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 ******************************