Pat, the Editor

For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:52:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 338

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Linksys SecureEasySetup (Monty Solomon)
    Linksys Debuts Wireless-G Travel Router (Monty Solomon)
    Now Playing on Apple's iTunes: Adult-Oriented Podcasts (Monty Solomon)
    Question About "Network Interface" Phone Jack (wylbur37)
    ISPs as Censors (Canada). (fwd) (Danny Burstein)
    Cisco Makes Home-Networking Play (USTelecom dailyLead)
    Re: Need to Drop SBC LD Service. Info on Other Carriers? (Paul)
    Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
    Re: TV Telephone History (Joseph)
    Re: TV Telephone History (Neal McLain)
    Re: TV Telephone History (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: R-TEC Isolation Filter and Unknown Box (William Warren)
    Re: An Unsettling Surprise: Victimized by ID Theft (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Ethics of Deterrence (Bob Vaughan)

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.  

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:23:21 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Linksys SecureEasySetup


Networking Leader Ships First Products With SecureEasySetup(TM) Feature

IRVINE, Calif., July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Linksys(R), a Division of
Cisco Systems, Inc., the recognized leading provider of VoIP, wireless
and networking hardware for the consumer, Small Office/Home Office
(SOHO) and small business markets, today announced it has begun
shipping products with SecureEasySetup (SES) technology.  SES enables
users to set up and add security to their wireless networks with a
push of a button. Linksys is adding the SES feature to a number of
products in its line of Wireless-G and Wireless-G with SpeedBooster
products at no extra cost.

SES Technology

SecureEasySetup enables consumers to effortlessly establish their
wireless networks and activate Wi-Fi Protected Access(TM) (WPA)
security by simply pushing one button on the router and one button on
the wireless device they want to attach to the network. Once the
feature is activated, SES creates a secured, private connection
between devices, automatically configures the network's Service Set
Identifier (SSID), and enables WPA security. Automatic configuration
eliminates the manual passphrase, or key, entry required by
traditional setup for the enabling of WPA.  Customers are no longer
required to have experience configuring a network to create a wireless
network, they can now simply push buttons to go wireless.

     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=50658565

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:22:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Linksys Debuts Wireless-G Travel Router


WTR54GS Makes It Easy to Create a More Secure Wireless Network
           From Hotel Rooms or Coffee Houses

IRVINE, Calif., July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Linksys(R), a Division of
Cisco Systems, Inc., the recognized leading provider of VoIP, wireless
and networking hardware for the consumer, Small Office/Home Office
(SOHO) and small business markets, today announced its newest router,
the Wireless-G Travel Router with SpeedBooster (WTR54GS).  This new
high-speed, mobile router provides users the ability to easily set up
a wireless network in a hotel room or through a hotspot, such as in an
airport or coffee house.

The travel-friendly form factor includes a built-in power supply and
wireless signal antenna as well as a WAN port for connection to a
Cable or DSL connection and an Ethernet port for connecting an
additional wired device or computer.  Users simply plug the router
directly into the wall with the built- in retractable two-prong power
adapter, and establish either a wired or wireless connection to the
Internet access offered by the hotel or other venue.

A unique feature, currently found only in the Linksys WTR54GS, allows
multiple computers to share a single wireless Internet access account.
This capability is ideal for those users with a subscription to a
wireless internet service who would like to simultaneously share their
account access with colleagues or friends at locations such as hotels,
airports or coffeehouses.


     - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=50658560

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:05:17 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Now Playing on Apple's iTunes: Adult-Oriented Podcasts


By VAUHINI VARA
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

Now available for download through iTunes: raunchy sex banter, erotic 
storytelling sessions and reviews of pornographic Web sites.

Last month, Apple Computer Inc.'s online music store launched a
directory of podcasts -- audio shows that can be downloaded free from
the Internet and usually feature amateurs discussing mainstream topics
like cars, sports and independent music. At the same time, it also
opened its doors to a racier genre of audio files that some are
calling "porncasts."

With names like "Fetish Flame" and "Open Source Sex," the adult
podcasts are often created by self-proclaimed sex experts who have
cheap recording software, a bit of free time and little or nothing in
the way of professional radio experience. Many of the rambling audio
shows focus on the creators' sex lives, often punctuated with
stutters, long pauses and the occasional, "Um, so, what should we talk
about next?"

As podcasting reaches a more mainstream audience, the more risque
audio shows -- and Apple's role in distributing them -- could come
under greater scrutiny. Apple declined to say whether any of its users
have complained about the adult podcasts, which can be downloaded by
anyone regardless of age. The company said it could potentially pull
programs that it deems too explicit, but declined to say whether it
has done so yet.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112199964473193071-PlD_16_et2OXq_Q0GzYmLpopmT4_20060725,00.html

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

From: wylbur37 <wylbur37nospam@yahoo.com>
Subject: Question About "Network Interface" Phone Jack
Date: 24 Jul 2005 18:49:38 -0700


After living in the same place in New York City for years, I recently
moved to another place (also in New York City).  The room I moved to
has an existing phone jack but it looks different from the old
square-ish ones I'm accustomed to.  (The old ones consisted only of 4
terminals inside the case).  This new one is rather rectangular and
has a label on the outside that says ...

  Network Interface
  *Caution
    Disconnect plug from this jack during installation and repair
    of wiring.
  *Testing
    Plug working phone directly into this jack. If phone operates,
    fault is in wiring. If phone does not operate, call repair
    service.


When I opened the case, I noticed that the red and green wires (the
only ones that will be actually used by the telephone itself) are also
connected to a little circuit board whose most conspicuous component
is a yellow cylinder-shaped object (about 3/4" long and about 3/8"
diameter) with the following markings ...

  250V
  TI
  0.47 MFD
  +/- 10%

* What is the purpose of this circuit board?
* Is it really necessary? (How come the old-fashioned jacks
  didn't have this?)
* What if I were to disconnect it?

Also, when I looked inside the jack itself (the hole where you would
plug the phone into), I noticed there's some strange-looking gunk
inside.  It's clear-colored and has the consistency of rubber cement.

* Is this something that's supposed to be there?
* What is it used for?

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

From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: ISPs as Censors (Canada) (fwd)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:55:41 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


"Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website"

"Last Updated Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:45:13 EDT  CBC News"

"The B.C.-based communications company that's in a bitter fight with
unionized employees has blocked its internet subscribers from
accessing a website supporting striking union members.

"Telus subscribers can't get into Voices for Change, which says it's
'a community website run by and for Telecommunications Workers Union
(TWU) members ...

[ snip, snip, snip, rest at:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/24/telus-sites050724.html

    - and... if you check the Verizon FIOS Terms of Service,
 	they (VZ) could do the same thing.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And in case you did not read the
newspaper over the weekend or this morning, the international
labor organization AFL-CIO is in the midst of a _major schism_ with
its member organizations. Two or three of the major union
organizations which make up the AFL-CIO pulled out to go with a new
rival bunch, taking their several million dollars in union dues with
them. The AFL-CIO had already laid off about 25 percent of its own
internal worker force. This latest thing will really just about do
them in for good. The (A)merican (F)ederation of (L)abor and the
(C)ongress of (I)ndustrial (O)rganizations had merged (they were two
separate and competing labor organizations) in 1958 largely because
the ranks for each of them were thinning greatly. Originally (like
the 1930's and 1940's) both AFL and CIO were very strong, vibrant
organizations. AFL tended to represent more 'white and blue collar'
workers; CIO represented more manual labor type situations. Employees
at Standard Oil refineries in the 1950 era were represented by CIO
usually, while office workers and technicians tended to be
represented by AFL. As times got tough in the 1950's the two blanket
organizations decided to merge. A long, very difficult over the years
has been 'are labor unions important and needed?' Like the old which
came first, chicken or egg argument, there were good reasons for all
sides to this. I would suggest that one reason working conditions in
general have gotten much better (in the 1920's one worked normally
six days per week, 10-12 hours per day, no medical insurance, for
_much_ (disproportionaly) wages, and 'at the will' of the employer)
was because unions were started to protect the guys. Now, I know that
now-days all that sounds silly, but US Steel, Andrew Carnegie and
Mr. Ford and Mr. Pullman did not make their millions of dollars by 
giving vacation time and sick pay. But now, most large companies,
(Walmart and Sprint are two notable exceptions) know they had better
'behave themselves' or the unions will return with a vengeance. The
unions served a _very_ important function; do they still? Its a 
question I doubt we could ever answer here. Regards 'ISP as Censor',
well it is just the big bosses playing games, throwing their weight
around a little, to 'show who is boss'.    PAT] 

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:07:53 EDT
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: Cisco makes home-networking play


USTelecom dailyLead
July 25, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23293&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Cisco makes home-networking play
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* France Telecom seen as likely Amena suitor
* Rural telco raises $203M in IPO
* EarthLink struggles to compete in broadband world
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT 
* On-Demand Webinars:  Delivering What's NEXT to Your Desktop
HOT TOPICS
* Texas House passes telecom bill
* Report: VoIP revenues to reach $4B by 2010
* SBC running fiber, IPTV to 18M homes
* Telcos' Q2 broadband subs to surpass cable's, analysts predict
* Nearly half of Americans bundling purchases
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Chip developers seek network flexibility
* Cell phones that predict users' behavior
* Digitainment's renaissance
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Texas House expected to pass TV franchise bill

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23293&l=2017006

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

From: Paul <paule-nospam@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Need to Drop SBC LD Service. Info on Other Carriers?
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:08:48 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


> Beginning in September, all of SBC's LD calling plans will have a
> monthly charge, so I need to find a new home -- one that will only
> charge me for calls, with no monthly fee or minimum.  Assuming there
> still is such a thing.

> But I'm having trouble finding reviews of particularly the smaller
> companies or resellers.  Where can I go to find that?  Is there a
> newsgroup?  I'm talking about companies like Everdial/Primus, which
> I currenly use as a dial-around, or maybe Americom.  And I'm
> particularly interested in honest dealing and customer service.
> Assuming there still is such a thing.

Try www.ecglongdistance.com

We switched to ECG for the business long distance about 4 or 5 years
ago, and for the home about 2 years.  IIRC, billing is online only.
No monthly fee or minimum.  They appear to be a good reputable company
and I have no complaints.  Bills are clear and easy to read, never had
a surprise hidden charge.  Our LD bills at the office were a horror
story with AT&T, Frontier, etc. until we found ECG.  Highly recommended.

-- Paul

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:39:22 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


DevilsPGD wrote:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is very true also, but often times
> that request to install is couched with the colors and logo of a
> Windows Update or some other circumstance that would lead a reasonably
> intelligent person to go ahead and okay it, only to realize a few
> seconds later that they may have done something they should not have
> done. 

How does it arrive?

If via email, it should be deleted without being read. Microsoft never
sends updates via email.


Steve Sobol, Professional Geek   888-480-4638   PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nope, they arrive by pop-up window
all colored very nicely in Microsoft-style blue and deeper blue, their
script style, etc. PAT]

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

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster
Date: 24 Jul 2005 23:32:05 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.337.5@telecom-digest.org>, DevilsPGD
<spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> While true, the vast majority of malware released post-XPSP2 requires
> explicit user intervention to install it.

Maybe. It's also true that a lot of pre-XPSP2 malware is still
circulating. Do you have any idea how long it takes to download and
install something like SP2 when all you have is a 33Kbaud dial-up
connection? And that's assuming the systems are set to automatically
download and install updates.

I support many people on dialup. In spite of what the government wants
you to believe about broadband coverage, there are a LOT of people who
can't get it, and the phone companies have no incentive to invest in
the infrastructure to provide it. None of the ones I visit ever have
SP2 installed, or even most of the earlier updates. I always take a CD
full of updates along with me to do it for them.

And a dial-up connection has no firewall, and typically has all of the
default services still enabled.

Even unpatched new systems (with SP2) are at risk. A number of the
exploits take advantage of IE holes that don't require any more user
involvement than retrieving content from a malicious web site or
accessing malicious email (sometimes just the preview pane is enough,
sometimes not even that is needed) thanks to Outlook/OE integration
with IE.


John Meissen                                  jmeissen@aracnet.com

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: TV Telephone History
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:15:36 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:30:18 -0700, John L. Shelton
<john@jshelton.com> wrote:

> By the way, the number "9970" appears in many dialing examples from
> "Englewood NJ 1951 Customer Long Distance Dialing", posted to this
> list by Mark Cuccia in 1996.  And in the movie "The Manchurian
> Candidate", a quoted phone number is "El Dorado 5 - 9970".

> Do others have good examples of TV family telephones?

In "The Women" (1939) the number called to 'John' in New York is
ELdorado 5-3598.

As far as the phones used I just got done watching "Dallas" and they
used a whole hodge-podge of different phones.  Many WECO Princesses
(touch tone) as well as an AE dial phone, WECO dial phones.  Offices
used WECO 2565 as well as call director type phones.  They never had
the "ringing" right and always used the double-gong ringers that one
would find on 500/2500 type phones.  When using payphones they'd have
the "ding-ding" sound from a regular fortress type phone.  The last
"ding-ding" pay phones were the three slotters!

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:55:50 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Subject: RE: TV Telephone History


John L. Shelton <john@jshelton.com> wrote:

> ... The "99" portion of their phone number used to
> indicate a coin-operated telephone in some exchanges, so
> perhaps this convention was good enough.

Michigan Bell often used 99XX for telco internal numbers, but never
for coin telephones (and I've heard that some other Bell companies did
the same).  My notes for Ann Arbor in 1956 show:

    Business Office       NO 8-9911  (668-9911)  [1]
    Cable Records         NO 8-9946  (668-9946)
    Cable Records         NO 8-9959  (668-9959)
    Employee Cafeteria    NO 8-9971  (668-9971)
    Local Test            NO 8-9923  (668-9923)  [2]
    PBX Service Advisor   NO 8-9982  (668-9982)
    Teletype Service      NO 8-9970  (668-9970)
    Toll Test             NO 8-9934  (668-9934)  [3]

[1] Note the -XX11 (rather than -XX00) line number for the Business
Office PBX.  At the time, the Ann Arbor office was SxS, so trunk
sequences started at 1 (or 11) rather than 0 (or 00).  Other large
PBXs followed the same pattern; e.g., University of Michigan was NO
3-1511.

[2] Local test could also be reached by dialing 117.  As we've
discussed before, SxS offices often used 11N rather than N11 service
codes.

[3] I worked for a radio station at the time, so I had occasion to
call Toll Test many times.  Toll Test was NNX-9934 all over the state
 -- even in the manual office in Traverse City where it was just 9934.

All coin telephones in Ann Arbor were in the range 668-90XX through
668-98XX, but never 668-99XX.

Neal McLain


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Same with Illinois Bell in the Chicago
area. The entire '99xx' group was for their administrative use and
generally was 9900 for the business offices, 9901 (internally) for the
operator (also reached on '0' of course), 9902 for directory
assistance (also 411 for the public), 9903 for the Group Chief
Operator's desk in each central office). An exception was OFFicial 7-
9411 for the corporate offices. A peculiar set was 9928/9929 where
9928 'looped around and out' on 9929, and used by outside plant for
when outside technicians wanted to call their own repair center.  (611
was usually for that purpose, but if outside their own central office
then 611 got them the repair clerk _in the office where they were
located_ instead of their 'home' district. ) By dialing 9928 it rang
once or twice, presented dialtone, and then within a couple seconds
9929 would dial out '611'. The intention was for the tech to use any
phone (in that 'outside his own office area') and dial the 'proper'
exchange-9928 (in his own area) and get connected to 'his' 611 help
desk as a result.

Well ... some phreak discovered that you could dial 9928, and then
instantly on receipt of dialtone punch out the number _he_ wanted to
call instead (generally long distance, often times international) and
the switch would faithfully place his call via 9929 instead. Then,
when the dialer 'woke up' a second or two later and did '611' by that
point the switch was already processing _phreaks__ ten digits and it
ignored _telco tech's_ 611 which just tooted away to nowhere in the
background.

Where the jig was up came when a supervisor or two at telco, respon-
sible for reconciling and approving for 'payment' the telephone
bills of telco got a _mess_ of long distance calls billed to 9929. 
I guess the phreak did not realize that telco has to pay its own
telephone bills also, and watches those expenses closely. Supervisor's
first reaction was 'someone has been here in the frames screwing
around making phone calls.' The usual investigative techniques (call
the number, trick the party with the lie 'our operator must have made
a mistake, can you tell us who called you so we can straighten out
this mistake in our records') did not work; they never do when the 
calls go to radio station contest lines and hotel switchboards; but
pen registers and other apparatus worked okay. Eventually telco found
out _who_ the wise guy was who was using 9928/9929 as his personal 
LD network. Phreak slipped up one day and called _his own mother_ by
accident over the 'network'.  And you _know_ mother told telco every-
thing she knew about it while bragging on her son: "oh yes! my son ...
such a good boy and so smart about telephones!" That told telco 
everything they needed to know ... although telco did pester the 
phreak asking him "which of our people told you how to do this?" They
would have hung that person, had there been one; there was not. 

As the story got back to me, the phreak came home from work one day
(he worked for the Illinois governor's office, I want you to know) and
found a telephone security representative sitting on his front
porch. Phreak asks "what is this about?". The telco security guy
responds "If I were to use the phrase 9928-9929 to you, would you know
what I was talking about? Under the law I have to tell you 24 hours
ahead of time that your phone is being disconnected for cause, and I
am here to tell you that tomorrow at this time, your phone will be
dead; I hope you can't ever get reconnected." And just as promised,
the next day phreak's phone service was cut off. 

Well, the phreak said he had to hire a lawyer to get him out of the
jam.  Like all of Illinois and Chicago government where the Democrats
(and what other politcal party is there in Chicago?) are so corrupted,
the Illinois Commerce Commission is no exception. The phreak had to
give the shyster lawyer a thousand dollars to (officially) pay the
lawyer's fee, but in real practice spread around the Commission
offices before he could get his phone turned back on, all the while
Illinois Bell was grumbling about it. Shortly thereafter, Bell fixed
those loop arounds to delay 9928 getting answered and accelerated how
fast 9929 would start dialing. No more public loop around unless one
could really dial fast (ten digits in a second or less?). Then shortly
thereafter, ESS came to the remaining exchanges in Chicago and Bell
changed the whole concept.  PAT]

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: TV Telephone History
Date: 25 Jul 2005 11:02:57 -0700


John L. Shelton wrote:

> While watching TV Land, I realized I could learn about the
> phone-wealth of various TV families.

> Rob & Laura Petrie (The Dick Van Dyke Show, early 1960s) had 5
> telephones, very unusual at the time. There were model 500 desk phones
> in the breakfast room, kitchen, dining room, living room, and master
> bedroom.

I think they had only three -- the living room was also the dining
room, and the kitchen was the breakfast nook.  The bell sound seemed
to be an external ringer, rather common for TV shows.

If you watch the shows carefully, you'll notice props can change from
week to week.  Sometimes change even within a single scene!  One actor
was shot on one day, and the other actor was shot on another day and
it's all edited together.  The props could shift from day to day.
Sharp-eyed (obsessive?) fans notice these little details.  They're
rare but do happen.

Anyway, telephone props were often changing -- color and location of
telephone often varied.  A specific phone could be missing or change
style or color.

On Dick Van Dyke, when he called home from work sometimes he asked
"Marge" to get Laura for him, sometimes he asked for an outside line,
sometimes he just dialed.

Telephone sets changed over time.  In early Andy Griffith the phones
were crank, later on they became modern sets only without the dial.
By the end of the show, manual telephone service was pretty rare.
Indeed, small towns like "Mayberry" would've gone dial earlier to save
on costs of a 24/7 operator.  A VERY TINY village might use a
community operator whose family rotated switchboard duties to provide
24/7 but it appears Mayberry was too big a town to get by on that and
I think that contract operator arrangement was obsolete by the 1960s.
Indeed, Mayberry might have had enough telephone traffic in 1965 to
justify two operators during prime time and not much spare time for
Sarah to socialize.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As best as I can recall, Lucille Ball
> and Desi Arnez ('I Love Lucy', a 1950's invention mostly, had two
> phones; one in the front room which was nearly always the one used on
> the show, but also a phone in the bedroom we only saw when an episode
> needed a bedroom phone.(In one show, Lucy called Ethel from the
> bedroom.) Their number was MUrray Hill something, I do not remember
> what, although a couple shows had them saying the number.

There seemed to be a 202 set at the club near the entrance that
served for all calls.  BTW, did Ricky own the club or was merely
a lead employee in charge of entertainment and the band?
I think the show presented it as both scenarios.

Lucy used the old gag of tying up the phone while Ricky was waiting
for an important business call.  Indeed, the telephone played
frequently in story gags, with characters taking calls and pretending
to be someone else.

In one episode at the country house, they had a buzzer installed to
summon Fred/Ethel from the kitchen.  Common in those days, but how
many houses and offices today have buzzer systems?  I once worked at a
secretary's desk that had a forest of buzzer push buttons underneath,
all disconnected.

> The Cleaver Family (Leave it to Beaver) had a phone in the Den, and a
> reader here said they had one in the upstairs hallway also, but I do
> not recall seeing it.

I recall a phone in the den, living room, and kitchen, all used.  I
never recall seeing anything of the upstairs except the boys' room.  I
also recall them moving to a new house early in the series, but I
don't recall much about the first home.

As mentioned, three phones in 1960 was a sign of doing well, although
Ward's nice den was also a well-to-do sign.

I remain amazed at the changes of social interaction of the Cleaver
boys compared to modern kids of the same age.  As mentioned in an
prior discussion, Mrs. Cleaver would leave 13 y/o Beaver and a girl
from school alone in his room with the door closed (with milk and
cookies) without giving it a second thought.  Parents today would be a
bit more cautious.

Actually, in thinking about it, the show seemed to make girls rather
"icky" for both Beaver (even when older) and Wally.  At best, an older
Beaver was willing to tolerate talking to girls.  Wally dated
regularly, but his dating seemed to be more of a standard chore of
life, like raking the leaves and going to school, something that was
"all right, I guess, but nothing special."  I don't believe any kind
of physical affection was ever shown.  There were girls who had
crushes on the boys, but that was portrayed as a problem.

> And who can recall Sheriff Andy Taylor's phone number, both at the
> jail and at his home?  Barney Fife's number at the rooming house where
> he lived was '407' on the one occassion I heard someone on the show
> ask 'Sarah' the operator to be connected.

All I remember is Sarah connecting by name, not number, "Sarah,
could you get me Goober down at the filling station?"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: With Sarah, yes, mostly always just
'get me whoever, at wherever'. And she was always introduced as 
'Sarah'. The one episode I saw which was at someone else's house
(maybe it was Barney's girl friend?) the little kid Opie walked over
to the phone and picked it up. I expected to hear him say 'Miss Sarah'
(as he always referred to her, 'get me whoever'. But that time, he
asked for '407' and Barney answered.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:12:46 -0400
From: William Warren <william_warren_nonoise@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: R-TEC Isolation Filter and Unknown Box


wh349055@netscape.net wrote:

> I was in my basement, trying to remove the mess of wires, and putting
> them all on a punchdown block.  I noticet two old grey bell co wires
> going to a box called an isolation filter.  From there they went into a
> box called an "R-tec STU-7".  Inside the r-tec box, there is a
> rechargable battery, and an instruction sheet.  The sheet says:

> -Telephone must be wired for briged ringing
> -Use straight line ringers only with bias spring at minimum setting.

> The box is grey, says "Phone Co Property" and is about 9'' by 5'' by
> 2'' deep.

> What is this, and what does/did it do (it was disconected)

> Thanks, 

> Warren

Warren,

It's an "AML" box, which was used to provide additional dial tone to a
house that didn't have an extra pair available on the pole.

Asynchronous Multi-Line units use Frequency Division Multiplexing to
allow super-audible transmission of additional dial-tones, the same
way DSL uses super-audible frequencies to transmit data. They were
powered by a battery which was, in turn, trickle-charged by "bleeding"
the POTS line's 48 volts, and each required a matching unit in the CO.

AML units were pressed into service as a short-term solution during
the early days of the Internet explosion, when demand for extra dial
tones outstripped available plant. They tended to create more problems
than they solved, since users complained that dial tone delivered via
AML wouldn't work with the new, higher speed modems that also flooded
the market in the same time frame.

Ma Bell eventually abandoned them in most areas, prefering instead to
build new capacity. They're still available in the secondary market.

HTH.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: An Unsettling Surprise: Victimized by ID Theft
Date: 25 Jul 2005 11:28:28 -0700


Andrew Plato wrote:

> IN MY OPINION

> The irony of my experience is that I am a computer-security
> professional. I make my living helping organizations secure their
> information systems from break-ins and theft. ...

While there are good points in here, it sounds like a back-handed
advertisement for his services.

As a security professional, he probably has the means to find out
exactly how his identity was stolen and the account set up, but he
didn't elaborate in detail.  I think that detail is important to share
with us lay people, especially on an actual case.

> When I called the police to report this crime, the officer was blunt
> about my predicament. He said police get hundreds of identity-theft
> claims every week, and almost all of them go unpunished. And because
> credit firms don't hold consumers liable, these crimes are considered
> victimless.

This attitude on the part of law enforcement needs to be changed.
It's been documented that this attitude is responsible for the growth
since criminals know they'll get away with it.  My local newspaper
described how a used-car salesman would color-photocopy a buyer's
driver's license then use it for fraudulent purposes.  He was not
aggressively prosecuted because the amount stolen was below their
threshhold.

> All crime has two components: motivation and opportunity. People must
> be motivated to commit a crime and have the opportunity to do so. We
> cannot do much about motivation, but we can surely do something about
> opportunity.

Actually, us lay people can do NOTHING about 'opportunity'.  I have no
idea what big data warehouses handle my information, let alone dictate
to them to maintain proper controls and security.

'Motivation' is a tougher challenge, but must be addressed as well.
All the locks in the world won't stop a determined thief.  We need to
know (1) who are the perpetrators of these thefts and (2) what will be
truly effective deterrents.  I suspect they know it's very hard to get
caught, let alone sent to prison, from doing this kind of thing.
Society is much more focused on 'violent' crime.  If you use a gun to
steal $100 you'll be in worse trouble than using a PC to steal
$10,000.  Being robbed at gunpoint is very traumatic but people will
recover and the property loss manageable.  Being robbed secretly of
'identity' is equally traumatic and a lot tougher to recover--the
theft keeps coming back day after day with more bad news arriving in
the mail.

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

From: techie@tantivy.tantivy.net (Bob Vaughan)
Subject:  Re: Ethics of Deterrence
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:47:07 UTC
Organization:  Tantivy Associates


In article <telecom24.337.6@telecom-digest.org>,

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if anyone besides me has 
> noticed how this whole thing has deteriorated from evil nasty spammers
> as the _true_ villians to evil nasty netizens trying to harm a good
> and pure web site; for how many ever years, when filtering was thought
> to be the answer to everything, so many netters would say 'ho hum,
> lets crank up the filter a little more' to desparately try to
> eliminate them. Now that we are close to the hundred percent
> saturation point with spam (as some of us predicted long ago) and
> filtering has been shown to be a dismal failure, at least among
> netizens who have to shovel it out by the truck load each day, and
> thought has been given to taking a more agressive deterence posture,
> these same guys who were so, well, almost _casual_ about installing 
> more and more filtering are now getting desparate in their paranoia
> as they defend the spammers and their (spammers) 'right of free 
> speech' as it were. 

> Tell me this John, is there some sort of 'Spammers Legal Defense Fund'
> you guys sponsor or contribute to?

No, we are not in favor of spam, but we are against collateral damage
to innocent parties in the name of fighting spam.

> When spammers (ever so rarely) get sued by a government agency do
> you guys hire lawyers to help defend them?

No, see above.

> Why did ICANN (and its cheering squad on the net) fight so
> vigorously against the federal government's CAN-SPAM proposed
> legislation; making up all sorts of mumbo-jumbo about 'how it will not
> work, so do not waste your time on it'? 

The fight against CAN-SPAM was based on several major problems with
the legislation:

1. It explicity permits spam, unless the recipient requests to be
   removed (opt-out), instead of prohibiting spam, unless the
   recipient requests it (opt-in).

2. It prohibits individual or class-action lawsuits against spammers by
   email recipients, but allows enforcement by the FTC, state attorneys
   general, ISP's, and other federal agencies for special categories of
   spam (banks).

2. It supercedes state laws, except for laws pertaining to fraud. Most of
   the state laws that were superceded were of the opt-in variety,
   which did not restrict the rights of the spam recipient to bring suit.

In other words, CAN-SPAM is worse than no legislation at all, in that
it restricts the rights of individuals to sue spammers, and restricts
the rights of states to enact real legislation with penalties, while
making spam into a legitimate business.

Would you rather have your house protected by a trained attack dog
under your direct control, or would you rather have congress tell you
that you can't own your own attack dog, but that they will provide a
few toothless poodles instead, but they will be kept in Washington.

> Why does ICANN interject itself, with its so-called 'expert
> testimony' in all these cases where legislation is pending, when
> instead of giving expert testimony they merely want to hawk their
> own agenda?  It all really amazes me. Why do you guys object so
> vigorously when netizens try self help?  If our ideas are such a
> damn fool waste of time, then please, __let us find it out for
> ourselves__; quit trying to save us from ourselves.  Obviously your
> passive filtering solutions have not worked; why can't we try our
> way instead? What is your _real objection_ anyway?  PAT]

The real objections are to the potential for serious collateral damage
to innocent parties, and to the potential for these anti-spam tools to
be used as the mechanism for DDoS attacks against innocent parties.

Filtering does not affect innocent parties, unless they try to send
you email, and are blocked from doing so.

DDoS attacks do affect innocent parties, and are illegal.

A DDoS attack by proxy is still a DDoS attack.

Coordination with others for the purpose of initiating a DDoS attack
is conspiracy to commit a crime, which is itself a crime.


               -- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan  | techie @ tantivy.net 		  |
	     | P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So if an airplane crashes into a
building in New York City and everyone jumps on their telephone at one
time to chat with everyone else about it and 90 percent of the 
residents cannot get a dial tone or connection, that is a Denial of
Service is it not? Whose fault is it?  Or a new very popular web site
starts up and everyone tries to look at it at one time, and quite a
few callers get turned away as a result. Whose fault is that?  When is
it ever my fault if I attempt to use a communications link somewhere
and a million other folks are trying to do the same and I get turned
away. Is congestion on the telephone network or a computer network 
ever of concern to me (as in to be blamed for same)?  Maybe the phone
company needs more circuits or the ISP or the web page owner need more
resources?  If each person who sees a piece of spam objects to the
piece of spam (and the owner of same having been positively identified)
chooses to complain to the owner is it really _my concern_ if the
computer links (or phone lines or other communication system) is too
crowded?  

Anyone who had something other than the WTC situation to talk about on
9-11-01 was one of your innocent parties which got injured, were they
not since the phones were all screwed up that day. And if a person
that wanted to place an order for some merchandise they could not get
through on the phone, could they?  And if X number of people were on
their computer complaining with someone about unwanted email they had
recieved and another person came along who did in fact want some of
that merchandise then they would not be able to get through either,
would they?  If you send out several million spams, I have to assume
you expect to get at least a few thousand orders for your product,
with the requisite customer service correspondence to go along with
it. AOL, Yahoo, MSN and Google are all anticipating _lots_ of traffic,
so they prepare accordingly with plenty of circuits and equipment. 
If for some reason, they get more responses than they expected, things
will get very hectic on the computer. Should I get the blame for all
that as well?  

You know, Bob, your claims that it is a 'crime' for some people to
respond in a negative way to a product on the computer is really
stretching things pretty thin.  If it makes you feel better to refer
to those concerted complaints as a 'crime' in order to twist things
around and make out the spammers to be 'poor innocent business people'
who have been 'victimized' by a relative handful of netizens filing
complaints, then please go ahead and do so. But no matter what you
say, it is _not_ a crime when someone's network resources run low
because of a huge response (pro or con) to a message the person sent
out. Nor is it a crime when a group of people get very excited about
some situation and begin chatting with others about it. So call it
whatever you want, it is _not_ DDOS when a million (or any number of
users) respond -- even all at once -- when they are asked something. 
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 #338
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues