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     Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:56:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 377

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Jamster Runs up Your Cell Phone Bill and Spams you Also (Martin Bosworth)
    Sprint, Nextel Nerger (Consumer Affairs)
    Yet More on FiOS (Lee Sweet)
    Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC (Fred Atkinson)
    Two VOIP Boxes On the Same Port (Fred Atkinson)
    Worm Infects Hospital Systems / Security Breach at MGH (Monty Solomon)
    Norvergence Again: NYS Att. Gen. Spitzer With More Settlements (Burstein)
    Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack (jtaylor)
    Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack (Daryl Gibson)
    Re: More on Verizon FioS Requirements (George Berger)
    Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief (J Kelly)
    Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief (Devils PGD)
    Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold (Devils PGD)
    Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold (Mark Crispin)

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: Martin H. Bosworth <bosworth@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Jamster Runs up Your Cell Phone Bill and Spams you Also
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:36:01 -0500


By Martin H. Bosworth   ConsumerAffairs.Com

The next time you feel like downloading the latest hot single as a
cell phone ring tone, listen carefully. That sound you hear may be
your wallet deflating, thanks to charges on your bill from services
you didn't even know you were buying.

Jamster, a subsidiary of Internet infrastructure provider VeriSign
that specializes in custom content for mobile devices, has been
accused of defrauding customers into paying for ring tones they didn't
authorize, and using deceptive marketing to lure consumers into
purchasing its products.

One irate customer filed a lawsuit in San Diego alleging that applying
for Jamster's "free ring tones" actually result in receiving "junk
text" messages that subscribers get charged for.

The lawsuit alleges that Jamster would promote free downloadable ring
tones to any subscriber who registered with its site or responded to
the advertisement by sending a text message with a special code.

The subscriber would then receive multiple messages from Jamster
stating that its content was available for download. However, the
subscriber would be charged for every text message sent from Jamster,
at a rate of $1.99 per message plus fees from their wireless carrier.

The lawsuit also names wireless providers AT&T Wireless, Cingular and
T-Mobile as defendants. SBC Communications, which owns Cingular
jointly with BellSouth, is a Verisign client, as was AT&T Wireless
prior to its buyout by Cingular.

"What we're seeing is a lot of people seeing these ads and thinking
they can download a ring tone or wall paper for their phone, and
suddenly they're signed up for a subscription," said Kate Hartman, one
of the attorneys on the case.

Hartman sees Jamster and wireless providers as "using your phone bill
like a credit card," automatically charging customers for service
without explaining or even identifying what the charges are.

Another problem Hartman identified is that many frustrated customers
cancel their plans in order to be rid of Jamster, thus incurring heavy
"early termination" fees. Not only that, but phone numbers from
canceled contracts are recycled and given to new customers, who
suddenly have to contend with charges from Jamster without ever having
used or encountered the service.

Consumer Affairs.Com has received several complaints from cell
phone subscribers wondering how they ended up with charges from Jamster
on their bills.

Leslie C., from Oakland, CA, signed herself and her husband for
T-Mobile's Family Share plan, only to find that she received
unauthorized charges from Jamster for the first two months.

"It outrages me that a ring tone company can send him ring tones and
charge [us] without some action required on his part to accept these
charges. These charges were never permitted by myself or my husband
and seem completely illegal."

Steve from Cleveland, OH receives multiple text messages from Jamster
on his phone each week. "I have tried e-mailing them through their web
site but the spamming does not stop. [There is] no tangible damage,
just severe annoyance and frustration over the fact that I have no way
to stop getting spammed over and over by the same company."

Jamster's terms of service specify that if a user downloads content
from the company onto their phone, "you represent that you are at
least 13 years of age and have the consent of the subscriber of a
participating mobile communications carrier to sign-up for and use the
Jamster service on behalf of the subscriber," and that the download
constitutes an agreement to use its services.

Critics of Jamster contend that the service advertises on
teen-oriented television shows and channels such as Nickelodeon and
MTV in order to convince young cell phone users to get the "free ring
tone."

An online petition entitled Stop Jamster.com is filled with tales of
woe from defrauded customers, as well as vitriolic sentiment for the
company's ubiquitous "Crazy Frog" ad and ring tone.

"I'm tired of seeing commercials for stupid, useless add-ons for
my phone that no one could possibly ever need.and I want to kil
l that stupid frog," fumes one signer.

Not only are Jamster clients irate. Cell phone content provider Jamdat
Mobile has filed suit against VeriSign alleging infringement on its
trademark.

Copyright 2003-2005 ConsumerAffairs.Com Inc. 

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. For more consumer news each day, go to 
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html in the far left column.

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

From: Consumer Affairs <consumer@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Sprint, Nextel Complete Merger
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:37:46 -0500


Sprint and Nextel have officially completed their $35 billion merger,
although subscribers won't see the effects for at least the next few
weeks. Sometime next month, subscribers will be able to switch from
one provider to the other without paying cancellation fees.

            Sprint-Nextel
            . Sprint, Nextel Complete Merger
            . FCC Clears Sprint, Nextel Merger
            . Shareholders OK Sprint, Nextel Merger
            . Sprint and Nextel Make It Official
            . Sprint, Nextel Merger May Be Next
            . Verizon In Bid For Sprint?

Also, customers whose plans include free in-network calling will
be able to call free to both Sprint and Nextel customers sometime next
month, the company said.

The merger solidifies Sprint Nextel's hold on the #3 position among
U.S. wireless carriers with 44 million subscribers. It trails No.  2
Verizon Wireless, with 45.5 million subscribers, and No. 1 Cingular
Wireless, with more than 50 million subscribers.

The merger creates a company with 80,000 employees nationwide. In a
blow to the Kansas City area, where Sprint has been located since its
founding, the new entity's headquarters will be in Reston, Va., where
Nextel got its start. The new company will maintain its operations
center in suburban Overland Park, Kansas.

Sprint Nextel will concentrate on the wireless business, selling off
the local telephone businesses Sprint operates in 18 states. The local
telephone business has been steadily losing subscribers while Sprint
and Nextel have each grown their wireless businesses nearly 10 percent
in the eight months since the merger was announced.

Sprint Nextel's combined networks cover approximately 268 million people.

Sprint was founded in 1899 by Cleyson Brown under the Brown Telephone
Company name in the small town of Abilene, Kansas. It was a landline
telephone company that operated as a competitor to the Bell System. In
the mid 20th century, Brown changed its name to United Utilities. That
company changed its name to United Telecommunications in 1972, as it
began to offer a more diversified product range.

In 1986, the company launched its long distance services under the
Sprint brand name. As more people became familiar with the Sprint name,
the company changed its from United to Sprint Corporation in 1992.

In 1995, the company began to offer wireless service under the
Sprint PCS brand.

NEXTEL was founded as FleetCall in 1987, promoting its "push-to-talk"
feature. It changed its name to NEXTEL Communications in 1993.

Copyright 2005 ConsumerAffairs.com

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. See far left hand column for consumer news.

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

From: Lee Sweet <lee@datatel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:41:40 -0400
Subject: Yet More on FiOS


John's comments are quite true, I believe, *if* you are in an area
where you are "forced" to get VZN fiber.  If you aren't required to
get the fiber, and want to use another ISP in order to run your own
local servers, I'd retain the copper so you have the option to use
another ISP that is more flexible.

In VZN's defense (can't believe I'm saying that ...), I do see why
they have blocks on inbound port 80 (for web servers) and the like,
because of the high upload bandwidth of the fiber network (2 Mb
mimimum?), if they didn't, *everyone* would be running servers.

Now, as for the storage limitations, for example, I don't use my
current ISP (a mix of VZN DSL and Adelphia Cable) for anything except
'connectivity', and don't expect to use FiOS otherwise.  I use
Dreamhost; for $9.95 a month, I get two domains, all the email
addresses I could want, webmail access for when I'm away from home,
gigabytes of storage, tons of things I don't use, and even a shell
account on their machine.  Very sastified customer here!  (See
http://www.dreamhost.com for details.)  

On Michael's question, I assume this is the same point I raised, and
the VZN reps are really talking about the fact that they 'give' you a
new combo router-wireless-access-point.  As I remarked, you can have
the installers shut that one down after they test it, and then you put
the PPPoE login/password into your old router, and you are good to go.
The CSRs, as we all well know, usually don't have a clue beyond what's
on the screen in front of them and say things like "you have to use",
when they mean "normally it's the case that you do this when you don't
know any better".

> Subject: Re: More on Verizon FioS Requirements
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:28:05 -0400
> From: Michael Quinn <quinnm@bah.com>

> This FIOS thread reminds me of a guestion I had.  Verizon non-technical
> rep recently told me that we would have to upgrade our wireless router
> from to 802.11B to G if we went from their DSL to FIOS.  She could not
> explain why;  anyone know if that's really the case?  I can't see
> scrapping an entirely good router unnecessarily; I regularly see speeds
> (according to my IBM laptop wireless monitor) of 11 MBPS, which of
> course well exceeds my DSL capacity. 

> Regards,

> Mike

Lee Sweet
Datatel, Inc.
Manager of Telephony Services 
   and Information Security
How higher education does business.

Voice: 703-968-4661
Cell: 703-932-9425
Fax: 703-968-4625
lee@datatel.com
www.datatel.com

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:23:19 -0400


I recently moved to Sylva, NC to work in nearby Cullowhee, NC (it's
about a fifteen minute drive (tops) between the two places).

Our local calling area is between three small cities, Sylva,
Cullowhee, and Cashiers.  Anything outside that zone is long distance
for us.

I acquired Voicepulse VOIP service when I moved here.  They offered
Sylva and Cashiers, NC telephone exchanges.  I got a Sylva number on
the 534 exchange.  It's been working fine.

Today, I tried to dial into my home number from work so I could check my
voicemail.  I dialed 9 and then 53 and got no farther.  It retuned a busy
signal.  We tried it from several different phones and got the same results.

I called the telecom guys and told them of this dilemna.  Despite the
fact that I had explained about it being from a VOIP provider, he
asked me several times if it was a Verizon exchange.  I told him no,
it wasn't.  It was a special services exchange in the Sylva, NC area.

He told me he couldn't get it added to the switch without going
through a bunch of hoops (a number of people had to sign off on it).
I couldn't believe it.  All he should have to do is call their
provider and confirm that it is a local exchange.

Meantime, my colleagues cannot call me at home (from work) when a need
arises.

Bureaucracy at its best.

Regards,

Fred


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You should have just told him "yes, it
is a local number; a new exchange just opened in the past year or so."
As soon as you got into the discussion about it being VOIP and a 
'special services exchange' you probably shorted out his little
one-volt brain. 

I had an _identical_ situation several years ago. A place where I was
working had a Rolm PBX. A new exchange was started in Chicago and I
had a phone on it. The PBX guy was a real bureaucrat also and knew
little or nothing about the repair/maintainence/programming of it.
Naturally he assumed everyone else in the office was too dumb to know
anything about it also. I told him three or four times that particular
exchange (312-836) should be added, but of course he knew so much
better than me. I had various phone numbers I could use, but I decided
one day the only one I would put on company records was that 312-836
number. I knew it would only be a matter of time until _someone_ in
authority around there needed to reach me, and _they_ would be the
one to come down hard on this idiot -- which I had no authority to
do. Sure enough, it took two or three weeks, but one day I got a 
phone call from the office manager asking if I could come in that
evening and do a special job for him. And he was calling me, with an
angry tone of voice from a payphone down the street somewhere when he
could not get through on his office phone. A couple days later, the 
Rolm PBX had been reprogrammed to dial 312-836 numbers.

So Fred, why don't you consider making that VOIP number the _only_
number on file for you with the company. Back them into a corner and
_someone_ will get the bureaucatic nonsense eliminated there.  Give
them no alternate numbers, no easy way to ignore the problem.   PAT]

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

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Two VOIP Boxes on the same port
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:29:31 -0400


As I've previously mentioned, I've just moved from Columbia, SC to
Sylva, NC.  I took my Vonage phone (Columbia number) with me and got a
new VOIP phone from Voicepulse (Sylva, NC number).  I've got both of
them connected to my Cisco 831 router via Ethernet cables.

I've been having some problems getting fast busies when dialing.  I
hang up and dial it a second time and it goes through.  Voicepulse was
not able to sort it out so I contacted Sipura, who was the
manufacturer of the VOIP adapter (Sipura 3000).

Sipura said that having two VOIP devices on a single router can be a
problem.  To fix it, they said that you have to change the SIP port on
one of them.  Typically, I believe they said that it was on port 5061
and 5062.  They suggested changing one of them to 5063 or above.

I called Voicepulse and asked them to make the change.  They said that
wasn't possible.  I spoke with the supervisor there.  He said that
their system wouldn't accomodate me using a different SIP port from
the one I have now.

Can the VOIP experts on here sort this out?  To expand upon my system,
I have a Cisco 831 home/office router connected to Mediacom
cablemodem.  Each VOIP device is plugged directly into an Ethernet
port on the router.

Is Sipura's story plausible?  How likely is it that Voicepulse is
telling the truth about not being able to change the SIP port to
communicate with their system?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Fred

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

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:23:46 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Worm Infects Hospital Systems / Security Breach at MGH, Brigham


By Christopher Rowland, Globe Staff

The computer worm that struck systems around the nation over the last
week breached security at Partners HealthCare Systems Inc. and
infected 800 computers at four of its five acute-care hospitals,
including Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's in Boston.

Partners called the breach 'modest' and said it did not appear to have
affected patient care or compromised medical records. The healthcare
network has 55,000 computerized devices connected to its systems.

Responding to an alert of a vulnerability last week by Microsoft
Corp., Partners computer experts had already installed preventive
measures on the most sensitive records systems by the time the worm
attacked Saturday night, said John Glaser, Partners chief information
officer.

The systems affected were lower in priority, including computers used 
in research and in the human resources department, he said. The worm 
caused the computers to repeatedly reboot on their own, but did not 
destroy data.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/08/19/worm_infects_hospital_systems/

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

From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: Norvergence Again ... NYS Att. Gen. Spitzer With More Settlements
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:57:56 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced settlements with four
additional financial institutions in connection with widespread
telecommunications fraud involving NorVergence, Inc., a bankrupt New
Jersey-based telecommunications company.

Under the terms of the newly announced agreements, BB&T Leasing
Company, Interchange Bank, R-G Crown Bank (d/b/a Crown Bank Leasing),
and National Penn Leasing Company, will forgive $2.8 million (90% of
the balances on outstanding leases) in payments due from 111 New York
customers, who signed long-term contracts with NorVergence ....

 ... rest of press release gives the sordid Norvergence
     history we all know so well and lists various
     other leasing companies who've joined in the write-offs,
     as well as a few who still haven't ...

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/aug18a_05.html
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
 		     dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll tell you, it really feels good to
see all those stupid, sleazy financial houses having to get their
noses rubbed in their own messes, doesn't it?  They all thought they
were _so_ smart, that they could rely on that 'holder in due course'
argument and force everyday business people to have to pay for _their_
mistakes in not evaluating the paper they were agreeing to take on.
I wonder how many salesmen (in that business, a 'salesman' is the
person who brings in new business to the company) who were originally
rewarded with fancy dinners and bonuses for the 'great new account'
they brought the company (in this case Norvergence was their client)
have since been fired and sent packing for in effect causing the house
to have to write off millions of dollars at the government's 'request'
to avoid getting sued -- same as the house would have sued the poor
debtor who stood up for his rights had not the government gone to bat
for them. I hope they learned from this lesson, and I hope at least
a few will go under from the write offs they had to take.   PAT]

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

From: jtaylor <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com>
Subject: Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:07:24 -0300
Organization: MCI Canada News Reader Service


<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:telecom24.376.12@telecom-digest.org:

> We must remember that Pearl Harbor was more than a mere attack.  At
> that time the Japanese were officially engaged in peace negotiations
> with the U.S.  When one is negotiating, one does not make war.  The
> Japanese diplomatic in the U.S. did not break off diplomatic until well
> after the attack -- which he didn't even know about.  That was act of
> sleaziness by the Japanese government.

No, it was not "sleaziness".

The Japanese government fully intended to stop the peace negotiations
before the attack occured, but the diplomatic staff at the Japanese
emabssy was too slow decoding the message sent from Japan.

And it's a diplomat's job to do whatever his government tells him to,
regardless of whether or not he knows its intentions in advance.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:03:47 -0700
From: Daryl Gibson <daryl.gibson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Too bad the people who did not know
> about the possibility of Pearl Harbor did not read the Honolulu Adver-
> tiser the Friday before, when its lead story told about the very stong
> possibility of an attack by 'the Japs, over the weekend'.

True, the allies had been expecting an attack, but most people thought
it would be at Wake or the Phillipines. Who knows what the Advertiser
story said, or where they got their information.  Because the United
States was intercepting and reading the Japanese diplomatic ciphers,
they knew something was coming. Should Kimmel have kept his eyes open?
Should Short have expected an attack? Certainly ... but they didn't.
They seem to have been moderately incompetent. If they had any idea
that the attack was going to happen that day, they wouldn't have been
on their way to a golf game when the attack happened.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's note, continued:

> And although the Japanese had planned the attack for Monday morning,
> _someone_ neglected to recall the International Date Line. It was
> late at night Sunday when they started out from Japan; dateline
> moved it back to Saturday night. PAT]

This is just plain silly. Yes, the Japanese consider December 8, 1941
the day of the attack -- it was that day in Japan. But the Japanese
navy *planned* on attacking on Sunday morning -- when the fleet's
guard was down. And the planes took off from carriers a hundred miles
or so away from Hawaii, not from Japan! If you want to read more about
this, try the aforementioned book, Nakamoto's biography, or even the
movie Tora Tora Tora.

As far as the Kuwait attack, the State Department did not set it up --
unless you assume that they intentionally stationed a stupid
diplomatic officer in Iraq. When questioned about how the United
States felt about "border skirmishes among the Arabs," she reportedly
told them that the United States didn't care about border skirmishes.
The Iraqis considered it a border skirmish -- for whatever reason.
Obviously, the rest of the world didn't.

People are going to see idiotic conspiracies anyway -- but most of the
things that are cited are the result of a mix of stupidity and
carelessness.

Daryl

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

From: George Berger <gberger@his.com>
Subject: Re: More on Verizon FioS Requirements
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:12:59 -0400
Organization: Heller Information Services


And, those of us who use Macs are automatically cut out, as
Verizon/MSN does not support Macs -- and why anyone using Macs,
especially Panther / Tiger would want to fool with MSN really doesn't
compute.


I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
            -- Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman (attributed)

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

From: J Kelly <jkelly@*newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:10:44 -0500
Organization: http://newsguy.com
Reply-To: jkelly@*newsguy.com


A few months back some dirtbag got ahold of my debit card number. No
idea how.  They debit $500 to a poker website.  I caught it within 24
hours and had the bank to a hot card.  I was told that FDIC rules
require the bank to CLOSE an account in which any of the imformation
is known to have been compromised.  I'm curious why they didn't close
your account, especially since physical checks were stolen.

Of course, if they did, and you opened a new account the info would be
compromised as soon as you write a new check.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The sneak thief got two of my
_original_  boxes of checks, numbered 101 through 125 and 126 through
150. They had never been opened, since it is very rare that I ever
write a manual check. The guy did not get my debit card or any
access to my bank account otherwise. The bank manager simply noted
my account 'no manual checks ever written on this account' and said
she would watch my account for a few days in case Walmart (or some
other store of that ilk) had gotten a check. No word on that yet, so
maybe they did not take a check, since the thief would have not had
any of my identification anyway, which Walmart (hopefully) would have
insisted on but local merchants probably would not have required since
so many of them know me and the missing checks _were_ imprinted with
my address and phone number (but not my SSN).  PAT]

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:07:12 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.376.9@telecom-digest.org> Dan Lanciani
<ddl@danlan.com> wrote:

> jmcharry@comcast.net (John McHarry) wrote:

>> I had a rather large ACH
>> transfer executed in the wrong direction a while back. The company
>> that screwed it up managed to straighten it out, but the bank that was
>> supposed to receive funds, and instead disbursed them, didn't do
>> squat.

> What was the bank's response when you asked them to reverse the
> unauthorized disbursal?

>> Apparently there is no security in that system beyond trusting
>> those who are admitted, which is pretty much all the big corporations.

> Proponents of the system claim that no further security is required
> because the paying bank is obligated to unwind the transaction upon
> the account owner's statement that the payment was unauthorized.  On
> the other hand, some people report significant problems getting their
> money back after unauthorized ACH debits.  They can't both be right;
> hence my question.  (I realize that unwinding the transaction would
> have solved only half of your particular problem, of course.)

Just because the bank is obligated doesn't mean they'll make it easy
or fun.  Ultimately you'll get your money back, but the hassle makes
it sometimes not worth the pain.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:07:12 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.376.10@telecom-digest.org> TELECOM Digest
Editor noted in response to John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But they do that now, with filtering
> programs. Filtering, never a perfect solution, now can filter out
> the sexual topic of women's breasts, but the problem is it cannot
> seem to understand why 'breast cancer' is not the same thing as 'I
> love to look at and fantasize on those breasts'.  But to the filter
> writers, what is there that you cannot understand about '.xxx'?  If
> I write a filter and I say that a dot followed by three x's goes no
> further into my computer, then other things like the context in which
> 'breasts' or 'sex' or whatever is to be taken becomes a moot point
> doesn't it?  If the real problem that '.xxx' makes writing and main-
> taining filtering programs too easy?  If local communities or govern-
> ments decide what is to go into '.xxx' it would seem to me that all
> the fuss over effective and ineffective filtering would go away.  PAT]

Sure *IF* the whole world decided what goes into .xxx, everybody
agreed AND everybody played nice.

BUT ... Even ignoring the fact that defining what belongs in .xxx is
impossible (what's obscene?  What's pornographic?  In the middle east, a
women without a head covering is probably pornographic.  In the US,
Janet Jackson's nipple was obviously a problem.  In Europe, a photo of a
topless 17 year old isn't obscene) there is another issue: 

You can't even get Russian web hosts to terminate child porn which is
illegal virtually everywhere, so what do you think the odds are they'll
give a damn about a nipple?

At the end of the day the only workable solution is to create an
restrictive/exclusive .kids or .family (or whatever gTLD would be
appropriate) and set restrictions on that TLD which are enforced by
the registry/registrars responsible and don't require cooperation of
*everybody*


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So tell me what makes .kids or .family
any different than .sex except for the direction it goes?  And what
do you propose to do with the people who say 'what right have you got
to tell me what is appropriate for my family/kids?  You would not want
to settle for enforcement standards on that (family/kids) any more
than you would want to try and enforce it for .sex so what is the
difference?  We also presently have 'K12' or 'K-12' do we not?  I 
wonder how they ever got _that one_ through, given the guys on the net
always dragging their red-herrings out?  PAT]

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

From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject:  Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold
Date:  Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:04:08 -0700
Organization:  Networks & Distributed Computing


Pat writes:

> If local communities or governments decide what is to go into '.xxx' it 
> would seem to me that all the fuss over effective and ineffective 
> filtering would go away.

Everybody:

Please read RFC 3675 before commenting further on this subject.

-- Mark --

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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To make it easy for readers to find
this _fascinating document_ that Mark refers to I am providing a link
here: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3675.html sub-titled '.sex
considered dangerous', it is an interesting sermon-length document
which explains why the author has such hatred and bias against a TLD
known as '.sex' All the author's objections could likewise be applied
to '.com' or '.org' or '.edu' as well, and if a couple of guys here in
this mailing list are to be believed, '.org' is free to be (and I will
suggest, is) abused at present. A finer collection of red-herrings
you'll not find anywhere than those presented in RFC 3675. Thanks for
pointing it out, Mark.   PAT]

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


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications 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 #377
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues