From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 10 23:48:20 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i9B3mKf24916; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410110348.i9B3mKf24916@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 #481 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:48:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 481 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Anti-Kerry Film Slated to Air on Eve of Election (Michael Covington) Re: Anti-Kerry Film Slated to Air on Eve of Election (Robert Weller) Re: Anti-Kerry film slated to air on eve of election (Peter Dubuque) Fairness Doctrine (was Anti-Kerry Film Slated to Air ...) (Neal McLain) Monthly Bill Fatigue (Monty Solomon) Re: 911 Address Display Delays Police Response (Tony P.) Re: Pennsylvania Railroad's Crew Communication System? (David Clayton) Re: Solar Eclipse to Start Thursday, End Wednesday! (Michael Covington) Computer Users Face New Scourge/Hidden Adware Programs Hijack (Solomon) More Detail on Computer Users Face New Scourge (Lisa Minter) Internet Historical Society Being Re-opened (Patrick Townson) 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: Michael A. Covington Subject: Re: Anti-Kerry Film Slated to Air on Eve of Election Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:55:40 -0400 Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However they wish to classify it is > their business, *however* they should recall the law which requires > stations to grant equal time to opposing viewpoints. This is taken so > seriously that back when Reagan was running for president most > stations would not even play real old Ronald Reagan Hollywood movies > during the month or so immediatly before the election, as silly as > that may have seemed, since there was always the possibility of the > other candidates -- the Democratic challenger -- insisting upon, and > having to be given, under the law, equal time. And if there was that > possibility, regards Reagan's old Hollywood stuff, what do you think > the chances are for it in present time if the stations show a sort of > one-sided documentary deliberatly opposing Kerry? PAT] The FCC abandoned the equal time rule in 1987 on the ground that it was unconstitutional, an infringement of freedom of the press. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, indeed, 'Freedom of the Press'. Well we certainly don't want to step on the toes of the New York Times, do we ... or Fox or CBS or the other big shots in the press. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Weller Subject: Re: Anti-Kerry Film Slated to Air on Eve of Election Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:26:06 -0700 Pat - I'm not an attorney, but I understand that the "equal access" rules apply only to programming paid for by the candidate. If Bush buys advertising time on a TV station, that station is obligated to provide equal time to Kerry. In this case, it is the station's owner that has decided to air the broadcast without the candidate's involvment. So, there may be no requirement to allow Mr. Kerry an opportunity to respond. The "Fairness Doctrine," which required stations to afford a reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance, was dissolved during the Reagan administration. Further, a "documentary" program may be exempted from the political broadcasting rules, as noted below. Section 76.205 [47 CFR §76.205] Origination cablecasts by legally qualified candidates for public office; equal opportunities. (a) General requirements. No cable television system is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any system shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such system shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any: (1) Bona fide newscast; (2) Bona fide news interview; (3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); ... Bob Weller > Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:20:51 -0400 > From: Monty Solomon > Subject: Anti-Kerry film slated to air on eve of election > TV PROGRAM > By Elizabeth Jensen, Los Angeles Times | October 10, > 2004 > NEW YORK -- The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group , > whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's > homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular > programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that > attacks Senator John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, > network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday. > Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives >in > recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense > presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season > that has been marked by media controversies. > Sinclair has told > its stations -- many of them in political swing states such as > Ohio and Florida -- to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," > sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and > produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, > features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated Navy veteran > turned war protester -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging > the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming > from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as > news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the > plan. > http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/10/10/anti_kerry_film_slated_to_air_on_eve_of_election/ >>[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However they wish to classify > it is their business, *however* they should recall the law which > requires stations to grant equal time to opposing viewpoints. This > is taken so seriously that back when Reagan was running for > president most stations would not even play real old Ronald Reagan > Hollywood movies during the month or so immediatly before the > election, as silly as that may have seemed, since there was always > the possibility of the other candidates -- the Democratic > challenger -- insisting upon, and having to be given, under the > law, equal time. And if there was that possibility, regards > Reagan's old Hollywood stuff, what do you think the chances are > for it in present time if the stations show a sort of one-sided > documentary deliberatly opposing Kerry? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Dubuque Subject: Re: Anti-Kerry film slated to air on eve of election Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:04:18 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However they wish to classify it is > their business, *however* they should recall the law which requires > stations to grant equal time to opposing viewpoints. This is taken so > seriously that back when Reagan was running for president most > stations would not even play real old Ronald Reagan Hollywood movies > during the month or so immediatly before the election, as silly as > that may have seemed, since there was always the possibility of the > other candidates -- the Democratic challenger -- insisting upon, and > having to be given, under the law, equal time. And if there was that > possibility, regards Reagan's old Hollywood stuff, what do you think > the chances are for it in present time if the stations show a sort of > one-sided documentary deliberatly opposing Kerry? PAT] It's not a law; it was an FCC policy known as the Fairness Doctrine. It went the way of the dodo in 1987, when anti-regulatory FCC commissioners saw that cable TV was beginning to address the scarcity of broadcast resources that had justified the policy. A last-ditch effort to save it by enacting it as law passed Congress in 1987, but Reagan vetoed it. So now instead of fair and balanced, we have Fair and Balanced(TM). Most broadcasters still pay lip service to the Fairness Doctrine. The journalistic standard of "objectivity" generally amounts to telling one side's story for exactly 50% of the time and the other side's for 50%, without passing judgment on the truth of any side's statements. Biased media outlets like FOX News still typically have an anemic milquetoast token liberal or two, and people like Rush Limbaugh, when called on anything they can't defend, will claim they're just entertainer and therefore not subject to journalistic standards. But these people's shows most likely would not even exist if the Fairness Doctrine were still in effect. If there are any grounds for stopping the broadcast, they'd be found in the Federal Election Commission's electioneering policies, not in FCC regulations. Peter F. Dubuque - peterd@panix.com - Enemy of Reason(TM) O- "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." -- Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." -- Dick Cheney, 10/5/04 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:39:09 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Fairness Doctrine (was Anti-Kerry Film Slated to Air ...) Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However they wish to classify it is > their business, *however* they should recall the law which requires > stations to grant equal time to opposing viewpoints. This is taken so > seriously that back when Reagan was running for president most > stations would not even play real old Ronald Reagan Hollywood movies > during the month or so immediatly before the election, as silly as > that may have seemed, since there was always the possibility of the > other candidates -- the Democratic challenger -- insisting upon, and > having to be given, under the law, equal time. And if there was that > possibility, regards Reagan's old Hollywood stuff, what do you think > the chances are for it in present time if the stations show a sort of > one-sided documentary deliberatly opposing Kerry? PAT] If by "the law," you're referring to the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine," the FCC dissolved it in 1987. Congress attempted to reinstate it as law, but the president -- Ronald Reagan -- vetoed, and Congress could not override. http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm Neal McLain [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I said 'the law' I meant anything if not the actual law still has the force and equivilent of the law, which is true of FCC regulations. But I had forgotten about President Ray Guns veto of that perfectly good, very impartial law. Why oh why do we always have to get such winners (see my tongue in cheek) in the highest office in the land? The *only decent* person we have had in that office in the past 25 years was Jimmy Carter. And lest some readers think I favor John Kerry, I *do not* and don't intend to vote for him either. I intend to vote my conscience this time around instead of just voting for the lesser of two evils: Kerry. I will vote for Mr. Badnarik. Oh, I know he won't win, but I am tired of playing the games they toss at us every four years. If Badnarik even *came close* to winning, the Secret Service or the FBI or someone would assassinate him. But he gets my vote, because I want to make a point. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:44:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Monthly Bill Fatigue Service Add-Ons Nibble at Incomes By Christopher Stern Washington Post Staff Writer Satellite radio. Cell phone. High-speed Internet service. Matt Botwin, a Washington consultant, has it all -- and the bills that go with his growing bundle of technology. With each new service, more of Botwin's monthly income is spoken for. A generation ago, mortgages, utilities and newspaper subscriptions made up a short list of payments due each month. Now Americans pay an average of 12 bills a month, including fees for a broad range of services such as television programming, home security-system monitoring and online gaming Web sites. And each individual bill may increase as consumers add incremental improvements such as Internet access to their cell phones and premium channels to their satellite radio service. Botwin figures that he spends at least $250 a month on his subscription services. "I'm not happy about it. It's a lot," Botwin said. But he also feels that his digital devices and services are necessities. The Sirius satellite radio is indispensable for his frequent drives to New York and Philadelphia. "It's like any luxury. I didn't think I needed a microwave [oven], but I'm sure glad I have it now." Economists and academics are beginning to grow concerned about Americans' willingness to cede a regular chunk of their monthly paychecks to new conveniences and services, saying it is taking a serious bite out of discretionary spending, a key driver of the nation's economy. They also worry that new services are contributing to a growing divide between consumers who have the means to secure special treatment, such as access to free-rolling highway lanes, while others are stuck in bumper-to-bumper standstills. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19377-2004Oct9.html ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: 911 Address Display Delays Police Response Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:49:01 GMT In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is unfortunate, but not unusual, >> since it would appear the bank branch was on the *bank's* telephone >> system (sort of like a foreign exchange on the bank's centrex) instead >> of on the *Albertson's* phone system. Of course there is no guarentee >> that the Albertson's phone system was not part of some phone system at >> Albertson's headquarters instead of based out of that local store as >> well. > Yes, this is an increasing problem with more sophisticated telephone > systems. Telephone administrators may be far, far away setting these > things up and not even thinking about local needs. > Also, sometimes outward lines are from a special battery of numbers. >> So this should be a good lesson to the telecom adminstrators in >> our readership. Make certain all *critical* phones at locations other >> than your main, directory-listed business location are correctly >> listed in 911 databases, etc. PAT] > When our mgmt company went to a Centrex, I checked our office and pool > phone to ensure they registered the right address on 911. They did > and 911 was very helpful in checking. > Of course, when we had a community president who felt the pool > phone was being abused she had it taken out to save money. A > great example of _literally_ 'penny smart dollar foolish'. Fortunately > we had no emergencies while the phone was out. This president was > proud of her no-fee-increase budget, but then she was thrown out of > office by a community angry over deferred and neglected maintenance. > The pool phone was restored. But at first it was in locked > cabinet which would be bad if there was an emergency. Now it is > open. > The issue is kind of moot now since so many people have cell phones, > but at least we have a phone. > We used to get a lot of requests for a pay phone but Bell told us we > wouldn't have enough use to pay for it and have to make up the > difference. Interestingly the State of Rhode Island is considering VoIP for all its offices. Somehow I suspect they have completely forgotten about E911 in this process. Add to the fact the several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of AT&T/Lucent/Avaya G3i cabinets as well as other systems in place. The interesting thing is that the G3iV11 can do VoIP but we've already got all the wiring in place for the current station setup. Oh well. Yet another time the hype exceeds the reality. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe what will happen, if Rhode Island goes through with this plan, the end result will be to force the E-911 proponents to change *their* way of doing things. Why is it that E-911 (and by extension, conventional telephony) is so great and VOIP is such a bad deal? How did we get along for the first seventy years of the 20th century before there was any such thing as 911? The first instance of 911 was in the middle 1970's, and it was sometime in the 1980's before it was installed everywhere. Prior to 911, most Americans dialed either (exchange)-1313 or (exchange)-2121 or some other simple repetitive number. In Chicago, for example, we dialed POLice-5-1313 and got along quite fine. Why can't we still do that? Is 911 that great of a deal? PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Railroad's Crew Communication System? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:32:50 +1000 Bob Goudreau contributed the following: >> So in reality it's difficult to currently prove the argument one way or >> the other (at least in Australia). > Er, no, it's not really that difficult. The caveat you quoted warns > of the difficulty of comparing the fatality rates *between* one OECD > country and another. But the topic under discussion is nothing of the > sort. Rather, it's the comparison of the rate *within* one country > (Australia, in this case) over a period of time that encompassed rail > privatization. Just a bit further down the page, the report states: > "In the period from 1980 to 1999 in Australia, the number of railway > accident deaths per 100,000 population each year trended downwards - > from 0.4 in 1980 to 0.2 in 1999." I acknowledge that, but what I should have made clear is that only parts of the Australian system have been privatised, my state being one of the pioneers in this area, most other states still have a system run by their respective governments if I remember correctly. So the statistics seem to show an overall downward trend, which is what you'd hope for as equipment and practices evolve to a better standard over time, but the perception in my particular state has been an increase in various incidents - but fortunately not too many (if any) fatalities recently (not counting level crossing collisions). Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (Remove the "XYZ." to reply) Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Re: Solar Eclipse to Start Thursday, End Wednesday! Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:52:45 -0400 Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net) Thanks, Lisa. For anybody who is still wondering exactly why we have an International Date Line, here's a simple way to understand it: The time zones go from 0 to +12 (hours) east of Greenwich, and 0 to -12 westward. Clearly, the place where +12 meets -12 has 2 zones 24 hours apart -- the International Date Line. But weirder things happen. When New Zealand goes on Daylight Saving Time every (southern hemisphere) summer, it becomes, to the best of my recollection, +13. And +14 occurs in Kiribati, an island that prefers to be on the same calendar date as Australia even though it is a considerable distance to the east. And Kiribati is pronounced Kiribas, just as Kiritimati is pronounced Kirismas (it's Christmas Island). How "ti" came to denote "s" in their language, I'm not sure! Clear skies, Michael A. Covington Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:00:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Computer Users Face New Scourge / Hidden Adware Programs Hijack By Ariana Eunjung Cha Washington Post Staff Writer SAN FRANCISCO -- Chuck Harris remembers when the Internet was fun and he'd spend hours reading his favorite news sites, checking the church calendar, browsing the shops. Then, a few weeks ago, he lost control of his computer. It turned into a giant electronic billboard. The Web browser was taken over by a company he didn't recognize. Pop-up windows tried to download stuff he didn't ask for. Strange icons kept appearing offering low home mortgage loans and sexual enhancement pills he didn't want. Harris spent days trying to fix the computer, but the programs had multiplied to the point where he couldn't run anything else and he decided to give up on the machine. Last week, the 68-year-old retired aerospace engineer from Yorktown, Va., shelled out $1,000 for a new computer, but now he and his wife, Dorothy, use it only when absolutely necessary. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20665-2004Oct9.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20665-2004Oct9 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:46:53 EDT From: Lisa Minter Subject: Computer Users Face New Scourge Computer Users Face New Scourge By Ariana Eunjung Cha SAN FRANCISCO -- Chuck Harris remembers when the Internet was fun and e'd spend hours reading his favorite news sites, checking the church calend ar, browsing the shops. Then, a few weeks ago, he lost control of his compu ter. It turned into a giant electronic billboard. The Web browser was taken over by a company he didn't recognize. Pop-up windows tried to download stuff he didn't ask for. Strange icons kept appearing offering low home mortgage loans and sexual enhancement pills he didn't want. Harris spent days trying to fix the computer, but the programs had multiplied to the point where he couldn't run anything else and he decided to give up on the machine. Last week, the 68-year-old retired aerospace engineer from Yorktown, Va., shelled out $1,000 for a new computer, but now he and his wife, Dorothy, use it only when absolutely necessary. "We have just about quit using the computer," he said. "It isn't worth the aggravation." As if computer users didn't have enough to worry about with hackers, viruses, spam, and other online menaces, now comes a new scourge. Millions of consumers like Harris have been struggling with a recent surge in what computer experts call spyware or adware. The terms apply to a broad range of programs that users download from the Internet, usually without intending to. Unlike the occasional pop-up ad, th ese electronic hitchhikers are hidden programs that stay on the computer's hard drive. They keep serving up advertisements, redirecting browsers to ce rtain Web pages or reporting the computer user's movements and personal inf ormation. Or all of the above. Some spyware comes attached to free, brand-name software that users want a nd install themselves -- instant-message, video-player and file-sharing programs, for example. A reference to the spyware may be included in the legal jargon of one of those on-screen installation agreements that computer use rs routinely accept with the casual click of a "yes" button. Others come unbidden as a side effect of browsing shady sites. Many appear on people's machines simply because they are connected to the Internet. Experts estimate that tens of thousands of spyware and adware programs cir culate on the Internet. For now, the problem of such unauthorized software almost exclusively affects Microsoft Windows users. It's by far the most po pular operating system and the same features that make it so versatile also make it easier for intruders to secretly run programs on it. Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates, in a speech to Silicon Valley technol ogists this month, said that while he's never had a virus infect his comput er, he's been surprised to find many spyware and adware programs that he ne ver authorized on it. He said he has directed the company to launch a new p roject to create a "cure." The National Cyber Security Alliance, a partnership between the tech indus try and the Homeland Security Department, estimates that 90 percent of comp uters using high-speed Internet connections have collected at least one spy ware or adware program, causing a loss in productivity, extra customer supp ort, and repairs. Members of Congress say their offices are fielding an increasing number of constituent complaints about the problem. Two bills that aim to address th e problem passed the House last week. One, sponsored by Rep. Mary Bono (R-C alif.), who first became aware of the problem when her teenage children's c omputers were affected, calls for civil fines of up to $3 million for those who use spyware to defraud consumers. Her bill also would require companies to post more conspicuous notifi- cations that their software might come with adware. Another, introduced by Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), Zoe Lofgren ( D-Calif.) and Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.), would allocate $10 million for the Justice Department to fight spyware. "Spyware is a very real problem that is endangering consumers, damaging businesses, and creating millions of dollars of additional costs," Lofgren said after a spyware bill was passed on Thursday. A coalition of technology companies, many of which have resisted regulation in the past, have rallied behind a spyware bill. Colleen Ryan, a Dell Inc. spokeswoman, said the programs have done damage both in dollars and reputation to the technology industry. Since August 2003, she said, customer support calls to Dell related to spyware have gone fr om slightly more than 2 percent to between 10 to 15 percent. She said many customers assume that their problems are with the company's hardware rather than spyware. "We have to tell them: It's not your computer ." Using a computer was supposed to get easier, not harder. At the height of the dot-com boom, companies promised "plug and play" functionality so that even "dummies" could use the latest technologies to download music, create family videos and build blogs. But along the way something changed. The Internet got a lot more dangerous, forcing consumers to take on more responsibility for protecting their machines. If Internet users got grades for the effort they take to maintain their co mputers, Harris would be a straight-A student. He installed a firewall to protect against hackers, a virus protection program to stop online bugs. He made sure to use e-mail on the Web rather than a program that downloads it -- and possible spam and other annoying or nefarious agents -- to his computer. He avoided installing instant messenger and chat-room programs, many of which are known to be associated with adware. "All, apparently, to no avail," he said. Harris said he equates the problem to "someone breaking into your house an d someone saying you didn't have enough locks on your doors." He believes more responsibility should fall on companies to make sure the machines are protected. "I drive an 18-year-old car and a 12-year old truck and have a 10-year-old dishwasher. They are still functional. But not the computer." It is difficult for even the most technology-savvy to avoid the problem. In June, Philippe Ombredanne, a systems administrator and programmer from Menlo Park, Calif., bought a new computer. He said he was feeling lazy so he put off installing security software for a day. When he woke up, the computer was infected with one virus and about 30 spyware or adware programs, forcing him to erase data and programs from his hard drive and reinstall everything from scratch. "A vanilla computer with no protection has no chance on the Internet anymore," he said. The SANS Institute, a Bethesda-based computer security research center, has studied what it calls the "survival time" of an unprotected computer hooked up to the Internet. A year ago, the average time before it was compromised was about 55 minutes. Today it's 20 minutes. Johannes B. Ullrich, a technologist with the SANS Institute, said the challenge in controlling the adware and spyware programs is that they fall in a gray area between legitimate software and hacker-type programs designed to take over a computer. "It's sometimes hard to figure out where they originally got adware from, whether it was part of an attack or whether a person installed it themselves without really knowing," Ullrich said. The problem is prompting systems administrators like Ombredanne to recommend open-source alternatives. Open-source software is often developed collaboratively by volunteers and the code behind the programs is available for all to see. For years, technology wonks have argued about whether that makes the programs more or less secure than those with proprietary code. He said he tells clients to use Gaim instead of AOL Instant Messenger and Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer and that companies are much more open to that advice than they were several years ago, because of adware and spyware. Meanwhile, the problem of adware and spyware is creating a new type of Internet user -- one who is disenchanted with promises of technological bells and whistles and just wants the basics to work. Some are sticking to dial-up Internet service rather than upgrading to broadband because higher speeds on an "always on" connection create more opportunities for infection with nefarious programs. They are foregoing multimedia programs, basically using their computers as typewriters. Harris and his wife are in that group. At the height of his computer use a few years ago, Harris was so excited about it that he set up and maintained a Web site for his church and for some local charities. Now he dreads having to log on. "I used to feel that the Internet had tremendous potential for communication and was a wonderful tool to use," he said. "I don't anymore." *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance Washington Post Company. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson Subject: Internet Pioneers Getting Restarted Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 GMT Some of our older readers may recall Internet Pioneers and Internet Historical Society; a web site ( http://internet-pioneers.org ) started after a discussion about the Telephone Pioneers which occurred here in July, 1999. It got started and ran along okay for several months, until that black day in November, 1999 when I had the brain aneurysm. That was the end of Internet Pioneers, the Telecom Digest, and most other things in my life for about a year and a half. Now I am trying to get it started once again, and invite all 'old timers' on the net who wish to participate in this open ended discussion forum to do so by visiting http://internet-pioneers.org and/or sending email to pioneers@internet-pioneers.org , starting now. Regretfully, some squatter ripped off the name Internet Historical Society (at least that URL) and loaded it up with penis enlargement ads and other crap. I would very much appreciate any assistance from attorney readers who wish to help in getting back *my property* in the form of the URL internet-history.org Unfortunatly, many of the links which were on display there were absolutely referenced to internet-history pages; they now point at the ugly stuff the guy put up who ripped off my pages. Gradually, day after day, I am putting it all back together, as time and my limited brain processing power these days permits. But I would definitly appreciate an attorney who knows how to recover URLs to take care of this aspect of it for me. Write me for more details if you can help. For now, the alternate URL is still working: http://internet-pioneers.org Thanks. 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. 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 #481 ******************************