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 Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:25:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 167
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Tufts Warns Alumni on Breach / Computer Attack Exposed Names (M Solomon)
Retailer Knew Last Fall About Security Breach (Monty Solomon)
Battle Against Spam Shifts to Containment (Monty Solomon)
New Technology Poses Peril: VOIP Not Handling Emergency (Jack Decker)
Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses (Tom Lynn)
Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses (shlichter1@aol.com)
Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (John Schmerold)
Re: Cell Phone Wearing Out? (Joseph)
Re: Internet Pioneer: VoIP is NOT Telephony (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: Can I Port 800 Number Without Old Carrier's Permission? (DevilsPGD)
Re: Web Censors In China Find Success (Kaminsky)
Re: Is RocketVoIP Deceiving Customers Regarding Unlimited (Tom Lynn)
Re: Mitigating Identity Theft (mc)
Re: Why Must a Cordless Phone be Away From Electronic Devices (Tony P.)
Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse (Tony P.)
Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse (mc)
Re: Last Laugh! Passenger Found Dead Hour After Plane Lands (Tim)
Re: Last Laugh! Passenger Found Dead Hour After Plane Lands (Joseph)
Last Laugh! Honesty on the Internet (TELECOM Digest Editor)
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: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Tufts Warns Alumni on Breach / Computer Attack Exposed Names
Tufts warns alumni on breach
Computer attack exposed names, numbers to theft
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | April 12, 2005
For the second time in a month, a Boston-area college is warning
thousands of alumni that their personal information may have been
stolen from a computer system used for fund-raising.
Tufts University last week began sending letters to 106,000 alumni,
warning of 'abnormal activity' on a computer that contained names,
addresses, phone numbers, and, in some cases, Social Security and
credit card numbers.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/04/12/tufts_warns_alumni_on_breach/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:14:59 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Retailer Knew Last Fall about Security Breach
Retailer knew last fall about security breach that recently roiled
credit card companies
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | April 15, 2005
A computer security breach at Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. that has
recently roiled two major credit card companies actually occurred
last fall. But Polo only made the problem public yesterday.
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/04/15/retailer_knew_last_fall_about_security_breach_that_recently_roiled_credit_card_companies/
Breach in security reaches 2d credit firm
MasterCard, Visa refuse to identify retailer whose computer system was hit
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | April 14, 2005
The scope of a computer system breach at a national retailer widened
yesterday to involve the customers of a second major credit card firm,
but those companies refused to divulge the name of the retailer.
The existence of the security breach first surfaced this week when
HSBC North America began notifying 180,000 of its GM MasterCard
customers that their credit card information had potentially been
compromised. HSBC, which issues the GM cards, urged each customer to
replace their card as quickly as possible.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/04/14/breach_in_security_reaches_2d_credit_firm/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:41:57 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Battle Against Spam Shifts to Containment
By ANICK JESDANUN AP Internet Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- There's a new strategy in the spam battle: Call it
containment. Filters for blocking junk e-mail from inboxes have
improved to the point that doing much more will needlessly kill
legitimate e-mail, said Carl Hutzler, America Online Inc.'s anti-spam
coordinator. So e-mail gatekeepers are shifting gears.
Now they're getting more aggressive at keeping spam from leaving
their systems in the first place.
EarthLink Inc., for instance, is phasing in a requirement that
customers' mail programs submit passwords before it will send out
their e-mail.
Like most Internet providers, EarthLink previously made sure only
that a computer was associated with a legitimate account. Now that
viruses can co-opt computers and use them to send spam, that's no
longer secure enough.
So Earthlink sent out new software, made automated tools available for
download and walked customers through manually changing their mail
settings when they called tech support for other reasons. A year into
the initiative, EarthLink has 80 percent of its customers converted.
- http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=48398343
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:19:51 -0400
Subject: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP Not Part of Emergency System
My commentary follows the excerpts ...
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1113646231312020.xml
New technology poses 911 peril Voice over Internet Protocol lines not
part of emergency system
Saturday, April 16, 2005
BY ART AISNER
News Staff Reporter
Joe Lawrence had no idea what was causing the delay.
His friend, who had turned ashen just minutes before while they sat
together at a meeting at the VFW post in Ypsilanti, was now doubled
over a chair having difficulty breathing.
Panicked that it might be a heart attack or stroke in progress,
Lawrence, an Ypsilanti attorney, called 911 from the organization's
house phone. A police dispatcher responded, but crucial minutes passed
as Lawrence and the dispatcher tried to determine the exact location
because the phone line Lawrence used was no longer part of the 911
system.
"If it wasn't the silliest thing, but the hang-up was I couldn't give
them an exact address, and he was in trouble," said Lawrence, who
ultimately had to run across Michigan Avenue to the Ypsilanti Fire
Department before help arrived.
After Lawrence complained to Ypsilanti Police Chief George Basar,
authorities determined that the call went to a private line in the
Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department instead of going to 911
dispatch.
The reason? The VFW post was using Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP), a new technology that transmits phone calls through broadband
Internet connections rather than traditional phone lines.
As it turned out, Lawrence's friend recovered after being hospitalized
for several days with an undetermined ailment.
But, Basar said, the incident illustrates a serious flaw in the
technology that more and more residents and businesses are using to
save money on phone service.
[.....]
[Vonage Representative] Schulz said E-911 is still only built to work
on local phone lines, but users in Rhode Island have had little
trouble in the six months since Vonage offered it to subscribers
there. Rhode Island is the only place where Vonage offers the service
because the state owns the phone lines, she said.
In other states, Michigan included, phone companies are barring access
for competitive reasons, she charged.
There's some truth to it, Stofega said. But ultimately, it's up to the
providers to meet their customers' demands or either the market or the
regulators will prevail.
[COMMENT: Okay, if there is some truth to it, then why does almost
everyone in the press play toady for the big phone companies and try
to lay all the blame on the VoIP companies alone? It sure appears that
the incumbents are making interconnection difficult solely for
competitive reasons, and that where the incumbents don't control the
911 system (as in Rhode Island), VoIP companies find it is much easier
to make the proper connections. I will just point out that if a life
is ever lost because someone cannot reach 911, and it turns out that
the incumbent phone company attempted to limit access to the 911
system for competitive reasons, and the matter goes to court in a
civil trial, I don't think the big phone company involved will be able
to evade responsibility for their part in creating the situation - the
lawyers will surely dig much deeper into the mess than most reporters
do.
Please understand what I am saying here -- if an ILEC is making access
to the 911 system difficult for VoIP providers because they think it
gives them a competitive edge, they are creating a condition where
someone might die, solely to enhance their bottom line. Since most
ILEC's have much deeper pockets than VoIP providers (always a
consideration in a lawsuit) and since there is a good probability that
any jury of twelve people will include at least one or two that have
had bad experiences with the phone company at some time in the past
(even if they don't remember those experiences consciously), I think
the ILEC's are playing with fire here. And as I say, lawyers are not
going to make the sort of shallow investigations that most newspaper
reporters do, nor are they going to buy into the ILEC-produced
propaganda funneled through astroturf public interest groups.
Now having said all that, the other side of the coin is that 911
access might in fact be available in Michigan. For example, John
Lodden has informed me that his company (Telesthetic/Local Exchange
Carriers of Michigan) has access to all the 911 centers in Michigan
and could provide access to VoIP companies, however at present none of
the large VoIP companies are utilizing that access (I hope I am saying
that accurately -- I'm working from memory here and apologize to John
if I'm mis-stating that in any way). I can understand that most VoIP
companies would probably like some sort of nationwide standard for
interconnection to 911 centers, and are hoping for some type of FCC
action that will establish a nationwide standard, so they don't have
to do something different in each of the 50 states, and that costs
might be prohibitive if they have to use a different means of access
in each of the states.
Ultimately I think the FCC is probably going to have to mandate some
sort of national standard for 911 interconnection that will force the
ILEC's to open up their systems whether they want to or not. For
those who whine that this unjustly takes what the phone companies have
built, I again remind you that the foundation for 911 was built while
the ILEC's were MONOPOLY providers that enjoyed government-protected
profit margins (even today that's still essentially the case for some
smaller ILEC's), and that in many cases the existing 911 system was
foisted upon the public in a sweetheart deal between the ILEC's and
local units of government, who loved the idea that they could force
people to pay for the system via phone bills instead of doing it the
proper way, which was to go to the voters and ask for funding via the
normal tax mechanisms already in place.
So now the 911 centers are stuck with technology that only works
really well with the existing wireline network, and yet nobody in the
press seems to want to blame the real culprits, which are the ILEC's
that set up such technologically-mediocre systems, and their
co-conspirators in local governments who saw an opportunity to bypass
the voters in the decision making process. No, it's much easier to
lay all the blame on the VoIP companies, which have only been in
business for less than a couple of years (in most cases) and who had
no say at all into how the existing 911 system was designed. It
doesn't make sense to me, and my hope is that the FCC and the courts
(should the matter ever wind up in the courts) will see the issue with
much greater clarity than most of the toady reporters that have been
writing these stories, apparently based solely on press releases and
other ILEC propaganda.]
Full story at:
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1113646231312020.xml
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here in Independence, where we are a
little more backward in our telecom, it seems, the city has a phone
in the telecom area which is specifically designated for the job of
'emergency, but not 911 equipped calls'. It is not some 'private line
in a back office somewhere' as seems to be the case in Ypsilanti or
Brooklyn, NY. The phone terminates in a place where experienced
professionals can deal with the calls, even though said calls do not
come through the equipment looking like 'regular' 911 calls. VOIP
carriers _have to take the word of the various agencies_ that a call
is being terminated where it can be best handled. Should the VOIP
carriers have to personally audit each community to assure this?
Vonage, at least, apparently tries to confirm these things *before*
they send email to the subscriber telling them that 911 has been
turned on. If you combine the often-times careless and casual, public-
be-damned attitudes of our government employees with the propoganda
coming out of Bell, you are bound to get these problems at times. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tom Lynn <tom@tomlynn.com>
Subject: Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:31:21 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Pat,
Check out http://popfile.sourceforge.net
Popfile is an e-mail proxy that filters spam based on how you train
it. It takes some initial effort to get it over the hump, but it
achieves over 99% accuracy over the long term.
I believe they also have an nntp proxy for filtering usenet, too.
You won't be sorry.
Tom Lynn
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:49:02 EDT, TELECOM Digest Editor
<ptownson@telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> Ordinarily either Lisa Minter or myself get in here and flush the spam
> queue a few times daily. Then we go through the 'regular' file of
> 'good' incoming mail and sort through it, since about 80-90 percent of
> the stuff in the 'good' mail file is also spam which managed to not
> trip the Spam Assassin rules. Then we move the 'good' stuff into a
> protected area where it is stored until the next issue comes out. But
> from the last issue of the Digest on Wednesday through the present
> time, neither of us came in to do the usual flush, consequently there
> were several hundred spams in the so- called 'good' file today. And in
> the middle of them, here and there, the legitimate emails. Unfortunatly,
> the good stuff got flushed with the volumes of spam today by accident.
> What you see in this issue is _all we have left_ of the good stuff.
> If you wrote to the Digest anytime since Wednesday night; you got an
> autoack and _do not_ see your email in this issue, then please
> resubmit it.
> There *has to be* a better way of sorting out the spam. I have the
> trigger set now at 2 (according to Spam Assassin, 5 is average for
> most users), but I just do not feel I can go any lower than 2; there
> is too much stuff otherwise hitting the spam bucket; I use the very
> old 'mail' from 1993 with Unix here; I wish there were someway to
> see entire screens full of stuff and be able to dismiss it with a
> single keystroke instead of the 3-4 keystrokes needed at present.
> Anyway, if your message from (probably during the day) Thursday is
> not shown here, then sorry, I don't have it. Resubmit it please.
> Patrick Townson
------------------------------
From: shlichter1@aol.com <shlichter1@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses
Date: 16 Apr 2005 07:42:14 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
That court in Virgina had the right idea, but I would
have given him more then 8 years.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:54:34 -0500
From: John Schmerold <john@katy.com>
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
No one likes spam, however, there are great solutions they are all
available without cost due to the opensource movement. Looking at my
own statistics, since 4/1, I've received 5,607 emails, of which 1,177
were forwarded to my inbox, of these 169 were SPAM. All of the 169
could have been eliminated if I chose to use TDMA which whitelists
good senders.
So, long story short, quit belly aching and do something about your
spam problem.
John Schmerold
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I cannot run a white list here
unless I want to turn this Digest/newsgroup into a very exclusive
place for _me and my friends_ . I like to get _legitimate_ mail from
legitimate users. I do not like the idea of excluding new users just
because they have not met some arbitrary standard on the messages I
will accept. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Wearing Out?
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:55:56 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On 15 Apr 2005 11:33:41 -0700, ron@oakes.net wrote:
> One possibility is that the six-year-old phone is an analog (AMPS)
> only phone. Six years ago, 1999, CDMA was just starting to roll out
> and relatively few manufacturer had phones out (Qualcomm, Sony and
> towards the end of the year Motorola and Samsung, IIRC). Right now
> Verizon Wireless is in the process of reducing their analog coverage
> to the minimum that they can get away with in preparation to shutting
> down the analog system once they are allowed.
I don't know about "just rolling out." CDMA was accepted as a
standard in 1993 and went into operation in 1996.
> Therefore, it is possible that the trouble making calls was that the
> area being visited had poor analog coverage, but Choreboy's relative's
> home area still as good analog coverage.
> If this is case the technician still made an incorrect statement;
> either due to ignorance, or because of some policy that blames analog
> coverage woes on the phone rather than a business decision.
> If the phone is an analog only phone, upgrading it will eventually
> become a necessity as the FCC is eventually going to allow the
> carriers to turn analog off.
Analog is not scheduled to be turned off til 2008. It could possibly
be that the vendor had a desire to make someone convert from an
earlier digital standard (such as TDMA IS-136 that both AT&T Wireless
and cingular wireless run but want people to convert to GSM so they
can devote more of their network resources to GSM rather than the dead
end technology of TDMA which will not have any further new
development.)
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:36:21 -0500, GlowingBlueMist
<ljm012@invalid.com> wrote:
> If she likes her present phone and does not want to "upgrade" she
> might want to consider purchasing a TracPhone or other type of prepaid
> phone for traveling. The model I use will first try to make a digital
> connection and then switch to analog if that is all that is available,
> making it compatible with the older towers as well as the new ones.
Newer TracFone (note the F) uses GSM so they do not have the fallback
to analog AMPS.
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Internet Pioneer: VoIP is NOT Telephony
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:55:20 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
Jack Decker wrote:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=354
> 4/15/2005
> Internet pioneer: VoIP is NOT telephony
> -Posted by Russell Shaw @ 2:32 am
> My colleague Renai LeMay at ZDNet Australia has just had the
> professional privilege of hearing remarks by one of the technology
> world's smartest men.
> Vint Cerf. The Vint Cerf that developed the TCP/IP protocol that makes
> the Internet work. And more than 30 years after that singular (hey, I
> just realized how Cingular got its name) feat of innovation, there
> Cerf was yesterday, addressing an Internet governance forum in Sydney.
> Vint Cerf does not want VoIP to be regulated. His fear, though -- one
> that I share, is because VoIP "looks like telephony," regulatory
> bodies all over the world will knee-jerk assume that it needs to be
> governed.
> "My concern here is the fact that VoIP looks like, and sounds like
> telephony," Cerf told the group. "This is horribly misleading. To leap
> to that conclusion is extremely dangerous. VoIP is really just another
> application on the Internet. Nothing special about it."
Interestingly, the California PUC decided to abandon its attempts to
regulate VoIP and voted to endorse whatever oversight the FCC chooses
to exercise in this arena.
Having said that, my view is that Cerf is correct only until a VoIP
provider connects with the switched public telephone network, at which
time it becomes telephony. Only where two VoIP users connect directly
over the Internet is it not telephony. And, in that case they should
not have 10-digit telephony numbers assigned under the North American
Dialing Plan for the switched public telephone network.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How would you then deal with 'phone
patches', the little devices which allow VHF/UHF radios to link into
the public phone network? Should they also be subject to the rules
of the public switched telephone network? PAT]
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Can I Port an 800 Number Without the Old Carrier's Permission?
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:00:09 -0600
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.164.13@telecom-digest.org> Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
> Indeed it's all about ownership.
> And, some folks who have transferred vanity numbers to Vonage might be
> in for an unpleasant surprise when they try to transfer that number
> from Vonage.
Going from memory, Vonage won't port a tollfree number will they?
Even if they do, my understanding is that tollfree numbers are pulled
by the new telco, no action is required on the part of the losing
telco, so if you do transfer away, unless Vonage actively fights you
it shouldn't be a problem.
Neither the FCC nor the CRTC takes kindly to a company blocking porting
of tollfree numbers.
Like a lot of husbands throughout history, Mr. Webster would sit down
and try to talk to his wife. As soon as he'd say something though,
she'd fire back with, "And just what the hell is THAT supposed to
mean?" Thus, Webster's Dictionary was born.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, Vonage will not port tollfree
numbers *either way*, in or out. Vonage claims to own the tollfree
numbers they offer out for assignment. Nor will they port numbers
which started out with themselves. The only thing you can _possibly_
do is take back a number you ported in to them to start with. PAT]
------------------------------
From: <kaminsky@kaminsky.org>
Subject: Re: Web Censors In China Find Success
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:48:46 -0500
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder why it would not be feasible
>> to route all our internet traffic _through China_ and have them
>> adjust their filter mechanisms to censor out all spam. It would be a
>> good way for Americans and Chinese people to work together on a very
>> worthwhile, useful project. PAT]
> Perhaps you are not seeing the same spam I am. Here in California,
> we are inundated by Chinese spam. It's not just me - on my ISP's
> internal anti-spam newsgroup, I have seen many complaints about
> Chinese spam (and South Korean spam, too, for that matter). For
> myself, I notice many messages from addresses in the "cn" domain
> showing up with unreadable subjects in my greymail (the SpamAssassain
> rejects).
> On the other hand, we are also inundated with Chinese products.
> I've given up shopping for toys for the grandchildren - everything
> (and I do mean EVERYTHING) in the stores is made in China! It's
> gotten to the point that the grocery stores are actually carrying
> some garlic from China -- with Gilroy ("the garlic capital of the
> world") only twenty miles away in the south end of Santa Clara
> County.
> Take care.
> Mark
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what I am reading some
days when I take time to study that stuff. One oriental, eastern
language and its script looks like another to me. F'r instance, I
cannot tell the difference between Chinese (and its various dialects)
and Japanese (and its various dialects) and Korean, although I know
there are as many as there are variations on English with its American
accents. But I see the little squiggles and markings and say "oh, it
comes from _over there, somewhere_". So maybe I get Chinese spam as
well, and just don't know which is which. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tom Lynn <tom@tomlynn.com>
Subject: Re: Is RocketVoIP Deceiving Customers Regarding "Unlimited" VoIP
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:39:25 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Pat,
Are you descended from Don Quixote?
:-)
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:09:58 -0400, Jack Decker
<jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request> wrote:
> A disturbing post just appeared on BroadbandReports.com -- I have
> removed references to RocketVoIP from the Resources for Michigan
> Telephone Users web site until and unless this issue is resolved.
> "Hi all ... I have a problem with RocketVoip (www.rocketvoip.com) They
> said their service is unlimited ($24.95) and suddenly they sent me an
> email about a week ago, telling me that I'm not qualified as a
> residential user and they asked me to switch to business plan. Please
> read the attached email. ..."
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,13170575
> 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/
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This sounds a lot like our friend
> Sprint's old "Friday Free" plan doesn't it? Remember that one? Sprint
> tricked people into signing up for long distance by lying to them
> saying their Friday traffic would always be free to _residential_
> customers. Soon thereafter we started hearing from folks who said
> Sprint had written them a letter saying they were not a 'qualified'
> residential account, so they would have to pay for their Friday
> calls. Sprint signed the letters with some phone name (I forget off
> hand what it was), and many folks, including myself tried time after
> time to reach the person to ask him what it was about, and what made
> persons 'qualified'. I don't think anyone ever did reach that person,
> and as to be expected, no one in Sprint customer service ever had any
> idea what it was about.
> If the original writer wants to send along the email saying they were
> not 'qualified', and assuming it has a good name on it, we will try
> to reach that person and ask them what it is all about, and to explain
> the qualifications required. PAT]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know about Don Quixote, but I
do know that I was distantly related to Will Rogers. My paternal
grandmother's mother, in other words my great-grandmother, had the
maiden name of Rogers prior to her marriage to Mr. Martin. (My
paternal grandmother's maiden name was 'Martin'). Anyway,
great-grandmother Rogers-Martin was a cousin of Will's father, down in
Oklahoma somewhere, so I guess that would make me a third or fourth
cousin, once or twice (or even thrice) removed. My great-grandmother
Rogers was born in Tulsa, Indian Territory about 1860, as was her
daughter (my paternal grandmother Susie Martin in 1881, who then
married Patrick Townson, my grandfather in 1915 (? I think).
Now, the Townson side of the family, they were something else. Patrick
Townson's father was Thomas Townson, who was killed at a picnic about
1910 when he attempted to break up a fight between two teenage boys
who had been drinking at the picnic. (Where have we heard that
before?) Thomas Townson's father was Edward Townsend who himself was a
heavy drinker; he killed a man it was claimed in self defense about
1880 and wound up going to (and dying in) the penitentiary in Georgia
for several years. It left his family in disgrace and they moved up to
Oklahoma where great-grandfather Thomas, and his mother changed the
spelling of their last name and began to raise their family anew,
before he, himself was gunned down at the picnic when grandfather
Patrick was just a teenager, about the same age Thomas had been when
his own father shot and killed the man.
Thomas Townson was a stage coach driver by occupation; he drove
between Tulsa and Coffeyville; on the route that was the forerunner to
today's Greyhound/Jefferson Lines Bus route. He married the woman who
was the stagecoach ticket agent at Bartlesville, Indian
Territory. Besides selling the stage coach tickets she also ran the
telegraph machine and cooked the food for passengers and the drivers,
when the stagecoach pulled in every afternoon at 2 PM. Her brother
would come out and unhitch the horses and lead them to their water and
food while she served the humans their dinner. When a fresh team of
horses was hitched up, Tom would tell the passengers to finish their
dinner so they could get back on the road. Anyway, he married that
woman; before long they were the proud parents of baby Patrick, my
grandfather. When Patrick was a teenager, he saw his own father get
gunned down at the picnic. Much, much violence it seems from that side
of the family. PAT]
------------------------------
From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Mitigating Identity Theft
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:46:15 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)
Well said. I have felt for a long time that the term "identity theft"
is Orwellian Newspeak, designed to spread fear and obscure the real
situation. Someone who "steals my identity" is not (per se) stealing
anything from me at all. He is impersonating me, and this is not a
newly invented crime.
> Fraudulent transactions have nothing to do with the legitimate account
> holders. Criminals impersonate legitimate users to financial
> institutions. That means that any solution can't involve the account
> holders. That leaves only one reasonable answer: financial
> institutions need to be liable for fraudulent transactions.
Toucheé ...
I think the Orwellian term is being spread by the financial
institutions who want the impersonated people to feel that it's their
fault.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While it is true the crime is not your
fault, you are required, under the law to attempt to mitigate the
damage as much as possible. If something bad happens, you cannot just
sit there and let it go on; that is where the 'fifty dollars or until
we are notified' rule comes in. I don't think that is a bad rule,
atually. Fifty dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the
damage that _could_ be caused, and if you are lucky, you can call on
the phone before any damage is done at all. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Why Must a Cordless Phone be Away From Electronic Devices?
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:37:38 -0400
In article <telecom24.158.11@telecom-digest.org>, Wesrock@aol.com
says:
> In a message dated Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:02:56 -0400, curious@nospam.com
> writes:
>> I just got a 900 MHz DSS cordless phone, and I had the perfect spot
>> for it, right on top of my tower computer case. But then I noticed
>> that the manual says that the base unit must be placed away from all
>> electronic equipment, including PCs, stereos, TVs, and microwaves.
>> What is the reasoning for this? Could the magnetic fields generated
>> by the speakers in the phone cause any problems?
> It will do no harm to the computer. But the other electronic
> equipment may interfere with the cordless phone transmission and
> reception.
> We had a 900 mHz cordless that sat right under a TV and had no
> problem. But when it finally gave up the ghost we replaced it with
> another cordless, which turned out to be 2.4 gHz. We then found out
> that 2.4 gHz is much more seriously affected to the point that it was
> unusable. We returned it, since that was exactly where we wanted the
> cordless.
> It is reported than 4.8 gHz is even more badly impaired by other
> electronic equipment.
In the case of a computer, even with the metal cases there are some
serious harmonics radiating from the machine that could potentially
interfere with the cordless phone.
That being said, all consumer electronic devices are Part 15 devices:
§ 15.5 General conditions of operation.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator
is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and
that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation
of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional
radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by
an incidental radiator.
In other words, consumer electronic gears is a magnet for interference.
In your case though I bet the problems you're having with a 2.4GHz phone
have more to do with the more likely 802.11 gear, and somewhat less
likely from wireless devices and controllers.
For example, my Pelican Spirit wireless game controller is absolutely
worth crap around here. Too many wireless networks.
------------------------------
From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:44:02 -0400
In article <telecom24.164.6@telecom-digest.org>,
colin@sutton.wow.aust.com says:
> The Sydney Morning Herald reports on a challenge between 93 year old
> telegraph operator transmitting morse code to an 82 year old with a
> manual typewriter, and youngsters sending a text message. The text
> message was received 18 seconds after the message was already on
> paper.
> http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/04/14/1113251739401.html
They've obviously not heard of T9 mode in text messaging. The biggest
issue I have with texting is that the keypad is too damned small.
------------------------------
From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:06:12 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)
> And telegraph operators can spell also. No silly abbreviations.
U R SO RITE ! :)
Seriously ... my high-school daughter tells me there is now a
substantial problem with youngsters who supposedly can *only* write in
text-message abbreviations or "l33tsp33k" and have developed some kind
of mental block against producing plain English. She, a skilled
writer, is annoyed with them, of course.
Accompaying this is an inability to think about language. At one
point she was trying to refer to the band "U2" but her interlocutor
(in a chat room) could only see "U2" as "you too" and communication
failed.
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Passenger Found Dead Hour After Plane Lands
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:00:34 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
Marcus Didius Falco wrote:
> Nice to see they're alert in Chicago. I guess they wanted to make sure
> he had time to vote.
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-dead14.html
> www.suntimes.com
> Passenger found dead hour after plane lands at O'Hare
> A passenger was discovered dead aboard American Airlines Flight 154 from
> Tokyo to Chicago on Wednesday afternoon, police said.
> The man apparently suffered a heart attack and was found by a cleaning
> crew about 5 p.m., an hour after the aircraft landed at O'Hare
> Airport, said Chicago Police Officer Matt Jackson. Authorities were
> notified and the man was pronounced dead at the scene, a detective
> said.
> An autopsy is set for today.
> The name of the 66-year-old man, whose passport shows he was a U.S.
> citizen, was not being released by authorities pending notification of
> his family. The passenger had been scheduled to get on another flight
> to Indianapolis, his final destination, said Tim Smith, American
> Airlines spokesman.
> After the plane had been moved from Terminal 5 to another terminal for
> cleaning, a crew found the man in a bathroom, Smith said.
> Lisa Donovan
> Copyright 2005 The Sun-Times Company
When I was in the airline biz, circa 1964-90, the flight attendants
were required to check all the lavs and block them from further use
during the final prep for landing check. The primary reason for that
check is to assure that all passengers have returned to their seats
and are buckled in for landing.
The responsible flight attendants should be disciplined for
irresponible failure to carry out a fundamental safety duty.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they are still supposed to
check the manifest on take off and landing and make sure it
balances. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Passenger Found Dead Hour After Plane Lands
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:25:24 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:13:42 -0400, Marcus Didius Falco
<falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Nice to see they're alert in Chicago. I guess they wanted to make sure
> he had time to vote.
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-dead14.html
Glad you found someone's death a bit of humor to turn your boring day
into something special.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:08:22 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Last Laugh! Honesty on the Internet
Two editorial cartoons you may enjoy, and perhaps relate to personally.
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/honesty.html
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
************************
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 #167
******************************
| |