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
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
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
Add this Digest to your personal
or
TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Jun 2005 15:50:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 258
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
FBI Disputes Reports of Tech Woes (Lisa Minter)
Walt Disney to Aquire Minds Eye (Lisa Minter)
Is There True Pay-as-You-Go Cellphone? (Barry Margolin)
BT 5DD Set to Launch Hybrid Phone (Telecom Daily Lead from USTA)
Re: MCI Now Charging Extra on Payphones When Using Phone Card (Burstein)
Re: MCI Now Charging Extra on Payphones When Using Phone Card (R Bonomi)
Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: Pay Phone Regulations (Justin Time)
Re: Pay Phone Regulations (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: Pay Phone Regulations (Lisa Hancock)
Re: SBC New Low Price (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: T-Mobile Tzones on Motorola A630 - Really 72 Hours Setup? (Joseph)
Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Dave Garland)
Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-Mail Sites (Lisa Hancock)
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: FBI Disputes Reports of Tech Woes
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:17:23 -0500
By Andrew Zajac Washington Bureau
Clobbered by a three-day wave of bad publicity about its bungled
efforts to update its technology systems, the FBI on Wednesday
attempted to rebut allegations about the costs of straightening out
the agency's computer woes.
But even after the bureau's top technology executive detailed progress
made in overhauling the cyber-operations, what stood out was the
magnitude of what remains undone: A fully functioning computer system
remains about four years and unknown hundreds of millions of dollars
into the future.
"What we don't have is an efficient way of working with our
information," said Zalmai Azmi, the agency's chief information
officer. "What I mean by that is that we're still paper-based."
Still, Azmi said, "We're not missing anything in terms of capability,
except for efficiency."
Azmi emphasized that the bureau has assembled information for
terrorism investigations into a database that can be shared by agents
and analysts.
In addition, Azmi said the bureau's $500 million-plus Trilogy upgrade,
including improved links with other agencies, and installation of
60,000 new computers is "80 percent done."
Azmi disputed a House Appropriations Committee report released earlier
this week alleging that the FBI withheld information on 400 glitches
in a contractor's case management software, thus squandering its
chances to cut its losses by killing the project sooner than it did,
in March.
Azmi said the contractor, San Diego-based SAIC Corp., worked with the
bureau to uncover the bugs in the Virtual Case File system. A company
spokesman declined to comment about its performance in developing the
system.
The case file program was developed over a four-year period at a cost
of at least $104 million.
Azmi also disputed an account in U.S. News and World Report, published
Wednesday, that a new case-management system would cost nearly $800
million.
But he declined to offer his own estimate of how much a
case-management system would cost because he said it might lead
prospective contractors to inflate their bids.
Azmi said the FBI would take bids on a new case-management program,
dubbed Sentinel, this summer. Work on it should start by the end of
the year and should be complete in slightly less than four years, he
said.
In an effort to avoid mistakes made with Virtual Case File, Sentinel
will be built in four parts, so it can be debugged in stages and
assembled more quickly. Developers will use off-the-shelf products as
much as possible to reduce cost and complexity, and an experienced
project manager, Miodrag Lazarevich, recruited from the CIA, will
oversee Sentinel, Azmi said.
Copyright 2005 Chicago Tribune
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: Walt Disney to Acquire Minds Eye TV Game Developer
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:11:18 -0500
The Walt Disney Internet Group on Wednesday announced its acquisition
of British game developer Minds Eye Productions in a move signaling
Disney's commitment to interactive television gaming, the companies
said.
Disney entered interactive gaming last year with its launch of Disney
Channel Play, carried on the UK's Sky satellite system. Disney
Channel Play featured games centered on Disney characters, TV shows
and movies, such as "Kim Possible" and "The Lion King."
In a statement, Disney said the purchase of Minds Eye demonstrates its
commitment to the iTV games market and to finding new growth
opportunities for Disney.
Minds Eye joins a stable of other Disney assets developing interactive
content for Disney in Europe, a Disney spokesman said. Minds Eye has
developed interactive TV games such as "Monopoly" and "Who Wants to Be
A Millionaire" for Sky Active platform, as well as games for Disney
Channel Play.
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: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Is There True Pay-as-You-Go Cellphone?
Organization: Symantec
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:04:22 -0400
I have a cellphone, but I use it very infrequently -- maybe about 5
minutes a month. I bought a Virgin Mobile prepaid cellphone, but they
require that I purchase $20 of time every 90 days to keep it active.
So I have to spend nearly $7/mo when I use at most $2/mo.
Is there a cellphone plan closer to my needs?
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One plan I use myself for a
supplementary cell phone I have is Cingular Wireless (as they
inherited it from AT&T 'Free to Go' (the old AT&T prepaid plan). They
let you purchase a hundred dollars worth of prepaid time and it
never runs out, or maybe runs out after a year. For less than $100
the purchase increments run out every 90 days just as with your
existing service. Another reasonable plan is Alltel, which I do not
think has any expiry time on its prepaid minutes, although it is
bit more expensive per call. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:24:51 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: BT D5DD Set to Launch Hybrid Phone
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
June 9, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=3D22221&l=3D2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* BT set to launch hybrid phone
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Sierra Wireless to end smart phone venture
* Microsoft's IPTV plans behind schedule
* News from SUPERCOMM
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* SUPERCOMM wraps up; Plan now for TELECOM 05
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* TiVo, Microsoft in portable video deal
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* WorldCom settlement may be close
* RIM-NTP patent dispute flares up again
* Cisco, Boeing do work for military
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=3D22221&l=3D2017006
------------------------------
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: MCI Now Charging Extra on Payphones When Using Phone Card!
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 05:13:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
In <telecom24.257.3@telecom-digest.org> hizark21@yahoo.com writes:
> MCI now charging extra payphones when using their phone
> card!!!
> MCI has started charging a 65 cent surcharge on calls using their phone
> cards ...
While this may be news to the earlier poster, a drop-fee of this
(rough amount) has been in place by most, if not all, cards for nearly
a decade.
The FCC has mandated a kickback to the owner/operator of payphones
whenever a non-coin workaround such as a call to a "toll free [a]"
number is placed. Last time I looked this was set at about a quarter
[b]. Throw in the usual overheads, as well as the fact that this is
almost invisible to the card user, and you get actual charges in the
fifty to seventy-five cent range. (or more...)
The rationale is that the payphone operator is entitled to some sort
of compensation for giving you a place to stand, make the call, and
have access to the phone network.
Incidentally, some phone cards have (or at least had ... it's been a
while since I've had occasion to check into this in detail) so-called
"local" regular, that is, normal pay rate access numbers.
In these cases you'd place the $0.25 or thereabouts into the coinbox
just like you would for a standard call, and there's no extra
surcharge from the card balance.
[a] in quotes because it's not really a free call. the recipient
(the "owner" of the number) pays for it. In fact, because of this
extra payphone kickback surcharge, many places with toll free
numbers do NOT take calls from coin phones.
[b] fcc info on ayphone kickbaks:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9005.html
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: MCI Now Charging Extra on Payphones When Using Phone Card!
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:57:45 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.257.3@telecom-digest.org>, <hizark21@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> MCI now charging extra payphones when using their phone
> card!!!
> MCI has started charging a 65 cent surcharge on calls using their phone
> cards ...
> I have a MCI phone card and it is a pretty good deal, because you can
> make calls from a payphone for 3 or 5 cents a minute.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where they get you is that a person
> near a landline phone or with a cell phone would not need to use a
> payphone. I would think the main reason for using _any_ calling card
> would be to avoid dropping coins in a payphone box. So although they
> _claim_ a decent rate of 3-5 cents per minute, they know the actual
> rate will be 65 plus 3-5 cents (or 68-70 cents) for one minute. PAT]
That 65 cents _looks_ like a lot, but it is close to 'break even'.
Remember, you use those cards by dialing a toll-free number first.
That means that the toll-free number operator has to pay the COCOTS
operator 30-some cents for that call.
In addition to that, there is the cost-accounting nightmare associated
with keeping track of those charges -- for *every* mom-and-pop coin-op
phone operator out there. And sending that check for $1.35 for three
month's worth of calls. Figure postage, plus the $0.10/check that
banks typically charge business accounts, a few sents for handling,
and you've got a 'check writing' overhead of $0.15/call, for that
4-call check. Plus the cost of all that 'un-necessary' accounting
software, and the *auditing* cost to make sure that that software *is*
doing things right.
It wouldn't surprise me if they were realizing a 'profit' of less than
a nickel -- and likely _far_less_ than that -- out of that $0.65
charge.
------------------------------
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing
Date: 9 Jun 2005 06:06:37 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
In article <telecom24.257.7@telecom-digest.org>, T. Sean Weintz
<strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
> Not only that, but clearly the service is aimed at making harrassing
> calls. Making such calls is illegal, is it not? So here we have a
> business who's only line of service is set up to make illegal harrassing
> phone calls.
> I'd think they would be pretty easy to shut down under the RICO
> statutes. Could make a pretty good "criminal enterprise" argument. I
> doubt they'd be able to do much to protect anyone if their ISP access
> logs are all subpoenaed by some DA.
I doubt US law enforcement could do much. According to their website
they're located in Gothenburg, Sweden.
John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 03:48:19 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to T. Sean Weintz:
> Pat wrote:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And did you notice the Tricktel people
>> do not work for free either; I think I saw on their web site where the
>> rate for their 'services' ranges from 25 cents up to one dollar per
>> incident, depending on what they think about you as a customer. Let's
>> assume you pay one dollar per call made. Can you afford that? I sure
>> cannot. I think Tricktel also said that depending on how tough things
>> get on them (in the event of a complaint) they may or may not protect
>> your 'privacy'. I just don't know you can trust them. PAT]
> Not only that, but clearly the service is aimed at making harrassing
> calls. Making such calls is illegal, is it not? So here we have a
> business who's only line of service is set up to make illegal harrassing
> phone calls.
> I'd think they would be pretty easy to shut down under the RICO
> statutes. Could make a pretty good "criminal enterprise" argument. I
> doubt they'd be able to do much to protect anyone if their ISP access
> logs are all subpoenaed by some DA.
> If ya DO use it, use an anonymous prepaid debit card, and only go to
> their server via an anonymous proxy!
Some folks may not have a vindictive agenda; rather they want to spoof a
friend with a call with a mutual friend's caller id and some silly message.
I think that is what this is about. So, is that type of call a harassing
call under the intent of the law. I seriously doubt it. It seems a lot
more like a more sophistated rendering of prank calls.
If my view stands, then the issue becomes spoofing of caller id. It seems
the FCC lost control of that one starting with its 1995 Caller ID Decision,
in which it reserved the issue of PBX-type customer-generated Caller ID, and
never subsequently addressed the issue. So, for me at least, I look to the
FCC for the first case of blame with all this.
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Regulations
Date: 9 Jun 2005 05:22:52 -0700
As your company in question was using a COCOT and the phone was pulled
for lack of revenue, did the company offer to make up the difference
between the actual and expected revenue? The company may again try
contacting the same COCOT and make that offer.
When offering to make up the difference in revenue, you will need to
determine what the COCOT deems is revenue from the phone. If they are
only counting coin drop, then offer to make up the difference between
the coin drop and the monthly cost of the line. If they count the
revenue from 800 numbers, long distance and operator services, then you
have the right to ask for a monthly statement of all revenue generated
by the phone and then what their minimum expected revenue is for all
phones.
The alternative is to pay for the phone line and let the COCOT have
all revenue from the phone, which as there are no line costs should
increase significantly. The COCOT would have the specs for ordering a
line from the LEC or CLEC. Be certain to sign a contract that has all
the expectations and costs listed -- saves arguing later.
Rodgers Platt
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Regulations
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:35:18 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
Robert Pierce wrote:
> [Pat, please remove my e-mail address. thx]
> Good afternoon.
> I have a client who would like to have a pay phone in their break area
> for employee use. The COCOT vendor they were using wasn't making
> enough money, and so they pulled out.
> They're not looking to turn a profit; they just want to give employees
> without cell phones a chance to call home etc. without having to open
> up an outside line to long distance charges, abuse, etc.
> They would like to put a simple pay phone in place -- something like a
> "Model 909."
> o What kind of federal or state (of Florida) regulations would apply
> here? A google didn't help, but perhaps I used the wrong search terms.
> o What kind of drawbacks/pitfalls would they be looking at by going
> this route?
> o Does anyone have a better idea of how to set this up?
> o Does anyone have any experience with programming this type of
> payphone? I was hoping to find the documentation on line, but no luck.
> Thanks,
> Rob Pierce
I see them in a lot of restaurants so they must work. I note their
site suggests you contact the state public utilities/service
commission for the rules that govern the 909 in that state. There are
enough 909s being used they should know. Far better than getting the
wrong info here.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock)
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Regulations
Date: 9 Jun 2005 12:08:42 -0700
Robert Pierce wrote:
> I have a client who would like to have a pay phone in their break area
> for employee use. The COCOT vendor they were using wasn't making
> enough money, and so they pulled out.
There are other vendors, perhaps another vendor would be more
interested. Was the shortfall so much that the company wouldn't want
to make it up?
Perhaps the payphone could be put in the lobby or someplace accessible
to more people than just the break room so as to do more volume.
> They're not looking to turn a profit; they just want to give employees
> without cell phones a chance to call home etc. without having to open
> up an outside line to long distance charges, abuse, etc.
Even old PBXs had a feature to limit outside calls to local numbers,
not long distance; I would presume this kind of thing is still
available. I would strongly consider a phone of this nature. Might
be a lot simpler than putzing around with a pay phone.
> o What kind of drawbacks/pitfalls would they be looking at by going
> this route?
One way payphones make money is through very high long distance
charges. If one of the employees makes a collect or calling card call
and subsequently discovers a $25 charge for a 1 minute call, they
won't be very happy. The price of long distance is up to the property
owner and need not be so high but then the phone might not pay for
itself.
(The Philadelphia transit carrier, SEPTA, has Verizon pay phones at its
stations with relatively reasonably priced coin long distance. NJ
Transit, in contrast, has the high rates and no coin long distance.)
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: SBC New Low Price
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 04:00:24 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
Typical folk-lore that results from half-reading California PUC rules.
After wiring on the customer side of the NID became the customer's
property and responsibility to maintain, the California PUC
established some state rules pertaining to inside wiring. The rule
on-point is that the landlord is the owner of inside wiring in rental
untils, not the tenants. So, either through a SBC maintenace program,
an outside maintenance program, or on his own, the landlord has to
keep the inside wiring (and presumably one jack) in good repair.
Whether dial tone is established on that viable pair is not the
landlord's obligation in any manner. That is a service that the
tenant has to decide to provide for himself. Now, California also has
highly subsidized basic dial tone service for those who certify an
income below a threshold level, that varies with the number of
household dependants. But, there is still a small monthly fee and it
is strictly up to the tenant whether he wants to pay that low fee for
dial tone.
There is nothing mandatory about providing this "life-line" subsidized
service except on the part of the LEC and then only if the subscriber
orders it and qualifies by certification. None of this has anything
to do with the landlord in any case. The low-cost "life-line" service
is subsidized by all other California wireline subscribers, who do not
qualify for socialized telephone service.
A more interesting twist is where the property has affluent renters
and perhaps some of them want multiple phone lines, which the landlord
cannot practically provide. I believe it has thus far been the
practice of the CAL PUC to force this inside wiring mandate for only
one line per rental unit. But, I could be wrong on that one.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I read the original thread here, I
was of the impression it was not the wire pair(s) in question, it
was getting dial tone on that pair which telco would not supply
because of a billing dispute with a previous tenant. Telco could care
less about the wire pair; run as many of them as you wish, but then
get telco to interconnect. Was I wrong on this assumption? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: T-Mobile Tzones on Motorola A630 - Really 72 Hours to Setup?
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:20:21 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On 8 Jun 2005 14:30:30 -0700, jason@cyberpine.com wrote:
> It's now been 48 hours since I subscribed to T-zones $4.99.
> But still get "your plan does not support this feature" when
> attempting to Go to URL for wap sites I know that work.
> On the phone I'm able to go to T-zones Home page and I see the T-zone
> animation. But, also, when I select Games & Applications I get the
> same "your plan does not support this feature" message.
> T-mobile saying wait the full 72 hours ... though I got a feeling, it
> never really takes this long.
Did you wait 72 hours? Did it work before then? That's your answer.
If after 72 hours it doesn't work you have cause to complain. They
told you 72 hours so I don't see what the problem is. If you think
that's too long you are of course free to find someone else who will
do it more expeditiously for you.
------------------------------
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:42:46 -0500
Organization: Wizard Information
It was a dark and stormy night when PAT wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But landlords can (or not, as they
> wish) choose to rent an apartment to someone. If they get bad vibes
> about it, prior to rental, then they just don't rent. Landlords can
> also consult credit bureaus to detirmine the wisdom of renting (or
> not) to someone.
Around here, landlords also charge an "application fee" of $40 or so
to cover the cost of making those checks (or, in some cases, just to
pocket the extra money), nonrefundable and no guarantee that they'll
rent to you. How much would you be willing to spend to apply (no
guarantee of acceptance) to register "telecom-digest.com"?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I have always said, if you can't win
points any other way, then always get personal about it, and that
_should_ work. It won't in this case however, since (a) I _already_
have http://telecom-digest.com and have it aliased to its ".org" version
instead. Same with http://telecom-digest.net . Try them and see where
it gets you. I prefer to use, and only publish the '.org' version of
my name space, and (b) if I thought for forty dollars and no guarentees
I could buy my way out of the horrible spam infestation I deal with
each day, I'd be glad to do it. It always amazes me how people feel
by 'getting personal' -- that is, taking the real life circumstances
of the person speaking, they can 'prove' the person is being hypocritical
by not wanting what he suggests for others should apply to himself.
In other words, 'they' should be subject to regulation X and fee-plan
Y and rule Z, but oh, wouldn't 'I' feel just awful if those same rules
and regulations and fees, etc applied to me. If regulations and rules
were such that it was impossible to comply with and continue to
publish Telecom Digest, then I would regretfully close it down. (and I
have come >thisclose< to doing just that in the past mainly on account
of how trashy the entire net has become in recent years, so I doubt
there would be _that much_ regret in the long term.
I have enough of an 'anarchist spirit' in me that I _would_ regret
very strongly any efforts to reform the net _to the fullest extent_
possible, but I can see that happening sometime sooner or later,
probably sooner, when the government (and after all, who is more
likely) gets a belly-full of the nonsense and decides a _total
crackdown_ is called for. Like many others, that would totally shock
me, but if you are intellectually honest with yourself and others, you
could not say it was unexpected or uncalled for. So many netizens have
not only _refused_ to submit to any form of voluntary clean up
efforts; always providing much obtusification in 25-30 K 'replies' to
messages from those who ask -- beg -- for some relief; gladly
explaining over and over why (plan X) will not work. You make up plan
X however you like: many of the long term netters will insist it will
not work, but like ICANN and Vint Cert, I honestly do not think many
of them want it to work. After all, if we can get the private little
club we used to have here by using the spammers/scammers as tools to
drive away the others, why not do it? Let the spam/scam people do
thier thing, we can sit here and use 25-30 K 'replies' to obtusificate
as needed. PAT]
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:38:45 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And now, for today's 16 K-byte Gospel
lesson, here is our resident Gospel teacher. PAT}
In article <telecom24.257.6@telecom-digest.org>, Robert Bonomi
<bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> In article <telecom24.256.11@telecom-digest.org>,
> TELECOM Digest noted in response to Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:27:55 GMT, [Telecom Digest Editor] writes:
>>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to ask you just one
>>> question: _Why_ can't a registrar be expected to screen potential or
>>> actual spammers? If registrars started doing that, they'd be heros
>>> in the eyes of most netters. PAT]
>> If you're going to use that logic you might as well use it on the
>> telephone company for selling service to fly-by-night boiler room
>> scamsters in South Florida and Montreal as well.
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One small problem with your logic.
>> Telco is a common carrier; they are required by law to supply service
>> to _anyone_ asking for service on the condition the potential
>> subscriber has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for
>> the service. Registrars are not common carriers, they are free to
>> accept or reject customers at will;
[[.. munch ..]]
[ *sigh* ham-handed editing by the moderator manages to completely ruin ]
[ the examples in the two paragraphs below. Thank you, PAT ]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite welcome, I am sure. I am
always glad to be of assistance. PAT]
> Of course, spammers/scammers/phishers can, and *do* use raw IP addresses,
> without having domain-names attached. So can anybody else. e.g.
> http://208.31.42.81/index.html or mailto:esteemedmoderator@[208.31.42.98]
> Thanks to the wonders of HTML, unsophisticated readers need never _see_
> the above forms, you do something like
> a href=http://208.31.42.81/>Telecom Digest or
> a href=mailto:esteemedmoderator@[208.31.42.98] email Patrick Townson </a
> or fatuously:
> email a href=mailto:esteemedmoderator@[208.31.42.98]
> AlGore@whitehouse.gov/
> Domain-names are not necessary. They are simply a 'convenience'.
> Is 'directory assistance' (a non-common-carrier, *non-regulated*
> ancillary service for the PSTN) responsible when you get telemarketing
> calls? or harassment calls?
> Is _directory assistance_ responsible for checking out the 'history'
> of the person who buys into having their name 'indexed' in the
> database? ILEC telephone service usually includes getting entered
> into the database. CLEC telephone service often does *NOT*.
> Frequently you have to order that separately, sometimes via the CLEC,
> sometimes directly from the ILEC. Just like the way you can get your
> non-ILEC, or even VOIP number listed in the ILEC 'white pages' phone
> book.
> Registrars serve an essentially identical function to 'directory
> assistance'.
> [TELECOM Digest Editors' Note: No, directory services are not
> responsible for that type of phone call. But we can and do prevent
> that type of phone call by having our numbers unlisted/non-pub. And
> I do not agree that the registrar serves an 'essentially identical'
> function.
'Directory assistance' provides a 'name to number' mapping function,
nothing more. Registrars provide a 'name to number' mapping
function, nothing more ...
The only real difference between the two is that the 'numbers' are in
different address-spaces.
The PSTN does not rely on 'directory assistance' for the basic
functionality. calls *must* be placed to a 'number'. If you have a
'name', you must *first* translate it into a number, before you can
attempt to make contact.
The Internet does not rely on 'naming services' for the basic
functionality. Packets *must* be sent to a 'numeric address'. If you
have a 'name, you must *first* translate it into a number, before you
can attempt to make contact.
It is 'convenient' to remember and use names instead of numbers, and
to use 'directory assistance' to map those names into telephone
numbers.
It is 'convenient' to remember and use names instead of numbers, and
to use the registrars databases to map those names into "internet"
numbers.
The 'essentially identical' nature of the operations should be
obvious.
> One difference might be that telco makes the number assignment and
> _forwards_ that information to the various directory services where
> no single entity tells the registrar what numerics will be applied;
> the registrar simply assigns the requested name and tells the root
> servers to deal with the names.
"not exactly".
(A) sometimes it is the _end-user_customer_ who tells 'directory assistance'
what information should be there -- name *and* number, maybe including
address. And directly _pays_ the operator of the directory-assistance
service to carry that information.
(B) When you register a name, you have to provide the *address* of the
machine(s) that will answer questions about things 'under' that name.
If you fail to provide the addresses for those machines, then *nothing*
works.
> If no registrar ever listened to you and assigned the name you
> wanted, thus no root servers would ever know of that name, then how
> would anyone be able to reach you _by number only_ if the root
> servers did not know what to do with the number?
Rhetorical question #1: How does the PSTN know how to route your call,
if directory assistance doesn't know about your number?
Rhetorical question #2: How do you think the Internet functioned
_before_ there were 'root servers' (and DNS)?
It is really *easy*. The 'root servers' are *NOT*INVOLVED*AT*ALL* in
getting packets to a _numeric_address_. Each and every router on the
entire Internet has a set of 'forwarding rules' in it, that describes,
for _every_possible_ address on the internet, where the 'next step' en
route to that destination is. That is _all_ the router needs to know;
where to send it 'next'. and that next step does the same thing. "And
so on, and so on." Eventually, by recursive application of that 'send
it to the next step along the way", it arrives at it's destination.
To make things "easy" on (a) users, (b) application software, and (c)
software developers, the standard 'name to address' look-up
functionality has always worked on the basis of 'given a name as
input, go find the address for it; given an address as input, simply
return _that_ address." Note that that latter functionality does
*not* require any consultation with the 'root servers', or anything
else (even a 'hosts' file) for that matter.
> So I, John Q. Spammer go to an ISP and ask for a connection.
And you get a circuit, and some IP address numbers. *PERIOD*.
That is _all_ you get when you buy basic service.
> ISP I want to be known as 'spam.com'.
You do *not* have to do that. You _may_ ask them to handle "all that
stuff" for you, but you're engaging in a purchase of 'additional',
_optional_ services from the ISP. when you do that. Depending on the
provider, they may offer to do it 'at no additional cost', or they may
charge for it. Price on the 'basic service' is better from those who
_do_ charge extra for that optional service.
Of course, you can be known to the world at large as 'spam.com'
*without* any intervention by that ISP. *WITHOUT*, in fact, the ISP
even being aware that you are using that name. You can either
contract with "somebody else" (other than that ISP) to handle the
DNS-related stuff, or you can 'do it yourself'.
My ISP, for example, has no idea what domain-names I am using for what
machines, at which of the addresses they supplied me. I can change
the host names, and domain names, any time I choose. Without their
knowledge or consent. I can add a new domain name, and deploy servers
under that name, and the ISP has no knowledge, nor any awareness that
I have done so.
> I do not tell the ISP I want to be known as '208.31.42.98' ...
True. The ISP *tells* you that you _will_ be addressed as
'208.31.42.98'. You do not have any real choice as to what your
'number' is -- you must use whatever number(s) you get assigned.
EXACTLY the way that the telephone company tells you what your phone
number will be.
> ... ISP says I will take care of all that once you get installed by
> a registrar. Quite a difference,
You apparently "don't know what you don't know" about how the process
actually works.
The ISP says "I will play middle-man with the directory service, if
you want me to, or you can have somebody else do it, or you can deal
with them directly yourself."
The CLEC says "I will play middleman with the directory service, if
you want me to, or you can have somebody else do it, or you can deal
with them directly yourself."
As you say, "quite a difference."
> registrar _is_ like directory assistance, but different in the sense
> that directory assistance does not _assign_ anything, but simply
> reports on what has been assigned.
A registrar doesn't "assign" anything either, it simply reports info
on what names are 'in use'.
There is a design difference in the architecture -- the
name-to-address mapping service in the Internet realm requires that
names be 'unique'; In database terms, you are only allowed one record
with any particular 'key'. The telephone 'name-to-address mapping
service' is not that restrictive. There can be several "John
A. Smith" listings, with different numbers. How do you know
_which_one_ is the one you're looking for? That _is_ the problem --
there's no way to tell. You have to get all the numbers, and call
each one and ask "are you _the_ John. A. Smith that...?"
> So if the registrar was not a greedy son-of-a-bitch and started
> saying NO! that would help a lot.
Totally ignoring the fact, as described in the botch-edited material
above, that the spammer can do everything he needs, *without* relying
on a domain- name _at_all_. Domain names are a 'convenience', nothing
more. HTML makes it 'trivially doable' to 'conceal' the fact that one
is *not* using a domain-name -- _and_ to give the appearance of using
_somebody_else's_ domain name, but -actually- connecting to your own
servers instead.
> Oh yes, I know that John Q. Spammer could try to cut a deal under the
> table direct with the ISP, or whomever it is that physically makes
> his connections in and out,
You continue to display your lack of understanding of how things
actually work.
There isn't any need for any sort of 'under the table' dealing. You
just order basic service from the ISP. Period. You can then: (a)
handle domain-name stuff _yourself_, without *any* ISP involvement,
(b) contract with the ISP to handle it for you, (c) contract with
'somebody else' to handle it for you, or (d) not bother with it
_at_all_. ALL the ISP knows is whether or not you contracted with
them to handle things. If you didn't, they have no way of telling
whether (a), (c) or (d) applies. Nor do they care -- either way,
_they_ aren't providing any related service, and that is the entire
extent of their interest (more properly lack thereof :) in the matter.
Almost all big commercial accounts buy 'just connectivity' from the
ISP, or more likely ISPs (plural) that they use. And handle all the
'other stuff', including interfacing with 'directory assistance'
themselves. The people that provide Internet connectivity to General
Mills don't have _any_idea_ as to what domain-names are being
used. They don't care either -- *all* the data packets they see have a
_numeric_ address in them; all they have to do is get things to the
proper numeric address, and let the customer do whatever processing is
appropriate.
> but ISPs working in concert with registrars could do a lot to clean
> up the mess.
ISPs _alone_ could completely clean up the mess. If they wanted to.
The problem is that, collectively, they *don't* want to. And there is
nothing that we, the users who _do_ care, can do to make them change
their mind about it -- as long as there are "sufficient numbers" of
people who are willing to buy services from those 'uncaring'
providers.
Since 'many' ISPs are demonstrably *not* interested in doing so, the
idea of 'ISPs working in concert with registrars' is similarly nothing
but a pipe dream. I wish it wasn't that way, but it *is*. "Reality
sucks" applies.
> And like the old system which was used with FIDO, when a site
> becomes a nuisance, he gets delisted, and if others up the line do
> not cooperate then _they_ get delisted also. The rule ISP's and
> registrars would use is that if John Q. Spammer was expelled by
> whoever, then no one touches him or works with him. PAT]
Don't I wish!! Unfortunately that approach works *only* when 'almost
all' of the players agree on, and _enforce_ the same set of rules.
When the 'node' (or 'network') that carries 40% of _all_ the traffic
in North America decides that they _will_ deal with 'John Q. Spammer',
regardless of his history, it _really_ "doesn't matter much" what the
'rest of the world thinks' about it. They _are_ too big and 'too
important' to be _effectively_ 'shunned'.
It's like the old joke: "what are the little brown bumps between
elephant's toes?" Answer: "Slow natives."
And you apparently don't remember the great schism in Fidonet -- when
two major nodes blackballed each other; and the 'rest of the world'
had to choose sides. Resulting in two different 'fido nets' that
didn't talk to each other.
Unfortunately, on the Internet, there is nobody in that '800 lb
gorilla' position with the interest/gumption to do that black-balling.
And when the pygmy tries it, he just ends up as another 'little
brown bump'.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since you seem to have so many hassles
with my editing, why don't _you_ start a Digest in which you could
witness the Gospel to everyone? I do remember the Fidonet schism, and
it was unfortunate, but it all eventually came back together did it
not? And thats really what we need here on Internet, where a large
number of the 'pygmies' as you call us, walk away and start doing our
own thing, a sort of 'Internet2' approach. And when the 800 pound
gorilla MCI comes around saying, "oh you must really be sorry about
losing all our customers (who by and large, as Spamhaus indicates are
spammers) from your circle of communications," my response would be
"not really. Numbers do not mean everything; so now we have only 60
percent of the users we used to have ... so what .. we have the
_quality_ users with us." Of the approximatly thousand items of mail
this 'pygmy' recieved today, if I had not gotten 400 of them, and 395
of those 400 were spam anyway, somehow I think I would get over it.
Yeah, Robert, you really have it made; start your own BONOMI Digest
(as I offered to help you with when I sent back that 48 K-byte
rebuttal you sent a couple weeks ago) and you will never again have
to worry or fret over my 'ham-handed' editing. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 9 Jun 2005 10:25:21 -0700
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> On some of your arguments, frankly, you seem to be splitting hairs.
> That, kiddo, *IS* the way the law works. Get used to it.
> If you want to assert what is required/forbidden by law, you have to
> get the details right.
> As with *any* legal mater, the precise details of the specific
> situation make _all_the_difference_in_the_world_.
I stand by my original statement. You are splitting hairs
and that is irrelevent in the real world.
Every organization and every government has a long list of rules and
laws. The reality of life is that some are strictly enforced, but a
great many are virtually ignored. Some laws/ rules are utilized as an
easy way to prosecute someone who has done other things wrong but are
harder to prove.
You seem to be focusing solely what is on paper and not in practice.
In the days of the Bell System, it was said they could disconnect your
phone service if they found an illegal extension hooked up on your
line. (I don't know if that's a myth or not). Bell Labs Record
announced an automated device to test the load of telephone lines to
compare it to company records to see if unauthorized sets were in use.
(In those days people would disconnect the ringer to avoid detection
that way.)
Anyway, rules are not, in the grand scheme of things I really doubt
that a significant number of extension violators actually lost their
telephone service. Indeed, I wonder how many of those automated
detector devices were actually built and used in service. (Finding an
illegal extension as part of a repair request is another story -- Mother
calls 611 not knowing that Son has a bootleg phone in his room.)
The legal system is not interested in the trivial or frivolous under
normal conditions. (There are always extreme exceptions.)
The basic question of this discussion is the impact of the US
Constitution (not passed laws) on the operation of government agencies
vs. the private sector, such as the power of schools libraries, or
govt agencies to censor communications.
I stand by my original assertion that computer systems that are the
property of some government agency may be regulated by that agency
just as a private company would regulate the equipment. I'm sure
someone will run out and dig up some exceptions, but overall that is
case.
I also stand by my assertion that there is no such thing as totally
"free speech". What is argued is the permissable _degree_ of the
speech in terms of both content and form.
You cited a case where someone was prosecuted for illegal use of a
govt copying machine. Well, in your example, the person was making an
extensive use of it for an outside business. My point is that in
reality, government employees everywhere are making copies of recipes,
directions to a house party, and other personal stuff every day, and I
really doubt anyone will be prosecuted for doing that. Maybe you'll
dig up an exception or two here and there, but my point remains.
Any other thoughts out there?
[public replies please]
------------------------------
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)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://www.feedroll.com/syndicate.php?id=308
and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecom
*************************************************************************
* 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 #258
******************************
| |