From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 17 15:23:52 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i5HJNqP10554; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:23:52 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200406171923.i5HJNqP10554@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 #295 TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:22:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 295 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Senate Tangles Over VOIP Rules (VOIP News) Re: Be Careful About Quoting Scanner Messages (Robert Bonomi) Re: Another "We're the First" Press Release (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: Public Copy Cost Unchanged (Henry E Schaffer) Re: Can I Buy an External NIC With Wi-Fi (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Can I Buy an External NIC With Wi-Fi (Clarence Dold) Re: Ravings (Robert Bonomi) Disclaimer of Norvergence Message (Steve Lopes) 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, 17 Jun 2004 12:51:42 -0400 Subject: Senate Tangles Over VOIP Rules Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,63884,00.html?tw=wn_2polihead By Ryan Singel Senators grappled Wednesday over how to free Internet-based telephone calls from regulations while simultaneously protecting rural phone service, 911 funding and antiterrorist wiretaps. Internet telephony, known as voice over Internet protocol, which is rapidly growing in popularity, allows people to make calls using a computer and broadband connection by breaking the conversation into digital packets, just as an e-mail is sent. However, "connected VOIP applications" such as Vonage allow Internet-to-traditional-phone calls and can be substantially cheaper than regular phone service. Full story at: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,63884,00.html?tw=wn_2polihead 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/ ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Be Careful About Quoting Scanner Messages From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:55:43 +0000 In article , Charles B. Wilber wrote: >--- Robert Bonomi wrote: >> Governmental 'public service' and law-enforcement frequencies are >> specifically exempted from the privacy rules in _federal_ >> statutes. Listening to, and repeating what you heard on those >> channels is not a problem -- at the FEDERAL level, at least. > --- PAT wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was rather certain Charlie was in >> error on those laws **where police and fire radios were concerned**, >> simply because there are at least two or three web sites where you can >> listen to police calls from other cities, and no one gets after them >> for doing that. PAT] > Not exactly. Yes, *exactly*. 47 USC 605 says it is unlawful to disclose content *UNLESS* permitted by chapter 119 of title 18 USC. 18 USC 2511, which is part of chapter 119 says: "Sec. 2511. - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited . . . (2) . . . (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person - (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; (ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted - (I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; (II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public; (III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or (IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system; From the U.S.C.: > "Section 705 (47 USCA 605) states that it is unlawful to disclose the > content of radio transmissions overheard unless they are amateur radio > traffic, broadcasts to the public or distress calls. It is unlawful > under this section to use traffic monitored for personal gain. This > might include a tow truck operator going to accident calls heard over > a scanner if a response has not been requested, or a taxicab driver > jumping calls dispatched to other companies." Incomplete, *INACCURATE* statement. Verbatim quote of 47 USC 605 (taken from ): "Sec. 605. - Unauthorized publication or use of communications (a) Practices prohibited Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, ....." NOTE WELL the 'exception' mentioned at the very start of the section. If the action _is_ authorized by 'chapter 119, title 18', then _none_ of 47 USC 605 applies. [[.. munch ..]] > In summary, while disclosing to another party any communications > overheard on the radio that are not "amateur radio traffic, broadcasts > to the public or distress calls" is specifically forbidden by federal > statute, one FCC representative chose to interpret that statute very > liberally. I suppose a different FCC representative could interpret it > in a completely different manner. The actual statute *IS* quite explicit. Intercepts _allowed_ by 18 USC 2510, etc. (chapter 119), are *not* a violation of 47 USC 605. 18 USC 2511 provides a significantly _larger_ list of 'not forbidden' categories, than what you claim. > As always, the final interpretation > of any statute in dispute rests with the courts. While that final > interpretation "becomes" the statute for all practical purposes, as > written the statute clearly forbids the *disclosure* of overheard > radio transmissions that do not fall into the three clearly-defined > categories previously mentioned. "Not exactly." The language of 18 USC 2511 has changed. The list of categories of 'not forbidden' is now larger. FWIW, it took me by surprise, when I came across the current language, several years ago. That said, 18 USC 2511 (2) (g) (ii) (II) _expressly_and_specifically_ authorizes interception of public-service and law-enforcement transmissions, as I previously stated. My _original_ understanding of the law, from amateur radio, and holding a commercial radiotelephone operators license in the early 1970s, was that the rules were even -more- restrictive than you indicate -- that *anything* other than 'broadcast' or 'ship/aircraft/etc in distress' communications were protected. A ham friend even had a tangle with the FBI over the issue -- they came calling one day, to inquire about some radio exchanges purportedly involving his call-sign at a particular date/time -- and he _was_ 'on the air' at that approximate time. First question was: 'was he on the air at that time?", to which he answered in the affirmative. Then they wanted to know "who he'd been talking to, and 'about what'". He respectfully pointed out that the 'Secrecy of Communications portion of the Communications Act of 1934' prevented him from answering in any detail. That he'd like to co-operate, but that his hands were tied. They *agreed* that he had a point. He went on to say that if they could be a little more specific, he'd answer as much as he could. They clarified that conversation had been heard between {his call-sign} and {other call-sign}, on such-and-such frequency, at roughly the time in question. With -that- information, my friend was able to say 'not me', and produced his log-book to show that he was operating on a completely different band at the time in question. End of story. > State statutes only serve to make the matter even more cloudy. _This_ I agree with, 100%. *Unless* you have a ham license. In which case you just claim that the equipment is part of your amateur station, and state laws are pre-empted. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:22:43 -0500 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Re: Another "We're the First" Press Release voip news wrote: > http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=68224 > The World's First Free Telephone Service Launches: StanaPhone > Communications Unveils Easy-to-Use StanaPhone Using Voice Over IP > Technology, StanaPhone Turns Any PC Into a Telephone > http://www.stanaphone.com According to their homepage, "Stanaphone was downloaded 12746 times!" which is not that many downloads IMO. Anyway, I downloaded it and tried a couple of calls. Their website set one cookie, containing a nine-digit number. AdAware detects no spyware after installing the Stanaphone app. You can have your choice of any area code you want for your Stanaphone number, as long as it's 914 or 631 :-) Incoming and outgoing calls completed in about the same amount of time as PSTN calls. The audio quality was pretty awful, though. RX audio on the landline side was very low (with the PC mixer cranked all the way up) while on the PC side RX audio was low volume and cut out so much that it was generally impossible to tell what the other person was saying. I tried 4 calls, 3 dialed from the PC and one dialed from the PSTN. One of the PC-dialed calls was noticeably better, but still cut out very badly. So there's a quickie review of Stanaphone. Overall rather disappointing; Dialpad was better when it was new, and one would expect technology to have improved in the past couple of years. They are still in beta so we can hope for improvement. Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Public Copy Cost Unchanged Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:42:48 UTC Organization: North Carolina State University In article , wrote: > William Robison wrote: > ... In other words, the cost > of the toner and equipment maintenance, etc. simply overwhelmed the > cost of paper. Places like Kinkos or our print shop who buy paper in > large quantities get it pretty cheap. > If I remember correctly the cost of paper was 2 tenths of a cent or so > per sheet, while the other costs brought printing up to 3 or 4 cents > per page image. So the paper was essentially not a factor at per-page > prices. Toner and maintenance costs were the big factors. Office Depot (for example) has their standard 20 lb copy paper at $3.35 per ream -> .67 cents/page. They don't show a quantity discount, but it would surely get down to the area of what Bill mentions. --henry schaffer hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Can I Buy an External NIC With Wi-Fi Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:26:47 GMT Lani_lani2000@hotmail.com (Lani) posted on that vast internet thingie: > I have a D-Link Airplus G cardbus adapter for my notebook. 802.11g > 2.4GHz ... Am I limiting my access with this card? also 802.11b > compatible model # DWL-G630 > It works fine at my job but will I be abe to use it anywhere else, > like the places with Wi-Fi? It should work fine, but you will need to play with your software and have different configs for different environments. You also need some firewall like Zone Alarm or something like that if you are going to use public networks. 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: dold@CanXIXBuyX.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Can I Buy an External NIC With Wi-Fi Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:47:51 UTC Organization: a2i network Lani wrote: > I have a D-Link Airplus G cardbus adapter for my notebook. 802.11g > 2.4GHz ... Am I limiting my access with this card? also 802.11b > compatible model # DWL-G630 > It works fine at my job but will I be abe to use it anywhere else, > like the places with Wi-Fi? alt.internet.wireless would be a good source for all comments about wireless. http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E552798 Generally, any major manufacturers WiFi cards will connect just fine at any of the public hotspots. They will almost certainly be 802.11b, and the interplay between vendors is good. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Ravings From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:15:15 +0000 In article , Nick Landsberg wrote: > David Esan wrote: > Just a comment on the date(s) for Easter, below: >> 1. Canada and the US observe Thanksgiving on two different days >> because the holidays have different origins. The US Thanksgiving >> traces itself back to the Pilgrims choosing to give thanks for their >> harvest, imitating the Jewish holiday of Succoth. The Canadian >> Thanksgiving had its origins in the recovery of the Prince of Wales >> (later Edward VII) from a serious illness. See >> www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/jfa-ha/index_e.cfm for details on all >> Canadian holidays. I was surprised to see that Victoria Day is >> actually the celebration of the Queen's birthday. >> 2. PAT - You stated that "Pope Gregory declared that henceforth the >> more modern Anglicized Easter holiday would be celebrated by the >> church." Gregory XII was born in Italy. The schism between the >> Catholic and Anglican Churches occured during his lifetime -- Henry >> VIII was died in 1547. I doubt you could call his reform of the >> calendar Anglican. Especially since the Anglicans ignored it for >> nearly 200 years. >> 3. One of the other sources for the date of Easter was the Jewish >> holiday of Passover. Originally, Easter was on the first Sunday of >> that holiday, and, in fact, you will often find that the two holidays >> still coincide. IIRC, there is still some connection between >> Passover's date and the date of the Orthodox church's Easter >> celebration. However, in order to distance itself from Judaism, the >> early church chose to have its own calculations on when to have >> Easter, and so sometimes the two holidays don't coincide. > My understanding (which may be incomplete) is that the Catholic > church (and Protestant denominations) compute Easter as the first > Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (beginning > of Spring, usually falls on March 21-23). Nope. it's -not- that simple. It started out 'defined' that way, but folks needed a way to _predict_ when Easter would be, in years 'forward from today'. The result: the Church does -not- use the 'astronomical' equinox/full-moon, but a 'calculated one', based on some stuff that goes _way_ back in history; All the way back to the 'Council of Nicaea', in 325 A.D. Thus, you have a 'liturgical' (for lack of a better word) new-moon, and the 'astronomical' one. And they do _not_ necessarily coincide. There are actually a whole series of religious holidays that date in that fashion -- they are called the "movable feasts". 'Movable', for the obvious reason. I know 'more about this than I really care to', because I once had to write some computer software that took Easter-related events into consideration. Calculating '*business* days between two (calendar) dates' can get *messy*. [[.. munch ..]] >> 5. Those who continued to celebrate New Year's at the end of March, >> when the rest of the country had moved to January, were called April >> Fools! > "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so > ingenious" > - A. Bloch I prefer the formulation: "For every 'fool-proof' system, there exists a _sufficiently_determined_ _fool_ capable of breaking it." ------------------------------ From: Steve Lopes Subject: Disclaimer of Norvergence Message Recently Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:03:36 -0400 Apparently something happened to Norvergence yesterday. People are contacting me again. I do not know why, but I believe some is forwarding emails to you under my e-mail address. My problems with Norvergence are settled and I no longer want to be involved. If there was a post, can you please remove it. I no longer want current, past, or future postings posted. And I will clean out my e-mail as well. Steve Lopes [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay Steve, how about I just completely blacklist your name from any further postings **under that name** from TELECOM Digest? Some people are claiming Norvergence is completely shut down; that at least certain of their contractors/vendors have cut them off entirely, etc. Did you not get an auto-ack from me yesterday saying that 'your message has been recieved and is being edited for publication'? Why didn't you at that very time, at the speed of email send me a disclaimer on the spot saying 'NOT MINE, DO NOT PUBLISH' so I could have caught it before it was printed? 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. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #295 ******************************