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 Mon, 9 May 2005 18:00:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 203
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Microsoft Changes Mind Again on GLBT Employees (Lisa Minter)
Appeals Court Tosses FCC's Broadcast Flag Rule (Lisa Minter)
Intel's CEO Claims WiMAX Competitive With DSL, Cable (Lisa Minter)
Name Twin's Misdeeds Plague a Good Driver (Monty Solomon)
Early 'True' National Direct Long Distance Dialing? (Lisa Hancock)
Phone Line on cat 5 10-Base-T Ethernet? (Paul Robinson)
DTMF Ring Tone Midi File (dlois@aol.com)
Mobile Phone TV Set For Primetime (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
The Only Exciting Thing In Tech? (Eric Friedebach)
Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased? (Justin Time)
Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased? (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Unbrand America Causes Mess on the Net Over Weekend (Steve Sobol)
Re: 1A2 Help Requested (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Sprint/PCS Lousy Web Interface (D.M. Hendricks)
Telecom Digest 800 Business Directory (Robert Pierce)
Alcatel Reminder (Simon Templar)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Microsoft Changes Mind Again on GLBT Employees
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 20:56:19 -0500
By SARAH KERSHAW
Microsoft, faced with unrelenting criticism from employees and gay
rights groups over its decision to abandon support of a gay rights
bill in Washington state, reversed course again yesterday and
announced that it was now in support of the bill.
Steve Ballmer, the company's chief executive, announced the reversal
in an e-mail message sent to 35,000 employees in the United
States. "After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded
that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our
business that it should be included in our legislative agenda,"
Mr. Ballmer said.
He added: "I respect that there will be different viewpoints. But as
C.E.O., I am doing what I believe is right for our company as a
whole."
Long known for its internal policies protecting gay employees from
discrimination and offering them benefits, Microsoft sparked an uproar
when officials decided to take a "neutral" stance on the
antidiscrimination bill this year, after having supported it the two
previous years.
Critics, including employees who said they were told that Microsoft
would back the bill, said the decision to withdraw support had been
made under pressure from a local evangelical preacher who threatened
to boycott the company if it supported the legislation this
year. Company officials have disputed the accusation.
The bill, which would have extended protections against discrimination
in employment, housing and other areas to gay men and lesbians, failed
by one vote on April 21. But it is automatically up for a new vote
next year because bills introduced in the Washington Legislature are
active for two years even if they are voted down the first time.
After the defeat, Mr. Ballmer sent an e-mail message to company
employees, defending the decision to withdraw support. In that note,
Mr. Ballmer said that he and Microsoft's founder, Bill Gates,
personally supported the measure but felt the company needed to focus
its legislative efforts on measures that had a more direct connection
to their business.
In yesterday's message Mr. Ballmer suggested that employees' responses
had helped persuade Microsoft officials to renew their backing of the
measure. More than 1,500 employees signed an internal petition
demanding that the company support the bill, and scores wrote in
protest to Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Gates.
A Microsoft executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that
senior company officials met after Microsoft's widely publicized
turnaround on the bill prompted an uproar, and that they had decided
to change the company's stance because of pressure from employees.
"This issue got attention at the highest levels of the company in a
way it didn't before," said the executive, who did not attend the
meeting but was briefed on it. "It was a rocky path, but we got to the
right place."
Some lawmakers had said that Microsoft, based in Redmond, Wash., could
have lent crucial backing to the legislation through influence on
lawmakers representing Redmond and the suburbs outside Seattle.
In explaining why the company had not supported the bill this year,
Mr. Ballmer and other Microsoft officials had said over the last two
weeks that they were re-examining their legislative priorities and
debating when and whether to become involved in public policy debates.
Gay rights groups said they were contacted by Microsoft officials
before Mr. Ballmer's statement was publicly released. They applauded
the decision.
"We're very happy," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights
Campaign, a national gay advocacy group.
Mr. Solmonese met recently with several Microsoft employees after he
learned of the earlier decision not to back the bill, which was first
disclosed by The Stranger, an alternative weekly newspaper in Seattle.
The Microsoft officials, Mr. Solmonese said, "took it very seriously."
"They said that there had been a huge outpouring of concern via
e-mail, both internally and externally," he said.
Ed Murray, an openly gay state legislator from Seattle and a sponsor
of the bill, said of the company's reversal: "I think it's
important. It sent a message that this issue is not simply a so-called
social issue or cultural war issue, but it's an issue that is good for
business, and it's an issue that business considers important."
But the company's decision disappointed others, including Microsoft
employees who belong to the Antioch Bible Church in Redmond. The
church is led by the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, who met with Microsoft
officials twice about the bill and claimed to have persuaded them to
change their position on it.
"I feel that it's been kind of a stressful day," said a Microsoft
employee who is a member of the church and who spoke on condition of
anonymity. "I feel that it was wrong for the company to say that they
will be supporting issues such as this. Businesses should not actually
be publicly taking a stance on that, regardless of their internal
policies."
The employee, who has worked at Microsoft for four years, said the
company should "stay out of it" when it comes to the debate over gay
rights.
Dr. Hutcherson, whose church offices are near Microsoft's
headquarters, said earlier that he believed his boycott threat had
persuaded Microsoft not to support the bill. He did not respond to
messages left yesterday on his cellphone and at his office.
Microsoft responded that "Dr. Hutcherson will have to do what he feels
is best regards boycotts, etc." and we will do what we feel is best
to protect all our employees."
Steve Lohr contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2005 New York Times Company
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.
------------------------------
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Appeals Court Tosses FCC's Broadcast Flag Rule
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 21:00:15 -0500
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a
Federal Communications Commission rule designed to limit people from
sending copies of digital television programs over the Internet.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the FCC
had "exceeded the scope of its delegated authority" with the 2003
rule, which would have required TV set manufacturers to start using
new anti-piracy technology by July 1.
"We can find nothing in the statute, its legislative history, the
applicable case law, or agency practice indicating that Congress meant
to provide the sweeping authority the FCC now claims over receiver
apparatus," the three-judge appeals court panel said in its opinion.
FCC officials have said copyright protections were needed to help
speed the adoption of digital television, which offers higher-quality
signals and broadcasters said they would ask Congress to step in to
address the matter.
The music industry has been plagued by consumers copying and sharing
songs for free over the Internet, violating copyright laws. Hollywood
wants to prevent similar problems with its programs as it rolls out
more digital content.
"Without a 'broadcast flag,' consumers may lose access to the very
best programming offered on local television," said National
Association of Broadcasters President Edward Fritts. "We will work
with Congress to authorize implementation of a broadcast flag..."
The FCC declined to comment.
The NBC Universal television network also argued the decision would
hurt consumers.
"Today's court ruling imposes crippling restraints on the FCC's
ability to effectively support the development of a safe, sustainable
marketplace for the creation and distribution of digital TV
broadcasting," said the network, a unit of General Electric Co.
Under the FCC rule, programers could attach a code, or flag, to
digital broadcasts that would, in most cases, bar consumers from
sending unauthorized copies over the Web.
The regulation required manufacturers of television sets that receive
digital over-the-air broadcast signals to produce sets that can read
the digital code. Consumers could record and copy shows but would have
been limited from sending them.
Opponents complained the rule could raise prices to consumers and
would set a bad precedent by allowing broadcasters to dictate how
computers and other devices should be built.
The ruling brought praise from the American Library Association and
other non-profits who brought the court challenge. They said the
broadcast flag rule "seriously undermined" educators rights to
distribute digital material.
"This is a big victory for consumers and libraries," the association's
Washington office director, Emily Sheketoff, said in a statement.
A spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, which
backed the restriction, was not immediately available for comment.
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.
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.
------------------------------
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Intel's CEO Says WiMAX Competitive With DSL, Cable
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 21:02:56 -0500
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Intel Corp. Chief Executive Craig Barrett said on
Friday that new wireless high-speed data technologies would be competitive
with Internet links provided by cable and phone companies.
Intel, the world's largest chip maker, is pushing WiMAX, which would
provide high speed data over areas as large as a small city, as a way
to spread cheap yet ubiquitous wireless broadband access. Intel is
hoping to replicate the success it had in popularizing the short-range
wireless WiFi standard popular in airports and coffee shops.
In a conference call with Reuters reporters, Barrett said most
telephone digital subscriber lines and cable broadband connections
were not fast enough.
"Most of us who have DSL or cable at home do not have good broadband
but kind of half-ass broadband, which doesn't really allow for good
streaming video or that kind of stuff," he said.
Few home broadband connections today offer higher download speeds than
five megabits per second, and Barrett said good broadband -- which
would be capable of delivering high-quality video transmission --
should be able to move at least 10 megabits per second.
WiMAX, which should be capable of 50 megabits to 100 megabits per
second, is "significantly better than what we typically look at with
DSL and cable," Barrett said. "I think that will be very competitive
with those technologies, and especially where those technologies
aren't built out, in rural areas.
"Will it compete with wired access? Absolutely. Will it be perhaps the
only broadband solution you have in some areas? Absolutely, especially
in rural areas."
With Intel's muscle behind the WiMAX push, some 240 companies have
joined the industry group developing WiMAX standards and equipment.
Sprint Corp., and Intel said on Thursday they would cooperate on WiMAX
tests.
Intel expects the first commercial trials of WiMAX early next year,
with different variations of the technology for mobile users available
for trials by early 2007.
Intel and others envision WiMAX equipment installed outside homes and
business, linking up with base stations hosted by fixed-line
telecommunications operators. A short-range, Wi-Fi signal, or perhaps
an Ethernet cable, would bring the Internet to individual PCs in the
home.
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 22:09:36 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Name Twin's Misdeeds Plague a Good Driver
Again, Registry's mixup triggers bid to pull license
By Ralph Ranalli, Globe Staff
Nearly everyone has to share a name with someone, somewhere. David
Edward Greene just wishes his counterpart hadn't been such a nightmare
on the roadways.
For the third time in 10 years, Greene, who lives in Arlington, is
facing torment as his license comes due for renewal. The Registry of
Motor Vehicles has sent him notice that it is about to revoke his
license because of unresolved out-of-state driving offenses. That
means Greene, a driver with one ticket in 25 years, has to prove he is
not David Eugene Greene of Florida, who has the same birthdate but is
a convicted sex offender whose license was revoked for multiple drunk
driving arrests and court defaults.
Previously, Greene of Arlington has presented a range of documentation,
including a letter from Florida motor vehicle officials to prove he is
not a scofflaw from the Sunshine State. In the past, Massachusetts
officials eventually granted him a new license -- although once it
happened after he inadvertently drove for several weeks with a revoked
license, risking arrest and the impoundment of his car if he was
pulled over.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/05/03/name_twins_misdeeds_plague_a_good_driver/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This type of thing used to happen a lot
in Chicago, when the Cook County States Attorney would issue a warrant
for someone with a very common name. Now in recent years, when a
person (who is _NOT_ the wanted person) gets arrested and hassled,
they are permitted to apply for a boilerplate letter which announces
to one and all this particular [common name] is not wanted by law
enforcement _at this time_. And it gives a phone number to call for
verification. The common name person is 'encouraged' to carry this
letter in his possession (his wallet perhaps) at all times, and
present it to arresting officers, in the event of a mixup on his
social security number or other details. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Early 'True' National Direct Long Distance Dialing?
Date: 9 May 2005 08:00:52 -0700
Everyone knows that Englewood NJ was the site of the first subscriber
based Direct Distance Dialing, where the phone user could dial
directly himself long distance calls to other parts of the country.
This was in the early 1950s.
However, a review of the booklet given to Englewood subscribers shows
that only a few major cities were dialable. While a considerable
amount of population was reachable, a considerable amount of the
country's physical area was not directly diable and an operator was
still required.
I was wondering how long it took for most of the country (ie all
cities and most suburban areas) to be able to _receive_ directly
dialed calls from subscribers. That is, how long did it take for
Englewood to be able to dial more places?
Also, I was wondering how long it took for other towns to get DDD?
Was in phased in immediately after Englewood on a continuous basis, or
did they wait a while and see how Englewood worked out before
proceeding further?
My guess is that it took until at least 1960 for all of this to
happen. A great many small towns did not have full 7 digit phone
numbers. These had to be assigned to every town, and more
significantly, the intermediate switchgear set up to 'know' all the
new addresses. (For many years, small towns could continue dialing 5
digits for local calls and needed only 7 digits for long distance).
Also, there were considerable manual exchanges that had to be cut over
to dial, and differing dialing patterns of independent and co-op phone
companies.
Anyone familiar with the expansion of DDD in the 1950s?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well yeah, I remember a few cuts to
dial from manual service, and the pattern in how it was done was sort
of erratic, IMO. It was always on a Saturday at 2:00 AM as I recall
in each community but getting the Rate/Route tables updated sometimes
got done whenever. Often times also, the operators would call Rate/
Route for instructions and get told something like it was areacode
plus (fixed three digit exchange) plus 4-D. And you, the user could in
fact dial it in that way and get through, mostly, usually, but
sometimes not. Some places that were in GTE territory had tie-lines
to a large Bell city, such as (comes to mind) Lafayette, Indiana and
Fort Wayne, Indiana. Both towns were 7-D at that point, and the
former was right in the center of the 317 area, but Rate/Route would
say 'it is NOT area 317, it is 'Lafayette, Indiana'. A lot of the
smaller towns were in fact dialable _within their own towns_ but with
some dialing pattern which would not work from anywhere else. So to
call to Lafayette from Chicago, you had to ask your operator for
'long distance' and when she answered then ask for Lafayette (number).
Even though it was seven digits; then she would 'ring-down' to
Lafayette and repeat the requested number when the distant operator
answered. I remember going to Lafayette to see a friend of mine once
and while there I asked if I could call back to Chicago. He said it
was okay, 'but you have to dial the operator to reach it'. I did, and
when the operator answered I asked for 'Chicago, areacode 312' and
the operator cut me off at that point saying "I do not know anything
about it being 312, that's not how we do it." She did the same
ring-down routine, but this time at least it kept on ringing forever;
just like trying to call a middle east country in those days; the
operator only answered when she got ready, etc. In my case it rang,
and rang, and rang and rang ... finally the Lafayette operator pulled
the plug and said to me "I am sorry sir, Chicago is not answering
right now; please try later" (??!!!?)
Locally in Chicago, even though every exchange in town was dialable,
to call Northern Indiana (Whiting, East Chicago, Hammond area were
still manual) we had to dial 511 (from Chicago exchanges) to reach the
Hammond operators, 711 to reach the East Chicago, Indiana operators,
and 911 to get the Whiting operator. To reach my grandfather in his
office at the Standard Oil Refinery in Whiting, I had to dial 911
and wait (there was no audible ringing signal in my ear) while the
line 'clicked' a couple times then the old biddy operator would
scream at me 'Whiting!' and one could at that point either ask for
the 'official' number which as '2111' or more commonly just ask for
'Whiting Refinery' or 'Refinery'; the operator knew what was wanted
and made the connection.
My grandfather had two phones on his desk; one was the PBX phone
on the refinery switchboard, the other was a 'direct outside line'
but it was a Chicago 312 number, a 'foreign exchange' tie-line thing.
I think actually he had a six-button, five-line phone, one button of
which was his private line with the Chicago number on it, and one or
two of the buttons were extensions from the refinery PBX. On the
PBX, dialing '8' got you a Chicago dial tone, dialing '7' got you a
dialtone from the 'StanoTel' network, but when you dialed '9' you
had to just sit there and wait until the old biddy came on and screamed
'Whiting!' at you then tell her what you wanted. And of course '0'
got the refinery operator.
I was at his house overnight when Whiting was cut to dial, and I
wanted to test it out for sure. The telephone man had already put
dials on all the phones with a note saying 'dial not operational
until (some date) at 2:00 AM.' So, about 1:58 AM I lifted the
receiver, told the lady to give me '1234' which was the number for
the local movie house recorded message of coming attractions. I
tried it again at 2:00 AM exactly and got no answer at all. At 2:01
I lifted the receiver again, got dial tone, and dialed 659-1234 and
got the movie house hotline again directly. Just to satisfy my
curiosity more, then I dialed 659-2111, it rang a couple of times and
a lady answered saying 'Standard Oil Refinery'. So I knew it was
going to work as they claimed. Hammond had 'gone dial' about a year
before Whiting and although in Hammond, once it was dial, you still
had to dial 911 and have the biddy answer you; Whiting was able to
call Hammond numbers direct. When you told her the Hammond number
that you wanted, you would then hear a very fast beep, beep, beep,
boop sound and the number you wanted would start ringing. Same thing
in Chicago, but a few years earlier; I had some friends who could
dial me direct, but I had to use the operator to call them; that
was about 1950 or so, where Hammond/Whiting was about 1956/1960.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: paul@robinson-telephone.com
Subject: Phone Line on cat 5 10-Base-T Ethernet?
Date: 9 May 2005 08:55:21 -0700
I'm a little bit new to the actual specifications of hardware
operations so this is something I wanted to ask because it seems to be
the case according to what I've read. (I've been primarily a software
person myself.)
I understand that standard 4-pair wire (cat 5) running data at 10mbps
does not use the blue/white and blue pair (wires 4 and 5), which is
typically the standard color for running a phone line along an
ethernet wire.
If this is correct, is it possible to run a standard analog phone line
over cat 5 ethernet sold in hardware or computer stores, simply by
connecting to the blue & blue/white pair and using that? Since the
wire is typically twisted pairs, I had the impression this was
possible without crosstalk between either the ethernet and the phone
line.
Also, if the network cards being used are of the typical 10/100 type
that sell these days for $20 or less, or are included on the
motherboard of the user's PC, does that mean you can't do this because
100mbps will use all 4 pairs, or is it that you can run 100mbps
service over the other pairs and it won't really use the inner
blue-blue/white pair?
The things I have read indicate there are two types of 100mbps
service, 100Base-T, 100Base-T4 and 100Base-T8, where 100base-T8 uses
all of the wires in a 4-pair ethernet cable, and 100-Base-T4 uses only
two of the pairs. How would I know which is being used in ordinary
connections?
This also seems to imply that the other pair (wires 7 & 8) is also
available for use as phone service, conceivably implying you can run
100mbps ethernet and two analog phone lines on the same 4-pair cable
without problems or interference. I'd like to know if this is the
case.
Paul Robinson
Paul@robinson-telephone.com
------------------------------
From: douis@aol.com <douis@aol.com>
Subject: DTMF Midi File
Date: 9 May 2005 14:19:31 -0700
Is it possible to create a dtmf midi file for use on a project and
experiment using a dtmf ringtone? Can you have or create a dtmf ring
tone ?
Can this be done and if so how or where can I get this done?
Any info or help would be appreciated.
Many thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:54:32 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Mobile Phone TV Set For Primetime
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 9, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21430&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Mobile phone TV set for primetime
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Some MCI shareholders may oppose Verizon deal
* Cablers make inroads with digital phone services
* Intel's chief touts WiMAX
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* At SUPERCOMM: Register today for the IP Video Conference
HOT TOPICS
* Report: FCC chief seeking E911 requirement for VoIP
* Verizon raises offer for MCI
* Sprint, Intel announce WiMAX partnership
* Qwest drops MCI bid
* Korea: World's first TV service for cell phones begins
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Special report looks at cutting-edge wireless technologies
* Mediacom ups top speed to 10 Mbps
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Court rejects FCC broadcast flag rule
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21430&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: Eric Friedebach <friedebach@yahoo.com>
Subject: The Only Exciting Thing In Tech?
Date: 9 May 2005 10:20:14 -0700
Lisa DiCarlo, 05.09.05, Forbes.com
NEW YORK - Still using your cell phone just to make phone calls? How
passe.
If the seers are correct, within a year your cell phone will be
capable of live television, music downloads and playback, videogames,
storing movie clips and viewing everything from photo albums to
digital home movies. In short, more than you may have ever thought
possible.
Of course, there are high hurdles to clear before all this great stuff
happens -- complex rights agreements, conflicting technology standards
and the sometimes fractious relationship between carriers and content
providers -- but everyone involved has a stake in making it work. How
big a stake? It's almost too big to put a number on.
Pacific Crest Securities, which hosted a mobile entertainment
conference in New York on May 6, believes the sector will be the next
driver for growth in the technology industry, and the dominant
investment opportunity for the next decade.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/09/cx_ld_0509mobile.html
Eric Friedebach
/An Apollo Sandwich from Corky & Lenny's/
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased?
Date: 9 May 2005 06:22:51 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Pat stated:
> TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ignoring for a minute those situations
> where the computer belongs to the company and the worker _should be_
> attending to the business of his employer. In those cases I do agree
> the computer's output should belong to the employer. I am thinking
> now instead of those cases where one has an account with an ISP such
> as Yahoo for example: If I am _renting_ the use of the computer then
> the computers output should belong to me. Another example might be
> I live on a farm and rent or lease a machine to plant my crops. Now
> my crops grow and are harvested. Do the crops belong to you since I
> rented the machinery from you to do my work? 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]
I will try to address some of your more relevant points.
I am thinking now instead of those cases where one has an account with
an ISP such as Yahoo for example: If I am _renting_ the use of the
computer then the computers output should belong to me.
The issue here is the intellectual property. The output of the
computer belongs to you. You are free to take it with you and do with
it as your heart desires. The other side of the coin is the data you
leave on the rented computer. It does not belong to you. It is the
property of the machine owner. All those temporary files Microsoft
creates and stashes where only the programmer knows are not yours once
you leave the machine and return it to its owner.
A case in point is the example of rental machines at Kinko's. Some of
us may remember a few years ago the problem of some people who rented
machines at Kinko's were finding confidential and personal information
that had been left by prior users. There are also instances where
these "public" machines have been siezed with a warrant for evidence
of illegal activities. The entire point being the owner of the
machine has the ownership of your intellectual property -- in this
case Yahoo! and the email files -- because you left them on their
machine. If you had taken them with you, or deleted them, then the
owner of the machine would not have your intellectual property.
Then Pat wrote:
> Another example might be I live on a farm and rent or lease a
> machine to plant my crops. Now my crops grow and are harvested. Do
> the crops belong to you since I rented the machinery from you to do
> my work?
And the answer to this is if you left your crop in the machine, then
yes, it is theirs.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And of course, Lisa Hancock responded
that the crops actually belong to the owner of the land. I was
assuming I owned the land and had gone to the 'rent-a-tractor' place
before starting my work. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased?
Date: 9 May 2005 07:49:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Robert Bonomi responded to Lisa Hancock:
>> 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.
My point was that it be handled like any other personal effects, not
the fine points of estate law. I was disagreeing with those web
enthusiasts as described in the original post who didn't want the
email released at all.
Keep in mind that many estates are settled without probate and court
orders. Getting that stuff is expensive and not worth it if the
estate is small, such as often in the case of a young person.
> 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.
I would presume the family presented a death certificate which is
normally issued upon death.
As I mentioned above, going to court for probate and documentation is
expensive. For a person without any significant estate this could be
a waste of money.
> Eureka! That's right. But it was *not* the _executor_ that made the
> request to the Internet company. Hence the "difficulties".
If there is no will, the next of kin (as defined by law) becomes
by default the executor. I would suspect military documentation
provided that information.
> 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.
Do we know that for sure? I would agree that if the parents
just merely showed up with no documentation that their request
should be denied. However, I presume there is official military
documentation stating next of kin and so forth and they could've
presented that.
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Unbrand America Causes Mess on the Net Over Weekend
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 21:54:20 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
Patrick Townson wrote:
> Telecom and dozens (maybe hundreds) of other newsgroups have been
> spammed by Unbrandamerica.org. The NNTP server used for this spam is
> under jurisdiction of Asian Pacific Network.
IP address?
> Somehow they were able to bypass the Moderators of newsgroups and post
> directly to telecom and other groups. I did NOT approve any of their
> spam messages for posting to telecom.
It's actually pretty easy to do if you know how.
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: 1A2 Help Requested
Date: 9 May 2005 12:01:06 -0700
Matt wrote:
> And I know I need a 1A2 Keyset Unit. And this is where things get
> fuzzy for me.
The Antique Telephone Collectors Assocation (ATCA) and Telephone
Collectors International (TCI) would be the places to contact for
assistance with this type of thing.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell this much; no one,but no
one tampers with or tries to rewire the inside of a 1A2 phone. The
wiring is just too complex. All the rewiring is done in the box on
the wall where there is room to move your arms and fingers, _not_
in the phone itself. PAT]
------------------------------
From: D. M. Hendricks <dmhendricks@despammed.com>
Subject: Re: SprintPCS Lousy Web Interface
Date: 9 May 2005 13:10:47 -0700
Steve Sobol wrote:
> D. M. Hendricks wrote:
>> It's good to know that Sprint cares so much about fraud prevention.
>> Why is it so terribly difficult to find out who called me?
> All US carriers except Cingular have the wrongheaded idea that when
> someone calls their customer, the caller has a right to privacy. Screw
> that -- you have no such right when I'm paying per minute for you to
> call me. If on a landline with a flat monthly fee, that's
> different. Not on a cell phone where I have to count airtime
> minutes. But again, Cingular is the only carrier in the industry with
> a clue regarding incoming call details.
Yeah, I think this is wrong too. Good to hear I'm not the only one ;)
I didn't know Cingular printed incoming calls on your statement. I'll
hafta check them out when my plan expires. However, I've had my fair
share of problems with SBC and AT&T in the past, so we'll see ...
------------------------------
Subject: Telecom Digest 800 Business Directory
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:03:02 -0400
From: Robert Pierce <robert.a.pierce@withheld_on_request>
Pat, please remove my e-mail address from this posting. Thanks.
I just received a telemarketing call -- on my _cell_ phone. It was a
recorded message offering me a chance for a free cruise. Just what I
wanted!
I called the number they gave me -- (800) 664-0366 -- and talked to
Dean (no last name) of Intellegent Alternatives. He pleasantly
informed me in his accented English that 1) _He_ didn't call me,
someone else in his company did; and 2) It is not illegal to
telemarket to cell phones.
Also, if I had any comments about their marketing practices, his
supervisor was not available, but I could call (858) 452-3585 and
speak to someone there.
If any of your gentle readers would like a chance for a cruise, they
can call (800) 664-0366 and talk to the dear folks there. I hear they
love to talk.
Rob
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A cruise sounds like a nice deal. The
last time I went on a nice boat trip was years ago when we went on the
Chesapeake and Ohio ferry across Lake Michigan from Milwaukee to a
place in Michigan where we stayed all night at a motel then came back
on the boat the next day. Do you think they could arrange that for me
again at 800-664-0366 or would it be better if I talked to the
supervisor at 858-452-3585? Any of you guys who check it out please
report back here on it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Simon Templar <le_prelude@yahoo.fr>
Subject: Alcatel Reminder
Date: 8 May 2005 20:41:47 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Hi guys,
Just a reminder about http://alcatel.gadot.net : forums and knowledge
base about the system !
Simon
------------------------------
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 #203
******************************
| |