|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 83 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems
Re: update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems
Re: Joint utility poles (was Re: Technical Demo turns political...)
Re: Concorde
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Re: Joint utility poles (was Re: Technical Demo turns political...)
Telstra offshoot hires teen hacker 'Akill'
====== 27 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 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, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:47:15 +0100
From: "earle robinson" <earler.remove-this@this-too.gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <00b901c9ac8f$6d52bf10$47f83d30$@com>
It wasn't FedEx that supplanted railway express but UPS that did this.
Railway express was a wonderful service way back when. My parents had
salmon fishing water up in Canada, in the Gaspé peninsula. You
reached it overnight by a single train rail line from montreal. They
sent salmon down to friends in the states by railway express. Each
salmon was packed in a pine coffin-like box that was lined with snow
that had been preserved in an ice house since the winter. Every 100
miles those boxes were repacked with fresh ice by railway express
until they reached their destination. UPS, called United Parcel
Service, was a small company that delivered packages from NYC
department stores to customers who lived in the suburbs, including
Westchester county, Connecticut, and New Jersey. With the development
of air travel and the decline of the American rail system, Railway
Express began its rapid decline, aided by the sudden expansion of UPS
into carrying packages throughout the country.
Eventually, UPS began to use air cargo for its big boxes, too, but
relied mostly on its trucks. FedEx came along and had the idea of
creating a hub for its business, which for many years was primarily
documents, not big boxes. This was established in Memphis. FedEx was
much helped by its hub, and by the increasingly poor service provided
by the post office. The post office was a victim of politics first:
each time a new president entered the White House each and every post
office in the country got a new boss, a political hack from the
president's political party.
Anyway, the document business was flourishing for FedEx, but was
beginning to become mature. So, FedEx management decided to begin to
encroach and the box business in which UPS had a monopoly, and it
succeeded over time to become a major player.
-er
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <8be27726-e7dd-4f35-9891-61f0772f33df@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 24, 1:04 pm, "earle robinson" <earler.remove-t...@this-
too.gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, the document business was flourishing for FedEx, but was
> beginning to become mature. So, FedEx management decided to begin to
> encroach and the box business in which UPS had a monopoly, and it
> succeeded over time to become a major player.
Just a side note...while UPS (United Parcel Service) had a large
market share in parcel shipping, it was never a monopoly. At one time
many people shipped their parcels via the US Post Office, and some
still do ("parcel post"). Unfortunately, the quality of the Post
Office service on parcels declined.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:52:10 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <haynes@giganews.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <slrngsishh.dd5.haynes@localhost.localdomain>
On 2009-03-24, earle robinson <earler.remove-this@this-too.gmail.com> wrote:
> FedEx came along and had the idea of
> creating a hub for its business, which for many years was primarily
> documents, not big boxes. This was established in Memphis. FedEx was
> much helped by its hub,
It's interesting in this part of the country to listen to an aviation
band scanner late at night and hear the air traffic controllers lining
up the FedEx ducks converging on Memphis. Other airports are busier
overall, but I've read that Memphis is close to being the busiest during
the peak hours of FedEx arrivals and departures.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: wleathus@yahoo.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <667133.27277.qm@web112205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In a message dated 3/23/2009 11:59:08 AM Central Daylight Time, johnl@iecc.com writes:
> The reason it was successful was that there was no competition to
> telegrams if you needed a message delivered quickly. Until about
> 1960 a long distance phone call was more expensive than a telegram,
> and a lot of people still didn't have phones so you couldn't call
> them even if you wanted to. When long distance rates dropped below
> telegram rates and residential phones became cheap enough that
> everyone had them, WU was doomed.
[Moderator snip]
Until a consolidation forced by the government in World War II, there
were two active telegraph companies--Western Union and Postal
Telegraph. Certainly W.U. was the larger of the two companies, but
Postal Telegraph had a significang share ot the market.
- - -
On Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:21 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Mar 22, 12:08 am, Jim Haynes <hay...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> It's interesting that the founders of FedEx discovered and filled a
>> market niche for overnight delivery of things that can't be faxed.
>
>
> I wonder if FedEx "discovered" or more likely "rediscovered" an old
> market.
>
> There were always 'express' shipments, including of documents. In
> writeups on the history of the Twentieth Century Limited, offices
> would send material between NYC and Chicago overnight on that train.
The contracts between the railroads and Railway Express (later REA
Express) ordinarily prohibited the railroads from carrying for their
own account most commodities (newspapers were an exception), reserving
such shipments to Railway Express, and that meant REA terminal delays
at both ends. Perhaps there was an exception for the (20th) Century
(Limited).
> Other items were shipped on other trains as well for expedited
> handling. There was once a company, the Railway Express Agency, that
> handled this sort of thing. When railroads faded in importance in
> the late 1960s, so did this company.
REA Expeess, as it was known by then, failed for many other
reasons. There service got slow and unreliable on many routes, and
their rates kept going up and up.
> Years ago even commuter trains had baggage cars that would deliver
> parcels and newspapers to local stations. I used to see hospital
> supplies shipped by commuter train in the late 1970s.
>
> I don't know the time aspects, but the Post Office used to offer
> premium air mail service, as well as special delivery. What that
> meant in terms of time saved I don't know. Supposedly it was no
> longer needed when all long distance first class mail was sent by
> air, but I think in the old days the PO expedited shipments more
> than they do now. That is, now I think they tend to batch mail into
> as large as batch as possible and send it out once a day, whereas
> before small shipments would be dispatched several times throughout
> the day. Years ago there were multiple deliveries per day; and I
> believe "special delivery" meant they sent someone out specially to
> deliver a specific item (not quite offered now).
The sending of all first class mail by air is largely a red
herring.The main delays, then as now, are in the sorting and
processing of the mail, not the transportation. They at one time did
have a separate handling channel for air mail and special delivery
mail, but the rates to special delivey kept going up to prohibitive
levels. They did send a messenger out specifically with special
delivery mail.
Air mail special delivery service was somewhat inconsistent and
unreliable, as was the air freight serivce of the air freight
forwarders such as Emery, Pacific Express and Airborne, as well wa the
air freight servicd of the airlines themselves--certainly nothing like
"When it absolutely, posivitvely has to be there overnight, a claim
that FedEx usually livea up to.
The batch processing they now use (with automation--many letters are
never handled by a human being until they reach the letter carrier at
the destination--mean that many route that were once overnight are now
two day delivery. Examples are between Oklahoma City and Dallas, and
between Lawton, Oklahoma, and Wichita Falls, Texas. Lawton and Wichita
Falls are considered part of the same TV market, and generally one
marketing area. Outside the Lawton main post office is a mail box
marked especially for Wichita Falls mail so it czn be hzndled
separarely overnight, the usual routine would otherwise provide only
second day delivery between these two metropolitan areas about 40
miles apart.
FedEx now has FedEz Ground, the former Roadway Package Systems, and
FedEx Freight, for larger shipments, by aquiring a regular motor
freight line
> There was a survey done and they found that many office people were
> using FedEx as a matter of routine even when it wasn't necessary,
> such as to another floor in the same building, or when an extra day
> to deliver would be fine.
>
> FedEx handles more than just mere sheets of paper; many items are too
> big or oversized to fax.
>
> I wonder if FedEx's volume has declined on account of email
> capabilities. On the flip side, it may be delivering more goods from
> catalog sales to buyers who want their order right away.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
PLEASE do not send "Quoted-Printable" emails to the Digest. Although
they look OK when read in the Digest or on Usenet, the
Quoted-Printable formatting does _not_ translate into html when the
Digest Online version is published. That means that any post sent with
"Quoted-Printable" encoding causes me as much as 45 minutes of
by-hand editing to change the QP formatting into plain text.
Please check the settings on your email or nntp client, and avoid
Quoted Printable encoding.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:40:26 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems
Message-ID: <Vt6dnf0rdox3Y1XUnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0903010921520.16190@panix5.panix.com>,
the Telecom Digest Temporary Moderator wrote:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Privacy, like spam, is an arms race. The US/Canada phone
>system uses a "Payee wins" paradigm, where the company
>paying for the call gets to know which number dialed it
>even if the caller doesn't like that; ergo, toll-free
>numbers pass along ANI info.
>
>In the future, however, we might change to a bidding model,
>where a caller can pay more for privacy than a recipient
>is willing to bid to know the number.
That will -never- happen. For one simple reason -- if the paying
party cannot tell where _both_ endpoints of the call are, they
cannot tell if they are being charged properly for the call.
Making it impossible to tell if (read as "how much" to be more accurate :-\ )
they are being overcharged by their "carrier of choice".
There's a _reason_ that an entire industry exists for 'auditing'
phone bills for accuracy. <wry -- *very* WRY -- grin>
***** Moderator's Note *****
I wasn't talking about the mileage-sensitive part of the _call_, but
rather about the idea of bidding on the charge for knowing or
concealing the identity of the caller, which is a simple process that
could be handled with SS7 datagrams during call setup.
The process would be simple:
a. Originating end sends bid for privacy with call originate message
b. Terminating end sends binary decision and amount to charge/credit
c. Call proceeds normally.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:38:19 -0500
From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: update on TeleTrap from TelTech Systems
Message-ID: <huSdnQkm5rZWz1TUnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I wasn't talking about the mileage-sensitive part of the _call_, but
>rather about the idea of bidding on the charge for knowing or
>concealing the identity of the caller, which is a simple process that
>could be handled with SS7 datagrams during call setup.
>
>The process would be simple:
>a. Originating end sends bid for privacy with call originate message
>b. Terminating end sends binary decision and amount to charge/credit
>c. Call proceeds normally.
>
>Bill Horne
>Temporary Moderator
I think this is *TOO* simple. It doesn't contain any provision for
aborting the call at the request of the loser of the bid (whichever
end that is).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:19:44 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Joint utility poles (was Re: Technical Demo turns political...)
Message-ID: <XpKdncYLh869lVTUnZ2dnUVZ_jqWnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <49afc301_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au>,
Colin <colins@swiftdsl.com.au> wrote:
>Neal McLain wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> > Historically around here the lines were--top electric,
>> > middle phone, lower cable.
>>
>> I wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, it's top electric, middle cable TV, and phone
>> > in the lowest position.
>>
>> Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> > With municipal fire alarm (and other city communications)
>> > next under electric, where such systems still exist.
>>
>> Or communications and signaling circuits owned by county
>> governments, state governments, MUDs, IXCs, CLECs, non-
>> local ILECs, non-local franchised CATVs, power companies,
>> railroad companies, banks, and who-knows-what-else.
>>
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> > The phone lines were relatively high up, and when new
>> > cable lines were installed to provide cable TV, the only
>> > place for them to go was lower. Unless of course the
>> > whole pole was redone.
>>
>> Does "redone" mean rearranging existing cables on the
>> existing pole, or setting a new pole?
>>
>> Typically, power and telephone companies rearrange ("make
>> ready") their facilities to accommodate CATV above telco.
>> If they can't make room for CATV on a pole, they replace
>> the pole. Of course, they charge the entire "fully
>> allocated cost" to the CATV company.
>>
>> What you describe is an unusual situation. I'd like to see
>> a photo of one of the poles.
>
>'Typically' depends on where you live.
>
>Here in Sydney the power is at the top, the phone line below, the
>first cable company (Telstra or Optus) below that, the second cable
>company (Optus or Telstra) below that. (I can almost touch some of
>them where they droop in the middle.) When there was a bush fire the
>whole lot went, poles and all, then they strung them back just the
>same :-(
>
>Colin
>
If a joint pole includes power, there is almost invariably a _ground_
wire at the very top of things. I shouldn't need to explain why. <grin>
In the U.S. (at least, that's the geography of my professional knowledge,
though the logic would seem to be applicable 'anywhere') power is also
almost invariably (I don't know of even a single exception, but acknowledge
that they may exist :) in the topmost position, for a couple of solid
engineering reasons:
1) safety -- nobody has to go past the power to get to any other service.
2) pole-space efficiency -- power requires more physical separation from
other services than anything else on the pole. By putting it 'on top'
you only have one separation interval (below the power) of 'unusable'
space.
After that, it tends to be -- in "descending" order <grin> -- a simple
matter of the order in which pole space was rented.
AND, there's a third, 'practical', reason why power is on top -- it is usually
the power utility who puts the poles in, in the first place. There is almost
never a need for multiple services until power is there. About the only
exception is some 'deep rural' areas that got telephone service before any
other 'centrally distributed' service. One _could_ run, e.g., a farmhouse,
without electricity -- gas appliances, gas lighting, gas heat, etc., all from
an on-site supply tank.
It is *VERY* rare to see power piggy-backed onto phone company poles -- in
part for the first two reasons mentioned above, and because power distribution
requires considerably sturdier footing than just phone does. More separate
strands (especially with multiple branches on a common feeder section)
translates to greater wind/ice/snow loading which means increased lateral
stresses as well as the added weight; then there is the weight of the
transformer well.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:31:53 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Concorde
Message-ID: <frOdndQCcISUhFTUnZ2dnUVZ_jOWnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <pan.2009.03.19.07.08.56.923271@myrealbox.com>,
>
>OK, the Concorde might be powered by DC solar cells someday.
<FX voice="Maxwell Smart">
"Would you believe..."
</FX>
Today! <grin>
see: http://www.concordebattery.com
http://www.campingworld.com/shopping/product/sunforce-rv-solar-charger-kits/5495;
http://www.sunwize.com;
or, maybe that's not the 'Concorde' you meant. <grin>
> Until
>then, I think the readers' susceptance is at an ebb, and their
>admittance is waning as well.
I take it you are saying -- without reluctance, obviously -- "no mho!"
*GRIN*
Note: it's _not_ a good idea to start those kinds of puns in this group.
A number of us have a more than AMPle supply of them, some of which are
real joules; we get a charge out of telling them, too, despite the static
that often accompanies it. When confinement to a single cell was not
sufficient deterrence, battery -has- been threatened.
Ah well, fame at this _is_ fleeting -- last time I held first place for
only 24 hours -- at midnight, they threw me back in my cage. But recognition
was given -- I was King Faraday!. <groan>
***** Moderator's Note *****
Technically, this _is_ a separate thread. Even if it's not, I have the
capacity for one more.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:05:12 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <haynes@giganews.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <slrngsit9v.dd5.haynes@localhost.localdomain>
On 2009-03-23, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> IBM's biggest
> growth in the 1950s was not electronic computers, but old fashioned
> punched card tabulating machines which did the job much more cheaply.
> When IBM's computers could've been literally been counted on hands and
> toes, IBM sold _thousands_ of punched card electronic calculating
> system as a poor man's computer (the 604, also the CPC).
>
But part of this was due to a mind set at IBM that punched card data
processing was adequate for every business need.
"...if it should ever turn out that the basic logics of a machine designed
for the numerical solution of differential equations coincide with the logics
of a machine intended to make bills for a department store, I would regard
this as the most amazing coincidence that I have ever encountered."
Howard Aiken, 1956
IBM was practically dragged into the computer business when, early in the
Korean war, the management asked the government what the company could do
to aid the war effort and the response came back, primarily from the
aerospace companies, that they needed electronic computers. IBM was only
a little worried when Univac proposed doing all the data storage on magnetic
tapes. But IBM did undertake a study of a tape processing machine, and
found that there was a market for it. IBM also learned quickly when
presented with the problem of inventory control, realizing that this
was an application which punched card didn't handle well and that something
closer to random access was needed. They developed magnetic disk storage.
--
jhhaynes at earthlink dot net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Western Union public fax services, 1960
Message-ID: <50b001e0-0578-4d83-b75c-7f7596564f40@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 24, 10:06 pm, Jim Haynes <hay...@giganews.com> wrote:
> On 2009-03-23, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:> IBM's
biggest
> > growth in the 1950s was not electronic computers, but old fashioned
> > punched card tabulating machines which did the job much more cheaply.
> > When IBM's computers could've been literally been counted on hands and
> > toes, IBM sold _thousands_ of punched card electronic calculating
> > system as a poor man's computer (the 604, also the CPC).
>
> But part of this was due to a mind set at IBM that punched card data
> processing was adequate for every business need.
That "mindset" was not cast in stone. As you pointed out, IBM was
experimenting with computers in the late 1940s.
But in a sense that statement was correct--at least in the late 1940s
and early 1950s. Business data processing was normally very little
arithemetic and lots of moving data around. Computers of that era
were focused on high speed binary arithmetic to solve complex
problems, and they weren't very good on moving data around. Indeed,
IBM's 650 initially didn't even support alpha, that was added as an
afterthought. Business computing required _reliable_ tape storage and
that took much time to perfect.
> "...if it should ever turn out that the basic logics of a machine designed
> for the numerical solution of differential equations coincide with the
> logics of a machine intended to make bills for a department
> store, I would regard this as the most amazing coincidence that
> I have ever encountered."
> Howard Aiken, 1956
A very true statement, not achieved until System/360 (celebrating its
45th annivesary). Indeed, in the early PC days sci/eng users had to
buy a separate math co-processor chip. (When did that become
standard, with the 486?)
> IBM was practically dragged into the computer business when, early in the
> Korean war, the management asked the government what the company could do
> to aid the war effort and the response came back, primarily from the
> aerospace companies, that they needed electronic computers. IBM was only
> a little worried when Univac proposed doing all the data storage on
magnetic
> tapes. But IBM did undertake a study of a tape processing machine, and
> found that there was a market for it. IBM also learned quickly when
> presented with the problem of inventory control, realizing that this
> was an application which punched card didn't handle well and that something
> closer to random access was needed. They developed magnetic disk storage.
As you say, IBM did have various computers under development. IBM's
1948 SSEC, while perhaps a "spite" machine and not fully electronic,
introduced many computer innovations and yielded valuable patents and
experience.
IBM did panic when Univac came out. But the Univac I had many
limitations despite their superior engineering (coupled with ERA's
engineering). Once IBM got into the game things took off.
My original point in this discussion was that the vast majority of
businesses simply could not afford a computer in the 1950s no matter
how much they wanted one, and had to make do with punched card
machines. This was also true in the 1960s, until IBM came out with
its System/3 and other vendors developed mini computers.
Just because there's a very useful tool out there does not mean a
business will jump at the chance to use if it's not cost justified. I
suspect that was the case with WU's public fax service.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Joint utility poles (was Re: Technical Demo turns political...)
Message-ID: <454496.53253.qm@web112212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
On Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:19 AM "Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
In article <49afc301_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au>,
Colin <colins@swiftdsl.com.au> wrote:
>>Neal McLain wrote:
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> It is *VERY* rare to see power piggy-backed onto phone company poles
> -- in part for the first two reasons mentioned above, and because
> power distribution requires considerably sturdier footing than just
> phone does.
This is simply not correct. The agreements between power
companies and telephone companies provide that each company pays rent
for using the other's poles. In practical terms, they try to keep the
ownership about equal - half telco, half power company to simplify
bookkeeping by, as near as possible, cancelling out rental payments to
one or the other. In some cases this will mean the telco may own a
pole used only by the power company, or the power company owns a pole
used only by the telco.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Telstra offshoot hires teen hacker 'Akill'
Message-ID: <903793.44581.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Michael Field
March 24, 2009 - 9:50AM
TelstraClear, Telstra's New Zealand subsidiary, has hired one of the
worlds best known hackers - a teenager known as "Akill".
Nineteen-year-old Owen Thor Walker became the subject of a US Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) cyber crime investigation spanning the
United States, Europe and New Zealand and dubbed "Bot Roast".
New Zealand police finally caught him last year and he admitted to
being the ring-leader, code-named Akill, of a group known as the
A-Team.
Starting as a 16-year-old at school, Mr Walker designed and planted
"botnets" which are a network of hacked computers able to be
controlled via the internet by a single computer.
He came up with a system that beat anti-virus software, it spread
automatically and it destroyed rival bot codes.
His botnet reached at least 1.3 million computers.
He pleaded guilty to six cyber crime charges but when he ended up in
the High Court in Hamilton Justice Potter did not convict him but
ordered him to pay a share in damage caused to hacked computers and to
stay off computers.
She heard he had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a mild form
of autism often characterised by social isolation, when he was 10.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/24/1237656891992.html
------------------------------
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 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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) 2008 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 (12 messages)
******************************
|
or 