TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:23:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 270

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ID Theft Fears Hurt Online Shopping (Lisa Minter)
    Hackers Run Unauthorized Programs on PSP (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones (Forrest Nelson)
    Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones Now Cingular (Joseph)
    Re: AOL Users Most Likely to Make Zombie of Your Computer (Sean Weintz)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Please Explain LATA (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Please Explain LATA (Tony P.)
    Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Brad Houser)
    Re: Cellular Phone Spam (NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info)
    Re: Companies Subvert Search Results to Squelch Criticism (jtaylor)

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: ID Theft Fears Hurt Online Shopping
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:43:29 -0500


Nearly half of U.S. voters say they don't shop online because they
fear identity thieves may capture their bank-account information,
according to a survey released on Wednesday by a technology-industry
trade group.

Amid a rash of corporate foul-ups that have exposed consumers to
identity theft, the Cyber Security Industry Alliance found that 71
percent of voters it surveyed believe that new laws are needed to
protect consumer privacy online.

Some 64 percent said they wanted the government to do more to protect
computer security.

Congress is considering several measures designed to increase
corporate data security. Most would require companies to tell
customers when a security breach has placed them at risk of identity
theft. Some would require companies to take more concrete steps, such
as encrypting customer information.

The survey of 1,003 likely voters had a margin of error of 3 percent.

Members of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance include Juniper Networks.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:12:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Hackers Run Unauthorized Programs on PSP


NEW YORK (AP) -- Gaming enthusiasts have figured out how to run 
unauthorized programs and games on the U.S. version of Sony Corp.'s 
new handheld game console.

Like its rivals, Sony had tried to keep its new PlayStation Portable 
on a tight leash, installing controls so it couldn't run programs and 
games not vetted and licensed by the company.

But the PSP, released in the United States in March, has been the 
target of fervent attempts to unlock its capabilities, which go 
beyond any previous handheld game machine.

Sony's restrictions were defeated by a program disseminated on the 
Internet this week. It requires two memory cards, which are switched 
while the PSP is working.

The exploit may not be practical or safe (an accompanying warning says
it could cause damage if done improperly), but it represents a
challenge to Sony's policy of tight control and opens the possibility
that PSP games could be pirated.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49885647

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

From: Forrest Nelson <jfnelson@aeieng.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:25:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones Now Cingular


1XXXXXXXXXX@mmode.com  works for my former AT&T now Cingular phones

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones Now Cingular
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:29:16 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 15 Jun 2005 09:30:05 -0700, NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info wrote:

> AT&T: 10-digit-number@mobile.att.net formerly worked but no longer

> Cingular: 10-digit-number@mobile.mycingular.net may work for original
> Cingular customers.

> What is the current methods to send text msgs to former AT&T now
> Cingluar cell phone numbers?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think @mobile.mycingular.com (or .net)
> works for the AT&T displaced customers as well.   PAT

Also, what works for all North American mobile numbers is
10digits@teleflip.com e.g. 3115552368@teleflip.com 

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

From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: AOL Users Most Likely to Make Zombie of Your Computer
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:22:36 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Lisa Minter wrote:

> By Andy Sullivan

> Internet "zombie" attacks that attempt to knock computer systems
> offline are more likely to come from users of America Online than any
> other source, according to a report released by a security company on
> Tuesday.

> AOL and other large Internet service providers serve as launching pads
> for most "denial of service" attacks, according to Prolexic
> Technologies, which helps companies fend off such attacks.

<SNIP>

Then this post should have been titled "AOL users most likely to have 
their machines made into zombies", not "AOL Users Most Likely to Make 
Zombie of Your Computer".

The title you used implies that AOL users are attacking machines and 
making them zombies, which is not the case.

AOL machines are launching DOS attacks because they ARE zombies.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regarding Zombies, it takes one to make
another, doesn't it. Lisa apologizes for being unclear on that 
headline.  PAT]

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:38:36 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.267.12@telecom-digest.org>,

> [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.

I think you forget about the CarterPhone decision.

Final decision, merely six years before the filing of the lawsuit that
led to the Bell system divestiture.

Bell system (nor any other telco) could not require use of "their"
interface equipment. So the 'third party' market for 'attachments and
peripherals' would have bloomed -- as it, in fact, did -- regardless.

The primary "alternative" long-distance carriers (United Telecom and
MCI) were already building out their own long-haul _physical_plant_
infrastructure long before the Bell system break-up occurred.  Well
before the the lawsuit was even filed.

As "_off_ ARPAnet/NSFnet" IP use spread, going to the 'alternative'
carriers for point-to-point _data_ connectivity was a "natural".  both
ends were going to be in 'bigger towns' -- the places the alternative
carriers serviced _first_; it was *not* covered at all by PSTN
regulations, none of the regulatory/tax issues of 'by-pass' came into
play, etc.  And those alternative carriers could offer better quality
circuits, *cheaper*.

And, of course, MFS had been doing the same under-cutting in the
city-center for high-cap 'local loop'.

If the "Bell System/AT&T/Western Electric" had remained a monolithic
entity, The rate of change in the "Internet" would likely have been
much slower.  There probably would not have been the telecom boom/bust
of circa 5 years ago,

OTOH, DSL would not likely be ubiquitous, as it is today; "high speed"
to the residence would probably mean 2-B ISDN.; today's "date" would
probably be "September five-thousand-and-something" instead of the
current number.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sounds a little grim to me.  PAT]

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

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:40:17 EDT
Subject: Re: Please Explain LATA


In a message dated14 Jun 2005 14:38:42 -0700, pisicuta60634@yahoo.com
writes:

> Can somebody tell me what LATA is?

> Thanks.

Local Access and Transport Area.  The area, under Judge Green's
decree, where the local Bell company could carry traffic.  If the call
crosses LATA lines, it must be carried by a long distance company.

Many, perhaps most, Bell companies have now been given the right (on a
state by state basis) to carry interLATA, interstate and international
long distance calls.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Please Explain LATA
Organization: ATCC
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:16:19 -0400


In article <telecom24.269.11@telecom-digest.org>, 
userid@camsul.example.invalid says:

> pisicuta60634@yahoo.com wrote:

>> Can somebody tell me what LATA is?

> Local Access and Transportation Area.  It's a term from the 1982
> Modification of Final Judgment -- the consent decree breaking up AT&T
>  -- that represented the "exchange area" for purposes of local
> telephone service.  The LATA is the area within which a Bell local
> telephone company could transport calls.  Anything beyond the LATA had
> to be handed off to an Interexchange Carrier, or IXC.  Some LATAs were
> very large, and as a result, even though the intraLata traffic was
> deemed "local" for purposes of the MFJ and could be provided by the
> Bell LEC, it was actually divided up into multiple exchange areas for
> purposes of call rating.  This led to "IntraLata toll" or
> "short-distance" calls that the Bell could handle even though they
> were considered toll calls, with a per-minute charge.

Yes, I remember when it was a toll to call from Warwick to parts of
Coventry, RI for the longest time. Warwick is geographically right
next to Coventry so it never made sense unless you understood that New
England Telephone never though Coventry would experience growth and
thus the trunk capacity to Coventry 397 was extremely tight.

Of course some interesting changes have taken place in calling areas.
But with the advent of VoIP it doesn't matter where you are. In
essence my LATA is the entirety of North America. Pretty damned cool
if you ask me.

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

From: Brad Houser <bradDOThouser@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:34:23 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation
Reply-To: bradDOThouser@intel.com


On 8 Jun 2005 16:48:18 -0700, brad.houser@gmail.com wrote:

> PAT Wrote:

>> [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]

> Asking a registrar to be responsible for what an internet site does is
> not like asking a landlord to be responsible for what his tenants do
> in his apartment. (If a landlord knows his tenant is breaking the law
> by growing pot, the landlord can break a lease.)

> The registrar provides a pointer, like a signpost to Michael Jackson's
> house. No one forces you to go there. What goes on there is not the
> fault of the sign.

Snip

> [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. As long as the landlord does not discriminate for
> various illegal reasons (for example, the proposed tenant's race or
> religion or sex or age) he is free to rent or not as he chooses.
> Of course, greedy landlords, like greedy registrars rent as much and
> as often as they can, saying we will let the future take care of
> itself. I used to know a landlord of furnished apartments in Chicago.
> Her philosophy was 'the best apartment in this complex is the one 
> which is _vacant_, because I know what is going on there; nothing. 
> PAT]

Actually, my analogy was not a good one. I managed to munge the two
things together that I wanted to keep separate!

1. Registrars create name to IP address lookups (eg Sign Posts)

2. Web hosting sites provide a server to host web pages (eg Landlords)

They are not the same thing. GoDaddy happens to provide both services.
Making the registrar responsible for the content is not the same as
making the web host responsible. You can have as many domain names
(sign posts) as you like, all pointing to the same web host
(landlord's property). The signs are OK, it is the content of the web
host that is the problem. Making the host responsible for content is
what is practical and possible (although probably not going to happen
soon, except in China). Making the registrar responsible does nothing
except threaten to send someone to another registrar.

Brad Houser


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But, if the registrars were required
to stick together, (God forbid that ICANN should do something useful
in the contracts they write up that everyone has to sign), then the
user could go looking for all the registrars he wanted. _None_ would
be able to help him; if he had been expelled by any of them, then the
registrars and ISPs working together would essentially blackball the
offensive user.   PAT]

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

From: NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Spam
Date: 15 Jun 2005 17:45:52 -0700


I have over 50 domain names registered thru GoDddy. I am in show biz as
an actor but also create photo portfolios for other actors and give
each their own domain name.

In over one year, I have only gotten ONE spam via an Email addy that
would only be available to GoDaddy employees and harvesters of WhoIs.

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

From: jtaylor <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com>
Subject: Re: Companies Subvert Search Results to Squelch Criticism
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:46:07 -0300
Organization: MCI Canada News Reader Service


Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:telecom24.269.21@telecom-digest.org:

> Barry Margolin 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?

> Google has money and I'm sure they have hired competent, resourceful
> attorneys who could find something reasonable and make it
> stick. Something fraud-related,

I'd be interested in seeing you point to statute which would define the
actions described as fraud.

> possibly, or they might be able to
> point to violations of their Terms of Service.

And how, exactly, would actions such as those described, be in any way
connected with Google's "terms of service"; assuming that such exist?

> Oh, really? Creating fraudulent search engine results is not a valid
> reason for a lawsuit?

If it were, somehow, it would not be Quixtar but Google who would
create the search engine results.

If they don't like what Quixtar is doing, they should change their
software.

ob googlewhack: billabong microstepping


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Google's claim would be they
were fraudulently induced to create false results. It would be
something akin to postal fraud (but not with the same legal
ramifications): To commit 'postal fraud' one does not need to
physically put a fraudulent item in the mail; inducing someone
else to do so is likewise fraud _on your part_. So you induced
Google, in this instance, to draw up and present false or
fraudulent search results.  Their scheme for doing so was always
working pretty well, but then you screwed it up. And to ask them
to change their software is a lot like saying when someone gets a
credit card through fraudulent circumstances, the credit card
company deposits the plastic and the monthly bills in the U.S.
Mail, so you say if they don't like the fraud, then let them
change the way they dispense cards. 

Yeah, Google does periodically refine its software, just as the
credit card people periodically refine their techniques for
processing applications. But now and then, someone slips past
either of them. But the law is intended to protect the weakest
party, is it not? And in this instance, Google got defrauded,
just as the credit card people get defrauded sometimes. And who
gets punished? Not the credit card people nor Google, as long
as they were following their 'normal' procedures.  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 #270
******************************