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
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 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:30:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 137
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Secret Service DNA - "Distributed Networking Attack" (Monty Solomon)
Re: Fax Station ID (Gary Breuckman)
Re: Fax Station ID (Steve Sobol)
Re: Fax Station ID (Dave Garland)
Re: Fax Station ID (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Fax Station ID (NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO)
Re: Fax Station ID (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
Arguments in 'Brand X' Case (Daily Lead from USTA)
Re: Verizon, VoiceWing and Portability (Zorro)
Re: FCC: Telcos do not Have to Sell DSL as Stand Alone (Lisa Hancock)
Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile - Health Risks (Lisa Hancock)
Blackboards vrs. Whiteboards (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability (John Levine)
Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
Re: LNP Transfer From McLeodUSA to Vonage (Steve Sobol)
Re: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music (John Smith)
Re: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Job Opportunity (NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO)
Re: Horrible Voice Quality on skypeout (Koos van den Hout)
Re: GSM-900 (Jason)
Re: Science and Society: Anatomy of a Techno-Myth (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Job Opportunity (NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO)
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:07:19 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Secret Service DNA - "Distributed Networking Attack"
DNA Key to Decoding Human Factor
Secret Service's Distributed Computing Project Aimed at Decoding
Encrypted Evidence
By Brian Krebs
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
For law enforcement officials charged with busting sophisticated
financial crime and hacker rings, making arrests and seizing computers
used in the criminal activity is often the easy part.
More difficult can be making the case in court, where getting a
conviction often hinges on whether investigators can glean evidence
off of the seized computer equipment and connect that information to
specific crimes.
The wide availability of powerful encryption software has made
evidence gathering a significant challenge for investigators.
Criminals can use the software to scramble evidence of their
activities so thoroughly that even the most powerful supercomputers in
the world would never be able to break into their codes. But the
U.S. Secret Service believes that combining computing power with
gumshoe detective skills can help crack criminals' encrypted data
caches.
Taking a cue from scientists searching for signs of extraterrestrial
life and mathematicians trying to identify very large prime numbers,
the agency best known for protecting presidents and other high
officials is tying together its employees' desktop computers in a
network designed to crack passwords that alleged criminals have used
to scramble evidence of their crimes -- everything from lists of
stolen credit card numbers and Social Security numbers to records of
bank transfers and e-mail communications with victims and accomplices.
To date, the Secret Service has linked 4,000 of its employees'
computers into the "Distributed Networking Attack" program. The
effort started nearly three years ago to battle a surge in the number
of cases in which savvy computer criminals have used commercial or
free encryption software to safeguard stolen financial information,
according to DNA program manager Al Lewis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6098-2005Mar28.html
------------------------------
From: Gary Breuckman <puma@catbox.com>
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:55:03 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Reply-To: puma@catbox.com
John Schmerold wrote:
> Anyone know if it's a law or regulation that requires faxes to include
> station identification at top of every page sent ?
It's part of 47 U.S.C. 227. Put that in Google and you'll find lots of
references. That section also covers unsolicited calls made by
recording systems, etc.
-- Gary Breuckman
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:19:40 -0800
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
John Schmerold wrote:
> Anyone know if it's a law or regulation that requires faxes to include
> station identification at top of every page sent ?
I believe it's part of the TCPA, which would make it a law. (47 USC
227 IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong about this rule being part
of the TCPA.)
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: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:43:35 -0600
Organization: Wizard Information
It was a dark and stormy night when John Schmerold <john@katy.com>
wrote:
> Anyone know if it's a law or regulation that requires faxes to include
> station identification at top of every page sent ?
I haven't tracked down the original rule, but according to a law
firm's website at http://tinyurl.com/6l4h7 (the very first hit from
googling on "fax number header") in the US the FCC:
rules ... require every fax (not just unsolicited advertisements) to
identify in the top or bottom margin on each page or on the first
page the date and time it is sent, the sender's identity (the
originator of the fax, not the name of the broadcast fax service), and
the fax number of the machine sending the transmission or the
telephone number of the sender. If a broadcast fax service (which
likely includes an outside marketing firm retained for such purposes)
is used and the fax broadcaster is responsible for the content of the
fax or for supplying the fax numbers to which the faxes are sent, then
the fax broadcaster's name also must be identified in the header.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:40:25 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.136.4@telecom-digest.org>, John Schmerold
<john@katy.com> wrote:
> Anyone know if it's a law or regulation that requires faxes to include
> station identification at top of every page sent ?
United States Federal statute requires:
1) sender ID on the top of every page
*or*
1) sender ID on the _first_ page
See <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html> 47 USC 227
------------------------------
From: NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: 30 Mar 2005 07:11:46 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
John Schmerold wrote:
> Anyone know if it's a law or regulation that requires faxes to include
> station identification at top of every page sent ?
Yes ... but
Only if made after a certain year.
My 4800bps fax card from my XT which I still use is exempt.
------------------------------
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: 30 Mar 2005 17:05:06 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
In article <telecom24.136.4@telecom-digest.org>, John Schmerold
<john@katy.com> wrote:
> Anyone know if it's a law or regulation that requires faxes to include
> station identification at top of every page sent ?
US Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter II Part I Section 227.d.2:
Telephone facsimile machines:
The Commission shall revise the regulations setting technical and
procedural standards for telephone facsimile machines to require that
any such machine which is manufactured after one year after December
20, 1991, clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each
transmitted page or on the first page of each transmission, the date
and time sent, an identification of the business, other entity, or
individual sending the message, and the telephone number of the
sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.
John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:31:13 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Arguments in Brand X Case Focus on Information vs. Telecom Rules
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 30, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20451&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Arguments in Brand X case focus on information vs. telecom rules
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Verizon wins MCI; Qwest may up ante
* Juniper buys Kagoor
* Cisco's acquisition of Airespace puts heat on rival gear makers
* Tellabs, Occam strike a deal
* Cablevision's Charles Dolan pledges $400M for Voom
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Tomorrow! VoIP 101: How to Rapidly Roll Out VoIP, 1:00 p.m. EST
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Extreme unveils new family of Gigabit Ethernet switches
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Supreme Court mulls impact on innovation in Grokster case
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20451&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: Zorro for the Common Good <zftcg@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability
Date: 30 Mar 2005 11:25:14 -0800
Pat,
Thanks for the reply. VoiceWing is not a separate company, but rather
Verizon's own VOIP product. That's why it makes such little sense that
current Verizon DSL customers would be unable to sign up. Also, I just
re-upped with VDSL for another year in order to get the $30 rate, so
switching to a cable modem isn't an option.
ZftCG
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah yes, the cheaper rate if you agree
to go for one year. When SBC sensed I was getting unhappy and about to
toss them out, they tried that on me also. Re-up for one year on DSL,
get it for thirty dollars per month. When I reminded them that they
had earlier promised (and lied) about having a cheaper rate on DSL as
long as I also subscribed to Cingular Wireless [which I do] -- then
they later claimed that would not apply in my case and would not honor
the rate; and when I reminded them they had earlier also promised a
thirty dollar rate if I subscribed to a whole truckload of unwanted
and sometimes useless 'custom calling features' including
voicemail,[which at the time they said they would turn on, then a day
or two later a technician told me they could not do on this exchange]
and they later told me they had not promised any such thing; then you
have to forgive me if I did not want to take any more chances on
them. I am on a very fixed income and cannot afford something as
expensive as Southwestern Bell DSL when a bunch of hollow, bogus lies
come as part of the package. Maybe you will have better luck getting
Verizon to honor a promise of a thirty dollar rate. Watch and see how
the bill slowly starts to creep up with invoices of a dozen or more
pages written in hierogliphics arrives. You call them each month to
complain about the increase and what they promised you in the re-up,
they say 'so sorry, our mistake we will re-rate you next month and
pro-rate the credit you have due.' Then the next month your bill
arrives, two or three times as many hierogliphics as the month before
and if you wade through all the re-rates and pro-rates you see they
actually did the same thing again. For that, you get to wait in their
voicemail hell 'as a valued customer' for 30-45 minutes each time.
Anyway, if you did not actually _sign anything_ as part of the re-up,
don't worry about it. Just tell them, as I did, "well, I lied about
it, I never promised, etc." They'll never be able to get their act
together well enough to produce any paperwork anyway. I'd suggest that
unless there is paperwork to the contrary, you just back out of the
deal and go with cable and some CLEC. It will work out cheaper for
you in the long run. My cable internet, Prairie Stream telephone line
-and- my VOIP phone line turn out to be less each month than SBC
was costing. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: FCC: Phone Companies Don't Have to Sell DSL as a Stand-Alone
Date: 30 Mar 2005 10:15:10 -0800
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Jack Decker:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have said before that the best
> thing to do, IMO, is go with cable internet _whenever possible_ and
> try to avoid Bell and its DSL completely, for just these same
> reasons. Bell has a long, sordid history of being very tricky and
> difficult to deal with. If cable internet is not available, then of
> course take Bell service and its DSL, but watch for any possible
> opportunity -- such as cable being installed or expanded in your area
> to break away to a competitive CLEC and cable internet, such as I
> have done, now two years ago with Prairie Stream and Cable One. PAT]
But many cable broadband carriers won't give you that unless you buy
their TV service as well (which is a lot more expensive than a basic
POTS wireline.)
Seems to me there's a double standard when it comes to expectations
from the telephone companies vs. the cable companies. My own
cable company keeps jacking up its rates -- a few years ago I paid
$35/month and now pay $55. They added some Spanish language channels
which is curious since very few Spanish speaking people live in this
particular service territory.
As soon as Bell finishes their high speed fibre work I plan to
switch to them for TV as well.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: True, some won't see it stand alone,
but many will, and anyway, people may want television as well. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear
Date: 30 Mar 2005 10:21:00 -0800
Tony P. wrote:
> That is what we get for fleeing the urban core cities. The costs of that
> are coming back in spades.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are lots of things wrong with the
> urban core, inner city. I am sorry you feel that those of us who
> wanted something better in life did what you call 'fleeing'. I know
> you would _never_ get me back to Chicago for example. PAT]
When once-nice city neighborhoods decayed and the people were forced
to leave their homes, nobody (govt, politicians) cared and did
anything. Indeed, those people themselves got blamed for "fleeing"
even though their wants -- decent schools, safe streets, no vandalism
-- were perfectly acceptable and met elsewhere.
If anyone challenged the anti-social behavior of the new people moving
into the neighborhoods and causing trouble, they were accused of being
a snob or worse (esp if there were ethnic differences).
Yet when the opposite happens -- when affluent people move back into
the city and fix up a decayed neighborhood -- rebuilding rotted
buildings, chasing drug dealers away, opening new stoers in empty
shells -- everyone worries about the people who previously lived there
(the ones who failed to keep up the neighborhood). Seems to me the
ones already there are benefiting -- at no cost to them -- of a nicer
living area.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, one thing I really appreciate
about living here in Independence is that this is a very integrated
community, which is how I would want it. We are not a rich community
(although there is a 'rich part of town' [north of Taylor Road near
the country club]) and there are areas which tend to have more
minority residents than others, but we all seem to get along okay.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Blackboards vs. Whiteboards
Date: 30 Mar 2005 10:25:59 -0800
I heard my school district will modernize and replace the classic
"blackboard" (or greenboard) with modern 'whiteboards'. I can't help
but wonder if this is a dumb idea.
AFAIK, blackboards last forever. Lots of old schools still have their
original ones. In contrast, whiteboards seem sensitve to nicks and
scrapes.
I believe black/greenboards cost less than whiteboards.
But most significantly is the chalk vs. marker.
Chalk is much cheaper than markers. Markers always run out quickly.
Someone forgets and uses the wrong kind permanently staining the
whiteboard.
Lastly, markers have that weird chemical smell.
Seems to me there's nothing wrong with blackboards and nothing to be
gained by whiteboards.
Thoughts anyone?
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:06:27 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.136.5@telecom-digest.org>, <zftcg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please tell me if this makes sense:
> I live in Manhattan and currently have Verizon local and DSL. I would
> like to switch my local service to VoiceWing 500 (same as regular
> VoiceWing with 500 minutes of outgoing calls/month, for $19.95). I
> just got off the phone with multiple Verizon customer service people;
> they all told me varying things, but the basic upshot is that because
> I'm a DSL customer, I can't get VoiceWing on the same line, since DSL
> requires a regular land line. That seems to me to be completely
> backwards -- after all, wouldn't the most obvious customers for
> VoiceWing be current DSL customers? Yet they're telling me those are
> the exact people who are ineligible for the service (unless I'm
> willing to sign up for an entirely new phone line, which would be
> completely pointless and cost me an additional $20/month). What's
> more, while at least one person had told me this situation could
> change in the near future, the last guy I spoke to said it was a
> structural problem that could never be rectified.
> Now, as I said, I got different answers from different people, and in
> general, people seemed to be a little confused about how VoiceWing
> works, most likely because it's still relatively new. Can anyone out
> there shed any light on this riddle? Does anyone currently have both
> VoiceWing and Verizon DSL, with no additional phone lines?
The current regulatory environment *requires* that the ILEC (Verizon,
in your case) transfer the _exclusive) use of that wire-pair to the
CLEC, when you go with a CLEC as the dial-tone provider.
IF the _CLEC_ does not offer line-shared DSL -- either their own
offering, or access for third-party providers -- you are SOL as far as
getting DSL on _that_ wire-pair.
In those situations where the CLEC does not offer line-shared DSL, you
simply have to get another wire-pair for your DSL service. Covad and
MCI, at least, in your area, can do this. It costs a little more
($5-10/mo) than line-sharing.
_AT_THIS_TIME_, Verizon does not have any 'non-line-shared' DSL
offering, They did, last year, announce their intention to offer
'naked' DSL -- DSL on it's own wire-pair, without voice service on it;
*BUT* the projected roll-out of the service (originally scheduled for
'early 2005') has been pushed back, and no firm availability date has
been set.
In theory, *IF* the CLEC offered the functionality, Verizon could
piggy- back their service on the CLEC-controlled wire-pair. Verizon
_would_, in that situation, however, have to *pay* the CLEC for the
privilege of using the CLEC-controlled wire-pair to provide your DSL.
Methinks Verizon would be loathe to do so, _if_ it were technically
viable.
_Very__Few_ CLECs have the installed equipment to support shared-line
DSL. Those that do, do not make it available for 3rd-party use --
rather they use it for _their_own_ shared-line offering.
Verizon apparently restricts their DSL offerings to situations where
_they_ "own" the wire-pair. And, at this time, do =not= offer
"non-shared" line service.
Thus, _IF_ you change dial-tone providers, you *will* have to change
Internet access providers as well. This is not necessarily a bad
thing. Check out panix.com, and world.std.com, a couple of _good_
providers in your area.
*IF* you have a _reliable_ cable TV provider, they may offer Internet
access, and could be worth checking out. If, like many places, the cable
TV service is subject to frequent short-duration outages, you should take
into consideration what effect similar outages will have on your Internet
use.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the nearly two years since I decided
to ditch Southwestern Bell (for everything) and go with CableOne for
my high speed internet, I do not think there has been five minutes of
downtime. Well, there was one time I decided to move a television set
into my computer room so I could watch television while working on the
Digest, and in the process of hooking up a splitter to the cable line
and attaching a television/radio combination to the cable which (at
that point in my system) had just been the internet, I got a splitter
installed incorrectly. I had that same day installed a Cisco router
for the computers, and between the ill-advised television/radio on the
cable line in my computer room and the Cisco router, the Motorola SB-4220
Surfboard Cable Modem (supplied by CableOne) somehow lost track of what
it was doing. But the tech guy at CableOne very graciously got me back
on line in about 10 minutes once I decided to call them and ask for help.
Cable only rarely goes off line, I have found. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: 30 Mar 2005 05:52:18 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> they all told me varying things, but the basic upshot is that because
> I'm a DSL customer, I can't get VoiceWing on the same line, since DSL
> requires a regular land line.
Does it make sense? No. Is it true? Unfortunately, yes.
Just this week the FCC ruled that it has jurisdiction over DSL, not
the states, and it affirmed its ill-considered finding that telcos do
not have to provide "naked" DSL.
I agree that you're probably better off with a cable modem.
Regards,
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
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And have you noticed, as I have, how
cable internet is usually _much faster_ than DSL? Both downloads and
uploads go amazingly fast. And our local CableOne office gave me a
choice of either a 'full T-1' or 'half-speed' which is apparently a
smaller 'pipeline', but in either event, quite enough for most
residential use. Anyway, our original correspondent should enjoy
reading all the outrageous offers Verizon starts making to him once he
does a 'Terri Shivo' on them and pulls the plu. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Verizon, Voicewing and Portability
Date: 30 Mar 2005 17:11:59 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
In article <telecom24.136.5@telecom-digest.org>, <zftcg@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Please tell me if this makes sense:
> I live in Manhattan and currently have Verizon local and DSL. I would
> like to switch my local service to VoiceWing 500 (same as regular
> VoiceWing with 500 minutes of outgoing calls/month, for $19.95). I
> just got off the phone with multiple Verizon customer service people;
> they all told me varying things, but the basic upshot is that because
> I'm a DSL customer, I can't get VoiceWing on the same line, since DSL
> requires a regular land line.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You will need to do the very same thing
> as I did. You will need to, in this order, (1) install cable internet
> to replace DSL; then once the cable internet is installed in order to
> avoid any network downtime, (2) tell Verizon to get their DSL off of
> your line, ASAP, immediatly, etc. (3) Once the DSL has been removed,
> _then and only then_ can you tell VoiceWing to port your existing number
VoiceWing is Verizon's VoIP offering. The ironic part of all of this
is that because of Verizon's policy of only providing DSL over a line
that also has regular Verizon phone service, if you live in a Verizon
DSL territory you can't get their VoIP service unless you ALSO have
regular Verizon phone service.
And thanks to the FCC decision this week, that's not about to change.
John
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The same thing is true in Southwestern
Bell territory. TerraWorld (our local ISP here in southeastern Kansas)
also brokers Bell's DSL on their ISP lines, but Bell will not let
Duane Shaub (TerraWorld owner) install DSL on any of his Prairie
Stream lines. Makes no sense at all to me or Duane; he says it would
be a win-win situation for everyone, including Bell and Prairie
Stream's puny little slice of business they have taken away from Bell.
But Prairie Stream/TerraWorld's attitude on this is very pragmatic:
"Just go up the street to Mike Flood (local CableOne manager) and ask
him to turn on cable internet timed with when Bell disconnects their
DSL. Prairie Stream and CableOne -- two local business places -- start
making the money that Bell loses out on. What a terrible loss for
Bell! hahahahahaha." But you see, Bell is so tied up with regulations
and rules -- mostly of their own making -- they cannot begin to think
out of the box, in a creative way. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: LNP Transfer From McLeodUSA to Vonage
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:09:56 -0800
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
wondering wrote:
> I am wondering is anyone has successfully ported their home number out of
> McLeodUSA to Vonage. I have been trying for eight months. I am
> beginning to believe it is impossible.
I would have filed a complaint with my state PUC long ago. Vonage
isn't a regulated LEC, but McLeod most certainly is.
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: John Smith <user@example.net>
Subject: Re: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:26:08 GMT
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> People have a Constitutional right (and a moral one too) to be
> compensated for their creative efforts.
Wow! That's a wild interpretation of the Constitution.
You know, by writing this message, I have just made a creative effort.
Where the hell's my check!?
In fact, nobody has a Constitutional right to be compensated just
because they wrote a song. If they did, there would be a lot fewer
out-of-work song writers in the world.
What the Constitution /really/ says is that Congress has the power "[t]o
promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries".
Authors certainly don't have the right to get compensated; they only
have the right to prevent OTHER people from publishing or using their
work. And they only have that right for a limited time, and only if
Congress grants it to them, which it has the power to, but is under no
Constitutional obligation to do. In fact, Congress only has that power
if it finds that doing so will promote the "useful arts".
That's a far cry from "everyone has a right to get paid".
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music
Date: 30 Mar 2005 10:10:03 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Joseph wrote:
> Perhaps if the recording companies weren't so greedy charging $18 for
> a disc of music and perhaps if the recording companies shared a bigger
> portion of profits from CDs people would see it differently.
Well then, what would be an appropriate royalty for musicians and
price for CDs? Well-known recording artists seem to be living quite
well. Stuff by the Beatles done 40 years ago is still selling new at
full price. ['course then there's people like me who buy that stuff
used for 50c at yard sales.]
Actually, in thinking about it, the price of album when I was a kid is
lower today considering inflation. (The cost of a 'single', if you
can even find one, is much more.)
While I can't help but suspect CD prices should be lower, in fairness
to the record companies, they have their unseen costs as well. They
go to plenty of expense to select new talent and market and distribute
it. Often times a CD doesn't sell and that expense is wasted. They
also have to deal with tempermental artists, fickle consumer tastes,
normal distribution channel issues, investors, and basic business
issues.
There's a hopeful singer Analise van der Pol. She did a pop song
"Over It" that got repeated play, but she was not signed for a record
deal. I think she's very talented, but the mass market obviously
didn't think so. So it goes.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only are the Beatles still doing
okay on their work from forty years ago, but lots of the very old
classical music stuff -- from the 78 rpm era and the very early 33 rpm
era is now getting re-issued on CD and selling pretty well. I had some
ancient 78 rpm and 33 rpm 'long playing' records of Virgil Fox which
were lost in the tragic fire Bill Pfieffer endured in the mid
1990's. I just assumed I would never see them again. They dated back
to the early 1950's and late 1940's, when LP records were very heavy
in the old fashioned cardboard sleeves. Well, you can imagine my
surprise when I received a very small box of CDs the other day
including all those ancient recordings now on Compact Disk, re-issued,
including a newer DVD-style disk which had a bunch of other old things
of Fox on it, including a thirty minute 'Quick Time' movie file of Fox
from his 1964 visit to the Wanamaker store in Philadelphia and one of
his performances there. Lisa H, you said you have visited Lord and
Taylor in recent years. Would you like a copy of that DVD of Fox from
when it was Wanamaker's? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: Horrible Voice Quality on Skypeout
Date: 30 Mar 2005 07:31:11 GMT
Organization: http://idefix.net/~koos/
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> My new USB handset showed up so I tried a couple of Skypeout calls to
> regular phone numbers. Ewww. It sounded really awful.
> Is this the USB handset, Skypeout, or am I just unlucky?
Have you tried calling the 'echo test' number (search for 'echo test'
in Skype)? This eliminates the 'skypeout' and 'other phone networks' part
of the callpath.
And the USB handset is supposed to be a normal audio device to what
you are using on the computer (my guess). Have you tried recording a
bit of audio from the handset and playing it back?
I have just started playing with Skype and I noticed I need to find a
good microphone. Which may explain the sudden interest in microphones
at work ;)
Greetings,
Koos van den Hout
Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl or DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 -?)
Fax +31-30-2817051 Visit the site about books with reviews /\\
http://idefix.net/~koos/ http://www.virtualbookcase.com/ _\_V
------------------------------
From: Jason <cheanglong@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GSM-900
Date: 30 Mar 2005 05:04:16 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Thank you all for the explanation. It really helps.
But may I know for a trasnmitter and a receiver, will the trasnmitting
frequency be different than the receiving frequency? I know there are
such cases. But why they make it this way?
Kindly help.
Thank you,
Jason
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Science and Society: Anatomy of a Techno-Myth -- Economist.com
Date: 30 Mar 2005 09:57:11 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Marcus Didius Falco wrote:
> http://economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3D3786384
> The debate over the safety of mobile phones has little to do with
> science.
I don't think the scare of using cell phones while pumping gas ever
got too far. It'd be a very easy thing to check -- what were the
causes of gas station fires and technically could a cell phone cause
that? As an all-electronic device, cell phones normally don't
generate sparks.
One does wonder why so many gas station attendants smoke a cigarette
while pumping.
Many of these 'scares' come from grandstanding politicians who want to
come off as being concerned about their constituents' well being.
Cheap, non-attackable, tasteful free publicity.
Another source is the news media, particularly local TV and cable TV
news. My local TV stations regularly run teaser ads 'A NEW DANGER
ABOUT APPLES, FIND OUT AT EYEWITNESS AT 11!", or, 'WHAT YOUR DOCTOR
ISN'T TELLING YOU!" or 'IS YOUR CHILD AT RISK?' and then they tell
you about something that's a 1 in 634 trillion chance to happen. Many
news shows about have medical segments that are pure quackery.
You don't need to be a scientist to see through this crap, only some
common sense and some careful thinking is needed.
------------------------------
From: NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Job Opportunity
Date: 30 Mar 2005 07:35:28 -0800
Probably this is to tranship cameras, VCRs etc bought with stolen
credit cards.
When the sh*t hits the fan ... all merchandise was shipped to you
... all payments were made to you.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please don't have ugly thoughts like
that! 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 !
************************
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
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 #137
******************************
| |