From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jul 7 18:52:16 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i67MqGH09098; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:52:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407072252.i67MqGH09098@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 #322 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:52:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 322 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VoIP Hacks Gut Caller I.D. (VOIP News) Adelphia to Drop Long-Distance (VOIP News) Gates and MS BASIC (JSW) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (Tony P.) Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software? (Richard Shuford) SS7 Help (Jeff) Is There an Official Statement on NorVergence? (David O. Rodriguez) Norvergence Bankrupt (William Van Hefner) Re: Norvergence Sales Reps (Paul Vader) Re: Norvergence Sales Reps (J Kelly) Norvergence News Articles (Barry B.) Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out (Robert Bonomi) Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out (Black Ninja) Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out (Justin Time) Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out (Scott Dorsey) Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out (Paul Vader) Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out (Lisa Hancock) Re: Refuge from Recent Telco Changes (Hammond of Texas) NorVergence in Debt to Tune of $15 Million (Jack Decker) IRS Eyes Net Phone Taxes (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: VOIP News Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:19:29 -0400 Subject: VoIP Hacks Gut Caller I.D. Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com I'm quoting a bit more than I usually would out of this article to make a point: Neither Caller ID, nor Caller ID blocking can be completely trusted. There have doubtless been court cases that have turned on the receipt of a phone call that supposedly placed the caller at a given location at a given time -- well it turns out that if the caller is technically savvy, they can make themselves appear to be at any number. Telemarketers have played games with Caller ID for years (and they didn't need VoIP to do it), but now it appears anyone with sufficient technical knowledge can play all sorts of games with Caller ID. http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9061 Implementation quirks in Voice over IP are making it easy for hackers to spoof Caller I.D., and to unmask blocked numbers. By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Jul 6 2004 1:54PM Caller I.D. isn't what it used to be. Hackers have discovered that the handy feature that tells you who's calling before you answer the phone is easily manipulated through weaknesses in Voice over IP (VoIP) programs and networks. They can make their phone calls appear to be from any number they want, and even pierce the veil of Caller I.D. blocking to unmask an anonymous phoner's unlisted number. At root, the issue is one of what happens to a nugget of authenti- cation data when it leaves the tightly-regulated realm of traditional telephony, and passes into the unregulated domain of the Internet. On the old-fashioned phone network, Caller I.D. works this way: your local phone company or cell phone carrier sends your "Calling Party Number" (CPN) with every call, like a return address on an envelope. Transmitted along with your CPN is a privacy flag that tells the telephone switch at the receiving end of the call whether or not to share your number with the recipient: if you have blocking on your line, the phone company you're dialing into knows your number, but won't share it with the person you're calling. This arrangement relies on telephone equipment at both ends of the call being trusted: the phone switch providing you with dial tone promises not to lie about your number to other switches, and the switch on the receiving end promises not to reveal your number if you've asked that it be blocked. In the U.S. that trust is backed by FCC regulations that dictate precisely how telephone carriers handle CPNs, Caller I.D. and blocking. Most subscribers have come to take Caller I.D. for granted, and some financial institutions even use Caller I.D. to authenticate customers over the phone. Despite that, the system has long been open to manipulation. "A lot of times you can offer any number you want, and carriers won't validate that," says Lance James, chief security office of Secure Science Corporation. But in the past, the power to misrepresent your number came with a high price tag: you typically had to be a business able to pay the local phone company for a high-volume digital connection. On the other side of the equation, companies who pay for toll free numbers can often access an incoming caller's phone number even if it's blocked. Voice over IP networks, currently outside FCC regulation, place those capabilities in the hands of ordinary netizens. In a telephone interview with SecurityFocus, 21-year-old phone hacker "Lucky 225" demonstrated how he could spoof his Caller I.D. to appear to be phoning from the reporter's office. In another demonstration, the reporter phoned Lucky's associate "Natas" from a residential phone with Caller I.D. blocked. Natas was able to rattle off the unlisted phone number. Full story at: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9061 Slashdot reader comments on this article may be found at: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/07/1357225.shtml?tid=126&tid=137&tid=172&tid=215&tid=95 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 Jul 2004 12:48:09 -0400 Subject: Adelphia to Drop Long-Distance Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/business_04bea67ea0e6e1f2002c.html By Kristi Swartz, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Adelphia Cable is getting out of the traditional telephone business. The Florida Public Service Commission on Tuesday approved a request from Adelphia Telecommunications of Florida Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the nation's fifth-largest cable provider, to stop selling long-distance service. Adelphia began offering the service to consumers in Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie counties in 1997, but decided late last year to work instead on Internet telephony, otherwise known as Voice-over Internet Protocol or VoIP, which allows people to make phone calls through their computers. Full story at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/business_04bea67ea0e6e1f2002c.html ------------------------------ Subject: Gates and MS BASIC Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:22:52 CDT From: jsw@ivgate.omahug.org Reply-To: jsw@ivgate.omahug.org Not to show my age, but I do go back to the days when Microsoft's first products for the Altair/IMSAI came out. It was my impression that the first tape-based MS BASIC was indeed coded by Bill Gates himself, possibly assisted by Allen. It was my understanding that the first product where Gates was not the Primary Geek, was the 8080 BASCOM BASIC compiler, ca. 1981, which was developed by J. Gordon Letwin, who Microsoft had recently pirated from Heath. Letwin was also the primary architect of the original Microsoft OS/2 (yes, it was originally a MS product) but I lost track of him since then, which was over 10 years ago. I assume that much of his OS/2 code was reused in the W95 effort. It's my impression, but just a hunch, not verified, that Gates does keep aware of the technical details of the new products, but not at the hardcore nuts and bolts level. Once a hacker, always a hacker. ;-) Good day JSW ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:23:54 GMT In article , lisa_minter2001 @yahoo.com says: > I know that Bill Gates started Microsoft, back in 1976, I think (?) > and one of his first products was Microsoft Basic. Does anyone know > if he wrote all that code himself? Also, the Microsoft Company has > grown a lot since those days, and how much does Bill Gates actually > know about Windows, etc these days; that is, has personal knowledge > of the various technical aspects of his products, or like many folks, > are large parts of the code outside his personal ability to under- > stand also? I am just wondering to what extent he has kept up in his > personal knowledge of his products, etc. Anyone know? No, he didn't write it all by himself. He did appropriate the original BASIC but I do believe he was involved in the development of MS-DOS and even development of the OS for the TRS-80 Model 1 and other products though the Tandy line. But does he have an active role today? I doubt it. There are too many products in the MS tree. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 01:22:25 EDT From: Richard S. Shuford Subject: Re: How Much Does Bill Gates Know About His Software These Days? > Lisa Minter wrote: >> I know that Bill Gates started Microsoft, back in 1976, I think (?) >> and one of his first products was Microsoft Basic. Does anyone know >> if he wrote all that code himself? > Not all of it. Remember that Microsoft had over 120 ports of BASIC > for different architectures, and while Gates was very tightly involved > with all of this, it was not a job for a single human being. > I remember calling Microsoft around 1978 or so and talking to Mr. Gates > about why their HP 2101 BASIC wasn't any good. I was told basically that > it wasn't a very good computer and it was HP's fault that their BASIC > had bugs and they weren't going to do anything about it. That was the > last Microsoft product I ever bought. As a young man, Bill Gates wrote the BASIC interpreter for MITS, Inc. of Albuquerque, where Ed Roberts had put together the kit for the Altair 8800 computer -- the machine that triggered the personal-computer revolution. There are some dark rumors about how Gates obtained timesharing resources on a large computer system to complete this project. One interesting source places him in Albuquerque on December 13, 1977: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/gatesmug1.html Not long afterward, Gates returned to the Seattle area to team up with Paul Allen in a business venture called Microsoft. I believe some of the story was told by Stephen Levy in his book "Hackers". According to one of my friends, who worked for Radio Shack from 1977 to 1980, writing computer documentation, Bill Gates personally did some of the coding on the Advanced Color BASIC Interpreter which Microsoft produced under contract for the Radio Shack 6809-based TRS-80 Color Computer (the "Co-Co"). However, this was the last Microsoft project in which Mr. Gates participated as a software developer. (This took place before IBM knocked on his door looking for an alternative to CP/M-86.) Incidently, the GWBASIC interpreter of MS-DOS was pretty much just that Advanced Color BASIC, ported to the Intel processor and with a couple of extra language keywords. ...RSS ------------------------------ From: grymreap99@aol.com (Jeff) Subject: SS7 Help Date: 7 Jul 2004 12:59:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I have been assigned a research project, and I am having a nearly impossible time completing it. I have been asked to find the differences in the SS7 networks in China, Japan, and the U.S. I was wondering if anyone had any insight into this, or knew of any resources I could use to find the answers to these questions. Thanks in advance for your help. ------------------------------ From: David O. Rodriguez Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:09:30 -0500 Subject: Is There an Official Statement on NorVergence Pat, I have been told, heard, and read many things about NorVergence's closure on July 1, 2004. However, NONE OF IT has been something 'Official' from a court, law enforcement agency, organization, or, from NorVergence itself. Is there a website or anything out there that you know of that says something officially stamped by a court or police agency or bank or even NorVergence? Have NorVergence's lawyers issued a statement? Please help. David ------------------------------ From: William Van Hefner Subject: Norvergence Bankrupt Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:06:27 -0700 Newark, NJ, July 7, 2004 (TheDigest.Com) - Norvergence is bankrupt, involuntarily. On July 2nd, three creditors of the company Popular Leasing USA, OFC Capital, and Partners Equity Capital filed an involuntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition against the VOIP reseller. This move apparently came only minutes before its underlying provider Qwest was to serve the company with notice that it was terminating service to its customers for non-payment. In documents filed with the court, Qwest described Norvergence as being continually delinquent in paying their bills, nearly since the company's inception. Qwest claims that the New Jersey company owes it $18,442,550.53 in past due long distance bills, and that it has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment on loan to them that it wants back. Qwest has filed (and been granted) an expedited hearing, and has made a motion to the court to terminate service to Norvergence's customers. In its filing, Qwest seems to indicate that its motion to disconnect the customers should be granted because Norvergence has no reasonable chance of surviving the bankruptcy. Without having seen any financial documents, that is hard to say. However, many of the indicators we have seen lead us to suspect that this case will be converted from a Chapter 11 (reorganization) to a Chapter 7 (liquidation) before this is all over. Strangely enough, in order to bolster its argument that Norvergence was headed for the scrap heap of telecom history, Qwest repeatedly quoted TheDigest.Com in bankruptcy documents. It also went on to state that Newark, New Jersey police were called to the company when unpaid employees threatened to "loot" Norvergence's offices of computers and office equipment. Norvergence had missed a $8.5 million payment to Qwest on June 30th, which prompted Qwest to deliberate serving notice to the company that it would terminate its services. Unfortunately, Qwest waited too long. Before it had a chance to notify Norvergence of its impending shut-off, other creditors filed the involuntary bankruptcy document, preventing Qwest from pulling the plug on thousands of Norvergence customers. Qwest claims that it is costing the company $166,000 for each day it continues providing Norvergence customers with "free" service. Norvergence is also under investigation by the New Jersey Department of Labor for allegedly bouncing paychecks. When it fired over 1,000 workers last week, the company told its employees that they would not be receiving their paychecks that day for the past two weeks work, nor would they be paid for any past due salaries owed. The company has blamed its financial problems on lack of funding from investors. Based upon past rulings, we find it unlikely that Qwest will be allowed to disconnect Norvergence customers anytime soon. The carrier would most likely need to convince the court that the case should be converted into a Chapter 7 filing first, and that will likely take some time. Still, Norvergence customers are quite obviously dialing on borrowed time, and should immediately begin looking for a new telecommunications provider. In our opinion, the odds of Norvergence successfully reorganizing are almost zero. To add insult to injury, most of Norvergence's customers are now stuck with multi-year leases on equipment supplied by the company, but whose debt was actually sold to outside financing companies. Technically, the customer owes a debt to the financing company, and not to Norvergence. Customers are still on the hook to pay the financing companies for years to come, even if no service of any kind is provided. We suspect that Norvergence made most of its revenues not from selling telecommunications services, but from the sale of equipment leases to finance companies instead. We have made all court documents from the Norvergence bankruptcy available for download at http://www.thedigest.com/docs/norvergence/ William Van Hefner Editor - TheDigest.Com postmaster@thedigest.com http://www.thedigest.com/current/ ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Norvergence Sales Reps Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:05:17 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations > I have been working with a company that offers a service similar to > Norvergence and has been up an running for a year now with no > problems. Pat, do we have to see these messages? At least a couple of them (not *necessarily* this one) look like hooks for a reloader scam. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are like buzzards flying around overhead are they not; waiting for the final gasp of life out of what remains of the Norvergence carcass so theyt can swoop down and begin picking the bones clean. One master scammer (Norvergence) is sure to encourage and prompt inexperienced scammers to follow. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Norvergence Sales Reps Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:46:03 -0500 Organization: http://newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 6 Jul 2004 13:49:40 -0700, unlimitedcallingusa@yahoo.com (Unlimited Calling) wrote: > If there are any Norvergence sales reps with deals they want to close, > this company will pay you at least as much as Norvergence paid you > maybe more, as soon as the customer is installed. > You can send your contact info or email directly at > unlimitedcallingusa@yahoo.com for more info. > Don't let your deals fall apart, get paid on them and deal with a > reputable company. Pat- I'm not sure why a reputable company would be spamming here and using a yahoo.com email address. I'm even more baffled by why you allow this crap on the Digest. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because this is 'be kind to buzzards week' here at the Digest. I want to make sure the little guys get their food in the form of other suckers. As I noted in response to Paul Vader, all the spammer-buzzards are stirred up and flying around now, starting to eat the remains of the corporate carcass that was Norvergence. Its their nature; they don't know any better. PAT] ------------------------------ From: BarryB Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:41 AM Subject: Video News on Norvergence From Last Week A couple stories on Novergence from last week, including a short video from Channel 12 news. http://www.news12.com/NJ/topstories/article?id=112831 ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:09:43 +0000 In article , n-line@juno.com wrote: > Well if all is true then Norvergence is out of business. One thing > hasn't been addressed though ... what are the existing customers > supposed to do now? We have signed lease agreements with banks for > equipment that won't work when Quest turns off the lines again. How > do we get out of those? Anyone have any ideas?? > > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suggest simply ignoring those fraud- > ulent contracts the banks are holding. FREEZE ALL TELECOM PAYMENTS > IMMEDIATLY. If the bank wants to sue, that's okay. [[ more grossly inaccurate legal mis-advice snipped ]] You *really* shouldn't be practicing law without a license, especially when you don't know jack sh*t about what you speak. Unfortunately, the customers _are_ on the hook for the full price of the equipment contract. *REGARDLESS* of whether Norvergence is still in business *or*not*. The legal premise is "Holder in Due Course". The party to the note has recourse *ONLY* against the originator (Norvergence). When the originator sells the paper to a third party, *ONLY* the payment responsibilities are transferred. Any other issue _remains_ with the originator. Unfortunately, this means that those 'former' Norvergence customers are just SOL. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Freeze all accounts payable immediatly regards Norvergence leases, etc. Tell the bank to file suit immediatly against you if they wish, not to bother giving their good money to an agency. PAT] ------------------------------ From: triple_des1544@yahoo.com (Black Ninja) Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: 6 Jul 2004 22:53:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > Yet bank is willing to carry the paper for a multi-year > thousands of dollars deal *based on fraud* against end-users The solution that Norvergence was offering was not fraudulent. It was the poor management policies at the top that prevented it from working. The banks had no way of knowing that NorV would not pay the bills. > Another warning sign should have been that Norvergence wanted the bank > to pay them a full five year's worth before even one year (or a few > months) had been honored on the contract. Anybody that has ever purchased a new vehicle should understand this one. When you make out your check for the monthly payment, it is not to the dealership that you drove away from. It is to a BANK. You do not pay a dealership for a few months and then have a bank take over, the dealership will shop your deal around to various banks until they find one that will BUY the deal. At that point, the Dealership has removed itself from the financial end of that agreement. It is you, and the bank, whether your new car blows up or not. If it does blow up, then you fall back on the WARRANTY, which is again NOT provided by the dealership, but by the manufacturer. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The bank did *not* loan the end user > any money. The bank loaned money to Norvergence, backed up by collateral > offered by the end user: his promise to pay. The bank did not "loan" anybody anything. The bank BOUGHT the deal from Norvergence -- for a lesser amount to reap a profit. And to answer your question, Steven, it feels great to be without a job. It is a well deserved vacation. I had earned 6 figures by mid-year, I know that I did everything in my power to aid my customers. I am proud to say that I worked with some of the best, most honest, telecom sales people in the business. I am also very confident that these sales people would sell circles around the unscrupulous agents that tend to frequent these boards. You think that Norvergence was dirty? Tell me you've never heard of an agent stealing deals, or misquoting price. Telecom is not the clean white sheet that people are making it out to be, and Norvergence is not the only stain. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Freeze all accounts payable with regards to Norvergence. Advise bank to either go straight to collection agency or court as they wish. PAT] ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: 7 Jul 2004 05:21:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Steven J Sobol wrote in message news:: > n-line@juno.com wrote: >> Well if all is true then Norvergence is out of business. One thing >> hasn't been addressed though ... what are the existing customers >> supposed to do now? We have signed lease agreements with banks for >> equipment that won't work when Quest turns off the lines again. How >> do we get out of those? Anyone have any ideas?? >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suggest simply ignoring those fraud- >> ulent contracts the banks are holding. Sorry Pat, but you are all WRONG on this one. The bank purchased a contract between the customer and Norvergance for the lease of equipment. If the service goes away, the bank is not responsible, they have a contract between two parties for equipment. The equipment didn't go away, just the service for the equipment. That does not render the contract invalid or unenforceable. If they fail to pay the bank, then the bank has every right to sue and will win in court. Is it worth it to ruin yours, or your company's credit over a bad choice YOU made? This I know from personal experience. I have a friend who had a business that had to go Chapter 7 because of a similar arrangement with a copier. After almost $40,000 of lawyer fees he still had to pay the bank for the contract on a faulty copier the bank had purchased from the copier supplier. Rodgers Platt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Freeze all accounts payable immediatly in reference to Norvergence. You mentioned your friend who wound up going straight chapter 7. If the bank wants to buy garbage that is bank's business, I guess. And I think it is just too damn bad that the so-called American 'system' of justice favors banks over small business people. In fact, I think the scale of justice is always tipped in favor of big business and the banks. Why does it seem to always take complete break downs in society (i.e. south central el lay in the early nineties; Chicago [twice!] in 1968; many other similar cases to demonstrate this?) PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: 7 Jul 2004 10:56:16 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) n-line@juno.com wrote: > Well if all is true then Norvergence is out of business. One thing > hasn't been addressed though ... what are the existing customers > supposed to do now? We have signed lease agreements with banks for > equipment that won't work when Quest turns off the lines again. How > do we get out of those? Anyone have any ideas?? I don't, and that is the whole evil in the situation. The bank is holding the note, rather than Norvergence, and the end user takes all the risk. I think you had best talk to a good contracts lawyer, but I suspect that unless something very dramatic happens as part of the bankruptcy settlement (assuming there even is a bankruptcy settlement) that you are going to continue to be liable for the ongoing lease of the box unless there is some clause in the contract specifically invalidating the lease if Norvergence is unable to meet their terms of service. You are going to need to have someone look your contract over very carefully. It's too late now to point out that you would have done better to have had someone look the contract over before signing it, of course. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Norvergence sales rep would not allow that! He insisted on talking to the 'decision maker' for the company and getting him to sign, then the bank sits there with a hurt look on its face saying well its not *our* fault. This should be a good lesson; *any* salesman who comes to your door asking to talk with the 'decision maker' should be unceremoniously kicked out then and there -- on his ass! At the very least, freeze all accounts payable relating to Norvergence until the lawyers have worked out a settlement. Advise bank you prefer to have them take it straight to court. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:02:01 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The bank did *not* loan the end user > any money. You are completely wrong. Go back into the archives -- you can see that many people have said that the loan is between the Norv customer and the bank, and nobody else. Norvergence got the money, but they're not the ones liable for the debt. It's possible they're not even mentioned in the loan paperwork. Simply refusing to pay is a great way to destroy your company, as your other creditors will see the slow/no pay and freak out. It's an expensive lesson, but a clear one -- never take out a loan unless YOU are the one who pockets the money. * * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is important that you stress to your other creditors that you are *NOT* slow pay (and as needed, pay them early or on time.) Stress to your other creditors that this is purely a dispute between the various debtors of a charlatan bank and its charlatan customer Norvergence, and that you will pay the charlatans if a judge in court orders you to do so, not before. In fact, maybe a form letter to all creditors explaining it would be wise. Explain how it would appear that Norvergence conspired with the bank to do this. But be certain to freeze all accounts payable to bank in refer- ence to Norvergence in meantime. Chances are good charlatan bank will not sue anyway, IMO. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: Norvergence - How Do I Get Out Date: 7 Jul 2004 12:59:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Steven J Sobol : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal > advice. With that being said, I still maintain that an agressive and > litigous debtor is the best debtor in this case. **Do not** just give > in to bank's demands for payment from you; they are hoping their > bullying tactics will do the job. **If** it comes to the point of suit > which is not at all certain, at the very least countersue, which will > send many banks (and collection agencies) running for the hills. I would tend to agree, but first I would review the contract very carefully with a good attorney. Other than that, I'm pessimistic. Without knowing the actual loan agreement, everything below is speculative. > Maybe it was not a *deliberate* act (i.e. fraud) by the bank, but it > was extremely careless of the bank not to completely investigate what > they were being asked to finance. Either bank knew (was part of fraud) > or **should have known** what was going on. I'm not sure if that's accurate, it depends on the terms of the loan and lease. In general, when a bank lends you money, you are responsible to pay it back, regardless of whatever you did with that money. For instance, if you buy some land and it turns out to be worthless or even a liability, the bank is not responsible, you are. Any prudent buyer of a lease should and would know about early termination options and quality guarantees, especially on a five year lease. Normal business contracts have termination clauses. > Another warning sign should have been that Norvergence wanted the bank > to pay them a full five year's worth before even one year (or a few > months) had been honored on the contract. So end-users are expected to > be responsible for the mistakes idiots at the bank make? Unless the bank was acting as Norv.'s agent or was certifying the reliability of the company, the end-customer is ultimately responsible to pay the loan. I strongly doubt a bank made any representation as to the fitness or applicability of the produce/service. When you take out a loan on something, the bank will check it out to see that it basically actually exists and has some value to it (that you're not buying thin air with their money). Clearly this company existed and was running. I doubt a bank goes beyond that; they certainly don't go poking around the switchroom. As best I can tell, the bank loaned the customer money, nor Norv. Every business takes a risk with every supplier and customer it deals with. If a customer or vendor screws a business and goes bankrupt, the business is stuck with the bill. The only recourse is to get in line at bankruptcy court. > Although it is likely and probable that many end-users signed off on > the obscene contract presented to them by the Norvergence sales rep > under much pressure. I have to ask why commercial customers were willing to sign under such pressure. To be frank, it's hard for me to be sympathetic with such commercial customers who'd were so anxious to save money they jumped on a too-good-to-be-true contract. Any business person should know whom they're dealing with, and dealing with a start-up entails extra risk. Going out of business is NOT unusual. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to generally agree, Lisa. Why in the hell anyone would sign an open-ended contract like Norvergence sales reps handed out is beyond me. But, the bank, if it were not such a charlaton (and thought this would make money for them illegally) would have *also* gone over the contract with a fine tooth comb. Back in 1968-70 the door-to-door enyclopedia sales company was doing the same kind of thing. Not only were they completely abusing the guys working for them (housing them in fleabag motels, buying them a lousy hamburger for their one meal per day; abandoning the kids in strange places when they were through using them); they were also selling their paper to a few unscrupulous loan companies who were in effect 'loaning money' (just like the bank now) to the people who thought they were getting a good deal on a set of worthless books. The loan companies knew what was going on; I will suggest most of the banks Norvergence was dealing with also knew what was going on. Banks are not stupid; they **knew** who they were dealing with and how things would go. Look at bank's attitude toward someone who wants a lousy Visa Merchant account. Credit checks, a complete investigation, etc. all so that you can send them a few dollars now and then on a Visa transaction. The banks scrutinze those guys so carefully, and if internet is concerned, often as not refuse to do business. Are you gonna sit there and say in the case of Norvergence, bank did not do a very thorough, very comprehensive examination first? Yet still chose to do business with that bunch of crooks? Maybe they had cut a deal of some kind with Norvergence? Oh, hush my mouth! Did I just imply that maybe bank (at least some of them) were partners to the fraud? Be smart: freeze all accounts payable to Norvergence, invite bank to do some- thing about it if they wish. I do know in the 1968-70 encyclopedia door-to-door scandal, some of the 'loan companies' who 'loaned you money to buy that wonderful set of books for your kids' screamed bloody murder when the Court put them out of business. Take a list of Norvergence customers who have been scammed and see *which banks* were involved as middleman. Check the corporate relationships between those banks. You might be surprised to find many of them come from common ownership or management. But of course, Poor Put Upon Bank got cheated by the end user who followed the advice to FREEZE ALL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO NORVERGENCE. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:25:42 -0700 From: Hammond of Texas Subject: Re: Refuge from Recent Telco Changes > TX has built a solid foundation since 1985 with an > excellent management team that gives me the confidence that I can help > companies with these changes... ... By spamming usenet newsgroups. Yeah, that's a REAL confidence builder. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor buzzards; don't know any better than to pick over the carcasses in front of them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:10:05 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: NorVergence in Debt to Tune of $15 Million Pat, please withhold my e-mail address. Just thought you would find this interesting: http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1089185452227510.xml Newark telecom files for Chap. 11 BY HENRY C. JACKSON Star-Ledger Staff NorVergence, a once-hot telecommunications provider, was forced into bankruptcy court by three creditors who say the Newark company was not paying its bills. The involuntary petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, filed late last week but posted online over the weekend, portrayed a company sinking under millions of dollars of debt. The move leaves approximately 10,000 customers, mostly small and mid-sized businesses who use NorVergence for telephone and Internet service, in limbo. And the news was no better for many of NorVergence's employees. They were sent home for good last week. When closely held NorVergence came to town in 2001, the company was touted as an important source of new jobs in Newark's troubled downtown area. NorVergence, at its most basic, bought whole telecommunications service and resold it. But layoffs and allegations of bounced checks and poor service have dogged the company. Full story at: http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1089185452227510.xml ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:12:21 -0400 Subject: IRS Eyes Net Phone Taxes Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5258809.html By Declan McCullagh CNET News.com A "temporary" tax created to pay for the Spanish-American War may result in higher fees for Internet telephone calls. The IRS and the Treasury Department have suggested that an existing federal excise tax on phone calls should be interpreted to apply to voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls, a move that promises to roil the fast-growing industry and follows similar attempts by state officials to tax or regulate the technology. In a notice published Friday, the IRS and Treasury Department said they are considering whether the 3 percent federal excise tax should be reinterpreted "to reflect changes in technology" used in "telephonic or telephonic quality communications." "They're looking at VoIP and any other potential technologies that are flying under the radar," said Glenn Richards, a partner at the law firm Shaw Pittman in Washington who represents VoIP companies. "Clearly they're trying to extend their jurisdiction to apply the excise tax to as many 'calls' as they can. It's got to be a revenue issue for them. If everyone starts migrating to new platforms, they're facing a decrease in excise taxes." Full story at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5258809.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. ************************ 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 #322 ******************************