TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:15:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 294

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Beginning of the End for AT&T (Lisa Minter)
    Objections to SBC Purchase of AT&T (Lisa Minter)
    At PartyGaming, Everything's Wild (Monty Solomon)
    Using Comcast to Host Web Site (autogoor@yahoo.com)
    Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question (Michael Muderick)
    Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question (Tony P.)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (mc)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Bruce L. Bergman)
    Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer? (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach (Marcus Didius Falco)

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: Beginning of the End for AT&T
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:48:09 -0500


by Ross Wehner, The Denver Post

DENVER -- AT&T's shareholders -- at what will probably be their last
meeting -- are expected to approve a $16 billion merger with SBC
Communications in Denver on Thursday, forming the largest
telecommunications company in the nation.

The deal, together with the upcoming Verizon-MCI merger,
represents an unprecedented consolidation of the telecom industry.

Both deals are expected to gain regulatory approval in the next six
months to a year.

Denver-based Qwest dropped out of a bidding war for MCI last month
after the MCI board rebuffed it four times in favor of lower bids from
Verizon.

"Qwest faces added pressure after losing MCI," said Standard & Poor's
analyst Todd Rosenbluth. "Qwest is on the outside looking in at a
soon-to-be-consolidated telecom market."

Here's what the new telecom landscape will look like:

SBC and Verizon will be able to compete in Qwest's territory for
business customers by offering the two most far-reaching national
telecommunications networks.

They could poach Qwest's residential customers by bundling wireless
and long distance. They could offer Internet phone service over
Qwest's DSL lines at the same time as cable companies like Comcast
also are munching on Qwest's broadband customers.

SBC and Verizon already own the two largest wireless operations in the
United States and control nearly two-thirds of local phone lines
nationwide. The mergers will further boost their financial mass,
customer base and technological firepower in relation to Qwest.

Each of the new companies will have market values more than a dozen
times greater than Qwest, which is burdened with $17.3 billion in
debt. SBC in particular will benefit by integrating AT&T's CallVantage
Internet phone service and reviving AT&T's remaining 23 million
residential long-distance clients, said Rosenbluth.

"SBC and Verizon, with these mergers, are becoming worldwide telecom
players," said Janco Partners analyst Donna Jaegers. "Qwest is stuck
in the rural local phone league."

Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert has been one of the most vocal critics of
the SBC and Verizon mergers. At the same time, he is shopping for
other assets that may help Qwest become what he calls the "third leg
of the stool" in the increasingly consolidated industry.

One of Notebaert's main arguments before regulators is the hotly
contested idea that the SBC-AT&T and Verizon-MCI mergers are
restitching the 1984 breakup of the AT&T monopoly. In the process,
Notebaert claims, businesses will see fewer choices and higher prices.

"When five of the seven companies that resulted from the breakup of
the AT&T monopoly are reconfigured into two companies that will
control the business wire-line market, that's a duopoly," wrote
Notebaert in a letter last month to the Wall Street Journal.

SBC and AT&T disagree.

"The competitive landscape has changed radically since the breakup of
the Ma Bell system," said SBC spokesman Joe Izbrand. "The argument
just doesn't wash."

"The current industry restructuring is a far cry from putting back
together the Ma Bell system," said AT&T spokesman Andy Backover.

Both Izbrand and Backover point to an increasingly fragmented and
technology-driven marketplace that includes cable companies that offer
phone service, cell phone companies that allow consumers to ditch
their land lines and a growing bevy of Internet phone companies that
compete across the nation.

Phil Weiser, an associate professor of law and telecommunications at
the University of Colorado, sees both sides of the argument.

"On the consumer side, wireless, cable and other broadband providers
offer competitive alternatives," Weiser said. "But the consolidation
of networks in the business market is a huge concern."

A recent study sponsored by Qwest found that SBC and Verizon will
control access to more than nine out of 10 office buildings in Chicago
and Los Angeles, two cities that lie within SBC and Verizon territory.

Notebaert has predicted that the SBC and Verizon mergers will be
approved. His strategy is to convince regulators that the telecom
titans need to divest overlapping network assets, which Qwest could
then buy to beef up its own money-losing national fiber-optic network.

"With MCI, Notebaert failed to win the whole business," said
Rosenbluth. "Now he is looking at picking up the pieces. But is it
going to be sufficient to improve Qwest's operations?"

AT&T, the 120-year-old phone company that monopolized U.S. phone
service for years as the largest company on the planet, held past meetings
in Denver in 1972 and 1988.

But this Thursday's event -- in Qwest's back yard -- came about by
chance. The company could not fix a meeting date until merger
documents were approved last month by the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The Colorado Convention Center was one of the few
facilities that was still available.

"This meeting is a very sad and ironic demise of what was once
America's greatest corporation," said Weiser. "It has been a demise
that has been 50 years in the making that has resulted from
deregulation, technological change and management mistakes."


Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group

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: Objections to SBC Purchase of AT&T
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:49:42 -0500


Objections to telephone merger filed
Consumer, industry groups protest SBC purchase of AT&T
Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer

The proposed marriage of telecom titans SBC and AT&T would eliminate
competition on the wholesale market and could lead to increased prices
for business and residential customers, corporate rivals and consumer
groups argued in briefs filed on Friday.

In written testimony presented to the California Public Utility
Commission, critics of the planned merger spelled out why the deal
would be bad for ratepayers and what conditions should be imposed to
limit its negative impacts.

SBC, the dominant local telephone company, is seeking to acquire long-
distance carrier AT&T in a $16 billion deal that would create the
nation's largest telecommunications company. The commission, which is
taking testimony in the case, is expected to rule on the application
by the end of the year.

The California Association of Competitive Telecommunications
Companies, which represents more than 30 companies, has not formally
opposed the merger but has pushed for measures to ensure continued
competition in the business market.

In its filings, the group urged the commission to consider caps to
lock in wholesale prices for telecom competitors. AT&T and SBC compete
to lease access to smaller telecom companies which, in turn, sell
their services to local businesses. The group said the price caps
would ensure SBC's wholesale prices would not rise dramatically with
the loss of AT&T as a competitor.

"The only way that the commission can approve this merger is if it
adopts parallel reforms that will enable competition to continue
despite the massive resource imbalance the merger will produce," said
economist Joseph Gillan, who testified on behalf of the association.

The group also questioned whether SBC would be willing to provide
access to its equipment after the merger.

The Utility Reform Network said the merger would adversely affect
competition and would not be in the public's interest. The San
Francisco consumer group demanded that ratepayers receive an estimated
$1 billion in savings by SBC in California if the deal is approved.

SBC spokesman John Britton said the concerns about the merger are
unfounded. He said the company, which faces increased competition from
cable, wireless and other rivals, wants to provide more services at
competitive prices.

"This merger will have tremendous benefits for business and
consumers," he said. "The financial strength of a combined SBC and
AT&T will mean more investment and faster deployment of new
communication technology to more people more quickly."

He said pricing will remain low for ratepayers, while wholesale
customers continue to enjoy access to SBC and AT&T's telephone lines
and equipment.  Britton said SBC and AT&T are not obligated by law to
share savings with local ratepayers, but he said the savings in the
state would be minimal because there is little overlap in the two
systems' infrastructure and staffing.

E-mail Ryan Kim at rkim@sfchronicle.com.

Copyright 2005 San Francisco Chronicle

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:55:57 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: At PartyGaming, Everything's Wild


By KURT EICHENWALD

As a rule, companies don't often draw attention to business practices
that could land their executives in jail. But for PartyGaming PLC,
potential illegalities aren't just a secret hidden in its business
plan -- they are the centerpiece of its business plan.

A giant in the online gambling business, PartyGaming is an
often-overlooked megasurvivor from the dot-com crash of the late
1990's. As hundreds of profitless commercial sites disappeared into
the digital ether, PartyGaming's popular gambling sites - like
PartyPoker.com - soared, with revenues and profits growing
exponentially year after year.

This week, the company will go public in what is expected to be the
largest offering in years on the London Stock Exchange, one that will
make billionaires out of its ragtag assortment of founders and major
stockholders - including a California lawyer who earned her first
fortune in online pornography and phone-sex lines. All told, as much
as $9 billion is expected to be raised, with all of the cash going to
private shareholders selling portions of their stakes.

But there will be no Wall Street investment houses lapping up fees in
the giant deal, no victory dances in the offices of American corporate
lawyers. That is because PartyGaming, based in Gibraltar, has no
assets in the United States, and its officers or directors could risk
being served with a civil suit - or an arrest warrant - if they came
to the United States on business.

The reason? The Justice Department and numerous state attorneys
general maintain that providing the opportunity for online gambling is
against the law in the United States - and PartyGaming does it
anyway. Indeed, of its $600 million in revenue and $350 million in
profit in 2004, almost 90 percent came from the wallets and bank
accounts of American gamblers.

To justify this, PartyGaming walks a very thin line. Providing online
gambling is not illegal per se in the United States, the company
argues -- federal prosecutors just say it is. The company has already
received an e-mail message from the Louisiana attorney general
demanding that it cease providing online gambling in that state;
PartyGaming simply ignored the communication and waited for additional
action that never came.

The company's prospectus -- a British document that is not available
in the United States -- at times reads something like a legal brief,
citing American case law to support the company's position that no
prosecution would ever take place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/business/yourmoney/26poker.html?ex=1277438400&en=a47371cd660556db&ei=5090

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. Read this article and others from NY Times on line
here each day with no login or registration requirement at:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html

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

From: autogoor@yahoo.com
Subject: Using comcast to Host Web Site
Date: 26 Jun 2005 20:19:42 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


I developed a web site and would like to host it with my own computer
at home. I am thinking using Comcast Cable broadband as my ISP. Does
Comcast allow web host? Anyone has experience? Anyone has any other ISP
suggestions? I am in California.

Thanks.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you ask Comcast about their rules
on this?  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:09:46 -0400
From: Michael Muderick <michael.muderick@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question


HERE'S A GOOD LINK WHICH SHOWS THE HOOKUPS FOR THE 302 SERIES

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/1491/WE.htm

Usually it's L1 and L2 and the yellow gets tied to one of those for the
ringer. The 302's had the guts in the phones.  It's the earlier sets with
the narrow neck that used the ringer boxes and the space saver sets that
mounted on the sides of the desk did as well.

> From: David Perrussel <diamond45@withheld_on_request>
> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:46:54 -0400
> Subject: WECO 302 Wiring Question
>

> like to hook it up to the modern PSTN network, but doesn't know how to
> connect the wires.

Michael Muderick

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

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: WECO 302 Wiring Question
Organization: ATCC
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:21:03 -0400


In article <telecom24.293.5@telecom-digest.org>, diamond45
@withheld_on_request says:

> Pat, please withhold my posting address for obvious resons.

> I have a friend who has an old Western Electric 302 phone. He would
> like to hook it up to the modern PSTN network, but doesn't know how to
> connect the wires. This is how he explains it:

> Inside is a transformer with connections labeled GN, R, Y(L2), L1, and
> C, and on the base is a terminal block with connections labeled GND
> and K.  The connections labeled Y(L2), and L1 have screws for
> additional connections that appear to have been removed; the screws
> are unscrewed up off the metal connector.

> Could someone provide us with instructions of how to connect this
> phone to a modern phone jack?  We would appreciate any help you can
> give me.

> Thanks!

> David Perrussel

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I _thought_ most WE 302 phones had
> all (or most of their guts) in the 'side ringer' box which was mounted
> on the wall. PAT]

302's are all-in-one units with the ringer, network and dial integrated. 

L1 and L2 are the line in. I understand where some of the confusion
comes from though as I had to re-wire my 684 subset for my Imperial by
jumpering the yellow wire to the RING terminal in order to get the
ringer to work.

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:10:38 -0400


> And here you fall into that common fallacy.  'We can't have these
> people doing this bad behavior that we outlawed.  So lets ban one of
> their instrumentalities to stop their bad behavior.'  Remember how
> effective those laws against flagrant beeper use in the 80s were at
> stopping the drug dealers?  You would be far better served by going
> after the root causes of the bad behavior, then by blocking this or
> that object from functioning, or making the object more difficult to
> obtain legally for the ordinary citizen.

>    --Dale

And *you* think that you are going to stop the black market trade and
the self abusive behaviors that goes on inside of prisons by 'dealing
with it'?  I'm afraid you're in never never land.  It's not going to
happen.

That's like saying that we should let people who have committed
heinous crimes go because they were mistreated as a child or they
could be treated with therapy rather than face the consequences of
their actions.

It's a bunch of bull, we all know that.  We can't solve all of their
problems.  Sure, some of them can be helped and I'm not saying that
the ones that can and want to be helped shouldn't be.  But they are in
the minority.  Most of them don't want to be helped.

Using technology like this for better security in our prisons isn't a
bad idea.


Fred

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

From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:21:42 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)


Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.292.6@telecom-digest.org:

> Don't miunderstand me here.  I basically agree with your position.
> But didn't the more recent communications act render the
> Communications Act of 1934 obsolete?

Not as far as I know.  The Communications Act of 1934 gets amended all the 
time, but it is still, as far as I know, the basis of radio regulation in 
this country (and, yes, television and cell phones are, physically, radio). 
Did it go away when I wasn't looking?

> I do think that perhaps use of such jamming devices (if properly
> designed) might be useful in prisons where there is a problem with
> contraband cell phones running being used for drug deals and other
> problematic things.  Of course, we'd have to address the issues and
> how to correctly make it legal for use (so that situations like you've
> described can be avoided).

Probably by amending the regulations.

Another thing that would be useful would be to have a "turn off cell
phone" signal that all cell phones would be programmed to receive and
obey.  It could be transmitted periodically around hospitals,
theaters, etc.  The idea is that in a real emergency, you could still
turn your cell phone on manually.  Much safer than jamming.  If cell
phones are jammed in, say, a theater, you create an ideal place to
take hostages.

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

From: Bruce L. Bergman <blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:32:48 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:35:21 GMT, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:05:50 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
> <blbergman@withheld_on_request> wrote:

>>> The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless 
>>> communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 
>>> as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act 
>>> prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with 
>>> the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under 
>>> the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. 
>>> The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including 
>>> advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless 
>>> transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in 
>>> violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set 
>>> out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can 
>>> range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up 
>>> to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited 
>>> to the U.S. government.

> Don't miunderstand me here.  I basically agree with your position.
> But didn't the more recent communications act render the
> Communications Act of 1934 obsolete?  I don't think that cell phone
> technology was considered when it was written, either.

Note that IANA Communications Lawyer.  There are probably more recent
laws and more relevant rulings, I just did a search at the FCC Website
and that was the first cite that popped up.  Since they still list it,
I'm willing to bet it's more or less still relevant.

> I do think that perhaps use of such jamming devices (if properly
> designed) might be useful in prisons where there is a problem with
> contraband cell phones running being used for drug deals and other
> problematic things.  Of course, we'd have to address the issues and
> how to correctly make it legal for use (so that situations like you've
> described can be avoided).

Jamming wouldn't be very effective.  They would have to block the
entire 800, 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz bands to get all cellulars, with
enough power that they would splatter them within at least 1/2 mile
around the facility (if not more) - and that would miss things like
Nextel iDEN service, commercial radio, amateur radio, and other
services.  And if they have the capability to do spread spectrum that
would make it even harder to stop.

If the prisoners are making illegal communications from a contraband
phone or other device inside a prison, they probably don't care that
they are not operating in the proper band on an assigned channel,
they'll use whatever they can make work.  Aircraft, marine, military,
CB, FRS or GMRS, an unused broadcast TV channel ...

Heck, avoid radio -- use a modulated IR laser beam aimed out a window
to a transceiver secreted on a nearby hilltop.  (Or rooftop in an
urban setting.)

If they want to stop those communications, they need to attack them
at the source: regularly lock the cellblocks down and do top to bottom
strip searches of prisoners and the cells & common areas, severely
restrict the types and amounts of prisoner personal property allowed
in the cells to approved items only -- like special TV and Radio sets
with clear cases sold in the canteen.  Trashing any even slightly
questionable items.  And let the ACLU lawsuits commence ...

   --<< Bruce >>--

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer?
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:07:29 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Dale Farmer wrote:

> after the root causes of the bad behavior, then by blocking this or
> that object from functioning, or making the object more difficult to
> obtain legally for the ordinary citizen.

So what legitimate reasons are there to use a cell phone jammer? (Note
that I said legitimate, not legal.)

Dale Farmer wrote:

> And here you fall into that common fallacy.  'We can't have these
> people doing this bad behavior that we outlawed.  So lets ban one of
> their instrumentalities to stop their bad behavior.'  Remember how
> effective those laws against flagrant beeper use in the 80s were at
> stopping the drug dealers?  You would be far better served by going
> after the root causes of the bad behavior, then by blocking this or
> that object from functioning, or making the object more difficult to
> obtain legally for the ordinary citizen.

And by the way, the act of jamming is illegal, regardless of which
type of equipment you use.


JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:37:49 -0400
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach 


bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote about Re:
Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach -- Washington Post on
Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:02:59 -0000

> In article <telecom24.287.1@telecom-digest.org>, Marcus Didius Falco
> <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> I had been planning to call my active credit card companies to
>> determine whether any had been compromised. This article caused me to
>> start the process this morning, calling American Express, my most
>> active account.

>> After thanking me for carrying their card for 21 years, they refused
>> to tell me whether any of my three cards was among those
>> compromised.

> Well, they don't *know* which cards were actually compromised.  NOBODY
> _knows_ which card numbers were actually stolen from CardSystems.

> CardSystems only knows which card numbers were _vulnerable_ to have
> being stolen -- data as to which of those _were_ stolen is simply not
> available.

Fair enough. But they can tell me whether my cards are safe or at risk.

>> and there is no way I can reliably double check an account that has
>> dozens of charges a month, many of them posted in the name of parent
>> companies located at head offices in other cities, so that many of
>> the charges are not easily verified and must usually be taken on
>> faith.

> Well, unless, _you_ keep a record of everything you charge -- date and
> amount.  And match them against the statements you get.  It's not
> really rocket science.

For checks, that's practical. (It helps if you get the original checks 
back, something that will end in the US soon).)

Where there are dozens or hundreds of transactions as on really busy
cards, it becomes difficult. Particularly since the name and date of
the payer on the statement may differ from that on the receipt. And,
in the case of international transactions, the amount will differ,
too.

> I used to do it every month, for several corporate cards that had
> several _hundred_ charges/month.  Life was _really_ fun when the
> Company President's son (away at college) used daddy's card to sign up
> for Internet access (and the fact that the initial posting was 'late',
> and was for _4_ months services).  That one _jumped_ off the statement
> at me -- the company had it's own dial-up pool, and everybody used
> _that_ for home access.

Well, if you have a full time job, and can spend a day or two at it,
then you might succeed. except that you have to spot that a charge for
$5 to $10 from "Strange Parking" isn't the same as the receipt you may
have for a similar amount from "Storage Parking".

> If you choose not to do so, and 'uncritically' accept their
> accounting, that _is_ your choice.

If they want to send my a diskette of my charges. (No, I won't trust
it to the internet for reasons that have been explored very thoroughly
in this Digest in the past.)


>> When I get the new American Express cards I will call the second
>> most active card in my wallet, and so on down the list.

> Note: if you are in the UK, as your email address seems to indicate,
> it is _unlikely_ that any of your cards were exposed via the
> CardSystems 'problem'.  Unless you're doing siginficant credit-card
> buying in the U.S., that is.  CardSystems clears almost exclusively
> for U.S.-based merchants.

They would have processed charges in the US for foreign cards, and
charges on US-based cards for holders dwelling abroad.

> From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> Subject: Re: Cardholders Kept in Dark After Breach -- Washington Post
> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:12:14 -0700
> Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com

> Marcus Didius Falco wrote:

>> After thanking me for carrying their card for 21 years, they refused
>> to tell me whether any of my three cards was among those
>> compromised.

> Amex sucks. Tear the card up and get another to replace it.

Actually, I have less trouble with Amex than with most of my other cards.

>> When I get the new American Express cards I will call the second most
>> active card in my wallet, and so on down the list.

> Why not do all of them at once? If the data is at risk, you're best off
> doing it sooner rather than later.

I could do this, because I have several credit cards that are almost
NEVER used for retail transactions. This is because I travel, and it
can be a real hassle to have a lost or compromised in a foreign
country, particularly if you are on the move and particularly if the
country does not have a good mail system. In many countries FEDEX does
not operate very well. (I can tell stories about a shipment to Canada
that took 2 weeks, and many stories about 4 days to Europe or Canada.)

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


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 #294
******************************