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 Fri, 6 May 2005 23:15:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 201
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telecom Update (Canada) #480, May 6, 2005 (John Riddell)
Swedish Raid on ISP Called Major Blow to Piracy (Lisa Minter)
Big Brother Isn't Here Yet (Eric Friedebach)
1A2 Help Requested (Matt)
Review of Ameritech History Book (Thank You) (Brian_Coffey@nps.gov)
Closed Captioning (was How is Weather Channel Data....) (Neal McLain)
Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased? (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased? (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Here's how Vonage-Verizon E-911 Will Work (Barry Margolin)
Michigan Senate Technology And Energy Committee Meeting (Jack Decker)
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #480, May 6, 2005
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:04:32 -0400
From: John Riddell <jriddell@angustel.ca>
************************************************************
TELECOM UPDATE
************************************************************
published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group
http://www.angustel.ca
Number 480: May 6, 2005
Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous
financial support from:
** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com
** AVAYA: www.avaya.ca/en/
** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca
** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca/
** ERICSSON: www.ericsson.ca
** MITEL NETWORKS: www.mitel.com/
** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca
** UTC CANADA: www.canada.utc.org/
************************************************************
IN THIS ISSUE:
** Nortel Sales Down From Last Year
** CRTC VoIP Decision Due Next Week
** CallNet to Acquire GT Assets in NB, NS
** Rogers Leads in New Wireless Sales
** Labor War Heats Up at Telus
** Telus Announces 3G Wireless Plans
** Bell Meets First SuperNet Target
** Qwest Abandons Attempt to Buy MCI
** Primus Canada Up to 40,000 Local Lines
** SaskTel Chooses Alcatel for Converged IP
** FCC Chair Wants 911 on Internet Phones in Four Months
** Aliant: Revise Our Quality Reports, Too!
** ITU Plans European Show
** First Quarter Financial Reports
BCE Profits Steady
Telus Profits Double
MTS Net Income Rises
Call-Net Makes Gains
NORTEL SALES DOWN FROM LAST YEAR: Nortel Networks reports fourth
quarter revenues of US$2.62 billion, up 20% from the preceding quarter
but down 20% from the same period a year ago. Net income of $133
million was down 75% from a year ago. Enterprise sales in 2004 were
9% less than the previous year, and made up about a quarter of total
revenues.
CRTC VoIP DECISION DUE NEXT WEEK: The CRTC's long-awaited decision on
the regulatory framework for Voice over IP services in Canada is
scheduled for release next Thursday, May 12. Next week's Telecom
Update will provide a summary.
CALLNET TO ACQUIRE GT ASSETS IN NB, NS: Call-Net has agreed to acquire
virtually all of the former Group Telecom's intercity and local
networks in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, along with certain
switching and network equipment, from Bell Canada for $12.6
million. (see Telecom Update #435)
** Call-Net has also paid Bell $1.7 million toward an option
to purchase over 90% of the remaining GT network in
Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador by the end
of 2006, for a maximum price of $22.4 million.
ROGERS LEADS IN NEW WIRELESS SALES: Cellco results for the first
quarter show Rogers with a net gain of 89,200 new wireless
subscribers. Telus Mobility grew by 80,200, Bell Mobility by
37,000. Bell says its results reflect the cancellation of 45,000
non-paying accounts.
** Subscriber totals as of March 31: Rogers 5.58 million;
Bell 4.96 million; Telus 4.02 million.
LABOR WAR HEATS UP AT TELUS: The battle between Telus and its
employees organized in the Telecommunications Workers Union escalated
again this week. Recent developments:
** Telus announced that it will stop deducting union dues
from employees' wages and cease remitting the dues to the
TWU.
** The TWU launched a Web-based campaign against Telus, and
is urging the federal Minister of Labor to press Telus to
settle. See www.anotherwrongnumber.com
** The TWU is questioning the legality of the election of
directors held at this week's Telus AGM. A TWU member ran
for the board, but the chair disallowed proxy votes for
him.
TELUS ANNOUNCES 3G WIRELESS PLANS: Telus Mobility says it plans to
launch EVDO service, which transports data at "Third Generation" rates
of up to 2 Mbps, in selected markets across Canada in the first
quarter of 2006. (See Telecom Update #462)
BELL MEETS FIRST SUPERNET TARGET: By April 30, Bell Canada had
connected 421 of 429 communities to Alberta SuperNet, meeting the
target set by the Alberta Government. The eight remaining will be
connected when weather permits. (See Telecom Update #470)
** Bell and its partner, Axia NetMedia, aim to have the
majority of government facilities connected to the network
by June 30 and to complete construction by September 30.
QWEST ABANDONS ATTEMPT TO BUY MCI: This week, MCI accepted Verizon's
US$26 per share acquisition offer, although it was $4 less than
Qwest's. Qwest has pulled out of the bidding, saying it is "no longer
in the best interests of shareowners, customers, and employees to
continue in a process that seems to be permanently skewed against
Qwest."
PRIMUS CANADA UP TO 40,000 LOCAL LINES: Virginia-based Primus
Telecommunications Group says its Canadian subsidiary had 40,000
residential lines in service by March 31. About 90% of the new local
customers take a Primus LD plan as well.
SASKTEL CHOOSES ALCATEL FOR CONVERGED IP: SaskTel has chosen Alcatel,
one of its long-standing data network suppliers, to equip the telco's
IP network with the Alcatel 7450 Ethernet switch and 5620 Service
Aware Manager.
FCC CHAIR WANTS 911 ON INTERNET PHONES IN FOUR MONTHS:
Published reports say the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will
vote May 19 on a proposal to require providers of Internet telephone
services to route 911 calls directly to the appropriate emergency
lines by the end of September. The proposal is said to be supported by
the new FCC Chair, Kevin Martin.
ALIANT: REVISE OUR QUALITY REPORTS, TOO! Aliant has asked the CRTC to
exclude some of its Quality of Service results from the calculations
that require it to pay refunds to customers for poor service. Aliant
wants to exclude results for 4Q 2004 and 1Q 2005 that it says were
affected by last year's strike, which lasted from April 23 to
September 20.
** Telus made a similar request last week. (See Telecom
Update #479)
ITU PLANS EUROPEAN SHOW: Two years ago, the International
Telecommunications Union decided to move its flagship Telecom World
trade show and conference from Switzerland to Hong Kong in 2006. The
ITU now says it will add a new event, Telecom Europe, to its schedule
for 2007-2008. The date and location remain to be determined.
** May 17 is World Telecommunications Day, marking 140 years
since the formation of the ITU.
FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORTS:
** BCE Profits Steady: BCE's revenues of $4.86 billion were
4.8% higher than a year ago; profits were $474 million,
compared with $470 million in 1Q04. Bell Globemedia's
sales rose 4.1%; Bell Canada's, 2.5%. Wireless revenues
rose 9.5%, and data revenues rose 6.6%.
** Telus Profits Double: Telus net income of $242 million was
139% higher than during the same quarter last year; net
income rose 9.5% to $1.97 billion. Data sales rose 11%.
Wireless revenue rose 19% and now makes up 38% of Telus's
overall sales.
** MTS Net Income Rises: Manitoba Telecom's profits of $42.5
million were 34.1% higher than a year ago, excluding one-
time events. Revenues of $495.1 million were up 135% from
a year ago, which did not include Allstream. Sales of the
Manitoba division rose 5.3%; those of the national
division were similar to the previous two quarters.
** Call-Net Makes Gains: In Q1 2005, Call-Net revenue grew 7%
compared to Q1 2004, to $216 million. EBIDTA, cash flow
and gross margins increased. Fifty-six percent of revenue
in the quarter were from non-long distance business. Net
loss was $13 million, down from $30 million a year ago.
Call-Net added 30,000 new local lines in the quarter, to
total 336,100 residential and 159,000 business lines.
HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE
E-mail ianangus@angustel.ca and jriddell@angustel.ca
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE)
TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There
are two formats available:
1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the
World Wide Web late Friday afternoon each week
at www.angustel.ca.
2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge.
To subscribe, send an e-mail message to:
join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com
To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send
an e-mail message to:
leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com
Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add
or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave
subject line and message area blank.
We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail
addresses to any third party. For more information,
see www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html.
COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2005 Angus
TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further
information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please
e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500.
The information and data included has been obtained from sources which
we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no
warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy,
completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on
interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If
expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a
competent professional should be obtained.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 19:56:47 EDT
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Swedish Raid on ISP Called Major Blow to Piracy
By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. film industry on Friday
hailed a raid by Swedish police against an Internet service
provider as a major blow to European piracy of movies and music
on the Web.
The raid was carried out a week ago Thursday at the Stockholm offices
of Bahnhof, Sweden's oldest and largest ISP, which U.S. copyright
protection experts have considered a haven for high-level Internet
piracy for years.
"This was a very big raid," said John Malcolm, worldwide anti-piracy
operations director at the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA), which represents Hollywood's major studios.
"The material that was seized contained not only evidence of a piracy
organization operating in Sweden but of online piracy organizations
operating throughout all of Europe," he told Reuters.
Bahnhof, the first major ISP raided by the Swedes without advance
notice, was home to some of the biggest and fastest servers in Europe,
the MPAA said in a statement.
Authorities in Sweden seized four computer servers -- one reputed to
be the biggest pirate server in Europe -- containing enough digital
film and music content for up to 3-1/2 years of uninterrupted play,
the organization said.
Malcolm said authorities in Scandinavian countries had been reluctant
to take such action in the past but were recently cracking down on
piracy. About 20 individuals suspected of Internet piracy have been
the targets of smaller raids by Swedish authorities during the past
month.
The servers seized during the operation contained a total of 1,800
digital movie files, 5,000 software application files and 450,000
digital audio files -- amounting to 23 terabytes of data.
The MPAA says the film industry loses $3.5 billion a year to
videotapes and DVDs sold on the black market, but it has no estimate
for how much Internet piracy costs the industry.
Reuters/VNU
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
From: Eric Friedebach <friedebach@yahoo.com>
Subject: Big Brother Isn't Here Yet
Date: 6 May 2005 13:22:22 -0700
Arik Hesseldahl, 05.06.05, Forbes.com
NEW YORK - There's an old saying that goes, "Gentlemen don't read
other gentlemen's mail."
It's attributed to President Herbert Hoover's Secretary of State Henry
L. Stimson, who in 1929 shut down the office in the U.S. State
Department responsible for breaking codes to read messages sent
between embassies of other countries and their capitals.
It didn't take long for the government to realize that eavesdropping
on the communications of other countries and even its own citizens is
a necessary evil in a dangerous world.
Government surveillance is a sensitive topic, fraught with a good deal
of paranoia and a lot of misunderstanding. I was reminded of this when
someone with whom I trade e-mail sent an article noting that the
number of court-ordered phone wiretaps is on the rise.
The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts tracks statistics on wiretaps
ordered by judges at the state and federal levels on an annual basis
in order to report them to Congress. The headline on most stories
detailing the report was that the overall number of wiretaps was up
19%. The friend who sent the story used this in part to bolster her
side of a long-simmering discussion about how the U.S. is morphing
into Oceania, the surveillance-obsessed nation described in George
Orwell's 1984.
"Hogwash," I said, and promptly tore into the numbers. Federal and
state judges approved 1,710 wiretaps covering wire, oral and
electronic communications in 2004, none of which were related to
terrorism investigations, for which an additional 1,754 warrants were
issued last year according to a separate report put out by the
U.S. Department of Justice. So last year's grand total was 3,464
wiretaps approved for all state and federal investigations.
That works out to less than one tapped phone line for every 100,000
people in the U.S. Compared to other countries, the U.S. is
significantly more conservative in ordering wiretaps for criminal
investigations.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/05/06/cx_ah_0506diglife.html
Eric Friedebach
/An Apollo Sandwich from Corky & Lenny's/
------------------------------
From: Matt <mattmorgan64@msn.com>
Subject: 1A2 Help Requested
Date: 6 May 2005 13:42:34 -0700
All,
I googled this group and found some questions, slightly related to
mine, but not exactly, and all 3 or 4 years old. Also, I apologize if
I munge some terms.
So -- the story. The old 6 button western electric wink/blink/flash
business phones have always fascinated me. Don't ask me why ... I
dunno.
Currently I don't have any "new" phones at home ... Over the years I
have found them all to be crap for one reason or another, regardless
of price, and have bought several of the old 60s/70s style phones to
replace them. I was amazed how much I prefer the sound of the old
style ringer to the glitzy electronic chirp I'd gotten used to.
So now, the grumpy old man in me is satisfied.
But the geek in me isn't.
So, on to the next step -- installing one of the 6 button business
phones at home. (I don't/won't have multiple lines. All 5 buttons will
tie to the same number, or perhaps I'll use some of them for intercom
functionality, etc. one day).
I'm bidding on some manuals that apparantly go very deeply into the
operation and wiring of this type system -- but in the chance I lose
the auction, I was hoping to get some help here.
Can anyone break down, at a high level, the components I will need to
get something like this working?
I know I need the phone itself, and it has to have the 25 pair amphenol
connector on it.
And I know I need a 1A2 Keyset Unit. And this is where things get fuzzy
for me.
When someone says 1A2 keyset unit -- does that automatically infer all
the pieces that go with it? For example, I know there are various
cards, which enable certain options, and so, there must also be a
power supply to power the cards. Is this all self contained within
what is called a KSU?
Are there other pieces to a 1A2 KSU I need to know about?
For example, do I need to get some punchdown blocks that go in between
the phones and the KSU?
I guess my problem is I don't know what to ask -- because I don't know
what I'm doing.
I'll continue searching the web to learn more, and in the meantime, if
anyone could provide some links (Surely I'm not the only one to do
this?), or perhaps offer comments, I'd be most appreciative.
Thanks,
Matt
------------------------------
Subject: Ameritech Book Review (Thank You)
From: Brian_Coffey@nps.gov
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:25:48 -0400
Thanks for the nice review of our "Snapshots in Time." When I was
hired as an intern by Bill Cauglin to catalog the Ohio Bell
collection, it seemed both sad and crazy that those picture might be
doomed to sit on shelves. The prototype for that book were simple
3-ring binders with copies of photos and some captions. We took the
Illinois binder to the State Fair and sent one to the Ohio Ameritech
office. I feel so happy that we were able to use those photos for
something educational, and, we hope for the old "Bell Heads,"
something inspirational.
I later presented a paper "From Princess to Coquette: The Role of the
Telephone in The American Home," at the American Poplular Culture
Conference. It was about how AT&T used a propaganda blitz to convince
people to get a second phone, and the eventual demise of the Dreyfuss
designs and the last gasp of design that gave us the "Design Line."
Thanks again.
BRIAN F. COFFEY
LCS COORDINATOR
SERO/CRD
404-562-3117 EXT. 642
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I mentioned to you in private email,
you are quite welcome. And it appears nothing has been said about that
book for several months, so a refresher review might be in order:
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:35:50 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:35:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 87
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: A Photographic History of Ameritech (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:57:22 EST
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Book Review: A Photographic History of Ameritech
Did you know 'Ameritech' originally stood for
'(AM)erican (I)nformation (TECH)nologies, Inc.? You will learn that
and a lot more in a recent book "A Photographic History of Ameritech".
Subtitled 'Snapshots in Time', this photgraphic essay of the companies
which make up the present day north-central region of SBC is a brilliant
presentation of how our past evolved into our present.
Written and compiled by William D. Caughlin, the manager of Ameritech
Corporate Archives, with co-authors Brian F. Coffey and Ilana
N. Pergam, this 200-page large size paperback book uses pictures to
tell the story of the history of telephone service from its beginning
in 1876 through the end of 1999, when Ameritech (or Illinois Bell as
most of us knew it) became part of SBC, or what we knew as
Southwestern Bell.
When Alex Bell invented the telephone in March, 1876, many considered
it just a novelty, an electrical toy. Everyone -- at least all readers
of this Digest -- are aware of how Western Union essentially thumbed
its nose at the invention, a snub that about a century later would put
it out of business, along with email showing up a few years later.
The Chicago Telephonic Exchange was founded on June 26, 1878 to serve
the needs of Chicago businessmen. When the general public also wanted
phone service, the Chicago Telephonic Exchange merged with a competitor
to form the Chicago Telephone Company, in business from 1881 through
1920 to provide local service around the city. About the same time,
(1883-1920) Central Union Telephone Company started offering service
in other parts of northern and central Illinois.
Actually ahead of Chicago by about 9 months (it started in October,
1877) was the Michigan Telephone and Telegraph Construction Company,
which was the nation's first Bell Operating Company. Like Chicago,
their first interest was private line service for businesses, but on
August 5, 1878 the Detroit Telephonic Exchange opened for business.
During 1879, telephone exchanges were established in several towns
throughout Michigan, and after two years, in 1881, these various
Michigan exchanges were affiliated in the Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, and two years following that, in 1883 (through 1904) the
Michigan Telephone Company was formed.
Then comes January, 1879 and the Columbus, Ohio Telephone Exchange. By
the end of 1879, there were cities all over Ohio with phone service.
It was about that time, that telephone switchboards were started.
In the earliest days telephones were all connected directly to each
other: in other words if company A had a phone and company B had a
phone and Company C wanted to talk to A and B they had to have two
telephones, one each to A and B. Multiply that by the number of
companies in Chicago alone and you can see why the skies overhead were
black with telephone wires running in all directions. Most companies
had a phone to most other companies, so typically there were wires
running through the air everywhere. Ditto in Detroit, Cleveland and
elsewhere.
In March, 1879, Ameritech's first predecessor in Indiana -- the
Indiana District Telephone Company began operations in Indianapolis.
It eventually became part of the Central Union Telephone Company
and had phone exchanges all over the state. Milwaukee's first
switchboard opened in 1879, and in July, 1882 (through 1983) the
Wisconsin Telephone Company was incorporated to serve that state.
These five companies -- Central Union, Chicago Telephone, Cleveland
Telephone, Michigan Telephone and Wisconsin Telephone became known as
Associated Companies in the Bell System, and that is what this
photographic essay is all about: The 1876 through 1999 period as
those five companies were born, developed, merged then merged again
and (as Ameritech) had still another merger into Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company which then changed its name into SBC.
The rapid expansion of telephone service in those early years brought
with it the need for many skilled employees, especially operators.
Although the first operators were young men, it soon became apparent
that the subscribers preferred women in this role. Women soon became
the switchboard operators, and men handled installation and maintain-
ence. But around 1972, the companies began once again employing young
men as operators in Directory Assistance and elsewhere. Page 139 in
this book shows a young man at work in Directory Assistance in Dayton,
Ohio.
Caughlin and his associates picked through nearly one hundred thousand
pictures in their archives and present several hundred of them in this
fascinating book along with some text to place all the pictures in
context. The book is broken into several parts, covering these periods
of time:
1876-1899 1900-1939 1940-1969 1970-1999 and in addition a section
is devoted to Ameritech's lineage. You may wish to order one or more
personal copies for your library.
The SBC Archives and History Center is pleased to offer the book
entitled, Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech.
This 192-page soft-cover book chronicles the evolution of
telecommunications in the SBC Midwest (former Ameritech) five-state
region through select historical images. It offers more than 225
captioned photos of switchboard operators, crews with their vehicles
and technicians testing central office equipment. The book begins
with an 1876 portrait of Alexander Graham Bell and ends in 1999, on
the eve of the SBC/Ameritech merger.
The cost for each book is $25.00, plus $4.95 for shipping.
To order, fill out the form below. If you have questions, please call
Bill Caughlin at (210) 524-6192. Or send him an e-mail at
wc2942@sbc.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER FORM FOR
Snapshots in Time: A Photographic History of Ameritech
NAME __________________________________________________
BUSINESS UNIT ________________________________________
ADDRESS _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
CITY _________________________ STATE _____ ZIP __________
PHONE NUMBER (______)_________________________
I would like to order _______ copy(ies) each at $25.00, plus $4.95
shipping, for a total of _____________.
No cash, please. Make your check or money order payable to
SBC Services, Inc. and send it to:
SBC Archives and History Center
7990 IH-10 West
Floor 1
San Antonio, Texas 78230
[TELECOM Digest Editor's 1994 Note: This review will go in the Telecom
Archives section on history for future reference. You may wish to
visit the history section in the archives http://telecom-digest.org
and check out several interesting files there about the history of
the telephone, etc. I am in the process now of attempting to
establish an online museum of telephone history with pictures, etc.
I'll need readers help to do it however. PAT ]
Then, the next day, the author wrote with some corrections and
further comments which appeared in V23_#88
Re: Book Review Corrections, Comments (Bill Caughlin)
From: William D. Caughlin <wc2942@sbc.com>
Subject: Author's Feedback on Book Review
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:13:49 -0600
Dear Patrick:
Many thanks for your splendid review. It should spur a lot of
interest in the book published in September 1999. We had already
received five prior orders because of your earlier mass e-mail.
I have two minor quibbles, though, about your review: (1) the book's
primary title is 'Snapshots in Time,' while the subtitle is 'A
Photographic History of Ameritech;' and (2) the official name of
Ameritech between 1983 and 1991 was American Information Technologies
Corporation. There was no "Inc." in it.
Ameritech Corporation (the official name beginning in 1991) merged in
October 1999 with SBC Communications Inc. (the holding company
formerly known until 1995 as Southwestern Bell Corporation, or simply
SBC). Southwestern Bell Telephone Company was just one of the many
subsidiaries of parent SBC. Today, the former is called SBC
Southwest.
As part of the process to create a unified national brand, in December
2002, Ameritech became known as SBC Midwest and the former Illinois
Bell (a.k.a. Ameritech Illinois) was rebranded as SBC Illinois. At
the same time, the holding company Pacific Telesis Group (acquired by
SBC in April 1997) became SBC West. And later, Southern New England
Telecommunications Corporation (acquired in October 1998), parent of
SNET, was simply renamed SBC East in January 2004. In fact, the
former Bell Operating Companies in the 13 SBC states are now doing
business as: SBC California, SBC Connecticut, SBC Indiana, SBC
Missouri, SBC Texas, and so on. Ours is a very complicated industry,
and so all the mergers and name changes tend to make things unclear.
Finally, I was the manager of the *former* Ameritech Corporate
Archives. That entity moved in June 2002 from Chicago to San Antonio,
and is but one collection (out of five) in the present SBC Archives
and History Center.
Thank you again for sharing my book with your readers. I hope they
will like it as much as you.
Regarding our archival photos, we have digitized about 250 images (out
of 200,000), which are currently mounted on the SBC Archives and
History Center Intranet website, launched in December. Pending legal
approval, we hope to make the site accessible to SBC retirees through
the retiree portal. But reproduction of individual photos outside SBC
requires license agreements approved by the Legal Dept. SBC doesn't
want its copyrighted photos ending up in uncontrolled ventures without
its permission.
William D. Caughlin
Corporate Archivist
SBC Archives and History Center
7990 IH-10 West, Floor 1
San Antonio, Texas 78230
Tel: (210) 524-6192
Fax: (210) 321-5577
E-mail: wc2942@sbc.com
======= (End of 1994 notes) ======
So, readers, if you missed this review in the Digest a year ago and
would be interested in a fascinating pictorial history of Illinois
Bell, use the coupon above to order your copy for $25.00 from the
SBC Archives, and Mr. Caughlin's office. And thank _you_, Mr. Coffey
for the reminder to tell new readers of this Digest about it once
again. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 22:37:17 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Subject: Closed captioning (was How is Weather Channel Data....)
PAT wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards closed caption, since I
> sometimes these days do not hear as well as I would like, I
> frequently leave closed caption turned on (it is an on/off
> option on my television set) even though I am also using sound
> as well (closed caption allows me to keep up with words I miss
> or do not understand occassionally.) But has anyone else
> noticed how they really _blow it bad_ sometimes, with trash
> symbols instead of the words, etc,...
The "trash symbols" you see are the result of corrupted CC data. In an
NTSC video signal, the CC data is encoded on Line 21 of the picture
raster (if you slightly underscan your TV set, you can see it dancing
along at the top of the screen as a horizontal line of black and white
dots and dashes). It other words, the CC data is part of the video
signal, not a separate data stream. Consequently, it's subjected to
all of the various degradations that also affect the video signal:
noise, distortion, non-linear heterodyning, scrambling/descrambling,
interference from outside sources. Furthermore, if the video signal
is sent digitally (as on digital cable or DBS), Line 21 is sampled
right along with the rest of the video. Even if the sampling data
stream is error-corrected, the underlying CC data is not.
> ... or sometimes just approximations of the phrases used
> instead of the actual words?
Sometimes this is done intentionally; sometimes not. An ad libbing
speaker often speaks in a hesitant manner, sometimes repeating himself
or inserting extraneous or meaningless words. An effective
closed-caption track captures the essential meaning of the speaker's
words, but it isn't necessarily a literal word-for-word
transcription. Indeed, a word-for-word transcription can be difficult
to follow, and sometimes downright annoying (it certainly isn't
necessary to transcribe every "...uh...uh...").
> And in the case of VCR or DVD movies, I assume the closed
> caption is just encoded right on the finished product, is that
> correct?
Yes. It's also true of prerecorded network programming; in fact, it's
true of just about everything you see on television except live or
live-delayed programming. I once observed a captioner at work at the
National Captioning Institute; at the time of my visit, he was
captioning a sitcom. He already had the original script as a text
file; his job was to copy the script to the CC track, match it to the
sound track, and modify it if necessary (as he explained, actors who
really know their roles tend to adlib their lines, especially in
sitcoms). I was amazed at how fast he worked: fingers flying across a
standard PC keyboard, one eye on the video monitor, one eye on the
text monitor, half-listening to the sound track. I asked, how he could
do it so fast? He just shrugged and said "all sitcoms are alike" --
once you know the basic rhythm, you just know intuitively where to
insert the CC data.
> And if it is a 'live program' such as a newscast instead of
> some pre-recorded stuff, it appears they also create the
> closed caption live, since it drags behind the audio by a few
> seconds. PAT]
During live events, CC data is created on-the-fly using the same
22-key "stenotypes" that court reporters use. Some community colleges
now teach stenotyping, emphasizing the training for, and the future
job prospects of, both court reporting and closed captioning.
Of course, doing this type of work accurately requires more than just
stenotyping: it also requires knowledge of the subject at hand. Court
reporters obviously have to understand legal terminology;
closed-captioners have to understand the terminology of whatever
they're transcribing.
Inevitably closed-captioners make mistakes. Among my favorites:
Senator Daniel Anyway of Hawaii
Felix Mendel's son
a feat snobs
John Maynard Cain
Nevertheless, considering the vast range of topics that
closed-captioners have to deal with, I think they do an amazing job.
Neal McLain
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your comment about transcribing an
extemporaneous speaker was a good one. For a few years in my former
life in Chicago, IL I had a job of tape-recording then transcribing
a lecture series given at the Chicago Public Library. It was stressed
to me, 'do not transcribe him literally, transcribe what he _meant_.'
So I would listen to the tape three or four times, jotting down some
notes. Then I would listen to the tape again, and type it up mostly
'word for word' (these notes were given out to persons who requested
them later on), but I would *make complete sentences* where the
speaker had made partial sentences; I would eliminate the extraneous
'ah, um' things. But then before I took the finished transcription to
be mimeographed in a large quantity, I took my finished product to
the speaker and said "if this correctly states your lecture, _please
sign off on it for me_" then when the speaker and myself were in
agreement (we almost always were), then I would get the copies run
off. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased?
Date: 6 May 2005 14:03:22 -0700
Justin Time wrote:
> The issue that needs to be resolved is if the ownership of the data,
> residing on the company's (in this particular case - Yahoo!) belongs to
> the sender or is it the property of the equipment provider?
Seems to me it is clear the email is the property of whomever is
paying the bill for email service. In the case of a worker, it is his
employer. In the case of someone on their own, it is that person.
Keep in mind ISPs have denied any responsibility for illegal activity
transmitted over their systems -- if you download illegal stuff, you're
in trouble, not your ISP. Accordingly, the ISP has no property
interest in transmissions.
Actually, this particular issue seems to be more of 'privacy'. But as
mentioned, this is by no means a new issue. Once you're dead (or
incapcitated) your affairs revert to legally designated people. As
mentioned, the discovery of old love letters has had devastating
results.
Indeed, our nation's history was directly affected by such a case.
FDR had an affair with a woman, and later on Eleanor discovered the
old love letters. Their relationship remained strained forever more
and more of a business partnership than a marriage.
Note that the US Post Office will deliver mail addressed to a decedent
to an executor unless officially notified otherwise by the executor.
Mail is not automatically returned unless there is no one to accept
it. If there is held mail (ie for a signature), the executor or POA
is authorized to sign and receive it.
> If I am _renting_ the use of the computer then the computers output
> should belong to me.
As I mentioned, Yahoo is not liable if you use their facilities for
illegal stuff, thus they can't claim any interest in your mailings.
The area of law is not "property ownership" but rather IIRC
"bailments" where someone else is entrusted to hold your property,
such as a safe deposit box at a bank. When you die, your executor has
the right to open your safe deposit to inventory the contents
(sometimes the state will order this done to get their inheritance tax
cut) and then distribute or sell the contents per your will.
Bailment law has been around forever and there are numerous case
histories. Undoubtedly something close to today's issue can be found.
> If I am employed on the farm and work with your tools, then I
> suppose the crops are yours also. But not if the machinery, etc is
> under my exclusive control for some period of time. PAT]
The crops would belong to the property owner even if you used your own
tools to harvest them. Basically it would depend on the agreement you
had with the farmer for your compensation for work and equipment.
Now Congress or the states could, if they chose, pass specific laws
and exemptions from general practice for electronic communications.
But until they do so, existing precedents apply.
IMHO the email provider showed disrespect to the decedent's family for
failing to provide with what was clearly lawfully theirs. From the
point of view of the family, I'd be pretty annoyed.
Again, if you have stuff you don't want others to see, don't use
email. I just got burned with that--someone who promised me clearly
they wouldn't forward my email went ahead and did so anyway ("oh,
sorry, I forgot".) No great harm done since I was careful what I said
originally, but it still proves the point.
EMAIL IS NOT PRIVATE.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased?
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 00:40:38 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.199.7@telecom-digest.org>, Lisa Hancock
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Lisa Minter wrote:
>> by Susan Llewelyn Leach Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>> It's an old story with a heart breaking twist. A young marine is
>> killed in the line of duty in Iraq and his parents, in their sorrow,
>> request all his belongings, including his correspondence -- in this
>> case, his e-mail.
> The e-mail should be treated no differently than any other personal
> belongings and they revert to the next of kin or recipients specified
> in a will.
"Not exactly." ALL the property and "personal belongings" of the
deceased belong to the ESTATE of the deceased. Until properly
distributed to the inheritors -- either in accordance with a
distribution schedule specified in a will, or according to statutory
specifications.
> This really should be a no-brainer, and the parents should not have
> had to go court to get what was rightfully theirs.
It _is_ a no-brainer. and the parents went about things the *wrong* way.
> There is nothing special about e-mail that make them any different
> than any other very personal belongings, such as a diary or account
> statements. All of these pass on to an estate via the executor or
> next of kin.
Everything passes _into_ the ESTATE, and is distributed from there to
the inheritors.
All that had to happen was for the _executor_ of the estate to contact
the Internet company, providing the *COURT*AUTHORIZATION* that (a)
certifies that the person *is*, in fact, deceased, and (b) gives them,
_as_executor_, access to any/all property belonging to the deceased.
The family did _not_ have such documentation, when the original
request was presented.
The Internet company quite _rightfully_ refused to turn over the
property of another person, on the "say so" of an unknown party, who
was claiming that the account holder was deceased.
[[.. munch ..]]
> In the event there is any legally confidential material in an email
> account, the estate executor would be responsible to care for it just
> as he would any confidential documents found within an estate.
Eureka! That's right. But it was *not* the _executor_ that made the
request to the Internet company. Hence the "difficulties".
> Senders of sensitive information by email have often been told that
> email is not private and to be cautious.
>> The Internet company refuses to give out the marine's password, saying
>> that would violate its privacy rules.
> To do that the Internet company would have to have explicitly had a
> contract clause stating it would destroy all stored email upon the
> death of a subscriber in all cases.
Wrong.
Until the "Internet company" has _proof_ in their hands that the
requesting party is *legally*authorized* to have access, their
responsibility is to (a) the account holder, and (b) if the account
holder is deceased, to the _estate_ of the account holder. They must
be notified _by_the_estate_ "agent" -- the executor -- if ownership of
the property has been transferred to another.
As the parents did *NOT* present a claim that they were acting 'on
behalf of' THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, *their* request -- made in
their own persona -- was properly denied. "Even if" they claimed that
the estate executor had authorized the request, a denial was still
proper. The Internet company must hear it directly from the executor
-- not mere 'hearsay' that the executor authorized the action.
[[.. munch ..]]
> It doesn't work that well. Your personal effects automatically
> revert to your family or estate unless you explicitly give
> instructions otherwise. This is the way it always worked.
BZZZT! Such effects belong to the ESTATE. Unconditionally. Which is
responsible for distributing them according to law, and _maybe_ the
specifications of a will.
> The executor of an estate is duty bound to ascertain all assets and
> personal property of a deceased and distribute per the will.
> Accordingly, the executor needs access to anything and everything
> belonging to the deceased. If no executor was appointed, that would
> to next of kin with the same rights of access.
Wrong. Next of kin does *NOT* have any legal "rights of access".
"Next of kin" is simply the statutory 'default' beneficiary of the
estate, absent other distribution requirements (statutory, or the
"express wishes" of the decedent).
In an "informal" settlement of an estate, if *nobody*objects*, and
there are no "recorded" title matters involved, the various parties
can just 'divvy things up' amongst themselves. However, if _anybody_
says "no", then the formal processes *are* required.
That's what happened here. The mail-provider said "No. We require
the _formal_ process."
They were entirely _correct_ to do so.
Just for one extreme hypothetical -- suppose that the soldier had had
a falling-out (entirely on _his_ side) with the family and did not
want them to have *anything* of his. That he had left a will to that
effect with the military -- naming his new girlfriend (of whom the
family knew nothing) as his *sole* beneficiary.
Now, what happens if the Internet company did give the parents access
to his account, and _later_ the executor demands access/control. HOW
does the Internet company explain to the executor that they "gave
away" that account, and the mail in it, to somebody else?
Yes, it _looks_ "cold and uncaring", but the Internet company DID THE
RIGHT THING here.
The emotional appeal of "but, we're his _PARENTS_!" does not
substitute for the _legal_ authority to access another's private
property. Even if that person is deceased.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would think however, that if the
'internet company' later got in a legal hassle about this -- let's say
for example, tomorrow I showed up at the ISP's office with my properly
notorized papers as the executor of the soldier's estate and asked
them where is my email, and made a legal stench because they (ISP)
had already given it away to someone else, they (ISP) could make a
reasonable defense: "We acted in good faith; not knowing of any other
executor to the estate. Typically for unmarried young soldiers who
die in combat, their parents _are_ the executors, and in good faith
we worked with them on that basis." I think that would hold up if
the ISP were to get sued, since it is unreasonable the ISP as one of
its obligations is to search for other executors.
But ... I got these stories out of order. About two weeks ago I
published a report from Associated Press on this self-same soldier and
the parents grievances with the ISP: In that version from AP last
month the _ISP_ had handed over the mail to the parents who (at that
point) had started sorting it out for the scrapbook collage the mother
wanted to make. Much ado about nothing it seems. After the soldier's
father had sorted through a couple thousand plus pieces of email (the
build up between the time of his death, the parents starting their
inquiry, Yahoo finally obeying the court order, etc), it turns out the
_real_ saveable email from his buddies, girl friends, etc amounted to
_five_ pieces of mail; _huge_ loads of spam, unsolicited porn, etc
made up the rest -- the majority -- of it. Not being particularly
internet-savvy, the father had spent several days _actually reading
through each of the propositions_ -- commercial and err, 'otherwise'
that had stuffed this kid's email box before finally throwing up his
hands in disgust; five email letters, a couple thousand pieces of
trash ... had it been _me_ or most of you, if the subject line had
not given it away, the first two or three words of the text would have
been sufficient to cause it to get bashed. Poor parents! What _must_
they think of us here on the net these days. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Here's how Vonage-Verizon E-911 Will Work
Organization: Symantec
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 20:47:21 -0400
In article <telecom24.200.13@telecom-digest.org>, John Levine
<johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>> While the process documented mirrors the process for traditional
>> landline phones, it doesn't address what happens when the VoIP user
>> takes their phone someplace else and then calls 9-1-1. Which center
>> is called? The one for their home of record or the one serving the
>> hotel/motel/grandma's house?
> What kind of nitwit would go to all of the effort of booting up a VoIP
> phone in those circumstances rather than using the POTS phone next to
> the bed?
> The VoIP E911 issue only really matters for people using VoIP as a
> primary home phone, and it is my distinct impression that those phones
> rarely move.
I think people are expecting more and more users to start doing VoIP
on mobile devices, replacing cellphones. So their VoIP phone will be
hanging on their belt, always on and looking for open WiFi hotspots to
connect through.
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@workbench.net>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 18:00:10 -0400
Subject: Michigan Senate Technology And Energy Committee Meeting
Thought some of you might want to know about this committee meeting -
I would guess that Commissioner Chappelle will be making a pitch for
more regulatory authority over VoIP by the MPSC, given their recent
order.
(Forwarded message:)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:12:23 -0400
From: "Chris Kelley" <e-mail address removed>
Subject: T & E Committee Meeting Notice, 05-11-05
THE SENATE TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY COMMITTEE SENATOR BRUCE PATTERSON
CHAIRMAN
MAY 6, 2005
NOTICE OF SCHEDULED MEETING
DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 2005
TIME: 3:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 210, Farnum Building,
125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933
PHONE: Christopher Kelley (373-7350)
Committee Clerk
AGENDA
SB 334 Sen. Patterson Public utilities; electric utilities; annual
approval for a low income and energy efficiency factor regarding a
distribution service; provide for.
Discussion of the Michigan Telecommunications Act
Presentations by Commissioner Laura Chappelle, M P S C;
Consumers' Energy; and Shpigler Group on Broadband over powerlines
And any other business to come properly before the Committee.
Individuals who wish to bring written testimony need to supply
a minimum of twenty copies for distribution.
__________________________________________________
In the spirit of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA), individuals with a disability should feel free to contact the
Office of the Secretary of the Senate by phone [(517) 373-2400] or by
TDD [(517) 373-0543] if requesting special services to effectively
participate in the meeting.
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 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 #201
******************************
| |