From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 16 23:46:18 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iBH4kHZ05765; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:46:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:46:18 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412170446.iBH4kHZ05765@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 #603 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:42:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 603 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson No Safer and Less Free (Lisa Minter) Gays Own More Tech Innovations (Lisa Minter) Record Industry Sues 754 for Internet Song Swaps (Lisa Minter) AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phones (Marcus Falco) Re: FCC Approves Wireless Internet Access on Airplanes (Joseph) Re: Wrong 911 Address Delays Firemen (Mark Atwood) Re: Wrong 911 Address Delays Firemen (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Cingular Migration (John Levine) Re: Cell Phone Users/Motorists Are Dangerous (Dave VanHorn) Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Cross Battery and Verizon (Gary Novosielski) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Minter Subject: No Safer and Less Free Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:07:55 EST Organization: http://lisaminter.us.tf Editorial on National ID Cards By Laura W. Murphy "Show me your papers" is a phrase most Americans would never expect to hear in their everyday lives, but with the intelligence bill passed by Congress last week, that's the type of Big-Brother society we're becoming. The de facto national ID that lawmakers approved won't make us any safer, but it will make us much less free. Most people already use a driver's license -- to cash checks, vote and travel -- so what's wrong with standardizing and consolidating data? A national ID is an identity thief's dream come true. Under new federal guidelines, state IDs must include personal information, plus a digital photograph, and they must be "machine readable." Businesses might soon be able to swipe your ID to track what you bought, and when and where you bought it. They could be able to use that information themselves or sell it to others. Since 9/11, Americans have had to weigh tradeoffs between privacy and security. A national ID, though, protects neither. Of the 25 countries most affected by terrorist attacks -- including Israel -- 80% already have national IDs. A national ID hasn't made these nations any safer. A convincing case has not been made that this system would have stopped 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing, because a national ID cannot reveal malicious intentions. For example, some of the 9/11 hijackers obtained identification documents legally, and were in the country legally. It takes good, old-fashioned police work to follow up on leads and separate the Mohamed Attas and Timothy McVeighs from law-abiding people. A national ID wouldn't have stopped those with fake IDs, either. An ID is only as secure as the "source documents" it requires. Someone who used a fake birth certificate and fake Social Security card to get an ID will still be able to do so under the new law; the same people who manufacture fake driver's licenses today will be manufacturing fake national IDs tomorrow. Our privacy isn't the only price we'll pay for this system. Enacting this legislation will cost billions of dollars -- money better spent on real security measures that will keep us both safe and free.

Laura W. Murphy is director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office. NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily. *** 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, the Associated Press, and Yahoo News.. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Gays Own More Tech Innovations Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:17:51 EST Organization: http://lisaminter.us.tf Trendsetters once more, gay people are slightly ahead of the curve when it comes to using technology, particularly when it comes to communication, a new online survey reveals. Harris Interactive, in conjunction with Witeck-Combs Communications, a strategic public relations and marketing firm that focuses on the gay market, conducted an online survey of technology usage and found some real differences between how gay and straight people use or acquire new technology. If you wanted to watch cable, for instance, you'd have more luck finding a cable box at a gay person's home. More than two-thirds of gay households, or 69 percent, have cable as compared with less than two-thirds, or 61 percent, of straight homes. At a gay household you would also double your chances of being able to watch "Queer as Folk" in HDTV: 16 percent of gay households have HDTV; only 8 percent of straight households have it so far. Gay people may also stay slightly better connected than their straight counterparts -- at least when it comes to cell phones. Eight in 10 gay people, or 79 percent, have cellular service as compared with 72 percent of straight people. The survey also showed slightly more gay people pick their cell phones and cell phone plans according to their friends' and family's advice. While showing the difference between the two communities, the survey also suggests that such market information is important for companies to know if they want to attract more gay customers. "It's no secret that the cellular market is becoming increasingly saturated, and these data can help marketers distinguish between GLB and heterosexual consumers' use and purchase considerations," Jake Stafford, senior marketing strategist at Witeck-Combs, said in the firm's press release. "The research also suggests that as gays continue to embrace emerging technologies such as HDTV, there is room for innovations that would continue to spur the buying preferences of trend-setting gay customers." NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily. *** 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 Planet Out News and AP News Service.. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Record Industry Sues 754 for Internet Song Swaps Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:11:36 EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A recording industry trade group said Thursday that it has filed another wave of lawsuits against 754 people it suspects of distributing songs over the Internet without permission. The Recording Industry Association of America has now sued more than 7,000 people for distributing its songs over "peer to peer" networks like eDonkey and Kazaa, in an effort to discourage the online song copying that it believes has cut into CD sales. The RIAA typically settles copyright infringement suits for around $5,000 each. Despite more than a year of headline-grabbing lawsuits, peer-to-peer use has not declined. An average of 7.5 million users were logged on to peer-to-peer networks in November 2004, up from 4.4 million in November 2003, according to the research firm BigChampagne. The four major labels -- Vivendi Universal, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, EMI Group Plc and privately held Warner Music -- have recently begun to license their songs to a new generation of online services as a way to slash distribution costs and reach out to fans. But recording-industry officials remain at loggerheads with software makers like Grokster and Morpheus that allow users to freely copy their songs. "With legal online retailers still forced to compete against illegal free networks, the playing field remains decidedly unbalanced," said RIAA president Cary Sherman in a statement. Courts so far have declined to declare peer-to-peer software makers like Grokster and Morpheus illegal because, like a photocopier, they do not permit copyright infringement but merely make it possible. The Supreme Court will hear the entertainment's case against Grokster and Morpheus in March. The latest round of lawsuits included students at Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Old Dominion University and Virginia Commonwealth University. Under pressure form the RIAA, many schools have taken steps to limit file sharing and at least 20 schools give students free access to industry-sanctioned download services like Roxio Inc.'s Napster . The RIAA does not yet know the names of those it has sued, only the numerical addresses used by their computers. The trade group typically finds out suspects' identities from their Internet service providers during the legal proceedings. NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily. *** 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 Reuter News. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:42:50 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use There are a lot more interests than the FCC and FAA in this story, and a lot of players who can delay or derail the change. In this case its the flight attendants. They may be claiming a safety issue, but it may be they don't want to deal with passengers yelling into the phones, or it may be they're hoping to use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations. http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=3Dst/sn/12150000aaa06203.u pi&Sys=3Dsiteia&Fid=3DAVIATION&Type=3DNews&Filter=3DAviation http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=3Dst/sn/12150000aaa06203.u pi&Sys=3Dprint&Fid=3DAVIATION&Type=3DNews&Filter=3DAviation&S=3Dsiteia=20 AFA opposes in-flight cell phone use WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- A union representing U.S. flight attendants is= calling on the Federal Communications Commission to maintain its ban on in-flight use of cellular telephones. The Association of Flight Attendants warns widespread use of wireless devices in the confined space of an aircraft cabin potentially could interfere with an aircraft's communications and navigation systems, compromise safety and increase conflicts between passengers and crew member. An AFA representative called for more research on the use of portable electronic devices on board aircraft during a Washington meeting on proposed changes in prohibitions on cellular use. "While this process is unfolding, attempts to weaken the long-standing FCC prohibition will only confuse the public, and any widespread misperception by travelers that cell phone use in flight is now intrinsically safe might well prove catastrophic," said Chris Witkowski, director of the AFA Air Safety, Health and Security Department in a statement. The AFA represents more than 46,000 flight attendants. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. All rights reserved. Copyright 2004 UPI NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . New articles daily. *** 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 United Press International. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: FCC Approves Wireless Internet Access on Airplanes Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:03:22 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:10:23 -0500, Marcus Didius Falco wrote: > Press reports say that the FAA is in no hurry to allow this, so it may > be several years before it's implemented. This article says that > they won't complete their technical study for 2 years. > Another scenario, however, would be to nibble away at the rules: use > is now allowed at the ramp with the doors open. It might be allowed on > some airlines while taxiing based on this experience. Then later it > could be allowed at altitude based on that experience. But that would > take a couple of years anyhow. All this talk of the FAA is nice, but isn't the present prohibition for cell phones in flight because of a FCC edict and it has nothing to do with how it affects avionics and the FAA isn't even involved officially, but rather the way that someone in a plane at 35,000 feet would affect multiple cells on the ground and thus mess things up on the ground is the main concern of the FCC? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wrong 911 Address Delays Firemen From: Mark Atwood Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:35:35 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > A fire in a six-story apartment building early Wednesday, killed one > person and injured 31 others, and Mayor Bloomberg said firefighters > were delayed because the caller reporting the fire gave the wrong > address. Which is why, when one moves to a new address and has POTS service installed, on a weekday day, when not lots of emergencies are happening, it is wise to dial 911, immediately tell the operator that this is not an emergency, and ask them to verify your address. Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure mark@atwood.name | you've done anything at all. http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I first printed the original item a couple days ago, my original intention was to *refute* the oft-given argument about how 'VOIP fails to provide good identifica- tion to public safety units.' That is one reason telcos and their supporters give against VOIP service. My intention was to show it can go both ways. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Wrong 911 Address Delays Firemen Date: 16 Dec 2004 23:20:36 -0500 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As sad as this event is, *nothing* > was said about the call to 911 going over VOIP, rather than the > more usual transport for calls to 911, nor was it explained who the > 'someone' was that gave an incorrect address to the dispatcher. Maybe > one of our NYC readers can provide more background on this. PAT] The story didn't say anything about VOIP because VOIP was either not involved or entirely irrelevant. According to this morning's New York Times, the caller who reported the fire was so flustered that he gave the dispatcher *his* address as the building on fire instead of the correct one (which was about a block away). The real problem here is idiots (often building superintendents, or tenants intimidated by complaints from their neighbors about door slamming noise) who remove or defeat the extremely strong spring that New York City requires as a self-closer on all apartment-door hinges. With the required spring in place, the door basically _cannot_ stay open when someone rushes out of an apartment after discovering a fire. In this case, according to the Times, the tenant rushed out of the apartment after discovering the fire and did not close the door; what the Times failed to mention was that if the door had been in compliance with the fire code, it would have closed itself. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 2004 03:35:59 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Cingular Migration Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Then how about SBC? I always heard SBC advertisments mentioning about > Cingular Wireless. Please advise more ... That story did a rather poor job of explaining what the problem is. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless. Since it takes a while to merge the operations of two big companies, for the moment AT&T Wireless is still operating as AT&T Wireless even though it's part of Cingular. That's so EXCEPT in a few places, like the part of Oklahoma where the article was written. For anti-trust reasons, they sold some parts of AT&T Wireless to Alltel. So in those few places, AT&T Wireless is really Alltel. AT&T Wireless did a lousy job of telling the customers in those areas to ignore all the ads, you're really Alltel customers now. If you were a Cingular customer before, you're still a Cingular customer. If you were an AT&T Wireless customer before, you're probably a Cingular customer, except in a few areas where you're an Alltel customer instead. If you're an AT&T Wireless customer and you're not sure, I'd suggest calling 611 from your cell phone and when you get a human ask "is this Cinglar or Alltel"? John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Reply-To: Dave VanHorn From: Dave VanHorn Subject: Re: Cell Phone Motorists Are Dangerous Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:45:53 -0500 I've been watching this, conducting my own unscientific poll if you will ... My results suggest that everyone should be forced to use cell phones while driving, as I've seen far more "stupid maneuvers" by drivers without cell phones, than with them. Seriously, I think it's wrong to judge one driver's abilities by another driver's abilities. If that were the case, we'd all be walking because some people can't concentrate enough to drive, at all. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? Date: 16 Dec 2004 13:45:55 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you remember *many, many* years > ago when cable television was first getting underway how 'they' said > cable would be a better deal 'since there would not be any > commercials; it is all paid for by your cable fees'. What a joke > that was. Of course that was long before they started showing > commercials in the movie theatres (where you had bought a five or > six dollar ticket to watch a movie also.) PAT] Yes, I do. Indeed, I remember a lot of promises about cable television that never came to be, and I've read a lot of the hopes for broadcast TV that either never came out or only did in a trickle. All these broken promises from new technology is a motivator for many of my postings here. I've seen enough "oh this is a wonderful technology!" promises when in reality it actually made things _worse_ for us consumers. Sometimes the technology itself was just plain bad, sometimes it was the way it was promoted and marketed. Everyone is deep in love with "digital" over analog, but the rush to implementation had a lot of bugs with disasterous consquences as firemen radios went dead. A major police system used in several cities tends to fail; the mfr is working on it. The old Bell System used to test, test, and retest its new technologies before rolling them out nationwide. After in-house extensive lab testing, they did carefully controlled beta tests in one real exchange. Their famous initial ESS tests taught them a heck of a lot about reliability, the switchgear, and station sets. The original point of CATV was better reception. I'm still waiting for that to happen. For some reason the lowest channels on my system come in very poorly, and I've called them out many times. As it happens I don't watch those channels too much so I live with it, but it's interesting how this supposedly high-tech medium (with fiber optic now) still can't get the basics right. The second point of CATV was better program selection. In some ways that has come true, but in many ways that's lacking. When Nick@Nite and TV Land first came out they offered some neat stuff from the 1950s, but now it's just more reruns of recent junk. Nick daytime had some creative original shows, but I don't think they bother anymore. I don't think much of cable news networks because they spew out raw facts that are _out of context_ and thus not newsworthy. Good news reporting is more than just reporting isolated facts -- it is putting them together in a logical fashion, eliminating contradictions, and putting in a wider context. Despite all the time they have they still put everything in brief sound bites. ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Cross Battery and Verizon Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:22:51 GMT Joe Perkowski wrote: > The Verizon guy is telling us "cross battery" is causing this? Tell him you don't care if Green Men from Mars are causing it; when is he going to fix it? ------------------------------ 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 #603 ******************************