TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:17:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 267

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Third IEEE Int Conf on Management of Innovation, Technology (ICMIT2006)
    Cell Phones For Spies (Michael Quinn)
    Wi-Fi Liability: Potential Legal Risks Accessing, Operating (M Solomon)
    Koppel: Take My Privacy, Please! (Monty Solomon)
    DSL and Speakerphone Problems!? (Steven O.)
    China's Broadband Market Booms (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
    Re: Cellular Phone Spam (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Cellular Phone Spam (NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info)
    Re: Companies Subvert Search Results to Squelch Criticism (B Margolin)
    Re: 'Phone Tapping' Modem Traffic? (PrinceGunter)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Fred Atkinson)

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: ICMIT2006 <icmit2006@gmail.com>
Subject: Third IEEE Int Conf on Management of Innovation and Technology
Date: 13 Jun 2005 19:53:50 -0700


=========== CALL FOR PAPERS - ICMIT2006 ===========

www.icmit.net

Third IEEE Int Conf on Management of Innovation and Technology

- Managing Innovation in Emerging Markets

21-23 June 2006, Singapore

Organized by:

IEEE Engineering Management Society, Singapore Chapter

Co-organizers and supporting organizations

IEEE Singapore Section

Center for Management of Science and Technology

About ICMIT2006

ICMIT2006 continues a series of international conferences (ICMIT2000,
ICMIT2002 and IEMC2004) devoted to the area of innovation and
technology management first initiated by the IEEE Engineering
Management Society Singapore Chapter. These conferences aim to provide
a platform for international scholars to meet and exchange ideas in
exciting locations within Asia.

With the conference theme "Managing Innovation in Emerging Markets"
the organizers hope to channel attention to emerging geographical
markets with widespread impact such as China and India and the
potential markets for emerging products and technologies. The
management challenges for these emerging markets are numerous and
multi-faceted. 

How should entrepreneurs exploit the emerging markets?  How should the
energy appetite of China and India be managed? What and how specific
innovations (technological and otherwise) could be introduced into
these markets to make more efficient use of energy?  With China now
being the country with the highest number of mobile phones in use, how
will 3-G technologies be exploited and how should product and
technology providers position themselves there? Evolving around these
and similar questions there must be a lot of scope for all those
interested in innovation and technology management to think about and
to exchange ideas at the conference. In addition, managing innovation
to create affordable and successful products and services targeted for
the developing nations, such as disruptive innovation, would be of
great interest to both academics and industrialist/entrepreneurs.

We invite papers for presentation at the conference. All interested
persons should submit one page abstracts (500-750 words) through the
conference website (www.icmit.net). Each submission will be peer
reviewed for technical merit and content. Papers accepted for
presentation will appear in the Conference Proceedings provided at
least one author registers for the conference. The full paper shall
have to be IEEE Explore compliant.

Topics for the conference include but are not limited to the following:

Technology Management               New Product Development
Innovation Policy and Management    Entrepreneurship
Managing IT and E-Commerce          Organizational Culture
Human Resource Management           Intellectual Property
Knowledge Management                R&D and Risk Management
Project Management                  Six Sigma and Quality Management
Supply Chain Management             Business Strategy
Sustainable Development             Globalization
Patent Strategy and Mapping         Management/industry case studies

Publication

Proceedings will enter the IEEE book broker program and papers are
indexed in common Engineering abstract databases (COMPENDEX/INSPEC
etc). Special issues of selected/expanded papers will be published in
refereed journals.

Deadlines

Submission of Abstract:       1 January 2006
Notification of Acceptance:  1 February 2006
Camera-Ready Copy:            1 April 2006

Online submission

http://cms.inmeet.com/delegate/login/login.asp?confid=conf85

General Chair: CC HANG
Program Committee Chair: KH CHAI
(International Program committee is being formed)

Organizing Committee
Chairman: M XIE
Publicity Chair: R JIAO
Finance Chair: V H MOK
Logistic Chair: S L HO
Public Relations Chair: H K TANG
Sponsorship Chair: A YEE
Publication Chair: A K VARMA
Exhibition Chair: D L WAIKAR
Industry Liaison Chair: S J PASSEY
Organizing Committee Member:
B HE
Y C NG

For further information, please contact:

ICMIT2006 Secretariat

C/O Integrated Meetings Specialist
1122A Serangoon Road, Singapore 328206  
Tel: (65) 6295 5790, Fax: (65) 6295 5792,
E-mail: icmit2006@inmeet.com.sg
Web: www.icmit.net

------------------------------

Subject: Cell Phones For Spies
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:57:57 -0400
From: Michael Quinn <quinnm@bah.com>


This is an excerpt from a newsletter entitled "NETWORK WORLD
NEWSLETTER: M. E. KABAY ON SECURITY, 06/09/05" forwarded to me by a
colleague. I'm not personally familiar with the newsletter or Mr.
Kabay, but I thought the subject might be of interest to Telecom
Digest readers.  Contact data for the author is listed at the bottom,
rest has been snipped in the interest of brevity.

Fair use caveat may apply.

Regards,

Mike


NETWORK WORLD NEWSLETTER: M. E. KABAY ON SECURITY  06/09/05

Today's focus:  Cell phones for spies
By M. E. Kabay

Anyone can use even an ordinary mobile phone as a microphone by
covertly dialing out; for example, one can call a recording device at
a listening station and then simply place the phone in a pocket or
briefcase before entering a conference room.

However, my friend and colleague Chey Cobb recently pointed out a
device from Nokia that is unabashedly being advertised as a "Spy
Phone" because of additional features that threaten corporate
security.

This $1,800 device works like a normal mobile phone but also allows the
owner to program a special phone number that turns the device into a
transmission device under remote control:

http://wirelessimports.com/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=347

In addition, the phone can be programmed for silent operation:

"By a simple press of a button, a seemingly standard cell phone device
switches into a mode in which it seems to be turned off.

However, in this deceitful mode the phone will automatically answer
incoming calls, without any visual or audio indications whatsoever
 ... A well placed bug phone can be activated on demand from any remote
location (even out of another country). Such phones can also prove
valuable in business negotiations. The spy phone owner leaves the
meeting room, (claiming a restroom break, for instance), calls the spy
phone and listens to the ongoing conversation. On return the owners'
negotiating positions may change dramatically."

It makes more sense than ever to ban mobile phones from any meeting
that requires high security.

David Bennahum wrote an interesting article in December 2003 about
these questions and pointed out that businesses outside the U.S. are
turning to cell phone jamming devices (illegal in the U.S.) to block
mobile phone communications in a secured area. Bennahum writes,
"According to the FCC, cell phone jammers should remain illegal. Since
commercial enterprises have purchased the rights to the spectrum, the
argument goes, jamming their signals is a kind of property theft."

Seems to me there would be obvious benefits in allowing movie houses,
theaters, concert halls, museums, places of worship and secured
meeting locations to suppress such traffic as long as the interference
were clearly posted. No one would be forced to enter the location if
they did not agree with the ban, and I'm sure there would be some
institutions catering to those who actually _like_ sitting next to
someone talking on a cell phone in the middle of a quiet passage at a
concert.

Bennahum mentioned another option -- this one quite legal even in the
U.S.: cell phone detectors such as the Cellular Activity Analyzer from
NetLine: http://www.netline.co.il/Netline/CAAdetector.htm

This handheld computer lets you spot unauthorized mobile phones in
your meeting place so that you act accordingly.

Finally, one can create a Faraday cage that blocks radio waves by lining
the secured facility with appropriate materials such as copper mesh or,
more recently, metal-impregnated wood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

A high-security version of such a room is called a SCIF (Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility) in U.S. military security jargon.

RELATED EDITORIAL LINKS

Vendors tout vulnerability mgmt. wares
Network World, 06/06/05
http://www.networkworld.com/nlsec2472

Internet security ... writ very small
Network World, 06/06/05
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/060605widernet.html?rl

To contact: M. E. Kabay

M. E. Kabay, Ph.D., CISSP, is Associate Professor in the Division of
Business and Management at Norwich University in Northfield, Vt. Mich
can be reached by e-mail mailto:mkabay@norwich.edu and his Web site
http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/index.htm

<rest snipped>

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, M.E. Kabay and Network World.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:17:30 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Wi-Fi Liability: Potential Legal Risks in Accessing, Operating


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692881

Wi-Fi Liability: Potential Legal Risks in Accessing and Operating 
Wireless Internet

ROBERT V. HALE II
Independent

Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 21, p. 543

Abstract:

Suppose you turn on your laptop while sitting at the kitchen table at 
home and respond OK to a prompt about accessing a nearby wireless 
Internet access point owned and operated by a neighbor. What 
potential liability may ensue from accessing someone else's wireless 
access point? How about intercepting wireless connection signals? 
What about setting up an open or unsecured wireless access point in 
your house or business? Attorneys can expect to grapple with these 
issues and other related questions as the popularity of wireless 
technology continues to increase.

This paper explores several theories of liability involving both the
accessing and operating of wireless Internet, including the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, wiretap laws, as well as trespass to chattels and
other areas of common law. The paper concludes with a brief discussion
of key policy considerations.

Keywords: Wi-Fi, WLAN, WAP, wireless, IEEE, 802.11b, 802.11a, 802.11g,
CFAA, HotSpot, VOIP, Sablan, Verio, AOL, Security, encryption,
internet, ISP, wardriving, warchaulking

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692881

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:25:16 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Koppel: Take My Privacy, Please!


By TED KOPPEL

THE Patriot Act - brilliant! Its critics would have preferred a less
stirring title, perhaps something along the lines of the Enhanced
Snooping, Library and Hospital Database Seizure Act. But then who,
even right after 9/11, would have voted for that?

Precisely. He who names it and frames it, claims it. The Patriot Act,
however, may turn out to be among the lesser threats to our individual
and collective privacy.

There is no end to what we will endure, support, pay for and promote
if only it makes our lives easier, promises to save us money, appears
to enhance our security and comes to us in a warm, cuddly and
altogether nonthreatening package.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13koppel.html?ex=1276315200&en=ca684bc680a0d6c0&ei=5090

------------------------------

From: Steven O. <null@null.com>
Subject: DSL and Speakerphone Problems!?
Reply-To: null@null.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 04:15:38 GMT


Ever since I got DSL (from Verizon), I have been having problems with
the speakerphone service.  I've tried two or three phones, and for
some reason, although I can hear people speaking when I try to use the
speakerphone on my regular phone, no one can hear me when I speak.
Has anyone else had similar problems with DSL service?

For what it's worth, the volume seems fine both when I am speaking and
listening on the handset, and also when I listen using the speakphone.
The problem only occurs with trying to speak into the speakerphone --
no one can hear me.

The phone is on an outlet that is also connected to the DSL modem (a
Westell 2200) with Linksys Router.  There is also a connection to a
plain old modem in the PC, and an answering machine.  However, I tried
connecting the phones (again, I've tried several) to another outlet
that has no computer or other loads, and I still can't get the
speakerphone to hear me (on any of the phones I tried).  Any
suggestions?

Steve O.

"Spying On The College Of Your Choice" -- How to pick the college that
is the Best Match for a high school student's needs.
http://www.SpyingOnTheCollegeOfYourChoice.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:14:49 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: China's Broadband Market Booms


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
June 14, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22325&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* China's broadband market booms
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Nokia unveils new phones
* Siemens sets sights on IPTV market
* AOL to push free music, video
* Sprint posts details of EV-DO launch
* Free Wi-Fi turns into enemy for some cafe owners
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* In the Telecom Bookstore: Phone Facts Plus 2005
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Singapore TV station to launch show on 3G phones
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Report: Illegal file-sharing not major drag on music business

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22325&l=2017006

Legal and Privacy information at
http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp

SmartBrief, Inc.
1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005

------------------------------

From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Spam
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:38:58 -0700
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing


On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, was written:

> Case in point, last night before bed my phone beeps, I have an
> SMS waiting. This is odd in itself since I rarely get an SMS unless
> I'm at a trade show or other event where people are trying to catch up
> with me. I check the message, and low and behold ... it's spam, and
> not even well targeted spam since it's a message offering me a
> back-to-school loan. What made this one especially annoying is that
> SMS messages aren't free for the most part, I buy 'em in blocks and
> this SMS spam just directly cost me up to a dime! Sure a dime is chump
> change, but I'm a chump who doesn't like being advertised to at my own
> expense.

Call your cell phone provider, tell them the date/time/contents of the
spam, and demand that your account be credited.

If it's Verizon, they may already have done this for you.

If they won't credit you, tell them that you want to close your cell
phone account immediately.  You'll get sent over to account retention,
and when they hear that it's over a $.10 charge for SMS spam they'll
credit you.  Trust me.

I don't know what happens now that Cingular owns it, but the old AT&T
Wireless didn't charge for incoming SMS.  Nor, for that matter, does
Dobson Cellular One (which is who took over my AT&T Wireless account
in Alaska).  IIRC, Sprint doesn't charge for incoming SMS either.

> To compound my frustration, this morning before venturing out into the
> unbelievably crazy morning rush hour here in Seattle, (5 miles in 30
> minutes, but that's another story entirely) I check my newly created
> Hotmail account that I plan to use for IM'ing at my new job. Guess
> what, more spam.  Already I'm a marketing target and the email address
> is not even 12 hours old.

I had that happen to me.  I opened the Hotmail account, never sent 
anything on it or announced the email address, yet within a few hours it 
was getting porn spam.

I immediately closed it, and told them the reason why.  There's some
hole through which spammers are able to collect Hotmail addresses.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same thing happened to me when
I opened an AOL account a few years ago. 'The hole through which
spammers collect new addresses' is usually some technical employee (at
the email system in question) has cut a deal with some spammer to 
provide them with new account names. 

I complained about that very same situation regards AOL, a couple
people here on the telecom mailing list (or maybe they were from the
c.d.t. side of things, I do not remember) immediatly poo-poo'ed me and
said "not so, the spammer was using a dictionary attack method". I
guess by coincidence in his forced searching, he had gotten up to the
letter /T/ as in 'Townson' about the time I signed up. It only took
ten minutes after I was installed on AOL for the first of the porn
spams to arrive. All a mere coincidence I was told. And what do you
know ... 'mere coincidence using a dictionary attack' struck again, in
your case at Hotmail within a few hours. 

Now do you see why I say those of us who complain vigorously about
spam and make suggestions on ways to end it are treated like imbiciles,
or perhaps mentally-challenged kindergarteners. We are not supposed to
be able to add two plus two and get the right answer. And given the
preponderance of evidence on the net (spammers/virus writers running
rampant, a supervising authority [ICANN] as corrupt as can be, and
many sysadmins who are frankly, too smart for their own good), why
should we think any differently?  PAT]

------------------------------

From: NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Spam
Date: 13 Jun 2005 19:11:26 -0700


> The only thing I can think of is if you use a private domain name,
> spammers will be less apt to find it. But that costs you extra and you
> make your email address that much harder for people to remember.

The domain name I am using right now only cost me one dollar for one
year. I will be selling tho as I own many.

Each one allows 100 disposible email address to forward email anywhere.

I have some forwarding to my Virgin Mobile phone.

If I get too much spam I can close an email.

My "NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info" started getting spam within 24 hours of
using it on Usenet. Needless to say it is now REALLY NOTvalid.

                      ---------
 
Incredibly low long distance phone rates, As low as USA-Canada 1.9CPM!
Works as prepaid phone card. PIN not needed for calls from home or cell
phone. Compare the rates at https://www.OneSuite.com/ No monthly fee or
minimum. Use Promotion/SuiteTreat Code: FREEoffer23 for some FREE time


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, yet another netter victimized by
the 'mere coincidence of a spammer using directory attacks'.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Companies Subvert Search Results to Squelch Criticism
Organization: Symantec
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:38:37 -0400


In article <telecom24.265.10@telecom-digest.org>, Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> Monty Solomon wrote:

>> It's not illegal, but it's SEO gone bad. Companies such as Quixtar are
>> using Google-bombing, link farms and Web spam pages to place positive
>> sites in the top search results -- which pushes the negative ones
>> down.

> Yeah, and there may be no laws against it, but if it's done on a large
> enough basis you can bet they'll get sued.

On what grounds?


Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They don't need any 'grounds'. 'Grounds'
only belong to coffee you have prepared. When large organizations, 
i.e. film and recording industries do not get their way, they _always_
file suit; it costs them virtually nothing, where it costs small web
site owners and regular users a slight fortune to defend themselves
against frivilous lawsuits, which is what such a lawsuit (as manipulating
a search engine) would be.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: PrinceGunter <slippymississippi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 'Phone Tapping' Modem Traffic ?
Date: 14 Jun 2005 08:41:37 -0700


> I believe my 'voice line' is being tapped [the line feeds through the
> 'opponents' switchboard].

Who is this "opponent?"  If it's an LEA, you've been PWNED.  CALEA
requirements dictate that all your communications be stored in a
massive bucket, where the LEA can expend all the time and technology
necessary to decode your communications.  Not even encryption will
prevent your messages from being read, if the LEA really want to read
them bad enough.

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 14 Jun 2005 07:45:48 -0700


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> As we 'Inform Ourselves to Death' (see the Digest #263, over last
> weekend), it has truly gotten to the point that information has no
> value any longer. But Lisa, some of us do _try_ at least.   PAT]

Regarding vanity press, the reality is that most books printed that
way end up in the author's basement.

I recall reading a "tell-all" book about the phone company a
disgruntled employee wrote years ago.  He made fun of the standardized
office layout, decor, and furnishings of each level of management.
His books had an occassional point of interest, but most of it was
griping of someone who just didn't fit in a strictly standardized
world (and a lot of people do have trouble with that.)  If they had
the Internet back then, I bet he have a huge web page collecting
gripes from every person who had a fight with their service rep.

My argument is that sure -- there were plenty of disgruntled Bell
System employees and plenty of customers poorly served.  But one must
look at the bigger picture of the TOTAL number of happy employees and
satisfied customers.  I doubt the above writer would bother to mention
that statistic on his webpage.

I doubt too many people read his book (I found it at a yard sale).
But with the ease of the Internet and search engines it may have
reached more people and spread inaccurate information.

Another concerns is that information overload depreciates the value of
information.  Part of that concern is the ease of Internet
information.

I've been in a number of discussions (both on-line and off-line) about
issues where debaters use Internet sources to bolster their case.  But
often times those sources tell only a small part of the story.  For
issues that interest me, I have printed copy references from either
books I own or library resources that tell a bigger picture and
different story.

For example, in a debate about public transit in Philadelphia, several
people claimed the system was losing money for years and near
collapse.  I have the company's annual reports that show that claim
was wrong.  In debates about Amtrak, I have printed literature stating
Amtrak's purpose was to supplement highways and airways that were
unable to handle all national travel needs.

The ease of the Internet/computer databases are a wonderful tool and I
don't dispute that at all (more below).  But I remain troubled that
the Internet has too much garbage on it drowning out valid
information.

* * *

Admittedly, researching material in print is tiring.  I recently did
some research the old fashioned way -- pulling out bound indexes,
scanning them multiple times in multiple years for various keywords,
then writing down the hits.  Then, I searched the microfilm rolls for
journals and dates for the hits.  Then, the individual roll of
microfilm had to threaded through the reader and slowly searched
sequentially for the particular issue date and finally the article.
Sometimes the reward for this would be merely two sentences.  THEN, I
have to start all over with another reel.  After a while this gets
quite tiring.  The only saving grace is that no one seems to use
microfilm anymore and I have the reader room all to myself.

------------------------------

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:35:37 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On 13 Jun 2005 12:07:36 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Certainly some very trashy books have been and continue to be
> published and distributed.  But I dare say it is harder for one to
> find such trashy books in normal channels than it is for one to find
> trashy stuff on the Internet.  Finding paper copies of hardcore
> material requires some effort and some material may not be available
> to children; but that stuff is freely available on the Internet.

Is it really harder [to find trashy books]?  Have you ever visited a
pornographic book store?  If not, do you deny they are out there or
what kind of books are distributed?  Have you ever seen 'The People
versus Larry Flynt'?

> My concern is that there is a lot of garbage masquerading as fact on
> the Internet.  The controls that exist on other printed matter do not
> exist and the unscrupulous take advtg of that.  (For instance, I
> learned long ago that many sites pulled up by a search engine are
> actually porn sites loaded with common key words to trigger a hit.)
> People have put up health-information sites and claimed to be a doctor
> when after some careful reading it proved to be garbage.

And there's a lot of stuff published by hate groups and other
extremists, too.  Do we give up freedom of speech to keep this stuff
from being disseminated?

> Sure some of the Internet garbage is merely inconvenient, not harmful.
> Like when someone recommended a particular restaurant and I went to
> it, only to find it had been closed for several years.  The poster who
> recommended it 'thought' he had been there very recently but then
> maybe it was a few years after all.  This was an honest error and of
> no great harm.

If we shot everyone who was wrong about something, most of us would be
dead, wouldn't we?

> But I know there are some computer users out there who are quite
> malicious, and some of them will go to considerable trouble to post
> seriously misleading advice or information just to be an SOB or
> satisfy their own immaturity.  They thrive on the anonymity of the
> Internet.  Presently, there is no real check or balance on such web
> pages.

There are telephone users who are quite malicious (ask the telephone
company as they have to investigate obscene and/or harrassing callers
from time to time), their are licensed automobile drivers who are
quite malicious (I've nearly been hit by more than a few), there are
truck drivers who are quite malicious (and I drove eighteen wheelers
for just under a year and I know), there are police officers who are
quite malicious, and the list goes on and on.  But for the most part,
the intentionally malicious ones are very much in the minority.  And
I've had more than one police or security officer in trouble with his
superiors over completely inappropriate behavior that I observed.
That is because I determined it was inappropriate and I dealt with it
by contacting superiors.  What if I hadn't been afforded the
opportunity to learn to be able to determine that it was indeed wrong?
The behavior they exhibited and inflicted upon others would have
continued.

I once wrote an article that was published (in Telecom Digest) about
how I had been confronted by someone who was only pretending to be a
police officer so he could cut in front of a long row of people in
line at the drive through.  Because of the training I'd received in
the Citizen's Academy program (at the county police academy), it only
took me a moment or two to determine that he was a phony.  I called
the county police and had them after him.  The county police checked
him out (through the license tag number I provided them) and
determined that I was absolutely right, that he was not a police
officer.  They were able to investigate him and deal with the matter
because I had learned to make a good call on something like that.

And it goes back to not believing everything you read or hear.  Kids
have to learn to balance it sometime.  Depriving them of that
information robs them of the chance to learn to decide for themselves.

When my mother taught English, she was called into the principal's
office one day and asked if 'The Scarlet Letter' was actually on her
approved reading list.  She said that it was.  The principal was
shocked.  Then she asked him if he'd ever read 'The Scarlet Letter'.
His reply was that he had not.  Hmm.  And he believed that kids
shouldn't be reading it?  Based upon having never read it himself?

And what about schools that took books like that off the library
shelves?  What about Huckleberry Finn?  Tom Sawyer?  And the list goes
on and on?  With Mark Twain's writing style as it was, it would be be
considered quite racist by today's standards.  Do we censor it?  Of
course not.

> There are some posters whom I feel know nothing (and probably more
> than a few who feel that way about me.)

And it is the reader's job to decide how they feel about who is
posting or writing and whether their views should be taken seriously.
It is not anyone else's perogative to decide for them.  There isn't
anyone on Telecom Digest that I agree with one hundred per cent of the
time.

Are we really protecting the kids when we deprive them of the
opportunity to learn to decide for themselves?  Or are we going to
have to protect them from it all their lives?  And if they don't
learn, who's going to protect *their* kids?  And what about when we
pass on and leave them to their own judgement?

> That's all well and good.  There is certainly useful information to be
> found, and I hope I've contributed a bit of it from time to time.  But
> there is no guarantee all posts include _all sides_ of an issue to
> begin with.  Further, there is no guarantee that any one post is
> totally accurate.

There never is that guarantee at any time.  In fact, it rarely
happens.

> I most certainly did not give any "slap in the face".  I merely
> pointed out the fact that not all web pages may contain reliable
> authoritative information, and I stand by that statement.  Yes,
> there's not guarantee that a healthcare book from the library is 100%
> authoritative, but at least a published book has an audit trail of
> reviews where as a web page does not.

You should think about how you were perceived, since he said that to
you.

What you say about books having audit trails is not always true.
There are a number of books written with unsupported information.

When I was doing two-way radio work, I was frequently approached by
Citizen's Banders asking for help with their radio equipment.  I
always declined, citing that I couldn't do it on company time (on the
advice of my immediate superiors).

Some of the things these CBers would tell me (and the other very
experienced radio technicians I worked with) were off this planet.
One told me that the trucker's antennas were for keeping you from
messing up your SWR while you have a 'huge metallic load' behind you.
Another told a coworker of mine that putting an audio amplifier
between your microphone and your radio caused more output power to the
radio because there was more input power to the audio.

I rarely tried to explain to them the error of their information
because about two thirds of the time they would tell you you didn't
know what you were talking about even though you were a licensed and
trained radio technician.

But, I'd never deprive them of their right to write about this,
ignorant as it is.

If the kids don't learn about radio theory, how could they learn to
tell that this information is wrong?  These people obviously never
had.  So depriving them of access to information about ham radio on
QSL Net (most of which is written by people who have been examined by
the FCC and found to have a reasonable understanding of radio theory)
is a 'good thing'?  I don't think so.

> Discussing social issues are more of a matter of opinion so there's
> less of an issue of facts being right or wrong.  Often people agree on
> a fact but disagree beyond that.  For example: it is a fact that long
> distance rates went down after AT&T divested.  I say that was merely a
> continuation of technical improvements that had been going on all
> along.  But others disagree and say it was due to competition forcing
> prices down.  Who is right?

So, no one should exercise an opinion because it *might* be wrong?  Is
that what you are actually saying?

Regarding divestiture, I'd have to disagree with your position.  Have
you ever studied economics and the principles thereof?

The telephone system never improved all that much over the years (at
least, to the perception of the end user) until the Bell companies had
to compete.  Thus, competition played a big role in bringing prices
down.  And the end user got a lot more say so about his/her telephone
service(s) and got what they wanted at prices they could afford.  I
remember when an answering machine could only be provided and
installed by the phone company.  The cost was enormous and there were
no other alternatives.  Then came Carterphone, thank goodness.  And
then came competition between carriers ... and the walls came a
tumbling down (with apologies to 'Joshua').

Because everyone was trying to provide something that the other
carriers didn't provide (to target their niche in the marketplace),
the technology began to develop and new things were offered.  I often
doubt that we'd have ever seen the Internet if the industry hadn't
become competitive (or at least not for many more years to come).

> But I will note I've seen web sites who claimed that before divesture
> "the phone company offered any telephone set you wanted as long as it
> was black", which we all know is nonsense.

And it is for the reader to judge as it appears that you did in this
case (which is fine).  But you haven't the right to decide for me
whether I should believe it is true or not or for you to censor it
because you don't agree with it.  In this case, I happen to agree with
you.  But then, I might not have on another issue or two.

> I've also seen newsgroups ruined because of one or two people
> constantly flood the group with nasty postings disagreeing and
> disrupting every discussion.  I don't think the truth gets out in such
> cases.  I think moderated groups -- with a reasonable moderation
> policy -- are better to get out the "truth", but then many complain of
> censorship.  Is the person with the biggest bullhorn saying the truth?

No.  War boards rarely do.  But 'moderating' doesn't mean censorship.
It means governing behavior so that all points of view can be
presented in a non-hostile and constructive manner.  A good moderator
regulates behavior more so than content.

And with that, I'll point out that I just paid Mr. Townson a big
complement.  Thanks, Pat, for doing such an effective job of
moderating.  Pat generally publishes even in the event he is in
complete disagreement with the user.  He might attach opposing
comments from the editor's desk, but that's what it's all about.

He published yours even though he took issue with your position,
didn't he, Lisa?


Fred 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a question for the collected
readership: _If_ Bell had not gotten divested, and was still in
charge of most everything relating to telecommunications, what would
the internet be like today?  Would it all be run by 'the telephone
company'? Would we be getting all our attachments and peripherals from
the telephone company? I suggest that might be the case. What do the
rest of you think?  PAT]

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums.  It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   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 #267
******************************