31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 20, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 109 : "text" Format
====== 31 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
|
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 20:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <d99db76c-06c4-4e73-bade-9e6fbae365aa@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
On May 10, 10:19 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >Voice Link is not regulated by the PUC, yet
>
> Right, but POTS services are. People, who had POTS services under
> the tariff suddenly are being moved to a non-tariffed service
> against their will because of the inability of the telco to properly
> fix the tariffed service. That should have some Verizon executives
> being grilled in the state house pretty heavily, I would expect.
Verizon has publicly said it is transferring many services over to
non- regulated status. At this point probably a very small aspect of
service remains regulated; maybe the barebones POTS line; anything
beyond that is a "premium service". New carriers are barely
regulated, if at all.
As to the issue of telephone service regulation, these days the public
attitude is that "regulation bad, deregulation good". Even if a state
legislator complained, few would listen.
Anti-trust is another principle that has fallen by the wayside.
Comcast, a growing telephone service provider and a big cable TV
provider, owns Universal and NBC. Years ago, film production was
ordered to be separate from exhibition. Likewise, several of the Baby
Bells have merged back together, contradicting the Divestiture.
Date: 19 May 2013 03:25:25 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Chips in credit cards
Message-ID: <20130519032525.75462.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> The chip is easy enough to see, a fingernail sized thing with
>> obvious contact pads.
>
>That's what my TWIC card looks like. They told me that my biometric
>data is encoded in it: will credit cards have similar info?
Not unless they change the EMV standard.
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 07:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Chips in Credit Cards
Message-ID: <1368974063.14439.YahooMailClassic@web125201.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
On Friday 17 May 2013,
"tlvp" <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Wes Leatherock wrote of a ... :
>> ... credit card ... that included a funny symbol on the front ...
> Something like four concentric wave-front ripples propagating out to
> the right? code-named "blink"? If so, that's a contactless rf chip,
> as John Levine described, enabling both you to pay by "waving" you
> card before a payment terminal (as opposed to swiping the card
> through it), and astute malefactors to simulate your having "waved"
> your card before their (illicit) payment terminals, thereby gaining
> your (unwilling) custom :-) .
As I have noted, the "funny symbol" I described I now see to be the
chip itself.
Is the symbol you describe the one that appeared on Mobil credit cards
you simply had to wave at the pump?
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Chips in Credit Cards
Message-ID: <1368972866.57691.YahooMailClassic@web125202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
--- On Thu, 5/16/13, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> In article <1368718244.35293.YahooMailClassic@web125206.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> you > write:
>> I received a routine renewal of a credit card carlier this week
>> that included a funny symbol on the front and an enclosure with it
>> that said it included a chip so it could be used in other places
>> that reuire it such as Canada, Mexico and the U.K.
> The chip is easy enough to see, a fingernail sized thing with
> obvious contact pads. If it has a little curved line logo, that's a
> contactless chip (Paypass, Express Pay, etc.) which is something
> else.
I see now that the "funny symbol" is actually the chip itself, with
contact pads beside it.
> Which credit card company was it? Did they give you a PIN, or is it
> chip+signature?
It is a Bank of America MasterCard. It may have a PIN; I don't know.
A PIN for a credit card is useful only for making a cash advance at an
ATM, with a bunch of fees and higher interest than on purchases. A
debit card is a much cheaper way to get money.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 17:55:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Chips in Credit Cards
Message-ID: <knb3m9$18v$1@leila.iecc.com>
>> Which credit card company was it? Did they give you a PIN, or is it
>> chip+signature?
>It is a Bank of America MasterCard. It may have a PIN; I don't know.
>A PIN for a credit card is useful only for making a cash advance at
>an ATM, with a bunch of fees and higher interest than on purchases.
>A debit card is a much cheaper way to get money.
A credit card PIN is extremely useful in places such as Canada and
most of Europe where chip+pin is the normal way to use a card. If you
want to use your card at an unattended kiosk, such as the ones in
France where you can rent a bike by the hour, or a gas pump in rural
Iceland, a card needs both a chip and a PIN to work. (I speak from
experience.)
These are regular charges, not cash advances.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
Date: 19 May 2013 16:13:09 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tell Verizon to bring back FTP
Message-ID: <knbbol$92h$1@panix2.panix.com>
Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> wrote:
>In article <20130516193643.GA3097@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
>> I know that ftp isn't secure, but anyone who has struggled through
>> getting Dreamweaver to create a web page, and then found themselves
>> unable to upload it, will understand why I think this is worth
>> publishing.
>
>Instead of bringing back FTP, maybe they should offer SFTP. That should
>eliminate their security woes, and any web page builder should be able
>to find an SFTP client that's easy to use.
My suspicion is NOT that they want to eliminate FTP or SFTP or any other
such thing, but the purpose they are doing this is specifically to prevent
customers from providing their own code.
If they lock customers into using their own code generator, they have a lot
more control over their own security.
And, let's face it, this is not a high end hosting facility. If you want to
put up a real website, you probably want to get a real web provider. And
Verizon probably does not want you as a customer for their bundled web server
service anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 23:22:33 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tell Verizon to bring back FTP
Message-ID: <20130520032232.GA19295@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 04:13:09PM -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> wrote:
> >In article <20130516193643.GA3097@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
> > Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>>> I know that ftp isn't secure, but anyone who has struggled through
>>> getting Dreamweaver to create a web page, and then found them-
>>> selves unable to upload it, will understand why I think this
>>> is worth publishing.
>> Instead of bringing back FTP, maybe they should offer SFTP. That should
>> eliminate their security woes, and any web page builder should be able
>> to find an SFTP client that's easy to use.
>
> My suspicion is NOT that they want to eliminate FTP or SFTP or any other
> such thing, but the purpose they are doing this is specifically to prevent
> customers from providing their own code.
>
> If they lock customers into using their own code generator, they have a lot
> more control over their own secuyrity.
I don't think Verizon cares about "Security" in the sense of wanting
to prevent bad code. I think the company wants to eliminate web
service in all but name; to be able to claim that it offers
"Personal Web Pages", without having to support them or risk
embarassment by having any user employ one as a virus source.
Verizon has already eliminated some web page offerings: if my
experience trying to access "my" pwp is any guide, they've already
killed those associated with ADSL. I'll confirm that tomorrow, but if
anyone has a seen a change in the TOS that said this would happen,
please phone it in.
> And, let's face it, this is not a high end hosting facility. If you want to
> put up a real website, you probably want to get a real web provider. And
> Verizon probably does not want you as a customer for their bundled web server
> service anyway.
Most small companies have static content: basic information and
contacts, and maybe even a list of products, but no shopping cart or
other active pages. A "personal" page works fine for that kind of
thing, and it doesn't take a lot of computer muscle to deliver static
files: it's what every web server starts off doing, after all.
The question, then, is "Why"? It's unlikely that any major new players
will emerge from basements or garages or dorm rooms, but even the next
Larry Page or Sergei Brin or whomever can afford commercial web space,
since the dot-bomb left so much capacity lying unused. So, why does
Verizon seek, AFAICT, to neglect its web service until it's only
available in theory?
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
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
Copyright (C) 2013 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.
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 The Telecom Digest (7 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues