOIP phones, bandwidth issues, the squeeze I get on my LAN when the phone wants to talk while the cameras are FTP'ing, etc and such: I was downtown this afternoon to pay off my cable bill and got into a discussion of this with the lady in the office. She said, "how would you like a full meg instead of only 500 K *and* have your bill each month reduced by five dollars." Sure, who wouldn't. They now have a new package called 'Digital Internet' which instead of the 60 channels of television garbage I get (and rarely watch) will give me a couple hundred channels of assorted stuff *AND* a full meg on the modem *AND* two converter boxes with remotes for the two television sets I have *AND* no more 'monthly rental fee' for the Motorola cable modem. The total bill each month is about five dollars per month less than I pay now. I told her all I was intersted in was the bandwidth on the cable and being able to listen to (variously) KRPS 89.9 from Kansas State University (NPR) or the Tulsa equivilent at 89.5 which are on Cable One free from their tower over on Oak Street. She said keeping the package I had and adding the extra bandwidth only would cost me ten dollars per month more. "Or would you be willing to take all the above for five dollars per month less." I was not in a position to carry two digital converter boxes home with me this afternoon since I was actually going over to Marvins to get some groceries. "How about if my guy comes over to see you tomorrow late morning and does it all for you?" Okay, I guess so. She taps on the computer and says, "okay its all on now, I just turned you on for the bandwidth. Everything will work the same as it always has since you like KRPS, and if you decide you want to start watching television, you should find something on to watch." And guess who is going to start local phone service around here on the cable? They are ... to quote her: "Southwestern Bell has always been too big for their britches anyway, and we will probably be able to meet or beat Prairie Stream prices, and have local number porta- bility, same as Prairie Stream or Vonage." I told her it sounds exciting; it really does. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@Wal-MartXM.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 02:16:14 UTC Organization: a2i network TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Charles Cryderman : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think your mistake here is when you > talk to those people referring to your mode of payment as a 'debit card' > instead of a 'credit card'. Instead, refer to your mode of payment as > 'my VISA card' or 'Master Card' is . Since (when you are > calling on the phone) they are not going to see the plastic or any > logos on it, they won't know the difference. PAT] I was successful in using my debit card at one Hertz in NYC, and not another, where they said they absolutely could not accept it because of the inability to place a hold. When I said it worked the day before, she said they can sometimes force a hold of one dollar, just to make sure the card is good, usually done only if someone is paying cash. But she could not accept the debit card. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:39:48 GMT In article , Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com says: > In TELECOM Digest V23 #168 J Kelly inquired: >> I'm curious about "blocking". Does anyone know what happens if I >> call a hotel and reserve a room for sometime in the future, say six >> months, and I use a debit card to guarantee the room, do they >> generally block your card for the amount of that room? Or do they >> not do anything with you card number until check in time. I only >> have a debit card and I have an aversion to using it for hotel >> reservations, but maybe I shouldn't be concerened about it. I have >> used my PayPal debit card at check-in time and they blocked 5 days >> worth of the room cost to it at that time. They did not unblock it >> when I paid the total at the end of the week, only charged the final >> amount. The blocked charge "falls off" the PayPal card after 10 >> days if it isn't finalized by the merchant." > I have tried to use a "debit card" to reserve a hotel room and retinal > car and was told by both that banks do not permit "debit cards" to be > used for those purposes. If you don't use a credit card they told me I > couldn't have the reservations. > Chip Cryderman > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think your mistake here is when you > talk to those people referring to your mode of payment as a 'debit card' > instead of a 'credit card'. Instead, refer to your mode of payment as > 'my VISA card' or 'Master Card' is . Since (when you are > calling on the phone) they are not going to see the plastic or any > logos on it, they won't know the difference. PAT] You're right. The debit cards have account numbers that are indistinguishable from a credit card. I've booked hotels, rental cars, etc. on mine with no problems whatsoever. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:25:08 GMT In article , Joe_Wineburgh@cable.comcast.com says: > I contacted Peter Reilly (the VZ spokesperson quoted in the article) > for clarification and it looks like the numbers were VZ wireline > customers vs. all wireless customers (not just VZ wireless). His reply: > ------------------------------------------- > Mr. Wineburgh, > I was the Verizon spokesman quoted in the AP story. The comments I > made were based upon information from the following sources. The > landline numbers represent the 483,612 Verizon Maine residential > access lines in service for 4Q-2003, as reported at Verizon's Investor > Relations website http://investor.verizon.com/business/wireline.html . > The number of wireless subscribers in Maine reported in the most > recent FCC Report on Local Competition > http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html was 524,246 for June, 2003 and > represents customers from all reporting cellular carriers in Maine. > Note that this latest FCC reported number is different from the number > of Maine wireless subscribers offered in the article, written by > Kathryn Skelton of the Sun Journal in Lewiston, ME. I hope this > information helps to answer your questions. > Peter > ----------------------- > So I guess the question now is, do the other independant telcos > represent more than 40,633 customers. The same FCC report cited by the Verizon spokesperson for the 524,246 wireless subscribers in Maine (in Table 13) also states that there are 791,352 LEC and CLEC access lines (i.e., wireline subscribers) in Maine (in Table 6). So, yes, there are more than 40,633 non-Verizon wireline subscribers; there are 307,740 of them. Based on the full number of wireline subscribers, the wireless/wireline ratio is 66%, not >100% as suggested. Verizon is far from the only telco in the state; there are 6 ILECs (i.e., Verizon and five others) and 4 CLECs whose data is included in the FCC's report. The full URL for the report is http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC- State_Link/IAD/lcom1203.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/3c43q . Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if the 'Peter Reilly' referred to above is/was the technical book publisher by the same name with various technical works on the net and in bookstores. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Shen Subject: CPU Load on Catalyst4006 Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:01:10 +0800 Hi, The CPU load of our Catalyst4006 increases steadily in past days, and it is observed CPU load get as high as 98% some time. 'show proc cpu' shows something like: PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process 153864 17871130 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 Per-Second Jobs 12599429843831335909 328 6.63% 6.91% 6.75% 0 Cat4k Mgmt HiPri 3269298281067594379 306 32.93% 32.68% 32.55% 0 Cat4k Mgmt LoPri 749292 70964735 10 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0 Galios Reschedul And 'show platform health' shows something like: Ebm-host-review 1.00 4.51 8 5 100 500 2 3 2 7463:26 KxAclPathMan - Path 1.00 25.01 10 5 100 500 16 21 20 59322:35 I don't know what "KxAclPathMan" and "Ebm-host-review" stands for. Is there anybody could do some help? Thanks in advance. Regards, Jing Shen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:58:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Backs Nextel Paying More For Swap - Washington Post WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - A majority of U.S. communications regulators support moves requiring Nextel Communications Inc.(NASDAQ:NXTL) to pay up to $2.35 billion to swap airwaves and reduce interference problems with public safety communications like the fire service, the Washington Post reported on Thursday. Nextel, the No.5 U.S. wireless carrier, has proposed paying $850 million to reorganize the 800 megahertz band where it and scores of public safety groups operate as well as upgrade equipment used by fire and other public services. The company would also move its operations out of that band and into another band of airwaves, the most controversial part of the plan as the spectrum it wants is highly sought by rivals. Three of five Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioners have voted to require Nextel to pay between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion more than it has proposed, but details on how much it would pay and the method of payment were undecided, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed FCC sources. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41034853 ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #172 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 9 19:03:33 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i39N3Xg27222; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:03:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:03:33 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404092303.i39N3Xg27222@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 #173 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:03:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 173 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Consumers Eager for Internet Phone Service (VOIP News) Carriers Step up Business and Consumer VoIP Offerings (VOIP News) Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 - Regulatory Framework (VOIP News) Can You Cyberhear me Now? Net Calling Plans are Coming (VOIP News) VoicePulse Expanding Ratecenter Availability (VOIP News) Yahoo Groups Troubles (VOIP News) Ensuring Quality of Service on VoIP Networks (VOIP News) Re: Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net (VOIP News) Re: Jeff Pulver Blog Entry on CRTC (Fred Goldstein) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (Clarence Dold) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (Charles Cryderman) 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: VOIP News Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:02:37 -0400 Subject: Consumers Eager For Internet Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzvoip093747735apr09,0,3221491.story?coll=ny-business-headlines BY HARRY BERKOWITZ A new survey provides encouragement to the cable TV and telecommuni- cations companies that are rushing to launch discount phone services using Internet technology. But it also shows what a difficult time traditional phone companies may have in trying to hang on to their customers in the face of new competition. One in three consumers would switch from their existing land-line phone service to Internet-based phone service for a discount of 20 percent or more, according to the Gallup Organization survey, which was commissioned by the investment firm UBS. Three of every four consumers don't much care whether they are getting a package of telephone, TV and Internet services from their local phone company or their cable company, according to the survey. Full story at: http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzvoip093747735apr09,0,3221491.story?coll=ny-business-headlines How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:48:19 -0400 Subject: Carriers Step up Business and Consumer VoIP Offerings Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=91539 Features and price points emerge as key differentiation points By: Al Senia America's Network Major telecom carriers have escalated their Internet telephony offerings and rolled out a variety of new features in an effort to differentiate themselves more effectively in the VoIP business and consumer markets. Brian Buffington, executive director of managed services for SBC, says dependable, cost-effective, feature-laden VoIP services are proving popular with business users. "A big concern about VoIP is quality," says Buffington. "The voice traffic goes over our IP backbone, so we can control the quality of it." SBC is holding off from similar VoIP ventures in the residential market, however. "Residential VoIP is still being tested," a company spokesman explains. "There are some technical issues we have to cover before we can deliver it effectively." Verizon also is working with Nortel to bolster its VoIP offerings. Verizon intends to offer a comprehensive suite of VoIP and multimedia services for consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. later this year. It will accomplish this by beginning to replace traditional central office switches with packet switches. Nortel will provide the backbone of Verizon's national network migration. "We are literally taking what is known in the industry as the Public Switched Telephone Network and transforming it," says Paul Lacouture, president of Verizon's network services group. "The time is right for this move." Full story at: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=91539 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:16:04 -0400 Subject: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 - Regulatory Framework Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 Ottawa, 7 April 2004 Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol Reference: 8663-C12-200402892 and 8663-B2-200316101 The Commission has received both an application and a letter requesting it to address the regulatory requirements for the provision of voice communication services using Internet Protocol (IP). With this public notice, the Commission provides its preliminary views on the regulatory framework applicable to those services. The Commission is of the preliminary view that voice communication services using IP that utilize telephone numbers based on the North American Numbering Plan and provide universal access to and/or from the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (referred to in this public notice as "VoIP" services) have functional characteristics that are the same as circuit-switched voice telecommunications services. In the Commission's preliminary view, its existing regulatory framework should apply to VoIP services, including its determinations related to forbearance. The Commission considers, on a preliminary basis, that to the extent that VoIP services provide subscri bers with access to and/or from the PSTN along with the ability to make and/or receive calls that originate and terminate within the geographic boundaries of a local calling area as defined in the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' (ILECs) tariffs, they should be treated for regulatory purposes as local exchange services, and be subject to the regulatory framework governing local competition, established in Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 and subsequent determinations. In this public notice, the Commission also expresses preliminary views on the following three matters: (i) the applicability of existing tariffs, and requirements to file tariffs; (ii) the provision of 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 service, message relay service and privacy safeguards; (iii) the applicability of the national contribution collection mechanism as introduced in Changes to the contribution regime, Decision CRTC 2000-745, 30 November 2000. Interested parties are invited to provide co mment s on the Commission's preliminary views and any other pertinent matters and to participate in a public consultation. Full text of notice at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pt2004-2.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: Can You Cyberhear me Now? Net Calling Plans Are Coming Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2004-04-08-internet-calling_x.htm EDWARD C. BAIG The timing was coincidental. But I found it noteworthy that the very week AT&T was dumped as one of 30 bellwether stocks on the Dow Jones industrial average, the company unleashed its residential Internet phone service. On March 29, AT&T launched CallVantage in New Jersey, a day before offering the service to customers in Texas. Then on April Fools' Day, word came down that Verizon was replacing its former parent on the Dow, which was no prank to those who recall Ma Bell's heyday. As if we need more reminders that the high-tech times they are a-changin', brace yourselves for an invasion of Voice-over-Internet- Protocol, or VoIP, calling plans. That's telecom jargon for calls routed through cyberspace. Is it change for the better? My experience after a few days evaluating CallVantage has been mostly positive. Full story at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2004-04-08-internet-calling_x.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:33:18 -0400 Subject: VoicePulse Expanding Ratecenter Availability Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com There's no official announcement about this yet, but several people have reported that VoicePulse sent them a notification that there were new ratecenters available in their area code. When something official comes along we'll let you know, but in the meantime, if you've been waiting for a certain ratecenter to become available, you may wish to check VoicePulse's web site to see if that ratecenter has been added. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 07:06:51 -0400 Subject: Yahoo Groups Troubles Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com I apologize if you see any messages twice or if there are long delays between the time a message is posted and it actually appears - for the last three or four days the response on Yahoo Groups seems to have slowed to a crawl. In a couple cases duplicate messages have gone out because I thought Yahoo had lost (or never received) the first one, so I resent it (and then approved it twice - okay, so I admit it, sometimes I can't remember what I've already approved!). I hope this is just a temporary glitch, but wanted to explain in case things have looked a little strange this week. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jack, what has happened to you has also happened to most Yahoo Groups including Lisa Minter's Telecom News. Yahoo put out a bulletin to group owners/moderators telling about how Yahoo got attacked with so many virii and spam emails, causing the unmoderated groups there to fill up with *so much* garbage that Yahoo had to make a really special effort to weed it all out. They have totally eliminated the 'instant approval' they were using for unmoderated stuff and set up filters to at least get rid of the virii which was infesting Yahoo. The special message concluded that 'as a result, most messages will be delayed in appearing'. Lisa, for example, was getting around a hundred messages per day from 'security department' and 'Microsoft Updates' instructing people to install the latest new patch. (Yeah, sure.) Tons of the crap to be dumped all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:42:02 -0400 Subject: Ensuring Quality of Service on VoIP Networks Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/33371.html TECHNOLOGY SPECIAL REPORT: Ensuring Quality of Service on VoIP Networks By David Halperin www.TechNewsWorld.com, Part of the ECT News Network "Users of VoIP demand comparable call quality to their traditional phone systems," John Siliquini, Cortec's CTO, told TechNewsWorld. "Maintaining a network to support 'real-time' network traffic, such as voice, is a whole new ball game for the average network administrator." Like most countries boasting modern telecommunications systems, Australia has been implementing Voice over IP (VoIP) services. After a slow start, what began as a mild flirtation is now becoming an embrace, although use of VoIP technology is still in relatively early stages compared with market expectations. Talk Is Cheap, But Is It Clear? It may be flexible, and it certainly is less expensive than conventional telephony, but VoIP technology still has some issues, such as erratic quality of service. Some of this unevenness may result from use of general-purpose Internet networks, which can be subject to delays in packet delivery that don't affect static content but can create problems for real-time data streams. "There are literally hundreds of new companies that have come from an IT perspective and have never been really with voice, but are now looking at all sorts of new opportunities," Budde notes. One such company is Cortec Systems, based in Australia's second largest city, Melbourne. Cortec is developing a product -- for which it has recently secured AUD$6 million (US$4.6 million) in venture-capital backing -- which it says can guarantee a quantifiable level of service for any given VoIP call. Full story at: http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/33371.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:07:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com At 10:17 PM 4/7/2004 -0400, Jack Decker wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/technology/circuits/08stat.html?ex=1082001600&en=95d3f3f62e6024b4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE > NYTimes.com > Technology > Circuits > STATE OF THE ART > Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net > By DAVID POGUE I had serious reservations about this article when I posted it, but it's been getting a well-deserved trashing over on the BroadbandReports.com VoIP forum: http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9918119~mode=flat A few select quotes from readers: "Did you actually read it? I didn't think a reporter could make that many mistakes in one article." "The reporter continues to stroke AT&T for several paragraphs. They must have bought some expensive ad space in the Times today." "If you've ever read an article about an event you've personally observed , you'll never believe anything you read in the press again. They exemplify the word 'slipshod'." "While I can not get into it a great deal, I can tell you that I was interviewed for this story, as evidence by the quotes. When I read the story I was shocked at the misinformation." "I feel that this story underestimated the power of voIP, over complicated the installation process, and put a shadow of some providers where one was not deserved, and did not reflect reality." "I can definately say I've never seen anyone triple NAT a network. I have this mental picture of this non-techy guy with 3 routers, VOIP boxes all over the place, power adapters, patch cables, cordless phones and their power adapters, all strung out on a countertop ... scratching his head." "The reporter did not obviously understand much about Voip and felt safe taking the high road of labelling most providers as not yet ready for prime time. Lazy journalism? Yup. Consumer reporting in a few easy paragraphs has replaced in depth unbiased investigation of facts." Read the entire thread here -- maybe the New York Times' new motto should be "All the news that's fit to line bird cages with", at least when they talk about technology. http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9918119~mode=flat ------------------------------ From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Jeff Pulver Blog Entry on CRTC Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 08:50:55 -0500 Someone took this from Jeff Pulver's blog: > The CRTC just ruled that new IP Communication Service Providers in > Canada should meet the same requirements as traditional telephony > providers. > While the CRTC's "preliminary view," will be subject to public > comment, this is not a good starting point from the perspective of > would be communication disruptors who wish to do business in Canada. > Canada faces some of the same social policy issues as the United > States and it was my hope that the CRTC would have followed the > leadership of the FCC rather than following in the footsteps of > Panama. BZZZZT. Wrong answer. Jeff goofed this time, equating Canada to Panama. Both have the "a's" in the same place, but that's about it. Panama has tried to ban VoIP outright, AFAIK, since computer-to- computer VoIP can bypass the highly taxed international telephone network. Canada's proposal, which (unlike most bloggers) I actually read, says that when a VoIP network attaches to the PSTN and acts like the PSTN, delivering calls into the PSTN, the fact that it uses VoIP internally shouldn't matter. Technological neutrality -- let the technology succeed or fail on its own, without favoritism. Computer-to-computer VoIP, absent the PSTN, remains outside of the regulatory regime. Skype away. The VoIP fanatics have a problem. If VoIP is really better/cheaper, it shouldn't need subsidies or favorable treatment to succeed. If it needs favoritism, maybe it can't succeed in a fair marketplace, and shouldn't succeed. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary dot com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ ------------------------------ From: dold@Wal-MartXM.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:51:27 UTC Organization: a2i network Tony P. wrote: > You're right. The debit cards have account numbers that are > indistinguishable from a credit card. I've booked hotels, rental cars, > etc. on mine with no problems whatsoever. Unless they won't accept a hold. That would be a distinction that you can't see, but the rental agency or hotel would. It apparently returns an odd code, because the brighter ones recognize that it isn't overdrawn or bad, it just didn't work. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:54:02 -0400 I wrote: > I have tried to use a "debit card" to reserve a hotel room and > retinal car and was told by both that banks do not permit "debit > cards" to be used for those purposes. If you don't use a credit card > they told me I couldn't have the reservations. Master Pat replied: "I think your mistake here is when you talk to those people referring to your mode of payment as a 'debit card' instead of a 'credit card'. Instead, refer to your mode of payment as 'my VISA card' or 'Master Card' is . Since (when you are calling on the phone) they are not going to see the plastic or any logos on it, they won't know the difference." Pat, I didn't say anything, after I presented the card number, they came back and said the card number I gave them was for a "debit card" and that the banks do not permit "debit cards" to be used for those purposes. How they knew it was a debit I don't know. I gave them another number for a real Visa card, got to Acapulco, had my room and car, and had a blast with the wife with no kids. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #173 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 9 19:25:08 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i39NP8u27823; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:25:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404092325.i39NP8u27823@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 #174 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:25:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 174 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A-la-carte v. Tiering (was Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1 (Neal McLain) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:17:24 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: A-la-carte v. Tiering (was The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is part one of a two part message by Mr. McClain on A-la-carte Tiering. The second part will follow later tonight and is intended for your weekend reading. My thanks to Neal McLain for submitting it. It will probably go in the Telecom Archives as one long item. PAT] Monty Solomon [TD 23:120] wrote: > Subject: SkyFILES: The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom > by Michael Hopkins > This week, consumers got a peek behind the curtain that divides > them from the wizardry of multichannel programming. They've > learned a lot about how "their" channels get chosen -- and > they may begin to push for the chance to pick and choose only > the channels they want instead of paying for dozens of channels > they don't really care to watch. Whereupon [TD 23:121] wrote: > I've been wanting that chance for years and now that I've heard > that ESPN is the most expensive "basic" cable channel I want it > even more. I have no use for sports channels, shopping channels, > channels that aren't in English, soap opera channels, or Fox News. > So why am I paying for them? Multiple choice: (a) Because sports fans, home shoppers, foreign-language viewers, soap-opera fans, and Fox-News viewers are paying for the channels that you like. In the aggregate, all subscribers pay for all of the programming that all subscribers receive. (b) Because the prices you've been hearing about (like ESPN at $2.61) are "license fees" -- wholesale prices that your cable company pays to the program supplier. If each of these services had to stand on its own as a retail product, its price would rise to retail levels. And so would the prices of the channels that you like. (c) Because your cable company's basic subscription charge covers a lot more than just the programming. It also pays for your share of the infrastructure that delivers the programming to your home. This is essentially a fixed charge, largely independent of the cost of the programming, even though your cable company buries it in the basic-service charge. (d) Because your cable company does not connect your TV set directly to the program supplier. It connects your TV set to a tree-and- branch network in which all channels, both analog and digital, are delivered to all subscribers' premises simultaneously. Devices that block access to services that you don't pay for are located at or near your premises; these devices are expensive to implement, particularly for analog channels. Providing them for every subscriber for every analog channel would be prohibitively expensive. (e) Because your elected representatives in the United States Congress have decreed that your cable company must carry the signal of every television broadcast station in your local market, including home- shopping stations and foreign-language stations. (f) Because your elected representatives in the United States Congress have decreed that the owner (for example, Walt Disney Company) of a major broadcast television network (for example, ABC) can force your cable company to carry, and pay for, co-owned non-broadcast program services (for example, ESPN) as a condition for allowing your cable company to carry the broadcast-network programming. (g) All of above. Several recent posts here on TD have posed the same question that raises above: why don't cable television (and DBS) companies offer their services on an a-la-carte basis, so that subscribers can pick and choose only the channels they wish to watch? The answer to every one of these questions is essentially the same as my answer to 's question: (g) All of above. Many of the recent posts have centered on the wholesale price ("license fees") of the programming. License fees are indeed a significant cost item, and they are the primary reason for rise in cable and DBS retail rates. But many other items also affect the cost of cable television and DBS services: - Broadcast must-carry and retransmission-consent regulations. - Access-channel carriage requirements. - Non-broadcast programming contract carriage requirements. - Infrastructure costs. - Tier access control costs. These items profoundly affect the way CATV and DBS companies operate their businesses and the way they price their products. Yet little has been said about them in previous posts. So here's a rambling essay about them. ======================================= GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS POST ======================================= BASIC The lowest, most widely-available tier of television programming offered by a CATV or DBS. Called: "Basic" by most CATV companies. "Total Choice" by DirecTV. "America's Top 60" by EchoStar (Dish Network). "Cable Favorites" by VOOM. The FCC's definition, as it applies to cable television, is at 47 CFR 76.901 . CATV Cable television company or service. CFR Code of Federal Regulations. . CHURN The tendency for CATV and DBS subscribers to change programming choices frequently (add a tier here, drop a tier there). DBS Direct Broadcast Satellite company or service: DirecTV . EchoStar (Dish Network) . Sky Angel . VOOM . DMA Designated Market Area: the local market area of a commercial television broadcast station as defined by Nielsen Media Research. Most DMA boundaries follow county/borough/parish boundaries, but some large counties are split. Examples: Boston . Jacksonville . Shreveport . DROP The CATV cable entering a building from a utility pole or from an underground distribution facility, or the cable within an MDU complex that interconnects a junction box with an individual living unit. FCC Federal Communications Commission. . LFA Local Franchising Authority: an entity legally authorized under state law to grant and enforce a cable television franchise. Typically a municipal, township, or county government, but may be a separate quasi-governmental entity designated by one or more local governments. MDU Multi-Dwelling Unit: apartment building, condominium building, hotel, motel, college dorm, mobile home park, RV park, marina, hospital, retirement facility, hospice facility, etc. MSO Multi-system operator: a company that owns and operates two or more cable television systems. MVPD Multichannel Video Program Distributor: CATV or DBS. As defined by the FCC, this term also includes MMDS ("Wireless Cable") and OVS (Open Video Systems); however, for the purposes of this post, I include only CATV and DBS. NAB National Association of Broadcasters. . NCE Non-commercial educational broadcast television station. NCE stations are typically, but not necessarily, affiliated with PBS. NRTC National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative. . O&O Owned and operated: a commercial television broadcast station owned and operated by a television network. PEG Public, Educational, and Government, as in public-, educational-, and government-access channels. STB Settop box: a device provided by a cable television company to control access to one or more tiers. An STB may include other functions such as channel tuning, signal descrambling, or addressability. SUB Subscriber. TIER A group of one or more television channels offered by an MVPD to its customers. Upper tiers (tiers above the basic tier) are available only to subscribers who also subscribe to ("buy through") the basic tier. ======================================== BROADCAST MUST-CARRY REGULATIONS RETRANSMISSION-CONSENT REGULATIONS (CATV and DBS) ======================================== Federal regulations generally specify: - Every CATV lying within the DMA of any full-power commercial television broadcast station must carry the signal of that station at the request of the station licensee. This request may take either of two forms, at the option of the station licensee: a "must-carry" notification (in which case the CATV must carry the signal pursuant to generic FCC-promulgated must-carry regulations), or a "retransmission-consent" agreement between the CATV and the station licensee (in which case the agreement governs). Both forms of this request legally can (and most do) stipulate that the CATV must carry the signal in the basic tier. [1,2] - Every CATV lying within the Grade B contour of (or within 50 miles of) any NCE television broadcast station must carry the signal of that station, and it must carry it in the basic tier. If the CATV lies outside of any NCE's Grade B, it must import at least one NCE. [1] - Every DBS which carries any television broadcast station in any DMA must carry every television broadcast station in that DMA. This request may take either of two forms, at the option of the station licensee: "must-carry" notification (in which case the DBS must carry the signal pursuant to generic FCC-promulgated must-carry regulations), or a "retransmission-consent" agreement between the DBS and the station licensee (in which case the agreement governs). All such stations must be carried on contiguous (although not necessarily adjacent) channels. [3] The result of these regulations is that: - If you subscribe to a CATV, you get, and pay for, every full-power commercial and NCE television broadcast station in your DMA whether you want it or not. - If you subscribe to a DBS local tier, you get, and pay for, every full-power commercial and NCE television broadcast station in your DMA whether you want it or not. This includes home-shopping stations, foreign-language stations and religious stations. ======================================== PEG-ACCESS-CHANNEL CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS (CATV only) ======================================== Federal regulations permit any LFA that's authorized to regulate one or more CATVs to designate one or more channels on each CATV for PEG access. LFAs typically specify that PEG-access channels must be placed in the basic tier. Furthermore, they often specify that PEG-access channels must be partially funded by the CATV company. - Public access is typically funded by the CATV company through the franchise fee. In some cases, the CATV company also provides additional funds (over and above the franchise fee) for such items as studios, equipment, and personnel. - Educational access programming, provided by local educational institutions, may be funded by the institutions, by the franchise fee, or by a combination of both. - Governmental access programming, provided by local governmental agencies, may be funded by the agencies, by the franchise fee, or by a combination of both. The result of these regulations is that if you subscribe to any CATV, you get, and pay for (either through your cable bill or through your tax dollars), every PEG-access channel designated by your LFA. Federal regulations limit the franchise free to 5% of gross revenues. Most LFAs impose the full 5%, and most CATVs pass it through to their subscribers. "Gross revenue" includes all revenue that the CATV derives from all sources: all tiers of programming, all installation charges, all equipment rental, and all incidental revenue such as returned-check fees. It also includes the amount that the CATV collects from its subscribers to pay the 5% franchise fee, so the effective rate that hits the subscriber's bill is about 5.26%. . ======================================== NON-BROADCAST PROGRAMMING CARRIAGE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS (CATV and DBS) ======================================== Most non-broadcast programming carried by MVPDs is supported by two revenue streams: subscriber fees and advertising. MVPD companies carry advertising-supported non-broadcast program services pursuant to contracts with the program suppliers. In theory, each MVPD can pick and choose the program services it wishes to carry; however, the specific requirements of those contracts severely limit the choices: - All contracts specify the license fee: the wholesale price the MVPD must pay to the program supplier. Most services are priced on a per-channel-per-sub-per-month basis. Larger MVPD companies usually get volume discounts; discounts are also available for carrying multiple-channel packages from the same supplier. Most license fees are less than a dollar, although they vary widely: at the low end, some services (religious, NASA-TV, Classic Arts Showcase) are free to all MVPDs; at the high end, ESPN is well above $2.00. Shopping channels usually pay the MVPD a commission on their sales. - Many contracts specify time periods ("avails") during which MVPDs can insert advertising messages ("local ad insertions"). Avails often occur adjacent to advertising carried by the program supplier. If the MVPD does not utilize an avail, advertising by the program supplier passes by default. By selling local advertising, MVPDs can partially recover the license fee, although they rarely, if ever, recover the entire license fee. - Most program contracts specify that the programming must be carried in the basic tier. This requirement supports the programmers' advertising: for the purpose of setting advertising rates, the programmer counts every subscriber as a "viewer" whether or not the subscriber ever actually views the programming. - Many contracts are tied to retransmission-consent agreements for broadcast programming: as a condition for carrying an O&O broadcast station, every MVPD also must agree to carry (and pay for) non-broadcast advertising-supported programming offered by the station's owner. The number of possible tie-ins this situation creates is absolutely astounding: Disney (ABC), Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC, Paxson, Telemundo), and News Corporation (FOX) each owns non-broadcast program services. Disney: . General Electric: . News Corporation: . Viacom: . This issue was, of course, a major factor in the recent squabble between Viacom (CBS) and EchoStar (Dish Network). - Some contracts do permit carriage on an upper tier, but they often specify a higher license fee. These higher fees can be so onerous that an MVPD essentially has no choice: the only economically feasibly way to carry the programming is to put it in basic. One notably aggressive company in this regard is Discovery Communications, Inc. (Discovery Channel and its spinoffs). Notwithstanding higher license fees, all DBS companies and most CATV companies offer one or more extra-charge upper tiers in addition to the basic tier (although some older, smaller CATVs may still offer only one tier, a so-called "fat basic" tier). Many upper tiers are organized around some sort of common theme; for example, movies, sports, foreign language, or a multiplexed bundle of co-branded channels (e.g., Starz! and its spinoffs). For regulatory purposes, even single-channel "premium" services (e.g. HBO, Showtime, pay-per-view) are treated as separate tiers. Tiering provides subscribers with some degree of a-la-carte choice (although certainly not to the extent that would like). In order to ensure that they have sufficient revenue to meet infrastructure costs, MVPDs require every subscriber to "buy through" the basic tier before purchasing any upper tier. Tiers devoted to sports programming have been the source of much controversy: MVPDs try to minimize their basic-tier retail rates by placing sports on a sports tier, while programmers demand that their programming be put in basic. ESPN has been at the center of this controversy for years. ESPN's owner (Walt Disney Company) also owns the ABC television network and several O&O television broadcast stations. This gives it the power to bundle ESPN with ABC, forcing MVPDs to carry ESPN in the basic tier as a condition for getting retransmission consent for the O&Os. Consequently, most MVPDs currently carry ESPN (and some or all of its spinoffs) in the basic tier. Every CATV I've ever been associated with carries it there. Both DirecTV and EchoStar carry it there (VOOM is still negotiating carriage rights; Sky Angel doesn't carry it). ESPN's license fee has been rising 20% per year for the past two or three years, making it one of main reasons why CATV basic-tier prices keep going up. And it's not just CATV prices that keep rising, notwithstanding EchoStar's "don't-feed-the-pig" cartoon: DirecTV just went up $3.00. The current battle between YES Network and Cablevision Systems is the latest chapter in this controversy, although it's not directly comparable to the Disney/ESPN/ABC situation in that the programmer (in this case, the New York Yankees) is not a broadcast network. The result of all this is that: - If you subscribe to any MVPD, you get, and pay for, every advertising-supported non-broadcast programming service in the basic tier (including ESPN) whether you want it or not. - If you also subscribe to any upper tier, you get, and pay for, every advertising-supported non-broadcast programming service in that tier whether you want it or not. - If you subscribe to a Cablevision-owned CATV in the New York City area, you're about to get, and pay for, YES Network whether you want it or not. But so does every other subscriber. In the aggregate, all subscribers to each tier pay for all of the programming in that tier. And all basic subscribers contribute equally to the MVPD's infrastructure costs. ======================================== MVPD INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (CATV and DBS) ======================================== Programming may be a big item in an MVPD's budget, but it's certainly not the only item. MVPDs must meet the normal operating expenses common to any business: administrative overhead, advertising, payroll, employee benefits, customer care, customer billing, maintenance, public relations, government relations, insurance, legal services, rent and lease expense, utilities, vehicle expense. And, of course, they must produce operating margins sufficient to cover amortization, depreciation, interest, taxes, and profit. Beyond these items, MVPDs incur costs unique to their respective business models: - DBS companies own and operate satellite distribution facilities. Each DBS company incurs huge capital outlays before it can hook up even one customer. It must obtain (at auction) an FCC license and an orbital slot assignment for each satellite. It must purchase the satellite, pay to have it launched, and pay a premium for launch insurance. [4] It must construct uplink facilities and satellite ground-control ("telemetry, tracking and command") facilities. It must construct video-signal reception, production, editing, storage, processing, and playout facilities. Once it begins operations, it must amortize those capital outlays, and it must operate and maintain all of those facilities. And it must control access to its services by accurately connecting each authorized receiver, and by detecting and prosecuting unauthorized receivers. - CATV companies own and operate ground-based distribution plants. Each CATV incurs huge capital outlays before it begins operations. It must obtain, from the LFA (and in some states, from the state government), the legal right ("franchise") to operate on public rights-of-way. It must register its proposed operation with the FCC. It must construct video-signal reception and processing facilities ("headend"). It must construct outdoor distribution facilities ("outside plant") extending from the headend to every customer's premises. Once it begins operations, it must amortize those capital outlays, and it must operate and maintain all of those facilities. It must pay for pole-attachment rights ("pole rental") for aerial outside plant (often a CATV's third largest expense after personnel and programming), and it must pay for contractor-hotline ("one-call") notification services for underground outside plant. [5] It must assume responsibility for the technical integrity of wiring inside customer premises even though it may not own it. [6] And it must control access to its services by accurately connecting each subscriber, and by detecting and prosecuting unauthorized connections. I call these costs "infrastructure costs." These costs exceed the cost of programming, often by a factor of two, sometimes even more. Furthermore, these costs are largely independent the number of channels carried. MVPDs recover infrastructure costs from two sources: subscription fees and local ad insertion. That means they need as many basic subscribers as possible, all of whom are exposed to as many advertising-supported programming sources as possible. To borrow a term from the print-media industry, MVPDs need "circulation." An exchange of messages here on TD underscores this point: Monty Solomon [TD 22:718] (quoting "Rising Sports tab Ups Cable TV Rates - GAO" by Jeremy Pelofsky, WASHINGTON, Oct 24), wrote: > The Arizona Republican (sic) has argued that the 70 million > U.S. cable subscribers should have an "a la carte" selection > of channels. Whereupon [TD 22:719], I wrote: > Gee, I wonder if the Arizona Republic would be willing to sell > its newspaper on an "a la carte" basis, so readers (like me) who > have no interest in sports or classified ads could order only > the sections we want? To which [TD 22:720], Paul Robinson , responded: > There is a difference. The sports section in the newspaper is created > either by the same wire services that they subscribe to or by their > own reporters and doesn't cost a whole lot extra. The sports channels > on cable networks are additional costs to the cable operator that they > have to pass on to everyone because they have to pay for every > subscriber. In other words, it costs an MVPD more (per-sub) to carry full-time television sports channels in its basic tier than it costs a newspaper (per-copy) to produce a sports section. That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that newspapers and MVPDs both need circulation to meet their respective infrastructure costs. > And let's not forget the price of a newspaper is basically the cost of > the paper it's printed on, and the newspaper would lose money if it > had to make costs on the circulation price, or your daily newspaper > would cost about $2.50 a copy. Which equals about $75.00 per month. Care to conjecture what 30 or 40 channels of basic cable would cost if program suppliers and MVPDs had to rely on subscription fees alone? > Advertisements such as classified ads bring down the cost of the > paper. Advertisements on CATV and DBS channels bring down the cost of CATV and DBS service. Paul Robinson might have mentioned another reason why a newspaper would not offer its publication on an "a la carte" basis: the operational task of actually executing such a procedure. If a hypothetical newspaper actually offered to provide each reader with a customized edition that included only the sections that the reader ordered, how would it do it? Perhaps it could install a computerized control system that would assemble each reader's paper at the printing plant, identify it with a label, and hope that the delivery people don't get things mixed up. Or maybe it could deliver complete papers to some poor paperboy, and assign to him the job of removing the unwanted sections. Ok, ok, I'm being cynical: it's obviously cheaper and more reliable to deliver a complete newspaper to every subscriber. By the same token, it would be cheaper and more reliable for an MVPD to deliver all television channels to all subscribers in one big fat basic tier. That said, however, there are indeed reasons why an MVPD would place certain special-interest programming and/or high-cost programming in an upper tier. Arguably, sports programming qualifies on both counts. Consequently, many CATV companies and all DBS companies offer sports tiers as well as other tiers. ======================================== ACCESS CONTROL (CATV ONLY) ======================================== In a CATV network, signals are transported by electrical conductors for at least part of the route. Electrical conductors are subject to an immutable law of physics: the higher the frequency, the higher the signal attenuation. This law forces a technical tradeoff: the wider the band of frequencies one wishes to carry over a network, the shorter the permissible length of the network. To illustrate this point, compare a standard telephone access line with a CATV trunk line: - A telephone line (copper twisted-pair) can carry a relatively narrow band of analog signals (up to about 8 KHz) over a distance of many miles without any intermediate amplification. - A CATV trunk line (0.75-inch coaxial cable) can carry a wide band of signals (up to a GHz or so) over a distance of almost half a mile. Longer trunks can be implemented only by adding amplifiers every 2000 feet or so. A CATV trunk line costs far more to manufacture, install, and maintain than a pair of copper wires of comparable length. It would be economically impossible for a CATV company to provide a separate trunk line to each individual customer. Consequently, the CATV company connects all of its customers to a tree-and-branch coaxial network consisting of one or more trunk lines. Every signal that any subscriber might want must be present on that network. The basic tier (and, in some cases, one or more upper tiers) of every CATV system is distributed in analog format. Each analog signal is carried in one standard 6-MHz NTSC television channel, accompanied by a monaural or BTSC stereo audio signal. CATV channels are numbered 1-158, occupying the frequency band 54-1002 MHz. This format is compatible with consumer-owned analog TV sets, VCRs, and DVRs (although not all consumer-owned equipment is capable of tuning all 158 channels). . Devices called "taps" are located throughout the network at locations near potential customers. Each tap can serve one or more customers within a radius of about 300 feet. When a potential customer signs up for CATV service, a "drop" cable is used to extend the signal from the tap to the customer's premises. Typical tap-and-drop situations include: - Utility pole: the tap is placed at the pole (often a joint pole shared with electric power and/or telephone facilities). The drop cable (typically self-supporting RG-6 designed for overhead installation) extends the signal to the customer's premises. . - Pedestal: the tap is placed inside a pedestal located near the property line (typically adjacent to telephone and electric power pedestals). The drop cable (typically RG-6 designed for direct- burial installation) extends the signal to the customer's premises. . - Junction box: the tap is placed inside a locked junction box located on the premises of an MDU facility. The drop cable (typically RG-59 or RG-6) extends the signal to the customer's unit. Access to the basic tier is controlled by physically connecting or disconnecting the drop cable. When you sign up for cable service, a technician visits your premises to connect the drop to the tap. When you disconnect service, a technician visits your premises to disconnect the drop from the tap. On a rule-of-thumb average, each premises visit by a technician costs the company about $50.00. Access to upper tiers is controlled by some sort of blocking device installed at the output of the tap, or at some downstream location. Over the years, several types of channel-blocking devices have been developed. They're all expensive, and, in varying degrees, vulnerable to hacking. Four systems are in common use today: NEGATIVE TRAP (N-TRAP) This term describes a small passive device installed at the tap to block a tier of one or more analog channels. . Two or more n-traps can be connected end-to-end to block more than one tier. Note that an n-trap *blocks* the tier; consequently, an n-trap must be installed at every subscriber premises that *doesn't* subscribe to the tier. N-traps exhibit an unfortunate side effect: they attenuate carriers in adjacent channels (lower adjacent visual; upper-adjacent aural). The severity of this problem increases with frequency, and becomes unacceptable above about 200 MHz. A CATV company using n-traps must meet the up-front cost of purchasing and installing them. The company must then dispatch a technician to install or remove some combination of n-traps every time a subscriber adds or drops a tier (at that rule-of-thumb cost to the company of $50 per trip). Finally, the company must conduct regular at-least-once-a-year audits of its outside plant to detect missing n-traps and prosecute illegal hookups (once a semester in college towns). POSITIVE TRAP (P-TRAP) This term describes a small passive device installed at the tap (or downstream from the tap) to unblock one analog channel. In physical appearance, a p-trap is identical to an n-trap, but its function is exactly the opposite: instead of blocking a channel, a p-trap unblocks it. It does this by trapping out a scrambling carrier that has been inserted into the channel at the headend; this carrier is sometimes frequency- and/or amplitude-modulated with various squeaks and warbles to increase the effectiveness of the scrambling. A p-trap affects only one channel; to unblock a tier of two or more channels, a separate p-trap is needed for each channel. Because a p-trap unblocks the channel, a p-trap must be installed at every subscriber premises that *does* subscribe to the channel. P-traps exhibit an unfortunate side-effect: they remove some of the visual sidebands in the vicinity of the interfering carrier, resulting in some loss of picture detail. A CATV company using p-traps can avoid the up-front costs of installing n-traps because p-traps are needed only for subscribers who take the tier. But p-trap security becomes less effective over time as stolen p-traps proliferate in the underground economy, and as p-trap functions are replicated by hackers or local TV-repair shops. ANALOG SETTOP BOX (STB) Also known as converter, decoder, or descrambler. This term describes an active device that is usually placed near the customer's television equipment to control access to one or more analog tiers by descrambling signals that have been scrambled at the headend. Every analog STB manufacturer uses a different scrambling scheme; some use several. Most scrambling schemes operate on the vestigial-sideband visual carrier after modulation: by attenuating the amplitude of the horizontal sync pulses below the amplitude of the blackest picture content, unauthorized TV sets can't synchronize properly. A single analog STB can descramble any number of analog channels; thus it can reduce the cost of access control when several channels must be controlled. Some STBs also incorporate extra features such as infrared-remote control, channel selection, channel-number display, and addressable control. Analog scrambling systems exhibit an unfortunate side effect: either they do not scramble the aural carrier, or they do not completely obliterate the visual signal, or both. Unless additional blackout circuitry is included in the STB, this situation allows an unauthorized viewer to hear the sound and glimpse occasional bits of the picture; this has been the cause of much controversy, particularly if the visual content is offensive to an unauthorized viewer. A CATV company using analog STBs must either lease or purchase them, and then it must incur a big up-front capital cost to install them. Once installed, they aren't very secure. Hackers have compromised just about every analog STB design that's ever been manufactured, and bootleg boxes are readily available in the underground economy. As I write this: - Google lists 67,000 links for "cable TV descrambler". - eBay reports "72 items found for cable tv descrambler". - Outfits like universaldescramblers.com are still in business. . Even such reputable publications as Sound&Vision and Wired accept classified ads for bootleg STBs. About the best defense that analog STBs have against signal theft is the fact that there are so many different incompatible scrambling schemes out there that even the hackers get confused. Even legal analog STBs are a big expense item in a cable company's budget. FCC rate-regulation rules stipulate that STBs are to be amortized over seven years, but few of them actually last that long. Many of them come back in unusable condition (the cabinet is cracked and coated with sticky dried coke, the interior is full of dead cockroaches, the line cord is knotted beyond hope, and the remote was the dog's favorite chew-toy). Others get "lost" (but they magically reappear at flea markets, serial numbers obliterated). DIGITAL SETTOP BOX (STB) In the past decade or so, CATV companies have begun to deploy "digital cable" services for delivery of upper-tier channels. Every digital cable subscriber gets a digital STB that acts as a frequency-converter for analog channels and as a tuner/demuxer/decoder for digital signals. Each digital data stream is assigned a virtual "channel" number, although this number has nothing to do with the actual CATV channel that carries the digital data stream. For CATV companies, digital STBs offer several advantages: - Digital signals are less vulnerable to noise and distortion, so that higher trunk and distribution frequencies and/or longer trunk runs (deeper amplifier cascades) are possible. - Video signals can be digitally compressed, so that several video streams (virtual channels) can be crammed into each 6-MHz channel. - Scrambling is 100% effective. Unauthorized signals are simply not decoded; either the digital STB generates a black-burst video signal to replace each unauthorized video signal, or the operating software simply refuses to respond to a request for an unauthorized video signal. - Access control is implemented in software; consequently, tier upgrades and downgrades can be accomplished remotely without a site visit. Many tiers or combinations of tiers can be accommodated. - Digital STBs are (at least so far) more secure than any of the analog schemes described above. This is due, in part, to the fact that access control is implemented in software. This doesn't prevent hacking attempts, but it makes it a lot more difficult than it was back in the analog-box days. Furthermore, each digital STB must be connected to a phone line so that it can call home on command. Digital STBs do, in fact, make individual-channel a-la-carte offerings technically feasible within (but only within) the digital tiers. Digital STBs are more expensive than analog STBs, and they're subject to the same kind abuse that subscribers inflict on analog STBs. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that digital distribution will eventually replace analog for all CATV channels. For the time being however, the cable industry is still stuck with analog for the basic tier, and at least some of the upper tiers. Which means it's going to have to continue dealing with n-traps, p-traps, and analog STBs for some time to come. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Part two of this essay will be presented later tonight. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #174 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 9 20:04:09 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3A049X02213; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:04:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404100004.i3A049X02213@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 #175 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:03:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 175 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Part 2 of 2 Ala carte Cable TV (Neal McLain) Subject: Re: Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask (J Beaman) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (jmeissen@aracnet.com) Commentary: Heads up VoIP - Regulation Incoming (VOIP News) Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today (Lisa Hancock) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:17:39 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Part 2 of 2 Ala Carte Cable TV ======================================== ACCESS CONTROL (DBS ONLY) ======================================== All DBS signals are broadcast from a geostationary satellite [7]. Satellites intended for DBS service are spaced 9 degrees (or more) apart within the geostationary orbit to accommodate small-aperture (18-inch diameter) receiving antennas. The DBS band consists of 32 transponders arranged in a 500-MHz block transmitted in the following frequency bands: Uplink 17.3-17.8 GHz Downlink 12.2-12.7 GHz The downlink footprint for most services covers the entire continental United States; supplementary spot beams are used for Alaska and Hawaii. In some cases, spot beams may be employed for "local-into-local" service (delivery of local broadcast television stations to subscribers in specific DMAs), allowing the same downlink frequencies to be reused simultaneously in different geographic areas. At any given geographic location, all relevant signals are delivered to the subscriber's receiving antenna. Each transponder utilized for DBS service relays a digitized data stream containing one or more video signals with accompanying multi-channel audio and metadata. The video signals are digitally compressed so that several video streams (virtual channels) can be multiplexed into each data stream. The encoding schemes used by DirecTV and EchoStar are mutually incompatible: EchoStar uses MPEG-standard 188-byte data packets, while DirecTV uses 132-byte data packets; audio and metadata protocols are also different. Each DBS subscriber must own a receiver of a specific design intended for use with a specific DBS service. The signal received from the satellite includes metadata used by the receiver to display channel numbers, program guides, and similar information, and to identify authorized signals. Each receiver is fitted with a card slot to accept an access card issued by the DBS company. Each authorized receiver's serial number is matched to a specific access card; the receiver will operate only when the proper access card is in place. DBS receivers are available on the open market; used receivers are often available on eBay. DBS resellers often provide free receivers for new customers who agree to one-year contracts. Subscriber ownership of receivers obviously saves DBS companies a lot of up-front capital; furthermore, subscribers are less likely to abuse receivers that they own. For DBS companies, digital receivers offer many of the same advantages that digital STBs offer cable companies: - Video signals can be digitally compressed, so that several video streams (virtual channels) can be crammed into each transponder. - Scrambling is 100% effective. Unauthorized signals are simply not decoded; the receiver generates a black-burst video signal to replace each unauthorized satellite signal. - Access control is implemented in software; consequently, tier upgrades and downgrades in can be accomplished remotely without a site visit. Many tiers or combinations of tiers can be accommodated. DirecTV and EchoStar each offers local-into-local service, as well as extensive selections of foreign-language tiers for domestic audiences (EchoStar's Arabic-language tiers even include Aljazeera). DBS receivers do, in fact, make individual-video-signal a-la-carte offerings technically feasible for every level of service, including basic (indeed, the very concept of "basic" service would be rendered obsolete by full a-la-carte pricing). But DBS operators have chosen not to offer their services on this basis, presumably for some fairly obvious reasons: - Within the United States, federal regulations permitting local- into-local carriage of television broadcast stations stipulate that if a DBS company carries one station in a DMA, it must carry all stations in the DMA, and it must place them on "contiguous channels." This block of contiguous channels is, in effect, a tier. - DBS companies' carriage agreements with most non-broadcast program suppliers require carriage in the basic tier. - Like CATV companies, DBS companies bury their infrastructure costs in their basic-service prices. Offering full a-la-carte pricing would require a new pricing structure that would include some sort of flat connection charge to cover infrastructure costs. - DBS companies apparently like to package their products in ways that, for marketing purposes, can be easily compared with (or contrasted against) competitive CATV packages. Descriptions of program tiers offered by major DBS companies are at: DirecTV . Dish Network . Sky Angel . VOOM . A list of all communications satellites currently in orbit over ITU Region 2 (North and South America) is available at . Clicking on a satellite name brings up a list of transponder assignments. ======================================== ACCESS-CONTROL COSTS (CATV and DBS) ======================================== If we compare the technologies used by CATV companies vis-a-vis DBS companies, there are many obvious differences. But there is also a striking similarity: all channels are delivered to the subscriber premises, and access control is located at, or near, the premises. Read that again: ALL CHANNELS ARE DELIVERED TO THE SUBSCRIBER PREMISES, AND ACCESS CONTROL IS LOCATED AT, OR NEAR, THE PREMISES. Ok, so what? So this: The whole a-la-carte pricing issue seems to be based on the assumption that there's a linear relationship between the price of the basic tier and the number of channels carried in the basic tier. This assumption is simply not true: the price of the basic tier includes the amount needed by the MVPD to cover its infrastructure costs. These costs are essentially fixed, independent of the number of channels that any given customer receives: - A CATV company must deliver every channel every tap throughout the entire outside plant whether or not any potential customer subscribes to any of them. - A DBS company must deliver every channel to every square inch of the United States whether or not anybody subscribes to any of them. This is, of course, why every CATV company and every DBS company requires every subscriber to "buy through" the basic tier before purchasing any upper tier. The tiers themselves are priced to recover the incremental costs that they incur: higher license fees; reduced local-ad-insertion revenue; higher administrative costs for record-keeping and billing; added labor and vehicle costs for site visits. A recent example of this erroneous assumption: Tom Betz [TD 23:145; 23:147], wrote: > Who do I have to bribe to stop getting (and paying for) ALL the > useless sports channels that I just program the TV to skip? > It could easily cut my cable bill in half. Betz didn't identify those "useless sports channels," but let's assume they're ESPN and some of its offspring, in which case the license fees would be somewhere around $3.00 or $4.00 per month. Suppose that Betz's favorite CATV company actually did remove these channels from the basic tier and move ("migrate" in FCC-talk) them to an upper tier (call it the USC tier). This change would reduce the CATV company's basic-tier license fee, but it would not reduce its infrastructure costs by one penny. Assuming that the company passed the license-fee savings along to its basic-tier customers, Betz's cable bill would drop, at most, by that $3.00 or $4.00 license fee reduction. Betz's neighbors who happen to like those sports channels would now have to subscribe to the USC tier *and* the basic tier. What would that cost? I can't speak for any particular program supplier, but I can cite a few obvious reasons why the USC tier would cost a lot more than the $3.00 or $4.00 that Betz would be saving. The program supplier would incur an immediate reduction in license-fee revenue, and an immediate reduction in the number of potential viewers supporting its advertising base. In response, it would almost certainly increase the license fee (assuming that it didn't just sue the CATV company for breach-of-contract for making the change in the first place). One could, of course, argue that the program supplier could partially offset these losses by charging higher advertising rates. To an extent, that's a legitimate argument. The old advertising-industry adage that "paid advertising is worth more than free advertising" certainly applies here: any viewer who pays for access to the USC tier is more likely to watch the USC tier. But it's unlikely that increasing the advertising rates would generate enough revenue to offset the losses resulting from the smaller number of viewers. Advertising prices are economically elastic; at some point, advertisers are simply going to balk at paying higher prices for fewer viewers. From the CATV company's point of view: - The license fees for the USC channels would be increased substantially. - Operating costs would rise because of the administrative costs associated with the new tier. Installing security devices to block unauthorized viewing would be a big expense, especially if n-traps were required. General office overhead would spike for a few months until subscribers got used to the change. - The local-ad-insertion revenue base for the USC channels would be lower. The CATV company might be able to offset some of this loss by raising its advertising rates (that old ad-industry adage applies here as well), but it's doubtful that it could recover all of the lost revenue. In other words, by migrating these channels, the CATV company would incur higher license fees, higher operating costs, and lower advertising revenue. To recover these costs, it would have to bury them in the subscription fee for the USC-tier. Consequently, the retail price for this tier would be a far more than $3.00 or $4.00 per month -- perhaps as much as $10.00 or $15.00. How would local sports fans react to this change? Which faction would file more complaints with the LFA: sports fans or everybody else? Which side would the local newspaper's editorial page favor? Which faction would make the most noise at the inevitable public hearing before the City Council? ======================================== RETAIL A-LA-CARTE PRICING (CATV and DBS) ======================================== Now let's go back to the original question and rephrase it in the context of the previous discussion: if cable television and DBS companies can offer services in tiers, why can't they just put each channel on a separate tier and offer everything on an a-la-carte basis? The short answer is: they can. But there are a few problems that we need to consider first: NON-BROADCAST PROGRAMMING CONTRACT CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS. Problem: As long as broadcast networks have the Congressionally- sanctioned right to bundle non-broadcast programming with retransmission-consent for co-owned O&O broadcast stations (and force them onto the basic tiers), no MVPD will be able to offer any of those non-broadcast services on an a-la-carte basis. Possible solution: Congress will have to change this law as a prerequisite to any sort of rational discussion about a-la-carte pricing. Of course, NAB will mount a fierce opposition, but if Congress really wants a-la-carte pricing, I don't think it has much choice. INFRASTRUCTURE COST RECOVERY. Problem: The basic tier currently includes, among other things, infrastructure-cost recovery and non-broadcast programming. If non-broadcast programming is removed from basic and offered a-la-carte, some alternate means of infrastructure cost recovery will be necessary. Possible solution: Impose a flat monthly access fee of, say $20 or $30, on every subscriber. This would undoubtedly be perceived by the public as a new scheme for jacking up the price, but if every CATV and every DBS instituted it simultaneously (with an appropriate barrage of press releases), I think it could be done. A CATV could include local broadcast stations (and possibly PEG access channels) as part of the cost-recovery fee, and continue calling it "basic." But of course, this too would be perceived as a way to jack up the price even if the price actually went down. CATV ACCESS CONTROL. Problem: It's financially impossible for any CATV to implement a-la-carte pricing right now for any analog channels, simply because of the cost of sending out a technician (remember that $50 per trip) for every change in every subscriber's favorite-channel list. (At least DBS doesn't have this particular problem.) Possible solution: Wait a while. This problem is going to be insurmountable for the next several years, but it will eventually go away by itself. By 2010 or 2015, when the transition to digital television is complete (or at least past that magic 85% threshold), the cable industry will finally be able to move all basic-tier services to digital, drop all analog channels, and vaporize all those n-traps, p-traps, and analog boxes in a Great Ceremonial Bonfire. Once every CATV subscriber possesses a 100%-secure, subscriber-owned, addressable digital box (or the equivalent circuitry built into consumer electronics equipment), access-control costs will drop dramatically. SUBSCRIBER CHURN. Problem: Subscribers would want to churn in and out of some channels they don't watch on a regular basis. Program providers obviously would require each MVPD to establish procedures to prevent this behavior. To cite an example close to home: if I were paying my DirecTV bill on an a-la-carte basis, I would want to subscribe to USA Network for two days a year for the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, then drop off for the rest of the year. Possible solutions: - Institute fixed-term contracts, like cell phone companies use. When you first sign up for service, you select the channels you want, and agree to a one-year contract. Add a channel later, and you pay an upgrade fee. Try to drop a channel later and you find that you're locked in for the duration of the contract. Or else you have to pay a downgrade fee (hey, didn't you read the fine print?). - Turn the problem into an opportunity. Marketing departments would jump on this just like they do now with tiers: short-term deals for specific channels for specific time periods. Special packages for every holiday ... all sorts of gift-card packages ... "season tickets" for sports events ... pay-per-view time blocks (hey, this works for Playboy TV: $7.99 gets you a four-hour block). Maybe USA would even sell me the dog-show. LICENSE FEES. Problem: A-la-carte pricing will dramatically reduce each non-broadcast programmer's potential audience. How programmers react to this situation is a matter of speculation, but it seems safe to say that license fees will rise substantially. A hypothetical example: a certain programmer expects a 25% a-la-carte penetration rate. If it expects to maintain its license-fee revenue, it must increase the license fee by a factor of four. A service presently licensed for $0.50 per month would rise to $2.00; good old ESPN, presently at $2.61, would shoot up to $10.44. If the programmer expects to maintain its advertising revenue, it must either raise the license fee even further, raise its advertising rates, or both. Possible solutions: Live with it. This is the price to be paid for a-la-carte pricing. Now let's try a little experiment. Let's try to figure out what a hypothetical subscriber's bill might look like with a-al-carte pricing. We start with some assumptions: - We can ignore the broadcast/non-broadcast bundle problem. - We can ignore the CATV industry's analog access-control problem. - The hypothetical subscriber has six favorite non-broadcast channels (not including ESPN), each of which has a pre-a-la-carte license fee of $0.50. Each programmer expects a 25% a-la-carte penetration rate, so the license fee jumps to $2.00. - The monthly infrastructure fee is $20.00 (this is a wild guess on my part, but we have to start somewhere). For CATV subscribers, this fee also includes local broadcast stations and PEG access channels. - The CATV franchise fee is 5% of gross revenues, which equates to 5.26% of net. - State and local taxes total 8%, and apply to CATV and DBS. This hypothetical bill would look like this: CATV DIRECTV ECHOSTAR Access charge ......................... $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Six non-broadcast services, @ $2.00 ... 12.00 12.00 12.00 All local broadcast stations .......... 0.00 3.00 5.99 All PEG access channels ............... 0.00 N/A N/A Franchise fee ......................... 1.68 N/A N/A State and local taxes ................. 2.69 2.80 3.04 TOTAL ................................. $36.38 37.80 41.03 That's for just six non-broadcast services and all local stations, but without ESPN, without any premium services (HBO, Showtime, etc.), and without considering churn. Add a few more non-broadcast channels, or add ESPN, and where are you? Here's a homework assignment for , Tom Betz, Paul Robinson, and anybody else that's interested: using the above assumptions, calculate your own hypothetical a-la-carte CATV or DBS bill for your particular set of favorite channels, and let us know now it compares with your current bill. Feel free to change any of the assumptions, but let us know what you changed. And don't forget: - Be careful to distinguish between broadcast and non-broadcast channels. Foreign-language, home-shopping, and religious channels can be either. And sometimes both: TBN, for example, is both in several markets, where a local broadcast station carries the same satellite feed that the CATV does. - Non-broadcast services that are free to the MVPD don't count: home shopping, NASA-TV, religious, and World Link TV come to mind (but C-SPAN and its brethren *aren't* free, so count them if they're on your favorites list). - PEG access channels don't count; you get these free with CATV and they're not available with DBS. - If you get your service from a CATV company, add the franchise fee to the total, before taxes. For most CATVs, the official published franchise fee is 5% of gross; that works out to about 5.26% of net. - If you get DirecTV from an NRTC affiliate (e.g., Pegasus), include the $1.75 royalty fee. - Include state and local taxes on top of everything else. If any readers out there have more accurate information about actual license fees, please let us know, so we can all refine our calculations. ======================================== EDITORIAL ======================================== "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." -- Adam Smith. "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776). ESPN is what it is today *because* it's a basic service that *every* basic subscriber contributes to. And because ESPN is what it is, it attracts more people to subscribe to basic CATV/DBS service. These new subscribers contribute more money to ESPN, so ESPN can do a better job serving its audience. These new subscribers also contribute more money to other programming services so that they can do a better job of serving their audiences. Read that paragraph again, but replace the word "ESPN" with the name of your favorite basic channel. In the aggregate, each program service receives more revenue as more subscribers are added, allowing it to do a better job of serving its particular audience. And by so doing, it increases the value of the basic service for all subscribers. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand at work. Do we really want a-al-carte pricing? ======================================== FOOTNOTES ======================================== [1] The cable television must-carry provisions were enacted by Congress as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The FCC published implementation rules in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 CFR 76.56. Several parties brought suit to overturn the must-carry provisions of the Act; the Supreme Court ultimately upheld them in TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. Public release of former Justice Harry Blackmun's papers provides a look at how the court reached this decision (thanks to Monty Solomon for bringing the Blackmun article to my attention [TD 23:138]). Further information: - Full text of Cable Act of 1992 . - FCC 47 CFR 76.56 . - Full text of TURNER decision . - Article about TURNER decision . - Article about Justice Blackmun . [2] Exceptions exist for large DMAs (e.g. Paducah KY-Cape Girardeau MO-Mount Vernon IL) where an in-DMA transmitter might be so far away that the signal can't be received off-the-air at the CATV headend. In such cases, the station may enforce must-carry if, and only if, it makes technical arrangements to deliver a usable signal to the headend. [3] The DBS must-carry provisions were enacted by Congress as part of the Satellite Home Viewing Improvement Act of 1999. The FCC published implementation rules in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 CFR 76.66. The Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association, joined by DirecTV and EchoStar, brought suit to overturn the must-carry provisions of the Act; these rules were upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in SATELLITE BROAD. v FCC. The Supreme Court refused to review the case, thereby letting the Fourth Circuit's decision stand. Further information: - Full text of SHVIA Act of 1999 . - FCC fact sheet about SHVIA . - FCC 47 CFR 76.66 . - Full text of SATELLITE BROAD . [4] According to the FAA, the premium for launch insurance approaches 15% of the cost of the launch vehicle itself. Federal Aviation Administration, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. Fourth Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report. "Commercial Space and Launch Insurance: Current Market and Future Outlook." , page 14 (PDF page 7). [5] Every state has at least one "one-call" notification center. . [6] CATV companies are responsible for the signal quality and leakage integrity of inside wiring. . [7] A description of the geostationary satellite orbit is at . ------------- Obligatory disclosure: I'm a retired cable guy (Comcast, Niall, TCI, and Warner) now living in Texas where I subscribe to DirecTV because my local cable company (Cebridge Connections) doesn't carry C-SPAN2, PBSYOU, or NewsWorld International. Like , I have no use for sports channels, shopping channels, channels that aren't in English, soap opera channels, or Fox News. But I still pay for them. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:33:59 -0500 From: John Beaman Subject: Subject: Re: Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask Actually, this is not entirely Google's fault. The adult site you = mentioned is listed because they have a list of BBQ restaurants in the = Portland area. I assume it's so you can take your "escort" out to a nice = place to eat. John Bartley stated: > This article only scratches the surface. > The new Local Search at Google > http://local.google.com > When I enter BBQ and my zip code, it does find the best BBQ restaurant > in town: > Buster's Texas Style Barbecue > (503) 652-1076 > 17833 SE McLoughlin Blvd > Milwaukee, OR 97267 > 1.0 mi S - Directions > It also lists, right next to that family restaurant: > PORTLAND ESCORTS, ADULT GUIDE, ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ... > Adult Help Wanted Wants YOU....! Post your Resume ... > lovelyescorts.com - and more related pages. > Lemme tell ya, Busters was underthrilled with their new virtual > Nneighbor when I gave them a heads up. And, there is no reason for > the adjacent listing, as that other 'enterprise' does not have a > phyisical presence anywhere near Milwaukee ... it's in the next > county up. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Date: 9 Apr 2004 16:23:11 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if the 'Peter Reilly' referred > to above is/was the technical book publisher by the same name with > various technical works on the net and in bookstores. PAT] You're thinking of O'Reilly and Associates. http://www.oreilly.com/ John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:20:19 -0400 Subject: Commentary: Heads up VoIP -- Regulation Incoming Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Everyone has their opinions -- this is perhaps one of the more pessimistic views, but the last four paragraphs (not shown below) are worth reading. http://news.com.com/2030-7352_3-5188097.html Commentary: Heads up VoIP--regulation incoming By Forrester Research Special to CNET News.com By Lisa Pierce, Vice President Although the Federal Communication Commission has indicated that it favors applying a light hand on regulation of voice over Internet Protocol, it's clear that VoIP will not completely escape either regulation or taxation. The FCC's stance, taken in its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on IP Services, could be especially problematic for VoIP providers with business cases that are heavily dependent upon avoiding specific functions the FCC requires of telecommunications service providers -- and thus escaping telecommunications-related fees and taxes. For instance, there is no federal requirement for VoIP services to interconnect with operator, directory assistance, 911 or E911 services. VoIP services are not required to support local number portability or to pay into the Federal Universal Services Fund. All this could change. Customers who use services that have not incurred these types of costs should anticipate that they will, and they should also expect prices to rise as a result. Such well-known VoIP upstart providers as Vonage and Net2Phone could find themselves forced to raise their prices as regulatory fees are assessed. Consequently, given a shrinking cost gap between incumbents who offer VoIP services and new providers, some VoIP services or carriers will cease to exist. Providers that don't have the cash flow from a broad portfolio of services are at the greatest risk. Expect the FCC's future VoIP ruling to be issued after Nov. 2--this is an election year -- and to be purposefully vague, which will create market uncertainty. That will dampen the pace of provider VoIP service deployment and adoption, especially by business customers. Full commentary at: http://news.com.com/2030-7352_3-5188097.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today Date: 9 Apr 2004 16:07:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov (Randolph J. Herber) wrote Thank you for the comprehensive comments. > But, these machines [1401] were slow: > each character processed, even the characters in the > instructions, required 11 microseconds of CPU time. According to the Campbell-Kelly-Aspray (sp?) book, the biggest feature of the 1401 was not the CPU but rather the fast and clean 1403 printer. I would guess that the 1401 CPU was hardware bound-- meaning the slow printer and reader determined throughput, but the fast 1403 was a big improvement over what else was out there at the time. The big machines used the 1401 as a spooler. I know many programmers who have a warm feeling of the 1401. > What made it such a success was this was the first > architecture from IBM that was available with a very wide > price and performance range were the vendor promised that if > one wrote their programs to a certain not particularly > difficult standard then the program would execute correctly > across the entire range and where the architecture was > reasonably good for I/O, numerical computation, data movement > and character processing. It was one of the very first such > architectures in the world. I can't help but wonder if today's telephone systems, made from many different manufacturers, share that upward compatibility. That is, if a company wanted to upgrade from a small PBX to a bigger one, would it's staff have to relearn everything? > IBM received several surprises with these machines. Operating > System proved to be much harder than they expected to write > (at one time IBM had over 2000 programmers working on its > development). Their programming leader, Fred Brooks, said "the bearing of a child will take 9 months no matter how many women are assigned", and, "adding people to a late project will just make it later". > No, specifically, except for such models as the 22 and the 44, > all machines _could_ have all instructions. Some models had > optional floating point instructions, for example. But, those > models could have them! True. I forgot in those days the instruction set was divided into three parts (IIRC), a basic, commercial, and floating point or combined as a universal instruction set. My employer, with an old S/360-40, allowed another firm to use our machine since their -40 didn't support floating point and ours happened to (not that we ever used it). > (Remember the Intel 80387 floating point > unit and how it was emulated in some personal computers?) Today, we forget that electronics was so expensive back then. As you said, on the first generations of x86 PCs floating point was simulated or purchased as an optional CPU add-on chip. >> 5) A sophisticated operating system: While earlier machines had some >> control programs, S/360 had sophisticated support services. Simple >> machines had none. > Program memory isolation, dynamic program loading and large > memory models come to mind. Hopefully the "WinTel" PC world will eventually catch on to that. Thanks again for your post. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #175 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Apr 10 03:51:50 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3A7pnY28083; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:51:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404100751.i3A7pnY28083@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 #176 TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:52:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 176 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nigerian Crooks Abuse Phone Relay Service for Deaf People (M. Solomon) Broadcaster to Face Trial Over Airplay Practices (Monty Solomon) Radio Chain Boots Stern Off Stations (Monty Solomon) FCC Proposes Statutory Maximum Fine of $495,000 (Monty Solomon) Here Comes Broadband John (Monty Solomon) Cellphones May Boost Forces on Biological Tissue (Monty Solomon) Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net (Monty Solomon) Verizon Is Crossing The U.S. With Speedy, True Wireless Access (Solomon) After Years of Struggle, GPS is Taking Off (Monty Solomon) US Appeals Court Stays Cable Internet Ruling (Monty Solomon) The Mouse Who Would be King (Monty Solomon) GILC Alert v8i3 (Monty Solomon) From Cablevision, Another Way to Carry Your Voice (Monty Solomon) Calgary Blowtorches (Miikka Kiprusoff) Re: A-la-carte v. Tiering (was The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1 (Wesrock) Spam Issues (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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:21:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf By Tim Steller ARIZONA DAILY STAR Overseas scam artists have hijacked a telephone relay system for deaf people and turned phone operators in Tucson and nationwide into full-time facilitators of fraud. Operators at Tucson's Communication Service for the Deaf call center used to spend their shifts helping hearing- and speech-impaired Americans make calls. But since January their workdays are dominated by Internet calls from Nigeria and elsewhere. The callers try to use stolen credit-card numbers to make big purchases of merchandise from American companies. The operators often suspect fraud, but they can't just hang up. Federal rules require them to make the calls and keep the contents strictly confidential. Merchants stand to lose big if they fall for the ruse -- callers often try to order more than $10,000 worth of expensive equipment. People who legitimately use the service fear businesses will stop taking their calls, thinking they are fraud artists. http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/17393.php ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 21:07:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadcaster to Face Trial Over Airplay Practices By Jeff Leeds Times Staff Writer A federal judge in Denver has ruled that there is evidence that the nation's biggest radio broadcaster and concert promoter abused its clout by threatening to keep artists off the air unless they performed at its shows. U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham this week ordered Clear Channel Communications Inc. to stand trial in August and defend its business practices after finding there was reason to believe that "Clear Channel intends to manipulate artists' promotion decisions and interfere with competitors by withholding airplay." The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in August 2001 by Denver concert promoter Nobody in Particular Presents . The suit accuses Clear Channel of violating state and federal antitrust laws. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-clear9apr09,1,1529180.story ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 22:42:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Radio Chain Boots Stern Off Stations Clear Channel makes the temporary move permanent after FCC proposes fining it for airing the shock jock. By Jube Shiver Jr. Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON - The nation's largest radio chain on Thursday booted shock jock Howard Stern off its stations after regulators proposed fining the company $495,000 for airing Stern's sexually explicit broadcasts. The Federal Communications Commission cited Clear Channel Communica- tions Inc. for "willfully broadcasting indecent material" last April on stations in San Diego and five other cities. The FCC said the broadcasts included "repeated, graphic and explicit sexual descrip- tions that were pandering, titillating or used to shock the audience." The fine was the third six-figure penalty levied this year against Clear Channel, which owns 1,200 stations and earned $1.1 billion in 2003. In January, the FCC fined Clear Channel a record $715,000 for broadcasts by a disc jockey known as Bubba the Love Sponge. In March, the agency imposed a $247,500 fine on the company's "Elliot in the Morning" broadcasts. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stern9apr09,1,1384342.story ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 22:51:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Proposes Statutory Maximum Fine of $495,000 http://www.fcc.gov/ Commission Proposes Statutory Maximum Fine of $495,000 Against Subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. for Apparent Multiple Violations of Indecency Rules. News Release http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-245911A1.pdf NAL http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A1.pdf Copps Statement http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A2.pdf Adelstein Statement http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-88A3.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:48:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Here Comes Broadband John Kerry is set to roll out an ambitious plan to boost high tech -- and woo Silicon Valley John Kerry doesn't claim he invented the Internet -- but he has long recognized its value. Back in the mid-'90s, he was agitating to bring high-speed data lines to rural Massachusetts and promoting tech-friendly policies in the Senate. So while he's not a full-blown geek like Al Gore, Kerry is comfortable in libertarian Silicon Valley, which he's visited 16 times in the past three years, as well as on Boston's Route 128. His message to the shrunken industry: I feel your pain. Now, the likely Democratic Presidential nominee plans to take his pro-tech message to the national stage. In a speech scheduled for mid-April, he will unveil his plan to bolster the industry. Among the ideas he's likely to propose: a national broadband strategy to promote superfast Web connections, tax breaks for investments in startups, and more federal dollars for research that can foster lucrative commercial spin-offs. His goal: Woo techies -- and draw a sharp contrast with President George W. Bush, who many in techdom say hasn't lifted a finger to help them. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_16/b3879111.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:20:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellphones May Boost Forces on Biological Tissue Mobile phone radiation may cause a massive increase in the forces that living cells exert on each other, suggests a new study from Sweden. The research could be important in answering the question of whether the radiation from mobile phones cause cancer or other health problems. Many researchers fear the answer is yes, yet they have been unable to come up with any plausible way that radiation from a phone could affect, let alone harm, biological tissue. The conventional view is that the only way radio waves could damage a cell would be if they were energetic enough to break chemical bonds or heat the tissue, like microwaves. Yet the radiation given off by handsets is much too weak to produce either of these effects. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994855 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:22:34 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cut-Rate Calling, by Way of the Net By DAVID POGUE EVERY time an important piece of our lives goes electronic, much is gained, but something is lost, too. Audiophiles say that compact discs don't sound as warm as vinyl records. Home theaters are neat, but don't offer the communal fun of a movie theater crowd. And no matter how efficient e-mail may be, it can't touch the joy of receiving a handwritten letter on fine stationery, thoughtfully composed and concluding with the words "check enclosed." So stand back. The latest life component to make a radical, Internet-driven shift is ordinary home telephone service. This development is annoyingly called voice-over-Internet protocol, or VoIP, which means "calls that use the Internet's wiring instead of the phone company's." When you sign up, you get a little box that goes between your existing telephone and your broadband modem (that is, your cable modem or D.S.L. box, a requirement for most of these services). http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/technology/circuits/08stat.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:25:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Is Crossing The U.S. With Speedy, True Wireless Access By WALTER S. MOSSBERG True wireless broadband is coming to the U.S. this year and next. By the end of 2005, courtesy of Verizon Wireless, you should be able to wirelessly connect a laptop, PDA or cellphone to the Internet at real broadband speeds from almost any location in every major U.S. metropolitan area. I'm not talking about the spread of more Wi-Fi "hot spots" in airports, coffee shops and similar places. I'm talking about wireless high-speed Internet service that you can use just about anywhere -- even on the street or in a car. This isn't a pipe dream. I've been testing Verizon's new service, called BroadBand Access, on a laptop around Washington, D.C., one of the first two cities where the company has rolled it out. I am very impressed. It is simple to set up and works just like any other broadband connection, with your normal Web browser and e-mail program. Based on a new cellphone technology called EV-DO (short for Evolution-Data Optimized), the new Verizon service is as fast as most wired DSL lines, and it worked effortlessly almost everywhere I tried it in a wide swath of Washington and its suburbs. http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040408.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:27:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: After Years of Struggle, GPS is Taking Off By Michael Kanellos Staff Writer, CNET News.com Finding yourself, or someone else, is starting to pay off. After several years of unfulfilled promises, the market for products that use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is beginning to take off, in part due to government regulations, customer acceptance and technological improvements. GPS can pinpoint an individual's location through satellite signals. GPS chip designer SiRF Technology , for instance, has seen its revenue grow from $15 million in 2001 to $30.4 million in 2002 to $73.1 million last year. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-5187758.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:11:55 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: US Appeals Court Stays Cable Internet Ruling WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - A court ruling that could have forced cable companies to offer customers a choice of Internet service providers has been suspended while regulators and cable companies appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco on Friday said it would grant petitions from the Federal Communications Commission and cable companies for a stay pending consideration of the case by the high court. The appellate court ruled in October that the FCC should have classified high-speed Internet service over cable as a telecommunications service instead of an information service -- including requiring a choice of Internet service when customers sign up for cable broadband. The appeals court last week refused to reconsider its decision that regulators improperly insulated cable companies from strict regulations. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41046198 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:29:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Mouse Who Would be King Disney's ever-expanding copyright powers are threatening to squash everyone's cultural creativity. As two new books compellingly argue, the time is ripe for more anarchy, and fewer lawyers. By Farhad Manjoo April 8, 2004 | It's become fashionable lately to vilify Mickey Mouse. So much money and power have been invested in the otherwise innocent-looking, squeaky-voiced cartoon character that he no longer is, for many of us, just a drawing. Mickey is, instead, The Man, the symbol of a global entertainment behemoth bent on remaking our world to its own ends. Parents worry that Mickey will corrupt their children. Foreigners worry he'll corrupt their culture. And the most persistent claim these days is that Mickey is corrupting our Constitution: In order to protect Mickey Mouse and his cartoonish brethren -- not just Minnie and Pluto but also Britney and Eminem -- from the scourge of digital technology, this argument goes, the entertainment industry is clamping down on our freedoms to create, innovate and speak. http://salon.com/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:50:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: GILC Alert Volume 8, Issue 3 Welcome to the Global Internet Liberty Campaign Newsletter. Welcome to GILC Alert, the newsletter of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign. We are an international organization of groups working for cyber-liberties, who are determined to preserve civil liberties and human rights on the Internet. We hope you find this newsletter interesting, and we very much hope that you will avail yourselves of the action items in future issues. If you are a part of an organization that would be interested in joining GILC, please contact us at . If you are aware of threats to cyber-liberties that we may not know about, please contact the GILC members in your country, or contact GILC as a whole. Please feel free to redistribute this newsletter to appropriate forums. Free expression [1] Canadian judge: Net file-sharing is legal [2] Showdown looms for controversial French digital economy bill [3] Report: China blocks weblogs over Tienanmen article [4] South Korean gov't arrests Net political protestors [5] Syria blocks Kurdish news websites [6] UN holds Internet governance forum [7] European Parliament approves EuroDMCA [8] Net speech curbs again argued before U.S. high court [9] Legal battle over Korean music-storing phones [10] U.S. local officials threaten file-sharing software makers [11] New Internet uploading anti-anonymity bills [12] Lawsuit filed over digital television crippleware rules [13] Saudi gov't lifts blocks on 2 gay websites [14] Japanese Web headlines copyright lawsuit thrown out [15] Study: expanded intellectual property laws bad for business [16] Online repression awards given out Privacy [17] U.S. gov't wants spy-friendly broadband & Net telephony rules [18] New Google Gmail service causes privacy worries [19] International cybercrime treaty enters into force [20] Japanese broadband provider suffers security breach [21] U.S. anti-spyware bills appear [22] Serious security flaw found in Hotmail and Yahoo email [23] New Nigerian draft cybercrime bill [24] Microsoft warns of new Outlook security bug [25] EBay warns of PayPal security snafus [26] Study: workplace monitoring increases, with little benefit http://www.gilc.org/alert/alert82.html http://www.hrea.org/lists/huridocs-tech/markup/msg01121.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:58:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: From Cablevision, Another Way to Carry Your Voice By DAVID POGUE WHEN is an Internet phone company not an Internet phone company? When it's a cable company. Optimum Voice, a new phone service offered by Cablevision to its cable-modem subscribers, has a lot in common with Internet-based phone offerings like Vonage and AT&T CallVantage. For example, it offers unlimited local and long-distance calling for a flat $35 a month, without any tacked-on fees. It comes with call waiting, call return (*69), call forwarding, three-way calling and caller ID that shows name and number. (And unlike a conventional phone line, it stops working altogether if the power goes out.) But there's a crucial difference: While this voice-over-cable service, the country's first in wide deployment, carries your voice using the same voice-over-Internet protocol, or VoIP, it doesn't actually use the public Internet. Instead, it connects your calls to the regular phone network over Cablevision's own TV cables. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/technology/circuits/08cabl.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:01:04 +0100 From: Miikka Kiprusoff Subject: Calgary Blowtorches Reply-To: miikka@calgaryweb.net > A list of AM radio stations in Calgary, Alberta: > 660 - CFFR, "66-CFR" golden oldies > 770 - CHQR, "QR77" all-talk > 960 - CFAC, "The Fan 960" all-sports-talk > 1010 - CBR, CBC Radio One > 1060 - CKMX, "Great Music, Great Memories" > 1140 - CHRB, community radio > Which one of these blowtorches is the "very loud" rock station you > speak of? I'm pretty sure neither CJAY nor CKIK or even CKIS > ("Jack"), this city's "rock" stations, are making it all the way down > to your neck of the woods, as they're FM stations. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My recollection of hearing Calgary > was about twenty years ago more or less. Have any of those stations > changed their format in recent years? PAT] 960 CFAC used to be country music. 1060 CKMX was "Mix-1060", a top-40 station, and also 1140 CHRB used to be 1140 CKXL, also top-40. It might have been one of the latter two "loud" stations, more likely 1140 CKXL which had a more powerful transmitter. (770 CHQR changed frequencies sometime around 1990ish, formerly being 810 CHQR -- I don't know why). But you said, in your original post, that you "hear" this station at night in Independence -- meaning present tense. Now, suddenly, you're actually talking about 20 years ago? I thought you were in Chicago 20 years ago? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I think what I said, or meant to say was I hear*d* the loud station from Calgary *in Chicago* about twenty years ago, once or twice. Since that sort of music does not interest me, I did not go back looking for it again. In those days, in Chicago, I lived on the top (eighth) floor of a high-rise apartment building, and had access to the rooftop and the elevator penthouse or machine room. In addition to a television antenna and a citizen's band radio (perfectly legal since it was NOT mounted more than twenty feet above the structure it was *mounted on*, i.e. the roof of the elevator machine room, which was effectively one floor above the main part of the roof), I also had a scanner radio antenna, and a horizonal wire cut to a certain meter band (forget for sure) which went down the shaft into my apartment. Believe me, I could and did hear *everyone* talking out there, if I chose to do so. I had an old Zenith radio with five or six 'bands' on it; three or four of the 'bands' were for shortwave, plus AM and FM. The radio was tunable (not digital) with a very wide bandspread; I could sit there and **very slowly** tune the radio, just inching the tuning dial along, ever so slowly on the AM side late on a hot summer night, jotting down notes of who I heard and where they were from. That is where I heard the loud mouths from Calgary one time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:43:15 EDT Subject: Re: A-la-carte v. Tiering (was The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1 Neal McLain quoted: >> There is a difference. The sports section in the newspaper is created >> either by the same wire services that they subscribe to or by their >> own reporters and doesn't cost a whole lot extra. The sports channels >> on cable networks are additional costs to the cable operator that they >> have to pass on to everyone because they have to pay for every >> subscriber. This indicates a complete lack of understanding of newspaper economics. The Sports Department is a dedicated organization in any newspaper of any size and probably the biggest single cost center in the news department. There are numerous sports reporters, which do not overlap at all with the general news reporters; many of the sports reporters are specialists in one type of sports. There are also sports columnists, usually different persons than the reporters. And there are syndicated sports columnists, who are a separate expense. Not to mention that the regular wire services have a higher rate for a full sports report rather than the basic coverage included in the general news report. (In the days of transmission by leased teletypewriter lines, each wire service had a dedicated sports wire, dedicated entirely to sports and at a substantial additional charged. Then there are extensive traveling expenses for the newspapers' reporters going to different cities -- sometimes overseas -- to cover the home teams' games and other sports of specific local interest in the newspapers' circulation areas. The sports section of a newspaper is by no means a by-product. And sports coverage doesn't come cheap. I've been there, both on a newspaper and on a wire service. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Spam Issues Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:10:45 GMT I assume that spam issues are on topic since I have seen them discussed. I believe that we are all against spam, but what about when a blackhole type site is being run in a totally irresponsible manner? I speak of FIVETEN. The trash running http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php have whole sections of the world blocked without any real cause and they won't remove such listings after notification. We had a customer place an order for a phone and our reply to them was "blacklisted by FIVETEN". We have had cases in the past where a blackhole site thought our address was dynamic and were quite courteous and fixed the problem immediately. The scum at FIVETEN don't care. Can anything be done? Their reputation for rejecting valid email may simply negate them but they are still listed with some spam removal company sites. 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, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter 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: 620-402-0134 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #176 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Apr 11 00:57:04 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3B4v4L12085; Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404110457.i3B4v4L12085@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 #177 TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:57:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 177 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A Detailed Analysis of CRTC Preliminary View and Sununu Bill (VOIP News) Web Proxy Manager (quest822000@yahoo.co.in) Re: Spam Issues (jmeissen@aracnet.com) Re: Spam Issues (Tom Betz) Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf (Jim Burks) Re: FCC Proposes Statutory Maximum Fine of $495,000 (Lisa) Re: Book on How the Internet/WWW Works? (werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Notebaert: Quest Making Headway With Customers (Sam Chen) 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: VOIP News Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:43:19 -0400 Subject: A Detailed Analysis of CRTC Preliminary View and Sununu Bill Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com An analysis of proposed VoIP regulation in both Canada and the United States by Aswath Rao: http://www.mocaedu.com/mt/archives/000048.html Aswath Weblog Musing on telecommunications industry and other sundries How much to regulate? I have written earlier on what aspects of VoIP must be, needs to be and could be regulated. Recently this topic is again in the news. CRTC has issued their preliminary ruling; there are stories about FCC may be getting ready to announce their decision on AT&T petition; bills have been introduced both in the Senate and the Congress regarding VoIP. This entry is an analysis of these developments. It is interesting to compare and contrast the preliminary view from CRTC and the NPRM from FCC. Whereas the NPRM is lengthy and has posed many open questions explicitly soliciting opinions from the public, CRTC is very concise and states pointed conclusions. But there is a remarkable agreement (there are other opinions) in the philosophical thinking and the anticipated regulation. But in some places, I anticipate CRTC will reverse its position (at least they should do it) and FCC and CRTC will be in total agreement. Let me summarize CRTC ruling and indicate where they should reconsider. Full article at: http://www.mocaedu.com/mt/archives/000048.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:30:00 BST From: quest822000@yahoo.co.in Subject: Web Proxy Manager ABSTRACT Topic: Web Proxy Manager(SN-TP Translator) Introduction : In the internet world with lot of devices at the back bone, it is very essential to ensure the 100% availability of such devices and mission critical business applications. Also need to ensure whether they are performing the best. Hence it is evident that such devices and mission critical applications needs to be managed. The most preferred management protocol known is SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol): because it is simple, less footprint(memory) and highly suitable for fault and performance management. But SNMP is not preferred to be accessed via internet as it uses UDP transport, which was considered as a major drawback. Goal : In this project , our goal is to make SNMP-enabled devices accessible via internet (using WebBrowser like IE, Netscape etc.) through HTTP protocol. Hence this Java-based project is named as SN-TP TRANSLATOR which proxies the HTTP requests from WebBrowser as SNMP requests to the device. Similarly alarms (called as 'traps' in SNMP world) received from devices will be translated and served in HTML pages to the web client (WebBrowser). Benefits : Legacy devices (with SNMP enabled ) management through Web Light weight client for management (HTML pages through Web) Managing multiple OS, Devices from single point GUI Standard based management (using SNMP, HTTP protocols), and NOT proprietary Key Features : Convert(or Proxy) HTTP requests to SNMP requests 3-Tier architecture Complete FCPS (fault, configuration, performance, security) support Incorporates state-of-the-art technologies like JDBC, XML, JSP Multiple web clients (Web-Browser) can connect to this server Role based access of management data (Administrator, User roles) How different the SN-TP TRANSLATOR from free/commercially available network management products ? There are few commercial vendors with products for managing SNMP enabled devices, OS : namely HP, AdventNet, Micromuse etc. These vendor products can contact the SNMP agents and provide thick clients to display the management data pulled from these SNMP agents. Appare- ntly these FAT clients are proprietary and cannot be accessed through internet (i.e not Web-Enabled). This project, SN-TP TRANSLATOR, can pull management data using SNMP protocol, store them in database, and automatically convert them to HTML pages, such that the management information can be accessed via Web (through HTTP). We use Tomcat web-server for serving the HTML pages. Also we use AdventNet's SNMP stack for encoding and decoding SNMP packets. The management data is stored in a database. It supports any database (like Oracle, SQL) that provides JDBC support. ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: 10 Apr 2004 19:35:42 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , SELLCOM Tech support wrote: > I believe that we are all against spam, but what about when a > lackhole type site is being run in a totally irresponsible manner? > The trash running http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php have whole > sections of the world blocked without any real cause and they won't > remove such listings after notification. > We had a customer place an order for a phone and our reply to them was > "blacklisted by FIVETEN". > Can anything be done? Their reputation for rejecting valid email may > simply negate them but they are still listed with some spam removal > company sites. Fortunately, or unfortunately, blackhole sites are nothing more than publishers. They establish their own listing criteria and processes. However, it's important to note that they are NOT the ones rejecting the email -- the recipient's mail server is doing that. A system administrator has to make a conscious decision to base their acceptance criteria on external factors such as these blackhole sites. If they decide to use poorly maintained lists such as this then they are being irresponsible. I use an integrated mail filter on my personal domain that takes advantage of many of those lists (http://www.nspasm.org). There are lists that I use for blocking that are based simply on geographic region. But as administrator there are only a very few select lists that I apply globally. The entire system is configurable for each individual user (my personal filters are VERY aggressive). While you may be frustrated with the list maintainers, your complaint should be with the administrator of the site you're trying to email. It's their choice to use the list that's negatively impacting their email system. At the least you should be able to get them to whitelist you. If the site administration has left themselve unreachable email or phone then they are truly irresponsible. It's a shame that spammers have caused site administrators to feel that it's necessary to use such drastic and draconian measures. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:38:55 +0000 (UTC) Organization: XOme Quoth SELLCOM Tech support in news:telecom23.176.16@telecom-digest.org: > The trash running http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php have whole > sections of the world blocked without any real cause and they won't > remove such listings after notification. The operators of the blocklist block nothing. The owners of mail servers choose to use the information Fiveten provides to block e-mail. It is the owners of the mail servers who do the blocking. They could more easily not use it -- but it has obviously proven to be of value to them. What is the IP address in question? Did you e-mail blackhole13 at five-ten-sg.com, as the web page you mentioned advises? Did you call them "trash" or hurl other invective at them when you did so? What was their response? > I assume that spam issues are on topic since I have seen them > discussed. They are more on-topic in news.admin.net-abuse.email. I know you know about it, because you have posted there before. Why did you not take this matter there? "I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. ------------------------------ From: Jim Burks Subject: Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:52:50 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Monty Solomon wrote in message news:telecom23.176.1@telecom-digest.org... > By Tim Steller > ARIZONA DAILY STAR > Overseas scam artists have hijacked a telephone relay system for deaf > people and turned phone operators in Tucson and nationwide into > full-time facilitators of fraud. Once again, with the ADA, regulations triumph over common sense. TDD relay calls should be mostly private. Personal details should not be disclosed. However, the operators should not have to facilitate fraud. They should be able to hang up on these calls, and also be able to report them. Unfortunately, the government seems to have no common sense whatever. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: FCC Proposes Statutory Maximum Fine of $495,000 Date: 10 Apr 2004 14:12:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote > Commission Proposes Statutory Maximum Fine of $495,000 Against > Subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. for Apparent > Multiple Violations of Indecency Rules. I have no sympathy for Howard Stern and glad they dropped him (see other post). However, I do feel there's a great deal of hyprocrisy in government regulations of broadcasting and "idencency". I think it was wrong for the government and the public to get so upset about Stern or Janet Jackson's Superbowl stunt when that kind of fare is shown constantly on regular cable TV. Supposedly cable TV is immune from regulation but that distinction is long obsolete -- most people have cable and that stuff is on standard service these days. Cable and broadcast TV/radio should meet identical standards. Also, today's other pop artists are just as "indecent". For example, the newspaper had an ad for a Britney Spears concern. Her photo with the ad was quite slutty. A subsequent review of the concert said it was filled with sexually suggestive stuff. Keep in mind that Britney targets her music to kids, but while we condemn Janet J. and Stern, Britney is somehow ok, even for kids. (When I was kid, Britney dancing was only shown in clubs in the seedy part of town, age 21 and up only.) So, either accept Stern and Jackson as they are, or go after all "indecent" pop stars fairly. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if it has occurred to the people who want to give fines to Howard Stern that he is an extremely liberal, left wing person who of late has been giving President Bush much grief. 'Obviously' he has to be neutralized and the best way to do that is keep the fines rolling in. Now, I have no love lost for Jackson or Howard Stern; her 'performance' was lewd and obscene; his crude language is pretty awful also. But when he has been picking on Bush repeatedly of late, and Bush's government agency begins to throw its weight around against Howard, isn't that a bit suspicious? PAT] ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () Subject: Re: Book on How the Internet/WWW Works? Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:42:30 UTC Organization: Hoeland NOT quoting AES/newspost : > ...but I really don't understand how it all "works"... Go to WWW.ASKJEEVES.COM and type in "How Does The Internet Work?" then ignore the pages of "sponsored links" and you'll find some that are worthwhile following ... Heck, why not save you'all the trouble ... How Stuff Works: How Web Servers and the Internet Work How Web Servers Work ... by Marshall Brain . Introduction to How Web Servers Work . The Basic Process . The Internet . Clients an ... From: www.howstuffworks.com/web-server.htm How does the Internet work: How does it work? What's the point? Is this another fad? The hype. The facts. Back to the home page. How does the Internet work? Many ... From: www.tecnik.co.uk/how.html Howstuffworks: "How Internet Infrastructure Works" HowStuffWorks: How This article explains the underlying structure of the Internet and how a computer connects to others around the globe. Illustrated tutorial describes. From: www.howstuffworks.com/internet-infrastructure.htm How Does The Internet Work? rus1.home.mindspring.com/whitepapers/internet_whitepaper.html Internet Tutorial -- What Is the Internet? How Does the Internet Work? The Internet is a worldwide collection of computer networks, cooperating with each other to exchange data using a... From: www.centerspan.org/tutorial/net.htm Internet Society (ISOC) All About The Internet: Legal Guide The Internet Society's Online Guide to Internet Law is a comprehensive and up-to-date reference source which includes sections on legal research, From: www.isoc.org/internet/ Linux Networking-concepts HOWTO 3. What is the `Internet'? 3.1 How Does The Internet Work? From: netfilter.samba.org/unreliable-guides/networking-concepts-HOWTO/i... /"\ ASCII... ._. ||"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ || OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE/( )\ || I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || only quoted text in the first screen... ------------------------------ From: schen5547@yahoo.com (sam_chen) Subject: Notebaert: Qwest Making Headway With Customers Date: 10 Apr 2004 21:25:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Has anyone out there experienced a change in service from Qwest? Notebaert: Qwest making headway with customers By DAN ELLIOTT DENVER (AP) -- Qwest Communications International is turning around its image with careful attention to customers and a top-to-bottom change in company culture, CEO Dick Notebaert said. Despite an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and the trial of four former executives on federal fraud charges, the Denver-based telecommunications company is making headway with its customers, Notebaert said in an interview. "You'd like to have it behind you. It affects the stock. But at the end of the day, the thing that holds it together is the customers," he said. Qwest erased $2.5 billion of revenue in 2000 and 2001, survived a brush with bankruptcy and remains under investigation by the SEC and the Justice Department. But Notebaert, named to the top job in June 2002 to help right the company, doesn't believe those events are major influences on customers now. "People read about these things," he acknowledged. "Is it affecting your buying decision? I think not." Notebaert said service is a key factor in consumers' decisions, and in late 2002, the company adopted "Spirit of Service" as its slogan, stitching it on employees' shirts and building an advertising campaign around it. Customer satisfaction ratings are up while complaints and customer turnover are down, he said. Qwest, which provides phone service in 14 mostly Western states, announced in December it would begin offering residential Internet telephone service. "Customers are taking us there," Notebaert said. The service, called voice over Internet protocol, is less expensive to set up and operate than traditional telephone service. It also helps Qwest compete with wireless telephone companies and cable companies that offer telephone service. The move also helped land Notebaert on the cover of the April 26 edition of Forbes Magazine. Qwest was the first of the Baby Bells to offer the service to residential customers. "When you look at the world, everybody thinks it's OK for a small startup company to be innovative," Notebaert said. "If they see a large company doing it, everybody's surprised." Qwest shares closed up 4 cents to $4.22 on the New York Stock Exchange Thursday. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #177 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Apr 11 17:29:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3BLTxN19180; Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:29:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:29:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404112129.i3BLTxN19180@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 #178 TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:28:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 178 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: CRTC: VOIP is Just Phone Service (John Levine) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (VOIP News) Revolution in Phone Technology Approaching (VOIP News) Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf (Nick Landsberg) Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business (info@patronsoft.com) MMS/SMS Fixed Line Emulator (Paul M.) Re: Spam Issues (Barry Margolin) Re: Spam Issues (Tom Betz) Watchdogs Push for RFID Laws (Monty Solomon) American Released Passenger Data (Monty Solomon) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA From: John Levine Date: 11 Apr 2004 14:47:26 -0000 Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com > I like Canada and I like Canadians in general, but I am sure glad > sometimes that I don't have to live under the regulations imposed by > the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications > Commission), which makes some really boneheaded decisions from time > to time (I assure you this isn't the first!).  On the contrary, it's the most sensible ruling about VoIP I've ever seen. VoIP advocates have a bad habit of talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, VoIP is fabulous, it's amazing, it's disruptive, it's going to be so cheap it'll drive all the dinosaur telcos out of business. On the other hand, VoIP is so delicate and fragile that unless it gets a special exemption and doesn't pay the taxes that real telephones pay, it'll shrivel up and die even though it already gets a huge free ride on top of Internet connections that cost between $30 and $50 per month, but nobody seems to think are part of the cost of VoIP. Cell phones have many of the advantages of VoIP, notably location independence and bundled long distance, they pay taxes like real phones, and rather than receiving subsidies, they pay billions of dollars in spectrum auctions for more PCS capacity. They're real phones. Is VoIP real? If VoIP actually costs less and can provide better features like people claim, it can easily compete on a level playing field. If it's not, and it can only survive with subsidies and tax exemptions, why are we wasting our time? Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:28:35 -0400 Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com At 02:47 PM 4/11/2004 +0000, John Levine wrote: >> I like Canada and I like Canadians in general, but I am sure glad >> sometimes that I don't have to live under the regulations imposed by >> the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications >> Commission), which makes some really boneheaded decisions from time >> to time (I assure you this isn't the first!). > On the contrary, it's the most sensible ruling about VoIP I've ever > seen. > VoIP advocates have a bad habit of talking out of both sides of their > mouths. On the one hand, VoIP is fabulous, it's amazing, it's > disruptive, it's going to be so cheap it'll drive all the dinosaur > telcos out of business. On the other hand, VoIP is so delicate and > fragile that unless it gets a special exemption and doesn't pay the > taxes that real telephones pay, it'll shrivel up and die even though > it already gets a huge free ride on top of Internet connections that > cost between $30 and $50 per month, but nobody seems to think are part > of the cost of VoIP. John, in my opinion the flaw in your logic is that you think "VoIP advocates" want special treatment for VoIP, even though what we're really asking is that it be treated like any other *Internet application*. VoIP gets no more of a "free ride" than e-mail, web browsing, instant messaging, streaming audio and video, usenet news, or any of the other thousands of applications that people run over their Internet connections. Bear in mind that very few people get a "free" Internet connection - almost everyone pays for their Internet connection in some form or another. So the transport IS being paid for, but by the end user, not the VoIP company. And what the end-user is paying for is "broadband" -- not "voice transport", "text transport", "graphics transport", "video transport", or any other specific type of transport. Rather, from the customer's viewpoint, if it can be converted to bits and bytes, he's paying a flat month rate to transport it. Now you may object that VoIP companies are commercial applications -- that they charge an extra monthly charge. And my reply would be, "so what?" When a customer buys something from eBay or Amazon, should those companies have to kick back an extra fee to the customer's ISP? When a customer listens to streaming audio or views streaming video that may include advertising, should the audio or video producer be required to kick back to the customer's ISP? Of course not, because the customer has already paid for the transport as part of their monthly rate. VoIP is no different than any of these applications - it's not getting a "free ride" in ANY sense of the word. > Cell phones have many of the advantages of VoIP, notably location > independence and bundled long distance, they pay taxes like real > phones, and rather than receiving subsidies, they pay billions of > dollars in spectrum auctions for more PCS capacity. They're real > phones. And your point is? VoIP isn't cellular telephony. It's an Internet application. You seem to think that any form of voice communications had better be spending big money and paying big taxes or it's not "real." Well, if that's the case, let's all use the "unreal" stuff and save some money! By the way, just so you know, I think this whole business of auctioning off airwaves is totally wrong and evil. The government is in effect usurping ownership of something it has no ownership rights to. They might as well try to tax air. They can make it work because they have the guns to back it up, but they have essentially stolen what belongs to all of us and are selling it off to big corporations. In one sense, it's sort of the modern-day equivalent of invading another country, putting all the conquered land in the name of the government and then selling it off to the highest bidder. > Is VoIP real? If VoIP actually costs less and can provide better > features like people claim, it can easily compete on a level playing > field. If it's not, and it can only survive with subsidies and tax > exemptions, why are we wasting our time? Exactly what subsidies are we talking about here? As for "tax exemptions", I for one would be perfectly happy if those taxes were eliminated for all forms of communications. This is my point, maybe VoIP will be the thing that finally frees us from at least some of the onerous taxes that have been tacked onto our phone bills. At least that is the thing I'd hope for -- rather than add all these ridiculous taxes and fees onto VoIP, let's instead eliminate them from traditional telephony. Then you would have your "level playing field." The real problem is that because VoIP is just another Internet application, people will always be able to use it to some degree without paying the taxes and fees. If U.S. providers are forced to impose these taxes, what's to stop some VoIP company from setting up shop in Mexico or Bermuda or England and offering tax-free calls to U.S. customers? Sure, you can try to make it illegal, but as the file-sharing programs have proved, just because you make something illegal doesn't mean it will go away. Think about this: If you try to tax Internet telephony, what's to stop people from making an "Internet walkie-talkie" application (there actually was such a thing once, I don't recall the name offhand, but I think it went belly-up in the big dot-com bust. But a similar program could easily be created). Now you don't have telephony per se, you're just shipping audio files back and forth. Where, exactly, do you make the distinction between "audio files" and "telephony", and do you really want government officials trying to draw that line? I find it interesting that on your web site you (correctly) conclude that e-postage for e-mail won't work. I wonder why, then, you are so comfortable with the idea that voice communications over the Internet should have taxes and fees applied. In my opinion, like e-postage, it simply won't work, primarily because people won't accept the higher costs. The thing to bear in mind is that if U.S. providers were ever forced to impose the current system of taxes and fees on VoIP providers, and if offshore VoIP providers could then as a result offer the same service for less money, people will use the offshore providers. VoIP will exist without the taxes and fees, the only real question is, will it exist that way in the United States, or will we all someday be going through a phone company in some island nation to connect to the PSTN? U.S. officials could very easily chase this business offshore, if they really want to. Now, as for Canada, I've heard various opinions on that since the ruling came out. For example, one anonymous Canadian posted the following in the BroadbandReports.com VoIP forum: "Hold your horses guys. This ruling isn't as bad as you think. Right now, the situation in Canada is that there is still to this day almost no competition on the "local" front. Bell Canada still has 95 percent of all the residential phone lines, in Ontario and Quebec. What the CRTC is trying to do is bring about competition to the local arena. This ruling will loosen the reins of regulation for incumbent entrants into VOIP, such as for cable companies and others that want to provide this type of service. The regulation part applies mostly to Bell and Telus. Cable companies will not be subject to the same regulations, at least until such a time that their is real competition at the local level. The only requirement will be to provide 911 service and that's it. If Bell and Telus offer similar VOIP service then the same regulatory structure still applies to them, in the same way it applies to their current circuit switched local service. This is a definite win-win for the cable c ompan ies and other entrants to the VOIP arena." (The above was posted in the thread at http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9912766~mode=flat ) So while there are various opinions on the CRTC ruling (and it probably remains to be seen what the actual effect of the CRTC order will be), in no way would I call it "the most sensible ruling about VoIP I've ever seen." The thing that is not sensible about it is that it does not recognize VoIP as a new type of communications. It isn't wireline, and it isn't cellular. It does connect to the PSTN in some cases, but where it does it usually has to go through a CLEC, which may in fact be paying some of the taxes and fees that you think are being avoided (and including those in what it bills the VoIP company). Perhaps others will have more to say about this, but those are my thoughts on the subject. How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder what people think about services like Jeff Pulver's FWD which, as a rule, does not touch the public telephone network at all, except as a coincidence when FWD had their 'holiday gift to the net' by allowing phone calls everywhere for free? Should people who use his service get stuck with the myriad of taxes and fees and terms and conditions 'regular' telephone users get foisted on them? Maybe John Levine will explain if FWD is 'just another phone service' also? Should police have to have a computer in their station (well, they do, but that's another issue) equipped to receive '911 calls' which originate on FWD? Should the oppressive people who promote CALEA also logically promote it for Pulver's FWD service? At what point does the, IMO, coincidental mixing of computer networks and telephone networks cause basically computer stuff to be now referred to as 'telephone' service? Or is there, in essence, just a communications network and the government wants to have its hands in it as much as possible? PAT] ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:40:25 -0400 Subject: Revolution in Phone Technology Approaching Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=73c4f734-8ccc-456a-b96e-2c714edb1908 Revolution in phone technology approaching, but will consumers make the switch? GREG BONNELL Canadian Press TORONTO (CP) - A revolution in how telephone conversations are transmitted is as close as your Internet connection, but it remains to be seen if consumers will switch to sending calls via cyberspace. Voice-over-Internet-protocol, or VOIP, is all the buzz in the tech community, with Bell planning to launch services this year and Primus and Telus already in the game. Cable companies Rogers and Shaw are working toward entering the market as well. The technology digitizes voices and encodes them into packets of data which are then shot across cyberspace. Conversations take place in real time on the phone you already have, or something very similar, which is linked to a high-speed Internet connection. Calls can be made to other Net-enabled phones as well as regular phones. Technology-wise, it far outstrips any experience you may have had using PC-based instant-messaging software to send voice over the Internet. Pretty neat, but given that most people don't understand how traditional phones work, it's going to take more than a new system of delivery to convert the masses. "If all you're talking about is your home phone line, the case has got to be 'Can I get a better deal?' " said Ian Angus of Angus TeleManagement Group from his Ottawa office. "If all you need is a basic phone service, you're probably not going to save any money with VOIP." Where residential users can expect to save is in package deals. The "ultimate bundle" from Primus -- with call answer, call waiting and all the other goodies at $34.95 a month - is about 15 to 25 per cent cheaper than traditional services. The manner in which VOIP can deliver those extras is another bonus. Full story at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=73c4f734-8ccc-456a-b96e-2c714edb1908 ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:11:54 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Jim Burks wrote: > Monty Solomon wrote in message > news:telecom23.176.1@telecom-digest.org... >> By Tim Steller >> ARIZONA DAILY STAR >> Overseas scam artists have hijacked a telephone relay system for deaf >> people and turned phone operators in Tucson and nationwide into >> full-time facilitators of fraud. > Once again, with the ADA, regulations triumph over common sense. > TDD relay calls should be mostly private. Personal details should not > be disclosed. However, the operators should not have to facilitate > fraud. They should be able to hang up on these calls, and also be able > to report them. > Unfortunately, the government seems to have no common sense whatever. Holtman's Homily: "Common sense is very uncommon." (especially among bureaucrats). Seriously, tho, should this be forwarded to the Risks Digest? We have a perfectly legitimate and needed service which, because the folks who thought up the service never envisioned how the "bad guys" might subvert it, is actually being subverted! (Change the word "fool" in the sig line to "bad guy" and you'll get my drift.) "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, if you are going to talk about the 'risks' involved in a useful service getting abused because no one ever thought of how 'bad guys' might subvert it, then send something to Dr. Neumann about the 'risks' of opening your door and walking outside. Or maybe the 'risk' in a bunch of very intelligent people forming a co-operative computer network to exchange email and news; something like Usenet News or SMTP for email. I mean, who, among the many intelligent people who began putting together this network we are on now, 25 years ago, give or take a few years, would *ever have begun to dream* the amount of abuse in the form of spam, virii, etc our network has had to deal with in the past five or so years? Who, among the 'gentle' anarchists of 1978-80 or thereabouts could have ever, in their wildest dreams pictured a scenario like we have here and now? So did they lack common sense? So many things we all thought were unthinkable back in 1980 are now becoming quite 'thinkable' are they not? Maybe in 1980 a better idea would have been for Adolph Hitler to be appointed Moderator Emeritus in Chief over the whole thing? PAT] ------------------------------ From: info@patronsoft.com (info@patronsoft.com) Subject: Re: Hot-Spot Wi-Fi Business Date: 11 Apr 2004 00:51:58 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Try FirstSpot ( http://patronsoft.com/firstspot ). It is a pure software based Hotspot management solution. Server based pricing with no CALs (Client Access License). D. Jones wrote in message news:: > I would like to operate a profitable hot-spot (Wi-Fi) service for my > community. People would access my network for a $1 a day in our > communities cafe's and parks. I'm thinking to have about 8 hot > spots. How much would a hot spot cost to run? Also, how could I > collect payments? Is there a hot-spot management system out there? ------------------------------ From: Paul M. Subject: MMS/SMS Fixed Line Emulator Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:15:41 +0100 Hello, Does anyone know of a MMS/SMS Fixed Line Emulator? Seems to be plenty about for mobile stuff but nothing for normal fixed lines. Basically it would be used to send & recieve MMS from/to a normal residential line connected to an MMS phone. Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: Looking for work Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:10:58 -0400 In article , jmeissen@aracnet.com wrote: > Fortunately, or unfortunately, blackhole sites are nothing more than > publishers. They establish their own listing criteria and processes. > However, it's important to note that they are NOT the ones rejecting > the email -- the recipient's mail server is doing that. Isn't this similar to the argument given by people who operate web sites that list abortion doctors, when they are included as conspirators or accessories when these doctors get murdered? In both cases, the list operators know full well what purpose their lists will be put to, they're hardly just innocent publishers. They compile these lists with the express purpose of encouraging others to use them for a specific purpose. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then should no one say anything at all since there is always a 'risk' that someone will abuse the 'list' someone else prepared by acting out inappropriately on it? People are responsible for their own behavior, are they not. It would not occur to me to proclaim your 'express purpose' in doing anythign you do. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spam Issues From: Tom Betz Organization: XOme Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Pat, Thanks for making me look better than I deserve here! Quoth Tom Betz in news:telecom23.177.4@telecom- digest.org: > Quoth SELLCOM Tech support in > news:telecom23.176.16@telecom-digest.org: >> The trash running http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php have whole >> sections of the world blocked without any real cause and they won't >> remove such listings after notification. > The operators of the blocklist block nothing. > The owners of mail servers choose to use the information Fiveten > provides to block e-mail. It is the owners of the mail servers who do > the blocking. They could more easily not use it -- but it has > obviously proven to be of value to them. > What is the IP address in question? > Did you e-mail blackhole13 at five-ten-sg.com, as the web page you > mentioned advises? Did you call them "trash" or hurl other invective > at them when you did so? > What was their response? >> I assume that spam issues are on topic since I have seen them >> discussed. > They are more on-topic in news.admin.net-abuse.email. > I know you know about it, because you have posted there before. > Why did you not take this matter there? "I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I made you look better than you feel you deserved (to look) then you are quite welcome. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:01:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Watchdogs Push for RFID Laws By Mark Baard CHICAGO -- RFID is too powerful a technology and Wal-Mart and its suppliers are too cozy with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the companies to be trusted with the data gathered from radio tags on consumer goods, say a civil rights lawyer and a privacy law expert. But the companies, led by Procter & Gamble, are opposing RFID legislation, and want consumers to allow them to keep RFID tags active after checkout, and to match shoppers' personal information with particular items. The civil rights lawyer, Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Program at the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke at the RFID Journal Live conference in Chicago last week. He said companies could use RFID tags to profile their own customers and share their information with the government -- violating the companies' own privacy policies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security , meanwhile, is working with companies like Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble to develop RFID (which stands for radio-frequency identification) to monitor America's consumer supply chains. Homeland Security may find the combination of live tags and customer profiles hard to resist when investigating suspected terrorists, or as a means to monitor entire groups of people, said the privacy expert. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62922,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have never 'felt good' about having any more than absolutely necessary to do with Walmart, and not just because of that (now resolved) fiasco last week with my debit card. I cannot explain why, it's just that something doesn't fit together right. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:04:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: American Released Passenger Data Associated Press 02:46 PM Apr. 10, 2004 PT WASHINGTON -- American Airlines became the third U.S. airline to acknowledge giving passenger records to the government, sparking denunciations from privacy advocates. The world's largest airline said late Friday that in June, 2002 it shared approximately 1.2 million passenger itineraries with the Transportation Security Administration and, inadvertently, four research companies vying for contracts with the agency. Fort Worth, Texas-based American said it agreed to provide the TSA with the information "because of the heightened interest in aviation security at the time and American's desire to ensure its passenger and crew safety" following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in which two of its planes were hijacked. In 2002, American's privacy policy did not expressly prohibit sharing passenger data with the government, according to a spokesman. Today it does. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,63018,00.html ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #178 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 12 01:00:18 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3C50Ir22186; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:00:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:00:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404120500.i3C50Ir22186@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 #179 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:00:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 179 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Who is "VOIP News"? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: CRTC: VOIP is Just Phone Service (Fred Goldstein) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (John Levine) Re: Spam Issues (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Spam Issues (Tom Betz) Re: Spam Issues (jmeissen@aracnet.com) ACD Software Solutions (Saravanan) Who Needs a Spam Trap Address (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 22:59:38 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Who is "VOIP News"? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In light of the recent spate of postings from "VOIP News," I'm wondering of this is really a news service. So far, it looks more like a propaganda campaign designed to promote certain aspects of VoIP. (I also note that there is a website, "www.voip-news.com," which is, in fact, a "technology marketing and lead generation" website, and not a news service. Any connection?) I have no problem with anyone posting ideas, of course, "propaganda" or otherwise, but so far it seems like the "news" aspect is a bit misleading. Just wondering. -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I work from Jack Decker's VOIP News in Yahoo Groups. It arrives here in my mail each day with a 'From:' line of 'Jack Decker@someaddress.yahoogroups.com'. At Jack's request, I do as follows: I bash the 'From:' line to make it read 'VOIP News' and so that it meets other technical requirements I add the phrase '' as the 'email address' of the sender. And hopefully people reply to the 'Reply to' address. He has this digest address as a 'subscriber' to his group, getting daily messages. I do not know anything about a site called 'www.voip-news.com'. Maybe Jack Decker knows about it. Jack, could you help us out here? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 22:04:16 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: CRTC: VOIP is Just Phone Service John Levine wrote on 11 Apr 2004 14:47:26 -0000 > On the contrary, it's the most sensible ruling about VoIP I've ever > seen. > VoIP advocates have a bad habit of talking out of both sides of their > mouths. On the one hand, VoIP is fabulous, it's amazing, it's > disruptive, it's going to be so cheap it'll drive all the dinosaur > telcos out of business. On the other hand, VoIP is so delicate and > fragile that unless it gets a special exemption and doesn't pay the > taxes that real telephones pay, it'll shrivel up and die even though > it already gets a huge free ride on top of Internet connections that > cost between $30 and $50 per month, but nobody seems to think are part > of the cost of VoIP. Indeed. The CRTC tentative position is perfectly sensible, because it isn't about VoIP at all. It simply says that if you're selling telephone service, it doesn't matter if you're doing it with VoIP or TDM or ATM or anything else. If you're a dominant provider (read: ILEC), then you're regulated as dominant; if you're not dominant, then you're subject to very little regulation. And if it's computer-to- computer VoIP, not touching the PSTN, then it's really hands off. So what's to complain about? But then John got a reply from a Mr. News, who so loves VoIP that he apparently took it as his first name: > From: VOIP News > John, in my opinion the flaw in your logic is that you think "VoIP > advocates" want special treatment for VoIP, even though what we're > really asking is that it be treated like any other *Internet > application*. VoIP gets no more of a "free ride" than e-mail, web > browsing, instant messaging, streaming audio and video, usenet news, > or any of the other thousands of applications that people run over > their Internet connections. That is the case with "computer to computer" VoIP, which both the FCC and the CRTC have given the hands-off to. Indeed Jeff Pulver's snide remark comparing Canada with Panama totally missed that distinction. Panama has tried to ban computer-to-computer VoIP because it does threaten their huge international call termination revenues. Not the same thing at all, and indeed probably futile. Mr. News misses the point: > Think about this: If you try to tax Internet telephony, what's to stop > people from making an "Internet walkie-talkie" application (there > actually was such a thing once, I don't recall the name offhand, but I > think it went belly-up in the big dot-com bust. But a similar program > could easily be created). Now you don't have telephony per se, you're > just shipping audio files back and forth. Where, exactly, do you make > the distinction between "audio files" and "telephony", and do you > really want government officials trying to draw that line? Nobody in the USA or Canada is trying to tax such applications! The ONLY question concerns what happens when you interface to the PSTN, or offer a PSTN-attached telephone service. > I find it interesting that on your web site you (correctly) conclude > that e-postage for e-mail won't work. I wonder why, then, you are so > comfortable with the idea that voice communications over the Internet > should have taxes and fees applied. In my opinion, like e-postage, it > simply won't work, primarily because people won't accept the higher > costs. Well, I disagree with John about e-postage, though I don't think it should have anything to do with the government. But it's a red herring to talk about the Internet. The question concerns telephony. It comes down to this one question: How much should Verizon, SBC, or Citizens charge when you call one of their subscribers from across the country? And the problem the current system of telephone pricing, which is permitted but not required by the Telecom Act of 1996, and which was created in 1983 as a substitute for the old pre-competition Separations & Settlements process. It's based on call classification. The *wholesale* price that a carrier gets or pays for one leg of a call depends on how the call is classified. There are three classes in the USA: * Telephone exchange service. This is the legal category that includes local calls. * Exchange access service. This is what long distance companies are supposed to pay the local exchange carrier at *both* ends of a toll call, to cover the local carriers' costs when the LD carrier does the billing. It is generally set high enough to create subsidies to support local carriers, especially rural ones. In other words, it's an entitlement given to LECs. (It's not nearly as important to SBC as it is to Citizens and the rural cooperatives, whose access rates are much higher.) * Information access service. This is when an ISP or other such provider is at one end of a call. The FCC, uh, discovered this one hidden between the pages of the Telecom Act in 2001, in order to take away reciprocal compensation from CLECs serving ISPs. But Information Access has a long, tortured history. In 1983, such calls (to "Enhanced service providers") were viewed as not quite local, but "exempt" from switched access charges, because frankly everyone thought they were local, and they weren't long distance calls, which is what the access charge system was designed for. In 1987, the FCC proposed dropping the exemption, in other words reclassifying ESP-bound calls (remember, they weren't ISPs yet) as if they were toll. This caused a BIG STINK and got cleverly nicknamed the "modem tax". The Bells wanted it, but Congress didn't, and the FCC backed down. The Bells tried again in 1996 but by then the Internet was "In" and thus the idea was politically untenable. A rather important reason that the Modem Tax didn't happen -- that ISP-bound calls are NOT viewed as LD -- is that voice and data are different! We argued, quite convincingly, that the nature and value of ISP-bound calls are very different from toll calls. The "communication" may be worldwide, but the "telecommunications" tends to be local, just to the modem, and the ISP does a lot of processing in the meantime. Lots of "oversubscription" of the interstate bandwidth, too. The argument stuck, and ISP-bound calls are not LD. But some VoIP fanatics, like Mr. News, are ignoring that history and view the exemption as if it were the most powerful entitlement. So rather than have no modem tax because voice isn't data, they want voice to be exempt because it's kind of like data, sort of, in that it's possible to run them both over IP. A lot of VoIP doesn't touch the Internet. It's plain old LD where the trunks between the switches use IP rather than TDM for multiplexing. What makes this so Special? Where indeed do you draw the line between "Internet" and "telephony"? As far as I'm concerned, the only tenable answer is to do away with the classification system altogether. But not to give favorable treatment to one technology (VoIP) over others (TDM, ATM, Frame, etc.). That declassification is, in fact, encouraged in the Sununu bill now before Congress; I think that bill is basically a hint to the FCC, more than serious legislation for this Session of Congress. But who knows? The CRTC never, so far as I know, had the same rules for "information access", so the context is different. Their access-charge equivalent scheme is different too. But they are clear about not favoring one technology over another. Hardly a reason to insult them. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You refer sort of disparagingly to a so-called "Mr. News" which is simply an alias Jack Decker uses here for the output of his VOIP newsgroup so as to not get his personal email address all spammed up. I do not control Jack Decker and his editorial policies; I simply use his stuff because I also happen to feel VOIP is the way telecom is going. If anything, I am sort of sorry I did not 'think of the idea first' (of a VOIP specialty news group) before he did. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 2004 02:54:50 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> VoIP advocates have a bad habit of talking out of both sides of their >> mouths. ... > John, in my opinion the flaw in your logic is that you think "VoIP > advocates" want special treatment for VoIP, even though what we're > really asking is that it be treated like any other *Internet > application*. ... Then you should be a very happy guy, because all of the proposals I've seen do just that, treat VoIP like any other Internet application. If you have Internet-only VoIP that connects only to other Internet users, it's not subject to phone taxes. If you run VoIP over a broadband connection, that doesn't make the broadband subject to phone taxes. (The weird politics of DSL make some DSL subject to phone taxes, but that's unrelated to whether there's VoIP in the picture.) But if you use VoIP to connect to the network that provides access to the other billion phones in the world, that makes it a real phone, and that's what makes it subject to phone taxes. This is so obvious that it's hard to believe that the anti-tax people are so dim that they don't grasp this. > If U.S. providers are forced to impose these taxes, what's to stop > some VoIP company from setting up shop in Mexico or Bermuda or > England and offering tax-free calls to U.S. customers? Other than the fact that Mexico, Bermuda, or England charge their own phone taxes, which are probably higher than the ones in the U.S., and will apply them to anyone who interconnects with their phone network, nothing. What's your point? > Think about this: If you try to tax Internet telephony, what's to > stop people from making an "Internet walkie-talkie" application That's what Pulver's FWD is. If you're satisfied with a phone that can only talk to the other 4000 people on FWD, tax-free, that's fine, go ahead. If you'd rather have a real phone that can talk to the billion other real phones in the world, you owe the same taxes as any other real phone, be it ILEC, CLEC, mobile, or VoIP. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At what point, John, should an application which was designed primarily for computers (as VOIP is) become part of the telephone network? When it has *any* interchange with the phone network, some interchange with the phone network, or exclusive interchange, or what? We talk about Vonage as if it were somehow different than Pulver/FWD for example, but the only real difference is that Vonage 'defaults' to NANPA-style telephone numbers and is mostly used on the public telephone network. I suggest that is only because most folks are still not signed up with Vonage. Just like Pulver/FWD where non-NANPA numbers are assigned and the default condition is computer-to-computer you can hop off to the public telephone network if desired, by appending a star * before the dialing string, but he does not advertise it much. My copy of his software, however, allows *16203306774 to ring the my cellular phone just as 290756 rings my Windows 98 computer. His 'default' is a five or six digit number to get another computer, add the star in front to get a NANPA phone. Vonage gives free calls also if you are calling another Vonage customer computer to computer. Vonage does not touch the telephone network either in that case, except to 'borrow' the NANPA numbering system. So who is and who is not the 'primarily computer application' in that case, Pulver/FWD or Vonage? Vonage *advertises* call anyone with a phone. Pulver advertises 'call other computers'. But both of them can do either way, but with Pulver you have to put the asterisk at the start of the dialing string; with Vonage the call never goes near the phone network if there is any way around it (another Vonage subscriber.) I suggest the intention of the software author should be the way the application is defined. Both Vonage, and Pulver/FWD and several other programmers claim to be serving people through Voice Over Internet. If one kind of service cannot coincidentally use the network of another kind of service without an issue being made of it, then what are we to do? We all agree that just because modems of necessity have to use the telephone network that the idea of a 'modem tax' to the phone company (or government) is uncalled for. Why should VOIP which happens to frequently use the phone network be any different? So you want to have a 'VOIP tax' since they touch the telephone network but don't want to have a 'modem tax' for much the same reasons? PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:18:06 GMT jmeissen@aracnet.com posted on that vast internet thingie: > While you may be frustrated with the list maintainers, your complaint > should be with the administrator of the site you're trying to email. > It's their choice to use the list that's negatively impacting their > email system. At the least you should be able to get them to whitelist > you. If the site administration has left themselve unreachable email > or phone then they are truly irresponsible. The administrator of the site was quite cooperative and generous with his time. The point is that many administrators just see "spam blackhole lists" and apparently don't know how to evaluate the quality. The admin had no idea what "FIVETEN" was. When I first set up our servers I really had no clue about blackhole list quality (till one went berserk and blocked our main supplier). > It's a shame that spammers have caused site administrators to feel that > it's necessary to use such drastic and draconian measures. Oh, I use several blackhole lists on our servers and it blocks a lot of spam. That is the more reason that I am concerned about lazy or incompetent people running them irresponsibly and advertising them like "FIVETEN". These trash are willing to wholesale interfere with legitimate companies and to some their greatest concern is that I call them "trash" rather than what they are doing. Irresponsible trash like FIVETEN may well end up mucking things up for the legit blackhole list providers. I know about the standard "disclaimer" that only the admins make the decision to block email yada yada but I really don't think that would hold up in court since they KNOW that their list will be used by third parties to block email. How do you spell "negligence"? (Remember here that my sympathies lie WITH the legit black hole operators!!! and other anti-spam utils etc.. We use several of them.) I also don't think a spammer could prevail in court against one. But you let some legitimate business suffer some real damage because of irresponsible trash like FIVETEN and sue and win that could have a dampening effect on what is a very valuable resource against real spammers. FIVETEN has us blackholed because of spam from X.X.208.x and we are x.x.22.x. Think how you would feel if your email to customers was being blocked without cause. BTW, we spend way more time out of the day that we should taking the time to report spammers. We also don't even use email advertising to our own customers since the environment has been so trashed by spammers. 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, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Organization: XOme Quoth Tom Betz in news:telecom23.178.8@telecom- digest.org: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I made you look better than you feel > you deserved (to look) then you are quite welcome. PAT] Note to confused bystanders: I didn't intend that e-mail to Pat for publication, but I was thanking Pat for combining two separately- submitted posts into one, so it looks as though my response was better thought out it realy was. The second question didn't occur to me until several minutes after I had already submitted the first. "I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To further confuse bystanders (not really!) I do that a lot and did not think that was what he had in mind. If I get two or more messages from the same person responding to the same topic to go in the same issue, I attempt to batch them all up, run them in sequence and cut out the sigs and dashed lines (---) in the middle and the envelope header on the next message (from the same writer.) I do that a lot (some of you have seen it here) and it did not occur to me *that* was what he was thanking me for, thus the sort of confused and bewildered very generic reply I gave him in print in that issue. **Do me a favor, people! ** Something you are writing to me personally (not for the Digest) should be marked plainly 'Not For Publication' in the subject line or maybe the first line of text. You notice how I batch all the replies on a given topic next to each other for your ease in reading and replying; I do the same thing with more than one message on the same topic from the same reader usually. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: 12 Apr 2004 01:30:29 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , Barry Margolin wrote: > In article , jmeissen@aracnet.com > wrote: >> Fortunately, or unfortunately, blackhole sites are nothing more than >> publishers. > Isn't this similar to the argument given by people who operate web > sites that list abortion doctors, when they are included as > conspirators or accessories when these doctors get murdered? Hardly. One advocates murdering doctors, the other preventing spam. I fail to see any similarity at all. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And when I used to run my 'business directory'-- remember those? -- chock full of spammers toll free numbers (when spammers were foolish enough to have those; a few still do), I guess the same thing could be said about me; my 'express intention' was to encourage people to abuse the spammers by bankrupting them on their phone bill. I wish someone would build another of those 'business directories' for me to use here; they were a lot of fun. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gvanan@yahoo.com (Saravanan Govindasamy) Subject: ACD Software Solutions Date: 11 Apr 2004 21:19:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi there, I need ACD software solutions for a Ericsson PABX and NEC's Aspire PABX. Please let me know if you have the solution. Thank you. Regards, Saravanan Govindasamy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 23:23:07 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Who Needs a Spam Trap Address? I was reading through John Levine's new web page on the technical aspects of filtering or trying to eliminate spam. He mentioned that there are email addresses used specifically to 'trap spammers' (or I guess, identify them). Well, I would like to volunteer an address I have here at the Digest (through massis.lcs.mit.edu) -- not my own, but another one I do not use at all -- as a spam catching/trapping service. It receives at least a dozen pieces of mail each day which are nothing but spam, As I said it has no human owner at all. Anyone running a trap who wants these addresses each day can just let me know where to pipe them to your spam-trap filter, and I will start delivering them daily or more often. I am not talking about what the spam assassin finds (another 80-100 items each time I do a Digest. These are items that just go to that other address. Please advise if you can use them. By the way, John, those are all very good pages. Did you write them all yourself? For a very good tehnical education on spam I recommend everyone look at http://www.taugh.com PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #179 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 12 15:24:21 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3CJOLP29866; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:24:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404121924.i3CJOLP29866@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 #180 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:24:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 180 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Ron Chapman) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Jack Decker) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (John Levine) VoIP Problem With Alcatel OmniPCX 4400 (Simon Templar) Taking Talk to a New Dimension (VOIP News) Survey: VoIP Has Consumers' Ears (VOIP News) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:53:13 -0400 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? In article , joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > In light of the recent spate of postings from "VOIP News," I'm > wondering of this is really a news service. So far, it looks more > like a propaganda campaign designed to promote certain aspects of > VoIP. I agree. I've killfiled this author. That's the very first time in 15 years that I've done ANYTHING like that in comp.dcom.telecom. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Personally, I would take care about putting anything in a killfile. Its a lot like having someone toss out all your spam without even a cursory glance to see if there was a mistake made in the judgment. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:08:21 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Pat, please conceal my e-mail address. On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 22:59:38 GMT, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > In light of the recent spate of postings from "VOIP News," I'm > wondering of this is really a news service. So far, it looks more > like a propaganda campaign designed to promote certain aspects of > VoIP. What this is, is a Yahoo Group, which is Yahoo's name for an e-mail mailing list. I chose the name "VoIP News" for it because that's what I wanted to talk about -- news about VoIP -- and because there wasn't a group already named that way on Yahoo. If you want details of the group, you can go to the home page at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VoIPnews/ I would be very curious as to what you might consider "propaganda." I look at many news sources on most days, and I find a lot of these items either posted in other VoIP-related forums, or using freely-available search engines like Google News. Now, having said that, I do have my own opinions about certain things, and much as Pat does here in the Digest, I sometimes tend to add commentary, which I try to make sure is always clearly marked as such. My normal convention is to put my comments in [square brackets] and I also usually actually note that it is a comment. > (I also note that there is a website, "www.voip-news.com," which is, > in fact, a "technology marketing and lead generation" website, and not > a news service. Any connection?) None whatsoever. I don't think I had ever even heard of that site until you mentioned it. Please understand that although I may hold opinions of which VoIP providers are good ones and which are not so good, I get no money from anyone for passing along these news items. That particular site is probably far more commercial than anything I would do. The VoIP News list is actually an outgrowth of the MI-Telecom (Michigan Telecommunications) list that I've been moderating since probably about 1995 (although it has only been on Yahoo Groups since November). In the last year or two I've developed some better techniques for ferreting out news, and I recently realized that there just wasn't as much news about traditional telephony anymore - that all the real "buzz" lately is about VoIP. And VoIP news is hardly Michigan specific (for the most part), so I figured that it would be better to have a separate list for the interesting VoIP news items I've come across. > I have no problem with anyone posting ideas, of course, "propaganda" > or otherwise, but so far it seems like the "news" aspect is a bit > misleading. Well, again, the Yahoo Group is intended for the posting of VoIP News *and the discussion thereof*. The way the group is set up, though, you have to be a subscriber to the group to actually post to the group (this is to limit the amount of spam -- most spammers won't bother to subscribe to a group before sending their tripe, and if they do subscribe and then attempt to spam the group, I can block further posts from their address automatically). Note that you can subscribe to the group and then set yourself as "No Email" for message delivery, which (if I understand how this all works) should allow you to post to the group but not have to receive the messages twice. On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 22:04:16 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: > So what's to complain about? But then John got a reply from a Mr. News, > who so loves VoIP that he apparently took it as his first name: Now Fred, that was a dumb comment to make. It's obvious that "VoIP News" isn't the name of a person. Pat has already explained how he mungess the message headers at my request, again as an anti-spam measure. Please bear in mind that Yahoo Groups doesn't allow me to directly change or conceal the "From:" address on outgoing e-mail, although interestingly enough, it mungs it according to its own rules. You have to keep in mind that the TELECOM Digest winds up on the Web in several places, thus e-mail addresses posted here are probably more likely to get spam than those posted in other lists that aren't accessible from the web. But then, you must realize that or you wouldn't munge your own e-mail address. >> From: VOIP News >> John, in my opinion the flaw in your logic is that you think "VoIP >> advocates" want special treatment for VoIP, even though what we're >> really asking is that it be treated like any other *Internet >> application*. VoIP gets no more of a "free ride" than e-mail, web >> browsing, instant messaging, streaming audio and video, usenet news, >> or any of the other thousands of applications that people run over >> their Internet connections. > That is the case with "computer to computer" VoIP, which both the FCC > and the CRTC have given the hands-off to. Indeed Jeff Pulver's snide > remark comparing Canada with Panama totally missed that distinction. > Panama has tried to ban computer-to-computer VoIP because it does > threaten their huge international call termination revenues. Not the > same thing at all, and indeed probably futile. Indeed. Someone actually sent me a link to a somewhat dated news story about that: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5144030.html Anyway, you have to realize that I'm not perfect -- I sort of figured that Jeff Pulver had actually seen the order and was making an informed comment on it. Perhaps I should not have assumed that. However, living as I do in a border state (Michigan), I do know that the CRTC has made many decisions in the past that has caused Canadians to gnash their teeth and wish the whole Commission were abolished -- but then, apparently, the upset Canadians either have a beer, or a coffee and a donut, and forget the whole thing, because despite all the restrictions that the CRTC has placed on Canadians (particularly with regard to what they may watch and listen to), nobody ever seems to be able to put a limit on their power. But basically, here is where I'm coming from: I do not feel that under any circumstances should VoIP be automatically assumed to be the same as traditional wireline telephony. Indeed, in some respects it shares more characteristics with cellular or wireless telephony than with wireline telephony, but in reality it's something totally new. Cellular telephony connects to the PSTN, yet it does not get hit with exactly the same taxes and regulations that are imposed on wireline phones. VoIP shouldn't either. Now, I'm sorry for all you socialists out there, but I think it is high time that the Universal Service Fund and similar corporate subsidies went away. I feel they do far more harm than good, because the biggest recipients are the medium-sized independents that operate primarily in rural areas (I'm thinking here of the wireline side of companies like CenturyTel and AllTel and some of their slightly smaller brethren). And yet these are the areas where, very often, the incumbent phone companies seem to be every bit as monopolistic and hostile to competition as the old Bell System ever was. The "small" phone companies have a higher profit ratio than the "baby Bells" these days, and it's no wonder given the way they're rooting in the trough of the USF. Maybe it doesn't bother you that a few bucks out of every phone bill you pay takes a circular route right into the pockets of the stock- holders of these "rural" telephone companies, but it does me. That's why I get so upset when I hear people saying that it's only fair that these same taxes and fees should be applied to VoIP. No, they shouldn't -- they are unfair taxes. They are the government playing Bizarro Robin Hood, stealing from the poor (the ratepayers) and giving it to the rich (the fat cats that own these second-tier phone companies). The right thing to do is abolish these taxes and fees, not extend them onto new forms of communications. Maybe Canada doesn't have any of these added taxes and fees on phone service (if so, it would surprise me given the way they like to tax everything else, such as the tax on blank CD's to support the Canadian music industry), but still, I think that there should always be a clear distinction made between wireline telephony and VoIP. The two are not the same thing at all. > Mr. News misses the point: >> Think about this: If you try to tax Internet telephony, what's to stop >> people from making an "Internet walkie-talkie" application (there >> actually was such a thing once, I don't recall the name offhand, but I >> think it went belly-up in the big dot-com bust. But a similar program >> could easily be created). Now you don't have telephony per se, you're >> just shipping audio files back and forth. Where, exactly, do you make >> the distinction between "audio files" and "telephony", and do you >> really want government officials trying to draw that line? > Nobody in the USA or Canada is trying to tax such applications! The > ONLY question concerns what happens when you interface to the PSTN, or > offer a PSTN-attached telephone service. Well, the VoIP companies can't just interface to the PSTN through some kind of black wormhole that passes through the fourth dimension. They actually have to use a licensed CLEC to make the connection to the PSTN. And guess what, the CLEC does pay their share of the taxes and originating and terminating charges, all of which gets passed onto the VoIP company. It might be helpful to think of a VoIP company as a customer of a CLEC (usually several CLEC's) that is simply sharing their service with their customers. In a way it's like the Chicago hotel that Pat used to live in, where the hotel itself had a certain number of lines coming in and then provided service to the tenants. As far as the phone company was concerned, the end user was the hotel, not the individual tenants. And I think that is the case where the VoIP companies are concerned -- they are like the hotel; they buy PSTN connections in their own name. Then they run those connections through a "switchboard" of sorts (actually more like an automatic PBX) and onto the "tenants", who are actually the customers on their private network. That's not a perfect comparison, of course, but it illustrates that an endpoint on a VoIP network is not really part of the PSTN. The people who do connect to the PSTN, namely the VoIP carriers, do pay all the taxes and fees required of them and those do get passed on to customers. What upsets certain government officials is that instead of being able to gouge each VoIP customer individually (and thereby get more money), they only see the VoIP company as a customer of PSTN services. > [...] How much should Verizon, SBC, or Citizens charge when you call > one of their subscribers from across the country? Whatever it is, the CLEC or terminating long distance carrier has to pay it. But personally, I'm hoping we all go back to "bill and keep." You may have noticed it's the second-tier phone companies that are the only ones fighting that tooth-and-nail, because they've been gouging everybody on terminating charges for years. [..... several paragraphs snipped .....] > A rather important reason that the Modem Tax didn't happen -- that > ISP-bound calls are NOT viewed as LD -- is that voice and data are > different! We argued, quite convincingly, that the nature and value > of ISP-bound calls are very different from toll calls. The > "communication" may be worldwide, but the "telecommunications" tends > to be local, just to the modem, and the ISP does a lot of processing > in the meantime. Lots of "oversubscription" of the interstate > bandwidth, too. The argument stuck, and ISP-bound calls are not LD. > But some VoIP fanatics, like Mr. News, are ignoring that history and > view the exemption as if it were the most powerful entitlement. So > rather than have no modem tax because voice isn't data, they want > voice to be exempt because it's kind of like data, sort of, in that > it's possible to run them both over IP. You've lost me here. Maybe it's because I'm tired and it's late, but I just don't see the connection between the "modem tax" thing and VoIP. Of course, being called a "VoIP fanatic" probably doesn't help my comprehension skills any. On Date: 12 Apr 2004 02:54:50 -0000, John Levine wrote: > Then you should be a very happy guy, because all of the proposals I've > seen do just that, treat VoIP like any other Internet application. > If you have Internet-only VoIP that connects only to other Internet > users, it's not subject to phone taxes. If you run VoIP over a > broadband connection, that doesn't make the broadband subject to phone > taxes. (The weird politics of DSL make some DSL subject to phone > taxes, but that's unrelated to whether there's VoIP in the picture.) > But if you use VoIP to connect to the network that provides access to > the other billion phones in the world, that makes it a real phone, and > that's what makes it subject to phone taxes. This is so obvious that > it's hard to believe that the anti-tax people are so dim that they > don't grasp this. And I would also say to you, the CLEC's used by the VoIP companies do pay taxes and fees. And from the standpoint of the PSTN, the VoIP company *is* the end user, not each of the VoIP company's individual customers. Yes, each individual users gets a PSTN phone number, but that's simply a DID (direct inward) number out of a group of numbers assigned to the VoIP company. This is why individual customers aren't listed in the phone book, and why a VoIP customer can't take their VoIP number with them when they move to another provider. The VoIP customer isn't buying PSTN service, they're buying the right to use a private VoIP network that allows them to connect to the PSTN using connections for which the VoIP company is the customer. Now the real problem is, they don't advertise themselves that way. If the marketing people would quit insisting on advertising these services as telephone service, they probably wouldn't be coming under the gun as they are. But when certain companies advertise themselves as telephone companies -- even though in no way are they a telephone company under any legal definition -- then naturally regulators start to say, "Well, if you are a telephone company then you should register as a telephone company, pay taxes as a telephone company, and comply with all the regulations that telephone companies have to comply with." But these are not telephone companies -- they are VoIP companies that have inward and outward gateways to the PSTN. It's a subtle but important distinction, one further muddied by marketing hype. >> If U.S. providers are forced to impose these taxes, what's to stop >> some VoIP company from setting up shop in Mexico or Bermuda or >> England and offering tax-free calls to U.S. customers? > Other than the fact that Mexico, Bermuda, or England charge their own > phone taxes, which are probably higher than the ones in the U.S., and > will apply them to anyone who interconnects with their phone network, > nothing. What's your point? My point is that if some country sees that they can start raking in the dough by allowing VoIP providers to set up shop there and make connections to the PSTN, they may well do it. Maybe they charge their own phone taxes and maybe they don't, but maybe they would forego the phone taxes in the case of VoIP companies that set up shop in their countries, particularly if local help were used and/or the proper "payments" were made to the right officials. And there would not be much the U.S. Government could do about it. >> Think about this: If you try to tax Internet telephony, what's to >> stop people from making an "Internet walkie-talkie" application > That's what Pulver's FWD is. If you're satisfied with a phone that > can only talk to the other 4000 people on FWD, tax-free, that's fine, > go ahead. If you'd rather have a real phone that can talk to the > billion other real phones in the world, you owe the same taxes as any > other real phone, be it ILEC, CLEC, mobile, or VoIP. And not to sound like a broken record, but the VoIP companies already pay such taxes. If you keep the "private switchboard" analogy in mind, you'll understand that VoIP users themselves don't have "real phones" (in the sense you are using that phrase), but they can connect to real phones through their providers' "private switchboard", so to speak. I'm really getting too tired to reply to any more of this tonight, but hopefully I have clarified my position just a little. Jack Decker [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reason why hotels/motels were the original 'resellers' of telephone service (back in the days when no one else was allowed under FCC rules to do it) was because telco was in a tight spot. Every 'qualified' (i.e. pays the bill and does not attempt to defraud telco) applicant who wishes telephone service is entitled to have same, since telco is a common carrier. But telco says it is extremely inconvenient for us to meet that obligation in a hotel or motel setting where a new applicant (for phone service) stays for a week or two then moves out; someone else moves in, etc. We would always be there in your building installing and removing service, etc. So the compromise was telco puts a 'switchboard' there, installs the phones initially, then turns over the 'customer service' aspect of business the hotel/motel. Hotel/motel (including hospitals, universities, etc) *guarentee payment of the bills* and hotel/motel/whoever is responsible for the collection from their tenants. A hospital, after all, is just a 'hotel' (or temporary housing place) for sick people. Telco pays a commission to establishment for their help in collecting the billings and answering the whining complaints of the users, etc. Part of hotel's guarentee to pay the bills was a sub-guarentee from telco to quote 'time and charges' in a timely way (usually three to five minutes after a call was completed so the hotel could get the money from the guest before the guest checked out and did not pay for any last minute phone calls. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 2004 12:38:07 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to John Levine: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At what point, John, should an > application which was designed primarily for computers (as VOIP is) > become part of the telephone network? When it has *any* interchange > with the phone network, some interchange with the phone network, or > exclusive interchange, or what? We talk about Vonage as if it were > somehow different than Pulver/FWD for example, but the only real > difference is that Vonage 'defaults' to NANPA-style telephone numbers > and is mostly used on the public telephone network. Um, there's the little detail that my Vonage phone has a real phone number that the billion real phones can call, while a FWD phone has a fake phone number that only the 4000 FWD phones (and maybe a few other equally tiny VoIP networks) can call. I agree that you have to draw a line somewhere, but whether you have a real phone number is as good a place as any to draw it. We can agree to argue about hair-splitting situations like ones where callers call a gateway number and then enter the fake number when the gateway answers. I'd probably assign the phone taxes to the gateway rather than whatever's behind it. There have been one way IP to phone gateways for many years such as Net2phone's pc2phone, and I don't know of anyone who wants to tax them as phones. They're not phones. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So you would assign the taxes to the gateway. But that is what Jack Decker just said. Vonage is the customer (to use an example). They already pay taxes as any phone customer does. Now you want to tax *their customers* as well? Isn't that a lot like saying customers of hotels, etc, because they have a phone in their hotel room which any one of four billion other phone subscribers can call should also have to pay taxes and surcharges as well as the gateway (hotel PBX)? PAT] ------------------------------ From: le_prelude@yahoo.fr (Simon Templar) Subject: VoIP Problem With Alcatel OmniPCX 4400 Date: 12 Apr 2004 09:56:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi all, I have a trouble with VoIP on one of my sites: Everything works well for 10 minutes (after a phone reboot for example), then when you call the VoIP phone, you can hear them but they cannot hear you. I tried to set up the phone to AUTO-NEGOCIATE, 10FULL, 100FULL, 10HALF, 100HALF (and the switch on the other part too), and I had EACH time the same case ... After a while, I can hear the user, but the user cannot hear me... Any tricks ? Thank you. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:10:30 -0400 Subject: Taking Talk to a New Dimension Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.nj.com/living/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1081760704220350.xml Voice over Internet arrives in the area. By AMY SATKOFSKY The Express-Times AT& T at the end of March announced the launch of Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP service to residents of northern New Jersey, including much of Warren and Hunterdon counties. The company expects to roll out service in Pennsylvania this summer. For years, computer techies have been making computer-to-computer phone calls requiring microphones and special setups. Today's cutting-edge companies such as Vonage Inc. and AT& T make it possible to place phone calls on any traditional phone with the use of broadband capacity. Those who offer the service say Internet telephony is the wave of the future. Consumer Electronics Association analysts predict Internet telephony will forever change the way people think of phone service. Mitchell Slepian, a spokesman for Vonage, says VoIP will transform the telecom industry and forecasts that in the next 10 years the majority of phone calls will be made using it. So what is it about VoIP that's making analysts say it will be the next high-tech phenomenon? VoIP is a technology that allows people to make telephone calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular phone line. According to the Federal Communications Commission, some services using VoIP may only allow an individual to call other people using the same service, but others may allow people to call anyone who has a telephone number, including local, long distance, mobile and international numbers. Also, while some services only work over a computer or a special VoIP phone, other services, including Vonage and AT& T's CallVantage along with the lesser known VoicePulse, Packet8 and Broadvox, allow people to use a traditional phone through an adaptor. Full story at: http://www.nj.com/living/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1081760704220350.xml How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:07:24 -0400 Subject: Survey: VoIP Has Consumers' Ears Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/technology/article/0,1299,DRMN_49_2799915,00.html That's good news for firms like Qwest that are pushing service By Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News Consumers have a strong enthusiasm for alternative telephone services such as Internet-based calling, a new survey shows. The survey, conducted by Gallup for UBS investment banking research, found that 34 percent of the respondents would switch to voice-over-Internet-protocol if it means saving at least 20 percent on their phone bills. Respondents also said they were more willing to sacrifice voice quality than reliability. That suggests that consumers are willing to accept a service that is more like what they get from their cellular phone than their traditional landline. "We view this as a positive for the cable and Bell operators" planning to introduce VoIP as a primary line service, wrote UBS analysts John Hodulik and Aryeh Bourkoff in a report issued last week. Qwest Communications, which has launched a limited Internet- based telephone service in Minnesota, said the survey results are consistent with its view of the potential of VoIP. Full story at: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/technology/article/0,1299,DRMN_49_2799915,00.html ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #180 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 12 17:14:59 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3CLExv01710; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:14:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404122114.i3CLExv01710@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 #181 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:15:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 181 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Janet Jackson on 'SNL,' Back in a Pixelated Flash (Monty Solomon) Intel Unveils Next Generation Processor (Monty Solomon) Google's Gmail and Your Privacy - What's the Deal? (Monty Solomon) Google's GMail Highlights General Privacy Concerns (Monty Solomon) DISH Network Launches New Interactive TV Programs (Monty Solomon) Re: Spam Issues (Barry Margolin) Re: Spam Issues (SELLCOM Tech Support) Long Distance: Conversion From 'Delay' to 'Demand' Lines? (Lisa Hancock) Migration Path For UNE-P Companies (John Bartley) Re: Who Needs a Spam Trap Address? (John Levine) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (J Kelly) Re: Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed (T. Gerald Dyar) Re: Blackberry Not Receiving Messages - Please Help! (Matt) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:17:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Janet Jackson on 'SNL,' Back in a Pixelated Flash By Tom Shales Janet Jackson and "Saturday Night Live" gave Congress and the Federal Communications Commission a richly deserved nose-thumbing over the weekend when Jackson guest-hosted the irreverent and influential satire show. In the very first sketch, before the opening credits, Jackson did a bull's-eye impression of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testifying, as she did last week, before the commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy. Outfitted with prosthetic teeth that helped with the flashing of a coldly faked smile, Jackson as Rice rehearsed for her testimony with a sinister and snakelike Vice President Cheney, played by master impressionist Darrell Hammond. If all else were to fail, Cheney advised, "I think you should flash a boob," a reference to Jackson's notorious gig during halftime of this year's Super Bowl. "Just one headlight, real quickly," the Cheney character went on, as the audience laughed. Jackson-as-Rice rejected the notion, but when testifying -- with Jackson edited into footage of the actual hearing -- she did indeed reveal a breast to the commission, then uttered the iconic cry "Live from New York, it's 'Saturday Night!' " The breast was electronically blurred so America would not have to go through the apparently painful ordeal of once more seeing Jackson's nipple. Actually there was no chance of that anyway; an NBC spokesman took pains to point out yesterday that Jackson was wearing a bra during the scene and therefore not even the studio audience saw any offending epidermis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4502-2004Apr11.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 02:26:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Intel Unveils Next Generation Processor By MATTHEW FORDAHL AP Technology Writer SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- The next generation of Intel Corp. microprocessors for cell phones and handheld computers will, for the first time, include hard-wired security features that can enforce copy protection and help prevent hackers from wreaking havoc on wireless networks. Intel's PXA27x processors, announced Monday at a conference in Taiwan, contain a security "engine" that's on the same piece of silicon but separated from the area where general processing takes place. The engine also has access to secure memory. Today, security tasks such as handling the keys that unscramble data are typically processed like any other task. As a result, it's possible that an errant program can alter, intercept or damage jobs that are supposed to be secure. With Intel's new chips, cell phone makers and carriers can guarantee a greater, hardware-based level of security for customers who use the devices to access corporate networks or need to lock down information. Carriers, for instance, can secure the software that boots up a phone, making it next to impossible for hackers to tweak the device and cause trouble. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41052266 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:50:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Google's Gmail and Your Privacy - What's the Deal? EFFector Vol. 17, No. 12 April 9, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 284th Issue of EFFector: * Google's Gmail and Your Privacy - What's the Deal? * Comcast Tracks Websurfers, EFF Calls for Wipeout * Courts Reject Record Companies' Bulldozer Litigation Strategy * EFF Seeks Socially Responsible Technical Director * You Can Still Donate Your CD Settlement Check to EFF! * MiniLinks (23): Unfriendly Skies: ACLU to File Suit Over No-Fly Lists * Staff Calendar: 04.13.04 - Fred von Lohmann speaks at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York, NY * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/12.php ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:51:59 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Google's GMail Highlights General Privacy Concerns CDT POLICY POST Volume 10, Number 6, April 12, 2004 A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online from The Center For Democracy and Technology (1) Google's GMail Highlights General Privacy Concerns (2) Background on Web Email and GMail (3) Policy Concerns Associated with Content Searching (4) Policy Concerns Associated with Third-Party Email Storage (5) CDT's Preliminary Recommendations http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_10.06.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:46:52 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DISH Network Launches New Interactive TV Programs DISH Network Launches New Interactive TV Programs: Buzztime's Trivia, Fantasy Cup Auto Racing ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 12, 2004-- DISH Network Leads Pay TV Industry by Delivering Interactive Television to 8 Million TV Households EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:DISH) announced today that its DISH Network satellite television service launched two new interactive TV channels, Trivia offered by Buzztime, and Fantasy Cup Auto Racing offered by Silverstar Holdings. DISH Network delivers 22 channels of interactive TV programming to more than 8 million households, elevating DISH Network to the position of the leading worldwide distributor of interactive TV services. DISH Home, located on channel 100, is DISH Network's interactive TV menu and is the gateway to an entire suite of interactive TV programs, including Customer Support, Weather, Games, Sports and Entertainment. DISH Network customers receive interactive TV programs as an added benefit to their programming packages. With DISH Home, customers can pay their bill online, check out their local weather and sports scores, or play DISH Network's newest interactive games like Fantasy Cup Auto Racing or Trivia. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41055132 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: Looking for work Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:09:02 -0400 In article , jmeissen@aracnet.com wrote: > In article , Barry Margolin > wrote: >> In article , jmeissen@aracnet.com >> wrote: >>> Fortunately, or unfortunately, blackhole sites are nothing more than >>> publishers. >> Isn't this similar to the argument given by people who operate web >> sites that list abortion doctors, when they are included as >> conspirators or accessories when these doctors get murdered? > Hardly. One advocates murdering doctors, the other preventing spam. I > fail to see any similarity at all. What they're advocating is irrelevant -- the similarity is in the fact that they advocate something. They try to absolve themselves of blame by claiming that they're just providing information, and what the readers do with this information is out of their hands. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well then, Barry, since the Internet is a huge collection of lists and people providing information of one kind or another, then none of us who provide information while claiming what the readers do with the information is not of any concern to us have clean hands do we? All of us -- each and every one of us -- who posts anything on the net is guilty as hell when we try to 'absolve ourselves of blame' aren't we? Why are you singeling out the listing of 'abortion doctors'; because some no-good scoundrels may be encouraged to murder them? People either behave themselves and act decently or they do not. There is *nothing* on the net in 2004 we could not get *from the public library* in 1954 except the collec- tion and compilation of the same information was more unweildy and cumbersome in those days. Shouldn't your real complaint be with the speed and ease with which we can collect and disseminate information these days? Would you agree with the author/lecturer I print here from time to time that in this computer age we are 'informing ourselves to death'? Its about time that I reprint that essay from our archives; give me a day or two to think about it and find it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:15:18 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to jmeissen@aracnet.com by posting on that vast internet thingie: > And when I used to run my 'business directory'-- remember those? -- > chock full of spammers toll free numbers (when spammers were foolish > enough to have those; a few still do), I guess the same thing could > be said about me; my 'express intention' was to encourage people to > abuse the spammers by bankrupting them on their phone bill. Your defense would have been that what you had published was true. But what if you had just put random 800 numbers that just happened to be close to the spammers 800 numbers like the slime at FIVETEN are doing with IP addresses? Of course I don't mean to suggest that you would have done anything like that because you are a responsible person. Taking it a step further, if some clown similar to the FIVETEN crew were to create such an "anti-spam" directory and also list the 800 numbers of innocent businesses how would you feel about that? No one seems to be getting my point that I believe that the irresponsible trash at FIVETEN are doing harm to the legitimate anti-spam community by their deliberate negligence. 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, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And no one seems to want to believe me when I say that the best friend a spammer could have are the guys who quarrel and fuss about the best way to stop spam. While their egos run rampant fussing over the best way to end it, the spammers pay no attention and ship out another umpty-trillion pieces of it. That hurts their feelings, that I pick on them because they cannot get their act together and stop it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Long Distance: Conversion From 'Delay' to 'Demand' Lines? Date: 12 Apr 2004 10:11:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Through the 1930s, making a far long distance call on the Bell System was serious business. It was very expensive, and required a number of operators to set the call up. It was known as "delay" calling. Years later, the system had enough capacity and automation so that a local operator could quickly place a call without delay. This was known as "demand" calling. I was wondering when the bulk of the Bell System was able to make "demand" calls. (Obviously the whole system didn't switch at once, even into the 1970s some obscure locations were manually reached by old style operator "build up".) Was it ok around 1940? (Obviously the war years don't count due to traffic volume; although how hard was it to make a moderate call on a main route such as Boston to NYC or NYC to Washington? Could your dial 0 operator or basic long distance operator do it quickly)? Initially: They had little long distance line capacity since a wire could only carry a few conversations with the technology available. Repeaters and loading were expensive and tricky. Because of limited capacity, calls were made on a 'delay' basis. That meant a customer requested a call, and was then called back when the call was finally set up. First a line had to be available. Then the connection built up from city to city until the ultimate desired party (directory assistance had to supply the number since most people called by name back then.) Routing had to take into account line characteristics so that echo and problems were kept down-- too many intermediate junction points would degrade transmission. But in the 1930s electronics improved greatly and better transmission and carrier systems were developed. As more experience was gained, the call set up process was streamlined. Around 1940, the Bell System was planning significant automation but WW II intervened. (They did install a #4 crossbar in Phila during the war which helped). After WW II, the Bell System installed #4 crossbar, created uniform numbering for the nation, installed microwave and coaxial cable for high capacity channels; all of which allowed faster calling. [public replies please] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:38:23 PDT From: John Bartley or K7AAY@ARRL.NET Subject: Migration Path For UNE-P Companies Good article on how some telco providers now relying on UNE-P are planning for business after the FCC pulls the plug on it. http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=91823 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.* ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 2004 05:09:33 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Who Needs a Spam Trap Address? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Well, I would like to volunteer an address I have here at the Digest > (through massis.lcs.mit.edu) -- not my own, but another one I do not > use at all -- as a spam catching/trapping service. It receives at > least a dozen pieces of mail each day which are nothing but spam, I know a few people who collect spam for research and filter tuning, but a dozen a day is an awfully small feed. The biggest one I know gets over a million a day. Mine get about 20,000 a day, peaking on really bad days at about 350,000. > By the way, John, those are all very good pages. Did you write them > all yourself? For a very good tehnical education on spam I recommend > everyone look at http://www.taugh.com PAT] Thanks. I wrote them myself. If you know anyone looking for an e-mail or spam expert for hire, tell them to take a look and drop me a line. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com PS: Ta-GANN-ick [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will do that, John. I was not trying to claim anything special about the sewer/cesspool which clogs up with with all the output from my toilet each day; I just wanted to do my part to help the guys researching it, etc. In fact, I am reminded of a couple researchers working on esoteric things like radio signals from outer space: Anyone who wants to volunteer unused CPU time on their computer can get in touch with these guys who will send them data for their computer to investigate during the time it would otherwise be asleep. You probably know the kind of thing I mean. Well, I was thinking that if there was a 'community spam bucket' where every interested person could ship theirs, then perhaps some massive computer could munch on it all day and give its findings to the guys who know about that stuff and hopefully some day there will be a cure for spam. Is any spam researcher at all interested in this idea? PAT] ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:36:43 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:54:02 -0400 , Charles Cryderman wrote: > I wrote: >> I have tried to use a "debit card" to reserve a hotel room and >> retinal car and was told by both that banks do not permit "debit >> cards" to be used for those purposes. If you don't use a credit card >> they told me I couldn't have the reservations. > Pat, I didn't say anything, after I presented the card number, they > came back and said the card number I gave them was for a "debit card" > and that the banks do not permit "debit cards" to be used for those > purposes. How they knew it was a debit I don't know. I gave them > another number for a real Visa card, got to Acapulco, had my room and > car, and had a blast with the wife with no kids. I guess I am screwed then if I ever need to reserve a room. I don't have a credit card. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well look at my case. My credit of late is so lousy (your's would be also if you had been in a coma in a hospital for three months and gotten brain surgery and a three hundred thousand dollar hospital bill to pay afterward) I have to mostly rely on debit cards, although just recently one of the no-name el-cheapo VISA card issuers with high interest charges and late penalties sent me a VISA card with a *two hundred dollar limit, mind you*. So when I *must* use plastic. i.e. purchase on the internet or mail order thing, I use either my VISA debit card or my VISA credit card (from different suppliers of same), and they work okay to get my groceries every week over at Marvins. I was invited to travel this summer to New York City for a three day weekend conference (same bunch later in the summer in San Francisco) but how would I get there? Jefferson Bus (and their sister Greyhound) could get me there in a few days one way, where an airplane from either Tulsa or Wichita (two closest places) would get me there in a couple hours; but -- BIG BUT -- airlines don't like to take cash any longer -- that would make me a terrorist suicide bomber you know -- and by grabbing all the cash advances I could on my two debit cards and (now) one credit card, I might be able to raise three or four hundred dollars. So you are not the only one who is screwed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: T. Gerald Dyar Subject: Re: Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:26:46 GMT Tony P. wrote in message news:telecom23.168.7@telecom-digest.org: > In article , tgdyar@sbcglobal.net > says: >> I posted this message on comp.dcom.telecom.tech with no luck so I >> thought I'd try here. >> My daughter lives in a very old row house in the Philadelphia area >> and the inside wiring is a mess. I live in CT but on my next visit >> to her I want to bring down my telephone test set and check out the >> inside wiring to find out what needs fixing. She's already >> determined, using the NIC, that the problem is not with the tel line >> coming in. Since I'm from CT I need the local number there, nearest >> to 215-887 to get the 1004 hz, miliwatt, test tone. Contact me >> direct if you don't want to divulge this to the world. > Why not just buy a cheap toner off of ebay? From the description > you're giving I'd say this is what you're trying to accomplish, > tracing of a line. Even a new one is $50.00 or less. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He does not even really need to do > that much. Just attach a good battery or a little pocket size radio > at the demarc (less the working phone line of course) then go up and > down the line with a buttset or receiver listening for the radio or > the battery. There is nothing sacred about the 1004 hz tone signal. > PAT] Thanks. I'll put my toner on the house side of the demarc with the telco disconnected and measure the tone levels on all the wires and lines to see which which ones are marginal. The rest of the tests don't need the miliwatt tone. Common sense rules again. I'm so used to using the tone I didn't think the problem through completely. Gerry ------------------------------ From: Matt Subject: Re: Blackberry Not Receiving Messages - Please Help! Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:51:11 +0100 Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service James Lynx wrote in message news:telecom23.137.3@telecom-digest.org: > I am in charge of the distribution and installation of Blackberries at > my organization. We are using the 7230 model of Blackberry. We are > using the T-Mobile as our data carrier. We have probably about 50 of > these on our network and of those about 5 of them are not receiving > messages from about 6:30 PM and on. Then when these end users check > their BBs in the morning there are still no new messages (even tho > there are some in the queue that seem not to deliver) received by the > unit. > The user seems to be able to kick the thing in by emailing himself > from the BB and then a bunch of messages come in that were originally > queued up and haven't been delivered. Mind you, these end users say > that they don't live in areas that there is little or no reception. > They have four out of five bars indicating great reception. Weird > that every night from about 6:30 and on they don't receive messages at > all and the reception is four out of five bars. I checked with > T-Mobile and they don't know what the problem is and I check with RIM > and they don't know. > We use Blackberry Enterprise Server and we are on Microsoft Exchange > for our email. Have you experienced this and how did you fix the > issue? Just strange that only about five of 50 users have this > problem. > Thanks, > James James, My blackberry 7230 exhibits the same problem, using BES on Exchange 5.5, with all the latest service packs. As far as I can tell, I am the only person in our organisation who has encountered the problem. It first occurred last year, and having the unit replaced seemed to fix it, but it has now recurred. I have been working with our corporate messaging team and with Vodafone (our service provider), as yet no-one has been able to get to the bottom of it either. Please let me know if you find out a root cause - I will post group if we do. In the meantime, I have to periodically initiate a network action (using the lookup function is easier for me than sending myself mail) to kick off receiving messages. Regards, Matt. remove NOSPAM from email address to reply direct. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #181 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 12 17:57:44 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3CLviJ02344; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:57:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:57:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404122157.i3CLviJ02344@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 #182 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:58:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 182 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #428, April 12, 2004 (Angus TeleManagement) Seeking Sample RFP (Faith McGary) Comprehensive List of OAM&P Standards Bodies (Nearly) (Generic Usenet) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (John R. Covert) Should Government Censor Speech on Cable and Satellite TV? (M Solomon) Obscenity Crackdown -- What Will the Next Step Be? (Monty Solomon) AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (M Solomon) Artifact: Text Lit (Eric Friedebach) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:32:29 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #428, April 12, 2004 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 428: April 12, 2004 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com ** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: www.cygcom.com ** GROUP TELECOM: www.360.net ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: www.primustel.ca ** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca ** TELUS: www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** CRTC Announces Internet Telephony Review ** Aliant Wants Local Service Deregulated ** MTS Income Trust Proposal Withdrawn ** Cable Profits Increase 16% ** Bell Says 11% of Local Calling Is Wireless ** Allstream Managed LAN Will Support VoIP ** Bell Intros Hosted Microsoft Exchange ** SEC Investigates Nortel ** Matthews Changes Role at March Networks ** Ontario and Michigan Research Nets to Connect ** Broadband Tested on Atlantic Vessels ** Inukshuk Calls for Internet Learning Proposals ** Celestica to Close Montreal Plant ** Big Jump for RIM Revenue ** Cogeco Cable Revenue Rises ** Shaw Reports Profit ** Angus Speakers at ICCM Next Week ** IP-PBX Issues in 2004 ============================================================ CRTC ANNOUNCES INTERNET TELEPHONY REVIEW: In Public Notice 2004-2, the CRTC sets out its preliminary view that VoIP services should be subject to the same rules as regular local phone service. This would mean that incumbent telcos' "in- territory" VoIP services will require tariff approval, while those of other providers will not. ** In the CRTC's view, VoIP providers should have to inform customers if they cannot initially provide 9-1-1, E9-1-1, Message Relay Service, or privacy safeguards, and must offer them as soon as practicable. ** Initial comments are due by April 28, followed by an oral consultation May 19-20. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pt2004-2.htm ALIANT WANTS LOCAL SERVICE DEREGULATED: Aliant Telecom has asked the CRTC to unconditionally forbear from regulating residential local phone services in 32 exchanges in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, where it estimates that EastLink has 21% of the market. ** While the application is being considered, Aliant wants the CRTC to immediately exempt it from rules that restrict bundling and winback activity, and to allow it to file special promotional tariffs confidentially. www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2004/8640/a53_200403329.htm MTS INCOME TRUST PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN: Shortly after Manitoba Telecom Services announced a dividend increase last week (see Telecom Update #427), Enterprise Capital Management withdrew its shareholder proposal to convert the telco into an income fund. Enterprise owns approximately 5% of MTS's common shares. CABLE PROFITS INCREASE 16%: The CRTC's annual report on broadcast distribution undertakings, released last week, says that cable industry profits jumped 15.8% from 2002 to 2003. The number of cable subscribers fell 2.1%. DTH and MDS revenues grew 27.2%, and subscribers increased 9.2%. www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/publications/reports/BrAnalysis/dist2003/dist2003.htm BELL SAYS 11% OF LOCAL CALLING IS WIRELESS: A study conducted by Bell Canada concludes that about 11% of Ontario and Quebec consumers' local calling is carried over wireless networks, and that 9% is carried by non-Bell service providers, including competitors and independent telcos. ALLSTREAM MANAGED LAN WILL SUPPORT VoIP: Allstream has introduced a Managed Local Area Network service based on Cisco's AVVID architecture. The company says the service will support the Managed IP Telephony services that it plans to introduce in the second quarter of this year. BELL INTROS HOSTED MICROSOFT EXCHANGE: Bell Canada's new Productivity Pak offers a hosted Microsoft Exchange service for small and mid-sized businesses. Pricing starts at $19.95/month for the full service bundle. SEC INVESTIGATES NORTEL: Nortel Networks says that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a formal order of investigation into the company. This gives the SEC the ability to subpoena documents and testimony. ** Nortel recently announced that it had begun a second internal review of its financial results since 2000, and would delay its annual SEC filing. (See Telecom Update #425) MATTHEWS CHANGES ROLE AT MARCH NETWORKS: Peter Strom, who joined March Networks a year ago and became COO last fall, has been named President and CEO of the privately owned company. He takes over from principal shareholder Terry Matthews, who remains Chairman and says he will still be actively involved. ONTARIO AND MICHIGAN RESEARCH NETS TO CONNECT: The Ontario and Michigan Research and Education networks, ORION and MERIT, have agreed to interconnect across the Canada/U.S. border, collaborate on advanced networking technologies, and facilitate research in the Great Lakes region. The two networks plan to connect at Windsor/Detroit later in 2004, and at Sault Ste. Marie at a later date. BROADBAND TESTED ON ATLANTIC VESSELS: Telesat is pilot testing a satellite-based system that delivers broadband Internet access to marine vessels. The trial involves five ships owned by Marine Atlantic and two from the Woodward Group. INUKSHUK CALLS FOR INTERNET LEARNING PROPOSALS: Inukshuk Internet is seeking proposals that focus on enhancing either content or connectivity related to learning and the Internet. The company, a subsidiary of Microcell, has established committees in each of its service areas to provide direction and guidance for projects, and will provide $3 million in funding. For information, go to www.inukshuk.ca or e-mail inukshuk.internet@microcell.ca. CELESTICA TO CLOSE MONTREAL PLANT: Celestica will shut down its Montreal manufacturing plant within six months. Some of the 700 jobs will be transferred to its remaining Canadian manufacturing site in Toronto. BIG JUMP FOR RIM REVENUE: Research In Motion reports fourth quarter revenue of $210.6 million, up 37% from the previous quarter and up 141% from the same quarter of last year. The total number of BlackBerry users in the quarter increased by 204,000 to 1,069,000. COGECO CABLE REVENUE RISES: Cogeco Cable reports revenue of $129 million in the quarter ended February 29, 9% higher than a year earlier. Profits were $2.3 million, about double those of a year ago. ** CEO Louis Audet says that Cogeco will soon start testing IP-based phone service and will offer commercial service within 18 months. (See Telecom Update #306) SHAW REPORTS PROFIT: December-February sales of Shaw Communications were $531 million, a 1.8% increase from the same period last year. Net income was $17.1 million, compared to a loss of $19.7 million. Shaw's Internet subscriber total rose to 969,565, 3.8% more than three months earlier. ANGUS SPEAKERS AT ICCM NEXT WEEK: ICCM Canada, Canada's premier contact centre event, will be held in Toronto, April 19-21. ** Henry Dortmans and Michael Dunne will conduct a half-day tutorial on business skills for contact centre managers, and both will moderate panel discussions. ** Ian Angus will open the conference with a talk on the state of the call centre industry in Canada. ** John Riddell will lead sessions on speech recognition and performance indicators. ** To register, go to www.iccmcanada.com, or call 1-800-265-5665. IP-PBX ISSUES IN 2004: The April issue of Telemanagement is now available online. This month, John Riddell explains why, despite the growing adoption of IP-PBXs, there remain significant problems in implementation and support. Also: Ian Angus on the arrival of next-generation wireless broadband; Gerry Blackwell tests local IP phone services from Primus and Vonage; and a debate on telecom regulation between BCE and the Cable TV Association. ** Telemanagement is available to subscribers only. Telemanagement Online subscribers can access this issue, and an extensive library of past issues, columns, editorials, and feature reports, at http://online.angustel.ca. ** To subscribe, or to add online access to your existing subscription, go to www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub-online.html or call 800-263-4415 x500. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2004 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Faith McGary Subject: Seeking Sample RFP Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:27:36 -0400 Good Afternoon! I am looking for a telecom sample RFP for land based telephone company billing. Do you have any ideas how I would get some sample Billing RFP's? Faith McGary 610-997-1071 ------------------------------ From: usenet@sta.samsung.com Subject: Comprehensive List of OAM&P Standards Bodies Date: 12 Apr 2004 14:01:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have an extremely ambitious goal of trying to compile a list of standards bodies that have developed OAM&P standards for network management as well as element management. I am providing the starter. I have listed below standards bodies that have merely provided domain-related information-model/managed-object definitions as well as standards bodies that have given some OAM&P architectural guidelines as well. Kindly augment this list. OAM&P reference architecture (also information model definitions) - IETF/TMN - Telcordia - TINA Consortium - TeleManagement Forum (formerly the Network Management Forum) - Service Availability Forum Information model definitions only - Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions - IETF - ATM Forum - ETSI - 3GPP - 3GPP2 - ADSL Forum - Optical Internetworking Forum - SONET Interoperability Forum Given the myriad of standards bodies, I may be on a wild goose chase. However, I am more interested in bodies that have recommended a meaningful OAM&P reference architecture (i.e. the first list shown above). I believe the number of standards bodies that have taken the trouble to provide some architectural guidance is more manageable. Regards, Bhat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:09:45 EDT From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service John Levine wrote: > there's the little detail that my Vonage phone has a real phone > number ... while a FWD phone has a fake phone number that only the > 4000 FWD phones ... can call. Well, not exactly. My FWD phone also has a WA state (area code 360) number that any phone can call and also has a UK number (0870) which any phone can call. True, it's not the FWD phone's true phone number, but that's merely a small matter of programming; it could be. /john [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Tell me this please, John Covert: Is that FWD area 360 number to your personal FWD line or is it is a gateway type thing, where you call, the gateway answers, then you have to input your own FWD number? Either way, gateway or DID to your phone, who would one talk to about getting the same thing, or if it is a gateway type thing, are there other 'more local' gateways one can use? If a gateway, can anyone use it who has FWD? Thanks for your answers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:55:59 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Should Government Censor Speech on Cable and Satellite TV? Issue #77 by Adam Thierer An important and troubling shift may be developing regarding the way lawmakers regulate mass media in the United States. During recent congressional hearings on broadcast television and radio violations of Federal Communications Commission indecency standards, several lawmakers hinted that they believed federal censorship efforts should extend beyond licensed TV and radio operators to unlicensed media sources, such as cable, satellite, and Internet providers. And a debate is about to take place on the Senate floor during which some lawmakers have said they will attempt to apply indecency regulations on such subscription-based services. Leaving aside the Janet Jackson incident during this year's Super Bowl halftime show, it seems reasonable to question the wisdom of Congress getting involved in regulating "pay TV" programs. Subscription-based media providers have not faced such regulatory scrutiny in the past because they are not licensed by the FCC and, therefore, receive strict First Amendment protection. http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040329-tk.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I suspect things will get a lot worse before they start to get any better, if they ever do. As the mild little guy says on TV-Land (courtesy of MTV-2), this year the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is going to be a very important day: a chance to get 'them' out of office, that is, if the first ten amendments to the constitution mean anything and do not themselves get amended away before then. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:58:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Obscenity Crackdown -- What Will the Next Step Be? Issue #78 by Eugene Volokh So here's what I wonder about the Justice Department's planned new obscenity crackdown. As we know, there's lots of porn of all varieties out there on the Internet. I don't know how much of it is produced in the U.S. -- but even if it's 75 percent, and every single U.S. producer is shut down, wouldn't foreign sites happily take up the slack? It's not like Americans have some great irreproducible national skills in smut-making, or like it takes a $100 million Hollywood budget to make a porn movie. Foreign porn will doubtless be quite an adequate substitute for the U.S. market. Plus the foreign distributors might even be able to make and distribute copies of the existing U.S.-produced stock -- I doubt that the imprisoned copyright owners will be suing them for infringement (unless the U.S. government seizes the copyrights, becomes the world #1 pornography owner, starts trying to enforce the copyrights against overseas distributors, and gets foreign courts to honor those copyrights, which is far from certain and likely far from cheap). And even if overall world production of porn somehow improbably falls by 75 percent, will that seriously affect the typical porn consumer's diet? Does it matter whether you have, say, 100,000 porn titles (and live feeds) to choose from, or just 25,000? So we have three possible outcomes: ... read about them here. http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040412-tk.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:13:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World http://www.macnightowl.com/news/2004/04/week2.htm#world Can I read and send AOL e-mail using other e-mail applications? http://help.channels.aol.com/article.adp?catId=1&sCId=416&sSCId=4093&articleId=217449 Accessing the AOL Mail System using IMAP & Authenticated SMTP An Unofficial Guide http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/imap/ Unofficial AOL Email FAQ http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Artifact: Text Lit Date: 12 Apr 2004 14:26:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Charles Paul Freund, Reason Magazine, April 2004 This common cell phone may strike you as unremarkable, a familiar telecom device that, in this photo [print edition shows a Nokia handset with the letters "YYSSW" on the text screen], is displaying the text message, "Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure. Whatever." But look again, because this device is morphing into something different: a linguistic and literary influence. This winter, a French writer named Phil Marso published a short novel aimed at young readers and written entirely in France's own intricately developed cellphonic argot. http://www.reason.com/0404/artifact.shtml Eric Friedebach /Old enough to remember when MTV played music videos/ ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #182 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 13 01:06:30 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3D56U306108; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:06:30 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404130506.i3D56U306108@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 #183 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:06:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 183 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ANALYSIS: A VoIP Migration Path For UNE-P Providers (VOIP News) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Crispin) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Bailey) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Levine) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Barry M) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Solomon) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Werner) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Gary B) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Carl Navarro) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Fred Goldstein) Re: CRTC Ruling (Aswath Rao) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (Nick Landsberg) Re: Wiring Old Intercoms (momo) Re: Spam Issues (Hank Karl) Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (AES) California Lawmaker Moves to Stop Google's GMail (Monty Solomon) Last Laugh! Kerry Served up With Waffles (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:47:03 -0400 Subject: ANALYSIS: A VoIP Migration Path For UNE-P Providers Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=91823 By: Joan Engebretson America's Network Weekly It's no secret that the quickly growing ranks of VoIP-over-broadband users are likely to see their ranks swell even further when the unbundled network element platform (UNE-P) is phased out. As that day looms, one group of competitive carriers is particularly well positioned to make that transition-namely, those carriers that have partnered with a DSL provider (usually Covad) to deliver a bundle of data and traditional voice services using a line splitting arrangement. "Over the next 12 to 24 months, we'll see a fundamental shift in the competitive carrier community in how voice is sold to homes and businesses," said David McMorrow, Covad executive vice president of marketing and sales. "After UNE-P, life looks like UNE loops delivering VOIP-over-broadband." Full story at: http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=91823 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:06:35 -0700 Organization: University of Washington AOL has a way to go before it is a player in open standards. AOL's SMTP server is broken. It responds to the SMTP SASL "AUTH PLAIN" command with "334 Username:". AOL's IMAP server does not support TLS or SASL. It does seem to support SSL-IMAP on port 993. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Adam Bailey Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:31:40 -0500 Organization: paranoid net.fascists, anonymous In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] Prior to April 5, the only way to access your AOL mail was through the AOL client software, the AOL web site, or a very small list of approved third-party clients. Now AOL has IMAP and authenticated SMTP servers. For the first time, AOL members can use *any* email client with their email. Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP & S/MIME adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 2004 04:00:08 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to an item by Monty Solomon: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] What's new is that AOL users can now use any normal mail program like Eudora or (if you must) Outlook or Outlook Express to pick up and send AOL mail. Until now, you had to use either the feeble built-in AOL mail program, or one of AOL's own mail programs, Netscape or AOL Communicator. I find Netscape and AOL Communicator both to be very nice mail programs, so I don't see much reason to use Outlook or OE unless you have a lemming like need to be all Microsoft all the time. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:15:37 -0400 In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] This has nothing to do with sending mail to AOL customers, it's about AOL customers being able to use the AOL mail service with generic mail clients, rather than the AOL application. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** Please don't copy me on replies. *** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:22:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Another option before Open Mail Access was Claris Emailer on the Macintosh. Claris licensed the technology from AOL years ago. By the way, the normal mail program must support IMAP for receiving and authenticated SMTP for sending. Monty ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Hoeland this wasn't addressing the issue of "sending" mail to (and receiving replies from) an AOL-user, but rather that an AOL-user might want to use standard (non-AOL-specific) mail software to read and send email on AOL... ...software like Eudora, for example (www.eudora.com) quoting Monty Solomon : > Can I read and send AOL e-mail using other e-mail applications? ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Accessing the AOL Mail System using IMAP & Authenticated SMTP ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly Opens ...' as if it was something new? > For as long as I can remember, I have been able to send mail to x@aol.com > and get replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] /"\ ASCII... ._. |"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ | OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\| I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ | only quoted text in the first screen... ------------------------------ From: Gary Breuckman Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:41:18 -0500 Organization: Puma's Lair - catbox.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.macnightowl.com/news/2004/04/week2.htm#world > Can I read and send AOL e-mail using other e-mail applications? > http://help.channels.aol.com/article.adp?catId=1&sCId=416&sSCId=4093&articleId=217449 > Accessing the AOL Mail System using IMAP & Authenticated SMTP > An Unofficial Guide > http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/imap/ > Unofficial AOL Email FAQ > http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly Opens > ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can remember, I have > been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get replies to same. What am > I missing here? PAT] What has changed is apparently services for AOL members. Previously, the only way for them to read and write mail was through the AOL mail program, however many AOL subscribers are on DSL or cable and can get to the Internet without starting the AOL program, so AOL is allowing them to send and receive mail without logging in to AOL first. So now they can use programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora. Gary Breuckman ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:32:20 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:53:13 -0400, Ron Chapman wrote: > In article , joel@exc.com > (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: >> In light of the recent spate of postings from "VOIP News," I'm >> wondering of this is really a news service. So far, it looks more >> like a propaganda campaign designed to promote certain aspects of >> VoIP. > I agree. I've killfiled this author. That's the very first time in > 15 years that I've done ANYTHING like that in comp.dcom.telecom. I just sort by author and manually delete them. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Personally, I would take care about > putting anything in a killfile. Its a lot like having someone toss > out all your spam without even a cursory glance to see if there was > a mistake made in the judgment. PAT] Pat, What happened to comp.dcom.voice-over-ip? It seems to be the perfect place for people who have an interest in voip. Carl Navarro [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know what happened to it. If the newsgroup is now idle, I'd be glad to restart it, then all of the messages from Jack Decker's group on Yahoo could go in there. How about it, Usenet authorities, i.e. John Levine, David Lawrence and others? Is it sitting there idle? If so, and you flag it moderated and send it here to me I'll be glad to work with it at least temporarily. Please advise? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:26:21 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News" On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:08:21 -04 00 Jack "Mr. VoIP News" Decker wrote, >fg> So what's to complain about? But then John got a reply from a >> Mr. News, who so loves VoIP that he apparently took it as his first >> name: > Now Fred, that was a dumb comment to make. It's obvious that "VoIP > News" isn't the name of a person. No! You're kidding! > Pat has already explained how he mungess the message headers at my > request, again as an anti-spam measure. Of course headers are munged. But he was running your posts with no name, even though you were sometimes using the first person. A little attempt at humor may have gone whoosh? > But basically, here is where I'm coming from: I do not feel that under > any circumstances should VoIP be automatically assumed to be the same > as traditional wireline telephony. Indeed, in some respects it shares > more characteristics with cellular or wireless telephony than with > wireline telephony, but in reality it's something totally new. > Cellular telephony connects to the PSTN, yet it does not get hit with > exactly the same taxes and regulations that are imposed on wireline > phones. VoIP shouldn't either. Cellular gets hit with most of them. It's under interstate jurisdiction, so maybe those Michigan state-jurisdiction ones miss it, but it pays into USF, telecom excise, etc. It is regulated as telecom. > Now, I'm sorry for all you socialists out there, but I think it is > high time that the Universal Service Fund and similar corporate > subsidies went away. I feel they do far more harm than good, because > the biggest recipients are the medium-sized independents that operate > primarily in rural areas (I'm thinking here of the wireline side of > companies like CenturyTel and AllTel and some of their slightly > smaller brethren). And yet these are the areas where, very often, the > incumbent phone companies seem to be every bit as monopolistic and > hostile to competition as the old Bell System ever was. The "small" > phone companies have a higher profit ratio than the "baby Bells" these > days, and it's no wonder given the way they're rooting in the trough > of the USF. I'm half in agreement with you there. I think USF is out of control, and that companies like CenturyTel are ripping the rest of the country off with their steep subsidies. And of course they're incredibly anti-competitive. On the other hand, the network is more valuable because there is "universal service". I don't see why somebody in the woods who paid less for his house than the telephone company did for the wire to it should get local service for $12/month, while we in the high-cost-of-living cities pay $30/month. The FCC could fix that nowadays with more clever use of wireless technology, but the Wireless bureau and the Wireline bureau aren't exactly bending over backwards to help each other. http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html has a little tale on that topic. > Maybe Canada doesn't have any of these added taxes and fees on phone > service (if so, it would surprise me given the way they like to tax > everything else, such as the tax on blank CD's to support the Canadian > music industry), but still, I think that there should always be a > clear distinction made between wireline telephony and VoIP. The two > are not the same thing at all. Oh, Canada has a contribution system too. Phone service in the North, for instance, is very expensive to deliver. > Well, the VoIP companies can't just interface to the PSTN through some > kind of black wormhole that passes through the fourth dimension. They > actually have to use a licensed CLEC to make the connection to the > PSTN. And guess what, the CLEC does pay their share of the taxes and > originating and terminating charges, all of which gets passed onto the > VoIP company. Well, you are again half right. The CLEC does pay something. But the rate that one LEC pays another to deliver a call to its subscriber (i.e., what Focal pays Ameritech to deliver a call to an Ameritech subscriber in Detroit) is, under current rules, based on whether it is "local" or "access". The rate that CenturyTel and the rurals want for access (from LD carriers) is particularly high. The main issue is this: When a long distance call is delivered to a LEC subscriber, when should the LEC get the LD access rate or the local termination (often zero) rate? Under what seem to be the current rules, and this is not 100% clear since under Powell nothing is, if the caller in Massachusetts is using Vonage, then Focal in Detroit can deliver the call to Ameritech at the local rate, but if the caller in Massachusetts is using Comcast for local service, then AT&T (or whomever) has to deliver it at the (higher) access rate. (Access tariffs don't typically leave a piece for intermediaries like Focal. Comcast hands it off to AT&T or another LD carrier, who pays Ameritech.) Of course it's not obvious to Ameritech whether the call originated on Vonage or Comcast. This is very silly, of course. While it lasts, I am happy to help my clients take advantage of it -- as a consultant to competitive telecom providers, I am always looking for the regulatory angles. A carrier would be foolish to not make hay while the sun shines! They're getting screwed by enough dumb rules, so why can't they benefit by a dumb rule when they can? But I'm honest enough to say that something's silly when I think it's silly. The right answer, IMNSHO, is that the whole classification system should be done away with. Every carrier should have a price to deliver a call from interconnect point X to destination Y, regardless of the origin, ultimate destination, or the nature of the transport. VoIP just makes this even more obvious. >> [...] How much should Verizon, SBC, or Citizens charge when you call >> one of their subscribers from across the country? > Whatever it is, the CLEC or terminating long distance carrier has to > pay it. But personally, I'm hoping we all go back to "bill and keep." > You may have noticed it's the second-tier phone companies that are the > only ones fighting that tooth-and-nail, because they've been gouging > everybody on terminating charges for years. As noted above, current rules favor "phone to computer" VoIP over "phone to phone" anything. Bill and keep is one option, but I'd frankly rather see some cost-based (not fat-subsidy-based) termination charges. That should flow both ways. CLECs should get paid a little for delivering ISP-bound calls, and ILECs should get a little for delivering phone-bound calls. A call's a call. ... > You've lost me here. Maybe it's because I'm tired and it's late, but > I just don't see the connection between the "modem tax" thing and > VoIP. Of course, being called a "VoIP fanatic" probably doesn't help > my comprehension skills any. Check out the National Telephone Cooperative Association's Comments in the FCC's current VoIP docket (WC 04-36). This in particular: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516084257 Here's the relevant quote (from an organization of subsidy-supported rural telephone companies, in case it wasn't obvious): "The enhanced service provider (ESP) exemption for Internet service providers should be eliminated as the reasons leading to its creation have long since dematerialized." Who says the modem tax is dead and buried? It keeps rearing its ugly head. Fortunately, the NTCA is off in the lunatic fringe on this topic. > My point is that if some country sees that they can start raking in > the dough by allowing VoIP providers to set up shop there and make > connections to the PSTN, they may well do it. Maybe they charge their > own phone taxes and maybe they don't, but maybe they would forego the > phone taxes in the case of VoIP companies that set up shop in their > countries, particularly if local help were used and/or the proper > "payments" were made to the right officials. And there would not be > much the U.S. Government could do about it. No, because the charges in question are those levied by the terminating telephone companies, not the government -- there are few real "taxes", but a lot of phone company tariffs. International calls are now charged the interstate access rate. Well, unless they're VoIP, but again the issue is mainly over what the terminating telco can charge, lest they cut off service to the VoIP provider on grounds that they haven't paid the bill. ------------------------------ From: Aswath Rao Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:18:22 -0400 Subject: Re: CRTC Ruling Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Jack: I have a different interpretation of CRTC preliminary view. It is not clear to me why you feel that CRTC does not recognize VoIP to be a new type of communication. They have declared that VoIP is special if it does not use NANP resource and if they do not interface to PSTN. If VoIP providers already pay the taxes and fees, then the ruling is just a confirmation of what is currently taking place. In this respect it is a good thing, because we have clarity now. Regards, Aswath ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:58:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet John R. Covert wrote: > John Levine wrote: >> there's the little detail that my Vonage phone has a real phone >> number ... while a FWD phone has a fake phone number that only the >> 4000 FWD phones ... can call. > Well, not exactly. My FWD phone also has a WA state (area code 360) > number that any phone can call and also has a UK number (0870) which > any phone can call. True, it's not the FWD phone's true phone number, > but that's merely a small matter of programming; it could be. > /john > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Tell me this please, John Covert: Is > that FWD area 360 number to your personal FWD line or is it is a > gateway type thing, where you call, the gateway answers, then you > have to input your own FWD number? Either way, gateway or DID to > your phone, who would one talk to about getting the same thing, or > if it is a gateway type thing, are there other 'more local' gateways > one can use? If a gateway, can anyone use it who has FWD? Thanks > for your answers. PAT] In this day and age, what's a phone number? Seriously? In the case of mobile phone, they identify themselves to the local cell site with and IMSI (International Mobile Service Identifier ... although I'm not sure of the translation of the acronym). When you dial 555-333-4444 the network makes a database dip to see what the "real" ID of that number is (much like 800-number routing), and routes it to that IMSI, if mobile, or "real" number, if landline. We have so many levels of indirection in the routing that it is hard to fathom what's a real phone number and what isn't. I imagine that providers like FWD and Vonage do something like similar with numbers, IP addresses and whatnot. It keeps providers of large, fast databases (like me and the company I work for) in business. Note: Keeping these databases up to date is another a whole 'nother kettle of squirmy fish. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: momo Subject: Re: Wiring Old Intercoms Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:24:02 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Rich wrote in message news:telecom23.163.6@telecom-digest.org: > I have a set of old Couch intercoms I want to install in our 1912 > house. I am able to get a little life out of them with a 12V battery, > but I had understood that to ring, I'd need AC power. But, I've found > that these ring on DC -- but I haven't been able to figure out how to > hook them up right. There appear to be four possible points to wire > the intercom, but I'm not sure what wires should go where. I've had > no luck locating any wiring diagrams or any discussion of these > intercoms, for that matter. Any suggestions would be appreciated! > Rich Sounds pretty cool. I lived in a house in Galveston TX that was built in the early 1800's so I suppose yours is just getting broken in 8-). It would help if you could photograph the units if they have no make/model numbers. Photos inside and out would be very helpful. Upload them to a personal site and post the link here. Maybe we can figure these out. Mo ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:26:33 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 03:18:06 GMT, SELLCOM Tech support wrote: > jmeissen@aracnet.com posted on that vast internet thingie: >> While you may be frustrated with the list maintainers, your complaint >> should be with the administrator of the site you're trying to email. >> It's their choice to use the list that's negatively impacting their >> email system. At the least you should be able to get them to whitelist >> you. If the site administration has left themselve unreachable email >> or phone then they are truly irresponsible. > The administrator of the site was quite cooperative and generous with > his time. The point is that many administrators just see "spam > blackhole lists" and apparently don't know how to evaluate the > quality. The admin had no idea what "FIVETEN" was. When I first set > up our servers I really had no clue about blackhole list quality (till > one went berserk and blocked our main supplier). Why don't you set up a website rating the black hole list quality? ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:17:24 -0700 I'd like to get free of the hassles of maintaining an old-fashioned fax machine. I can handle the occasional outgoing fax by connecting my laptop to my office voice line temporarily; being open to incoming faxes is more problematic. I'm told there are Internet services where anyone can send a fax from a standard fax machine to some special telephone number that's listed as my fax number, and the fax is then transmitted to me over the Internet as an email attachment or a temporary web page? Anyone had direct experience with any such service? (and some idea of the monthly or per fax cost?) Thanks much. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service and the cost is FREE. (You know your poor mouth moderator; would I have it any other way?) EFax gives you a number (*not* local unless you pay for that) and you get your incoming faxes as email. See the end of each issue of the Digest for the various free EFax numbers I have which point either here to the Digest mailbox or my personal mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:27:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail By Lisa Baertlein SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc.'s free e-mail service "Gmail" because it would place advertising in personal messages after searching them for key words. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41058028 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:08:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! Kerry Gets Served up With 'Waffles' By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY Internet pranskters have set their Web sites on Sen. John Kerry. Some jokers who don't like the Democratic presidential candidate are trying to make his campaign Web site, johnkerry.com, the first answer to a search of the word "waffles" on Google, the No. 1 Internet search engine. They've nearly succeeded on the No. 2 search engine, Yahoo. By Sunday, eight days after the prank began, johnkerry.com was listed second among 703,000 results of a Yahoo search of the word "waffles." At the No. 3 search engine, MSN Search, johnkerry.com was also the second Web page result of a search Sunday for "waffles." On Google, johnkerry.com was not in the top 1,000 of the 556,000 results of a search for "waffles." Authorities on search engines say the joke's quick impact on Yahoo and MSN, though, is a sign that the campaign is working and that Google will be affected soon. The high-tech twist on old-fashioned political chicanery follows an Internet prank last year that still tweaks President Bush. Anti-Bush practical jokers made Bush's official biography at whitehouse.gov. the first result of a Google search of the phrase "miserable failure." Equally clever Bush supporters came to his defense. They've made his biography the No. 1 result of a Google search for "great president." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-11-kerry-waffles_x.htm ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #183 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 13 13:57:58 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3DHvvZ12063; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:57:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404131757.i3DHvvZ12063@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 #184 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:58:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 184 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Proposed Internet Phone Rules Upset SaskTel (VOIP News) Canada: Vonage Holdings Launch Internet Telephony (VOIP News) VoIP Regulation Heating Up (VOIP News) Telecom Tops Corporate To-Do Lists (VOIP News) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (John Levine) Re: Spam Issues (sin nombre) Re: Spam Issues (Dave Phelps) Re: Spam Issues (Daniel W. Johnson) Response to Request for PSTN Info (Charles G Gray) 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: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:42:16 -0400 Subject: Proposed Internet Phone Rules Upset SaskTel Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/info/business/story.html?id=39881174-A0E5-4BC9-A4EC-1073E86ADF1C Kevin O'Connor Saskatchewan News Network; Regina Leader-Post REGINA -- Saskatchewan Telecommunications is upset about proposed new rules for Internet phone service that it says may scuttle plans for an expansion of the service inside the province. Last week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) released its preliminary views on how Net phone service -- also known as Voice over Internet Protocol or VOIP -- should be regulated. A final decision is expected later this year. VOIP, perhaps the biggest thing to hit the telecommunications industry since cell phones, allows people to make cheap voice calls over a high-speed Internet connection using a special "IP" phone or a conventional phone-set attached to an adapter. The CRTC says if SaskTel and other "incumbent" phone companies want to introduce VOIP for the home user, they'll have to apply to the federal agency to have prices and service offerings approved. However, according to John Meldrum, SaskTel's vice-president for regulatory affairs, that creates an unlevel playing field between SaskTel and some newer VOIP companies, such as Primus and Vonage -- which aren't subject to the same requirements. "We're not happy with this non-symmetrical regulation they have in mind," Meldrum said. "It sucks." Full story at: http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/info/business/story.html?id=39881174-A0E5-4BC9-A4EC-1073E86ADF1C How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:32:09 -0400 Subject: Canada: Vonage Holdings Launch Internet Telephony Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=cd5af497-56e2-40de-9d9c-63a7026f5ece Vonage holdings launch Internet telephony service Offers standard features: To compete with Primus; others readying in wings Mark Evans Financial Post Consumers looking to jump on the Internet telephony bandwagon now have another option after Vonage Holdings Corp. launched its much-speculated service in Canada yesterday. The Edison, N.J.-based company said the service, which uses Voice over Internet Protocol technology to send voice traffic over high-speed networks, will cost $19.99 to $45.99 a month. The service includes such features as voice mail, call waiting, caller ID, and the ability to choose from 14 local area codes in 13 markets. The move by Vonage, the brainchild of chief executive Jeffrey Citron, into Canada adds another player into the increasingly competitive VoIP market, which picked up momentum in January when Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. rolled out the first VoIP service. Yak Communications Inc., AOL Canada Inc. and Shaw Communications Inc. are expected to enter the fledgling market later this year. Rogers Cable Inc. is talking about offering VoIP service next year while Bell Canada is doing internal technology testing. As VoIP makes inroads, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is working to establish a new regulatory framework. Last week, the CRTC said it is leaning toward regulating incumbent carriers such as Bell Canada and Telus Corp. while letting competitive carriers such as Vonage set their own prices. This preliminary approach reflects the CRTC's mandate to encourage competition in a market that, until recently, had been tightly controlled. Not surprisingly, the incumbent carriers are pointing to VoIP and new rivals such as Primus as a sign competition is vibrant so regulatory restrictions should be loosened. The CRTC is accepting submissions about VoIP until April 28, and it will hold a two-day discussion session May 19-20. It expects to unveil regulations in the fourth quarter. One of the challenges facing Internet telephony providers is Canada's inexpensive local service prices due to CRTC policies, which eliminate a key marketing tool -- lower prices -- used by Vonage in the United States to attract more than 135,000 customers. Full story at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=cd5af497-56e2-40de-9d9c-63a7026f5ece ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:24:05 -0400 Subject: VoIP Regulation Heating Up Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33403.html By John P. Mello Jr. TechNewsWorld "We went for over 200 years without the federal government preempting the states' taxing authority until the moratorium came along on Internet access," Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association in Washington, D.C., told TechNewsWorld. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mulls over what to do about services for making phone calls on the Internet, two legislators have decided that the U.S. Congress should get into the act. Sen. John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) and Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Mississippi) have filed bills in their respective legislative branches to place regulatory control of Voice over IP (VoIP) technology squarely under the federal government. Called "The VoIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004," the measure restricts state or local taxation or regulation on the technology and delegates regulatory authority over it to the FCC, according to a statement from Pickering's office. The statement said the legislation defines a VoIP application as the use of hardware, software or network equipment for real-time, two-way or multidirectional voice communications over the public Internet or a private network utilizing Internet Protocol (IP). It excludes VoIP applications that both originate and terminate on the public switched telephone network. "VoIP is the next step in voice communications," Pickering, who is vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement. "As this efficient technology grows, consumers will benefit from advanced services and reduced costs," he continued. "But for the industry to develop and prosper, we must have a national standard that prevents patchwork regulation from stifling innovation." Full story at: http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33403.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:21:06 -0400 Subject: Telecom Tops Corporate To-Do Lists Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc20040413_5910_tc146.htm SPECIAL REPORT: A CEO'S GUIDE TO TECHNOLOGY Telecom Tops Corporate To-Do Lists As businesses start exploring services like Wi-Fi and VoIP, experts say "tread cautiously" till this fast-changing tech settles down Over the past year or so, telecommunications has been at the heart of nearly every technology decision Gerald Cohen has been involved in. A month ago, Information Builders, a business-intelligence software company that Cohen runs, began testing voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), a technology for making phone calls over the Web. That came a few months after he began looking into buying more advanced wireless gadgets for his mobile workers -- who want to answer voice calls and check e-mail on a single device while traveling. For the past few years, telecom has been among the driest of corporate technologies, a sector characterized by strategies that revolved around cost-cutting. That goal may not have changed much, but suddenly telecom projects head many execs' to-do lists. A recent Morgan Stanley survey of 225 chief information officers in the nation's 1,000 largest companies revealed that wireless infrastructure and VoIP are even higher corporate priorities than last year, when in the same survey both made it into the top six. Full story at: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc20040413_5910_tc146.htm ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 2004 03:52:06 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Quoting John Covert in issue 182: > Well, not exactly. My FWD phone also has a WA state (area code 360) > number that any phone can call and also has a UK number (0870) which > any phone can call. Really? How did you set that up? Pulver got the FCC to declare that FWD isn't taxable because it's not real phones. If FWD phones really are dialable, this could get interesting. R's, John Levine ------------------------------ From: sin nombre Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: 12 Apr 2004 20:15:16 -0700 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] In article , SELLCOM Tech support says: > jmeissen@aracnet.com posted on that vast internet thingie: >> While you may be frustrated with the list maintainers, your complaint >> should be with the administrator of the site you're trying to email. >> It's their choice to use the list that's negatively impacting their >> email system. At the least you should be able to get them to whitelist >> you. If the site administration has left themselve unreachable email >> or phone then they are truly irresponsible. > The administrator of the site was quite cooperative and generous with > his time. The point is that many administrators just see "spam > blackhole lists" and apparently don't know how to evaluate the > quality. The admin had no idea what "FIVETEN" was. When I first set > up our servers I really had no clue about blackhole list quality (till > one went berserk and blocked our main supplier). >> It's a shame that spammers have caused site administrators to feel that >> it's necessary to use such drastic and draconian measures. > Oh, I use several blackhole lists on our servers and it blocks a lot > of spam. That is the more reason that I am concerned about lazy or > incompetent people running them irresponsibly and advertising them > like "FIVETEN". These trash are willing to wholesale interfere with > legitimate companies and to some their greatest concern is that I call > them "trash" rather than what they are doing. > Irresponsible trash like FIVETEN may well end up mucking things up for > the legit blackhole list providers. I know about the standard > "disclaimer" that only the admins make the decision to block email > yada yada but I really don't think that would hold up in court since > they KNOW that their list will be used by third parties to block > email. How do you spell "negligence"? > (Remember here that my sympathies lie WITH the legit black hole > operators!!! and other anti-spam utils etc.. We use several of them.) > I also don't think a spammer could prevail in court against one. But > you let some legitimate business suffer some real damage because of > irresponsible trash like FIVETEN and sue and win that could have a > dampening effect on what is a very valuable resource against real > spammers. > FIVETEN has us blackholed because of spam from X.X.208.x and we are > x.x.22.x. Think how you would feel if your email to customers was > being blocked without cause. AHA! Your network provider has probably failed to take action against the spammer at x.x.208.x And FIVE-TEN's policies include: "6. spam-support - Networks that refuse to remove their spammers, otherwise known as spam support. In this case, you will need to find another provider, or you will need to convince your current provider to remove their spammers." I say hooray for FIVE-TEN; and stop whining and dump your spam- friendly provider. Blocklisting an entire /16 or /24 block of IP's will sometimes get a provider's attention when all normal measures such as abuse@ notifications have failed. > BTW, we spend way more time out of the day that we should taking the > time to report spammers. We also don't even use email advertising to > our own customers since the environment has been so trashed by > spammers. > Steve at SELLCOM ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:08:59 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , barmar@alum.mit.edu says: > What they're advocating is irrelevant -- the similarity is in the fact > that they advocate something. They try to absolve themselves of blame > by claiming that they're just providing information, and what the > readers do with this information is out of their hands. (Excuse me while I jump into the middle of this thread that I haven't been following.) I fail to see the relationship between advocating something and carrying blame for someone else's actions. The old classic, adjusted for this discussion, would be "if I advocate jumping off of a bridge, and you do it, is it my fault?" Nope. You didn't excersize due diligence. Dave Phelps DD Networks www.ddnets.com deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: 13 Apr 2004 10:00:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Barry Margolin wrote in message news:: > Isn't this similar to the argument given by people who operate web > sites that list abortion doctors, when they are included as > conspirators or accessories when these doctors get murdered? In both > cases, the list operators know full well what purpose their lists will > be put to, they're hardly just innocent publishers. They compile > these lists with the express purpose of encouraging others to use them > for a specific purpose. A conspiracy requires that an actual crime be committed or planned. A conspirator puts a bullet through the head of a doctor (or plans to): Illegal in most, if not all, jurisdictions. A "conspirator" refuses permission for outsiders to use the "conspirator"'s own private property (e.g., mailserver): I challenge you to name three jurisdictions where this would be a crime. ------------------------------ Subject: Response to Request for PSTN Info From: Charles G Gray Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:34:00 -0500 This is in response to William Warren's query on 7 Apr (Vol 23, Issue 169). The opinions expressed here are my own, and not necessarily those of Oklahoma State University. Let me preface my comments by saying that virtually all of my work experience has been in the voice arena ? radio and telephone. The Army sent me to school with AT&T for a year in New Jersey, so I may still be somewhat prejudiced in my view of the reliability and ubiquity of the circuit-switched PSTN. 1.) Will VoIP become a serious alternative to circuit-switched telephony? I think VoIP will become an important alternative, but not a replacement. After all, there are still telephone users who have dial-pulse phones; so even DTMF has not been a total "replacement" for earlier technology. Two further examples: 1) My Mother is 84 years old, and she sat in front of a key-punch (data entry) machine for over 20 years. She will not allow a computer in her house even though I offered her a free one. I can't see her ever doing anything besides POTS. 2) I saw my doctor last week, and just off-hand asked him if he had his PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) on a PDA. He said, "That is some kind of computer, isn't it?" I confirmed that it was, and he says he never touches a computer of any kind. He is not an "old fogy" like I am he is probably mid-40s. So there are examples of at least two kinds of people who probably will not (at least voluntarily) use VoIP. For me, I am one of those people who expect to have dial tone even when the lights go out every time. I am not willing to put my phone service (local or long distance) on a PC. I am now paying about a nickel a minute for long distance, and my total bill is about $25.00 per month. Corporations who operate their own intranet can probably successfully migrate to VoIP, since they can control latency, delay and QoS on their own network. However, note that Communications News magazine for April 2004 (page 10) reported that companies experience an average of 501 hours of network downtime every year, costing about 3.6% of annual revenue. Applications problems were the single largest contributor, followed by human error. When I worked at American Airlines our entire telecommunications budget worldwide was less than 3.6% of annual revenue. As an "old telephone guy" I would not be willing to risk my corporate network to this kind of failure rate to save a penney a minute. We haven't yet hit congestion in the public internet due to an overload of voice calls, but it can (will) happen. Granted, it will no longer require a full 64 Kbps channel to handle circuit-switched voice calls, but the lower useful limit of current coding algorithms is probably 16 Kbps. I know that some cell phones use 8 Kbps, but the voice quality is not acceptable to me. In my previous career we used 16 KBps coding for internal company calls, but would never go below 32 KBps for customer contact. Even at 16 KBps it will take significant expansion in the internet backbone to handle even a quarter of the current PSTN circuit switched traffic. However, that said, note that I have a current student whose employer was in the process of implementing VoIP for their corporate network. Last weekthey ripped out what they had done thus far and went back to a PBX, due to unacceptable performance. They may take another run at VoIP in the future, but for now they feel "burned". I do not recall who their supplier was. On a slightly different tack, I read (don't remember the source) about two years ago that over 50% of all voice calls in the PSTN at that time were to toll-free numbers. I don't know how this amount of traffic fits into a VoIP business model. The large users of toll-free service for call centers are probably paying about three cents a minute ? certainly not over four cents for domestic toll-free service. Circuit-switched calls to India, which seems to be driving the fury toward outsourcing work there, cost only about half a cent a minute more than domestic calls, even using a full 64KBps channel. Where can VoIP deliver a profit in this scenario? I honestly don't know. 1.A) If VoIP is viable, do you predict it'll be used with a dedicated "telephone" or with PCs? A combination? Most certainly, at least for my lifetime, it will be a combination. Even if some people agree to use VoIP on the back end, they will still want a "telephone" in the house. In my case I have eight telephones in the house, and it is not clear to me how VoIP would replace all of that. 1.B) If VoIP is not the future transport mechanism, what is? Maybe some of us should go to Supercomm 2004 in Chicago and listen to what Vint Cerf has to offer. I personally don't have any idea what might replace VoIP. 2.) Will the SS7 network be replaced by IP? IP will not replace SS7 any time soon, but will almost certainly be configured to transport SS7 messages using Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). The IETF is working on standardization. See IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2004, page 64, for an article by Shaojian Fu and Mohammed Atiquzzaman (University of Oklahoma) for details, and an excellent discussion of the hurdles that must be overcome. SS7 is an ITU (International Telecommunications Union) standard (Q.706) that has been adopted by carriers worldwide to facilitate international calling, as well as for inter-carrier billing. It is also the bedrock of signaling for roaming in cellular networks. Some of the reliability requirements of SS7 (that are not now met by IP) include: 1. Time needed to switch to another link upon link failure < 800 ms. 2. Availability of 99.9988% (Maximum downtime of ten minutes per year). 3. No more than one in 10**7 messages lost due to failure in the MTP layer. 4. No more than 10**10 messages to be delivered out of sequence to the user part due to failure in the MTP layer. 3.) Do you support the Negroponte Switch. . .? I'm not sure that everything that is wired will become wireless, and vice versa, but some of that is happening, and will continue to do so. In less developed countries (LDCs) wireless cell phones or wireless local loop (WLL) will almost certainly predominate. There are still thousands of villages in China and India that do not have a single wireline telephone. The best way to serve them in my view is to install a phone booth in each one, with solar power and a LEO satellite connection (e.g., Iridium). There is still the situation (some would say "problem") with over-the-air broadcasters not being willing to give up their hammerlock on frequencies for local markets. To some extent television, and certainly radio stations, are not willing to give up their local franchises and run the risk of being overcome with purely satellite TV or radio. Besides, we haven't completely solved the problem of spectrum scarcity. See the IEEE Spectrum March 2004 issue, page 49 for an article by Gregory Staple and Kevin Werbach that discusses anticipated developments that will supposedly "End Spectrum Scarcity" (their words). However, we aren't "there" yet and there is a lot of government (United States and the ITU) inertia to overcome. Don't forget, the ITU allocated spectrum in 1999 and 2000 for third- generation cell phones, and the European carriers bid well over $100 billion dollars for licenses. There still aren't any large-scale implementations of 3G outside of Japan and even there the market is quite small. 4.) What does the growth in fiber capacity mean for the traditional LECs? I don't really know about this one. I'm still mulling over these developments, and do not think I am prepared to pontificate here. Maybe next year. 4.) Will there be a backlash against the idea of "always on" connectivity? Yes, and it may have already started. As an aside, see "Blondie" in the Sunday Funnies for 11 April where Dagwood gets up his courage to confront a loud talker in a restaurant. The New York Times for 8 April also has a very good article on blocking cell phone usage in public places. There is some discussion there of the legality of jamming a cell phone signal, with reference to the Communications Act of 1934. Jamming is legal in many other countries of the world. The "electronic leash" is a two-edged sword. Of course, the FCC issued their NPRM on cell-phone location requirements for E911 calls in 1996, and here we are eight years later and we still do not have accurate location capability for E911 calls, with the possible exception of Rhode Island, and one or two major cities. The FCC presents location capability as strictly a positive result and for E911 calls I would agree. Supposedly however, the cell phone industry would like to have location-specific information (always on) to allow targeted advertising. Their plan is to sell the advertising capability, say to shopping malls, to entice passersby into stores with on-line real-time advertising for sales and specials. This application seems highly invasive to my privacy, and I would personally take a negative view of a merchant using my cell phone minutes to "pitch" a product or sale. It might be acceptable if the capability was "opt in". I definitely think that as long as we in the US use the current payment scenario (cell phone user pays for all) that this will not go over well with many people. In most other countries of the world cell phones are billed "caller pays", so the cost there might not make a difference, but there are still privacy issues. I have not explored the ramifications of the European Union "Data Directive" on location technology, but the Directive places what many Americans consider to be extremely stringent limits on collecting and processing data with regard to individual rights. Then there are the (I think valid) arguments by the civil liberties advocates that say that if Sears or Starbucks can tell where you are, then so can the FBI, the CIA, Interpol, and your local police. I think for now, most people don't really consider the "always on" capability. The real backlash will start when people are bombarded with unsolicited advertising, and especially if the system is "opt out". Look at the federal "do not call" list. Even though it is "opt out", something like 54 million people have added their numbers. I would see a parallel in the "always on" scenario for cell phones. I apologize for the length of this, it just kind of "grew" as I worked on it. Regards, Charles G. Gray Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications Oklahoma State University - Tulsa (918)594-8433 ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #184 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 13 21:08:54 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3E18rX15486; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:08:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:08:54 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404140108.i3E18rX15486@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 #185 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:09:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 185 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Join the Technology Review Research Panel (Kathleen Kennedy) Cordless Phone With IM Phone Calls? (Harold James) Re: Response to Request for PSTN Information (Wes Leatherock) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Carl Navarro) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Dave Garland) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Mark Brader) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of World (M. Muderick) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World (Joseph) Re: CRTC Ruling (Hank Karl) Re: Spam Issues (Barry Margolin) Re: Spam Issues (SELLCOM Tech Support) Re: Spam Issues (Robert Pierce) PluggedIn: Stow Luggage, Not Phones, While in Flight (Monty Solomon) Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail (Clarence Dold) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Matt) More "Leave it to Beaver" Then and Now (Lisa Hancock) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Join the Technology Review Research Panel Reply-To: kathleen.kennedy@technologyreview.com From: Kathleen Kennedy Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:26:40 PDT I am inviting you to join the Technology Review Research Panel, an online community of individuals interested in sharing their expert opinions about software and technology-related products and services in order to directly influence industry manufacturers and developers. In exchange for your opinions, you will be offered some type of compensation in the form of cash, prizes or access to research findings for most surveys. Survey participation is always voluntary you choose when and if to participate based on your interest and availability. To join the panel, please complete the brief, 10 minute panel registration survey, which is hosted by Technology Review's research partner, Socratic Technologies (http://www.sotech.com), by clicking on the link below, or cutting and pasting it into your Internet browser window. If you complete the entire registration survey, you will be entered into our monthly drawing to win $100. Note: When prompted to enter an email address on the opening screen, you will need to use the email address where this invitation was received: telecom@telecomdigest.org http://survey.sotech.com/477001/start.asp?s=6 We hope you enjoy the survey! Kathleen D. Kennedy Associate Director of Marketing and Research Technology Review, Inc. One Main Street, 7th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Technology Review Research Panel http://survey.sotech.com/477001/start.asp?s=6 ------------------------------ From: homardysa@yahoo.com (Harold James) Subject: Cordless Phone With IM Phone Calls? Date: 13 Apr 2004 10:27:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Has anyone heard of an easy way that I can use a regular cordless phone with IM or Skype phone calls? ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:58:13 EDT Subject: Response to Request for PSTN Info In a message dated Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:34:00 -0500, Charles G Gray writes: > When I worked at American > Airlines our entire telecommunications budget worldwide was less than > 3.6% of annual revenue. As an "old telephone guy" I would not be > willing to risk my corporate network to this kind of failure rate to > save a penney a minute. I recall many years ago American Airlines required two separate routes connecting its headquarters in Fort Worth with its secret hidden underground computer center in Tulsa. The phone companies, in their proposals (this was in regulated days) had to specify the exact segments to be used for each of the two geographically diverse routes, and these were subject to AA approval. Among the other things, they had to enter Tulsa from different sides of the city and be routed diversely to the computer center. Probably the same requirement in Fort Worth. [ ... ] > 4.) Will there be a backlash against the idea of "always on" > connectivity? > Yes, and it may have already started. As an aside, see "Blondie" in > the Sunday Funnies for 11 April where Dagwood gets up his courage to > confront a loud talker in a restaurant. I have been in that situation, and was sorely tempted to confront the speaker. But it also depends on the users. I was in a restaurant a week or two ago and looking around I saw five cellphones in use -- but only occasionally was there even a single syllable audible at the adjacent tables. (These all appeared to be workmen -- craftsmen -- contractor types, not the self-designated big shot types that seem to be especially likely to talk in a loud tone.) > Charles G. Gray > Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications > Oklahoma State University - Tulsa > (918)594-8433 Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:12:20 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:17:24 -0700, AES/newspost wrote: > I'd like to get free of the hassles of maintaining an old-fashioned > fax machine. I can handle the occasional outgoing fax by connecting > my laptop to my office voice line temporarily; being open to incoming > faxes is more problematic. > I'm told there are Internet services where anyone can send a fax from > a standard fax machine to some special telephone number that's listed > as my fax number, and the fax is then transmitted to me over the > Internet as an email attachment or a temporary web page? > Anyone had direct experience with any such service? (and some idea of > the monthly or per fax cost?) I've used the free efax (www.efax.com) service since 1998, but at an extremely low volume. They have some rules regarding the number of faxes and commercial use, but it is a fine incoming service for the price. I think about 20 faxes a month is the limit and you will get a number that is not related to anything near you. The pay service used to be $3.95 a month but now they are in love with the full ervice at $9.95. I believe they also charge for pages, maybe 10 cents. Carl "fax me in suburban Detroit" Navarro > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service > and the cost is FREE. (You know your poor mouth moderator; would I > have it any other way?) EFax gives you a number (*not* local unless > you pay for that) and you get your incoming faxes as email. See the > end of each issue of the Digest for the various free EFax numbers I > have which point either here to the Digest mailbox or my personal > mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:24:42 -0500 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service > and the cost is FREE. Sometimes. They haven't charged me, either, but I know people who were told that their free service was being discontinued and they'd have to buy the pay service. I notice that their TOS now says the free service is for "personal noncommercial use only", and that you can't receive more than 20 pages/month, so they may have fallen afoul of one of those provisions. For the regular non-free ("eFax Plus") service they charge $12.95/mo with a $12.95 setup fee. Plus $0.20/page if you're using one of their toll-free numbers. $0.10/page to send, inside the USA. Looks like the dot-com business model of "we'll give the product away and make up for the losses with high volume" had some flaws. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:15:53 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Carl Navarro: >> What happened to comp.dcom.voice-over-ip? Happened? On the server that vex uses, it's present with about 100-200 messages per month (although if the half-dozen messages I sampled are representative, much of the traffic is cross-posted to other newsgroups). Google Groups shows hundreds of threads in the group this year. Pat Townson: > How about it, Usenet authorities, i.e. John Levine, David Lawrence and > others? Is it sitting there idle? If so, and you flag it moderated > and send it here to me ... Uh, converting a newsgroup to moderated requires the same procedures as starting a new group. But this is irrelevant here anyway, since the "if so" part is false. Mark Brader, Toronto | "This is an excellent opportunity for msb@vex.net | out-of-context quoting..." --Mike Hardy My text in this article is in the public domain. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have three sources of news feed. The one I checked last night had two very old messages in it. I did not check the other two feeds until *after* I received and read your message this morning. Those two feeds were pretty-well populated, so I guess no help is needed with comp.dcom.voice-over-IP. That's fine with me anyway. My impression, on first reading the original message was that c.d.voip was straggling along, going no where, so (a) I was going to suggest to Jack Decker that he go in there (a little more appropriate) and (b) I would try to get it going for him if that was needed. Just as when Bill Pfieffer passed away in 1999, leaving a Digest and newsgroup and web site sitting without a moderator to keep them going, I kept all three of them going for awhile until someone new could be found. I didn't really need that, nor the high blood pressure and resulting aneurysm which followed it. Bill died in the car accident in September, 1999, two months later, November 26, 1999 plus various web sites (pioneers, internet-history, telecom, plus this Digest and all of Bill's things the brain aneurysm damn near took me away also; in fact as many of you know, I was out of circu- lation for a year so so while recovering. I still miss Bill quite a lot, but I am **so glad** others were found to take over his work on the net. And the more I think about it, I would have been a damn fool (hey! maybe I am anyway!) to take over c.d.voip even if it had been in need, which apparently it is not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:27:10 -0400 I occasionally pickup my mail through an internet server such as mail2web.com. I get a message back: Error : AOL email accounts are not POP3 or IMAP4 compatible. You must have POP3 or IMAP4 compatible email account to use mail2web. Is this because they haven't updated their auto-response to AOL mail requests? Michael Muderick ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to the Rest of the World Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:28:35 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:13:49 -0400, Telecom Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why was this entitled 'AOL Quietly > Opens ...' as if it was something new? For as long as I can > remember, I have been able to send mail to name@aol.com and get > replies to same. What am I missing here? PAT] It's not just about outside access *to* AOL, but AOL access to the outside and not through their proprietary email client. It's evidently opening itself so that you can use other mail clients and not be limited to use just the dumbed down AOL client. Though the article didn't expressly say this it appears that if you have an email client that has IMAP capability you will be able to use that instead of the native AOL application. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe that's the reason I never had any hassles with getting email there and responses back over the years (although I do not know what gyrations *they* had to do when writing me). I had (still have?) a lot of names@aol.com on the mailing list here and for a long time this Digest was going into a public area of AOL for anyone who wanted to read it and/or reply. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: CRTC Ruling Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:43:25 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ Both sides seem to have some good points on the issue of "is VoIP a phone service or an internet service?". Looking at the different flavors of VoIP, SS7, and ISDN (and possibly RBS/R2), the systems all look more alike than not, with the exception that some technologies use packet switching, others use circuit switching for the voice bytes. The issue becomes "why pay USF and the other taxes on any of these systems?" Others have pointed out "On the other hand, the network is more valuable because there is 'universal service' "', while pointing out that the USF does lead to unjust rates. It may be best to look at the USF as a fee for being able to connect to all those other users. Without the connectivity, your network has limited value. For example, compare Free World Dialup (FWD) to Vonage. FWD is a great service, its free, and I even have a FWD number and TA for it, but I still need a PSTN connection. Vonage is also a great service, and many people have given up their PSTN connection to go with Vonage. Vonage charges start at $15/month. So it seems that many people think the higher priced service (Vonage) is worth the money because they can connect to more people, and there may be some reason for some level of USF. (but not as high as it is now). On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:18:22 -0400, Aswath Rao wrote: > Jack: > I have a different interpretation of CRTC preliminary view. It is not > clear to me why you feel that CRTC does not recognize VoIP to be a new > type of communication. They have declared that VoIP is special if it > does not use NANP resource and if they do not interface to PSTN. If > VoIP providers already pay the taxes and fees, then the ruling is just > a confirmation of what is currently taking place. In this respect it > is a good thing, because we have clarity now. > Regards, > Aswath [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On my (software) version of FWD, not only can I call other computers, but by starting the diailing string with *1 I can reach any ten digit NANP number, or by starting with *countrycode, I can call anywhere I want. I do not know about any gateway or DID number to reach me however. Maybe John Covert will explain how I can do that part of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: Looking for work Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:46:38 -0400 In article , panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote in message > news:: >> Isn't this similar to the argument given by people who operate web >> sites that list abortion doctors, when they are included as >> conspirators or accessories when these doctors get murdered? In both >> cases, the list operators know full well what purpose their lists will >> be put to, they're hardly just innocent publishers. They compile >> these lists with the express purpose of encouraging others to use them >> for a specific purpose. > A conspiracy requires that an actual crime be committed or planned. I don't think conspiracies are limited to crimes. You can conspire with your friends to pull of a practical joke, can't you? > A conspirator puts a bullet through the head of a doctor (or plans > to): Illegal in most, if not all, jurisdictions. > A "conspirator" refuses permission for outsiders to use the > "conspirator"'s own private property (e.g., mailserver): I challenge > you to name three jurisdictions where this would be a crime. Whether it's a crime is irrelevant to my analogy; I never said that blacklists are, or should be, illegal. I'm talking about the relationship between the list compiler and the person/organization that uses the list, and the responsibility that the list compiler bears towards the actions of the user. If he publishes the list for the express purpose of facilitating a specific activity, then I think he's partially responsible for the results of that activity when his list is used as intended. If the activity is illegal (like murder) then he could be prosecuted; but in the case of legal activities, he should still be expected to operate it responsibly, to avoid problems for his users. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** Please don't copy me on replies. *** ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:58:58 GMT sin nombre posted on that vast internet thingie: > I say hooray for FIVE-TEN; and stop whining and dump your spam- > friendly provider. Blocklisting an entire /16 or /24 block of IP's > will sometimes get a provider's attention when all normal measures > such as abuse@ notifications have failed. What an idiot! Verizon does not let spammers run on their network. The trash at FIVETEN are also known for refusing to remove blocks even when ISPs deal with the spammers. 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, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:30:27 -0400 From: Robert Pierce [Pat, please remove my e-mail address. Thanks, Rob] Sellcom, > FIVETEN has us blackholed because of spam from X.X.208.x and we are > x.x.22.x. Think how you would feel if your email to customers was > being blocked without cause. FIVETEN says: IP address x.x.22.x is listed here as x.x.208.x.dsl-verizon.net.misc spam. So your recourse in re: FIVETEN is either to 1) move to a different ISP or 2) ask your correspondents to white list you. How many people use FIVETEN? Looks like FIVETEN is blocking quite a bit: Your ISP's net block is x.x.0.0 - x.x.255.255 FIVETEN says: IP address x.x.0.1 is listed here as x.x.208.x.dsl-verizon.net.misc spam IP address x.x.255.255 is listed here as x.x.208.x.dsl-verizon.net.misc spam. Now, I'm not using the FIVETEN blocklist. I use the SPAMHAUS blocklist for blocking and the SORBS list for filtering. I checked your address as well as the spammer's on SPAMHAUS and found this: http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=x.x.208.x Your IP address wasn't listed. Sorbs returned this: Your ip address: No entry found x.x.208.x returned: x.x.192.0/19 Dynamic Address Space So it looks like FIVETEN is blocking the entire class-b based on spam from consumer-grade IP space. I can understand that. If everyone did that, then ISPs would have to clean up their act, and stop dumping spam on the internet. It's really the same as dumping waste in public waterways. AOL keeps their network clean. Mail.com keeps their network clean. If they can do it, then Comcast, RoadRunner, and the rest can do it -- if they _want_ to. Now, I'm not as aggressive as the FIVETEN guys, but here's something to think about. A lot of mail administrators keep local block lists in addition to using DNS-based lists. My list of banned IP addresses has over 7500 lines, including large swaths like 80.0.0.0-80.255.255.255, and only a few single IP addresses. It takes too much time to try and track down each individual spammer and block that and only that IP address, especially since spammers will bounce around inside their /24 or /19 or more. So when I find spam getting through my filters, I pull the IP addresses from them and run them through this: awk -F"." '{print $1"."$2"."$3".0-"$1"."$2"."$3".255"}' and add that to the block list. Is that the most fair way to do it? Maybe not fair to those who are locked into spamming IP addresses, but it's the most fair way for my users. So my advice is not to be mad at the blocklist providers, and not to be mad at the harried mail administrators trying to do the best they can, but to be mad at the spammers who are the cause of all this mess to start with. Rob Pierce [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe some of you guys who know about this kind of thing can give me some advice. What do you show, if anything about 24.119.225.28 and any blacklists? Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:29:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PluggedIn: Stow Luggage, Not Phones, While in Flight By Lucas Grinsven AMSTERDAM, April 13 (Reuters) - The next time a flight attendant asks you to switch off that handheld computer phone, keep smiling -- and pull out a copy of the latest plane safety guidelines. Clever computer and handset makers offer an option called "flight mode," which disables the radio. As a result, the British Civil Aviation Authority has decided passengers in planes under its jurisdiction should be allowed to use these portable devices as a calendar or photo viewer because they do not interfere with the electronic circuits and radio systems used by the pilots. The CAA says airlines should let travelers write messages, read documents and perform all other nonphone functions on phones that double up as computers, just as they can now work on a laptop, play on a GameBoy or listen to music on an iPod at cruising altitudes. But some flight crews still fume when they spot a passenger toying with a computer phone. Airlines from no-frills JetBlue (NASDAQ:JBLU) to United and British Airways (LSE:BAY) have their crews scanning the aisles for them. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41061719 ------------------------------ From: dold@CalifXXLaw.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:06:28 UTC Organization: a2i network Monty Solomon wrote: > By Lisa Baertlein > SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on > Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc.'s free > e-mail service "Gmail" because it would place advertising in personal > messages after searching them for key words. I have a GMail account. I don't see any ads yet. They will look just like the ads on the side of a Google search results screen. I don't see them as an invasion of anything. What I want to say to Liz is "keep your stupid invasive laws away from my free choice!". Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Matt Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:08:00 -0400 To follow up on Pat's note, if EFax see's that you are receiving too many faxes, they will make you switch to a paid account. Thats what I ended up doing. And it works real well. For example, I am on the road 75% of the time and I never miss a fax since it winds up in my email. The file that gets transmitted is basically a TIF file with some special encoding. AES/newspost wrote in message news:telecom23.183.15@telecom-digest.org: > I'd like to get free of the hassles of maintaining an old-fashioned > fax machine. I can handle the occasional outgoing fax by connecting > my laptop to my office voice line temporarily; being open to incoming > faxes is more problematic. > I'm told there are Internet services where anyone can send a fax from > a standard fax machine to some special telephone number that's listed > as my fax number, and the fax is then transmitted to me over the > Internet as an email attachment or a temporary web page? > Anyone had direct experience with any such service? (and some idea of > the monthly or per fax cost?) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service > and the cost is FREE. (You know your poor mouth moderator; would I > have it any other way?) EFax gives you a number (*not* local unless > you pay for that) and you get your incoming faxes as email. See the > end of each issue of the Digest for the various free EFax numbers I > have which point either here to the Digest mailbox or my personal > mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: More "Leave it to Beaver" Then and Now Date: 13 Apr 2004 13:37:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Two recent episodes (shown on cable's TV Land) brought to mind changes in the last 40 years. Both episodes were when Beaver was about 12-13. First, Beaver saw an ad for a typewriter and decided he wanted one, so he went to his father for it. His father approved the ID, but was concerned that Beaver would quickly lose interest, as he did with other things bought for him. (TV back then blacked out brands, and this typewriter looked rather inexpensive.) I wonder today how many kids today pester their parents to buy them their own computer. Some parents tell me their kids come home from school and love to "instant message" their friends. While it would seem a typewriter would be much cheaper than a computer, actually a good new typewriter back then wasn't cheap in today's dollars. I bought a good SCM electric portable in the late 1970s for several hundred dollars; it wasn't a purchase I made lightly. There were stores back then who just sold typewriters and adding machines. Amazing how much technology has changed since then -- how much more we can do with an electronic printer and computer. Back then, I thought my typewriter, with the carbon ribbon and light touch, was really neat, but by today's standards it was a paperweight. Back then, upper/lowercase Teletypewriters were relatively new, replacing the ubiquitous TTY 33 ASR (and older dark green models) that were all caps. Of course today we do all the communicating we want. Well, back then I didn't come home to find ads for sexual aids on my typewriter. The other episode reflects changes in social mores. As mentioned, Beaver was 12-13. He liked a girl in his class, and she accompanied him home after school. He announced to his mother, "I'm taking Mary up to my room", and his mother smiled "have fun". Given the earlier maturity of kids these days, I don't think the parents of a boy that age would permit him so easily to take a girl into his room. Another observation: In one unrelated scene, Wally asks his mother where his father is -- he needs help with a trig question. The father is out, but the mother says she can help him; but the son declines her offer. Interesting how way back then they showed that the mother was educated too. Indeed, on that show, the mother was always portrayed as being pretty sharp. Oh yes, when Beaver was in his room and got a phone call, he came downstairs to take it. While many scenes took place in the boys' room, the parent's room (AFAIK) was never shown. The house colored extensions in Ward's den, the living room, and the kitchen, all of which were regularly used. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #185 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 14 14:41:14 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3EIfEg23980; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:41:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404141841.i3EIfEg23980@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 #186 TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:41:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 186 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson IceNet Launches A Voice Optimized VoIP Network (VOIP News) Cable Cadre Talks VOIP (VOIP News) Vonage Rings up Canadian VoIP Opportunity (VOIP News) VoIP Hack Plan Condemned (VOIP News) Nuvio Offers Partner Programs to ISP's (VOIP News) PIKA Technologies Announces VoIP-Enabled Voice Boards (VOIP News) Regulators Consider the Future of VoIP (VOIP News) Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service (Jack Decker) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World (Barry Margolin) Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (Rich Higgins) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Steven J Sobol) 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: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:47:54 -0400 Subject: IceNet Launches A Voice Optimized VoIP Network Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.commweb.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=18901253 IceNet Launches A Voice Optimized VoIP Network By William David Gardner Some still think VoIP is too unreliable for business customers. IceNet says that's hogwash; its VoIP for service providers is reliable enough that its service provider customers can offer 99.999 percent uptime. IceNet announced its voice carrier-grade fault tolerant VoIP network with redundant ATM backup. Its first customer is ISP airBand Communications. IceNet's president Steve Holden said the startup company -- it's a year-and-a-half old -- was built from the ground up to supply VoIP over a voice grade network. Full story at: http://www.commweb.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=18901253 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:51:54 -0400 Subject: Cable Cadre Talks VOIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=50916 Cable Cadre Talks VOIP U.S. cable companies are considering forming a consortium to jointly offer voice-over-IP services, a potential blow to phone companies and independent VOIP providers. NeuStar Inc. has held preliminary talks with cable representatives about providing a system to bridge VOIP calls between cable networks. The talks, still in the planning stages, have involved Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc., and Time Warner Cable, among others. If the U.S. companies form a consortium, they are likely to invite Canadian cable operators Shaw Communications Inc. and Rogers Cable Inc. to participate, in order to enable VOIP interconnections among cable networks throughout North America. Cable Television Laboratories Inc. (CableLabs), a nonprofit research and development consortium, is helping cable companies research the proposed initiative. Full story at: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=50916 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This must be the thing the lady over at our CableOne office was telling me about last week when she said she thought Southwestern Bell would get 'really squashed' by the time the cableco got 'done with them'. It really does sound exciting, if they can make it work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:54:43 -0400 Subject: Vonage Rings up Canadian VoIP Opportunity Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&lid=1&sid=55298 4/13/2004 5:00:00 PM - The American firm makes a play for customers here through a partnership with Group Telecom. Executives discuss their customer expectations, marketing challenges and the CRTC ruling by Fawzia Sheikh Vonage, an American broadband services provider, has partnered with Group Telecom to launch a service in Canada at the same time the CRTC has said it will likely regulate voice over IP the same as other phone services. Full story at: http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&lid=1&sid=55298 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:58:58 -0400 Subject: VoIP Hack Plan Condemned Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://p2pnet.net/story/1209 p2pnet.net News:- ISPs, the Federal Communications Commission, equipment builders and broadband consumers are being set up to subsidize the FBI's surveillance state, says the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation). Its statement comes in response to an FBI demand that the FCC allow it to hack VoIP coms. The FBI and its wire-taps are already famous -- or infamous, depending on your point of view -- and "Last month, the FBI, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), filed a petition with the FCC to ask that the agency require ISPs to rewire networks and give the FBI the ability to tap packet-based voice communications," says a TechNewsWorld story here. "Experts tell TechNewsWorld that Internet-based telephone calls account for about 1 percent of all telephone calls made today." The FBI petition wants the government create a regulatory process under which new communications protocols, applications or services must be reviewed and approved by the FBI before they can be deployed, the story says, continuing: Full story at: http://p2pnet.net/story/1209 ------------------------------ From: VOIP Newa Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:30:22 -0400 Subject: Nuvio Offers Partner Programs to ISP's Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-13-2004/0002150608&EDATE= Broadband Providers Can Capitalize on VoIP Like Never Before KANSAS CITY, Mo., April 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Nuvio today announced the industry's most comprehensive and cost-effective Private Label Partner (PLP) programs for broadband providers. Nuvio's programs allow ISP's to provide phone numbers in most of the country and phone service anywhere in the world. The partner programs allow broadband providers to immediately profit from offering residential and business VoIP services to their existing customer base. The announcement was made today at ISPCON, the definitive event for wired and wireless ISP's. "We've spent the time and resources to build out and operate a nationwide VoIP network making us a logical partner for broadband providers," said Jason Talley, Nuvio CEO. "ISP's realize that Nuvio offers a cost-effective solution by providing the infrastructure and the knowledgeable support staff to make ISP's profitable as VoIP providers. These programs offer an unbelievable opportunity for ISP's to bundle their services and realize significant profits from new revenue sources." [Comment: This press release registers higher than usual on my hype-o-meter, so I'm not posting the whole thing. If what you have read so far interest you, the entire press release is at the following URL:] http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-13-2004/0002150608&EDATE= ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:25:41 -0400 Subject: PIKA Technologies Announces VoIP-Enabled Voice Boards Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-14-2004/0002151070&EDATE= OTTAWA, Canada, April 14 /PRNewswire/ - The volume of VoIP news is on the rise; it is clear that the IP-centric world has arrived. PIKA Technologies, a developer of innovative computer plug-in voice boards and software, is proud to announce that VoIP capabilities will be delivered in PIKA MonteCarlo Software Developer Kit (SDK), Release 6.2, in June 2004. Using PIKA boards and software, application developers will be able to design cost-effective VoIP- enabled voice and fax solutions for their customers. PIKA MonteCarlo 6.2 will include VoIP-based DSP applications that enable VoIP capabilities on all MM-series digital- and analog-interface boards. It's important to point out the innovative architecture of PIKA boards, referred to as "All-on-Board" technology. All-on-Board allows developers to do voice, fax, conferencing, VoIP and data on any MM-series PIKA board. Developers control the combination of DSPs and the number of channels served by each application. If more DSP processing power is required, the developer can add DSP modules to the board without using up additional system slots. Release 6.2 will make it easier and more cost effective for application developers to incorporate VoIP into new or existing voice and fax solutions. "VoIP has been on the product roadmap of application development companies for some time. Now that the hype has faded way to customers paying for the capability, many developers will begin to design new applications or VoIP-enable existing applications," said Doug Petty, VP Technology, PIKA Technologies Inc. "Release 6.2 continues our promise to bring innovative features and functionality to the application developer community so that they can deliver next-generation solutions to their customers." PIKA MonteCarlo 6.2 will deliver the following enhancements: New DSP features: - VoIP - Dial pulse detection New digital features: - Clear channel (for external signaling stack compatibility) - ISDN hold and retrieve (1B channel transfer) - CAS R1 - New CAS modifiable country state machines New configuration, logging and diagnostics features: - Dynamically change the following T1/E1 interface parameters without stopping the application: framing, encoding, line build out, and protocol end for T1 and E1 line interfaces - Logging: - Improved log file parameter control (size, wrap, and more) - Layer 1 monitoring - System diagnostic information enhancements - Improved API parameter expansion Operating systems supported: - Windows 2000/XP/2003 - Red Hat 7.3 - SuSE Professional 9 PIKA Technologies continues to invest heavily in their technology offerings. As an example, the company is working on integration to Microsoft SpeechServer and Microsoft.Net. PIKA Technologies promises to continue to deliver the new features and functionality developers need to stay competitive. PIKA MonteCarlo SDK Release 6.2, currently in beta trials, is scheduled for availability in June 2004. Existing 6.1-based applications will run on 6.2 with a recompile only. For more information, visit http://www.pikatechnologies.com or call +1-613-591-1555. About PIKA Technologies PIKA Technologies designs and manufactures computer plug in voice cards and software that connect a computer system to both TDM- and IP-based networks to provide advanced voice services. For more than 16 years PIKA Technologies has been serving companies around the world that require voice cards to design sophisticated phone services for recording systems, voice services applications, and PC-PBX systems. The company has built a reputation for delivering innovative products and exceptional technical support by working closely with its customers. Headquartered in Ottawa, ON, Canada, the company has ranked in The Branham300, an authoritative ranking of successful Canadian high tech firms, for three consecutive years. Visit http://www.pikatechnologies.com or call +1-613-591-1555 for more information. (C) PIKA Technologies Inc., 2004. PIKA is a registered trademark of PIKA Technologies Inc. LINUX is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. SUSE is a registered trademark of SUSE LINUX AG. RED HAT is a registered trademark of Red Hat, Inc. Microsoft and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries. SOURCE Pika Technologies Inc. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:11:23 -0400 Subject: Regulators Consider the Future of VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/communications/networks/0,39020427,39151529,00.htm Clive Gringras Olswang Whether or not new technologies like VoIP are viable will depend in part on the regulatory framework, which was discussed at a recent European conference. European regulators and network operators recently gathered in Brussels to consider the future regulation of voice over Internet Protocol -- VoIP. The hearing, held in March, focused on recommendations set out in a study prepared for the European Commission that was published earlier this year. Guidance from the Commission on how the new e-communications regulatory package should be applied to IP-based services is expected to follow. The regulatory treatment of these services will be key to the viability of these emerging new business models. Full story at: http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/communications/networks/0,39020427,39151529,00.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:45:45 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: CRTC: VoIP is Just Phone Service Pat, please conceal my e-mail address as usual. On 13 Apr 2004 03:52:06 -0000, John Levine wrote: > Quoting John Covert in issue 182: >> Well, not exactly. My FWD phone also has a WA state (area code 360) >> number that any phone can call and also has a UK number (0870) which >> any phone can call. > Really? How did you set that up? > Pulver got the FCC to declare that FWD isn't taxable because it's not > real phones. If FWD phones really are dialable, this could get > interesting. John, the reason it may not be quite as interesting as you might think is that, with one exception, these gateway arrangements are set up by third parties that have no business relationship with Free World Dialup or Jeff Pulver. Basically these are people who have either offered to map a Direct Inward Dialed number to a Free World Dialup number, or have set up a gateway where you dial in, reach an auto-attendant or a dial tone, and can then dial a FWD number. Note that in at least one case they will also put calls through to IAXtel or SIPphone numbers, so it's not even something exclusive to Free World Dialup. These numbers don't change the basic nature of Free World Dialup -- for one thing, I doubt that all Free World Dialup users even know they exist, and of those who do know about them, certainly not everyone has requested one. But in any case, my understanding is that, again with one possible exception, these numbers aren't operated by Free World Dialup or Jeff Pulver. The interesting thing is that, as far as I know, so far these numbers are all free to use (except for any normal toll charges the PSTN caller might pay to that particular ratecenter). Don't ask me why; I guess whoever operates each of these gateways has their own reason for doing so (I believe I recall someone saying that in one case it was actually a way to get multiple test calls on VoIP switches, so their operation could be observed with actual, real world usage taking place). The exception I spoke of (and it's a big one) is a company called LibreTel, which on its home page says that it is "a pulver.com company." What is interesting about LibreTel is that they have gateway numbers in a bunch of Eastern seaboard ratecenters (see http://www.libretel.com/access.html ), but the last I heard they were set up to only consider Free World Dialup numbers lower than about 80000 as valid, and FWD went past that several months ago (they're now assigning six digit numbers). So if you have a newer FWD number, you probably can't receive calls through those numbers. Jeff Pulver has indicated that this problem will be fixed at some point, but at that time they may start charging for use of the gateways. If that happens, that may be when someone will cry "foul"! It's one thing if people unrelated to Free World Dialup are putting calls through from the PSTN -- there's not much that FWD can do about that -- but if "a pulver.com company" is doing it (and especially if they start charging for it), then as you say it could get interesting. For those who may wish to call a Free World Dialup user, here are a few additional URL's you may find interesting: http://www.freeworlddialup.com/advanced/peering_numbers (scroll down to "Third Party Inbound to FWD" at the bottom of the page) http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-Telesthetic http://www.broadbandreports.com/speak/print/default;9179386 http://www.broadbandreports.com/speak/print/default;8610357 I don't want to include any direct references to the people who give out the Direct Inward Dial numbers in this message (I only know of one such person anyway, and he only has numbers in Michigan), because these messages go into the Digest archives and if the guy happens to discontinue his offer, I don't want him to have to keep replying to requests from Digest archive readers. But for probably at least a few more months you'll be able to see the information if you go to: http://www.broadbandreports.com/speak/print/default;8576286 Oh, and one other point I wanted to make about all these gateways - any or all of them could disappear at any time, since they are free services and (at least for now) have no binding agreements with users of their services (in this particular context). I guess that basically any private system can be connected to the PSTN at various points. I remember that back in the 1960's (and probably still today) the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad (then recently merged with the B&O railroad) had their own private phone system. The interesting thing was that by dialing various codes you could route your calls yourself(!) and you could get to C&O or B&O company switchboards in various parts of the country, where you could jump off onto the PSTN and make a local call. It worked in reverse, too - I once placed a call to the train depot in my home town by calling the C&O switchboard in Detroit. I'm not sure what the phone company thought about that, or if they even knew that it was taking place. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World Organization: Looking for work Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:33:26 -0400 In article , Michael Muderick wrote: > I occasionally pickup my mail through an internet server such as > mail2web.com. > I get a message back: > Error : AOL email accounts are not POP3 or IMAP4 compatible. > You must have POP3 or IMAP4 compatible email account to use mail2web. > Is this because they haven't updated their auto-response to AOL mail > requests? It looks like it to me. If this message were due to an actual error that they encountered trying to access the AOL mail server, I doubt it would be so well customized. Since AOL users are likely to be computer-illiterate, it looks like they put in a special case for it so that they could generate a message that's relatively understandable. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** Please don't copy me on replies. *** ------------------------------ From: rich.higgins@consultechcorp.com (Rich Higgins) Subject: Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck Date: 14 Apr 2004 08:27:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Unfortunately, it sounds like you didn't receive a very complete reply to your very reasonable question. IP by its very nature is a resource sharing service with every endpoint competing with every other. Unless some mechanism is imposed to ensure quality of service all latency sensitive IP traffic (voice, streaming video, etc.) will, to some degree, be impacted by whatever else is happening on the network. This is why it's incorrect to say that you simply need more bandwidth (i.e. bigger pipe) into your home. The bigger pipe will statistically reduce the chances that a specific packet will be delayed or lost (due to jitter) but will not guarantee it. The cable operators, through CableLabs, have produced a set of specifications that address the need to provide a guarantee of quality of service for voice (today) and other real time applications (future). Until October of last year I was the principal corporate VoIP engineer for Time Warner Cable which is in the midst of a national residential VoIP rollout. With the PacketCable model, as long as you are on a call you are guaranteed bandwidth regardless of whatever else is happening on the cable. I can assure you I have been intimately involved with developing the specifications and implementing them in an operational network. I can assure you that the technology works and works well. Perhaps the question that you should ask next is when is your cable operator going to begin to offer voice services which comply with PacketCable? VOIP News wrote in message news:: > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5184599.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed > By Ben Charny > CNET News.com > Broadband Net-phoning services pushing aggressive expansion plans are > discovering a harsh reality: Some residential Internet service > providers in the United States currently can't guarantee the bandwidth > required to handle calls effectively. > AT&T Vice President Kathy Martine said she learned that lesson the > hard way during recent trials of the company's CallVantage Net-phoning > plan, which it hopes to introduce in 100 markets this year. Some > customers' broadband connections just weren't good enough to provide > "AT&T-like" quality, she said. So the company was forced to help the > broadband providers fix their connections. > Now AT&T Labs is "doing a lot of statistical modeling and analysis on > that so we can, in fact, prove where the problems are in the future," > Martine said recently. "But the reality is, it's only as good as the > broadband connection to your home." > VoIP backers such as Cisco Systems insist that the industry has solved > problems that once plagued the technology. But those claims tacitly > assume the presence of high-quality broadband networks, something > industry insiders admit they don't always encounter when deploying > service in residential markets. > United States spoiled by Ma Bell > VoIP's quality problems aren't a big deal in Europe or Asia, where the > cost of traditional phone lines is so high that dialers are expected > to eagerly embrace VoIP in the home and put up with the lost calls and > dropped words. > But Americans are a different story. They've become used to the > century-old telephone networks, which operate so well that even during > power outages there may still be a dial tone. > Full story at: > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5184599.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have discovered one thing about my > Vonage service which is a problem. Even though it usually does okay, I > get the dropped words problem whenever I am trying to run too many > jobs at once here. Left alone on the cable, Vonage seems to do very > well. But usually I am running my weather station > http://weatherforecast.n3.net or http://weatherforecast.us.tf and my > computer room live camera http://patricktownson.us.tf most of the > time. Both of these services take .jpg images and transfer them to my > California web site using FTP (under their alias 'n3.net' and 'us.tf' > names) every fifteen seconds or so. Often times also I am using a > secure form of telnet or rlogin to work on this Digest at MIT. > Whenever weather or the office cam decide it is time to do a transfer > via FTP I can count on the words on Vonage getting lost. I can set my > watch by it, every fifteen seconds or so. They are on other machines, > (the Windows 98 and Windows 95 computers) but still using the same > NetGear router and cable modem. I wish there was a way that Vonage > could take priority and slow down or automatically stop the other > jobs when it was talking. > I asked Mike Flood, general manager of Cable One here in Independence > about this. His answer was I need a 'bigger pipe', which of course he > said he could sell me. I now have what he termed 'half size' (or some > words like that) with 500 K and he said I should get a 'full size > pipe'. (More money of course). Does that make sense to anyone? I > guess the full size is twice the 500 K. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reference above to Time-Warner's 'national VOIP rollout' may account for why the lady in the office here at our Independence CableOne place said she thought Bell would 'get squashed' by the time things were in place. That, and the fact that so many of the small VOIP outfits are working with each other on interchange arrangements and gateways between their networks. To slightly borrow and re-arrange a quote attributed to Samuel B. Morse, 'What hath Judge Green wrought?' PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:54:14 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > I'd like to get free of the hassles of maintaining an old-fashioned > fax machine. I can handle the occasional outgoing fax by connecting > my laptop to my office voice line temporarily; being open to incoming > faxes is more problematic. I've been very happy with maxemail. They do charge a nominal membership fee, but you also get OUTGOING faxes at roughly $0.05/page. Furthermore -- and this is why I chose maxemail over all the others -- you can send your fax in .pdf format (which means you can use any program to create it), and you can send it via e-mail. It's very convenient. In fact, maxemail is SO convenient that I can only think of one reason to own an actual fax machine: some lawyers don't want copies of documents floating around on the Internet. Other than that, in my experience, everything about maxemail is better than a fax machine. -Joel ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:41:52 -0500 Pat Townson wrote, >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: E-Fax (efax.com) is one such service >> and the cost is FREE. (You know your poor mouth moderator; would I >> have it any other way?) EFax gives you a number (*not* local unless >> you pay for that) and you get your incoming faxes as email. See the >> end of each issue of the Digest for the various free EFax numbers I >> have which point either here to the Digest mailbox or my personal >> mailbox. PAT] eFax works. FaxWave works too. All of the numbers are Northern Nevada numbers in area code 775, and the service is receive-only, but it is completely free. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, and with the low cost (free?) for long distance these days, who cares where the free fax number is located. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #186 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 14 16:19:35 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3EKJZl25106; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:19:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404142019.i3EKJZl25106@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 #187 TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:19:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 187 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson E-mail Fingerprinting Attacks Bounce Storms (Monty Solomon) Some Marketers Finding ways Around Do Not Call List (Monty Solomon) Consumer Groups Rally Against 'Fees' (Monty Solomon) EchoStar Says Dish Network May Lose Turner Channels (Monty Solomon) Intel First Quarter Revenue $8.1 Billion; Earnings Per Share (M Solomon) Verizon Offers Free Wireless Router With Rebate Promotion (M Solomon) AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer (Monty Solomon) Verizon to Add DSL Fees (Monty Solomon) QLLC Question, Please Help (Tom N.) Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Spam Issues (Jim Rusling) Re: Spam Issues (Paul Vader) Re: Spam Issues (Robert Pierce) Re: Spam Issues (Matt Simpson) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:22:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: E-mail Fingerprinting Attacks Bounce Storms Uses encryption technology to create a unique signature for each outbound e-mail News Story by Paul Roberts APRIL 13, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - E-mail provider Everyone.net Inc. is trying to head off one type of spam with an encryption technology designed to create a unique signature for each outbound e-mail message. The Total Protection 2.0 e-mail protection service zeros in on bounce storms, in which e-mail users who have had their e-mail addresses stolen by spammers or e-mail worms receive a flood of returned messages. The service, being launched this week at the ISPCon conference in Washington, includes a technology dubbed Email Fingerprint, which adds an extension header to each outbound e-mail message. The header will contain a unique signature, created with a symmetric encryption key and based on information such as the e-mail user's ID, the time stamp for the e-mail and more, said Wayne Lewis, Everyone.net's chief technology officer. http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/groupware/story/0,10801,92191,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:28:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Some Marketers Finding Ways around Do Not Call list Even the law can't stop all sales calls By Bob Sullivan Technology correspondent MSNBC It sounds like every other sweepstakes entry you've seen, but in the age of the Do Not Call list there's a twist. The Ecology First Sweepstakes' "$25,000 cash or car giveaway" comes with this catch in the small print: "By completing this form, you agree that sponsors and co-sponsors of this sweepstakes may telephone you, even if your number is found on a do not call registry or list." The company which operates that contest, LiquidSoapProducts.com, did not immediately return phone calls for comment. But consumer agencies say desperate telemarketers are turning to all sorts of creative methods in an attempt to connect with new customers. Sweepstakes entries with small print designed to circumvent Do Not Call provisions are only one method. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4702892/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:05:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Consumer Groups Rally Against 'Fees' Rate Hikes in Sheep's Clothing Consumer groups rally against 'fees' Written by Karl Bode As previously discussed, BellSouth recently added a "regulatory cost recovery" fee of $2.97 to customer DSL bills. Letters informing customers of the change caused a long discussion over the tactic in our BellSouth forum, and now SBC has unveiled their own -- much to the chagrin of consumer advocates. The fee is not assessed by the government, and consumer groups argue it's simply a rate hike in sheep's clothing. The biggest problem is that the fee isn't included in the cost that these companies are advertising. Critics charge this allows the companies to advertise one rate, charge another, and then blame the government when you get angry. We've been changing our own price comparisons to reflect this. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/41691 Hiding Hikes in a 'Fee' Users angered by new BellSouth fee Written by Karl Bode Users in our BellSouth forum began receiving letters this week informing them of a new $2.97 "regulatory cost recovery fee". Oddly, the fee isn't actually imposed by the FCC or government, and yet isn't being included in the price of BellSouth DSL listed on promotional materials. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/40794 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for another good example of why I was **so happy** to get Southwestern Bell out of my home once and for all, a little more than a year ago. They play the same kind of games with their DSL that BellSouth does. And whatever happened to the federal law a few years ago which said it is unlawful to collect some money and *claim* it is for taxes when in fact no such tax exists. If I started a business, quoted one price and collected more, claiming it was (some flavor of tax) then did not remit the money as 'tax' because there was no such tax, the feds would quickly arrest me for fraud (against the government, the taxpayers, my customers) would they not? Why does telco get a free ride on this? And why does telco furthermore charge (legitimate) taxes on these (bogus fees) as well? Isn't there also a law against double 'taxation'? Illinois Bell found this out the hard way several years ago when they had a class action suit brought against them on behalf of 'all pay phone users'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:38:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar Says Dish Network May Lose Turner Channels NEW YORK, April 13 (Reuters) - EchoStar Communications Corp. (NASDAQ:DISH) Chief Executive Officer Charles Ergen warned viewers of its Dish Network satellite TV service that they may soon take CNN, Cartoon Network, CNN Headline News, and Turner Classic Movies off the air in a fee dispute Turner Broadcasting System. EchoStar's broadcast agreement with Turner, a unit of Time Warner Inc. (NYSE:TWX) expired at the end of 2003 and was renewed on a multi-month basis while the parties continue talks. In a signal that the talks haven't gone particularly well, Charles Ergen took to the airwaves Monday night in one of his "Charlie's Chats" to explain the impasse to viewers and the reason they might lose CNN in the midst of renewed hostilities in Iraq. An EchoStar spokesman said the company is seeking to wean the networks off a "satellite premium" the company had to pay in the past when the service was much smaller. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41064093 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:53:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Intel First Quarter Revenue $8.1 Billion Intel First Quarter Revenue $8.1 Billion; Earnings Per Share of 26 Cents Includes Impact of Approximately 1.7 Cents from Intergraph Agreement - Apr 13, 2004 04:15 PM (BusinessWire) SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 13, 2004--Intel Corporation today announced first quarter revenue of $8.1 billion, down 7 percent sequentially and up 20 percent year-over-year. First quarter net income was $1.7 billion, down 20 percent sequentially and up 89 percent year-over-year. Earnings per share were 26 cents, down 21 percent sequentially and up 86 percent from 14 cents in the first quarter of 2003. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41065206 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:55:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Offers Free Wireless Router With Rebate Promotion to Keep Verizon Offers Free Wireless Router With Rebate Promotion to Keep Everyone in the Family Online With DSL New DSL Customers Eligible for Full Rebate Until July 17 NEW YORK, April 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Mom is checking stock reports in the family room, the kids are listening to music in their bedrooms, and dad is making airline reservations on his laptop outside on the patio. They're doing all this using the same high-speed DSL connection, and it doesn't cost them a penny more a month. Starting today, Verizon Online is offering new DSL customers a full rebate on the $99.95 price of a new wireless router. The three-month promotion, which lasts until July 17, is aimed at families with multiple home-computers and those who want the mobility of a wireless broadband connection. Unlike some of its competitors, Verizon Online doesn't charge customers extra every month for connecting more than one computer to a single DSL connection in their homes. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41065560 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:44:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer That Eliminates Roaming Charges - Apr 14, 2004 12:01 AM (PR Newswire) Offer made possible by doubling of company's national GSM coverage area and by significant quality improvements in GSM network REDMOND, Wash., April 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AT&T Wireless (NYSE:AWE) today announced an aggressive new national flagship offer, AT&T Wireless GSM(TM) America, which eliminates roaming charges for many customers. The new offer is made possible by the company's doubling of its national GSM coverage area in the last year and by significant quality improvements in its GSM network, AT&T Wireless said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41067787 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:56:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon to Add DSL Fees Verizon to add DSL fees By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com Verizon Communications on Tuesday said it will begin charging its broadband subscribers an additional $2 to $3 monthly "regulatory fee," joining a trend embraced by other local phone giants. The charges will begin appearing on Verizon digital subscriber line (DSL) bills in May or June, depending where a customer lives. Verizon charges $34.95 a month for DSL, or $29.95 a month when purchased with long distance and local phone service. Verizon joins other Baby Bells, including SBC Communications and BellSouth, which have begun introducing additional regulatory charges to customer DSL bills. These fees are part of a regulation requiring phone companies to contribute to a federal Universal Service Fund (USF) that underwrites phone service costs in low-income or rural areas. While the Bells charge USF fees for all phone and DSL services, they claim they have up to now absorbed all DSL charges. Verizon said the decision to add regulatory fees was based on a number of factors, including the growing expense in running a DSL service. But like its Bell cousins, Verizon also blamed the Federal Communications Commission for regulations that favor its cable competitors, who are not required to contribute to the USF. http://news.com.com/2100-1034-5190830.html ------------------------------ From: Tom N. Subject: QLLC Question, Please Help Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:48:31 -0400 I have to look at how SDLC frames are put into TCP/IP packets. I've been told one way to do it is to put the SDLC frame into an X.25 data packet, using QLLC. Then the X.25 data packet will be encapsulated into TCP/IP using the XOT protocol. The XOT document is available at the IETF web site, but I have had no luck in finding the QLLC specs. Could someone help me by giving a pointer or by giving me a brief description of how SDLC is converted into X.25 as specified by QLLC? Thank you very much in advance. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:52:39 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on > Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc.'s free > e-mail service "Gmail" because it would place advertising in personal > messages after searching them for key words. I must say -- I don't understand either the motivation behind this attempt or its legality. Google is offering a service, making it clear what it is. There are lots of people who would be happy to put up with targeted ads in return for free e-mail, just as there are lots of people who put up with targeted ads in return for lower prices at the supermarked (with "bonus" or "discount" cards). Where's the problem? -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to wonder why Yahoo is not getting the wrath of this silly legislator as well. Yahoo has placed ads around its free email and groups things for a long time now as well. In fact, Yahoo tries to grab you the minute you come in the door with its spy cookies supplied by the 'Avenue A' promotions thing, although I do not accept Avenue A spy cookies. My copy of 'Ad-Aware' dispenses with those when it sees them coming. Yahoo does not even tell you about them. They just dump them on your hard drive. I wonder why the California legislator feels obliged to pick on Google. Who do they think is going to pay for the cost of 'free email', Catholic Charities, perhaps? Aren't legislatures silly people most of the time? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Rusling Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: Retired Reply-To: usenet@rusling.org Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:23:41 -0500 SELLCOM Tech support wrote: > sin nombre posted on that vast internet > thingie: >> I say hooray for FIVE-TEN; and stop whining and dump your spam- >> friendly provider. Blocklisting an entire /16 or /24 block of IP's >> will sometimes get a provider's attention when all normal measures >> such as abuse@ notifications have failed. > What an idiot! Verizon does not let spammers run on their network. That why they let spammers relay through their mail servers for years, if you knew a trick or two. I think they may have been fixed for a while though. > The trash at FIVETEN are also known for refusing to remove blocks > even when ISPs deal with the spammers. > Steve at SELLCOM > http://www.sellcom.com Jim Rusling Partially Retired Mustang, OK http://www.rusling.org ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:19:37 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe some of you guys who know about > this kind of thing can give me some advice. What do you show, if > anything about 24.119.225.28 and any blacklists? Thanks. PAT] If it's working, you can simply go to openrbl.org and plug in an address for a quick check against more than 30 common (and not-so-common) blocklists. Your particular address isn't listed in any of those. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:40:50 -0400 From: Robert Pierce [Pat, please remove my e-mail address. Thanks, Rob] SELLCOM said: > The trash at FIVETEN are also known for refusing to remove blocks > even when ISPs deal with the spammers. So don't use FIVETEN. I don't. Esteemed Moderator said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe some of you guys who know about > this kind of thing can give me some advice. What do you show, if > anything about 24.119.225.28 and any blacklists? Thanks. PAT] Pat, Most blacklists have a web interface available. There is a list at http://www.spews.org/lists.html. At the bottom of the list there is a note with some good advice: "Make sure you know what you are getting into before using anyone's spam advisory list or blocking/filtering system. Some are known to be much stricter than SPEWS and also note that, unlike SPEWS, some will never remove network address ranges once spam has originated from them. Spammers and spammer hosts should pay heed to this as well." About the ip address, whois says, "24.119.225.28 = [24-119-225-28.cpe.cableone.net ]" http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=24.119.225.28 reports: 24.119.225.28 is not listed in the SBL 24.119.225.28 is not listed in the XBL http://www.spews.org/ask.cgi?x=24.119.225.28 reports: This was NOT found in SPEWS. http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php?ip=24.119.225.28&Search=Search reports: 24.119.225.28 is not listed here. http://www.ordb.org/lookup/?host=24.119.225.28 reports: This host is not listed in ORDB as an open mail relay Sam Spade's blackhole checker is back up (it was down for a while, I believe due to spammer DDOS attacks), and it says, 24.119.225.28 not listed Sam Spade notes that "The XBL [extreme blocking list] has been removed [from this web page] for two reasons. 1) Nobody uses it. 2) It appears to list almost the entire Internet. "Listing a blocking list here doesn't consititute an endorsment of it, nor a suggestion you use it to block email with (just the opposite, in some cases). This tool is primarily to help those whose mail is bouncing find out why." Also, http://mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/lookup?24.119.225.28 reports The IP address 24.119.225.28 does not appear on the MAPS RBL. Hope this helps. Rob Pierce ------------------------------ From: net-news02@jmatt.net (Matt Simpson) Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: 14 Apr 2004 09:58:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Pat asks: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe some of you guys who know about > this kind of thing can give me some advice. What do you show, if > anything about 24.119.225.28 and any blacklists? Thanks. PAT] One good site I have found is http://www.dnsstuff.com. They have a whole bunch of stuff there, including an option to check an IP against a whole bunch of blacklists. 24.119.225.28 doesn't show up in any of the ones they check. And back to the original topic: I'm not very familiar with fiveten or what kind of claims they make about their service. But, in my opinion, as a happy user and big fan of blacklisting, as long as the blacklist provider is very clear about what criteria they use for blacklisting, I see no problem with it. If fiveten is blocking whole ISP ranges because some individual customer of that ISP is spamming, I think that's a little bit extreme. I certainly would not use any blacklist that is that aggressive. But if other email server administrators are willing to take a chance on throwing away legitimate email because it comes from someone who uses the same ISP as a spammer, that's their business. If fiveten makes it clear that they're doing that, then the users are free to make an informed decision about using the blacklist. I'm not going to use their list, because I'm doing a pretty good job limiting spam with the lists I am using, and I don't want to risk throwing away good mail. But everybody is free to make their own choice; if someone chooses to use an overly aggressive list, that's the fault of the person using it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "FiveTen" sort of sounds like one of those old-fashioned dime stores, the Kresge/Woolworth variety, doesn't it? So tell me this: despite all those obstacle courses spammers have to run through, and Spam Assassin and the other things users keep on their own computers, why does so much spam slip through anyway. I never get fewer than a hundred or so pieces of that junk everytime I look here on massis, which is several times per day. And Spam Assassin also catches about the same or more. I guess, like cockroaches, spammers are a very sturdy breed, or as someone once said, after the very short-lived Third World War the only things that would survive would be cockroaches and spammers, the latter perhaps mutated by the radiation so they also had extra appendages to get out more spam than ever. You've all heard of giant, mutant cockroaches taking over the world, imagine giant, mutant spammers doing their thing. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #187 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 15 16:06:30 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3FK6U805226; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:06:30 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404152006.i3FK6U805226@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 #188 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:06:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 188 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson US Court Stays Ruling Axing Phone Line Lease Rules (Monty Solomon) New Survey on Ad Effectiveness (Monty Solomon) Broadband for the Masses? (Monty Solomon) Negotiations Stalled for Voice Actors in 'The Simpsons' (Monty Solomon) Re: Spam Issues (Daniel W. Johnson) Re: Spam Issues (Geoffrey Welsh) Recording Telephone Line to PC (mike@temperateNOSPAMclimate.com) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: QLLC Question, Please Help (Steve Schefter) Lucent GX 550 / CBX 500 (bleed-22) Re: Phone Gateways, was Re: VoIP is Just Phone Service (John Levine) Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (Bob Goudreau) Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer (Steven J Sobol) Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail (Matt J. Britt) Re: Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed (Greg T. Knopf) Re: Some Marketers Finding Ways around Do Not Call List (Lisa Hancock) New York Panel Explores Phone 'Crisis' (Jack Decker) Western Iowa Telephone Deploys MetaSwitch for VoIP Network (VOIP News) Viper Tests VOIP (VOIP News) Insights Into Vonage's Marketing Department (VOIP News) VoIP Policy Working Group Announced (VOIP News) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:34:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: US Court Stays Ruling Axing Phone Line Lease Rules WASHINGTON, April 14 (Reuters) - Dominant local telephone companies must keep leasing their networks to rivals at government-mandated rates until June 15, after a U.S. appeals court agreed to delay its order scrapping those federal regulations, according to an order made public on Wednesday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to delay its order to give the local telephone companies time to work out private commercial agreements for leasing the networks at wholesale prices. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41072641 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:55:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Survey on Ad Effectiveness By STUART ELLIOTT AS the kingpins of Madison Avenue gather for a major annual meeting, there is further evidence of the growing challenge they confront in seeking to break through the cacophony of advertising that surrounds -- and increasingly annoys -- consumers. At the 2004 management conference of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, which begins today in Miami, senior executives will learn the results of a survey of consumers conducted on behalf of the organization by Yankelovich Partners, the market research company. The survey, to be presented tomorrow at the opening general session of the conference, shows that the effectiveness of campaigns that agencies produce for marketers is deteriorating, said J. Walker Smith, president at Yankelovich, because "negative perceptions about advertising have substantially increased." The survey findings are significant because industry executives are frantically searching for ways to forge more emotional connections with fractious, and fractionated, consumers that differ from conventional methods like running 30-second television commercials and print advertisements. The risk posed by some of the new approaches, like placing sponsored brand messages or products in the entertainment content of programs or publications, is that consumers will consider such selling strategies even more obnoxious. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/business/media/14adco.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:05:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadband For the Masses? By Marguerite Reardon Staff Writer, CNET News.com Jim Baller is no friend of the large cable companies or the Baby Bells that dominate local telecommunications markets around the country. As a principal attorney for the Baller Herbst Law Group, he has fought these interests on behalf of local governments and utilities for the right to build and operate new telecommunication networks. Baller's clients include the American Public Power Association, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, and individual local governments and public power utilities in more than 35 states. Over the last decade, he has been involved in many of the leading community broadband projects in the United States and in most of the legislative and court battles over state barriers to municipal entry. In particular, he was lead counsel in cases that struck down barriers to entry in Missouri and Virginia. Baller was also counsel of record when the case in Missouri went before the U.S. Supreme Court. As Americans thirst for more advanced technology, such as high-speed Internet access, some municipalities and government-owned utilities are building their own fiber-based or advanced wireless networks. Most of these networks so far have been built in rural regions where large phone companies and cable companies are reluctant to build out infrastructure. But the movement is also spreading into more densely populated areas as communities look for ways to attract new businesses. The increased competition has struck a nerve with local phone and cable providers, who argue that municipalities have an unfair advantage because they have access to tax money to build and maintain these networks. They also argue that municipalities are often the ones regulating and approving the construction of such networks. CNET News.com recently spoke to Baller, who is considered one of the most knowledgeable lawyers in this field, on two separate occasions from his office in Washington, D.C., about the growth of municipally owned networks, competing with the Baby Bells and the cable companies, and losing the Missouri case in the Supreme Court. http://news.com.com/2008-1037-5190220.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:42:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Negotiations Stalled for Voice Actors in 'The Simpsons' By BERNARD WEINRAUB LOS ANGELES, April 13 - On television Homer J. Simpson is an underachiever, the safety inspector at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, with the record for most years worked at an entry-level position. In real life Mr. Simpson and his family of subversives have, by the estimate of accountants employed by the actors who supply their voices, earned Fox upward of $2.5 billion as the stars of one of the longest-running prime-time series in television history. Now those actors are demanding their share of the wealth. Insisting that "The Simpsons" would not be the same without them, the professionals behind the voices of Homer, Bart, Marge and the show's other animated characters are holding out for the kind of financial rewards earned by actors on hit sitcoms like "Friends" and "Frasier." Hollywood executives say that the actors' insistence on not just a near tripling of their salaries -- to $8 million a season -- but also on a share of the show's profits is a first for an animated series, a genre that studios and networks have counted on for predictable costs and peaceable casts. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/arts/television/14SIMP.html ------------------------------ From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: 14 Apr 2004 15:19:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe some of you guys who know about > this kind of thing can give me some advice. What do you show, if > anything about 24.119.225.28 and any blacklists? Thanks. PAT] A comprehensive check at http://moensted.dk/spam/?addr=24.119.225.28 shows five entries. Four of them are of no concern, and I don't think the Pan-Am Dynamic List is worth worrying about. ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:47:24 -0400 Organization: Primus Canada > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And when I used to run my 'business > directory'-- remember those? -- chock full of spammers toll free > numbers (when spammers were foolish enough to have those; a few still > do), I guess the same thing could be said about me; my 'express > intention' was to encourage people to abuse the spammers by > bankrupting them on their phone bill. Hold on, Pat: there's a big difference between making available a list of business telephone numbers which the owners have advertised and a list of private home addresses like the anti-abortion activists publish! And, frankly, I'd love for some spammer to try to explain to a court why I shouldn't cost him a few cents in toll-free long distance service without his prior permission when his whole business model is based on sending e-mail -- which costs each receiver a tiny amount, incrementally -- without their prior permission. I will gladly stop calling any spammer who opts out. (No, I don't do that -- I don't want to stoop to their level. But I won't condemn those who do only as a reaction.) Geoffrey Welsh Always looking for a good condition original 'chicklet keyboard' Commodore PET ------------------------------ From: mike@temperateNOSPAMclimate.com Subject: Recording telephone Line to PC Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:47:40 +0100 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com I have a Zoom 3049 modem with which I want to record all conversations on the telephone line to PC, both incoming and outbound calls. Also, conversations on other extensions in the home phone system. Callcorder is supposed to do this, but doesn't. There is some software called Communicate with the modem, but I can't quite get that to work either. What suggestions would people offer for _reliable_ software which will work with this capable modem? Or should I buy some other modem instead? Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You may wish to check with Mike Sandman at http://www.sandman.com . In his catalog he has various devices to record from telephone lines to a computer. I have two of them here; one plugs into a telephone handset (between handset and main part of the phone), the other sits between the computer and the (entire) phone. Both of them can plug in directly to the sound card. If you have any form of audio capture software they should work okay. In fact, Mike may have some software to work with them as well. (I just use the Microsoft voice recorder and capture from the 'line' input.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:15:53 EDT Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World In a message dated Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:33:26 -0400, Barry Margolin < barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: >> Error : AOL email accounts are not POP3 or IMAP4 compatible. >> You must have POP3 or IMAP4 compatible email account to use mail2web. >> Is this because they haven't updated their auto-response to AOL mail >> requests? > It looks like it to me. If this message were due to an actual error > that they encountered trying to access the AOL mail server, I doubt it > would be so well customized. Since AOL users are likely to be > computer-illiterate, it looks like they put in a special case for it > so that they could generate a message that's relatively > understandable. "Relatively understandable"? If you really think AOL users are likely to be computer illiterate, why would you think they would be able to assign any meaning to "POP3" or "IMAP4"? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: steve_schefter@hotmail.com (Steve Schefter) Subject: Re: QLLC Question, Please Help Date: 15 Apr 2004 06:25:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi Tom, Tom N. wrote in message news:: > I have to look at how SDLC frames are put into TCP/IP packets. I've > been told one way to do it is to put the SDLC frame into an X.25 data > packet, using QLLC. Then the X.25 data packet will be encapsulated > into TCP/IP using the XOT protocol. The XOT document is available at > the IETF web site, but I have had no luck in finding the QLLC > specs. Could someone help me by giving a pointer or by giving me a > brief description of how SDLC is converted into X.25 as specified by > QLLC? Thank you very much in advance. First, if you want to learn about QLLC, that spec is/was published by IBM. With a quick look at the results of a search for QLLC at their website, you can at least get a summary. When using QLLC, you don't put SDLC frames into the X.25 data packet. SDLC and QLLC both act at the same layer (the data link layer). QLLC works at layer 2, treating the X.25 virtual circuit as a wire much the same way as SDLC works with a wire. If you want to go from SDLC to QLLC, you are taking only the data out of the SDLC frames and sending that over a QLLC connection. The implication of this is that whatever would be doing the switching of the data between SDLC and QLLC (an SNA network node) would have to be an end point from the point-of-view of the SDLC connection. It would be responsible for establishing the SDLC connection (SNRM, UA exchange) as well as doing the polling, acks, etc on the SDLC connection rather than having these go end-to-end. What you are describing (using QLLC/X.25/XOT) is probably technically doable, but not usual. More likely you want to skip QLLC/X.25 (as much as I'd like to recommend X.25, being in that business). Rather, there's a standard for switching between SDLC and IP directly: Data Link Switching (DLSw). This is described in RFCs 1795 and 2166. It does something similar to what I described above: acts as an end-point for the SDLC connection and maintains a TCP socket to the remote. Regards, Steve Schefter phone: +1 705 725 9999 x26 The Software Group Limited fax: +1 705 725 9666 642 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario CANADA L4N 9A1 Web: www.wanware.com ------------------------------ From: wink_1000@yahoo.com (bleed-22) Subject: Lucent GX 550 / CBX 500 Date: 14 Apr 2004 13:27:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com What is the difference between "Simple" and "Jump" Rate Enforcement Schemes? What do they do? What is a "bad pvc"? Why does "simple" rate enforcement disable "bad pvc" detection? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 2004 20:08:18 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Phone Gateways, was Re: VoIP is Just Phone Service Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I guess that basically any private system can be connected to the PSTN > at various points. I remember that back in the 1960's (and probably > still today) the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad (then recently merged > with the B&O railroad) had their own private phone system. The > interesting thing was that by dialing various codes you could route > your calls yourself(!) and you could get to C&O or B&O company > switchboards in various parts of the country, where you could jump off > onto the PSTN and make a local call. It worked in reverse, too -- I > once placed a call to the train depot in my home town by calling the > C&O switchboard in Detroit. I'm not sure what the phone company > thought about that, or if they even knew that it was taking place. That's known as PBX leakage and it at least used to be a tariff issue. If you had a tieline from one PBX to another, the phone company charged you one rate if it was a pure tieline used only for calls from one PBX to the other, and a higher rate if calls could "leak" out to the PSTN. As you can imagine, a lot of the leakage was inadvertent and there were cat and mouse games with "you leak", "no we don't", "yes you do", "we don't any more", etc. Given how cheap POTS calls have become, I get the impression that dedicated tie lines for voice calls rarely make sense any more and it's more common to use virtual tie lines where one PBX dials out over the PSTN to a DID or DISA number on the remote PBX. To address an obvious question, companies still do have dedicated data tie lines. I have no idea what the rules are when you use VoIP to make a voice tie lines over a data line and I doubt that anyone else does, either. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. 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, I am curious about the word 'Mayor' in your signature above. Did you get elected as mayor there in Trumansburg? PAT] ------------------------------ From: BobGoudreau@notchurbiz.com Subject: Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:06:40 -0400 [Pat, please obscure my email address as usual. Thanks.] Rich Higgins wrote: > The cable operators, through CableLabs, have produced a set of > specifications that address the need to provide a guarantee of quality > of service for voice (today) and other real time applications (future). > Until October of last year I was the principal corporate VoIP engineer > for Time Warner Cable which is in the midst of a national residential > VoIP rollout. With the PacketCable model, as long as you are on a > call you are guaranteed bandwidth regardless of whatever else is > happening on the cable. I have to give a real-life testimonial to what Mr. Higgins said above. Since last December, I have subscribed to Time-Warner Cable's new "Digital Phone" service (http://www.twcnc.com/digital_phone/index.cfm), and I am extremely satisfied with it. The techs showed up at my house, replaced my existing Motorola Surfboard cable modem with a Surfboard VoIP cable modem and then hooked me up to TWC's phone service. This meant that they disconnected my line from the BellSouth demarc and plugged in a line between the new cable modem and the nearest RJ-11 jack in my wall. The longest step (> 1 hour) was waiting for BellSouth to release my number so that it could be ported to TWC. But once that was done, every jack in my house went live with the new service. All existing phones (including the fax function of my printer) work great. The voice quality is indistinguishable from what BellSouth offered before. And it's consistent too, so apparently that PacketCable QoS feature really functions as advertised. I have performed measurements uploading and downloading files while simulaneously speaking on the phone and have noticed no loss of data bandwidth or degradation of voice quality. The price is pretty good at $39.95 plus taxes per month, for unlimited calling across all of the United States and all its NANP territories, plus all of Canada. (The only US territory not included is American Samoa, but I'll bet that they throw that in too once it joins the NANP later this year.) It would cost more if I weren't also a subscriber to their cable TV and RoadRunner broadband service. Of course, the service includes caller-ID, call waiting and caller-ID call waiting. No voice mail yet, however. Regarding the recent comments by Professor Gray that "even if some people agree to use VoIP on the back end, they will still want a 'telephone' in the house", I have to say that VoIP from my cable company looks and smells just like POTS, even to the extent of getting to keep my phone number and my listing the in BellSouth white pages. Cableco-provided VoIP may thus have an edge in chasing the "Aunt Tilly" market over competing solutions such as Vonage that require a bit more customer awareness to install and use. Bob Goudreau Cary, NC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is *exactly* the plan that CableOne has for here in Independence. We used to have Time-Warner but our town was 'swapped out' for another community and CableOne took over. It will be a while before it gets started; I think the lady in the office told me maybe they were going to work out some deal with Prairie Stream, our local telephone provider. Both of them are anxious to gang up on Southwestern Bell. Gee, I wonder why? (snicker) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:23:43 -0500 Monty Solomon wrote: > REDMOND, Wash., April 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AT&T Wireless > (NYSE:AWE) today announced an aggressive new national flagship offer, > AT&T Wireless GSM(TM) America, which eliminates roaming charges for > many customers. Historically, this is rather significant since AT&T, several years ago, was the first to offer a no-roaming-no-long-distance-anywhere- in-the-country plan (Digital One-Rate). The question is how good AT&T's GSM coverage and that of their roaming partners actually is. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Matt J. Britt From: Matt J. Britt Subject: Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:46:41 GMT Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote in message news:telecom23.187.10@telecom-digest.org: >> SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on >> Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc.'s free >> e-mail service "Gmail" because it would place advertising in personal >> messages after searching them for key words. > I must say -- I don't understand either the motivation behind this > attempt or its legality. Google is offering a service, making it > clear what it is. There are lots of people who would be happy to put > up with targeted ads in return for free e-mail, just as there are lots > of people who put up with targeted ads in return for lower prices at > the supermarked (with "bonus" or "discount" cards). > Where's the problem? > -Joel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to wonder why Yahoo is not > getting the wrath of this silly legislator as well. Yahoo has placed > ads around its free email and groups things for a long time now as > well. In fact, Yahoo tries to grab you the minute you come in the > door with its spy cookies supplied by the 'Avenue A' promotions thing, > although I do not accept Avenue A spy cookies. My copy of 'Ad-Aware' > dispenses with those when it sees them coming. Yahoo does not even > tell you about them. They just dump them on your hard drive. I wonder > why the California legislator feels obliged to pick on Google. Who > do they think is going to pay for the cost of 'free email', Catholic > Charities, perhaps? Aren't legislatures silly people most of the > time? PAT] You first must understand the mindset of people in the Peoples Republic of California. Legislators in that Special Administrative District feel that the citizenry are not smart enough to think for themselves. (I lived there for 25 years.) California is a very progressive (and expensive) state, and in that respect legislation is enacted to provide protection to its' citizens... Free will? What's that? Matt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Same way in the People's Republic of Northern Illinois (commonly known as Chicago). No one knows anything and all must be humored. Ask any of the public servants. In 1999, the franchise agreement for Commonweath Edison (electric utility) was due to expire, and the city council members actually had the brass bedsprings to suggest 'municipalizing' Edison facilities ('municipalizing' is a fancy word for stealing or armed robbery). As word got around that if that happened, the same outfit who run the busses (transit atrocity) and public housing (housing atrocity) and the schools -- ah yes, the public schools in Chicago -- was now going to be running the nuclear generating plants as well, people got a bit scared. The plan did not go through, but Mayor Daley and his council were dead serious on wanting it to be done at first. PAT] ------------------------------ From: greg t. knopf Subject: Re: Philly Area Miliwatt (1004 Hz) Test Number Needed Date: 15 Apr 2004 10:01:53 EDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: gtknopf@concentric.net Gerry, > Thanks. I'll put my toner on the house side of the demarc with the > telco disconnected and measure the tone levels on all the wires and > lines to see which which ones are marginal. The rest of the tests > don't need the miliwatt tone. Common sense rules again. I'm so used > to using the tone I didn't think the problem through completely. Don't you suspect that the wiring in an old row house has been done in series? You know, one outlet spliced to the next and so on? If you have a toner I imagine you have all the other telco toys. Perhaps you should bring some hardware along too and rewire the whole thing. Just a thought. - greg gtknopf@concentric.net info@knopfnet.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Some Marketers Finding Ways Around Do Not Call list Date: 15 Apr 2004 09:40:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Monty Solomon wrote > Even the law can't stop all sales calls But consumer agencies say > desperate telemarketers are turning to all sorts of creative methods > in an attempt to connect with new customers. The recent "Do Not Call List" and "Privacy" laws had more holes than a screen door. Hole #1 -- Prior contact: If you've have had any contact with a company, they can call you. The above sweepstakes is just one way to create a "contact". Every company you normally do business week -- your bank, dry cleaner, etc., represents a legitimate contact. Hole #2 -- Widespread links: If you read the fine print of your "Privacy" agreement with your bank, insurer, etc., you'll note that it says the company may share your information with "affiliates". Well, those "affiliates" can be anybody -- from a long time business partner to a temporary marketing firm. For example, if you bank at the ABC Bank, you can get a phone call "Hi, this is ABC Bank calling, we have a special for ABC customers ..." Once traditional staid private organizations--like banks--now often rent their customers to "affiliates" to sell stuff. Also, banks call you themselves to sell you things like stock market accounts. Hole #3 -- Non Profits: They are exempt. Some non-profits are "non" profit in name/charter only, but just a cover for a profitable enterprise. Some marketing companies make deal with a non-profit group or claim they're one themselves. "Hi, we're calling from the Firefighter's Fund ..." Comment about privacy: Many people think privacy issues relate to "big brother" or the "government" (any level). But people don't realize how much personal information is collected and shared in the private sector, and how that can have a much greater impact in your life. Some employers check a prospective employee's credit rating and won't hire people with a bad rating (of course, if someone is out of work, they just might naturally have lousy credit which is why they're looking for job!) Mortgage companies and apartment complexes check credit and other databases, and could use adverse information as an excuse to charge you more money. How carefully does your telephone company (both landline and wireless) protect your telephone usage records? Historically, the old time Bell companies never released any of that. But many people don't even use Bell descendants any more, and even they have changed. Information represents big profit potential, and companies are eager to milk it. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:55:24 -0400 Subject: New York Panel Explores Phone 'Crisis' Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.democratandchronicle.com/biznews/0415BN3U6SV_business.shtml By Yancy Roy Albany Bureau (April 15, 2004) ALBANY New York's hard-wired telephone service is entering a crisis facing intense competition from wireless companies and a burgeoning Internet telephone service which may radically alter the telecommunications landscape, said an Assemblyman who held hearings Wednesday. Right now, companies such as Verizon that provide hard-wired phone systems must provide universal service to all areas. The company foots the bill and passes on some of the costs to customers. [Assemblyman Richard] Brodsky speculated on whether Internet-based phone companies, such as Vonage, should be made to share in the costs even though they don't own phone lines. Vonage Holdings Corp. CEO Jeffrey Citron said no. The market place has provided plenty of phone options and likely will provide even more in the coming years, Citron said. States shouldn't handcuff new companies with regulations that discourage investment. If the market doesn't cover all localities, the state should cover costs of providing universal service rather than specific companies or telephone users, Citron said. Vonage, which has about 135,000 users, gives customers an adapter and a phone that can be plugged into a high-speed Internet connection. Such a service would be more properly regulated at the federal level than by states, Citron said. He urged lawmakers to resist the temptation to wedge us into existing telephone regulations. Rather than subject Internet-based phone companies to regulations faced by traditional phone companies, the state should ease rules on all phone companies, said Paul Crotty, president of the Verizon New York Group. Full story at: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/biznews/0415BN3U6SV_business.shtml How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:57:35 -0400 Subject: Western Iowa Telephone Deploys MetaSwitch for VoIP Network Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040415005019&newsLang=en Western Iowa Telephone Deploys MetaSwitch for VoIP Network; Rural Service Provider Aims to Provide VoIP Across Iowa ALAMEDA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 15, 2004---MetaSwitch, the leading provider of broadband Class 5 switching solutions, today announced that Western Iowa Telephone Association has selected the MetaSwitch VP3500 to augment and eventually replace its existing legacy switches in eight exchanges serving residential and business customers in western Iowa. MetaSwitch was selected after a thorough evaluation that included all of the leading next generation switch vendors. Vantage Point Solutions, Inc., a telecommunications engineering and consulting firm, provided engineering services for the project. "After an exhaustive requirements analysis MetaSwitch emerged as the preferred vendor for Western Iowa Telephone's configuration based on functionality, support track record and stability," said John M. DeWitte, P.E., Vice President of Engineering, Vantage Point Solutions, Inc. "MetaSwitch had also successfully passed the Iowa Network Services (INS) certification for interconnection to the statewide shared access network." "We wanted a vendor that could truly deliver an IP interface together with the new services we need for our customers," said Phil Robinson, Operations Manager of Western Iowa Telephone Association. "We successfully installed the MetaSwitch VP3500 and will soon begin migrating our 3000+ residential and business subscribers to the system. The switch is performing to expectations." "Western Iowa Telephone Association is a forward-thinking service provider with a very successful business model," said Bob Harvey, MetaSwitch Regional Manager. "They are ready to take advantage of the operational economies of an all-packet network as well as delivering IP-based services such as Internet data, voice, and broadcast quality video." The MetaSwitch VP3500 is the leading broadband-enabled Next Generation Class 5 Switch in North America, with over 40 deployments, and support for VoIP, VoATM and GR-303, as well as advanced Web-based subscriber services. Service providers are able to simultaneously serve customers in multiple calling areas with over 100 Class 5 features and services. The MetaSwitch VP3500 is easy to deploy and scales from 400 to over 250,000 subscribers in a single rack. Full press release at: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040415005019&newsLang=en ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:59:17 -0400 Subject: Viper Tests VOIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=51013 SAN DIEGO -- Viper Networks Inc. announced today it has successfully tested and approved a hand held Wi-Fi VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) telephone for deployment in May. Full story at: http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=51013 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:38:32 -0400 Subject: Insights Into Vonage's Marketing Department Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com An interesting look into how the marketing department at Vonage operates -- I especially noticed their concern with "churn" (a marketing term for what happens when customers leave a particular provider to go with the competition): http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2668 How to Get Your Marketing Budget & Tests Approved by the CFO Over the past six months, nearly every marketer we've interviewed in about their career has bought up the same exact point, "You have to have a solid relationship with your CFO to get ahead." Great, so how do you do that? We contacted a CFO to ask him. We have a very interesting relationship, we work on it every day, says Vonage CFO John Rego of the company's CMO, Dean Harris. "Dean sits close to me, he can scoot over any time and ask a question." http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2668 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still have my Vonage e-coupons for any interested readers. The e-coupon gets you the second month totally free (or whatever kind of service you purchase from them.) Do not sign up until you get your e-coupon, and use the link in it to sign up. Send email marked 'not for pub' to editor@telecom-digest.org . PAT] ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:06:02 -0400 Subject: VoIP Policy Working Group Announced Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.designtechnica.com/article3361.html This new group seeks to prevent a patchwork of state regulation that would stifle vital technological advancement. Leading the policy debate regarding the emerging technology of Voice-over-the Internet Protocol (VoIP), which transmits voice communications using the Internet protocol, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) today announced the creation of a VoIP Policy Working Group, which will operate within the CEA Government Affairs Council. "It is vitally important to ensure that this revolutionary technology is not stifled by over-regulation," said CEA President and CEO Gary Shapiro. "The success of many new consumer electronics products and other industries' products depends on the widespread availability of broadband technology. VoIP services clearly will drive the necessary consumer demand for broadband. This new CEA Working Group is committed to ensuring these VoIP services are not hampered by burdensome state and federal regulations." Full story at: http://news.designtechnica.com/article3361.html ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #188 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 16 14:04:57 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3GI4vr14837; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:04:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:04:57 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404161804.i3GI4vr14837@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 #189 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:05:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 189 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World (Barry Margolin) Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer (John Levine) NYS Attorney General Spitzer on CALEA (Danny Burstein) Pushing VoIP Through The Door (Eric Friedebach) Re: Some Marketers Finding Ways Around Do Not Call list (jmayson) Subscriber Line Measurement and SLAC Settings (Bond) Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? (Sid Zafran) Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf (Stanley Cline) Measured Phone Service (John) Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail (Brad Houser) VoIP Will Dominate Telecom, Former FCCer Says (VOIP News) Telecoms Struggle With Impact of Internet Calls (VOIP News) Pushing VoIP Through The Door (VOIP News) Canada VOIP Concerns From Telcos (VOIP News) Re: New York Panel Explores Phone 'Crisis' (VOIP News) EFFector 17.13: Action Alert - Don't Subsidize Surveillance (Solomon) Public Interest Groups Open New Front in Media Reform (Monty Solomon) Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Monty Solomon) Re: Phone Gateways, was Re: VoIP is Just Phone Service (Justin Time) Selling a Comverse Trilogue 6500 (Bryant) 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: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World Organization: Looking for work Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:35:34 -0400 In article , Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:33:26 -0400, Barry Margolin < > barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: >>> Error : AOL email accounts are not POP3 or IMAP4 compatible. >>> You must have POP3 or IMAP4 compatible email account to use mail2web. >>> Is this because they haven't updated their auto-response to AOL mail >>> requests? >> It looks like it to me. If this message were due to an actual error >> that they encountered trying to access the AOL mail server, I doubt it >> would be so well customized. Since AOL users are likely to be >> computer-illiterate, it looks like they put in a special case for it >> so that they could generate a message that's relatively >> understandable. > "Relatively understandable"? If you really think AOL users are > likely to be computer illiterate, why would you think they would be > able to assign any meaning to "POP3" or "IMAP4"? That's why I said "relatively understandable" rather than "understandable". Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 2004 21:14:00 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > The question is how good AT&T's GSM coverage and that of their > roaming partners actually is. If you believe the maps on their web site, it's not bad. Once they're absorbed by Cingular, which has lots of GSM either directly or via agreements with T-Mobile, it should be quite good. 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: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS Attorney General Spitzer on CALEA Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:04:08 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC (from his press release) "Spitzer's comments came in an official filing with the FCC on Monday. Spitzer joined the Department of Justice and FBI in arguing for stronger enforcement of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which was enacted in 1994. The law was designed to ensure that new digital technology would be tappable under exactly the same conditions as old analog technology. However, the telecom industry has taken advantage of loopholes and regulatory gridlock for the past 10 years and failed to make certain new technologies tappable. As a result, sophisticated criminals are now able to obtain untappable communications equipment. "To prove this point, investigators from Spitzer's office recently conducted an experiment to see whether they could set up a communications system that was impossible for law enforcement to monitor. In a matter of days, and for a few hundred dollars, they were able to buy wireless telephones and set up a system that was both untappable and untraceable. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/apr/apr13a_04.html - make sure to check the entire PDF filing ... lots of good stuff in it, including the various rates the different telcos charge his office for authorized wiretaps. _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One way you can tell if your phone is being tapped 'secretly' is by checking the amount of the tax on it. Telco charges you the usual amount for your phone, but the cost of the tap is charged to the government; it is basically treated like another extension on your line. However, even though you pay *your* part of the bill and the *government* pays its part of your bill (for the tap), the various taxes are not pro-rated. So although you won't see any reference on your bill to the tap, your total *tax due* on the bill will increase slightly. If your phone service has not changed in many years, and the tax has remained the same, then all of a sudden your tax goes up a couple cents, you know something has happened. You can ask the business office for an explanation; you'll get all these stories about 'federally mandated service fees and taxes, etc' but they usually will not tell you that you are paying the tax on a government mandated tap on your line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Pushing VoIP Through The Door Date: 15 Apr 2004 16:57:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 04.15.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Portals like Yahoo! and MSN let you shop for cars, check your stocks and manage your love life. Now some folks think they should handle your phone calls too. Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP), the process of making a phone call over the Internet, has been making steady inroads against traditional phone technology. Its proponents, who see that progress as too slow, are touting an idea they say could turn that pace into a rout: bundle the technology into an Internet portal. The idea is not too far-fetched -- the portals already offer e-mail and broadband. But it may be a case of putting the cart too far ahead of the horse. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/04/15/cx_al_0415voip.html Eric Friedebach /Old enough to remember when MTV played music videos/ ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Reply-To: jmayson@austin.rr.com Subject: Re: Some Marketers Finding Ways Around Do Not Call list Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:02:55 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > Hole #3 -- Non Profits: They are exempt. Some non-profits are "non" > profit in name/charter only, but just a cover for a profitable > enterprise. Some marketing companies make deal with a non-profit > group or claim they're one themselves. "Hi, we're calling from the > Firefighter's Fund ..." Hole #4 -- Politicians exempted themselves. I really wished they had called during the day when I was home. Not only did they call my house, they spoofed their caller ID information (999-999-9999). I would've explained to them ... * I signed up for the state and national DNC lists because I don't like being bothered at home. * I understand the law says they can call me, but common sense says they should not. * I will now *NEVER* vote for them. Ever! Period! I don't care if their opponent is Osama bin Laden, I'm voting for their opponent. * Ask why they find it necessary to block their caller ID information? Do they not want me knowing who they are? John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You should have filed a *limited appearance -- returned their call -- only for the purpose of protesting their tactics; stated your case, then disconnected. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bond_jays@hotmail.com (Bond) Subject: Subscriber Line Measurement and SLAC Settings Date: 15 Apr 2004 19:47:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I am working on POTS line card with Quad ISLAC and ISLIC on it. I need to set the SLAC parameters based on the Subscriber Loop Length for which I use WinSlac software provided by Legerity for calculating the SLAC parameters. 1. Is there any guidelines ( country specific standards ) on how to go about it like how the parameters are to be set for Short Loop or Long Loop?. 2. For certain short loop length I am operating in constant current region and then in resistive feed. On what basis we should go about deciding the region till when to maintain constant current feed?. Right now if my loop resistance becomes more than 650 Ohms (an approx value) it operate in resistive feed. If anyone have worked on these guide me on this regard. 3. The Loop Resistance of a subscriber line is a combination of Cable resistance and Station resistance (i.e Phone Resistance ) . From POTS side we can only determine the Loop resistance as a whole, how to know that the station resistance is so much and the Cable resistance is so much?. How this is been done in real senario?. If you guys know any Books or standards which tells how to do Line measurements on POTS subscriber line can you refer it. Regards, BOND ------------------------------ From: Sid Zafran Subject: Re: Receiving Faxes via the Internet? Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:12:52 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:17:24 -0700, AES/newspost wrote: > I'm told there are Internet services where anyone can send a fax from > a standard fax machine to some special telephone number that's listed > as my fax number, and the fax is then transmitted to me over the > Internet as an email attachment or a temporary web page? > Anyone had direct experience with any such service? (and some idea of > the monthly or per fax cost?) I've been using uReach for this service. I have been with them for several years. Rate information may be found on their web site: www.ureach.com ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Overseas Crooks Abuse Phone Service For Deaf Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:38:34 GMT On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:21:04 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > Operators at Tucson's Communication Service for the Deaf call center > used to spend their shifts helping hearing- and speech-impaired > Americans make calls. But since January their workdays are dominated > by Internet calls from Nigeria and elsewhere. I've heard from some relay service CAs that "IP Relay" is getting heavily abused by people making harassing phone calls as well. As a rather frequent (and legitimate) user of relay services, I am *very* concerned. One would think that the Feds would let CAs hang up on clearly harassing or fraudulent calls, but NO... :( Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: John Subject: Measured Phone Service Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:58:46 -0700 I am thinking about getting Vonage, but I would like to keep my POTS line as a backup. I was thinking about downgrading my POTS service from unlimited local calling to measured service. I live in SBC territory and I already called them asking this question, but I'm not sure the rep I spoke to is correct. My question is: with measured service are all *incoming* calls unlimited? Is the measure only placed on dialed/outgoing calls? Do they count your usage on both incoming and outgoing calls? Thanks to all who reply. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SBC claims that all incoming calls are unmeasured, or 'free'. That's one thing I have never caught them lying about. Not so with their subsidiary, Cingular Wireless, where you are charged in both directions. If you want an e-coupon for the second month of Vonage totally free, just ask me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Brad Houser Subject: Re: Calif. Lawmaker Moves to Block Google's Gmail Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:20:29 -0700 Organization: Intel Corporation Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote in message news:telecom23.187.10@telecom-digest.org: >> SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on >> Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc.'s free >> e-mail service "Gmail" because it would place advertising in personal >> messages after searching them for key words. > I must say -- I don't understand either the motivation behind this > attempt or its legality. Google is offering a service, making it > clear what it is. There are lots of people who would be happy to put > up with targeted ads in return for free e-mail, just as there are lots > of people who put up with targeted ads in return for lower prices at > the supermarked (with "bonus" or "discount" cards). I agree. You should have a choice. Free email with robot spies that look for keywords or pay extra for no spies and no ads. > Where's the problem? > -Joel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to wonder why Yahoo is not > getting the wrath of this silly legislator as well. Yahoo has placed > ads around its free email and groups things for a long time now as > well. PAT: Yahoo ads are generic. They have nothing to do with the content of the email. Google wants to use software to read the message, and let's say there is the word VOIP, it might insert an ad from Vonage. ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:37:30 -0400 Subject: VoIP Will Dominate Telecom, Former FCCer Says Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.wtonline.com/news/1_1/daily_news/23264-1.html By Roseanne Gerin Staff Writer Voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, services will dominate the telecommunications industry and alter telecom policy in the United States over the next few years, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said Wednesday. Richard Wiley, who served as the regulatory agency's chairman from 1970-77, addressed members of the federal sector about the future of telecom policy and regulation, at an event hosted by Denver-based communications firm Qwest Communications International Inc. Wiley is managing partner and head of the communications practice at Washington law firm Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP. Qwest is one of the firm's clients. Full story at: http://www.wtonline.com/news/1_1/daily_news/23264-1.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:46:08 -0400 Subject: Telecom's Struggle with Impact of Internet Calls Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=4841045§ion=news By Justin Hyde WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Internet phone services signing up thousands of new customers a day, telecom industry observers are beginning to question how well the old local phone companies will defend themselves against a growing throng of competitors. So far, cable companies and firms like Vonage have only nibbled at the edges of the local telephone market with voice over Internet Protocol service, or VOIP, winning about 250,000 customers. But as more households sign up for broadband Internet service, and larger players such as AT&T Corp. unveil their VOIP service, executives and analysts see the threat to the Baby Bells rising. Full story at: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=4841045§ion=news ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:56:05 -0400 Subject: Pushing VoIP Through The Door Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.forbes.com/technology/networks/2004/04/15/cx_al_0415voip.html Aude Lagorce, 04.15.04, 4:05 PM ET NEW YORK - Portals like Yahoo! and MSN let you shop for cars, check your stocks and manage your love life. Now some folks think they should handle your phone calls too. Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP), the process of making a phone call over the Internet, has been making steady inroads against traditional phone technology. Its proponents, who see that progress as too slow, are touting an idea they say could turn that pace into a rout: bundle the technology into an Internet portal. The idea is not too far-fetched -- the portals already offer e-mail and broadband. But it may be a case of putting the cart too far ahead of the horse. To some extent, the partnerships between the Internet portals and the network providers already exist. SBC Communications has been working closely with Yahoo! to promote its broadband digital-subscriber-line service since September 2002 and now boasts 3.5 million subscribers. Qwest Communications customers have access to premium Microsoft MSN content as part of their broadband subscription. To VoIP visionaries, these agreements are a good start, but their potential is far from being fully exploited. "There's really a need for these partnerships to go deeper, because the portal providers have the eyeballs and own the addresses," says David Illing, the operations chief strategy officer for Sylantro Systems, a software company specialized in VoIP. Full story at: http://www.forbes.com/technology/networks/2004/04/15/cx_al_0415voip.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:42:41 -0400 Subject: Canada VOIP Concerns From Telcos Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=3&nid=13465 Canada's largest phone companies are calling for a slower pace in assessing federal policy for voice-over-Internet services. In a joint submission, the companies say the CRTC is in too much of a hurry to decide on how the policy will be applied. Full story at: http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=3&nid=13465 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:45:21 -0400 Subject: Re: New York Panel Explores Phone 'Crisis' Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com From: John Levine Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > (April 15, 2004) ALBANY New York's hard-wired telephone service is > entering a 'crisis' facing intense competition from wireless > companies and a burgeoning Internet telephone service which may > radically alter the telecommunications landscape, said an > Assemblyman who held hearings Wednesday. This bit of political theater is actually about Verizon, the largest ILEC in the state which has said it wants to sell off all of its upstate territory, and Citizens/Frontier, the second biggest ILEC which has put itself up for sale outright. Both seem more likely to be sold to financiers than to other telcos, and non-phone people who try to make a quick buck from telcos have an unfortunate tendency to drive over a cliff like Qwest did. VoIP gets headlines but it's not even a blip on the charts compared to cellular and PCS and, to some extent, conventional CLECs. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor "I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:55:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.13: Action Alert - Don't Subsidize the Surveillance EFFector Vol. 17, No. 13 April 15, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 285th Issue of EFFector: * Action Alert: Don't Subsidize the Surveillance State! * Google's Gmail: A Rough Guide to Protecting Your Privacy * Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Sections 202 and 217 * EFF @ the 2004 Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conference * EFF Seeks Socially Responsible Technical Director * MiniLinks (19): American Airlines: 1.2 Million Passengers Served to Gov't Contractors * Staff Calendar: 04.17.04 - 04.18.04 - Wendy Seltzer speaks at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL; 04.20.04 - 04.23.04 - Kevin Bankston, Cindy Cohn, Chris Palmer, Fred von Lohmann, Wendy Seltzer, Seth Schoen and Lee Tien speak at CFP, Berkeley, CA * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/13.php ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:13:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Public Interest Groups Open New Front in Media Reform Movement National coalition calls on FCC to set forth public interest guidelines before they give away billions of dollars' worth of publicly-owned airwaves to commercial broadcasters. April 15, 2004 -- The Public Airwaves, Public Interest Coalition, an alliance of public interest groups, media activists and grassroots organizers, will announce on Tuesday, April 20 a broad-based campaign urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold the nation's commercial broadcasters to a more responsible standard of public service. The announcement will be made with FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps at a 1:00pm press conference during the National Association of Broadcasters annual gathering in Las Vegas. http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert180.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:25:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 By Brooks Boliek WASHINGTON -- Federal television regulators are circulating a plan that would turn off the analog TV signal the nation has used since electronic TV was first broadcast in the late 1930s before the end of the 21st century's inaugural decade. Under the plan, broadcasters would be required by 2009 to return the analog frequencies they use and switch to digital television because the FCC will have certified that at least 85% of the nation's television audience is receiving digital TV signals, commission officials said Wednesday. Broadcasters are supposed to give back the analog frequencies at the end of 2006 or when the audience capable of receiving a digital TV signal reaches 85%, whichever comes first. Congress and the FCC, however, never determined exactly how to measure that 85%. FCC mass media bureau chief Ken Ferree said the plan is a way to make the switch as painless as possible but still get broadcasters to give up the analog frequencies. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000487387 ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Phone Gateways, was Re: VoIP is Just Phone Service Date: 16 Apr 2004 06:19:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com John Levine wrote in message news:: >> I guess that basically any private system can be connected to the PSTN >> at various points. I remember that back in the 1960's (and probably >> still today) the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad (then recently merged >> with the B&O railroad) had their own private phone system. The >> interesting thing was that by dialing various codes you could route >> your calls yourself(!) and you could get to C&O or B&O company >> switchboards in various parts of the country, where you could jump off >> onto the PSTN and make a local call. It worked in reverse, too -- I >> once placed a call to the train depot in my home town by calling the >> C&O switchboard in Detroit. I'm not sure what the phone company >> thought about that, or if they even knew that it was taking place. > That's known as PBX leakage and it at least used to be a tariff issue. > If you had a tieline from one PBX to another, the phone company > charged you one rate if it was a pure tieline used only for calls from > one PBX to the other, and a higher rate if calls could "leak" out to > the PSTN. As you can imagine, a lot of the leakage was inadvertent > and there were cat and mouse games with "you leak", "no we don't", > "yes you do", "we don't any more", etc. > Given how cheap POTS calls have become, I get the impression that > dedicated tie lines for voice calls rarely make sense any more and > it's more common to use virtual tie lines where one PBX dials out over > the PSTN to a DID or DISA number on the remote PBX. > To address an obvious question, companies still do have dedicated data > tie lines. I have no idea what the rules are when you use VoIP to > make a voice tie lines over a data line and I doubt that anyone else > does, either. > Regards, > John Levine johnl@iecc.com For as long as I was with Datapoint (almost 10 years) they ran their own private network for voice and low-speed data. The company manufactured what was known at the time as a "WATS Box" or Long Distance Control System (LDCS). The system was intended to tie together their various sales and service offices around the country by allowing them to dial into the system, enter their passcode and then receive dial tone. You could dial anywhere in the country and the system would route you through dedicated tie lines to the box closest to your destination where you would hop off the network and rejoin the PSTN. The entire system was run out of the San Antonio headquarters. I don't remember when the network was dismantled, it was toward the end of the '80s (I left in '88) as the cost of long distance began to plummet. The cost of operating the system was pretty much written off for tax purposes if I remember correctly. It was touted as a "demo system" to demonstrate the equipment's capabilities to potential customers. And Datapoint did have a lot of customers for its telephony products before selling the division off to Technicron. Their ACD was considered one of the best, the Rockwell Galaxy being the better - only because of its larger capacity. Back in the 70's and 80's controlling the cost of long distance was a major problem with many companies. The Bell companies began to introduce WATS calling, at that time a WATS line gave you both in and outbound service on the same line. Companies were looking for ways to maximize their investment in those services and, as least-cost routing wasn't really a feature in PBXs at the time, a new industry was born. Datapoint designed their LDCS to sit behind a PBX (but any ground start line could be used) and route outbound calls according to the least cost route available. As WATS lines were purchased in bands - a band being roughly the diameter of a service area circle - sending a call over a 3,000 mile circuit when it had to go only 200 miles was a significant cost difference. And that didn't include what we now term as intra-LATA dialing. If you could route your local toll calls over a cheaper long distance circuit -- one you were paying a bulk rate for rather than by the minute -- there was a savings there also. Some of the bigger customers Datapoint had for the system included the airlines which used systems in major cities to consolidate calls from various local numbers and aggregate them onto the tie trunks back to the main call center. There the inbound hi-cap trunks were broken out and routed to various agents -- call takers -- who would take the information from the caller and make their flight reservations. Rodgers Platt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I worked for Amoco Credit Card back in the 1960-70's, they had a huge number of 'outwats' lines for employees to use. We had to access then with a three digit code, from 181 through 188 where the final digit was the proper 'band' to use. The smallest or most close in band was '1' for the states on either side of Illinois. Band 6 was the largest band, taking in the entire country except for Hawaii and Alaska (in those days). Band 8 was *intrastate* for Illinois only. Beehive lamps, mounted on the wall told us (when they were illuminated) when the group of trunks for a given Band were all in use (and returning busy signal if you dialed '18x' to reach them. We were supposed to consult a flip chart map showing the appropriate Band to be used. We were *never* to use Band 6 (totally national) if a smaller Band would suffice and all the trunks assigned to it were not busy. The idea was to keep those WATS lines loaded all the time ideally, since the company paid for them by the hour as I recall. But we were NOT to use the WATS bands for calls to 800 numbers or to anyarecode-555-1212 since those calls were free if dialed directly, but *would be charged against WATS* if dialed on a WATS line. Some of the 'lesser bands' (like 1,2,3) were always in use, the beehive lamps never went out on those, and you could use a Band 5 or 6 if your call was 'important'. There were lots of 'tie lines' also, which could be reached by dialing '131' through '179' as I recall. These were not the OUTWATS bands, they were direct connections to other company facilities, and on *some* of those, dialing 1xx-9-seven digits you could get an 'outside, local line* in those communities. But not usually. When the phone lines were busier than usual, people would sit and stare at those beehive lamps, watching for one to go dark, and if it was a sufficient band (or ideally a '6') then you would see folks jump on their phone and try to dial into the WATS line before someone else got it first. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shofear1994@hotmail.com (bryant) Subject: Selling a Comverse Trilogue 6500 Date: 15 Apr 2004 23:00:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I'm selling a Voice Mail System its a Comverse Trilogue 6500 if you or anybody is interested please contact : Bryant Dawson - Total TeleCom @ 812-376-9224 ext: 31 cell: 812-457-7200. Thanks. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #189 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 16 17:20:58 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3GLKwE16313; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:20:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404162120.i3GLKwE16313@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 #190 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:20:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 190 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Howard Stern (Miikka Kiprusoff) Re: Measured Phone Service (Tony P.) Re: Measured Phone Service (johnpm@iwon.com) Re: Spam Issues (Walt Howard) Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Agressive New Offer (Paul Vader) Re: Cellular Tower Leases (Koos van den Hout) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Miikka Kiprusoff) Re: Norvergence in the News, Again? Yes Again! (John Bartley) For Mr. Patrick Townson Re: Norvergence (Satchel Paige) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:53:54 +0100 From: Miikka Kiprusoff Subject: Howard Stern Reply-To: miikka@calgaryweb.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message has so much to say that I am altering my usual practice of replying at the bottom to include a reply as we go along. When I reply to Miikka it will be identified as 'TDE Note' and slighly indented a little. This is a one time only exception to my rule, I think. PAT] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if it has occurred to the > people who want to give fines to Howard Stern that he is an extremely > liberal, left wing person who of late has been giving President Bush > much grief. 'Obviously' he has to be neutralized and the best way to > do that is keep the fines rolling in. Now, I have no love lost for > Jackson or Howard Stern; her 'performance' was lewd and obscene; his > crude language is pretty awful also. But when he has been picking on > Bush repeatedly of late, and Bush's government agency begins to throw > its weight around against Howard, isn't that a bit suspicious? PAT] Wow. That's a fairly Mansonesque dose of paranoia. Maybe they also hired the 9/11 hijackers to give Bush a reason to attack Iraq. [TDE: I've never heard the term 'Mansonesque' before. It seems like it may be an adjective describing Charles Manson, is that correct? And Bush was *thinking about* attacking Iraq long before 9-11. If anything, 9-11 gave him the 'legitimate' excuse he had been lacking before. PAT] Howard Stern began attacking Bush after he was suspended from Clear Channel stations. Not before. That's an important distinction. You've got your cause and effect bass ackwards. [TDE: I was not talking about *when* he started his anti-Bush campaign, just that he started it, Bush obviously hates it and needed to 'do something about it'. PAT] But let's say you're right. Let's say the higher-ups at Clear Channel (who are, I must point out, not Stern's employers, but rather a syndicate that agreed to air his show, which is owned by ANOTHER syndicate) are definitely miffed with him about his Bush-bashing, and have decided to retaliate solely on that basis, in order to shut him up and get all this Bush-bashing off the air. [TDE: I do not think and did not mean to claim that Stern's employers (whoever they may be) got 'miffed' or anything else. I suggest that Bush is the one who is miffed, and decided to retaliate. PAT] This is a problem ... why, exactly? They own the stations. They have a right to air, or NOT air, their own choice of content (subject to FCC guidelines). If they want to squelch Stern, they have that right. YOU have the right, if you disagree with this decision, to boycott Clear Channel stations - ie: vote with your wallet. Howard Stern's free speech rights are not being trampled and I'm getting a little tired of hearing this refrain from people who don't appear to have ever read that little thing called the US Constitution. It protects you from the GOVERNMENT limiting your speech - but not from anyone else. Moreover, Stern has no "right" to say ANYTHING on Clear Channel stations. His "right" to say anything on those stations stems from mutual agreement, and if one side of that agreement decides to walk away from that agreement, tough darts. There may be some issues remaining re: Clear Channel's contractual obligations, but those are matters for lawyers and civil courts to iron out. This is not a Constitutional issue. If Stern wants free, unfettered access to the public airwaves, let him buy his own radio stations. Otherwise, he has to play by the same rules everyone else does. [TDE: Again, I never claimed that Stern or anyone else has 'free speech rights' of any kind. Any idiot knows that free speech, indeed the entire Bill of Rights only specifies what the *govern- ment* can and cannot do. PAT] Stern, and his supporters, radiate this mentality that he and he alone is the "Enlightened One" and that anyone who disagrees with him must therefore be doing so only out of irrational hatred - and must therefore be attacked. (Come to think of it, this description applies to the entire Air America lineup -- have a look-see at the vitriolic hate spewed all over their website about Arthur Liu). The simple fact of the matter is that Howard Stern hasn't the IQ necessary to successfully blow his own nose, never mind lecture me on how I should think and vote. [TDE: So we agree about that much at least. If Stern is supposed to be a good example of why people should vote Democratic in November, he seems be very poor at it. PAT] Provoking a reaction and saying something meaningful are not the same thing. Stern's yet to learn this little lesson. Clear Channel's actions are a kick in Howard's ... well, stern. One that he's long been begging for. Pardon me for not giving a damn while he cries his crocodile tears. [TDE: Oh, I don't disagree. I would suggest a plague on both their houses is appropriate. All I think I said was -- forgetting now about all the peripheral players such as Clear Channel, Air America, a theoretical Bill of Rights which does not apply to relationships between *individuals and their employers, etc* -- was that Stern gets very noisy where Bush is concerned. Bush gets very annoyed, and uses *his underlings* (i.e. FCC) to take action against Stern. Action which the underlings do not take against others of similar ilk, although logically they could if they had any backbones or male privarte parts. I do not think Clear Channel or anyone else decided to retaliate against Stern, after all he was making good money for them. If anything, prudence dictates to Clear Channel they should keep their mouths shut and stay out of it since Bush's FCC could go after them if he decided to go after those peripheral players as well. But thanks for writing me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Measured Phone Service Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:23:26 GMT In article , johnpm@iwon.com says: > I am thinking about getting Vonage, but I would like to keep my POTS > line as a backup. I was thinking about downgrading my POTS service > from unlimited local calling to measured service. I live in SBC > territory and I already called them asking this question, but I'm not > sure the rep I spoke to is correct. My question is: with measured > service are all *incoming* calls unlimited? Is the measure only > placed on dialed/outgoing calls? Do they count your usage on both > incoming and outgoing calls? Thanks to all who reply. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SBC claims that all incoming calls are > unmeasured, or 'free'. That's one thing I have never caught them lying > about. Not so with their subsidiary, Cingular Wireless, where you are > charged in both directions. If you want an e-coupon for the second > month of Vonage totally free, just ask me. PAT] It stands to reason that they can't charge you for incoming calls because you don't have complete control over who calls you. Same is actually becoming true of cell phones, and there is plenty of underutilized bandwidth out there that they could offer true unlimited cell plans for < $50 a month. But they won't - greed rules. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you'd think so, and yes, just look at mainstream telco if you are curious what greed will get you in life. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Subject: Re: Measured Phone Service Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:58:03 -0700 On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:58:46 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Digest Editor noted in reply to "Measured Phone Service": > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SBC claims that all incoming calls are > unmeasured, or 'free'. That's one thing I have never caught them lying > about. Not so with their subsidiary, Cingular Wireless, where you are > charged in both directions. If you want an e-coupon for the second > month of Vonage totally free, just ask me. PAT] Pat, thank you for your reply. I have a follow-up question, lets say I keep my POTS line and downgrade it to measured rate service and I add call-forwarding. If I forward the calls from my POTS line to my Vonage line, does the forwarded call count towards the measured service? I read on SBC's website that you are responsible for all toll and long distance charges on a forwarded call, but it makes no mention of measured service. Once the call hits my line and I forward it, is that the same as me picking up the phone and placing a call? Thanks again for your reply. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, it is the same thing, except instead of you picking up and dialing, your secretary SBC did it for you, and charged you for not only the call, but the call-forwarding action as well. However, if Vonage gives you a purely local number within your local (free) calling area (an otherwise unmeasured, untimed call, then all you would pay is whatever you otherwise pay for the call-forwarding action. PAT] ------------------------------ From: whoward@piv27.cns.ualberta.ca (Walt Howard) Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:52:15 UTC Organization: University of Alberta In article , SELLCOM Tech support wrote: > I assume that spam issues are on topic since I have seen them > discussed. > I believe that we are all against spam, Most of us are. > but what about when a blackhole type site is being run in a totally > irresponsible manner? There have been several instances of that. It tends to be self-correcting, because an RBL that has too many false positives is less useful to those who use it. Keep in mind that no one forces anyone to use any RBL service. People use them if doing so cleans up their incoming mail stream. > I speak of FIVETEN. > The trash running http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php have whole > sections of the world blocked without any real cause and they won't > remove such listings after notification. > We had a customer place an order for a phone and our reply to them was > "blacklisted by FIVETEN". > We have had cases in the past where a blackhole site thought our > address was dynamic and were quite courteous and fixed the problem > immediately. The scum at FIVETEN don't care. > Can anything be done? Their reputation for rejecting valid email may > simply negate them but they are still listed with some spam removal > company sites. Let's see here. My only other knowledge of five-ten is that for years, they have provided a M$Windows port of network time protocol software. In other words, they provide some free public service along with their commercial offerings. And then we have Steve at SELLCOM, who has managed to get on other RBL lists as well, but refers to the people at five-ten as trash and scum. His .signature is overlong and full of advertising. He has a customer who would rather continue using five-ten's RBL even though it blocks sellcom. Apparently the customer is not even concerned enough to whitelist sellcom in his email program. And we are all supposed to believe that this is all five-ten's fault. Sorry, I'm not buying that. We have heard nothing about why five-ten got into the RBL business, or why sellcom wound up in their RBL, or why this particular customer believes so much in the RBL even if it curtails their communication with sellcom. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Walt, your reference to five-ten and their offering of a Microsoft Windows Network Time program: Is that by chance the program (freeware) from 'Graham Marketing' known as 'NetTime 2.0' ? Its really a dandy little utility; hides in the background; and frequently synchs (via NTP, port 137 ?) to other 'master clocks'. For instance I have 'NetTime 2.0' on all my computers; the laptop 98 and laptop 95 are instructed to look on my LAN to Windows 2000 to get the time; Windows 2000 looks at kansas.net (which is a local master/atomic clock serving the southeast Kansas/ Independence area. I use mine in connection with TClockX (for fancy display purposes). Just wondering if it was the same software; its a great free download product. I still say 'five-ten' sounds like an old fashioned dime store of the Kresge/Woolworth variety. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:48:30 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations John Levine writes: > If you believe the maps on their web site, it's not bad. Once they're > absorbed by Cingular, which has lots of GSM either directly or via > agreements with T-Mobile, it should be quite good. Incidentally, Cingular already has nationwide no-roaming plans. So this announcement isn't much of a surprise -- it's just a stealth announcement that all AT&T's wireless base now belongs to Cingular. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ From: Koos van den Hout Subject: Re: Cellular Tower Leases Date: 16 Apr 2004 15:27:22 GMT Organization: http://idefix.net/~koos/ Roy wrote: > I want to buy cellular tower leases, is there a directory of cell > tower lease owners? Thanks. From previous publications in the Digest: http://www.americantower.com/mainweb/ American Tower leases tower space. They can help, or maybe they can direct you to someone who can help in specific cases. Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5 via keyservers koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl or DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 -?) Fax +31-30-2817051 Visit the site about books with reviews /\\ http://idefix.net/~koos/ http://www.virtualbookcase.com/ _\_V ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:00:18 +0100 From: Miikka Kiprusoff Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Reply-To: miikka@calgaryweb.net On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:08:21 -0400 Jack Decker wrote about Re: Who is "VOIP News"? > Well, the VoIP companies can't just interface to the PSTN through some > kind of black wormhole that passes through the fourth dimension. They > actually have to use a licensed CLEC to make the connection to the > PSTN. And guess what, the CLEC does pay their share of the taxes and > originating and terminating charges, all of which gets passed onto the > VoIP company. > It might be helpful to think of a VoIP company as a customer of a CLEC > (usually several CLEC's) that is simply sharing their service with > their customers. In a way it's like the Chicago hotel that Pat used > to live in, where the hotel itself had a certain number of lines > coming in and then provided service to the tenants. As far as the > phone company was concerned, the end user was the hotel, not the > individual tenants. And I think that is the case where the VoIP > companies are concerned -- they are like the hotel; they buy PSTN > connections in their own name. Then they run those connections > through a "switchboard" of sorts (actually more like an automatic PBX) > and onto the "tenants", who are actually the customers on their > private network. > That's not a perfect comparison, of course, but it illustrates that an > endpoint on a VoIP network is not really part of the PSTN. The people > who do connect to the PSTN, namely the VoIP carriers, do pay all the > taxes and fees required of them and those do get passed on to > customers. What upsets certain government officials is that instead > of being able to gouge each VoIP customer individually (and thereby > get more money), they only see the VoIP company as a customer of PSTN > services. snip > And I would also say to you, the CLEC's used by the VoIP companies do > pay taxes and fees. And from the standpoint of the PSTN, the VoIP > company *is* the end user, not each of the VoIP company's individual > customers. Yes, each individual users gets a PSTN phone number, but > that's simply a DID (direct inward) number out of a group of numbers > assigned to the VoIP company. This is why individual customers aren't > listed in the phone book, and why a VoIP customer can't take their > VoIP number with them when they move to another provider. The VoIP > customer isn't buying PSTN service, they're buying the right to use a > private VoIP network that allows them to connect to the PSTN using > connections for which the VoIP company is the customer. In Canada, I can sign up for VOIP service with "TalkBroadband", which is a full-fledged CLEC and offers number portability. See: http://www.primustel.ca Also, Vonage's Canadian offering does not yet offer number portability but they say they'll offer it soon -- presumably, they too will become a full-fledged CLEC as well. One irritation I've got with both of 'em: like most telcos up here, they have -- in the fine print -- a "network access charge" ($3.95 for TalkBroadband, $1.95 for Vonage). This is not a tax -- this goes directly into their pocket, and is charged for access to their network. Why this isn't built into the price of the basic service is completely beyond me - except that it allows them to advertise a lower price, then pull a "gotcha" on ya when you get your first bill. Sprint Canada, alas, has become the worst offender in this regard. They too sock you with a $3.95 monthly charge, which applies to all of their long distance plans. Telus does the same thing, but with a difference: with Telus, I can at least switch to another long distance company -- one that doesn't charge this fee -- and thus avoid it. With Sprint Canada local dialtone service, if you pick a different long distance carrier, your local dialtone service price rises by ten bucks a month! Sorry, veered off topic. :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, Sprint is infamous about those extra charges if you do not agree to accept their long distance offerings. They do the same thing in northern Kansas (now Sprint local service, formerly United Tel). Either take Sprint LD or don't take it and pay ten dollars more to make you wish you had. Of course like Bell, they blame it all on the bad old government. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Bartley Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:57:26 -0800 Subject: Re: Norvergence in the News, Again? Yes Again! On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:41:22 -0600, Benjamin wrote: > I have many forums and sites, giving good and bad reports of > Norvergence. I work for one of the Banks that has been financing the > Matrix phone system. I am just curious about Norvergence. If you > could sent me any info that would be great thank you. An interesting and ungrammatical e-mail, coming from an address with no posting on USENET before, tied to a nearly blank website titled "New Fashion Pork?" Is he fishing for something uncomplementary? In any even, I can comment that the mail admins at Novergence follow a most irritatingly clueless practice. Despite the well-known fact that viruses which send e-mail are spoofing the sender's address, using addresses skimmed from USENET, here we have a notice from Norvergance telling me that a receive-only address of mine sent them an e-mail with a virus. Had their server compared the IP address in the header to the IP address range of the alleged e-mail sending address, they would have immediately known the address was spoofed. They didn't even send the one useful bit of info, the headers of the e-mail in question, which would have conclusively demonstrated where it came from. Useless. Sending such e-mail wastes their bandwidth and wastes my time, as well as demonstrating their IT practices are.. well, you all can decide. From: Date: 16 Apr 09:50 (PDT) To: Subject: Symantec Mail Security detected a repairable/quarantined virus based on a message you sent (SYM:01096960563786822730) Importance: normal Message-Id: <01af01c423d2$e8f08e40$dedea8c0@Norv.norvergence.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Received: (cpmta 19969 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2004 09:47:54 -0700 Received: from 216.37.46.9 (HELO xlate1.mailsvcs.arrl.net) by smtp.inbound.c001.snv.cp.net (209.228.32.108) with SMTP; 16 Apr 2004 09:47:54 -0700 Received: from NORVEXCHFE.norv.norvergence.com ([65.119.208.16]) by xlate1.mailsvcs.arrl.net (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id i3GGlo717589 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:47:51 -0500 Received: from NORVEXCH01.Norv.norvergence.com ([192.168.100.31]) by NORVEXCHFE.norv.norvergence.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:50:23 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by NORVEXCH01.Norv.norvergence.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:50:23 -0400 Thread-Index: AcQj0ujwWwT5tCYKTKWqpn0/LM7U5w== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Received: 16 Apr 2004 16:47:54 GMT Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Return-Path: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Priority: normal X-Originalarrivaltime: 16 Apr 2004 16:50:23.0343 (UTC) FILETIME=[E90F87F0:01C423D2] Subject of the message: excuse me Recipient of the message: Mary Murphy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Mary Murphy' is always writing me, asking me to excuse her; she does not want the virii I send out, nor the spam neither, for that matter, and would I please stop sending it out. Then she sends a liberal dose of it back to me. I wonder if she ever gets time to do anything other than send email complaint letters around. So now you have heard from her also? Now and again I also get email from this 'Patrick Townson' thing telling me to quit sending him virii also. It used to drive me nuts getting email sent by myself/to myself with that crap, but anymore I don't worry about it. Come to think of it, the messages to me also had the subject line 'excuse me'. So you got a dose of it also? But Norvergence postmaster thoughtfully cleared yours out prior to passing it on. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dor@writeme.com (Satchel Paige) Subject: For Mr. Patrick Townson Re: Norvergence Date: 15 Apr 2004 13:11:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Mr. Patrick Townson, I am David Rodriguez. With this post I publicly demand that you remove the previous posts that I authored (author name: Satchel Paige). I was able to remove them from the Google Groups board (www.deja.com) because that was the medium that I used to create them and to post them ... and ... because they were my posts. If the Google Groups board (www.deja.com) considered me the owner of the posts, you should too. Therefore, remove them as of today (4/15/2004). This is the second attempt to post this message. Only the removal date has been changed. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To bring readers up to date, or for those of you who came in late, David is the young man who worked as a telemarketer for Norvergence; got fired or quit (who knows, and not my business anyway) and sent messages which frankly, besmirched the reputation of that fine, outstanding company. Norvergence said they would sue, and apparently started action against David. They also blustered (and that's all it was) about suing your Esteemed Moderator as well, but after I printed that package of public relations stuff they sent me about all their satisfied and happy customers, I did not hear any more from them. I guess Norvergence agreed to drop the suit against David as well, if he would 'diligently' make an effort to remove what they deemed were his slanderous attacks on them from their *SACRED* positions on the net. So, David, you can tell Norvergence that you did try diligently to wipe off the restroom stall known as 'Usenet' but your valiant efforts were in vain. The stench and the illiterate scribbles just won't go away. Sorry about that; even my old messages (like, circa 1980-85 are still around if anyone can find them; don't ask me to show you where to look!) are still around, and you know how pleased that makes me! :( . But if it gives you any comfort, David, a hundred years from now, people will little note nor long remember what you said or did here. Me either. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #190 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Apr 17 01:57:23 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3H5vNL19870; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:57:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404170557.i3H5vNL19870@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 #191 TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:57:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 191 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Verizon Wireless Breaks With CTIA on CALEA Expansion to PTT (VOIP News) Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Refrains From Impose (VOIP News) Satellite May Be Cable TV of Radio (Monty Solomon) Slow to Adapt, Nokia Loses Market Share in Latest Cellphones (Solomon) Phone Line Connected to Satellite System Problems (Keith Knipschild) 802.11a 16 bit PCMCIA Card? (Daryle A. Tilroe) Re: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World (Mike Muderick) Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer (John Levine) Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: A-la-carte v. Tiering (was The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)(N McLain) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Steven J Sobol) Re: For Mr. Patrick Townson Re: Norvergence (Tony P.) Re: Spam Issues (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 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: VOIP News Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:54:18 -0400 Subject: Verizon Wireless Breaks With CTIA on CALEA Expansion to PTT Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17707 by HEATHER FORSGREN WEAVER WASHINGTON Verizon Wireless said Wednesday that it does not agree with the position taken by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association regarding the expansion of the digital wiretap act to information services, including push-to-talk. "While CTIA does not specifically address wireless push-to-talk services in its comments, the above statement could be read to take the position that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 does not apply to such services, and that the statute's information-services exemption broadly exempts broadband and packet-mode technologies," said John T. Scott III, Verizon Wireless vice president and deputy general counsel of regulatory law. "Verizon Wireless does not agree that packet-mode services in general, or push-to-talk services in particular, are exempt from CALEA. To the contrary, Verizon Wireless concurs with law enforcement's position that CALEA applies to all voice communica- tions services offered by telecommunications carriers, including those that use packet-mode technologies." Full story at: http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17707 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:21:45 -0400 Subject: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Refrains from Imposing Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2004/0002153294&EDATE= Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Refrains from Imposing Regulatory Burdens on VoIP Providers In a 5-0 Vote, Commission Rules Regulatory Action Premature in Light of FCC's Open Dockets EDISON, N.J., April 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 to refrain from subjecting VoIP services to regulation and to monitor developments at the FCC prior to making any conclusions concerning the Commission's jurisdiction over VoIP services. The vote heralded the conclusion of a year-long proceeding investigating VoIP services like Vonage and the necessary treatment under the Pennsylvania statute. "Vonage applauds Commissioner Thomas and the PAPUC for its foresight and reliance upon Commissioner Abernathy's Nascent Services Doctrine for guidance on the potential negative impact of burdensome state regulation on fledgling services like VoIP," said Jeffrey A. Citron, chairman & CEO of Vonage. "We urge other states to follow the bold leadership of Florida, Colorado and now Pennsylvania to foster competition through a wait-and-see approach to regulation, enabling the FCC and Congress to do their respective jobs before any premature conclusions can be drawn at the state level." The motion of Commissioner Glen R. Thomas concluded that, "the most prudent course of action for this Commission is to refrain from reaching any conclusion regarding jurisdictional and policy issues at this time." Commissioner Thomas recommended that the Commission not "leap into a regulatory scheme until the full impact of this technology is understood." The Commissioner further argued that while the Commission may have grounds under which it could assert jurisdiction and regulation, the most prudent course of action would be for the Commission to refrain from reaching any conclusion regarding jurisdictional and policy issues at this time. The motion also directs staff to continue to monitor the VoIP issues at the state and federal levels to make ongoing recommendations to the Commission. Full press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2004/0002153294&EDATE= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:03:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Satellite May Be Cable TV of Radio By ELLEN SIMON, AP Business Writer NEW YORK - If traditional radio decides Howard Stern is too hot to handle, satellite radio is waiting with an armload of wet T-shirts. Even if the prince of "shock jocks" stays where he is, the two nationwide satellite radio companies hope the Stern controversy can help them become the radio equivalent of cable TV -- a popular destination for racy, raunchy, unregulated content. When the National Association of Broadcasters meets Sunday in Las Vegas, much table talk will center on the unprecedented scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission, record indecency fines and the threat that the FCC could yank licenses for repeat offenders. Like cable television, satellite radio does not face federal indecency scrutiny because it is only available to paid subscribers. So the indecency dust-up has satellite radio companies executives salivating. XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio, the No. 1 and No. 2 players, lose money and have only 2 million subscribers total. But subscriber numbers have been growing quickly, and Stern has been talking on the air about a move to satellite radio. http://www.latimes.com/technology/ats-ap_technology12apr16,1,5397244.story ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:23:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Slow to Adapt, Nokia Loses Market Share in Latest Cellphones By ALAN COWELL LONDON, April 16 - Nokia , the world's largest mobile phone maker, paid a heavy price on Friday for missing the trend toward stylish clamshell phone handsets, denting its vaunted reputation as the arbiter of cellphone chic. Biting into Nokia's market share, the company's hottest rival, Samsung Electronics, reported soaring profits, while Nokia forecast a further slump. Nokia shares touched a 13-month low as investors began looking toward other cellphone makers regarded as likely to tap into a market of fleeting fashions and fickle loyalties. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/business/17phone.html ------------------------------ From: Keith Knipschild Subject: Phone Line Connected to Satellite System problems Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:43:03 -0400 I recently got a Satellite System installed from DISH Network, The receiver needs to be connected to a phone line otherwise Dish charges $5 a month. But I seem to be having a problem, The DISH receiver does not recognize my phone line, (Which is POTS) it fails on a phone line test. I then remembered that since I have VOICE DIALING, the dial tone is very brief ... Maybe that is causing the failure. So I did a test, from my phone I dialed *98 (This extends the Dial Tone) and did a phone line test on my DISH receiver and it Worked just fine. (I think the Extended Dial Tone only lasts for 1 call). Does anyone know how to cure this problem? Is it DISH's receiver or VERIZON'S problem with Voice Dialing ? BTW: Verizon does not Support Voice Dialing anymore, they don't offer it anymore, but existing customers can continue to use it. Keith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WEB: http://www.knip.com MAIL: keith@knip.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ From: Daryle A. Tilroe Reply-To: daryle@micralyne.com Organization: Micralyne Subject: 802.11a 16 bit PCMCIA Card? Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:26:34 GMT Has anyone seen/heard of a company offering such an animal? I realize that with the higher rates that 802.11a is capable of (54+ Mbps) it may seem a waste using a 16 bit card (probably max real world of 20 Mbps). However, I have a couple of legacy or speciality devices that do not support 32bit Cardbus and 802.11a would still be desirable because of much less interference and a better than 'b' transfer rate. Also while, in theory, the 16bit PCMCIA could be quite a bottleneck; real world transfer rates for 802.11a of more like 20 Mbps would like make it much less so. Daryle A. Tilroe ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: AOL Quietly Opens its Mail System to Outside World Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:27:06 -0400 When I wrote to mail2web.com and told them that AOL was now compatible, all I got back were the boilerplate answers. 2 days later, I can now access AOL through Mail2web. They didn't even write to thank me. Unbelievable. According to mail2web's site (www.mail2web.com), they now support AOL email accounts. Check it out. Barry Margolin wrote in message news:: > In article , Wesrock@aol.com wrote: >> In a message dated Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:33:26 -0400, Barry Margolin < >> barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: >>>> Error : AOL email accounts are not POP3 or IMAP4 compatible. >>>> You must have POP3 or IMAP4 compatible email account to use mail2web. >>>> Is this because they haven't updated their auto-response to AOL mail >>>> requests? >>> It looks like it to me. If this message were due to an actual error >>> that they encountered trying to access the AOL mail server, I doubt it >>> would be so well customized. Since AOL users are likely to be >>> computer-illiterate, it looks like they put in a special case for it >>> so that they could generate a message that's relatively >>> understandable. >> "Relatively understandable"? If you really think AOL users are >> likely to be computer illiterate, why would you think they would be >> able to assign any meaning to "POP3" or "IMAP4"? > That's why I said "relatively understandable" rather than > "understandable". > Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu > Arlington, MA > *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 2004 22:25:22 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Incidentally, Cingular already has nationwide no-roaming plans. They've had them for a while. I have a plan I got in March 2002 with 250 daytime minutes, 3500 n/w minutes for $30, good anywhere in the US except for the Gulf of Mexico system. For a while they were pushing preferred network plans (similar to VZ's America's Choice) where your minutes are good on their network and a few preferred partners but roaming elsewhere. Now they've switched back and you can get either a national GSM plan if you have a GSM phone or a national GAIT plan if you have a multi-band phone. Here in upstate NY, the GAIT plans aren't as good as the one I still have, but in GSM markets like NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco they have a $30 national 250/1000 that's pretty close to mine. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:56:07 GMT In article , johnl@iecc.com says: >> The question is how good AT&T's GSM coverage and that of their >> roaming partners actually is. > If you believe the maps on their web site, it's not bad. Once they're > absorbed by Cingular, which has lots of GSM either directly or via > agreements with T-Mobile, it should be quite good. AT&TWS currently has Cingular as a GSM roaming partner (dunno about TDMA and analog), so the roaming maps most likely show Cingular's GSM coverage in non-AT&TWS markets already. It may also have T-Mobile as a roaming partner (I know it did as of a year or so ago). Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:54:09 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: A-la-carte v. Tiering (was The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1 Wes Leatherock wrote [TD 23:176]: > Neal McLain quoted: >>> There is a difference. The sports section in the newspaper is >>> created either by the same wire services that they subscribe to or >>> by their own reporters and doesn't cost a whole lot extra. The >>> sports channels on cable networks are additional costs to the >>> cable operator that they have to pass on to everyone because they >>> have to pay for every subscriber. > This indicates a complete lack of understanding of newspaper > economics. The Sports Department is a dedicated organization in any > newspaper of any size and probably the biggest single cost center in > the news department. > [snip] > The sports section of a newspaper is by no means a > by-product. And sports coverage doesn't come cheap. > I've been there, both on a newspaper and on a wire service. I'd like to clarify something here: I did not write the "There is a difference" paragraph above; I was quoting an earlier message from another reader (Paul Robinson, TD 22:270). I realize that Wes indicated this fact in his posting by using ">>" line-headers, but I'm afraid that any reader who didn't notice those ">>" symbols might mistakenly assume that I wrote it. I used Robinson's quote in my message "A-la-carte v. Tiering (was Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1" [TD 23:174] to illustrate the following point: in order to recover their infrastructure costs, cable TV companies and DBS companies, like newspaper companies, need to maximize "circulation." In this context, "circulation" refers to the number of customers who pay to receive a medium (a copy of a newspaper or basic CATV/DBS television service) and who, in turn, are exposed to the advertising contained therein. Although the Arizona Republic might well favor so-called "a-la-carte" pricing for television channels provided by cable TV companies and DBS companies, I rather doubt that it would be willing to swallow its own medicine and offer its newspaper on an a-la-carte basis -- especially in light of Wes' description of the costs involved in putting together a sports section. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:58:06 -0500 Ron Chapman wrote: > I agree. I've killfiled this author. That's the very first time in > 15 years that I've done ANYTHING like that in comp.dcom.telecom. Dunno why -- I don't see it as being any different from the stuff that Monty Solomon posts, except that he doesn't focus on VoIP. Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I may know why. Some people are having a very difficult time dealing with the fact that the handwriting is on the wall for traditional telephony. Oh, I am like most everyone else: I'll always have at least one line served by Traditional Bell in my home (or in my case, the UNE-P Prairie Stream equivilent) as long as they are still made and installed. But if you cannot see that VOIP is the direction things are going, then I pity you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: For Mr. Patrick Townson Re: Norvergence Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:57:20 GMT In article , dor@writeme.com says... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To bring readers up to date, or for > those of you who came in late, David is the young man who worked as > a telemarketer for Norvergence; got fired or quit (who knows, and not > my business anyway) and sent messages which frankly, besmirched the > reputation of that fine, outstanding company. Norvergence said they > would sue, and apparently started action against David. They also > blustered (and that's all it was) about suing your Esteemed Moderator > as well, but after I printed that package of public relations stuff > they sent me about all their satisfied and happy customers, I did not > hear any more from them. I guess Norvergence agreed to drop the suit > against David as well, if he would 'diligently' make an effort to > remove what they deemed were his slanderous attacks on them from their > *SACRED* positions on the net. So, David, you can tell Norvergence > that you did try diligently to wipe off the restroom stall known as > 'Usenet' but your valiant efforts were in vain. The stench and the > illiterate scribbles just won't go away. Sorry about that; even my > old messages (like, circa 1980-85 are still around if anyone can > find them; don't ask me to show you where to look!) are still around, > and you know how pleased that makes me! :( . But if it gives you > any comfort, David, a hundred years from now, people will little note > nor long remember what you said or did here. Me either. PAT] If he thinks he only has to worry about you and google groups (BTW, I seriously doubt Google would cave and it's probably still archived somewhere.) by those who replicate the digest elsewhere. I've run across numerous sites that do so. Personally I'd tell him to go pound sand. There's no reason you should have to act as his safety filter. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor David. I do understand why he is so anxious to get Norvergence off his case by trying to 'cooperate' with them. But even if I were to try and do so, I could not begin to tell you all the mirror sites there are out there which include the Digest in their offerings. Consider AOL and Compuserve for example; they would not listen to anything I have to say about zapping those messages, and anyway, why should they? They both mirror this Digest into their 'library sections' and once something is gone from here, that's too bad for me also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:07:18 GMT whoward@piv27.cns.ualberta.ca (Walt Howard) posted on that vast internet thingie: > And then we have Steve at SELLCOM, who has managed to get Well Walt Howard, I trust that you posted all that misinformation out of irresponsible ignorance rather than deliberate malice? I know of no other RBL list that SELLCOM is on other than a single mistake a while back where Verizon's static IPs were mislabeled as dynamic. The *responsible* RBL list removed us immediately. The customer's ISP (a MAJOR one) immediately whitelisted SELLCOM but what they should do is dump the irresponsible FIVETEN. You really should require of yourself to know at least a little about a subject when you try to assert yourself, Walt. Surly you aren't one of those on the net who has no life and must try to appear to "be somebody" at someone else's expense? 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, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter 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: 620-402-0134 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #191 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 19 00:11:01 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3J4B1A11275; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:11:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404190411.i3J4B1A11275@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 #192 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:11:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 192 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PIP Data Memo: The Rise of Wireless Connectivity (Monty Solomon) Broadband Penetration on the Upswing: 55% of Adult Users (Monty Solomon) Faith Online: 64 Percent of Wired Americans Have Used Internet (Solomon) Glittery Gem Phones Lure Asia's Elite (Monty Solomon) Court Delays Phone Competition Decision (Monty Solomon) Comcast Partners With NECN, WCVB, WGBH, NESN & CN8 to Launch (M Solomon) Telecoms Struggle With Impact of Internet Calls (Monty Solomon) Cable Networks Favor Nielsen's "People Meters" (Monty Solomon) IBM Reports 2004 First-Quarter Results (Monty Solomon) Internet "Spyware" Emerges as New Online Threat (Monty Solomon) Spy Stoppers (Monty Solomon) Amazon Joins Crowded Web Search Field (Monty Solomon) Cingular New York City's New Free Mobile-To-Mobile Plan (Monty Solomon) AT&T Wireless Music Recognition Service (Monty Solomon) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Barry Margolin) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (jmayson@nyx.net) Interfacing Old 56 kbps T1 Devices With New T1 (jayaram) Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer (Paul Vader) Re: Spam Issues (Tom Betz) Signaling Reference (Srinidhi) Re: A-la-carte v. Tiering (was The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)(Wesrock) Re: Skype is Not Hype (Wolfgang Keller) Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (Nick Fiekowsky) Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately (Larry Rachman) Home Wireless Networks Vulnerable (Lisa Hancock) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:35:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PIP Data Memo: The Rise of Wireless Connectivity PIP Data Memo: The rise of wireless connectivity and our latest findings April 13, 2004 Table of Contents: Complete data memo on wireless connectivity, e-shopping, auctions, and Internet demographics Methodology http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=121 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:37:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadband Penetration on the Upswing: 55% of Adult Internet Users Broadband Penetration on the Upswing: 55% of Adult Internet Users Have Broadband at Home or Work Table of Contents: 55% of adult Internet users have broadband at home or work Fast Internet connections at home Broadband use in the workplace Broadband adoption among population subgroups Factors in home broadband adoption Prospects for switching among dial-up users Availability Regional Broadband Use Online activities and broadband users Broadband users on the cutting edge Appendix http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=120 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:41:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Faith Online: 64% of Wired Americans Have Used Internet Faith Online: 64% of wired Americans have used the Internet for spiritual or religious purposes Table of Contents: Summary of Findings Part 1. Introduction Part 2. Internet uses of the "online faithful": Who are they and what do they do online? Part 3. Information-seeking about religion: looking "inside" and "outside" Part 4. Overall Internet use among those who have different reasons for faith-related online activities Part 5. Religiously-oriented Internet use among different religious and spiritual profiles Part 6. Online religious "seeking" Conclusions Methodology http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=119 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:52:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Glittery Gem Phones Lure Asia's Elite By Jennifer Tan SINGAPORE, April 19 (Reuters) - For Asia's hip and swanky, carrying a mobile phone with a cracked screen and a tatty plastic cover is tantamount to a crime against fashion. Instead, a Prada ensemble with Gucci loafers or Manolo Blahnik stilettos demands nothing less than a diamond-encrusted handset from China's TCL Mobile Communication Co Ltd or an 18-carat white gold mobile with a sapphire crystal face by Nokia (HELS:NOK1V) unit Vertu. Indonesian haute couture designer Harry Darsono, 54, carries a $26,550, 215-gram platinum Vertu cellphone to match his Lanvin shirts and Hugo Boss shoes when he entertains customers. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41099080 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:52:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Delays Phone Competition Decision WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court has agreed to delay until June 15 a decision throwing out new rules designed to encourage competition for local telephone service. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals acted in response to a request by the Federal Communications Commission, which asked for the time in order to give the former Bell telephone companies and competitors to negotiate an end to the legal dispute that has held up competition rules for eight years. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41082166 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:51:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Comcast Partners With NECN, WCVB, WGBH, NESN & CN8 Comcast Partners With NECN, WCVB, WGBH, NESN & CN8 to Launch 'Get Local' Video ON DEMAND Service in New England - Apr 15, 2004 11:00 AM (PR Newswire) Local Programming Now Available ON DEMAND Minutes After it Airs for 2.2 Million Comcast Customers BOSTON, April 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Video on demand gets local today in New England as Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSA and CMCSK), announces an unprecedented partnership with local television stations to offer the most extensive regional content lineup available in a VOD service. For the first time, Comcast will offer its 2.2 million New England customers 24-hour access to local programming minutes after it airs on top regional broadcast and cable networks. Local programs carried on New England Cable News (NECN), WCVB-TV Channel 5, WGBH, New England Sports Network (NESN) and CN8, The Comcast Network, will now be offered through the new Get Local programming category, available through Comcast's ON DEMAND service. With Get Local, Comcast Digital Cable customers have access to local content that they can pause, rewind and fast forward right from their remote control, soon after the programs air. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41081351 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:55:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Telecoms Struggle With Impact of Internet Calls By Justin Hyde WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - With Internet phone services signing up thousands of new customers a day, telecom industry observers are beginning to question how well the old local phone companies will defend themselves against a growing throng of competitors. So far, cable companies and firms like Vonage have only nibbled at the edges of the local telephone market with voice over Internet Protocol service, or VOIP, winning about 250,000 customers. But as more households sign up for broadband Internet service, and larger players such as AT&T Corp.(NYSE:T) unveil their VOIP service, executives and analysts see the threat to the Baby Bells rising. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41083271 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:55:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cable Networks Favor Nielsen's "People Meters" By Michael Learmonth NEW YORK, April 15 (Reuters) - The cable TV industry hopes media measurement company Nielsen Media Research's delayed effort to install its "people meters" in New York City will succeed and says the technology will show a dramatic shift of viewers -- and advertising dollars -- from broadcast to cable. Cable companies typically reserve about 2 minutes an hour to sell local advertising. But because many cable programs have such small audiences, they've won only about 14 percent of the $28 billion U.S. local TV advertising market. As Nielsen replaces written diaries with more accurate electronic people meters, analysts expect cable's market share to jump -- perhaps as much as 10 percent -- boosting the bottom line of operators such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications and Cox Communications. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41083307 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:57:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IBM Reports 2004 First-Quarter Results ARMONK, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 15, 2004--IBM today announced first-quarter 2004 diluted earnings per common share of $.93 from continuing operations compared with diluted earnings of $.79 per share in the same period of 2003, an increase of 18 percent. First-quarter income from continuing operations was $1.6 billion compared with $1.4 billion a year ago, an increase of 16 percent. Revenues from continuing operations for the first quarter were $22.2 billion, up 11 percent compared with the first quarter of 2003 revenues of $20.1 billion. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41084263 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:36:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet "Spyware" Emerges as New Online Threat By Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON, April 18 (Reuters) - Internet users have learned to keep an eye out for viruses, worms and "spam" e-mail. Add another online hazard to the list: spyware. Programs that hide in users' computers and secretly monitor their activities are emerging as the next high-tech plague, experts say. Spyware can sap computing power, crash machines and bury users under a blizzard of unwanted ads. It can capture passwords, credit-card numbers and other sensitive data. Spyware has even begun to burrow into popular culture. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41097598 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two good tools I use here to keep the computers cleam are 'Ad-Aware' and 'Spy-Bot, Seek and Destroy'. These two programs (both freeware) combined with AVG 6.0 run in the back- ground all the time, just looking for spies they can kill. Having a Netgear router (firewall) and Zone Alarm also keep things pretty clean, anyway, I suspect the firewall and Zone Alarm (also free download) prevent the spies from 'calling home' or otherwise reporting to their owners. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:36:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Spy Stoppers Spy Stoppers By Cade Metz PC Magazine http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1524223,00.asp Spybot Search & Destroy http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1522668,00.asp http://www.safer-networking.org/ http://www.safer-networking.org/index.php?page=download Spy Sweeper http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1523288,00.asp http://www.webroot.com/wb/products/spysweeper/index.php Spy Audit http://www.webroot.com/services/spyaudit_03.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I should mention that Yahoo Instant Messenger is not even safe now, so the Zone Alarm people have some software that sits and monitors (and encrypts) your IM traffic, killing inruders as necessary. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:42:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Amazon Joins Crowded Web Search Field By MATTHEW FORDAHL AP Technology Writer SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Joining an increasingly crowded field, online retailer Amazon.com quietly launched an search service to help Web surfers find information _ including products from its store _ on the Internet. Amazon's A9.com Inc., a Palo Alto, Calif.-based subsidiary, was released in test mode Wednesday but will compete for clicks not only with Google Inc., Yahoo! Inc. and others, but also Microsoft Corp. when it launches its own search technology later this year. Like its competitors, A9.com offers both a Web site and an Internet Explorer toolbar from which users can enter search terms and block annoying pop-up ads. Searches also can be limited to just Amazon.com products _ as well as the text of books available at Amazon.com. Internet search tools _ an industry now dominated by Google _ will be a core component of any major Internet or operating system player in the future, analysts say. A9.com's service currently relies heavily on a partnership with Google, which supplies many of the search results, and Amazon's Alexa subsidiary, which provides traffic, other sites of interest and additional information on specific Web sites. It weaves information from its partners into a single site. Search results also include text ads from Google's sponsored links program. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41077833 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:44:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cingular New York City's New Free Mobile-To-Mobile Plan Offers No Roaming and No Long Distance for True Mobile-to-Mobile National Coverage NEW YORK, April 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Cingular Wireless has taken the guesswork out of mobile-to-mobile calling for New Yorkers. With the Cingular Nation GSM plan, Cingular customers can make free mobile-to-mobile calls to their Cingular friends anywhere nationwide -- and never pay roaming or long distance fees. Cingular's new suite of national rate plans -- Cingular Nation GSM -- provides users with unlimited nationwide mobile-to-mobile minutes and 5,000 nationwide night and weekend minutes in addition to the plan's core package of anytime minutes on plans starting at $49.99 per month. Cingular Nation GSM subscribers will not have to pay for incoming or outbound calls with other Cingular customers. The new plans also come standard with Rollover(SM) -- the feature that lets customers keep their unused anytime minutes. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41079427 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:46:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Wireless Music Recognition Service in the US REDMOND, Wash., April 15 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T Wireless (NYSE:AWE) announced the availability of a new music recognition service today that allows customers to identify songs simply by placing their phones near a music speaker. The service is the first of its kind in the US, and adds to AT&T Wireless' industry-leading portfolio of music-related content and offers. Designed for today's on-the-go music fans, customers simply dial "#ID" (#43) from any AT&T Wireless phone to initiate the service. When prompted, customers then hold the phone near the music source for approximately 15 seconds. Users will immediately receive a text message on their wireless phone with the name of the song title and recording artist. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41079986 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Organization: Looking for work Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:13:37 -0400 In article , Steven J Sobol wrote: > Ron Chapman wrote: >> I agree. I've killfiled this author. That's the very first time in >> 15 years that I've done ANYTHING like that in comp.dcom.telecom. > Dunno why -- I don't see it as being any different from the stuff that > Monty Solomon posts, except that he doesn't focus on VoIP. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I may know why. Some people are > having a very difficult time dealing with the fact that the handwriting > is on the wall for traditional telephony. I just find the volume of it extremely annoying, and not very interesting. They're mostly just press releases from companies tooting their own horns, not useful technical information. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:33:59 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > Congress and the FCC, however, never determined exactly how to measure > that 85%. FCC mass media bureau chief Ken Ferree said the plan is a > way to make the switch as painless as possible but still get > broadcasters to give up the analog frequencies. The only way I can see this working is for the FCC to demand analog sets stop being sold on a certain date, then a number of years later demand TV stations drop their analog signals. Today I have seen black and white portable sets for as low as $14.99! We recently picked up some color 13" sets for under $100. There's no mention anywhere that these sets will be useless before the end of the decade. I wonder how many average consumers are aware of this? I can see people buying analog TVs right up until the drop dead date. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA PS: My message to the digest about digital TV might not have made sense. I mentioned the low prices for televisions. My point was my family and others I know are buying up these dirt cheap TVs. One for every room! Why not? They're cheap. But in less than three years they're going to be overpriced paperweights. I cannot believe the FCC is allowing analog TVs to be sold today when their current plan to render them useless in a little over 30 months. John ------------------------------ From: rajaram_s@yahoo.com (jayaram) Subject: Interfacing Old 56 kbps T1 Devices with New T1 Date: 17 Apr 2004 13:29:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I have T1 64 kbps output device which I want to interface with a 56 kbps T1 (old devices) infrastructure. What is the best way to do this? My T1 framers do not support 56 kbps framing. Thanks in advance. Raj ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:37:51 -0500 Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Announces Aggressive New Offer From: Paul Vader > They've had them for a while. I have a plan I got in March 2002 with > 250 daytime minutes, 3500 n/w minutes for $30, good anywhere in the US > except for the Gulf of Mexico system. For a while they were pushing > preferred network plans (similar to VZ's America's Choice) where your > minutes are good on their network and a few preferred partners but I was aware, I'm a Cingular nation subscribe myself. The familytalk plan is nice -- I gave my parents and sisters phones for essentially the activation fee, and since none of us are chatterboxes, we've rolled over a ton of minutes. PV ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:58:45 UTC Organization: XOme TELECOM Digest Editor noted in a response to Robert Pierce in news:telecom23.185.12@telecom-digest.org: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe some of you guys who know about > this kind of thing can give me some advice. What do you show, if > anything about 24.119.225.28 and any blacklists? Thanks. PAT] reports that it ain't listed anywhere. CableOne must be taking care of business. Quoth whoward@piv27.cns.ualberta.ca (Walt Howard) in news:telecom23.190.4@telecom-digest.org: > And then we have Steve at SELLCOM, ... who has yet to answer any of the plain questions I asked in . "I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. ------------------------------ From: nidhi83@hotmail.com (Srinidhi) Subject: Signaling Reference Date: 17 Apr 2004 22:19:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, Where can I find good material on various Signaling schemes like SS7, ISDN, R2 etc.? Books or web pages, kindly suggest. Thanks, Srinidhi ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:24:47 EDT Subject: Re: A-la-carte v. Tiering (was The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1 I certainly did not intend to imply that this was your text. Besides the double line headers >>, I also changed the usual introductory phrase to read that you "quoted" rather than you "wrote." Perhaps I should have stressed this even further, and I apologize to Neal and to anyone who may have been misled. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com In a message dated Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:54:09 -0500, Neal McLain writes: > Wes Leatherock wrote [TD 23:176]: >> Neal McLain quoted: >>>> There is a difference. The sports section in the newspaper is >>>> created either by the same wire services that they subscribe to or >>>> by their own reporters and doesn't cost a whole lot extra. The >>>> sports channels on cable networks are additional costs to the >>>> cable operator that they have to pass on to everyone because they >>>> have to pay for every subscriber. >> This indicates a complete lack of understanding of newspaper >> economics. The Sports Department is a dedicated organization in any >> newspaper of any size and probably the biggest single cost center in >> the news department. >> [snip] >> The sports section of a newspaper is by no means a >> by-product. And sports coverage doesn't come cheap. >> I've been there, both on a newspaper and on a wire service. > I'd like to clarify something here: I did not write the "There is a > difference" paragraph above; I was quoting an earlier message from > another reader (Paul Robinson, TD 22:270). I realize that Wes > indicated this fact in his posting by using ">>" line-headers, but I'm > afraid that any reader who didn't notice those ">>" symbols might > mistakenly assume that I wrote it. > I used Robinson's quote in my message "A-la-carte v. Tiering (was > Aftermath of DISH/Viacom)-1" [TD 23:174] to illustrate the following > point: in order to recover their infrastructure costs, cable TV > companies and DBS companies, like newspaper companies, need to > maximize "circulation." In this context, "circulation" refers to the > number of customers who pay to receive a medium (a copy of a newspaper > or basic CATV/DBS television service) and who, in turn, are exposed to > the advertising contained therein. > Although the Arizona Republic might well favor so-called "a-la-carte" > pricing for television channels provided by cable TV companies and DBS > companies, I rather doubt that it would be willing to swallow its own > medicine and offer its newspaper on an a-la-carte basis -- especially > in light of Wes' description of the costs involved in putting together > a sports section. > Neal McLain > nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: wk@objectarchitects.de (Wolfgang Keller) Subject: Re: Skype is Not Hype Date: 18 Apr 2004 06:30:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I'm somewhat new to VoIP. I wanted to add a voice channel to my chess playing with a friend somewhat far away. We tried M$ Windows Messenger and with firewalls at each end in place it was too much work to try to get it to run. There are tons of postings in the web with problems and long long documents with tons of terms I don't want to know :-). Today we tried Skype -- with 0$ Headset from an old Dragon voice recognition program and also with speakers. Works just fine -- absolutely cool. Besides you need not by the Skype headset -- you should be able to use any USB set -- a colleague who recommended Skype has some vanilla USB think. So really -- what's the problem? It works! Video would be nice to have, but this is really o.k. for ZERO bucks Cheers, Wolfgang ------------------------------ From: fiekowsky@aol.com (Nick Fiekowsky) Subject: Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck Date: 18 Apr 2004 14:32:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am skeptical about how well the Motorola box does QoS. I have Vonage's Motorola sitting between my cable modem (Motorola Surfboard / Comcast) and my home network. Last week my wife was unable to use Vonage until I stopped a massive (> 1 gByte) directory upload I was running at the time. My wife also complains that calls to Paris & South Africa (our primary Vonage use) get cut off. If we don't use our computers during the call, things are more reliable. Have been considering getting a Linksys 8-port cable / DSL Router / Switch. http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=34&scid=29&prid=604 This box gives priority to ports 1-4 vs. 5-8. I can plug the Motorola into port 1, the rest of my home network into 5-8. Chainsman wrote in message news:: > I have Vonage and have tested it with Verizon DSL (G.lite) with 132k > fixed-speed upload, and Cox High-Speed Internet with about 230k > variable-speed upload. The Motorola VoIP machine does QoS and > priority queuing but only if it's the last device before the modem. > Since the activity on your home network is what is causing the > dropouts and dropped calls you can use the built-in firewall and NAT > function of the Vonage machine which has built-in logic to always > prioritize the VoIP traffic over your network traffic. Even if your > internet provider ignores the QoS, and indeed a cable modem network > QoS is meaningless due to the nature of how uploads work, the Vonage > box will make every attempt to handle the VoIP traffic at a higher > priority thus making your calls sound better on both ends. > Give it a try and let us know how it works for you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am curious about this also. After someone wrote me and said try putting the (Vonage) Cisco ATA-186 at the front of the line, I discovered there was no way to do this without getting a *new* adapter (the Motorola one) from Vonage. Well, the Motorola is on order, in transit and should be here tomorrow, Monday. I am not sure it is really going to make a difference, even with the one-meg I now get from CableOne, since the *upload* to CableOne is still only 250 K, versus (formerly 500 K and now one meg downloads.) To make matters a bit more difficult, on Friday Vonage cut me off entirely until I called and made a stink. It seems *their* computer had issued me an RMA to return the old Cisco ATA and when the computer issues an RMA it also at the same time *disconnects* or no longer recognizes the old box as a security issue. Their technician told me they 'could have' forced the old box to remain active since I was not giving up service; that this was 'merely' a QoS problem with a new style box replacing the old box, but for some reason they did not, until he told his supervisor to do it after I called to complain. They also charged me (from my supply of 'next month free' credits) one hundred dollars for the new box -- actually 99.95 -- because the computer demanded some money as security in order to issue an RMA, but they said once the old Cisco is back to them they will refund the entire 99.95 'since it is a QoS problem.' I assume it will go back on my account in the form of 'next month free' credits. You can be assured I will watch my account on line until I see everythign back to 'normal'. But then their technician 'Edgar' called me back and said he really did not think the new Motorola Telephone Adapter was going to cure my ailments. "You still only have 250 K upload from Cable One, regardless how how much download you bought. The Motorola can and does give priority to certain ports first; other ports later, but as long as you are having your Win 98 and Win 95 make those big huge FTP dumps (of .jpg files) every fifteen seconds or so, I just can't see the Motorola able to keep up with it if you have a lengthy phone call as well." I am supposed to call him or his supervisor back on their direct lines once I install the Motorola; (a) they will have to turn it on (and the Cisco off); and (b) find out just how 'heavy weight' the Motorola will be under a 'heavy load' from me. It will be interesting to find out. Any other tests or questions I should ask as I put it all together? PAT] ------------------------------ From: _lr_@yahoo.com (Larry Rachman) Subject: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately Date: 18 Apr 2004 16:03:18 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Yes, I know that usually the battle is to *keep* your number from being listed, but that's not the case this time. I have a phone number provided by an IP telephony provider, but it does not come with a directory listing. Is there some way I can get this number listed (as a business) by the various directory services (both voice and 555-1212)? Surely, folks with blocks of DNIS lines must have the same sort of issue. How is it done? Thanks in advance, Larry Rachman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct; the 'default' on Bell lines is be listed and pay extra for non-pub/non-listed numbers. On toll-free 800, cell phones and VOIP the default is non-pub and they do get a slight fortune to list someone. At one point I was going to get an 800 number published; the service rep told me it could be done but the cost was very prohibitive; I think $10 or $20 **per month** on top of the cost for the service. Ask your service rep to set it up for you if it really is worth it. I know Vonage does not make anything off of it; it is strictly a 'pass through' (with Vonage as the agent) to the 555-1212 and service bureaus. Outrageous? I thought so for my puny, pitiful little thing; a seldom used 800 number. I've heard someone at Vonage talk about an on-line directory of listed (Vonage) numbers -- now about a quarter-million customers -- but I know nothing about where it is going, if it is or not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Home Wireless Networks Vulnerable Date: 18 Apr 2004 17:27:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com An article in a recent Phila Inquirer reported that many home users of wireless networks fail to set up firewalls and basic security protection and are thus vulnerable for data and identity theft. A security consultant demonstrated how easy it was to spy. They drove a neighborhood and quickly found an unsecured network and were able to read all sorts of personal information, including credit card numbers, downloading history, etc. Protection is easy by merely turning on security checks available in newer operating systems. Home networks should have firewalls and security protection. It has been previously reported how spammers and virus spreaders find unprotected home networks and use them as a base to bounce off malicious emails. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #192 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 19 13:24:09 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3JHO9c17461; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:24:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404191724.i3JHO9c17461@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 #193 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:24:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 193 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #429, April 19, 2004 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately (Fred Atkinson) Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately (Tony P.) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Tony P.) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (J Kelly) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Numbering Change for Mobile/Cellular in Israel April 20 (Joseph) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:42:05 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #429, April 19, 2004 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 429: April 19, 2004 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com ** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: www.cygcom.com ** GROUP TELECOM: www.360.net ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: www.primustel.ca ** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca ** TELUS: www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Telcos Want More Time for VoIP Review ** Primus Buys Ottawa ISP ** Broadband Gap Reduced ** Quebec and Atlantic Centrex Rates Increase ** Aliant Workers Vote Strike Mandate ** Wireless Revenue Up, Wireline Down ** Nortel Faces Ontario Securities Probe ** Aliant Expands 1X Network ** Telcos File Deferral Account Projections ** Thermo Takes Over Globalstar ** More Spectrum for Wireless Broadband? ** U.S. Requires Label on Porn Spam ** Vancouver Wireless Developer Acquired ** MacCormack Joins Manitoba VoIP Provider ** Nominations Sought for CIPA Awards ** Look Revenues Slide ** Bell CEO and Cable Exec Debate Regulation ============================================================ TELCOS WANT MORE TIME FOR VoIP REVIEW: Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS, SaskTel, Telebec, and Telus have jointly asked the CRTC to allow more time-possibly until late June -- for the preparation and filing of evidence on how VoIP services should be treated by the regulator. (See Telecom Update #428) ** In a separate submission, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre says it needs more time to coordinate and present consumer views on VoIP issues. www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2004/8663/c12_200402892.htm#2a PRIMUS BUYS OTTAWA ISP: Primus Canada has agreed to buy Magma Communications, Ottawa's largest independent Internet services provider, in a cash and stock deal valued at $16 million. The acquisition gives Primus 30,000 new customers in Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal. ** Last week Primus said that it had arranged a $42 million line of credit with an unnamed Canadian bank. BROADBAND GAP REDUCED: The Broadband for Rural and Northern Development (BRAND) pilot program's National Selection Committee has submitted its final report to the Minister of Industry. Projects funded through the $105 million BRAND program, together with other federal, provincial, and private sector initiatives, will reduce the number of communities without broadband access to about 1,700 by the end of 2005. ** The Committee strongly recommends a continued push to close the remaining gap and connect all Canadian communities by that date. http://broadband.gc.ca/pub/media/nsc/report/index.html ** The projects selected for implementation funding in Round 2 have now been announced. http://broadband.gc.ca/applications/applicants.html?round=4 QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC CENTREX RATES INCREASE: The CRTC has approved two proposals to increase Centrex rates: ** Telecom Order 2004-121 accepts Aliant's proposal to increase Centrex rates for customers wither fewer than 1,500 lines by $2/line/month. (See Telecom Update #424) www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2004/o2004-121.htm ** Telecom Order 2004-127 accepts Telus Quebec's restructuring of Centrex rates under a plan that will, on average, increase rates. The plan also adds term and volume discounts, and provides lower rates for customers who use Telus Quebec as their primary long distance carrier. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2004/o2004-127.htm ALIANT WORKERS VOTE STRIKE MANDATE: Members of two unions have voted for strike action against Aliant, and the 4,300 workers are now in a legal position to strike. Negotiations resume today. (See Telecom Update #425) WIRELESS REVENUE UP, WIRELINE DOWN: Statistics Canada reports that wireless revenue grew 13.6% to $8.2 billion in 2003, while wireline revenue fell 4.6% to $23.0 billion, on top of a 3.1% decline in 2002. Fourth quarter wireline revenue was down 9.3% from the same period in 2002. ** Total telecom industry revenue for 2003 was $32.6 billion, essentially the same as in 2002, but operating profits jumped 23.0% to $5.7 billion. NORTEL FACES ONTARIO SECURITIES PROBE: Nortel Networks faces yet another investigation into the past and pending restatements of its financial results. The latest agency to probe its financial statements is the Ontario Securities Commission. (See Telecom Update #428) ALIANT EXPANDS 1X NETWORK: Aliant Mobility says it now has 1X data technology throughout its digital service area. The company plans to spend $26 million this year to extend digital and 1X coverage to reach about 90% of the population of the four Atlantic provinces. TELCOS FILE DEFERRAL ACCOUNT PROJECTIONS: As instructed by the CRTC in PN 2004-1, the incumbent telephone companies have forecast the cumulative balances in their deferral accounts up to May 31, 2005. (See Telecom Update #426) ** Positive balances are projected by Bell Canada ($165 million), Telus ($52 million), MTS ($12 million), Telus Quebec ($1.6 million), and Aliant (just under $1 million). ** SaskTel projects a negative balance of nearly $12 million, and wants to be compensated by an adjustment to its price cap calculation. THERMO TAKES OVER GLOBALSTAR: Thermo Capital Partners has taken 81% control of Globalstar for US$43 million, and the satellite phone provider has emerged from bankruptcy protection. Globalstar now plans to launch spare satellites, set up a new earth station in Florida, and add fax capability. (See Telecom Update #410) MORE SPECTRUM FOR WIRELESS BROADBAND? The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has begun a proceeding on allowing wireless broadband services in the 3650-3700 MHz band, currently used by fixed satellite service earth stations. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-246146A1.doc U.S. REQUIRES LABEL ON PORN SPAM: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has ruled that pornographic spam e-mails must include the phrase "SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: " in the subject line, and that each message must include an "initially viewable" area that contains no sexually explicit text or images. The rule is effective May 19. VANCOUVER WIRELESS DEVELOPER ACQUIRED: MDSI, a supplier of mobile resource management software based in Richmond, B.C., is being purchased by @Road for US$86 million. MDSI's 350 employees will form a division of the California-based company. MacCORMACK JOINS MANITOBA VoIP PROVIDER: Bruce MacCormack, former President of CanWest Interactive and former President/COO of MTS Advanced, has been named Senior VP Corporate Development of Modern Digital Communications, a Winnipeg provider of IP-based long distance services. NOMINATIONS SOUGHT FOR CIPA AWARDS: Canadian Information Productivity Awards has opened its twelfth annual competition for innovative use of technology. Nominations are due May 31. www.cipa.com LOOK REVENUES SLIDE: Wireless carrier Look Communications says its 2003 revenue was $48.8 million, down from $56.5 million in 2002. The company had a net loss of $6.4 million, compared to a net loss of $2.7 million in 2002. BELL CEO AND CABLE EXEC DEBATE REGULATION: In the April Telemanagement, now available to online subscribers, BCE CEO Michael Sabia argues that government policy should recognize that consumers now use wireless and Internet services as substitutes for local phone service. Cable Association President Michael Hennessy disagrees, saying that regulatory changes should restrict the telcos' continuing monopoly power. ** Also in this issue: John Riddell on problems with implementation and support of IP-PBXs; Ian Angus on the arrival of next-generation wireless broadband; and Gerry Blackwell's report on tests of local IP phone services from Primus and Vonage. ** To read these exclusive reports, plus our extensive library of past issues, columns, editorials, and feature reports, subscribe now by calling 800-263-4415 x500 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub-online.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2004 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 04:46:00 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net I had a voicemail number in Maryland several years ago. I was interested in getting the number for it listed in the book and called the local phone company (I was aware of a local group that was using a box on the same voice mail machine and had gotten it listed with directory assistance despite the fact the service was being offered by someone other than the local telco). I was told it could be done for about a three and a half dollar per month charge. I never actually did it, though. You should be calling the local telephone company business office in your area. You will likely get someone who doesn't understand what you are trying to do (demand to speak to a supervisor if this occurs). Find out what your local phone company would charge to do this. Anyone who looks into this should reply telling us what they found out. Good luck. Fred On 18 Apr 2004 16:03:18 -0700, _lr_@yahoo.com (Larry Rachman) wrote: > Yes, I know that usually the battle is to *keep* your number from > being listed, but that's not the case this time. > I have a phone number provided by an IP telephony provider, but it > does not come with a directory listing. Is there some way I can get > this number listed (as a business) by the various directory services > (both voice and 555-1212)? Surely, folks with blocks of DNIS lines > must have the same sort of issue. How is it done? > Thanks in advance, > Larry Rachman > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct; the 'default' on Bell > lines is be listed and pay extra for non-pub/non-listed numbers. On > toll-free 800, cell phones and VOIP the default is non-pub and they > do get a slight fortune to list someone. At one point I was going to > get an 800 number published; the service rep told me it could be done > but the cost was very prohibitive; I think $10 or $20 **per month** > on top of the cost for the service. Ask your service rep to set it up > for you if it really is worth it. I know Vonage does not make anything > off of it; it is strictly a 'pass through' (with Vonage as the agent) > to the 555-1212 and service bureaus. Outrageous? I thought so for my > puny, pitiful little thing; a seldom used 800 number. I've heard > someone at Vonage talk about an on-line directory of listed (Vonage) > numbers -- now about a quarter-million customers -- but I know nothing > about where it is going, if it is or not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:16:43 GMT In article , _lr_@yahoo.com says: > Yes, I know that usually the battle is to *keep* your number from > being listed, but that's not the case this time. > I have a phone number provided by an IP telephony provider, but it > does not come with a directory listing. Is there some way I can get > this number listed (as a business) by the various directory services > (both voice and 555-1212)? Surely, folks with blocks of DNIS lines > must have the same sort of issue. How is it done? > Thanks in advance, > Larry Rachman > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct; the 'default' on Bell > lines is be listed and pay extra for non-pub/non-listed numbers. On > toll-free 800, cell phones and VOIP the default is non-pub and they > do get a slight fortune to list someone. At one point I was going to > get an 800 number published; the service rep told me it could be done > but the cost was very prohibitive; I think $10 or $20 **per month** > on top of the cost for the service. Ask your service rep to set it up > for you if it really is worth it. I know Vonage does not make anything > off of it; it is strictly a 'pass through' (with Vonage as the agent) > to the 555-1212 and service bureaus. Outrageous? I thought so for my > puny, pitiful little thing; a seldom used 800 number. I've heard > someone at Vonage talk about an on-line directory of listed (Vonage) > numbers -- now about a quarter-million customers -- but I know nothing > about where it is going, if it is or not. PAT] Somehow I'm not listed and I'm not paying for the privilege. My billing records with the RBOC have always been FUBAR, for the first year I had service when I got my place in Providence I never got a phone bill. Even to this day, even though I've changed the number, I'm still not listed. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Almost the same thing happened to me around 1976. Telco put a phone in for me, outside plant (installation) failed to pass the paperwork along to the accounting people who just assumed my number was still not assigned. Then about a year later, of no telephone bills for that number, some -- well, phreak -- making a long distance call dumped a fraud charge on me, on *that* number. The coin-rated charge came through to accounting, fell out of the system when accounting was unable to attach it to anyone. The charge went into a suspense ledger queue waiting to be investigated and some overworked fraud specialist eventually investigated it. Investigator dialed the number, fully expecting to receive a 'not in service or disconnected' message so they could charge it back to the originating telco and clear one more suspense item from the ledger of same. Instead the number rang. Number in service, but no accounting records. Fraud investigator called outside plant asking what happened to the paperwork. When the bill finally came it was for service for about *one year* from date of install to the present date, plus the usual month in advance, which at that point (in the billing cycle) was about two weeks into the billing period as usual. That stung ... I called the business office to make a sort of pseudo-complaint. My service rep, Miss Prissy agreed to remove the fraud charge which had gotten the whole thing started since it was not mine, but she would not remove the year of service for which I was obligated. "But, Mr. Townson, you *knew* what was happening, and did not correct it." I was not in a position to complain too loudly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:13:52 GMT In article , jmayson@nyx.net says: >> Congress and the FCC, however, never determined exactly how to measure >> that 85%. FCC mass media bureau chief Ken Ferree said the plan is a >> way to make the switch as painless as possible but still get >> broadcasters to give up the analog frequencies. > The only way I can see this working is for the FCC to demand analog > sets stop being sold on a certain date, then a number of years later > demand TV stations drop their analog signals. > Today I have seen black and white portable sets for as low as $14.99! > We recently picked up some color 13" sets for under $100. There's no > mention anywhere that these sets will be useless before the end of the > decade. I wonder how many average consumers are aware of this? I can > see people buying analog TVs right up until the drop dead date. There'll still be plenty of TV's out there that are NTSC in 2009. Whatever replaces the bandwidth currently being used will be tuned by those sets. I've got a little 5" B&W unit with a variable tuner - I can pick up paging systems and public safety and interestingly, some cell traffic if I tune in just the right areas. Definitely a useful little device to have, if not just for watching television. The other thing to keep in mind about CRT based televisions is that over a period of about 5 years they're pretty much shot nowadays. I can already see my 5 year old set redding out. But then it gets heavy usage. Next set will in fact be a flat panel HDTV unit, I'm just waiting for the prices to bottom out, probably in another year or two as more content is offered. Put it this way, I can pull all the Providence and Boston stations no problem with a coat hanger antenna. Granted, the picture isn't always perfect but once we're talking a purely digital modulation with error correction I'll be able to pull probably 50% more stations with a basic antenna. The only thing that will be really nice about HDTV is the wide aspect ratio. But that will be for moot when Hollywood gets it's hooks in and decided what I can watch and where I can watch it. If it gets much worse I think I'm just going to toss the television entirely. I refuse to buy CD's until the RIAA stops it's warrantless war. If the MPAA gets any more power I just throw the finger to television and movies too. There are still books I haven't read. :) ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:10:49 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:33:59 GMT, jmayson@nyx.net wrote: >> Congress and the FCC, however, never determined exactly how to measure >> that 85%. FCC mass media bureau chief Ken Ferree said the plan is a >> way to make the switch as painless as possible but still get >> broadcasters to give up the analog frequencies. > The only way I can see this working is for the FCC to demand analog > sets stop being sold on a certain date, then a number of years later > demand TV stations drop their analog signals. > Today I have seen black and white portable sets for as low as $14.99! > We recently picked up some color 13" sets for under $100. There's no > mention anywhere that these sets will be useless before the end of the > decade. I wonder how many average consumers are aware of this? I can > see people buying analog TVs right up until the drop dead date. > John Mayson > Austin, Texas, USA > PS: > My message to the digest about digital TV might not have made sense. > I mentioned the low prices for televisions. My point was my family > and others I know are buying up these dirt cheap TVs. One for every > room! Why not? They're cheap. But in less than three years they're > going to be overpriced paperweights. I cannot believe the FCC is > allowing analog TVs to be sold today when their current plan to render > them useless in a little over 30 months. > John Very few people realize that there is a sunset on analog tv. Of those, very few actually believe it will happen. Congress forgets that the people that will be forced to buy a bunch of new tv's and convertors are the same people that elect them to office. I have never believed the Dec 31, 2006 sunset date for NTSC. Cellular still hasn't gone 100% digital, it seems odd to me that analog cellular seems to be getting a longer sunset period than analog television is getting (based on when digital cellular service first became available vs. when DTV became available). And people have more tv's than cellphones, I have two cellphones in my household, but have seven televisions. ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:26:41 UTC Organization: Hoeland quoting jmayson@nyx.net : >> Congress and the FCC never determined exactly how to measure that 85%. >> the plan is to make the switch as painless as possible but still get >> broadcasters to give up the analog frequencies. > The only way I can see this working is for the FCC to demand analog sets > stop being sold on a certain date, then a number of years later demand > TV stations drop their analog signals. (I'll interpreted this as "the only way this seems acceptable" rather than " ... this seems workable" -- and join you in "finding a hair in this soup" getting dished out, the way it appears here ...) > We recently picked up some color 13" sets for under $100. Heck, I've picked some up at that price with a built-in VCR capable of working at 220/110v AC and 12v DC ... and have one in the van and two on the boat now! :) > There's no mention anywhere that these sets will be useless before the end > of the decade. I wonder how many average consumers are aware of this? Hell no, (not to the extent that you-and-I were, at least ... and I refuse to believe that it will go over quite like that, as seems you do, too) > I can see people buying analog TVs right up until the drop dead date. Sure. And there will be an after-market market for gadgets to keep'em useful, converting the digital signal arriving on cable or over the air into an analog one ... plus there are all those VCRs and DVDs that "talk" to those TV's also ... ;-) > ...I cannot believe the FCC is allowing analog TVs to be sold today when > their current plan to render them useless in a little over 30 months. You want them to dictate that they be sold with some kind of sticker attached, alerting to that fact, right? Not "disallow" it (not that they could, I don't believe) ... I'd been wondering about that, too, and support that idea -- but guess who would like it *very little* ... ! :-) /"\ ASCII... ._. ||"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ || OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\ || I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || only quoted text in the first screen... ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Numbering Change For Mobile/Cellular in Israel April 20 Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:44:45 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom As of April 20, 2004 Israel's mobile telephone numbering will change. All mobile numbers will change from a three digit area code followed by six digits to a three digit area code followed by seven numbers. Also all the mobile operators, Cellcom, Pelephone and Orange will have a single code for each operator changing from the multiple codes presently in use. Basically the new 7 digit number will be composed of the last number of the old area code added to the old number to make the new number. The new code layout will officially go into affect on 1 November 2004, but up til that time there will be permissive to use either the old or new numbering. Pelephone is the exception (since their area code is 050.) http://www.wtng.info/wtng-ii.html#Israel remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #193 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 19 15:32:03 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3JJW3c20055; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:32:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404191932.i3JJW3c20055@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 #194 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:31:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 194 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Consumers Pick up on Net Phone Trend (VOIP News) Pennsylvania Regulator Declines to Take Action on VoIP (VOIP News) Morpheus Finds Its Voice - Peer-to-peer Service (VOIP News) VoIP, Inc. Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire (VOIP News) AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York (VOIP News) Nortel Proposes VoIP 911 Solution (VOIP News) Internet Telephone Service is Inexpensive Second Line (VOIP News) AT&T VoIP Petition Likely to be Denied (VOIP News) Article Illustrates One Big Advantage of Broadband and VoIP (VOIP News) Uniden Delivers Affordable VoIP Solution With New IP Phone (VOIP News) Re: Phone Line Connected to Satellite System Problems (J Kelly) Re: Spam Issues (werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Lisa Hancock) 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: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:57:49 -0400 Subject: Consumers Pick up on Net Phone Trend Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0404/19/etech19-126429.htm Trends By Scott Craven / The Arizona Republic If you're browsing for the next frontier in phones, stow your cell and eye the Internet. By the end of 2006, 1.8 million households will be making calls from phones plugged into the Net, up from 135,000 users in 2003, according to In-Stat/MDR, a research firm that tracks the telecommunications industry. 'This is not a passing thing,' said Daryl Schoolar, a senior analyst for In-Stat/MDR. "We're going to see more movement toward VoIP services." VoIP (pronounced 'voyp' and standing for Voice over Internet Protocol) refers to calls transmitted over the Internet, bypassing the wires and networks owned by phone companies as well as their charges. VoIP's limitations (poor vocal quality and confusing software) have been overcome, which could raise the technology from quaint status to phone of the future. "VoIP is the start of a telecom evolution," said Kevin Mitchell, an analyst for Boston-based Infonetic Research, which tracks emerging telecommunications technology. Full story at: http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0404/19/etech19-126429.htm How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: Pennsylvania Regulator Declines to Take Action on VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/44h197129.html The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission has voted unanimously to refrain from regulating Internet-based phone service while it monitors developments at the FCC. The vote heralded the conclusion of a year-long proceeding investigating VoIP services like Vonage, according to the service provider. Full story at: http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/44h197129.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:25:20 -0400 Subject: Morpheus Finds Its Voice - Peer-to-Peer Service Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115686,00.asp Peer-to-peer service teams with i2Telecom to expand into Internet-based telephony. Liane Cassavoy, PC World Morpheus users who rely on the peer-to-peer service to swap files will soon have another option to get connected: The Morpheus Voicebox, which lets you turn a household landline phone into an Internet-based, Voice-over-IP telephone. StreamCast Networks, the parent company of Morpheus, is teaming with i2Telecom, a provider of VoIP services for businesses, to begin offering the service this week. The Morpheus software has been downloaded more than 122 million times since it launched in 2001, and the company estimates 250,000 to 300,000 people use the application every day. This wide user base is the first target for Morpheus Voicebox. "Morpheus has millions of loyal customers around the world. Their users are tech savvy, and most of them have broadband connections, so this seemed like a natural fit," says Rick Scherle, i2Telecom's vice president of marketing. This deal marks the first time i2Telecom's services have been offered to consumers. The Morpheus Voicebox is available from MorpheusVoicebox.com for $49.95. The device plugs into your phone and your computer's Internet connection, and lets you use either your regular landline connection or the VoIP connection, which you acces by pressing pound before dialing a phone number. Users also pay a one-time setup fee of $25, plus fees for a choice of subscriptions. Full story at: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115686,00.asp ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:32:26 -0400 Subject: VoIP, Inc. Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032682.htm VoIP, Inc. Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire a California-based WiFi Company FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. --(Business Wire)-- April 19, 2004 -- VoIP, Inc. today announced that it has signed a Letter of Intent to acquire Apex Sight, LLC., a Calif.-based WiFi technology company which will become a wholly owned subsidiary of VoIP, Inc. Apex Sight, LLC. designs and manufactures high-speed, wireless fidelity (WiFi) products for the growing wireless local area networking (WLAN), public WLAN (PWLAN), and wireless Internet service provider (WISP) markets. Apex Sight's patented, proprietary designs are based upon the latest innovations in 3rd and 4th-generation WiFi technology. Andrew Corp, one of the world's largest antenna distributors, will market Apex Sight's antennas in over 40 countries. The pending acquisition of Apex Sight will continue VoIP, Inc.'s expansion in the field of Voice over IP and WiFi technology. The expected convergence of the two technologies will create shareholder value by allowing VoIP, Inc. to dominate the industry by providing a combined solution provided by Apex Sight and VoIP Solutions, Inc.'s technology. Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032682.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:29:26 -0400 Subject: AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York [and elsewhere] Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2004/0002153898&EDATE= AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York Coast-to-Coast Rollout Continues With Expansion to 11 Markets Including New York City, Long Island, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco Introductory Promotion Offers Unlimited Calling and Advanced Features At 50 Percent Off Regular Price of $39.99 per Month NEW YORK, April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T today launched the next phase of its residential Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone service, called AT&T CallVantage(SM) Service, providing the residents of New York City, Long Island and Westchester County a high-tech alternative for their personal communications needs. AT&T CallVantage Service began setting benchmarks two weeks ago for what the company believes will be the industry's most reliable and innovative broadband phone service in the country as it made the service generally available to consumers in New Jersey and Texas. Now the company is expanding its service footprint into New York for consumers from Peekskill to Staten Island to Suffolk County. The service will be further expanded to serve other areas of the Empire State and the nation over the coming months. Today, the company also announced the local availability of AT&T CallVantage Service in parts of California and San Antonio, Texas. Full press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2004/0002153898&EDATE= ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:12:44 -0400 Subject: Nortel Proposes VoIP 911 Solution Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197180&siteid=3 by Donny Jackson Telephony, Apr 19, 2004 Many hail voice-over-IP calling as the future of voice communications, but one of the primary technical hurdles for VoIP providers is getting access to the emergency 911 system. a priority for regulators and often a market prerequisite for customers considering VoIP as a primary-line alternative. Currently, there is no standard method connecting VoIP calls to public service access points (PSAP), which were designed to work with legacy, circuit-switched networks. As a result, most 911 services from VoIP providers direct emergency calls to a PSAP's administrative office instead of connecting directly to a 911 dispatcher. This patch creates potentially costly time delays in responding to a caller in crisis, but there are also other problems. A VoIP phone is mobile and can be used anywhere there is a broadband connection, so the phone number associated with the device cannot be used to determine the nearest PSAP to call or the caller's location. With this in mind, Nortel Networks last month offered a proposal at the National Emergency Number Association Technical Development Conference that is designed to tackle these VoIP-related 911 problems by using the infrastructure created to solve 911 challenges in another mobile area: connecting wireless users to the current 911 architecture. Full story at: http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197180&siteid=3 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:46:20 -0400 Subject: Internet Telephone Service is Inexpensive Second Line Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001906710_btsoho19.html By Michael J. Himowitz The Baltimore Sun For the past week or so, the phone on my desk hasn't been plugged into its usual wall jack. Instead, it's been plugged into a little white box that routes my calls over the Internet. Most of the people I've called can't tell the difference. Traditional phone companies are worried about these boxes because they represent cheap and -- so far -- unregulated competition, on top of the business they've lost to wireless carriers. Full story at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001906710_btsoho19.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:08:41 -0400 Subject: AT&T VoIP Petition Likely to be Denied Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197160&siteid=3 by Donny Jackson Telephony, Apr 19, 2004 AT&T's declaratory petition that would exempt the carrier from access charges when it connects phone-to-phone calls using its IP backbone as transport will be denied by the FCC imminently, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. As a result, AT&T and other carriers using IP networks to transport calls from one public-switched telephone network to another will have to pay the same access fees that would be charged if the call was transported over a circuit-switched network. This likely will result in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs annually to AT&T, according to several industry experts. "Access charge disputes are basically unrefereeable; it's gray area upon gray area," [Precursor CEO Scott Cleland] said. "That's the reason why they're going to bill and keep [in the proposed revamping of the intercarrier compensation regime] because it's not worth the hassle." Full story at: http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=7&releaseid=12187&magazinearticleid=197160&siteid=3 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:57:39 -0400 Subject: Article Illustrates one big Advantage of Broadband + VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com [This may seem a bit off-topic but to me it illustrates one of the big selling points of broadband plus a VoIP service. With that combination, something like this could not happen, because there would be no need to use a dial-up Internet connection in the first place, but also because with an unlimited VoIP plan there's no danger that what you think is a local call will wind up being charged as a toll call (unless it's an international call, and some companies such as VoicePulse and Vonage offer international call blocking that can be enabled via the customer's web interface, so it can be temporarily disabled if you really do need to make an international call).] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-19-aol-vs-customers_x.htm N.H. attorney general seeks to help couple with online bill LITCHFIELD, N.H. (AP) The state attorney general's office has intervened on behalf of a couple who ran up more than $3,400 in phone bills after running an America Online program designed to improve their Internet connection. Ken Pedersen, 67, of Litchfield, said he ran AOL's AutoFix on Feb. 26 because he kept losing his Internet connection. After running the program, Pedersen's service improved, but his dial-up number had changed without his knowledge from a free local call to a regional toll call, he said. Then from Feb. 26 to March 15, the Pedersens left their computer on day and night with the Internet connected tallying thousands of minutes of toll calls. The Pedersens says they didn't realize their dial-up number was changed to a toll call until they received their phone bill. They now owe Verizon $3,424. For now, the Pedersens have decided to pay only their normal monthly bill of $24.84. They canceled both their Verizon and AOL service on March 24 and now subscribe to Adelphia's high speed cable Internet service. Full story at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-19-aol-vs-customers_x.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:58:14 -0400 Subject: Uniden Delivers Affordable VoIP Solution With New IP Phone Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032740.htm Uniden America Corporation, manufacturer and marketer of wireless consumer electronic products, announced the introduction of its latest Voice over IP (VoIP) phone. The UIP200 offers a high-quality IP solution at an affordable price (MSRP $149), making VoIP more accessible for businesses. Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032740.htm ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Phone Line Connected to Satellite System Problems Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:13:22 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:43:03 -0400, Keith Knipschild wrote: > I recently got a Satellite System installed from DISH Network, The > receiver needs to be connected to a phone line otherwise Dish charges > $5 a month. > But I seem to be having a problem, The DISH receiver does not > recognize my phone line, (Which is POTS) it fails on a phone line > test. > I then remembered that since I have VOICE DIALING, the dial tone is > very brief ... Maybe that is causing the failure. > So I did a test, from my phone I dialed *98 (This extends the Dial > Tone) and did a phone line test on my DISH receiver and it Worked just > fine. (I think the Extended Dial Tone only lasts for 1 call). > Does anyone know how to cure this problem? Is it DISH's receiver or > VERIZON'S problem with Voice Dialing ? > BTW: Verizon does not Support Voice Dialing anymore, they don't offer > it anymore, but existing customers can continue to use it. > Keith Does the Dish have a place to tell it to dial *98 to access the line, therefore extending the dialtone? I recall seeing a place to set a code to dial to access an outside line, but maybe it was only the option to dial 9. I'm not near one of my Dish boxes at the moment to check. ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Spam Issues Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:25:32 UTC Organization: Hoeland First and foremost, no, this topic should never have made it in here (I think). I don't perceive this list to be for *that*... (intemperate, inappropriately worded) complaint -- not to call it a malicious rant, with followup posts "more of the same kind"-- it should have been recognized for what it is, and the poster informed that "the news.admin.net-abuse.* hierarchy of newsgroups is *over there*" ... but the poster knew that already, being familiar with *that* "over there", and his post here wasn't at all *innocent* ... is what I make it it! So sue me for my opinion! :) SELLCOM and SELL.COM ?!? KILL-filed here "on sight" (if I could bounce *everything* from/about them at the router level, I would -- and, hell no, I don't discuss the merits of that attitude/policy with anyone there, especially not someone who uses the 4-line signature for advertising). Heck, I didn't even know there was a thread started by/about them here, until one of the posters on the SELECT-list in my KILL-file posted a comment). quoting usenet@rusling.org : > SELLCOM Tech support wrote: >>> I say hooray for FIVE-TEN; and stop whining and dump your >>> spam-friendly provider. Blocklisting an entire /16 or /24 block >>> of IP's will sometimes get a provider's attention when all *else* >>> failed ... Exactly. Of course one of the blocklists will "list you first" ... Of course one of the blocklists "is more agressive than others"... Of course those of us who use blocklists appreciate that fact ... (that there are lists which represent different approaches, different ways of thinking, different patience levels) ... A university (or other large organization) might have reason to decide they can't afford (don't want the hassle/responsibility of) rejecting *any* mail *ever* that might prove "false" (as "the merit of the doubt" becomes awfully hard to judge when you have the kind of traffic we have) ... and might decide not to use any block-lists. While in small organizations and private networks, it *IS* desirable to blocklist all of Asia, Latin-America ... even all of AOL, YAHOO, ... AND all of Verizon's IP-blocks! :) (and if you had to deal with the amounts of TRASH I get *here* but not *there* you'd understand why). The way things play out, usually, is that "if *they* don't heed the warning calls by aggressive block-listers, pretty soon they appear "in the rest, then in all of them"... >> What an idiot! Verizon does not let spammers run on their network. >> The trash at FIVETEN are also known for refusing to remove blocks even >> when ISPs deal with the spammers. Steve at SELLCOM I've felt sorry for some that "got caught" by the side-effect of block-listing (and slow learning/reacting ISPs) --I mean, it is not all that hard to think 'it could happen to me, too!' -- but *THIS ONE* ... ?!? ... I have no sympathy for *at all, *NONE WHATSOEVER ! /"\ ASCII... ._. ||"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ || OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\ || I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || only quoted text in the first screen... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to make a point here. First of all, I maintain a **public** mailing list on which everyone (mostly) is free to participate. I feel I am morally obligated to **at least give a cursory examination** to every piece of mail that comes to me for the Digest. Much -- maybe the vast majority -- of it these days is a total waste of time and goes into my trash bucket immediatly or shortly thereafter, but for myself, and that's the only person I can speak for, I do not dare to run a kill file type of thing. Second point is, so many kill files, IMO, (note, I did *not* say spam blacklists) are based more on the prima-donna attitudes of their owners than anything else, i.e. "I do not like that poster's opinion on [name the topic, his politics, his sexuality, his religion, etc], so I am going to automatically kill his stuff, not even force my virgin eyes and virgin brain to read or examine his stuff, or God forbid! be subject to having to think about it. Yet the very same people, who moan and bitch about how 'library internet filtering' (to name one example) is likely to prevent someone from reading their material are often times the very ones who want to operate kill files for *their own reasons*. At least I, when I choose to use my (moderator-defined) kill file, tell you about it. I am going to close this thread 'Spam Issues' in two more issues, in order to give delayed readers one or two more chances to speak in this forum about it. This is a last chance call for anyone who wants to comment on it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:10:42 UTC Organization: Hoeland Quoting Barry Margolin: > Steven J Sobol wrote: >> Ron Chapman wrote: >>> I agree. I've killfiled this author... >> I don't see it as being any different from the stuff that >> Monty Solomon posts, except that he doesn't focus on VoIP. > I find the volume of it extremely annoying, and not very interesting > They're mostly just press releases ... I agree with all three (four) preceding ... (and if the moderator would leave in the References- and Message-ID headers, I would be able to call it a thread, as then my news-reader could recognize and treat it as such. Why, the heck, do they get changed/removed anyways? It's not necessary, it's not a good idea, it's a nuisance, it's *not done* ... !!) ...in fact, the "trend" obvious (pointed out) from the comments by Ron, Steve and Barry (and ?) above/earlier in TELECOM had caused me to unsubscribe and quit paying attention to this forum altogether years ago ... (after for many years having considered it a "most useful and appreciated information resource") ... that and ... >> [ TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I may know why. Some people are >> having a very difficult time dealing with the fact that the handwriting >> is on the wall for traditional telephony. ... that and the moderators obnoxious way of putting down some posters (the above is not 'countering an opinion'!) and not posting *his* comments under his own FROM-header (so one can avoid getting annoyed by them over-and-over- and-over ... the KILL-file *IS* my friend!) while reading the insights posted by people one has learned to appreciate over the years and *chosen* (again, using the KILL-file, selecting to read, rather than ignore) to hear from and pay attention to. The history and tradition of this forum (going back all the way to the days of ARPAnet mailing-lists) was to have a moderator to avoid hassles (bounces, administrative requests, off-topic, etc), volume (duplication of information and statements of opinion), and, quite frankly, uninsightful fluff (of that trade press ilk) -- NOT to have a moderator pipe in with his opinion (nearly in every 'opinion post' by others), not to have him think of this as "his list to do with whatever he wants", and certainly not to put his "spin" on posts -- putting down some comments and commentators, the way I've see it happen over-and-over again here). The academics and research community *back then* wouldn't have stood still for this. I guess that has changed, too, as most have turned their back at this/such forums, because of the decline of standards (that's what they tell me, anyways). I used to enjoy TELECOM (and many other such) and participate in discussions, but no more ... ... what *WAS* I thinking anyways when I changed my .newsrc and "turned on" comp.telecom again ?!!? :( /"\ ASCII... ._. ||"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ || OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE/( )\ || I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || only quoted text in the first screen... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Again, a couple points: I do not think Mr. Werner is **really serious** about wanting *all* the headers left in messages. A Digest is not intended to do that. It is intended to be a short, concise presentation of the essence of the message. Headers are frequently double or triple the size of the actual message text itself. However, if Mr. Werner wants to see the message headers followed by a single line of text "I agree with you" or whatver, then he can view this Digest in Usenet rather than read the Digest format. Actually even the Usenet version is sort of modified, header-wise, since all the indicia at the start which *I* recieved is mostly removed however it is replaced by new indicia when NNTP poster-daemon works on it to place it at newswitch.mit.edu or alt.net or various other news drops. I note that Mr. Werner does not have any objections to the tons of trash I otherwise zap out each day, probably a gig of html- style messages and spam, etc. Only the headers, and I suppose if he objects to the 'semi-modified' headers as they get into c.d.t. he could read other telecom-related news groups and get the full headers along with the obligatory quote first, answer follows a few screens later 'me too' if that is what he likes better. I don't think he likes it that I patiently 'squeeze' his .signature together (removing many of the white spaces) in order to get it in a 78-row wide space [while attempting to preserve his 'ASCII art work'] either, to keep it from slopping all over and becoming five or six lines instead of as it is now. Everyone does their own thing these days, Mr. Werner, and that includes me. Like 'spam issues' above, I want to close out 'What is VOIP News' in the next day or two, if anyone reads late and wants to get in a final word or two. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: 19 Apr 2004 08:40:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I may know why. Some people are > having a very difficult time dealing with the fact that the handwriting > is on the wall for traditional telephony. Oh, I am like most everyone > else: I'll always have at least one line served by Traditional Bell in > my home (or in my case, the UNE-P Prairie Stream equivilent) as long > as they are still made and installed. But if you cannot see that VOIP > is the direction things are going, then I pity you. PAT] I am not familiar enough to comment on your prediction. However, I hope that this technology doesn't just milk the cream and drag everybody else down. The traditional phone companies are saddled with considerable regulatory requirements -- accomodate non-paying deadbeats, provide service in unprofitable communities, provide extremely high reliability, offer low rates, all taxes (911, "relay") etc. Based on the last 20 years, newcomers to the telecom business had it easy. They only served the most profitable customers, leaving the unprofitable and regulatory stuff to the long time companies. MCI didn't have to worry about a reliable network since if it failed or was too crowded, AT&T could handle the load for it; so it never suffered from poor service complaints. Yet it still went bankrupt, and dragged along the rest of the industry. Those of us who suffer with 10 digit dialing (many of whom got by with only 5 digits not too long ago), don't think it's fair that newcomers, with exchanges everywhere, tie up huge chunks of lines that force area code splits and overlays. When a Baby Bell screws up, it makes front page news and gives them nasty publicity. But when a non-Bell screws up or defrauds customers, no one notices. I believe one wireless company -- T-Mobile, changed its name twice in recent years, previously being OminiPoint and something else (Jamie Lee Curtis spokesperson). Doesn't that seem strange to anyone? Some new company offered unlimited local and long distance for a cheap, as its bold type headlines blared. Except the cheap price advertised wasn't the cheap price offered. But I guess that's ok. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Lisa, of pure economic necessity I think, the 'newer players' in telco in the past twenty years have had to rely on the groundwork Bell established at the start of the last century. No one at all in the past twenty years or maybe thirty years if you include the beginning days of MCI and Sprint could ever begin to build the infrastructure, etc. Yes, we called it 'skimming the cream' in a disparaging way, but that's what Bell did also in the beginning. The first telephone exchanges in the 1880's were the very big, concentrated cities like Chicago, New York, etc. Then Bell ranted and raved about how 'MCI milked the profitable east coast corridor' when they began, as if that was a new technique. And MCI lied about the costs people would pay when they first started their 'get one over on Bell' campaign in the 1970's. I just wish this Digest could have been around in those days, with a large readership so people could have been able to know more about the industry. There was *Telephony* Magazine in those days, but it was more of an industry publication (meaning Bell) than anything else. Anyone further want to add to this thread whose close out is pending? PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #194 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 19 23:15:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3K3FCK23949; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:15:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404200315.i3K3FCK23949@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 #195 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:14:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 195 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Nokia 6610i Phone: Fully MMS-Enabled Companion for Work (M Solomon) Leading Broadcast Companies to Deploy Products and Services (M Solomon) DVD Producer - WMV HD Edition (Monty Solomon) High-Definition Video Production Solution for Windows XP (Monty Solomon) HP Outlines Plan to Help Broadcast Industry Capitalize (Monty Solomon) HP and DreamWorks Give Innovation a Starring Role in "Shrek 2" (Solomon) Matsushita, Apple Develop Editing System (Monty Solomon) AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York (Monty Solomon) Privacy Group Files Google Gmail Complaints (Monty Solomon) Affluent Americans Power Internet Growth (Monty Solomon) Sony Ericsson Reports a Strong Increase in Shipments (Monty Solomon) BellSouth Introduces 3.0Mbps Speed to Broadband Portfolio (M Solomon) Fiber Optics' Future Is Focus of SBC Test Project (Monty Solomon) Sprint, AT&T Wireless Reach Wi-Fi Deal (Monty Solomon) MCI Faces Tough Road After Exiting Bankruptcy (Monty Solomon) MIT'S Technology Review Magazine Recognize Lucent Technologies (Solomon) Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately (Tony P.) T1 Voice or E1 line in Germany (gb) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Tony P.) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Mark Crispin) Re: Signaling Reference (Shar) Telecom Changes, was Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Danny Burstein) Verizon's Get It Now Vs. Sprint PCS's Vision (Eric Friedebach) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:52:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Nokia 6610i Phone: Fully MMS-Enabled Companion for Work The Nokia 6610i Phone: Fully MMS-Enabled Companion for Work And Leisure HELSINKI, Finland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2004--Today Nokia introduced the new Nokia 6610i mobile phone, featuring an integrated camera, complete MMS functionality and an FM radio. The Nokia 6610i triband mobile phone (GSM 900/1800/1900) offers a classic design, color screen and a solid set of features including Java(TM) technology, an XHTML browser and SyncML. Comfortably styled in a familiar design, the Nokia 6610i is estimated to begin shipping in Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia in the second quarter of 2004. The unsubsidized, untaxed retail price for the Nokia 6610i is expected to be around EUR 250. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41099898 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:48:21 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Leading Broadcast Companies to Deploy Products and Services Microsoft Announces Leading Broadcast Companies to Deploy Products and Services Based on Windows Media 9 Series Rainbow DBS's Satellite Service VOOM, U.S. Digital Television and Akimbo to Support Windows Media 9 Series; Submission of VC-9 to SMPTE Reaches Committee Draft Status LAS VEGAS, April 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today at NAB2004, Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) announced that leading broadcast companies are developing or deploying tools and services that support Microsoft(R) Windows Media(R) 9 Series. Among the companies adopting Windows Media 9 Series for its high quality and compression efficiency are Rainbow DBS, the satellite services division of Cablevision Systems Corp.; Akimbo Systems; Shanghai Broadcasting Lab; and U.S. Digital Television Inc. (USDTV). Rainbow DBS's satellite service, VOOM, is the first television service to offer a comprehensive array of high-definition (HD) programming to customers throughout the continental United States. VOOM will use Windows Media 9 Series as one of the compression technologies to expand its available satellite capacity for HD offerings from more than 30 to more than 60 channels. VOOM plans to roll out advanced codecs beginning with standard definition (SD) later this year and HD next year. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41099674 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:49:55 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DVD Producer - WMV HD Edition Microsoft and Sonic Unveil DVD Authoring Application for Windows Media Video High-Definition Sonic Launches WMV HD Beta Program for DVD Producer - WMV HD Edition LAS VEGAS, April 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today at NAB2004, Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Sonic Solutions (Nasdaq: SNIC) unveiled DVD Producer(TM) - WMV HD Edition, a special version of Sonic's award-winning professional authoring application that supports the production of DVD titles using Microsoft(R) Windows Media(R) Video High-Definition (WMV HD). WMV HD delivers dramatically superior image quality with high-definition video at data rates comparable to standard-definition DVD video. Sonic is launching a beta program for DVD Producer - WMV HD Edition to provide high-end professional facilities with early access to this groundbreaking technology so they can build exciting high-definition experiences using WMV HD for playback on Windows(R) XP PCs. Production companies interested in joining the beta program may contact Sonic via e-mail at hdbeta@sonic.com . - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41099677 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:51:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: High-Definition Video Production Solutions for Windows XP Affordable Windows PC Architecture and New Tools From Adobe, BOXX Technologies and CineForm Now Enable Real-Time, Multistream 10-Bit Professional Workflows LAS VEGAS, April 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today at NAB2004, Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) announced that Windows(R) XP and Windows Media(R) 9 Series are powering leading software and hardware solutions for the professional film, video and broadcast production community, and enabling real-time, end-to-end, high-definition (HD) video production on the desktop for the first time. Solutions from Adobe, BOXX Technologies Inc. and CineForm Inc. are now available for Windows XP, making desktop real-time, multistream, 10-bit high-definition serial digital interface (HD-SDI) video editing a reality. In addition, real-time Windows Media Video 9 Series HD (WMV HD) encoding is being demonstrated at the show, with both software-only and hardware-accelerated solutions. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41099678 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:56:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: HP Outlines Plan to Help Broadcast Industry Capitalize on Digital Digital Revolution LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2004--HP (NYSE:HPQ) (Nasdaq:HPQ) -- Company combines intellectual property and partnerships to build industry's first Digital Media Platform -- HP teams with Warner Bros. and DreamWorks to enhance creation, distribution and consumption of digital content At the National Association of Broadcasters conference today, HP advanced its digital entertainment strategy with a series of product, partner and customer announcements focused on enabling media and entertainment companies to capitalize on the digital revolution that is transforming their industry. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41100787 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:59:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: HP and DreamWorks Give Innovation a Starring Role in 'Shrek 2' Movie-Making Magic Enhanced with Utility Computing Power and Global Collaboration Tools - Apr 19, 2004 07:46 AM (BusinessWire) LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2004--HP (NYSE:HPQ)(Nasdaq:HPQ) and DreamWorks today marked the latest chapter in their alliance by unveiling innovative, new technologies for off-site animation rendering and remote collaboration -- next-generation solutions that are enabling DreamWorks Animation to shape the future of digital filmmaking. Built on a technology partnership that began in 2001, the collaboration provides DreamWorks Animation with state-of-the-art technology solutions from HP, which are being used to bring to life some of the most advanced animated images and characters. These will be seen in soon-to-be released feature films "Shrek 2," "Shark Tale" and "Madagascar" and the NBC computer-animated TV series, "Father of the Pride," debuting this fall. HP's Utility Rendering Service (URS), developed by HP in close collaboration with DreamWorks, addresses a very real and expensive problem in creating digital animation. URS provides a simple, flexible and scalable solution to manage the enormous amount of computational power that is needed to render high-quality film animation. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41100793 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:01:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Matsushita, Apple Develop Editing System TOKYO (AP) -- Japanese electronics giant Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. and Apple Computer Inc. plan to market a digital video editing system that would simplify and lower the costs for TV stations and production companies in creating TV broadcasts, movies and DVDs. The technology links Apple's Macintosh-brand computers and digital video-editing software to a soon-to-be-released Matsushita video recorder, Yoshihiro Kitadeya, a spokesman for Matsushita, said Monday. Matsushita also manufactures products under the Panasonic brand. It would allow TV program producers, film studios and advertisers to churn out programs, ads and movies in the increasingly popular format that high-definition television sets and digital movie projectors use, Kitadeya said. The package, which combines text and video and digital animation, is expected to cost less than $37,000, well below the $463,000 price tag for conventional production and editing equipment, Kitadeya said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41100856 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:02:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T's CallVantage Service Expands to New York Coast-to-Coast Rollout Continues With Expansion to 11 Markets Including New York City, Long Island, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. Introductory Promotion Offers Unlimited Calling and Advanced Features At 50 Percent Off Regular Price of $39.99 per Month NEW YORK, April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T today launched the next phase of its residential Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone service, called AT&T CallVantage(SM) Service, providing the residents of New York City, Long Island and Westchester County a high-tech alternative for their personal communications needs. AT&T CallVantage Service began setting benchmarks two weeks ago for what the company believes will be the industry's most reliable and innovative broadband phone service in the country as it made the service generally available to consumers in New Jersey and Texas. Now the company is expanding its service footprint into New York for consumers from Peekskill to Staten Island to Suffolk County. The service will be further expanded to serve other areas of the Empire State and the nation over the coming months. Today, the company also announced the local availability of AT&T CallVantage Service in parts of California and San Antonio, Texas. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41100934 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:06:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy Group Files Google Gmail Complaints By Lucas van Grinsven and Bernhard Warner AMSTERDAM/LONDON, April 19 (Reuters) - Google Inc.'s free e-mail service Gmail came under fresh fire on Monday, when an international privacy rights group said the soon-to-be-launched service violated privacy laws across Europe and elsewhere. Privacy International, which has offices in the United States and Europe, said it filed complaints with privacy and data-protection regulators in 17 countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. It had already filed an initial complaint in Britain. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41101532 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:08:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Affluent Americans Power Internet Growth Affluent Americans Power Internet Growth, According to Nielsen//NetRatings Upper Income Surfers Show Highest Concentration of Broadband Users NEW YORK, April 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Nielsen//NetRatings, the global standard for Internet audience measurement and analysis, shows that affluent Americans are the fastest growing income group online. Surfers with total household incomes of $150K and higher grew 31 percent year-over-year at home to nearly 7.9 million individuals (see Table 1). Those earning between $75K-100K increased to 26.4 million in March 2004, as compared to 20.7 million a year ago. Internet users with upper incomes ranging from $100K-150K rose 24 percent since last March. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41101710 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sony Ericsson Reports a Strong Increase in Shipments and Record Sony Ericsson Reports a Strong Increase in Shipments and Record Profits for the First Quarter of 2004 - Apr 19, 2004 10:00 AM (BusinessWire) TOKYO & STOCKHOLM, Sweden--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2004--Sony (NYSE:SNE) and Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERICY) today announced the consolidated financial summary for the first quarter ended March 31, 2004 of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB (Sony Ericsson), the 50:50 joint venture of Sony and Ericsson. Units shipped in the quarter reached 8.8 million, a 63% increase compared to the same period last year. Sales for the quarter were Euro 1,338 million, representing a year-on-year increase of 66%. Income before taxes was Euro 97 million and net income was Euro 82 million, which represent year-on-year improvements of Euro 210 million and Euro 186 million respectively. While the year on year growth in shipments and sales reflects solid performance improvements across business units and regions, income before taxes was exceptionally strong due to favourable market conditions. In addition, the restructuring measures that were taken in 2003 are now fully contributing to the bottom line. In an overall strong mobile phone market, shipments from Sony Ericsson reached an all time high as its product offering in the mid- and entry level segments continued to gain momentum. Market share is estimated to have increased during the quarter thanks to strong demand and increased operational efficiencies. Sony Ericsson has increased its estimate for the global market for 2004 from approximately 520 million units to over 550 million units. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41102468 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:15:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: BellSouth Introduces 3.0Mbps Speed to Broadband Portfolio -- BellSouth Provides Customers with Higher Speeds and More Options -- ATLANTA, April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- BellSouth (NYSE:BLS) today announced the expansion of its digital subscriber line (DSL) Internet service options with the launch of a 3.0Mbps service. This new service provides residential and business customers with greater speeds, more flexibility, and additional options when selecting a broadband service from BellSouth. The service delivers download speeds of up to 3.0Mbps and upload speeds of up to 384Kbps. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41102266 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:32:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Fiber Optics' Future Is Focus of SBC Test Project DIALING IN COMPETITION Fiber Optics' Future Is Focus of SBC Test Project The phone company is experimenting with a technology it may not have to share with rivals. By James S. Granelli, Times Staff Writer SAN FRANCISCO - The future of telecommunications lies at the end of a strand of glass, like the one in a closet in Ross Greenman's apartment. The first-year student at UC Hastings College of Law lives in one of about 15,000 California homes connected directly to fiber-optic cables that supply super-fast access to everything digital - from online movies and music to Web pages and videoconferencing. For about the same price as more common and less reliable digital subscriber lines and cable modem service, Greenman and other residents of the 303-acre Mission Bay apartment and condominium development being built here can plug into a sturdy fiber-optic network that is impervious to weather and hardly ever goes down. "I'm definitely pleased with it," said Greenman, who gets phone and Internet service over fiber. So, too, is SBC Communications Inc., California's dominant local phone service provider. SBC installed the network at Mission Bay to test the feasibility of using fiber-optic technology on a mass scale. So far, it's found, the lines are easier and cheaper to maintain than traditional copper and give the company more flexibility to roll out cutting-edge services. One of those services, for instance, could be cable-like television programming with video-on-demand. It is testing such a service with a handful of Mission Bay residents. Most significant for SBC, it doesn't have to share its fiber with competitors, which it must do with its basic telephone network. That exclusivity for those installing fiber came last year when the Federal Communications Commission carved out a broadband exception to the phone competition rules it created under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Competition has pushed retail prices down, saving customers across the country an estimated $10 billion a year. Last month, a federal appeals court threw out the FCC's phone competition rules, giving regulators until June 15 to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the court upheld the FCC's broadband rules, giving SBC and other Baby Bells carte blanche control over new fiber-optic networks. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-missionbay19apr19,1,4039247.story ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:56:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sprint, AT&T Wireless Reach Wi-Fi Deal OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) -- Sprint Corp. and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. have reached a wireless Internet roaming agreement for five U.S. airports. The deal announced Monday will allow Sprint PCS customers to use AT&T Wireless' Wi-Fi network at Denver International, Philadelphia International and Raleigh-Durham International airports. AT&T Wireless customers will be able to use Sprint's Wi-Fi network at Kansas City International and Salt Lake City International airports. Wi-Fi, short for wireless fidelity, radiates a high-speed Internet connection that many computers can share for about 300 feet _ a single "hot spot." The deal between Redmond, Wash.-based AT&T Wireless and Overland Park, Kan.-based Sprint allows the companies' respective Wi-Fi customers to "roam" using their existing accounts. AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile, a unit of Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG, forged a similar agreement in February. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41105853 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:57:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: MCI Faces Tough Road After Exiting Bankruptcy By Justin Hyde WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - Long-distance phone major MCI plans to emerge from bankruptcy on Tuesday after 21 months, having shed $36 billion in debt, much of its top management and the WorldCom name now synonymous with accounting scandals. The reorganized MCI (PK:WCOEQ) will have a new board of directors, some 20 million customers and a healthy balance sheet. But it will jump back into a market that has grown more cutthroat since WorldCom declared bankruptcy in July 2002, with more competitors chasing fewer dollars. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41105886 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:22:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: MIT'S Technology Review Magazine Recognizes Lucent Technologies MIT'S Technology Review Magazine Recognizes Lucent Technologies for 'Killer Patent' on Voice Over IP - Apr 19, 2004 11:01 AM (PR Newswire) Bell Labs' Method for Improving the Quality of VoIP Service Named One of 2003's Top Five Patented New Technologies MURRAY HILL, N.J., April 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Technology Review, MIT's magazine of innovation, has selected Lucent Technologies' (NYSE:LU) patent for improving the quality of service for network traffic such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) as one of its 'Five Killer Patents'. The honor marks the third straight year that one of Lucent's patents from Bell Labs has been included on the publication's annual list of the five most important patents issued during the previous year. The list appears in the May 2004 issue of Technology Review and on the web at www.technologyreview.com (see current issue). This patent, U.S. No. 6,529,499, granted to Lucent on March 3, 2003, was also the 30,000th patent Bell Labs has received since its inception in 1925. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41103073 ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Getting Your Number Listed Deliberately Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:44:16 GMT In article , kd1s@nospamplease.verizon.reallynospam.net says... > Somehow I'm not listed and I'm not paying for the privilege. My billing > records with the RBOC have always been FUBAR, for the first year I had > service when I got my place in Providence I never got a phone bill. Even > to this day, even though I've changed the number, I'm still not listed. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Almost the same thing happened to me > around 1976. Telco put a phone in for me, outside plant (installation) > failed to pass the paperwork along to the accounting people who just > assumed my number was still not assigned. Then about a year later, of > no telephone bills for that number, some -- well, phreak -- making a > long distance call dumped a fraud charge on me, on *that* number. The > coin-rated charge came through to accounting, fell out of the system > when accounting was unable to attach it to anyone. The charge went > into a suspense ledger queue waiting to be investigated and some > overworked fraud specialist eventually investigated it. Investigator > dialed the number, fully expecting to receive a 'not in service or > disconnected' message so they could charge it back to the originating > telco and clear one more suspense item from the ledger of same. > Instead the number rang. Number in service, but no accounting records. > Fraud investigator called outside plant asking what happened to the > paperwork. When the bill finally came it was for service for about > *one year* from date of install to the present date, plus the usual > month in advance, which at that point (in the billing cycle) was about > two weeks into the billing period as usual. That stung ... I called > the business office to make a sort of pseudo-complaint. My service > rep, Miss Prissy agreed to remove the fraud charge which had gotten > the whole thing started since it was not mine, but she would not > remove the year of service for which I was obligated. "But, Mr. Townson, > you *knew* what was happening, and did not correct it." I was not in > a position to complain too loudly. PAT] In my case I fought with then Nynex (Or was it New England Telephone, it gets so hard to remember what company was what when.) and called them from the line at least twice a month asking where the bill was. By about the 7th month I got a supervisor number and went round and round with her for 5 months. By the time we figured out that plant did indeed forget to send the ppaperwork she and I decided we'd only charge for the last 4 months. Worked out quite well. Of course my LD was still screwed up, being billed to VA Medical Center Providence. We were both on the same exchange but my number was NXX-0716 and the VA Hospital number being billed was NXX-7160. Ooops. That too close to two years to straighten out. ------------------------------ From: gb@xnet.com (gb) Subject: T1 Voice or E1 line in Germany Date: 19 Apr 2004 11:02:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Can anyone recommend a T1 voice and/or E1 provider in Germany? Any ideas on installation and monthly rates would be very appreciated as well. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Organization: ATCC Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:48:37 GMT In article , jkelly@newsguy.com says: > Very few people realize that there is a sunset on analog tv. Of > those, very few actually believe it will happen. Congress forgets > that the people that will be forced to buy a bunch of new tv's and > convertors are the same people that elect them to office. I have > never believed the Dec 31, 2006 sunset date for NTSC. The other thing to remember is that NTSC has been the standard since the beginning of television. Even when color came around (Which is an odd little kludge to deliver color!) the old B&W sets still worked, even a set made close to 60 years ago can still pull signals out of the air and display moving images. The switch to HDTV is a whole different ball game. No backward compatibility at all. This is unique, particularly when you consider the rapid change that has occurred in the voice telecom field, yet you can still wire in a set made a century ago and use it. And VoIP providers just provide a standard POTS port on their routers except they may not interpret dial-pulse. But essentially it's the same. > Cellular still hasn't gone 100% digital, it seems odd to me that > analog cellular seems to be getting a longer sunset period than analog > television is getting (based on when digital cellular service first > became available vs. when DTV became available). And people have more > tv's than cellphones, I have two cellphones in my household, but have > seven televisions. After the 2009 cutoff for NTSC signals, you'll see cell providers start cranking digital signals down in the UHF bands of the former TV plan. Lower frequency = better propagation, less multi-path etc. ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:47:44 -0700 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, J Kelly wrote: > Cellular still hasn't gone 100% digital, it seems odd to me that > analog cellular seems to be getting a longer sunset period than analog > television is getting (based on when digital cellular service first > became available vs. when DTV became available). In the case of cellular, they ran out of bandwidth and had to move to digital in order to serve more customers. Digital cellular occupies much more bandwidth than analog. At some point, they began to refuse new analog activations. I suspect that most analog cell phone use today is from dual analog/digital phones which can't get the digital signal and thus switch to analog. In the case of television, there does not seem to be bandwidth contraints limiting new service; most markets seem to have plenty of available UHF channels. The push seems to be coming from non-television services which are hungrily eyeing the bandwidth currently allocated to analog television, and expecting that digital television will occupy much less bandwidth than analog television. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: chait@india.com (Shar) Subject: Re: Signaling Reference Date: 19 Apr 2004 14:03:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Try C7.com or ss8.com. U can find a bunch of links there. If you want a little more info, look up the SS7 Bible "SS7(full form)" by Travis Russell. Shar. nidhi83@hotmail.com (Srinidhi) wrote in message news:: > Hi, > Where can I find good material on various Signaling schemes like SS7, > ISDN, R2 etc.? Books or web pages, kindly suggest. > Thanks, > Srinidhi ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Telecom Changes, was Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:38:37 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) writes: > The traditional phone companies are saddled with considerable > regulatory requirements -- accomodate non-paying deadbeats, provide > service in unprofitable communities, provide extremely high > reliability, offer low rates, all taxes (911, "relay") etc. Good. Maybe it's about time for some "zero based budgetting" and rethinking all of these transfers, payoffs, and taxes-by-other-names. Bluntly, why should I get charged an extra $10/month so someone else (whether an individual, a stockholder, or a government) gets an easy ride? (And no doubt there are similar handouts in my direction. Fine. Identify them and let's thrown them all in the fire). > When a Baby Bell screws up, it makes front page news and gives them > nasty publicity. But when a non-Bell screws up or defrauds customers, > no one notices. I believe one wireless company -- T-Mobile, changed > its name twice in recent years, previously being OminiPoint and > something else (Jamie Lee Curtis spokesperson). Doesn't that seem > strange to anyone? There's nothing at all strange about the company you mentioned. With the disclosure (not really important here, but with) that I'm both a customer and a shareholder, there's nothing nefarious about these name switches and nothing to hide. Omnipoint was the original GSM provider in the Northeast. They were taken over by Voicestream (based in Washington State) so for a period of time that was the label the whole system used. This, in turn, was bought up by Deutsche Telekom (which also picked up some other telco properties). For a couple of months they weren't quite sure what name to use for their service, but eventually opted for "t-mobile". Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Verizon's Get It Now Vs. Sprint PCS's Vision Date: 19 Apr 2004 15:12:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Aude Lagorce, 04.19.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Although wireless phone penetration rates have not yet reached saturation levels in the U.S., carriers know that day is not far on the horizon. Having drawn their cues from the Asian and European experiences, they understand that it is their ability to sell existing subscribers more services rather than more phones that will ultimately guarantee their survival. Since there's only so much you can do to boost voice spending, many providers have started shifting their focus to the more promising field of data services. The idea to get consumers to think of their handsets as mini entertainment centers providing games, music and information first came from Japan, where the market became saturated a few years ago, prompting operators such as NTT DoCoMo to launch features allowing users to download ring tones and games to their handsets. Although the service called I-mode was slow to take off, it has since garnered some 40 million subscribers. http://www.forbes.com/personaltech/2004/04/19/cx_al_0419mondaymatchup.html [Note from Eric: Sprint gave me a few months of Vision for free when I signed a new contract last fall. After the novelty wore off, I realized that it was nowhere near worth the extra $15 a month if I wanted to keep the service, at least for me. It's slow with limited content available. I'm sure that's going to change, but what's really going to need some work is the user interface.] Eric Friedebach /Knee deep in the hoopla/ ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #195 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 20 00:15:56 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3K4FuX24651; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:15:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:15:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404200415.i3K4FuX24651@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 #196 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:15:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 196 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson MIT Technology Review Magazine Recognizes Lucent Technology (VOIP News) VoIP Companies Come Together to Support ISP/ESP Exemption (VOIP News) Emergency Service Challenges VoIP (VOIP News) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Steven J Sobol) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Barry Margolin) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Jack Decker) Broadcasters Say FCC's Digital TV Plan is Flawed (Monty Solomon) Re: BellSouth Introduces 3.0 mbs Speed to Broadband Portfolio (McHarry) 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: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:43:14 -0400 Subject: MIT'S Technology Review Magazine Recognizes Lucent Technologies Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-19-2004/0002154270&EDATE= MIT'S Technology Review Magazine Recognizes Lucent Technologies for 'Killer Patent' on Voice Over IP Bell Labs' Method for Improving the Quality of VoIP Service Named One of 2003's Top Five Patented New Technologies MURRAY HILL, N.J., April 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Technology Review, MIT's magazine of innovation, has selected Lucent Technologies' (NYSE: LU) patent for improving the quality of service for network traffic such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) as one of its 'Five Killer Patents'. The honor marks the third straight year that one of Lucent's patents from Bell Labs has been included on the publication's annual list of the five most important patents issued during the previous year. The list appears in the May 2004 issue of Technology Review and on the web at http://www.technologyreview.com (see current issue). This patent, U.S. No. 6,529,499, granted to Lucent on March 3, 2003, was also the 30,000th patent Bell Labs has received since its inception in 1925. "Bell Labs networking expertise is at the very heart of what makes Lucent a leader in making voice over IP more efficient, reliable and secure," said Bill O'Shea, president of Bell Labs and Lucent's executive vice president of corporate strategy. "This patented technique is one example of how Bell Labs is working to bring the quality of today's circuit-switched network to VoIP. This is an important, standards-based approach that represents Lucent's desire to vastly improve packet-based services for the industry." Bell Labs tackles Voice over IP challenges Session Initiation Protocol, or SIP, which Bell Labs helped develop, is a global, standards-based IP telephony signaling protocol primarily used for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls. SIP-based VoIP is a technology that holds tremendous promise for consumers and businesses alike. However, one of the major challenges with VoIP is that IP-based networks were designed to provide 'best effort' service for data applications, but couldn't provide the higher level of quality required by the public switched telephone network (PSTN). The potential of VoIP may remain largely unrealized until the service quality and reliability that people expect matches that of the PSTN. Making VoIP more reliable is a difficult challenge because the Internet was not built for steady-state, real-time communications, such as voice calls and streaming video. In the circuit-switched world, network congestion is managed by reserving a point-to-point connection between two parities in a call. In a connectionless IP network, data packets are routed through the network with no regard for the congestion created by this traffic. This can result in lost or delayed traffic. That's acceptable for elastic applications such as email where lost packets are retransmitted, only delaying the delivery of the email. However, when packets are lost or delayed during real-time voice or other interactive communications, the person on the receiving end might hear part of some of the words, or their connection may be dropped altogether. A major culprit in degrading Quality of Service (QoS) for VoIP and other real-time IP services is network capacity, and how that capacity is managed. By adding more VoIP calls and other traffic to the Internet, network links can become overburdened. As a result, everyone's experience tends to degrade. This drop in quality affects not only new calls being placed over the network, but also can impact calls in progress. Simply adding more capacity is not an effective solution, since network demand (traffic) continues to grow exponentially, and adding more capacity at the right places in the network requires careful planning and intricate knowledge of traffic demands, which is not readily available. About the Patent: A Bell Labs' solution for VoIP To alleviate this congestion, and improve VoIP quality, Bell Labs developed a software-based Virtual Provisioning Server and a "traffic cop" connection resource manager (CRM) that monitors network demand and creates 'virtual trunk groups' where information flows uninterruptedly between senders and receivers. For example, when a user attempts to make a voice over IP call or to view a streaming video, the CRM checks whether there are enough network resources along a path to accommodate the request. If there are, then the new call is allowed and uninterrupted communication with acceptable loss and delay is guaranteed. If the path between sender and receiver does not have enough network capacity, new requests for sessions may be denied, then re-routed to a different path with enough capacity, thus preventing new any new sessions from adversely affecting ongoing VoIP conversations. Bell Labs researchers Yung-Terng (Y.T) Wang of Bell Labs' Advanced Technology Group and Enrique Hernandez-Valencia of Lucent's Integrated Network Solutions Group in Holmdel, N.J., along with former colleagues Bharat Doshi, Kotikalapudi Sriram and On-Ching Yue, received this patent for their research. Since filing for the patent in September 1998, the Bell Labs inventors have leveraged the capabilities of Internet standards to evolve this technique. Additionally, they are working closely with Lucent's business units to build this capability into Lucent's Accelerate(TM) portfolio of VoIP solutions. With Accelerate(TM) solutions, wireline and mobile service providers can rapidly deliver profitable IP-based voice, data and multimedia services. The solutions are built on top of an open industry standard services architecture, originally defined by the 3GPP/3GPP2 standards group, and referred to as IMS (IP Multimedia Solution). IMS fully supports the convergence of traditional voice services with multimedia services, including Web-based features. This allows service providers to offer consumers and enterprises new converged voice and data applications such as unified communications, multimedia messaging, location-based services, IP Centrex, and voice and data virtual private networks. Previous Bell Labs patents selected by Technology Review for this honor include Bell Labs Layered Space-Time (BLAST), a method for vastly improving wireless network capacity; and Raman amplification, an innovative technique for extending the distance and capacity of optical networks. Technology Review's Patent Scorecard, also in the May 2004 issue, again ranks Lucent Technologies as #1 in overall technological strength in telecommunications, a spot Lucent has held during the previous six years on average. More information on this year's Killer Patent is on the web at: http://www.bell-labs.com/news/2003/march/patents.html. About Bell Labs and Lucent Technologies Bell Labs is the leading source of new communications technologies. It has generated more than 30,000 patents since 1925 and has played a pivotal role in inventing or perfecting key communications technologies, including transistors, digital networking and signal processing, lasers and fiber-optic communications systems, communications satellites, cellular telephony, electronic switching of calls, touch-tone dialing, and modems. Bell Labs scientists have received six Nobel Prizes in Physics, nine U.S. National Medals of Science and eight U.S. National Medals of Technology(R). For more information about Bell Labs, visit its Web site at http://www.bell-labs.com. Lucent Technologies designs and delivers the systems, services and software that drive next-generation communications networks. Backed by Bell Labs research and development, Lucent uses its strengths in mobility, optical, software, data and voice networking technologies, as well as services, to create new revenue-generating opportunities for its customers, while enabling them to quickly deploy and better manage their networks. Lucent's customer base includes communications service providers, governments and enterprises worldwide. For more information on Lucent Technologies, which has headquarters in Murray Hill, N.J., USA, visit http://www.lucent.com. SOURCE Lucent Technologies Web Site: http://www.lucent.com http://www.bell-labs.com/news/2003/march/patents.html http://www.bell-labs.com ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:09:18 -0400 Subject: VoIP Companies Come Together to Support ISP/ESP Exemption Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032782.htm [April 19, 2004] A group of leading VoIP Companies has agreed to support clarifying language proposed to the FCC in an ex parte letter sent by PointOne to the Commission on 4/14/04. The language would specifically exempt Internet Service Providers (ISPs) & Enhanced Service Providers (ESPs) in a rumored pending decision on AT&T 2002 VoIP. Additionally it would recognize that some so-called phone-to-phone or PSTN-to-PSTN services may indeed be information services. Businesses that have been built around the current ISP/ESP exemption are not asking for anything new with the proposed language, but to simply reaffirm that the rules around which they built their businesses continue to apply. This would appear to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, recent statements. "We want the incentives to be toward technological innovation," Powell said last Tuesday (4/13/04) while at Dartmouth College. Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Apr/1032782.htm ---------------------------------------- How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:33:28 -0400 Subject: Emergency Service Challenges VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33470.html By Phil Hochmuth Residential VoIP service provider Vonage last year made 911 tracking possible for its customers through a partnership with a 911 telecom services firm. For a company one of the so-called "blessings of VoIP" turns out to be a curse in terms of e911. While support is improving for Enhanced 911 emergency services on corporate VoIP systems, IT professionals and analysts say the technology is not yet standardized across platforms and can be tricky to use in mixed-vendor environments. E911 is the FCC's advanced version of the well-known 911 emergency-calling system that provides additional location data to emergency responders, such as street address and floor inside a building. Carriers have a deadline to implement all phases of e911, which includes extended data from wired phones, and the location (within 1,000 feet) for cell phone users. The FCC's deadline for implementing this system is October 2005. Full story at: http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33470.html ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:40:52 -0500 Jeff nor Lisa wrote: > When a Baby Bell screws up, it makes front page news and gives them > nasty publicity. But when a non-Bell screws up or defrauds customers, > no one notices. I believe one wireless company -- T-Mobile, changed > its name twice in recent years, previously being OminiPoint and > something else (Jamie Lee Curtis spokesperson). Doesn't that seem > strange to anyone? Uh, no ... VoiceStream was bought by Deutsche Telekom, which bought Omnipoint not too much later. Omnipoint had already bought Aerial, a smaller GSM provider. So those name changes were all due to actual sales of companies to other companies. Deutsche Telekom subsequently rebranded VoiceStream to T-Mobile because T-Mobile is the brand name they use for their wireless phone properties worldwide. > Some new company offered unlimited local and long distance for a > cheap, as its bold type headlines blared. Except the cheap price > advertised wasn't the cheap price offered. But I guess that's ok. It's not ok, but did anyone make any noise to the FCC or the news media? werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Again, a couple points: I do not think > Mr. Werner is **really serious** about wanting *all* the headers left > in messages. No, but if I may offer some constructive criticism: My news reader WILL NOT display the messages in threads unless it knows which messages belong to which threads. The Message-ID and References headers are required for that to happen and I agree that they should be left in. No one said ALL headers should be left in. > itself. However, if Mr. Werner wants to see the message headers > followed by a single line of text "I agree with you" or whatver, then > he can view this Digest in Usenet rather than read the Digest format. Time out. You're forgetting that some people read the Digest via the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. Regarding headers, most e-mail clients don't display them by default, so adding a couple headers won't make a difference even to most of the people who read the Digest by email. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but I didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is even a way around that. If you go to *my* news reader for telecom stuff at http://telecom-digest.org and the TELECOM_Digest_Online section you can get all the messages for the past two or three months (usually 1500-1700 messages) sorted as you wish, such as date order, author name, subject matter or thread. Choose any sorting protocol you want, thumb through the index then click (on the thread, for example, or the author or the subject, etc. I do not think too many news spools keep that much telecom on line. About eight to ten thousand readers use that part of our web site each day on a regular basis. When Bill P. helped me build that script before he passed on, he pointed out "this is a good way to get rid of the tyranny of Usenet." It has worked quite well for that purpose. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Organization: Looking for work Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:33:53 -0400 In article , werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Again, a couple points: I do not think > Mr. Werner is **really serious** about wanting *all* the headers left > in messages. A Digest is not intended to do that. It is intended to be > a short, concise presentation of the essence of the message. Headers > are frequently double or triple the size of the actual message text > itself. However, if Mr. Werner wants to see the message headers > followed by a single line of text "I agree with you" or whatver, then > he can view this Digest in Usenet rather than read the Digest format. I suspect he *is* reading the Usenet version. I just checked, and these messages aren't properly threaded. Luckily, my newsreader provides the option of sorting messages into threads by Subject line as well as References fields, and I've enabled that for this group. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good! I'm glad you were able to fix up Usenet to best suit your needs. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:44:06 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Pat, please conceal my e-mail address as usual -- and since you're closing the thread, I'd just like to add one thing. Apparently some people take exception to my practice of using press releases. I would just say this much -- where possible, I usually try to present the original press release, and it's usually very obvious that it IS a press release. Very often, within a day or two of the time a press release appears, I see anywhere from one to several "news" stories which are basically attempts to rewrite the press releases to make them look like fresh material, and/or hard news. Today, for example, AT&T announced that it was expanding its CallVantage VoIP service to New York and a few other places. All day I've been seeing essentially the same story crop up in various other locations. And very often it's just a rewrite, or in some cases a verbatim lifting of paragraphs from the press release. Now the problem is that press releases do announce what some would consider news. Granted that it is news favorable to whoever issued the press release, but it is news nonetheless. If you lived in New York City and for some reason had a burning desire to have CallVantage instead of an arguably better and cheaper VoIP service (from a company like VoicePulse, Vonage, or Packet8), then it would have been news of high interest to you to know that AT&T was starting to offer service there. If you ran a competitive VoIP company, you might also want to keep track of what AT&T is doing because of the impact it could have on your own efforts to acquire customers. Much as we might wish it were not so, the story of telecom in general and VoIP in particular is a story about what businesses are doing. Often that story is told via press releases, some from the companies themselves, and some from consumer groups or regulatory agencies, all of which use press releases to tell their side of the story. Personally, if I'm going to get fed information that came from a press release, I'd like to know that up front. It helps me decide how much credibility to assign to the contents. If a press release comes from a company that has been known in the past to not deliver what their press releases promised, I can factor that in. I do dislike the amount of hype present in some press releases, and if I think it's really obnoxious I'll sometimes edit it out. But even there, one person's hype is another person's news. Of course, I do try to use news from others sources, too. If someone thinks that "VoIP News" is nothing but press releases, they probably only read about three messages and quit. But I can only use what I can find, and by design press releases are easy to find, so some days you will see a few of them. Now having said that, Pat asked me if he could use the VoIP News items in Telecom Digest, and I consented. I wasn't exactly prepared for some of the snide comments that have been made, but guess what, I used to participate in Fidonet many years ago so I've been flamed by the best, and you critics aren't even close to being the best. You want to add VoIP news items to your killfile, go ahead -- I certainly would not try to force you to read about a topic that doesn't interest you. But there are other items that appear here that have little interest to me, and you don't see me suggesting that killfiling them is a good thing to do, do you? But the one claim you cannot make is that VoIP news is not telecommunications news. You might as well be saying that you refuse to read anything about high definition television because you have some objection to HDTV. You might as well killfile all items about new designs of automobile engines because you're in love with the internal combustion engine and hope it never goes away. The debate is not WHETHER circuit-switched telephony is going away -- that is inevitable. The question is how soon it is going away, and whether whatever replaces it will be saddled with all the taxes, fees, and "corporate welfare" subsidies currently applied to traditional telephony. If some people want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that VoIP won't be a major part of telecommunications, that's certainly their prerogative. But when they complain because you're presenting TELECOM related news in a TELECOM Digest, I just find it a little difficult to understand where they are coming from. I guess if I were the moderator, my response would be, if you don't like it, don't read it (which would be a polite way of telling them to stick it in their ear, or some other part of their anatomy)! There must be thousands of other mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups out there. I would say, find one you like, if you don't like what you're reading. Any time Pat decides that carrying VoIP News isn't in the best interest of the Telecom Digest, he's perfectly free to drop it -- it will still be available to those who want it via Yahoo Groups, except of course to those who use one of those blacklists that treats everything from Yahoo as spam (not my problem -- since I don't get paid anything for doing this, it's really no skin off my nose if a few people cannot subscribe because of their e-mail filters). But whether he continues to carry it or not, I would just say that some of you complainers act like a guest who is invited to someone's home and then starts making derogatory comments about the furniture, the color scheme, the decorations, etc. And I'd probably best stop there, before I get anyone really upset with me (if it's not too late already)! Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't worry about who does and who does not like your messages here, Jack. They've always got their kill-file things, and I *do* try to bend over backward to accomodate readers here when I can, but I am not some contortionist and I am not double jointed. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:52:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Broadcasters Say FCC's Digital TV Plan is Flawed By Jeremy Pelofsky LAS VEGAS, April 19 (Reuters) - Television broadcasters on Monday piled criticism on a plan by U.S. communications regulators to switch to crisper digital signals by 2009, but some acknowledged the idea was not completely dead. The plan, drawn up by the staff of the Federal Communications Commission, is flawed, according to people attending the National Association of Broadcasters annual convention in Las Vegas, because it could let cable companies convert the new signals back to analog to all of their subscribers and, consequently, few would see digital channels. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41108459 ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: BellSouth Introduces 3.0Mbps Speed to Broadband Portfolio Organization: BellSouth Internet Group Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:53:16 -0400 The price they quote is only as part of an expensive bundle and is untrue in that it leaves out a $2.97 surcharge that goes straight to their bottom line. ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #196 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 20 16:06:06 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3KK66902043; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:06:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404202006.i3KK66902043@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 #197 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:06:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 197 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson And Now, Usenet c.d.t. is Ruined Also! (TELECOM Digest Editor) Live, Digital Video Heading to U.S. Police Cars (Monty Solomon) EarthLink Reports First Quarter 2004 Results (Monty Solomon) i2Telecom and StreamCast's Morpheus Global VoIP Solution (VOIP News) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Scott Dorsey) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (jtaylor) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (John Levine) Paying for Incoming Mobile Phone Calls (Sachin Kailaje) Re: Spam Issues (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Telecom Changes, was Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Dave Garland) Re: Who is "VOIP News"? (Steven J Sobol) 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: Editor Subject: And Now, Usenet c.d.t. is Ruined Also! Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:00:00 CDT When I got up this morning, it was not enough that I find almost a gig of virii and spam **in our archives themelves** waiting to be cleaned out (a daily project now for a few months and one I have agreed to deal with), nor is it enough that an equal amount of the crap is waiting in the form of email from wherever, mixed in with perhaps well-meaning but ill-informed people who send in their html messages to this *text-based* Digest which I *attempt* to reconstruct and use if possible, but now comes word from Carl Navarro that someone has hijacked c.d.t. and raped it totally. Read this series of sad messages he and I exchanged earlier today: From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: CONGRESS SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF BUSH AND CHENEY Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 04:17:15 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:27:53 GMT, Eric Demeester wrote: > Nader: Iraq an Unconstitutional, Illegal War Snip some bullshit Newsgroups: [TDE says please note!] comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.dcom.telecom,comp.periphs.scsi,comp.text.interleaf Pat, I always figure that if someone has to crosspost his ideas to more than 2 newsgroups it doesn't belong in the digest. Outside of VOIP news, you've managed to do just that as the moderator. Please don't tell me you're slipping :-) Carl Navarro Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:53:53 -0400 From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: CONGRESS SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF BUSH AND At 12:28 PM 4/20/2004 -0400, you wrote: > That message ***did not*** come from me or from anything to do with > TELECOM Digest! And I will not take the blame for it! Please check > the headers (for whatever they are worth these days. Damn! > PAT If this is a moderated group, you have the ability to stop the message from posting don't you? This was posted in multiple groups before it got to you, and in other multiple groups throughout usenet. PERHAPS THE KEY IS THAT THE SUBJECT IS IN ALL CAPS or that it might contain !!! abnormal punctuation in the subject. Carl Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:51:15 -0400 From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: CONGRESS SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF BUSH AND At 12:43 PM 4/20/2004 -0400, you wrote: > I never even saw the god-damned thing until you showed it to me. It > was NEVER in my mail queue. It was NEVER in anything I deal with here. > Telecom, like other moderated newsgroups either has to be approved by > some legitimate moderator *or* else the approval has to be forged. So can the forged header propogate to all the news servers and appear as though it was a legitimate message in c.d.t? No wonder people get pissed off when newsgroups get hijacked. I hope whoever did it feels better now :-) Carl [Final rejoinder from PAT:] In Usenet's Age of Innocence, it was quite sufficient to add a line to the header indicia saying 'Approved-By' (whomever) and in moderated newsgroups that phrase would tell 'the computer' to go ahead and distribute the message. Without that line, message had to go to moderator's mailbox. Of course, 99.96 percent of what comes in the moderator's mailbox is trash and people's 'contributions' did not get 'published'. Then people discovered how easy it was to add that line to the header and do their own self-approval and get their spam, etc directly in the newsgroups anyway, so that good idea was ruined. Then I invented (well, I was not, even in the old days pre-brain aneurysm, smart enough to 'invent' anything), actually discussed with Gene Spafford and John Levine and a couple others of the Usenet authorities the idea of encypting the 'Approved By' line. In other words, don't trigger on the phrase 'Approved by followed by anything' but rather, trigger on the encrypted anything in that line. So trigger the direction the message travels (to news stream or moderator's mailbox) based on the validity of the sribbles following the 'approved by line', so that a message saying 'approved by correct md5 sum' gets passed, etc. Well the guys pointed out to me what was to prevent the spammers, etc from applying thier own md5 sum (which the issuing computer would of course have to verify prior to message release). Once in the stream who would be able to stop it? My answer was go to two or three of the very large, prominent news servers around the world, and mutually agree with them on a group of passwords for md5 sum to use. Now as moderator, I put my passworded, [approved by encryption] message in the stream. As my messages pass up the stream toward prominent well connected news server, a fisherman-bot sits there looking in the stream to see what he can find, i.e. messages intended to go to a moderated group such as telecom. Fisherman-bot looks at what he finds, and examines the passworded encryption. If all is cool, he tosses it back in the stream, but if the passworded encyption is bad he does a few things: 1) immediatly issues a control-cancel to every news server everywhere, while the spam junk is still fresh enough that a control-cancel means something; 2) Warns the other fishermen-bots to watch out for what he found, so they also can begin sending control-cancels as well, up and down the stream; 3) Sends a copy of whatever pollution found either to the group moderator or other spam-investigator as desired; 4) Then finally summarily kills the spam with no notice at all to the supposed, claimed spammer; just dispatches it. When I first came up with this scheme around 1996-97, while living in Chicago before migrating to my new home in Kansas, C.D.T. was getting pounded with a lot of spam and other unauthorized postings. I made a deal with a couple news server admins to watch for stuff in comp. dcom.telecom using that 'Approved by passworded encrypyted' technique and it cut out the hijacking of C.D.T. entirely, and yes, the fisherman-bots would find things almost daily. Then I got sick and a year or so later, as I started coming back on duty here, the bot was no longer running. Someone said it was ineffective and used to much cpu time. But I sure wish it was running again. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:14:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Live, Digital Video Heading to U.S. Police Cars by Jon Herskovitz DALLAS, April 20 (Reuters) - Drunk-and-disorderly calls and other police blotter entries are about to go live and digital in Tyler, Texas, thanks to a new system that puts digital video cameras on the city's police cars and links them through a wireless network. The east Texas city next month will start to install a digital video system designed to beam TV images of any police action in real-time from the police department's 60 cruisers over a wireless network back to headquarters, IBM officials and Tyler police said on Tuesday. They said this will be the first digital video network for cruisers in a U.S. police force. Numerous police forces currently use dashboard-mounted video cameras that record police stops on tape. The technology from International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM) will grab and store video on a hard drive in the police car, going back to retrieve data starting four minutes prior to the officer's hitting "record" or flipping on the overhead pursuit lights. This will help capture the probable cause for the police action, they said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41109253 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:16:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EarthLink Reports First Quarter 2004 Results ATLANTA, April 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- EarthLink, Inc. (Nasdaq: ELNK) today announced financial results for its first quarter ending March 31, 2004. Highlights for the quarter include: * Net subscriber growth in the quarter of 98,000 * Revenues of $351.6 million, compared to $353.7 million from the first quarter of 2003 * Earnings before interest income and expense, income taxes, * depreciation and amortization, and facility exit costs (adjusted EBITDA, a * non-GAAP measure) of $42.7 million compared to $22.0 million from the first quarter of 2003 * Earnings before facility exit costs (a non-GAAP measure) of $18.4 million, or $0.11 per share, compared to a loss of ($29.1) * million, or )$0.19) per share, from the first quarter of 2003 * Net loss of ($11.8) million, or ($0.07) per share compared to a * loss of ($65.7) million, or ($0.43) per share, from the first quarter of 2003 - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41110522 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:11:23 -0400 Subject: i2Telecom and StreamCast's Morpheus Global VoIP Solution Now Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com This is the press release on the "Morpheus Voicebox" product. The thing that I'm not seeing here is any provision to receive calls from the PSTN - basically it appears to be an outgoing-only service (unless I am missing something here) and a way to call other "Morpheus Voicebox" users, and priced higher than some of the other services that do allow incoming calls. If someone just wants a way to call others who have similar equipment, then they could use Free World Dialup or SIPphone and pay no monthly fee at all, and for making outgoing calls to the PSTN there are cheaper alternatives that do permit incoming calls. So, I don't think this service will have a big impact, but here are the details of their offer anyway. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?epi-content=NEWS_VIEW_POPUP_TYPE&newsId=20040420005489&newsLang=en&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view_popup or http://www.i2telecom.com/press_materials/releases/2004-4-20.pdf i2TELECOM AND STREAMCAST's MORPHEUS GLOBAL VoIP SOLUTION NOW AVAILABLE - Two-For-One Product Launch of Morpheus Voicebox Enables Anyone with Broadband to Use Standard Phones to Make Unlimited Free Calls Over the Internet to Other Users Anywhere in the World - - Users Can Choose From Three Different Low Cost Plans for Making Long Distance Calls to Regular Phones Across the Globe - BOCA RATON, FLORIDA and LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - April 20, 2004 - i2Telecom International, Inc. (OTCBB:ITUI), an emerging leader in voice data communications technology for the Internet, and StreamCast Networks, Inc., the creators of the popular Morpheus peer-to-peer file sharing and search software, have 'gone live' with their consumer Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offering outlined in February. The 'Two-For-One' launch of the Morpheus Voicebox allows family, friends and colleagues the immediate ability to enjoy free 'box to box' calling regardless of where they live or work, and dramatically reduces the cost of long distance calls to standard phones anywhere in the world. The exclusive global partnership between i2Telecom and StreamCast is the first of its kind between a VoIP company and a peer-to-peer file sharing and search application company. "Our high-quality and low cost VoIP solution coupled with StreamCast's following of loyal Morpheus users has the potential to accelerate consumer adoption of VoIP well beyond levels seen in our industry to date," said Rick Scherle,Senior Vice President of Marketing for i2Telecom. "Further, our Two-For- One launch of the Morpheus Voicebox means that family, friends and colleagues can immediately sidestep traditional phone companies to make unlimited, high quality free calls to one another no matter how far apart they live or work. "We are proud to be leading the way in providing millions of Morpheus users with cutting edge technology that changes the way people can use the Internet to communicate," Michael Weiss, CEO of StreamCast Networks, Inc. stated. "Morpheus is bringing together its wide base of tech-savvy users with a practical, efficient and economical way to extend their IP communication capabilities." StreamCast Networks is an established global communications technology company. Morpheus distributed P2P solution, downloaded over 122 million times, revolutionized the way consumers use the Internet on their computer, StreamCast Networks Vice President of Business Development Elizabeth Cowley added. "The Morpheus Voicebox VoIP hardware solution will, likewise, transform the way consumers use the Internet beyond the PC." i2Telecoms micro-gateway product suite, including the Morpheus Voicebox and its worldwide network, enable users anywhere to leverage the power of the Internet to dramatically reduce long distance phone costs. i2Telecoms end-to-end VoIP solutions deliver the carrier-class quality demanded by users. Product and Pricing Information: Two-For-One Launch Special effective until May 15, 2004. Buy one Morpheus Voicebox unit for just $49.95 with FREE activation - and receive an Instant Email Coupon for a FREE second Voicebox with FREE activation. Instant Email Coupons for FREE Voiceboxes may be redeemed by the customer or forwarded to anyone for their use. This way family, friends or colleagues can get a free Voicebox and make free Internet calls to each other anywhere in the world. After May 15, 2004 The Morpheus Voicebox costs just $49.95, with a one-time activation fee of only $25 to connect too i2Telecoms global network. All customers will receive free 24/7 tech support as part of their service plan. All customers will receive an unconditional 30-day money back guarantee. Unlimited Global Community calling plan for $6.95/month. Unlimited free calling to other Morpheus Voicebox™ customers anywhere in the world. Calls to all U.S. and Canadian telephones cost only 3.9 cents per minute. Calls to telephones outside of the U.S. and Canada at rock-bottom international calling rates. Users can also add optional calling plans: North America 1000 Plan additional $8.00/month. 1,000 minutes of calls from anywhere in the world to all U.S. and Canadian telephones for less than 1 cent per minute! Any additional minutes to the U.S. and Canada cost just 3.9 cents per minute. Calls to telephones outside of the U.S. and Canada are billed at rock-bottom international calling rates. North America Unlimited Plan additional $18.00/month. Make unlimited calls from anynwhere in the world to all U.S. and Canadian telephones. Calls to telephones outside of the U.S. and Canada are billed at rock-bottom international calling rates. The Morpheus Voicebox is a small plug and run microgateway device that is incredibly easy to install with any Internet connection and any standard telephone. The Morpheus Voicebox is portable, can travel with you anywhere in the world and also works with wireless routers. For additional product information, including international calling rates, visit www.morpheusvoicebox.com. The i2Telecom/StreamCast Networks business partnership draws much of its strength from the global nature of each company's offerings and capabilities. Morpheus users are located everywhere around the globe and i2Telecoms VoIP network and technology works anywhere in the world. ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: 20 Apr 2004 09:58:28 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Tony P. wrote: > The other thing to remember is that NTSC has been the standard since > the beginning of television. Even when color came around (Which is an > odd little kludge to deliver color!) the old B&W sets still worked, > even a set made close to 60 years ago can still pull signals out of > the air and display moving images. In the US, yes. But remember that in Europe they took the new color standards as an opportunity to dump all of the old incompatible B&W formats. It took a good while to phase them out (I remember the 405 line stuff in the UK, and the 849 line stuff in France operating until the 1980s), and it took a lot of trouble to broadcast in multiple formats at once, but the change did take place. And perhaps we need to look at the European experiences in our move to ATV. > The switch to HDTV is a whole different ball game. No backward > compatibility at all. This is unique, particularly when you consider the > rapid change that has occurred in the voice telecom field, yet you can > still wire in a set made a century ago and use it. And VoIP providers > just provide a standard POTS port on their routers except they may not > interpret dial-pulse. But essentially it's the same. The thing is that there is more programming today than ever before, and the TV receivers are cheaper than ever before and get replaced more quickly than ever before. The first item makes the ATV conversion harder, the latter two make it easier. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: jtaylor Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:33:12 -0300 Organization: MCI Canada News Reader Service Mark Crispin wrote in message news:telecom23.195.20@telecom-digest.org: > In the case of cellular, they ran out of bandwidth and had to move to > digital in order to serve more customers. Digital cellular occupies > much more bandwidth than analog. Is there an un-forced error in the second sentence above, or is there something else about cellular telephonology (?) that explains the conflicting statements? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 2004 03:34:33 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I suspect that most analog cell phone use today is from dual > analog/digital phones which can't get the digital signal and thus > switch to analog. I dunno. If I still spent a lot of time in rural Vermont, I might well still have my old 3W analog car phone which could reliably contact a cell tower 25 miles away if I parked on top of a hill. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly. ------------------------------ From: skailaje@hotmail.com (Sachin Kailaje) Subject: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls Date: 20 Apr 2004 02:51:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I am from India and I was talking to a friend in the U.S.A. yesterday and I got to know that his mobile phone service-provider charges minutes (talk-time) even for incoming calls. In India, we used to have that (charged incoming calls) when the mobile phone services started emerging a few years back. However, a couple of years earlier, it was ruled by the telecom regulating authority in India that the incoming calls on a mobile phone should be free of cost, just as it is for land-line phones in India (or in the U.S.A., and I hope in the rest of the world too). My question is: Do all mobile phone rate plans in the U.S.A. charge talk-time for the incoming calls? If Yes, then why isn't anybody demanding that incoming calls be free for the mobile phones there? I don't know about the U.S., but in India, it made a phenomenal difference in the number of people grabbing onto a mobile phone subscription once incoming calls got free-of-charge and the outgoing calls rates reduces from Rs.16 a minute to Rs.1-2 per minute! Also, we have lesser 'phone-rage' when someone dials to a wrong number and it turns out to be a mobile phone!! ;) Unless, of course, the callee happens to be outside his/her call circle, is in the 'roaming mode', and is being charged a roaming charge even for incoming calls ... :( Any comments? Thanks, Sachin Kailaje. India. ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Spam Issues Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 04:39:41 GMT werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu posted on that vast internet thingie: > First and foremost, no, this topic should never have made it > in here (I think). If I had *any* idea what all would come crawling out of the woodwork, I would not have started the thread here. I recall seeing several articles here regarding spam that seemed quite appropriate here. I still feel that blackhole lists that are run in a negligent sloppy manner like FIVETEN are a threat to the real legitimate list managers who provide a valuable service. 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, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Telecom Changes, was Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:42:24 -0500 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when Danny Burstein wrote: > Bluntly, why should I get charged an extra $10/month so someone else > (whether an individual, a stockholder, or a government) gets an easy > ride? > (And no doubt there are similar handouts in my direction. Fine. Identify > them and let's thrown them all in the fire). I agree with you in principle. But the problem is, these cross-subsidies are all over the place, and it would be extremely disruptive to change them. For example, if highway users were to pay all the expense of building and maintaining roads and highways (construction, repair, snow removal, law enforcement, compensating local jurisdictions for land removed from tax rolls, losses due to auto accidents, environmental damage due to vehicle operation, etc.) the gas tax would have to be much much higher. Instead, we fund much of that out of other taxes. Once you've started doing that stuff (say, you've decided that there's a national economic or security value in having everyone have a telephone) and introduced ways to finance it, it's very hard to go back, since you quickly acquire entrenched interests. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Who is "VOIP News"? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:23:01 -0500 Steven J Sobol wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is even a way around that. If you > go to *my* news reader for telecom stuff at http://telecom-digest.org I prefer to read my newsgroups using tin ... > script before he passed on, he pointed out "this is a good way to get > rid of the tyranny of Usenet." It has worked quite well for that > purpose. PAT] But some of us like Usenet. :-( JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, sure. Even I used to read Usenet daily until it got to the point that there were so many messages and so many newsgroups it was very hard to keep up with *and* do my own group as well. Since my aneurysm I have been in a chronic state of being dizzy and having trouble to read a lot, so I just don' read as much as I used to of anything. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #197 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 20 23:39:46 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3L3dkY05485; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:39:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404210339.i3L3dkY05485@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 #198 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:40:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 198 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce", Zhou (Rob Slade) Cingular Wireless Reports First-Quarter Results: Solid Subs (M Solomon) Sex.Com Settles Monumental Case Against VeriSign/Network Sol (M Solomon) G.726 G.727 Differences? (nearly blind) Heat Seems to Affect Speed (Mike) Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (Fred Goldstein) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (J Kelly) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Joseph) Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls (Joseph) Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls (John Levine) Re: Digital Cellular, was Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (John Levine) Re: Who is "VoIP News" (Charles Cryderman) Employment Opportunity: Billing Software Consultants in Malaysia (jobs) 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:02:11 -0800 Subject: REVIEW: "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce", Jianying Zhou BKNNRPDT.RVW 20031205 "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce", Jianying Zhou, 2001, 1-58053-247-0, U$89.00/C$131.95 %A Jianying Zhou %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 2001 %G 1-58053-247-0 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$89.00/C$131.95 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: +1-617-769-6334 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580532470/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580532470/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580532470/robsladesin03-20 %P 200 p. %T "Non-Repudiation in Electronic Commerce" The preface outlines non-repudiation as a security service in its own right, with supporting requirements, rather than an effect of another security mechanism. This position is in rather interesting contrast to most works that tag non-repudiation onto the list of functions that can be accomplished by asymmetric (public key) cryptography: a benefit, but a bit of an afterthought. Chapter one gives us an introduction to the basics of non-repudiation, in both electronic mail and electronic commerce. Various parties to a transaction, the means, requirements, and forms of evidence all make up the fundamentals of non-repudiation in chapter two. Digital signatures are the traditional, but not the only way to prevent repudiation of a transaction or message, and chapter three examines four approaches for maintaining their validity. Chapter four investigates the concept of fairness in a non-repudiation system, ensuring that where the transaction is not completed neither side is able to obtain an advantage over the other. In general, fairness requires either gradual disclosure (in an ad hoc situation) or the involvement of a trusted third party. Specific "Fair" protocols are reviewed in chapter five. Chapter six looks at the ISO's (International Standards Organization) non-repudiation mechanisms. Case studies of the detailed requirements and proposed protocols for an online lottery (which also involves anonymity) and mobile (wireless) billing are in chapter seven. Chapter eight has a summary of the main points in the book, and appendix A deals with formal verification of non-repudiation. A detailed and interesting account of a rather neglected but important topic. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKNNRPDT.RVW 20031205 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu He who asks is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask remains a fool forever. http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:23:01 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cingular Wireless Reports First-Quarter Results Cingular Wireless Reports First-Quarter Results: Solid Subscriber Growth, Improved Margins, Continued GSM Success - First-quarter net adds total 554,000, to reach 24.6 million cellular/PCS subscribers; 2.5 million net gain over the past four quarters - Cingular's nationwide GSM/GPRS network overlay on track to achieve 100 percent network coverage in next 90 days - 66 percent of Cingular's minutes now on its GSM/GPRS network - Revenues up 8.4 percent to $3.9 billion; cellular/PCS data revenues up 53 percent - 580 basis point sequential improvement in operating margin, delivering on goals outlined in January ATLANTA, April 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Cingular Wireless LLC, a joint venture between SBC Communications (NYSE:SBC) and BellSouth Corporation (NYSE:BLS), today reported first-quarter 2004 results shaped by continued solid subscriber growth, rapid progress in its GSM/GPRS conversion, and a 580 basis point sequential improvement in operating margins, in line with goals outlined by the company in January. For the three months ended March 31, 2004, Cingular achieved net subscriber additions of 554,000, bringing its nationwide cellular/PCS customer base to 24.6 million - up 2.5 million over the past four quarters. Gross customer additions in the first quarter totaled 2.5 million, marking Cingular's third consecutive quarter with gross adds at or above 2.5 million. Average monthly subscriber churn declined 10 basis points sequentially to 2.7 percent, driven by a decline in postpaid retail subscriber churn. Wireless local number portability, implemented in November of 2003, continues to have minimal impact on Cingular's subscriber results. As it has sustained solid subscriber growth, Cingular continues to move forward aggressively toward completion of its nationwide network overlay of next-generation GSM/GPRS technology. At the end of the first quarter, Cingular's GSM/GPRS network was available to 94 percent of the company's operational POPs, up from approximately 56 percent a year earlier. Cingular now expects to achieve 100 percent GSM/GPRS network coverage by July of this year. At the end of the first quarter, more than 53 percent of Cingular's handsets in service were GSM capable, up from 22 percent a year earlier and 45 percent at the end of 2003. Approximately 66 percent of Cingular's total minutes are now carried on its GSM network. GSM provides the truest voice quality in wireless. GSM is the world's most popular wireless technology, and it provides customers the widest selection of handsets in the industry with features such as color screens, built-in cameras and the latest data services. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41111863 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:19:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sex.Com Settles Monumental Case Against VeriSign/Network Solutions Six-Year Contested Court Battle Is Over SAN FRANCISCO, April 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Sex.Com (www. sex.com) announced today a final settlement with VeriSign (Nasdaq: VRSN) (formerly Network Solutions, Inc.), concluding a six-year legal fight that set several important precedents for the future of the Internet. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Sex.Com a sweeping victory that held VeriSign/Network Solutions, Inc. (collectively "VeriSign") strictly responsible for mishandling the famous domain name, Sex.Com and VeriSign have settled Sex.Com's lawsuit against VeriSign. The implications of the lawsuit are far-reaching in all areas of Internet infrastructure and governance, as well as intellectual property law. Sex.Com single-handedly caused the courts to define domain names as property, and thus changed the laws governing the World Wide Web. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41112663 ------------------------------ From: nearly_blind@yahoo.com (nearly blind) Subject: G.726 G.727 Differences? Date: 20 Apr 2004 10:35:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com What is the difference between G.726 and G.727 (ITU)? What are the algorithmic changes? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: littleboyblu87@yahoo.com (Mike) Subject: Heat Seems to Affect Speed Date: 20 Apr 2004 16:34:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have dialup internet access and I've noticed something whenever it gets hot outside. I noticed that when I try to get online before about 10 or 11 PM that my speed is extremely slow. I tested it on a website and it's like 14k. I can barely even access any webpages at all. Then after 11PM I reconnect and my speed is back to normal again (about 44k). I'm assuming this has something to do with my phone lines or some phone lines somewhere. This seems to only happen on days when it's above 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Why would this happen? Is it most likely a problem with my home wiring or could it be somewhere else? I have no way of testing my phone lines and I know the phone company isn't gonna bother with it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd be more inclined to say its not a weather-related problem as it is a network congestion problem. You mention 'dialup internet access' and that it 'gets back to normal after 11 PM'. That's about the time many folks log off and go to bed. What time of day does your sluggish condition usually begin? Now, I do not know *where* you are located, but around here in Independence when it gets *hot* -- like a baking-oven is hot during August -- between about 6 AM and 3 AM next day. What happens during your winter season? I am sure the problem is not with your home wiring, and if the problem is 'somewhere else' how do you know the weather condi- tions in that place. If anything, I would suggest the very hot weather and heavy daytime network congestion are just coincidental. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:48:03 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck On April 18, my old friend Nick fiekowsky@aol.com wrote, > I am skeptical about how well the Motorola box does QoS. I have > Vonage's Motorola sitting between my cable modem (Motorola Surfboard / > Comcast) and my home network. Last week my wife was unable to use > Vonage until I stopped a massive (> 1 gByte) directory upload I was > running at the time. My wife also complains that calls to Paris & > South Africa (our primary Vonage use) get cut off. If we don't use our > computers during the call, things are more reliable. Pat the Moderator noted something similar, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am curious about this also. After > someone wrote me and said try putting the (Vonage) Cisco ATA-186 at > the front of the line, I discovered there was no way to do this > without getting a *new* adapter (the Motorola one) from Vonage. ... > But then their technician 'Edgar' called me back and said he really > did not think the new Motorola Telephone Adapter was going to cure my > ailments. "You still only have 250 K upload from Cable One, regardless > how how much download you bought. The Motorola can and does give > priority to certain ports first; other ports later, but as long as you > are having your Win 98 and Win 95 make those big huge FTP dumps (of > .jpg files) every fifteen seconds or so, I just can't see the > Motorola able to keep up with it if you have a lengthy phone call as > well." ... Reality check time. In #191, Pat said, > But if you cannot see that VOIP is the direction things are going, then > I pity you. PAT Anybody see the problem here? VoIP is "the direction things are going", but somehow reality seems to intrude. We didn't have this type of problem when moving from analog to TDM-digital telephony. Why is VoIP taken for granted when the problems in getting it to work well are understated? Yes, it's possible to make VoIP work well, though it can't quite reach TDM performance, ever, essentially by definition. To even come close requires careful traffic engineering, something not native to (or required by) IP data networks. Here's a quick summary of why. IP networks, by themselves, treat each packet atomically; there's no metering flow, rate, or anything else. No guarantee of delivery. By design! TCP's job is to fix things for the data application. Packets do get dropped when congestion occurs. And it's supposed to occur. Take, for instance, a 100 Mbps Ethernet cord from your computer to your DSL/cable router, which has, say, a .5 Mbps upstream cap. The computer can upload to the router 200 times faster than the router can forward packets along. So what happens? There's no flow control in IP, no "shaddup" signal, no "XOFF". The router's buffer fills up. Packets fall on the floor. TCP retransmits. It works well because TCP has rules for this. "Slow start" means that it sends one packet, waits for an Acknowledgment from the receiver, then sends two packets, waits, three, etc. This is called the "window" -- the number of unack'd packets allowed in transit. At some point either the packets are ack'd faster than the sender can go, or the sender outstrips the network. The latter is what occurs in our example. The 100 Mbps sender outstrips the .5 Mbps cable uplink, if not something else along the way. So the router drops packets. When the sender doesn't receive an Ack on time, it hits the brakes, lowers the window back to 1 packet, and starts again. Data rate thus has a sort of a sawtooth pattern, the drop-off happening when the buffer fills and packets are lost. Voice is not like that. Voice has constant demand. No TCP. So it doesn't slow down. If the buffer's full, the voice packet is lost, unless there's a priority set *and* enough room in the priority buffer for the voice stream. Ideally, voice will push past data. Of course this kills data if the voice is too high a percentage of the total -- not a common problem domestically, but it's happened on thin overseas routes carrying lots of VoIP arbitrage. That's an oversimplification, but I'm trying to make the point that voice and data have different dynamic behavior. Mixing them willy-nilly is risky. IF you know what you're doing, and have the right tools, it can be made to work. But it's not automatic. PacketCable prioritizes voice, essentially creating a TDM channel when VoIP traffic is sent. (Of course the IP header is sometimes vestigial, but it's needed for that Wall Street Image.) Vonage and other parasitic (i.e., not paying for bandwidth) applications can't be expected to work as well. The network isn't prioritizing their packets. EVEN IF your Moto has priorities, there could be a bottleneck upstream, say between the head end and the Internet backbone. Fred Goldstein Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My Mototola MTA adapter box arrived yesterday, has now been installed, and the old Cicso ATA-186 returned to Vonage. Thus far, it seems to be working better, Quality of Service wise. Someone had said to me in email to make sure Vonage was at the head of the line, so it could talk with ease whenever by slowing down the other traffic. There is no way to do that with the Cisco, but with the Motorola, you plug it directly into the modem then from the *extra* port on the back which is labeled 'pc' you plug your network router/ firewall. And where the NetGear firewall/router is known as 192.168.0.1 through 192.168.0.5, the Motorola MTA now becomes like a 'sub-net' on your LAN, known as 192.168.100.2 I of course had to diddle up the Zone Alarm to convince them to trust each other, but the whole procedure went pretty smoothly. The best part is it now leaves me with an idle slot on the NetGear router (the Vonage had previous been on 192.168.0.4) in case I wish to add some additional computer to the setup here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:24:59 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:48:37 GMT, Tony P. wrote: > After the 2009 cutoff for NTSC signals, you'll see cell providers start > cranking digital signals down in the UHF bands of the former TV plan. > Lower frequency = better propagation, less multi-path etc. Cell providers don't want the signals to go very far, except maybe in very rural areas. If a cell covers to much area it quickly gets overloaded with traffic, then they have to make the cell smaller and add more cells to handle the traffic. Bigger cells = less frequency reuse, which = less capacity. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:33:18 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:33:12 -0300, jtaylor wrote: > Mark Crispin wrote in message > news:telecom23.195.20@telecom-digest.org: >> In the case of cellular, they ran out of bandwidth and had to move to >> digital in order to serve more customers. Digital cellular occupies >> much more bandwidth than analog. > Is there an un-forced error in the second sentence above, or is there > something else about cellular telephonology (?) that explains the > conflicting statements? I'm not sure what the intent of the original was, but the reality is that analog cellular i.e. AMPS there's no bundling of calls on one channel whereas on TDMA (IS-136, iDen, GSM) and CDMA it's possible to have multiple calls on one channel. CDMA and TDMA arrive at the solution via different methods. The bottom line is that analog cellular is very inefficient and digital cellular is much more efficient and is also much more secure than analog AMPS. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:48:00 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NONOcom On 20 Apr 2004 02:51:01 -0700, skailaje@hotmail.com (Sachin Kailaje) wrote: > I am from India and I was talking to a friend in the U.S.A. yesterday > and I got to know that his mobile phone service-provider charges > minutes (talk-time) even for incoming calls. > In India, we used to have that (charged incoming calls) when the > mobile phone services started emerging a few years back. However, a > couple of years earlier, it was ruled by the telecom regulating > authority in India that the incoming calls on a mobile phone should be > free of cost, just as it is for land-line phones in India (or in the > U.S.A., and I hope in the rest of the world too). Just as in other things North Americans think differently about things including telecommunications. In North America subscribers to wireline telephone services are used to flat rate service i.e. we pay a monthly rate for service and we have a "local" area in which we do not pay anything to make calls and can talk as much as we like and we'll not pay anything except for the monthly line rental charge. Contrast this with much of the rest of the world where every call you make is either meter pulsed once per call or multiple times per call depending on the distance to the called party or the time of day the call is placed. In other countries they're used to paying for all calls and just take calling mobile numbers as another call albeit with a different tarriff. The thing is though that the tarriff they pay to call from a wireline to a mobile line can be *very* expensive. Some times up to 10 times as much to call a mobile line as to even make an international call. You may like it that calls to you are "free", but the reality is that even though you are not paying for the call the person calling you is paying a hefty premium to call you on your mobile line. > My question is: Do all mobile phone rate plans in the U.S.A. charge > talk-time for the incoming calls? If Yes, then why isn't anybody > demanding that incoming calls be free for the mobile phones there? Nextel has plans where you do not pay for incoming calls. The initial monthly cost for the plan is quite a bit more expensive than typical plans offerred by other mobile providers and usually includes less outgoing message allowance. The Nextel plans are mostly taken by businessmen who take many incoming calls per month. You also have to look at the business model comparing North American plans versus those offerred in Europe and Asia. Plans typically offerred in North America will give you a goodly amount of peak time minutes and very often they will give you unlimited off-peak and weekend minutes and also include long distance. Contrast this with many European/Asian plans which either don't include any minutes in the monthly line rental or don't include that many minutes at all. They also do not give you andy free off-peak or weekend minutes. > I don't know about the U.S., but in India, it made a phenomenal > difference in the number of people grabbing onto a mobile phone > subscription once incoming calls got free-of-charge and the outgoing > calls rates reduces from Rs.16 a minute to Rs.1-2 per minute! Also, we > have lesser 'phone-rage' when someone dials to a wrong number and it > turns out to be a mobile phone!! ;) Unless, of course, the callee > happens to be outside his/her call circle, is in the 'roaming mode', > and is being charged a roaming charge even for incoming calls ... : The business model for mobile phone use is decidedly different in North America comparing it to the way it's done in calling party pays countries in Europe and Asia. I wouldn't say the calling party pays vs. the called party pays is better or worse it's just different. remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 2004 01:55:21 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > My question is: Do all mobile phone rate plans in the U.S.A. charge > talk-time for the incoming calls? There are a few that offer first incoming minute free, but the mobile subscriber pays all the per-minute fees. > If Yes, then why isn't anybody demanding that incoming calls be free > for the mobile phones there? In the US, mobile and landline phones are integrated much more closely than they are in the rest of the world. In many areas, you can switch between landline and mobile and keep the same phone number. A system that charged extra for calls to mobiles could be horrible because you cannot tell whether a number you're calling is mobile or not. There have been occasional attempts to offer caller-pays mobile service, all of which have failed as it became apparent that callers have no interst in paying. > I don't know about the U.S., but in India, it made a phenomenal > difference in the number of people grabbing onto a mobile phone > subscription once incoming calls got free-of-charge and the outgoing > calls rates reduces from Rs.16 a minute to Rs.1-2 per minute! In the US, most people buy bundled minute plans that include more minutes than we use. For example, my cell phone includes 250 daytime minutes and 3000 night/weekend minutes per month for $30, usable anywhere in the US to call anywhere in the US, which is about the same monthly price as I pay for my landline phone, not including long distance. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 2004 22:45:28 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Digital Cellular, was Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> In the case of cellular, they ran out of bandwidth and had to move to >> digital in order to serve more customers. Digital cellular occupies >> much more bandwidth than analog. > Is there an un-forced error in the second sentence above, or is there > something else about cellular telephonology (?) that explains the > conflicting statements? Digital cellular runs in the same band as analog, and cell carriers can allocate the 100 channels in each cell to any combination of analog and digital. Mark presumably meant that they allocate more channels to digital than to analog these days since digital usses the channels more efficiently. TDMA digital puts three connections in each analog channel, CDMA digital puts some number of connections in a group of channels, anywhere from 5x to to 40x the number of channels depending on local conditions and who you believe. Unlike the TV conversion, if cell providers want to leave a channel or two reserved for analog phones, they can do so without affecting anyone else. Since HDTV runs in a different band than analog NTSC TV, as long as anyone is still using analog TV, they can't release the bands for other uses. As it happens, one of those uses is cellular telephony since the top of the UHF band overlaps with some of the cell channels. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: What is "VoIP News"? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:55:59 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V23 #196 Jack Decker wrote: > But the one claim you cannot make is that VoIP news is not > telecommunications news. You might as well be saying that you > refuse to read anything about high definition television because you > have some objection to HDTV. You might as well killfile all items > about new designs of automobile engines because you're in love with > the internal combustion engine and hope it never goes away. The > debate is not WHETHER circuit-switched telephony is going away -- > that is inevitable. The question is how soon it is going away, and > whether whatever replaces it will be saddled with all the taxes, > fees, and "corporate welfare" subsidies currently applied to > traditional telephony. If some people want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that VoIP won't be a major part of telecommunications, that's certainly their prerogative. But when they complain because you're presenting TELECOM related news in a TELECOM Digest, I just find it a little difficult to understand where they are coming from. I guess if I were the moderator, my response would be, if you don't like it, don't read it (which would be a polite way of telling them to stick it in their ear, or some other part of their anatomy)! There must be thousands of other mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups out there. I would say, find one you like, if you don't like what you're reading." Now first of all Jack, I love the internal combustion engine but am hoping for something to replace it so gas prices go down and I can afford to drive my 64' Dart. :~) But back to the point you are making here. VoIP is here to stay. For example, Global Crossing now is carrying about 2,000,000,000 (yes, that is 2 billion) minuets each month now with the plan to push for 3 billion by the end of the year. Every major carrier is move all of the switched traffic to VoIP. It is here to stay and will grow more and more each day. In a recent issue there was a story about fiber to the home, what do you think you going to be pushing across that. Every thing that has anything to do with communications. Just wait and see, picture phones with multi-party video conference calls. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ From: jobs Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:25:47 +0800 Subject: Employment Oppoortunity: Billing Software Consultants for Malaysia Reply-To: telecom-news@yahoogroups.com We are an international Information Technology (IT) company, with focus in providing Software Solutions, Software Products/tools, Software Consultancy and Out Sourcing. We are looking for the following resources for our project in Malaysia. Skill Set : Telecom Billing Software Consultants (BSCS or Kenon Arbor etc) with Billing, Rating, Interconnect prepaid, Inteligent Network experience. Job Location : Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Contract Duration : 2 Years - extendable Commencement : June 2004 Interested candidates, kindly send us your detailed resume with the following details. EXPECTED SALARY: JOINING TIME: ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #198 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 21 18:30:56 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3LMUu113792; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:30:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404212230.i3LMUu113792@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 #199 TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:31:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 199 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson OSS Firm Launches VOIP Watchdog (VOIP News) Rural Communications Announce Voice Over Internet Deployment (VOIP News) Review of NorVergence (Patty) Toll Free (1-800) Line ANI Delivery Question (news.sbcglobal.net) Re: And Now, Usenet c.d.t. is Ruined Also! (Paul Vader) Network Slow Down With Hot Weather (Charles B. Wilber) Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (Clarence Dold) Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls (Steven J Sobol) Re: Sex.Com Settles Monumental Case Against VeriSign (Clarence Dold) Read My Mail, Please/The Silly Privacy Fears About Google (M Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:31:45 -0400 Subject: OSS Firm Launches VOIP Watchdog Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.boardwatch.com/document.asp?doc_id=51351 OAKLAND, Calif. -- Switch Management Corporation, a leading OSS software provider to the telecommunications industry, today announced the launch of VoIP Watchdog(TM). VoIP Watchdog is a web-based quality of service (QoS) monitor and alarm manager that alerts network managers when route quality (VoIP or TDM) drops below acceptable levels. Full story at: http://www.boardwatch.com/document.asp?doc_id=51351 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:51:27 -0400 Subject: Rural Communications Announces Voice Over Internet Deployment Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-21-2004/0002156664&EDATE= St. Joseph County Gears Up for Major Deployment in 4th Quarter 2004 VoIP to be offered first to business and consumers using Rural Communications Wireless Broadband in St. Joseph County THREE RIVERS, Mich., April 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Rural Communications today announced a major new deployment to deliver a full complement of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services to business customers and consumers in late 2004. The company, which already serves hundreds of consumers with its wireless broadband services and thousands of local telephone lines, said it will include VoIP to its portfolio and aggressively market a full suite of VoIP-enabled services to customers in St. Joseph County. Rural Communications will also roll out a new VoIP consumer offer in lower Kalamazoo County in early 2005. Rural Communications President and CEO Gerald Ludwick said the company is currently beefing up its communications infrastructure for the increased demands of a VoIP deployment. We anticipate that consumers will respond very aggressively to an offering that combines voice and broadband over a single connection with significant cost savings. The cost savings are achieved by eliminating the overpriced and cumbersome technology used by the old telephone companies. "VoIP combined with Wireless Broadband is one of the most innovative and cost effective ways to deliver communications in recent memory, and will deliver tremendous value to all customers by leveraging the efficiencies and advanced communications capabilities of IP-based technology," said Ludwick. Rural Communications' strategy for delivery of VoIP is to eliminate the need for multiple carrier networks that are using outdated technology and replace the outdated technology with IP based technology that is provided by a single company. This strategy dramatically increases the Quality of Service (QOS), Manageability, and Cost Effectiveness of our end product to the consumer. Businesses are attracted to VoIP technology because it simplifies access for voice, data and the Internet so that companies can reduce the amount of devices they need to purchase and manage. Consumers are drawn to VOIP because it simply saves them money. SOURCE Rural Communications Web Site: http://www.ruralcommunications.net ------------------------------ From: PBrockhage@aol.com (Patty) Subject: Review of NorVergence Date: 21 Apr 2004 13:43:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Joel Keck wrote: > From what I've read, the customer service is terrible. Ok, > admittedly every company has at some point or another been known for > bad customer service. There are growing pains, especially if > Norvergence is growing as fast as it seems. My only statement on > this subject currently (I address this further, later on) is that > they will need to improve this area to keep customers. Any company > with a continued record of horrible customer service often gets in > trouble with state agencies. I'm sure they are aware of this issue > and there was some indication from the posts I read that they had > improved to some measure. As a person who works for a telecommunications company that works with NorVergence, and is a customer of theirs, I must say ... their customer service is beyond terrible. They don't document ANYTHING, even though they are telling you that they are updating your account. When our company was trying to get new cell phones (they have a free upgrade after one year) it literally took me over 4 months which involved 8 calls and 4 different contacts, who didn't document anything so I was starting fresh every time. And the names I got during these calls, which I would use later to refer someone to them, no one knew who they were so there was no accountability. And the end result, we didn't get what we asked for, instead got replacement phones and were told the "real" phones we were to get would come in later. We have a pool in our office to see how long it will take them to deliver. I took 1 month. I have lost, as it's over 3 months now. NOW, on our cell phone bills, we are getting charged for services that our phone doesn't even support. When I called last month to have these charges removed or credited, I literally had one of their customer representatives raising his voice at me and telling me I was wrong. (His reasoning we got these charges _ "They wouldn't show up unless someone accessed it from the phone" - AGAIN, OUR PHONE DOESN'T EVEN SUPPORT THESE SERVICES SO HOW CAN THEY BE ACCESSED??) He refused to give us a refund or credit and said that if we don't pay the bill there will be "creditor issues" down the line. So we ended up having to cancel the "services" we were charged for. Just got this month's bill, and we are STILL getting charged for these services. I called, spoke with someone, and got the following answer "Well, it looks like they only took off part of the services. I'll have to forward this to the cellular department and get back to you" Meanwhile, it sounded like there was a serious party going on in the background. I was suprised to hear so much commotion on in the back, since I assumed, from not being able to get through most of the day, that they were just swamped with calls from customers. I know it's cliche to say the customer is always right (because that's not always true), but you should treat the customer with respect and understanding or at least make them think you are taking care of them, which I don't know that I've ever received from their Customer Service department. I usually get someone who mumbles their name into the reciever, gets my info 4 or 5 times before they actually get into my account, and get a promise of a call back, which never comes. I would advise ANYONE who thinks customer service is important (I do, especially in a company where their accounting isn't always accurate, nor is their info on what services we have even though they provide the services and you have to constantly call to rectify the situation) and who doesn't want to waste days upon days on the phone with someone who refuses to do anything for you, do not sign up with NorVergence. You will have to deal with this imcompetant department for at least 5 years. I don't wish that on my worst enemy. ------------------------------ From: news.sbcglobal.net Subject: Toll Free (1-800) Line ANI Delivery Question Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:17:43 GMT I have a 1-800 PRI line connecting to the Cisco access server for staff remote dial-up access while travelling and all users are charged a fix minute rate to cover the cost regardless of the originating call location. Now that the budget is tight, a new rate plan is proposed to charge the international traveller a higher rate and if possible, apply different rate based on the originating country. From the access server, I could obtain most of the incoming call's Calling Party Number from the Q.931 setup message only if the "call type" is national. Otherwise, the Calling Party Number is either Unknown or blank. In the case of Unknown Calling Party Number, the call type is also unknown and the cause code is 0x00C0 "Network screen". As for the blank Calling Party Number, the call type is national and the code is 0x21A3 "Presentation unavailable". I believe the Network screen is a network function and the Presentation unavailable is a user requested function. Is it true that ANI is a guarantee service for the PRI 800 service line and ANI cannot be blocked? If so, can those two functions be provisioned such that all ANI information be delivered to the access server (CPE)? Otherwise, any other possible suggestion in identifying the originating number? Admittedly, for a non-telecom guy, getting to decode the Calling Party Number Information Element content has been very challenging. Any help is much appreciated. Thanks, K.K. ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: And Now, Usenet c.d.t. is Ruined Also! Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:19:10 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations Editor writes: > if possible, but now comes word from Carl Navarro that someone has > hijacked c.d.t. and raped it totally. Read this series of sad messages > he and I exchanged earlier today: You don't hijack a newsgroup. The messages got there at sites who don't properly run their local cache of moderated groups. At my provider, we never saw those messages. If someone did see them, it's because their news provider is an absentee landlord. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 2004 08:36:05 EDT From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Subject: Network Slow Down With Hot Weather Continuing with the Editor's theory that the network speed reduction is not weather-related I would suggest that it might be partially weather related. For example, it is difficult to see how weather temperature could have a direct effect on network speed. However, it can have a direct effect on people and their habits. When it is very hot it is possible that more people are inside enjoying air conditioning when they might otherwise be outside. Since they are inside, they could be accessing the network which they would probably not be doing if they were outside. The additional air-conditioning being used could also be stressing the power system, perhaps bringing some servers down. I would look for a multi-level cause-and-effect relationship. Charlie Wilber Dartmouth College Original author wrote: > Why would this happen? Is it most likely a problem with my home wiring > or could it be somewhere else? I have no way of testing my phone lines > and I know the phone company isn't gonna bother with it. ------------------------------ From: dold@FedsXXNoXA.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:43:10 UTC Organization: a2i network Tony P. wrote: > The other thing to keep in mind about CRT based televisions is that > over a period of about 5 years they're pretty much shot nowadays. I > can already see my 5 year old set redding out. But then it gets heavy > usage. Yougottabekidding. My primary TV is a 1993 32" RCA CRT that still looks as good as it ever did. I recall TVs from the 70's that I replaced CRTs in at about 8-10 years and people thought they had new sets. The old CRT was awful. That hasn't happened with any of the more recent sets. I retired a 13" VCR combo when the VCR went bad after 10 years, and replaced it with a 24" VCR DVD combo that was $299 at Costco last month. I have a 5" color portable that looks fine after 20 years or so, but it doesn't get much use. I don't expect a TV purchased today to be dead of natural causes in another five years. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Paying For Incoming Mobile Phone Calls Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:47:53 -0500 John Levine wrote: >> My question is: Do all mobile phone rate plans in the U.S.A. charge >> talk-time for the incoming calls? > There are a few that offer first incoming minute free, but the mobile > subscriber pays all the per-minute fees. In Ohio, AirTouch USED to offer Calling Party Pays. A friend used it. I'm thinking they got rid of it due to lack of demand for the feature, but I don't know for sure. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ From: dold@SexXComXSe.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Sex.Com Settles Case Against VeriSign/Network Solutions Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:45:17 UTC Organization: a2i network Monty Solomon wrote: > After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals The most often overturned court in the country? Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:20:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Read My Mail, Please / The Silly Privacy Fears About Google By Paul Boutin Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were the heroes of the Net from the moment they launched their better-than-the-rest search engine in 1998, right up until two weeks ago. On April 1, they announced plans for Gmail , a Googleized alternative to the free Web-based e-mail services offered by Hotmail, Yahoo!, and a slew of smaller companies. Depending on your take, Gmail is either too good to be true, or it's the height of corporate arrogance, especially coming from a company whose house motto is "Don't Be Evil." At first, Web hipsters dismissed Gmail as an April Fool's hoax. But Google's offer is real. Gmail will provide each user an entire gigabyte of free e-mail storage. That's about 250 times the 4-megabyte limit of a basic Yahoo! Mail account and 10 times Hotmail's 100-megabyte "super-user" package, which costs $60 a year. In return for all that inbox space, Google wants just one favor: to be allowed to scan the content of your incoming messages and serve content-targeted ads alongside them. If you haven't tried it, it sounds creepy. But after a week of testing the prerelease version of Gmail, I'm on the other side of the fence. Gmail isn't an invasion of privacy, and its ads are preferable to the giant blinking banners for diets and dating services that are splashed across my other Web mail accounts. http://slate.msn.com/id/2098946/ ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #199 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 21 21:43:10 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3M1hAA15385; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:43:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:43:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404220143.i3M1hAA15385@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 #200 TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:43:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 200 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Last Word on Digital TV (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: Heat Seems to Affect Speed (J Kelly) Re: Network Slow Down With Hot Weather (Nick Landsberg) Re: Digital Cellular, was Feds: No Analog TV by '09 (J Kelly) Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck (Hank Karl) Verizon Resellers: Broadview and MetTel (John Polcari) 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: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Last Word on Digital TV Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:28:22 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com 10 responses to this thread were posted. I have consolidated them. Sorry for the top post. >> Today I have seen black and white portable sets for as low as $14.99! >> We recently picked up some color 13" sets for under $100. There's no >> mention anywhere that these sets will be useless before the end of the >> decade. I wonder how many average consumers are aware of this? I can >> see people buying analog TVs right up until the drop dead date. > There'll still be plenty of TV's out there that are NTSC in 2009. > Whatever replaces the bandwidth currently being used will be tuned by > those sets. I've got a little 5" B&W unit with a variable tuner - I > can pick up paging systems and public safety and interestingly, some > cell traffic if I tune in just the right areas. Not exactly. Once upon a time televisions went up to channel 83 (890 MHz). I forget the year, but the FCC took away everything above channel 69 (806 MHz and above). This was reallocated to analog cellular telephone and land-mobile services (public safety & business). Early on much of the activity in this band was analog and could be tuned with an older model TV that tuned past channel 69. The current plan is to take away channels 60-69 (746 - 806 MHz) and reallocate that to land-mobile. However it will be purely digital. A quarter-century old television will not demodulate that. And per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 you could go to prison for tuning your television past channel 80 as that belongs to cellular telephone. It's a very poorly written law that criminalizes the mere tuning of those frequencies regardless of your intent. RF engineers who use test equipment in that range technically are breaking the law. > The other thing to keep in mind about CRT based televisions is that > over a period of about 5 years they're pretty much shot nowadays. I > can already see my 5 year old set redding out. But then it gets heavy > usage. I got a television for Christmas when I was eleven years old. I will turn 35 this year. The television still works as well as the day "Santa" brought it to me. No, they don't make TV's like they used to! > The only thing that will be really nice about HDTV is the wide aspect > ratio. But that will be for moot when Hollywood gets it's hooks in and > decided what I can watch and where I can watch it. That's a whole other issue ... ;-) > If it gets much worse I think I'm just going to toss the television > entirely. I refuse to buy CD's until the RIAA stops it's warrantless > war. If the MPAA gets any more power I just throw the finger to > television and movies too. There are still books I haven't read. :) I did this years ago, but it was because there was simply nothing on worth watching. The only TV I see is "second hand" television (my wife is an addict). > Very few people realize that there is a sunset on analog tv. Of > those, very few actually believe it will happen. Congress forgets > that the people that will be forced to buy a bunch of new tv's and > convertors are the same people that elect them to office. I have > never believed the Dec 31, 2006 sunset date for NTSC. Another issue is transmitter, antenna, and tower construction. I read somewhere that the manufacturers of these products simply can't keep up. In some areas broadcasters are having problems finding a place for their new towers. Environmental concerns, NIMBY's, etc. are preventing them from going up. Now this "news" I heard a few years ago. Perhaps the log-jam has broken, I don't know. I don't believe the deadline either. > Cellular still hasn't gone 100% digital, it seems odd to me that > analog cellular seems to be getting a longer sunset period than analog > television is getting (based on when digital cellular service first > became available vs. when DTV became available). And people have more > tv's than cellphones, I have two cellphones in my household, but have > seven televisions. Could it be because a telephone (be it land-line or cellular) is looked upon as a necessity? You should be able to call 9-1-1 from your cell phone the size of a brick? There's a company in California called SOMA Networks that has a neat product. It'll use existing 800 MHz analog cellular infrastructure to bring wireless broadband to areas without cable modems and DSL. If this takes off I wonder how it'll affect analog cell phones? > > The only way I can see this working is for the FCC to demand analog sets > > stop being sold on a certain date, then a number of years later demand > > TV stations drop their analog signals. > (I'll interpreted this as "the only way this seems acceptable" rather > than " ... this seems workable" -- and join you in "finding a hair in this > soup" getting dished out, the way it appears here ...) "Mr. and Mrs. America" has no CLUE how their TV works, much less knows anything about analog versus digital signals. If the government really wants DTV to be a reality, they have to have a plan to get DTV compatible receivers into the homes of "Mr. and Mrs. America". One way to do this is to mandate all TVs sold in the USA after a certain date be analog and digital compatible. Wait, say, 7 to 10 years. Most people would have replaced their televisions in that time frame. Then cut-over. I honestly expect people to wake up January 1, 2007 banging on their TVs wondering why they can't watch the Rose Bowl Parade. >> There's no mention anywhere that these sets will be useless before >> the end of the decade. I wonder how many average consumers are >> aware of this? > Hell no, (not to the extent that you-and-I were, at least ... and I > refuse to believe that it will go over quite like that, as seems you > do, too) I personally think the date will slide. I'm painting an picture of television Armageddon to show what a lack of planning can do. I would call it "bad planning" but I don't think there was any planning to be bad. >> I can see people buying analog TVs right up until the drop dead date. > Sure. And there will be an after-market market for gadgets to > keep'em useful, converting the digital signal arriving on cable or > over the air into an analog one ... plus there are all those VCRs > and DVDs that "talk" to those TV's also ... ;-) Yes, existing VCRs and DVD players (heck, even Beta) will talk to the analog TVs. I thought the FCC ruled that cable providers could not provide an analog signal because that would "force" people to have cable to watch over-the-air signals? It was a flimsy argument, IMHO, but it appears cable operators must be digital also. >> ...I cannot believe the FCC is allowing analog TVs to be sold today when >> their current plan to render them useless in a little over 30 months. > You want them to dictate that they be sold with some kind of sticker > attached, alerting to that fact, right? Not "disallow" it (not that they > could, I don't believe) ... > I'd been wondering about that, too, and support that idea -- but guess who > would like it *very little* ... ! :-) Receivers must be FCC accepted before they can be sold in this country. The FCC could simply say no analog-only TV may be sold. Period. This is where my libertarian political views and personal "do what's right" views collide. On one hand I say it's a "buyer beware" world and if you don't research what you're buying don't expect the government to do it for you. OTOH, if the government wants DTV, they need to make some effort to steer people towards the right receivers be it through "warning labels" or an outright ban on analog-only TVs. > After the 2009 cutoff for NTSC signals, you'll see cell providers start > cranking digital signals down in the UHF bands of the former TV plan. > Lower frequency = better propagation, less multi-path etc. The spectrum has already be reallocated and doesn't include cellular. Current analog TV signals require 6 MHz of bandwidth. DTV signals require only 1 MHz. Additionally, you cannot have adjacent analog channels in a given market due to interference. You can with digital. (Before anyone corrects me, you can have 4 & 5, 6 & 7, and 13 & 14 in one market because there is frequency separation). We had a great opportunity to free up some bandwidth, but the television broadcast lobby threw a tantrum and won their "right" to keep 6 MHz per channel. My suggestion was this. Do away with all VHF TV channels. We could expand the FM broadcast band. Add a LPFM (low-power FM band) for community broadcasters. Expand the 6 meter amateur radio band. Who knows what else. Next, in the largest markets the frequencies used by channels 14 through 20 are reserved for land-mobile. I would make this nationwide. I would also take away channels 60 through 69. In effect this would give TV broadcasting analog channels 21 through 59 (39 analog channels) BUT would've provided 6 times as many digital channels (234 digital channels). But alas, the TV industry behaved like a three year-old who didn't get enough cookies and we're wasting 5/6 of the TV band. > In the case of television, there does not seem to be bandwidth > contraints limiting new service; most markets seem to have plenty of > available UHF channels. The push seems to be coming from > non-television services which are hungrily eyeing the bandwidth > currently allocated to analog television, and expecting that digital > television will occupy much less bandwidth than analog television. If we had forced TV to 1 MHz bandwidth per channel we could've set aside some spectrum for these services. >> The other thing to remember is that NTSC has been the standard since >> the beginning of television. Even when color came around (Which is an >> odd little kludge to deliver color!) the old B&W sets still worked, >> even a set made close to 60 years ago can still pull signals out of >> the air and display moving images. > In the US, yes. But remember that in Europe they took the new color > standards as an opportunity to dump all of the old incompatible B&W > formats. It took a good while to phase them out (I remember the 405 > line stuff in the UK, and the 849 line stuff in France operating until > the 1980s), and it took a lot of trouble to broadcast in multiple > formats at once, but the change did take place. And perhaps we need > to look at the European experiences in our move to ATV. Europe has done a lot of things better than North America with regards to communications. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Referencing your final sentence only: They certainly have. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Heat Seems to Affect Speed Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:03:29 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 20 Apr 2004 16:34:30 -0700, littleboyblu87@yahoo.com (Mike) wrote: > I have dialup internet access and I've noticed something whenever it > gets hot outside. I noticed that when I try to get online before about > 10 or 11 PM that my speed is extremely slow. I tested it on a website > and it's like 14k. I can barely even access any webpages at all. Then > after 11PM I reconnect and my speed is back to normal again (about > 44k). I'm assuming this has something to do with my phone lines or > some phone lines somewhere. This seems to only happen on days when > it's above 85 degrees Fahrenheit. > Why would this happen? Is it most likely a problem with my home wiring > or could it be somewhere else? I have no way of testing my phone lines > and I know the phone company isn't gonna bother with it. No idea with dialup, but when I first got a cable modem the speed would come to a crawl on hot days (I was a beta tester with only about 20 others users on the entire network, so it wasn't congestion). I called the head end tech at the cable office and he said that the amplifiers on the poles would become very non-linear when it got hot outside, and they needed to do some tweaking on them to get them working right. A week or so later and things were working again. So it is possible that somewhere something is getting hot and gets of whack a bit, reducing the quality of the line. ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Network Slow Down With Hot Weather Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:52:53 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Charles B. Wilber wrote: > Continuing with the Editor's theory that the network speed reduction > is not weather-related I would suggest that it might be partially > weather related. For example, it is difficult to see how weather > temperature could have a direct effect on network speed. However, it > can have a direct effect on people and their habits. When it is very > hot it is possible that more people are inside enjoying air > conditioning when they might otherwise be outside. Since they are > inside, they could be accessing the network which they would probably > not be doing if they were outside. The additional air-conditioning > being used could also be stressing the power system, perhaps bringing > some servers down. I would look for a multi-level cause-and-effect > relationship. [SNIP] I would also look for multi-level cause and effect. When I used to work in "outside plant" the conventional wisdom (whatever that means) said that moisture condenses inside the cables as the temperature goes down. On the old pulp/paper insulated cables, this meant that the insulation between tip/ring and between adjacent pairs would not be as good and there would be "leakage." That is one reason why automated line insulation tests (ALITs) were run overnight. This is contrary to the OP's experience that connections are better after the temperature goes down. So, given the two conflicting data points, there must be some other set or sets of explanations. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Digital Cellular, was Feds: No Analog TV by '09 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:59:04 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 20 Apr 2004 22:45:28 -0000, John Levine wrote: > Since HDTV runs in a different band than analog NTSC TV, > as long as anyone is still using analog TV, they can't release the > bands for other uses. As it happens, one of those uses is cellular > telephony since the top of the UHF band overlaps with some of the cell > channels. It doesn't really use a different band, each station is now using two channels, one for analog, one for (H)DTV. Some of the high UHF channels will go away when NTSC TV comes to an end. Some stations are moving from VHF to UHF for DTV, although many of those stations plan to return to their NTSC channel assignment at the end of the transition. ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: VoIP's Broadband Bottleneck Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:10:42 -0400 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:48:03 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: > Reality check time. In #191, Pat said, >> But if you cannot see that VOIP is the direction things are going, then >> I pity you. PAT > Anybody see the problem here? VoIP is "the direction things are > going", but somehow reality seems to intrude. We didn't have this > type of problem when moving from analog to TDM-digital telephony. Why > is VoIP taken for granted when the problems in getting it to work well > are understated? Both the Telecom and Datacom guys are starting to see the unique issues of VoIP, so its starting to _not_ be taken for granted anymore. There is ongoing work in the ITU and the IETF to help with voice quality. For example, RFC 3611 (RTCP-XR) specifies a number of voice quality metrics. > Yes, it's possible to make VoIP work well, though it can't quite reach > TDM performance, ever, essentially by definition. To even come close > requires careful traffic engineering, something not native to (or > required by) IP data networks. There are a lot of measures of performance. G.711 is just uLaw or A-Law, and should sound as good as the TDM network in an ideal situation. G.722 has a 7 KHz input range, and may sound better than G.711. VoIP can also use MP-3 as its codec (although I don't know anyone who does) which would give much better than TDM quality on an ideal line. So VoIP can perform better than TDM. In the real world, the biggest problems the network will add are packet loss, jitter and delay. The existing IP datacom networks are not set up to measure the kinds of jitter and loss that affect voice calls (voice is very sensitive to "bursts" of errors, data isn't as sensitive to the error distribution). The tools to measure the types of errors that affect VoIP networks are starting to appear. So we may see TDM performance on our VoIP networks soon. BTW, I've had static on my analog line (caused by water in a connector) to the point where the line was almost unusable. In this case, VoIP had significantly better performance than regular telephone service. Regular phone service (even T1s) have their own unique issues that can impair call quality, its just that the LECs have a lot of experience and Bell Labs has done years and years of research toward solving those problems. Hey, give the VoIP guys a chance, its still a new technology! :-) > Here's a quick summary of why. > That's an oversimplification, but I'm trying to make the point that > voice and data have different dynamic behavior. Mixing them > willy-nilly is risky. IF you know what you're doing, and have the > right tools, it can be made to work. But it's not automatic. > PacketCable prioritizes voice, essentially creating a TDM channel when > VoIP traffic is sent. (Of course the IP header is sometimes > vestigial, but it's needed for that Wall Street Image.) Vonage and > other parasitic (i.e., not paying for bandwidth) applications can't be > expected to work as well. The network isn't prioritizing their > packets. EVEN IF your Moto has priorities, there could be a > bottleneck upstream, say between the head end and the Internet > backbone. I think its more fair to say that "the _access_ network isn't prioritizing packets". I expect Vonage, et al, to traffic engineer their own networks. You can choose your ISP (at least if you're on DSL). And you can normally find one that handles VoIP well. > Fred Goldstein > Thanks! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My Mototola MTA adapter box arrived > yesterday, has now been installed, and the old Cicso ATA-186 returned > to Vonage. Thus far, it seems to be working better, Quality of Service > wise. Someone had said to me in email to make sure Vonage was at the > head of the line, so it could talk with ease whenever by slowing down > the other traffic. There is no way to do that with the Cisco, but with > the Motorola, you plug it directly into the modem then from the *extra* > port on the back which is labeled 'pc' you plug your network router/ > firewall. And where the NetGear firewall/router is known as > 192.168.0.1 through 192.168.0.5, the Motorola MTA now becomes like a > 'sub-net' on your LAN, known as 192.168.100.2 I of course had to diddle > up the Zone Alarm to convince them to trust each other, but the whole > procedure went pretty smoothly. The best part is it now leaves me with > an idle slot on the NetGear router (the Vonage had previous been on > 192.168.0.4) in case I wish to add some additional computer to the > setup here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Polcari Subject: Verizon Resellers: Broadview and MetTel Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:40:38 -0400 Organization: Your Name Here Does anybody have any comments regarding two Verizon resellers: Metropolitan Telecommunications Inc., AKA MetTel And Broadview Networks, formerly Community Networks? Any and all comments, good or bad, would be appreciated ... Thanks, John Polcari "Everything falls faster than an anvil" -9th law of Cartoon Physics ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #200 ******************************