For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:53:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Qwest Cost Creep (jared) FCC Wants Comments Re: Should VoIP co's Get Numbers Direct (Jack Decker) Enron Update, was: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills (Danny Burstein) Satellite Radio as "Broadcast Audio Internet"? (AES) Re: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment (Peter Pearson) A Decade of Disappointment - Part I (Patrick Townson) Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Tony P.) Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers (Steve Sobol) Re: AT&T Billing (Tim@Backhome.org) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:25:15 -0700 From: jared@nospam.au (jared) Subject: Qwest Cost Creep In the middle of last year I changed to QWEST and a plan that reduced my monthly charges to about $33. Now in March it's up to > $50. Even a simple phone line with no features is apparently $28 per month ... that's only twice what QWEST advertises (i.e., before fine print). One of the tricky changes was to start charging a monthly fee for long distance that had been bundled in the plan. No notice, just a few dollars more. I asked the customer service representative why and all she could say was that they didn't know that there was going to be a charge for long distance with that plan. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's a problem (one of several) I had with SBC: I'd call to complain the bill had gone up, they would review it and say "if we do thus and so, the bill will go down to be X dollars." I'd say okay, then the next month the bill would arrive and be higher still. I'd have to talk to two or three different people (with a wait on hold for each of them) to get the promised adjustment. None of them knew anything about what the others had said or promised. Once they transferred me to a man 'in Topeka, who is our employee but he deals with state regulatory matters'. The man talked to me for about thirty minutes, detirmined I was 'eligible for lifeline service' (a program of reduced rates for handicapped/elderly people) and told me absolutely what my new monthly rate would be after he had audited my entire bill. Guess what? When the next bill arrived it was **no where close** to that amount. Bell said the reason the bill was 25 pages long that month was because they had to prorate it since the 'guy in Topeka' had re-rated me. The next month's bill _was_ a few pages (not many!) smaller, but the bottom line total was still higher. Then, according to the service rep they had detirmined I was not eligible for lifeline rates unless I would send them once again send them notes from doctor, SRS (Kansas medicaid public assistance) and some other paperwork. When I finally fled to Prairie Stream and Cable One (since SBC would not allow Prairie Stream to handle my DSL), they had me up to $140 per month; I was choking on the phone bill. And the lies they tell about their various service offerings ... their claims ... just incredible. I was so happy to get out of their noose. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:07:40 -0500 Subject: FCC Wants Comments Re: Should VoIP co's Get Numbers Direct? The following is an excerpt from an FCC public notice, which can be read in full at: PDF: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-663A1.pdf DOC: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-663A1.doc TEXT: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-663A1.txt The basic issue here is whether VoIP companies will be allowed to obtain numbers directly from NANPA. Right now, when a VoIP company wants a block of numbers, they have to go to a CLEC that has numbers assigned to them, and use numbers out of the CLEC's number pool. The problem with this is that the CLEC then owns the numbers rather than the VoIP company. Consider the case of where a CLEC is giving poor service or goes out of business; calls to customers may not complete properly and it may not be the VoIP company's fault, but rather the fault of the CLEC that owns the number. So, allowing this change would let the VoIP company to own their own numbers, and therefore they would have both more flexibility and more responsibility. When a CLEC that the VoIP company partners with isn't completing calls properly, the VoIP company could move the termination point for the numbers to another CLEC. I think allowing this change would allow VoIP companies to provide better service to customers, and by the way it would also probably remove the current impediments for customers wanting to take their phone number from one VoIP provider to another (or to a landline or cellular company, for that matter -- in other words, local number portability for VoIP numbers would probably be a reality). Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any real downside to this. Those that just don't like VoIP will probably find some reason to oppose it but I think that if VoIP companies had control of their own number space, rather than using numbers out of the various CLEC's pool, it would make thing far easier for everyone. Note this has nothing to do with whether they would still use the CLEC's for actual call completion, it only addresses who owns the block of numbers out of which customer numbers are assigned. Comments are due by April 15 and those who wish to send a comment can go to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ for details. Instructions for sending an e-mail comment are at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/email.html or you can send a brief comment to the FCC using the online form at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi . You will need the Proceeding number, which is 99-200 (this is called a "CC Docket No." on the Public Notice). Here is the excerpt: PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 DA 05-663 March 11, 2005 WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON RNK, INC. D/B/A RNK TELECOM, NUVIO CORPORATION, UNIPOINT ENHANCED SERVICES D/B/A POINTONE, DIALPAD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VONAGE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND VOEX, INC. PETITIONS FOR LIMITED WAIVER OF SECTION 52.15(g)(2)(i) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING ACCESS TO NUMBERING RESOURCES PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED: CC Docket No. 99-200 Comment Date: April 11, 2005 Reply Comment Date: April 26, 2005 RNK, Inc. d/b/a RNK Telecom (RNK), Nuvio Corporation (Nuvio), Unipoint Enhanced Services d/b/a PointOne (PointOne), Dialpad Communications, Inc. (Dialpad), Vonage Holdings Corporation (Vonage), and VoEX, Inc.(VoEX) have filed petitions with the Commission for a limited waiver of section 52.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules. The petitions request a limited waiver of the Commission's numbering rules to allow RNK, Nuvio, PointOne, Dialpad, Vonage, and VoEX to obtain numbering resources from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) and/or the Pooling Administrator (PA). RNK, Nuvio, Point One, Dialpad, Vonage, and VoEX seek the same relief that the Commission granted in an Order allowing SBCIS to obtain numbering resources directly from the NANPA and/or the PA until the Commission adopts final numbering rules for IP-enabled services. We invite comment on the Petitions for Limited Waiver. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before April 11, 2005; and reply comments on or before April 26, 2005. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). [End of excerpt] I have Gmail invites available if anyone needs one -- e-mail me. If I think there's a chance you might be a spammer, I'll probably ignore your request. 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: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com> Subject: Enron Update, was: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:55:57 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In <telecom24.109.9@telecom-digest.org> Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> writes: > I don't for a moment think the Narragansett Electric was going to > walk away owning just the distribution network and not make people pay > top dollar for it. All this at the time that our electric system > infrastructure is crumbling. > There are echoes of Enron all over the place. Now you just have to dig > a bit deeper to find them. Speaking of Enron: "Federal regulators handed a major victory Friday to Western utilities and cities trying to escape exorbitant contracts they made with disgraced energy giant Enron Corp. during the power crunch of 2000-01. "In a six-page order issued Friday evening, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that Enron was engaging in illegal activity at the time it entered the contracts with the utilities - and that therefore, a hearing should be held to determine whether Enron should be allowed to collect profits it would have received had those contracts been fulfilled. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111060370422077742,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us (paid subscription Comment: fascinating that this was released by the feds Friday evening, eh? That time, as we all know, is used when you want a story to be buried ... _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> Subject: Satellite Radio as "Broadcast Audio Internet"? Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:31:06 -0800 Organization: Stanford University Random thoughts re satellite radio (as it might be, not necessarily as it is): 1) Think of a satellite radio system in technical terms as basically a couple of hundred one-way high-audio-quality phone lines coming into your house, office or car, no matter where you are. If you buy the service and get your radio authorized, you can listen to any line you want, any time you want. There is however no way for any line to "ring your phone" individually, and no way for the system to determine what you're actually listening to, or to charge you on an individual basis for listening to any individual line. In other words, it's kind of a one-way broadcast audio Internet. 2) Suppose a commercial firm wanted to build and provide such a satellite radio service with about the same technical capabilities and the same current or likely magnitude of customer base as XM or Sirius at present or in the foreseeable future, but with no content in other words a kind of "common carrier" service with income derived from (a) listener subscriptions and (b) selling channels to content providers. What might this cost? that is, what might be a subscriber's monthly "phone bill", and what might be the cost to a content provider to buy a channel, just to cover the operating costs of the system, plus a modest profit for the provider? 3) Obviously this depends on how the system's costs are allocated between these two sources, but might the subscriber's cost be about the same as XM or Sirius subscription rates at present, and channel costs to content providers be maybe thousands or tens of thousands per month, not millions per month? 4) That would be an interesting system. "Broadcasters" aka "content providers" could purchase channels, provide content (e.g., music), and cover their costs of buying the channel and generating the content by selling advertising, although without further technical developments they'd have trouble determining just how much audience they were delivering to their advertisers, and thus what they could charge for the ad slots on their channel. 5) But if the channels were cheap enough a large number of "interest groups" of all types political, religious, ethnic, athletic, social, religious, academic, educational, environmental, you name it Could buy (or share) channels, and send content to their members, or to broader audiences, supported by their own membership or their donors or sponsors in the manner of KPFA, KQED, WBAI, the Sierra Club, and so on. That would be a socially interesting and socially valuable/desirable situation, at least IMHO. In fact, maybe that's the way satellite radio should be required (legislatively) to operate . . . ? 6) What if any of the above aspects does satellite radio have now? Does or will XM or Sirius sell a channel to a content provider and/or interest group now (disclaiming any responsibility for what's on it)? If they sell to some content providers now, can they be required to sell to any and all providers willing to pay? Assuming they get up to some acceptable level of subscribers, can or could subscriber fees similar to those at present cover their basic operating costs (i.e., just for providing the empty channels) and modest profit? Or are they counting on advertising revenues for a major portion of their future profits? (as do essentially all other forms of commercial media, radio, TV and print, at present) 7) My personal take or viewpoint on all this is summed up in: "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." British philosopher Lord Acton around 1890. "Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt. Total dependence on advertising corrupts totally." Today's version. The second line is my view of the situation in essentially all areas of journalism and broadcast media today. The right kind of satellite radio could be a way around it. ------------------------------ From: Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid.lga.highwinds-media.com> Subject: Re: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:26:54 -0800 Monty Solomon wrote: > EPIC Report: Privacy Self-Regulation, A Decade of Disappointment: > http://www.epic.org/reports/decadedisappoint.html Summary: Freedom is ugly. The FTC should do something. The "specifics", if you can call them that, of the "something" are: (1) abandon its faith, (2) reexamine something, (3) reexamine something else, (4) investigate something, (5) investigate something else, and (6) develop a mechanism for opting out. Peter Pearson To get my email address, substitute: nowhere -> spamcop, invalid -> net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I went to that web site and read entirely the essay mentioned (A Decade of Disappointment) and found it well worth the time to reprint here for inclusion in our archives. But it is _quite large_ so it will appear in two parts; much of it will appear in this issue, the balance in the next issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson <ptownson@cableone.net> Subject: A Decade of Disappointment - Part I Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:43:22 -0600 Privacy Self Regulation: A Decade of Disappointment By Chris Jay Hoofnagle March 4, 2005 A hi-resolution version report is available in PDF (2.5 MB). [Front Cover: Lists of personal information for sale from website registrations.] [Inside Front Cover: Letter forwarded to EPIC explaining that an individual has no rights in personal information held by the company, Locateplus.com.] Summary The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is capable of creating reasonable and effective privacy protections for American consumers. There is no better example of this than the Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry. The Registry, which was created and is now run by the FTC, makes it easy for individuals to opt-out of unwanted telemarketing. Now, more than 80 million numbers now no longer ring at the dinner hour. Prior to the creation of the Registry, the telemarketing industry created self-regulatory protections that were largely useless. One had to write a letter to opt out of telemarketing, or pay to opt out by giving their credit card number to the Direct Marketing Association (DMA). The industry's self-regulatory efforts didn't even cover all telemarketers-only those that were members of the DMA. At its peak, the self-regulatory opt-out system had less then 5 million enrollments. FTC's success in the telemarketing field demonstrates that it can protect Americans' privacy effectively and fairly. However, telemarketing was a 20th century problem. This report argues that it is time for the agency to move into the 21st century. It is time for the agency to apply the principles of telemarketing privacy regulation into the online world. The FTC can protect privacy better than the industry can with self-regulation. We now have ten years of experience with privacy self-regulation online, and the evidence points to a sustained failure of business to provide reasonable privacy protections. New tracking technologies exist that individuals are unaware of, and old tracking technologies continue to be employed. Some companies deliberately obfuscate their practices so that consumers remain in the dark. Spyware has developed and flourished under self-regulation. Emerging technologies represent serious threats to privacy and are not addressed by self-regulation or law. Self regulation has failed to produce easy to use anonymous payment mechanisms. And finally, the worst identification and tracking policies from the online world are finding their way into the offline world. In other words, the lack of protection for privacy online not only has resulted in a more invasive web environment, but has also started to drag down the practices of ordinary, offline retailers. EPIC calls upon the Federal Trade Commission and Congress to seriously reconsider its faith in self-regulatory privacy approaches. They have led to a decade of disappointment; one where Congress has been stalled and the public anesthetized, as privacy practices steadily worsened. We call on the government to create a floor of standards for protection of personal information based on Fair Information Practices. I. The FTC Registry Is Better Than Market Alternatives The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Telemarketing Do-Not-Call Registry was a stunning privacy success. Americans enrolled 10 million numbers in the Registry in its first day of operation. Now, the phone has stopped ringing on the more than 60 million numbers that were enrolled by the public. The nuisance of telemarketing will now be a thing of the past. Those who wish to receive telemarketing may still do so, but others have an easy option to preserve the dinner hour from interruption. When one analyzes the decisions made by the FTC, it reveals that the agency took steps to effect consumers' desires. The FTC publicized the existence of the Registry and gave it a simple name and URL on the Internet. The FTC allowed people to enroll free by telephone or by the Internet. The FTC minimized "authentication" burdens. That is, the FTC made it easy for people to enroll by not requiring the consumer to jump through unnecessary hoops. Some from the industry suggested that only the line subscriber-not even a spouse or roommate-could enroll. The Do-Not-Call Registry was a success because the FTC took the opposite approach from the self-regulatory system created by the Direct Marketing Association (DMA). In every respect, the FTC ensured that the Registry would be easy to use and fair, while the DMA's opt-out mechanism was difficult to use and relatively unknown. For starters, the DMA's system only applied to the industry association's members. Telemarketers who had not joined the group were not bound to comply with consumers' desire to opt-out. The FTC's approach applied to a much broader group of telemarketers. Second, the DMA's list was named the "Telephone Preference Service." The name and acronym, "TPS," had no meaning to the public. To some, it could mean a list of people who preferred to be telemarketed. The FTC approach, on the other hand, was sensibly named and assigned a easy to remember URL, http://donotcall.gov, on the Internet. Third, the DMA's list required the consumer to actually write a letter for free enrollment. To enroll online, the consumer had to pay a fee and give their credit card number to the DMA. The FTC's approach allows free Internet, mail, and telephone enrollment. The FTC's Registry is universal, free, and easy to use. Individuals could enroll online or by phone. The DMA's only applied to its members, cost money to enroll online, and was difficult to find. It's no wonder why the DMA's list only had 5 million enrollments, while the FTC's has more than 80 million. These forces combined to make the DMA's market approach to telemarketing ineffective. The numbers speak for themselves. USA Today commented in 2002 that: "In 17 years, just 4.8 million consumers have signed up with the DMA's do-not-call list. By contrast, just five states -- New York, Kentucky, Indiana, Florida and Missouri -- have signed up roughly the same number in far less time."[i] Today's self-regulatory approaches to Internet privacy are much like the failed ones employed by the DMA for telemarketing. They are difficult to use, confusing, and often offer no real protection at all. This report details the current state of privacy on the Internet, and illustrates the myriad ways in which threats to privacy are becoming ever more grave, as new technologies are developed, new practices become commonplace, and companies are not held accountable for disregarding privacy risks. Collection of personal information on the Internet runs rampant, both through direct and indirect means, both in the open and in secret. It is imperative that the FTC act now to correct these market failures. The FTC effectively and fairly corrected the failures of a 20th century nuisance-telemarketing. It is time for the agency to move into the 21st century and correct the failures of self-regulation to meaningfully protect Internet privacy. II. Ten Years of Self-Regulation and Still No Privacy In Sight EPIC has completed three Surfer Beware reports assessing the state of privacy on the Internet. "Surfer Beware I: Personal Privacy and the Internet," a 1997 report, reviewed privacy practices of 100 of the most frequently visited web sites on the Internet. It checked for collection of personal information, establishment of privacy policies, cookie usage, and anonymous browsing. The inquiry found that few sites had easily accessible privacy policies, and none of these policies met basic standards for privacy protection. However, at that time, most of the sites surveyed allowed users to access web content and services without disclosing any personal data. The report ended with a recommendation of continuing support for anonymity and the development of both good privacy policies and practices. In 1998, EPIC produced "Surfer Beware II: Notice Is Not Enough," a report based on a survey of the privacy practices of 76 new members of the Direct Marketing Association ("DMA"), a proponent of self-regulation of privacy protection. The DMA released guidelines in 1997 that would require all future members of the DMA to publicize privacy policies and provide an opt-out capability for information sharing. Of the 76 new members surveyed, only 40 had web sites, and only 8 of these sites had policies satisfying the DMA's requirements. The report concluded that DMA's self-regulation efforts were not effective. The 1999 report "Surfer Beware III: Privacy Policies without Privacy Protection" assessed the privacy practices of the 100 most popular shopping web sites on the Internet. It examined whether these sites complied with common accepted privacy principles, used profile-based advertising, and employed cookies. The survey determined that 18 of the sites had no privacy policy displayed, 35 of the sites used profile-based advertising, and 86 of the sites used cookies. None of the companies adequately addressed Fair Information Practices, commonly-accepted responsibilities covering collection, access to, and control over personal information. Surfer Beware III concluded that current practices of the online shopping industry provided little meaningful privacy protection for consumers. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has given self-regulation a decade to produce reasonable privacy protections online. The FTC first visited online privacy in 1995, and with minor fluctuations since then, has adopted a policy that embraces the idea that self-regulation is "the least intrusive and most efficient means to ensure fair information practices online, given the rapidly evolving nature of the Internet and computer technology."[ii] It certainly is the least intrusive approach for companies exploiting personal information, but it has not efficiently ensured Fair Information Practices. Of the five Fair Information Practices[iii] endorsed by the FTC-notice, choice, access, security, and accountability-only notice can be said to be present as a result of privacy statements. The first fluctuation in the FTC's commitment to self-regulation occurred in 1998, after the agency's survey of online practices showed that the lowest level of protection for consumer, notice of privacy practices, was not widely implemented. In a survey of 1400 web sites conducted by the Commission, 92% of the commercial sites collected personal information but only 14% had privacy notices. Of the commercial sites, only 2% had a "comprehensive" privacy policy.[iv] In reaction to these findings, the FTC was "still hopeful" that industry efforts would produce adequate privacy protections.[v] At the time, Chairman Pitofsky recommended that Congress pass legislation if self-regulation failed to produce significant progress.[vi] A year later in testimony to Congress, the FTC renewed its faith in self-regulation, noting that many web sites had adopted privacy policies. But protections beyond mere disclosure of practices lagged behind. Only a small number of surveyed sites had incorporated choice, access, and security into their practices. No meaningful avenue for enforcement existed at all. Commissioner Sheila Anthony concurred with the report's findings but dissented from its recommendations, noting, "industry progress has been far too slow since the Commission first began encouraging the adoption of voluntary fair information practices in 1996. Notice, while an essential first step, is not enough if the privacy practices themselves are toothless. I believe that the time may be right for federal legislation to establish at least baseline minimum standards." "Notice, while an essential first step, is not enough if the privacy practices themselves are toothless." In 2000, a 3-2 majority of the FTC formally recommended that Congress adopt legislation requiring commercial web sites and network advertising companies to comply with Fair Information Practices.[vii] However, a year later with the appointment of a new FTC Chairman, the FTC embraced self-regulation again. Chairman Muris decided to focus the Commission's attention on enforcing existing laws rather than create new legislative protections for online privacy.[viii] Chairman Muris indeed has expanded privacy protections through the creation of a do-not-call list and with application of the agency's powers to prevent unfair and deceptive trade practices. The overall effect of the FTC's approach has been to delay the adoption of substantive legal protection for privacy. The adherence to self-regulatory approaches, such as the Network Advertising Initiative that legitimized third-party Internet tracking and the Individual References Service Group principles that concerned sale of SSNs, allowed businesses to continue using personal information while not providing any meaningful privacy protection. Ten years later, online collection of information is more pervasive, more invasive, and just as unaccountable as ever-and increasingly, the public is anesthetized to it. It doesn't have to be this way. The FTC has been effective in protecting privacy when dealing with 20th century nuisances. It's time for the FTC to apply the lessons from telemarketing and other efforts to address the 21st century problem of Internet privacy. III. Today's Tracking Methods Are More Pervasive and Invasive Seven years ago, EPIC's report Surfer Beware I reviewed the status of Internet users' privacy rights and protections on the 100 most frequently visited web sites. The report was concerned primarily with the solicitation, collection, use, and protection of personal information obtained either from user-input forms or cookies. Today, there are many more methods through which users can be tracked, profiled, and monitored in the online world. Cookie technology has matured-cookies are widespread and new uses have been developed. Entirely new technologies have emerged as well, some of which are all but unknown to consumers. Few of these methods are regulated, either internally by industry or externally by government. Without privacy legislation to protect Internet users from improper use of the information collected on the web, companies are unlikely to voluntarily cease privacy-invasive practices. Cookies Surfer Beware I discussed an Internet tracking technology over which there was "a great deal of controversy"-cookies. It found that about a quarter of the most frequently visited web sites used cookies. Today, many websites use cookies for one reason or another. In addition, there are several new wrinkles in the use of this tracking technology. Third Party Cookies Today, websites that a user explicitly visits are not the only entities which place cookies in your web browser-many web sites contain advertising served by outside commercial providers, and these providers may also send a cookie to your browser. These are known as "third party cookies." Some web browsers, such as Firefox allow users to block third party cookies. Many web pages today have arrangements with third party ad servers that serve advertisements to their pages. For example, the MSN Privacy Statement lists two dozen third party ad networks that may place cookies in a user's browser.[ix] Privacy policies (such as MSN's) tend to frame these third party cookies as a benefit to the user, allowing advertisers to "deliver targeted advertisements that they believe will be of most interest to you." Persistent Cookies A persistent cookie is one that remains on a user's computer after she has quit the browser. These cookies can be used to set and remember a user's web site preferences, settings, and passwords from one browser session to the next, but can also be used for tracking and monitoring purposes. A troubling recent trend is to design these cookies to remain not just for many browser sessions, but for many years. Google's search cookie, for example, will not expire until January 17, 2038. This kind of long range tracking of users raises significant privacy risks. Web Bugs A web bug is a graphic on a web page that allows tracking and monitoring of visitors to that page. Web bugs are usually invisible, "clear" images only 1-by-1 pixel in size. They are capable of transmitting, back to the bug's originating server your Internet Protocol ("IP") address, the page you visited, the time you visited, browser information, and information from existing cookies in the browser. For market approaches to work, consumers must grasp both technology and practices. But in a Pew Internet Report, 56% surveyed couldn't identify a cookie.[x] Web bugs are sometimes used for the innocuous purpose of counting how many times a particular page is viewed and gathering statistics about browser usage and web site usage. There are, however, much more invasive uses, such as compiling a detailed web-browsing profile of a particular user. Web bugs are designed specifically to be secret and invisible. Many Internet users today are aware of cookies, and may perceive them from the appearance of visible advertisements. There are also tools to manage cookies. Web bugs, however, can transmit information and set cookies even when there is no telltale banner advertisement on the website tipping off a user that information might be collected about them. Furthermore, just one "allowed" cookie from an ad network opens the door for all web bugs within that network to collect browsing information about that user. With companies such as DoubleClick, providing advertising to countless web sites, this risk is significant. For instance, if a user with a DoubleClick cookie in their browser loads a web page with a DoubleClick web bug on it, that bug can grab the identifying information in the cookie and transmit it back to the server along with the other information collected by the bug. Google's Gmail Content Extraction On April 1, 2004, Google announced the launch of their new Gmail service. Gmail is a web-based e-mail service offering one-gigabyte of e-mail storage to users. Gmail is supported by advertisers who buy keywords, much like the Google search engine's AdWords advertising program, which lead to targeted advertisements displayed alongside an e-mail message in a Gmail user's inbox. Gmail uses "content extraction" (a term from Google's patents) on all e-mails sent to and from a Gmail account in order to target the advertising to the user. "If Google ogles your e-mail, will Ashcroft be far behind?"[xi] Many privacy advocates hold the position that the Gmail service violates the privacy rights of both Gmail users and non-subscribers. Non-subscribers who e-mail a Gmail user have "content extraction" performed on their e-mail even though they have not consented to have their communications monitored, nor may they even be aware that their communications are being analyzed. This is a significant development in Internet tracking technology because it is one of the first with the capacity and the structure to monitor and record not just transactional data and personal information, but the content of private communications. Spyware Spyware and adware are extremely invasive and annoying technologies that have flourished in the self-regulatory world of Internet privacy. Both can be broadly described as pieces of software placed on a user's computer by a third party that perform unwanted functions. Spyware and adware collect information about the user, sometimes in complete secrecy without the knowledge of the user. Some programs display pop-up ads on the user's monitor, while others track and record everything the user does online. Information is sometimes collected by the programs for the sole purpose of sending that data back to an advertiser, and other times used to immediately serve pop-up ads to the user. Users often inadvertently download and install spyware and adware along with other desired computer programs, most commonly file-sharing applications. McAfee, an Internet security firm that sells popular virus protection and other personal computer security programs, reported more than 2.5 million "potentially unwanted programs" on its customers' computers, as of March 2004.[xii] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the next issue of the Digest, we will begin with Part IV of this essay, discussing even more nefarious schemes to invade your privacy getting started. PAT ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:58:25 -0500 In article <telecom24.109.7@telecom-digest.org>, Wesrock@aol.com says... > In a message dated Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:34:59 -0500, Marcus Didius Falco > <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> Many years ago the standard was somewhat different, and the yellow >> wire was sometimes used as a ground. Then, for a time, I think the >> yellow wire was used to power the lights on princess phones. Almost >> certainly the yellow wire is either dead or shorted to one of the >> other wires. Check this with a volt meter. > The yellow wire was indeed used for ground, required for the generally > used type of party-line ringing, and also for calling party > identification when DDD came along. > Two wires were required, as for all electrical circuits, for the > lights on Princess and Trimline phones. They were normally on > yellow-black. Usually a wall war was used, but there were also > separate plug-in transformers with binding post terminals that could > be put in an inconspicuous location and multipled (normally on the > yellow-black) to several Princess or Trimline phones. Yep -- I remember that setup well. There were different wall warts depending on the configuration being set up. Our house had one but the current was higher because there were two Trimlines and one Princess in use. > Later examples of Trimline phones got the power for the lights from > the phone pairs (another task for the C.O. battery). Yep, got one of those on my desk right now. A yellow Trimline to be specific. Has green LED's to provide the lighting. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing I have noticed which is different between the older Trimline phones (with a separate power supply) and the newer units is that the newer units (with an LED to light the buttons) run from telco battery instead of an external power supply. The old units would stay lighted all the time unless you flipped the switch to turn off the light bulb. The newer units (with an LED powered from telco battery) are dark when the phone is on hook and also go dark for a few seconds as the buttons are pressed. That is unfortunate, because the older units also made very nice 'night lights' in a darkened room. With the newer (telco battery powered LED) units, you can not see the phone in a dark room until you have already found it and have it off hook. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:02:03 -0800 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Tony P. wrote: >>> Consider that Ms. Wood readily admits she has an agenda (she has an >>> axe to grind with cell phone manufacturers over what she perceives as >>> "iron-clad control over phone releases and pricing, its >>> ever-lengthening contracts, and the annoying habit it has of crippling >>> Bluetooth phones so that [she] can't use them the way [she wants] >>> to"). I would thus take this with a heavy handful of salt. If Miss Wood thinks that retail phone pricing and contracts are the fault of the MANUFACTURERS, she's probably too stupid to carry a cell phone in the first place. I doubt the removal of certain functions is done by the manufacturers on their own, either. > The problem is that many of the headsets are now Bluetooth enabled. > Those put out signals on what, 2.4GHz at relatively low power. So? My phone runs on 1.9GHz ... I still haven't heard anything definitive either way, either that cell phones DO or DON'T cause illness. JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" ------------------------------ From: Tim@Backhome.org Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:17:32 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note Yet, Traditional Bell and its apologists > keep talking complaining about what a bum deal telco is getting from the > alternative services such as the CLECs and VOIP, etc. > This is just IMO, but I think AT&T, SBC, etc have mostly brought on > their own troubles over the years. PAT] No doubt about it. They were the most arrogant suits in town in the 1950s and 60s. Had they been able to reason objectively they would have never let Carterfone get out of hand. Then again, their history from the late 1800s, on through WWII, made them feel they were more powerful than the U.S. Government or any mere private enterprise domestic corportation. ------------------------------ 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 ! ************************ Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35 credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including data, video, and voice networks. The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning. Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at 405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at http://www.mstm.okstate.edu ************************ In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 V24 #110 ****************************** | |