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 Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:07:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 379 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Spammer Diversifies, Gets Rich, Goes to Jail (Steve Karnowski) Campaigners Prepare to Battle EU Storage Rules (Huw Jones) Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port (Robert Bonomi) Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port (Gordon Burditt) Re: Don't Forget Peter Jennings'... Flaw (William Warren) Re: Linux vs. Windows: TCO Comparison (Jim Haynes) Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC (Robert Bonomi) Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack (Wesrock@aol) Re: Yet More on FiOS (jmeissen@aracnet.com) Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold (DevilsPGD) Re: Last Sad Laugh! new.site.p0rn0..ch|ldren$ 4601527 (Steven Lichter) 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: Steve Karnowski <ap@telecom-digest.org> Subject: Spammer Diversifies, Gets Rich, Goes to Jail Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:10:38 -0500 By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer Christopher Smith's neighbors didn't know exactly what he did for a living. But they knew well that he liked to collect expensive cars and set off fireworks at all hours. At an age when most of his peers could barely afford a new car, Smith was amassing a collection that would include BMWs, Hummers, a Ferrari, a Jaguar and a Lamborghini. And when other 20-somethings were trying to save for down payments on modest starter homes, Smith paid $1.1 million for a house in a more affluent suburb. Smith got all that through his successes in massive unsolicited e-mail marketing, authorities say. The Spamhaus Project, an anti-spam group, considered him one of the world's worst offenders. He was just 25 when the feds in May shut down his flagship company, Xpress Pharmacy Direct, and seized $1.8 million in luxury cars, two homes and $1.3 million in cash held by Smith and associates. But even then, prosecutors say, he refused to give up. They say he tried to relaunch his online pharmacy from an offshore haven -- the Dominican Republic -- intending to build his business back up to $4.1 million in sales by its second month, right where it was before. Brian McWilliams, author of "Spam Kings," said young people like Smith aren't unusual in the fast-buck world of spammers. "A lot of them are guys who haven't had success anywhere else in life but they find this easy money to be made in the spam trade," he said. "They don't want to give it up." Authorities were waiting when Smith flew back to Minneapolis in late June. Smith remains free on bail as he awaits another hearing Thursday on contempt-of-court charges for which prosecutors are seeking six months in jail. He also faces a grand jury investigation of his e-mail businesses, which could lead to more charges and potentially longer sentences. The high school dropout, operating under the nickname Rizler, got his start in the late 1990s, selling police radar and laser jammers. Along the way he added cable TV descramblers and other products. After Time Warner Cable got an injunction in 2002 putting Smith out of the descrambler business, he diversified and generated more than $18 million in sales from drugs online, including the often-abused narcotic painkiller Vicodin, without obtaining proper prescriptions, federal prosecutors say. Smith's former neighbors in a hilly, heavily wooded part of Burnsville were glad to see him go after he moved to pricier, more secluded digs in Prior Lake over the winter. Sue Parson said things began to get out of hand in May 2004. When her husband complained about loud fireworks, she said, Smith's response was: "Too bad. We can set them off if we want to." Not long after one complaint, someone set off fireworks at the foot of the Parsons' driveway early one morning, she said. Neighbors didn't know exactly what Smith did for a living. Parson said he told one person he had a lawn service, another that he was "into computers" and yet another that he was "into pharmaceuticals." "There were these Hummers outside, the limos outside," she said. "It was like, 'Where do these people get their money from?'" Just four days after a federal judge put Xpress Pharmacy Direct into receivership, Smith made what prosecutors say was a brazen play to stay in business. Smith took off for the Dominican Republic and went to work setting up a new online pharmacy and call center, where prosecutors say helped he'd be safe from extradition and out of the reach of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Former employees, his wife and even his girlfriend brought or sent Smith "substantial sums of cash" there, and one former employee passed him a disk with data on more than 100,000 Xpress Pharmacy customers, court documents and testimony allege. Smith even managed to withdraw some money from an account that was supposed to be frozen. He also launched two new Web sites, the documents allege. In the Dominican Republic, Smith was a guest of Creaghan Harry, a man the government described as another notorious spammer. According to the court documents, Harry, who runs a call center there, earned more than $2 million from Smith for telemarketing. Harry said the call center he manages, Santo Domingo-based Americas Best Worldwide, was just one of many that took orders for Smith. He said it had no other connection with Smith's new business. "We basically got pulled in to this because Chris Smith decided to come down here," Harry told The Associated Press. "But we are not his company or even his call center. Taking pharmaceutical orders is only a small part of our business." Harry acknowledged that Smith had stayed in his Santo Domingo apartment for a week in early June, but then left for a beach resort in Boca Chica, outside Santo Domingo, where he took up scuba diving. He then went to the eastern island resort town of Punta Cana, Harry said. "It just seemed Chris was on vacation," he said. Though Smith mentioned over a few lunches in Santo Domingo that he planned to start up a new business, he didn't offer details, Harry said. Whether it was a business trip or vacation, it ended with Smith going straight to jail when he returned to Minnesota. Authorities arrested him on a contempt-of-court warrant and said in court last month that they plan to seek unspecified criminal charges against him. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicole Engisch told U.S. District Judge Michael Davis a grand jury has been hearing evidence against Smith and others she did not name. She said she did not know when indictments might come down, nor did she say what the charges might be. Smith and his stepfather declined to comment on his legal troubles as he left the courthouse the next day after his release on $50,000 bail. Prosecutors also declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing investigation. Smith's father, Scott Smith, declined to comment for this story after initially agreeing to talk. In an earlier interview with the Star Tribune, he portrayed his son as a business genius who dropped out of high school because he was bored. "That spamming stuff they talk about, sometimes Chris may have been a middleman helping other business people, but he never broke the law. I'm sure of it," Scott Smith told the newspaper. As Smith sat in Davis' courtroom, wearing orange jail garb and flashing an occasional forlorn smile at his father and wife, high-profile local defense lawyer Joe Friedberg conceded that Smith had violated the judge's May 20 injunction by taking $2,000 from a frozen account. But Friedberg contends the government hasn't proven that anything else Smith did in the Dominican Republic was illegal. As Davis freed Smith on bail, he put him on home monitoring and ordered him to surrender his passports. And Davis admonished Smith: Stay away from computers and don't set up any more Web sites. On the Net: Spamhaus background on Rizler: http://www.rizler.com Associated Press Writer Peter Prengaman contributed to this story from Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Steve Karnowski can be reached at skarnowski(at)ap.org Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. 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. AP News Radio and headlines 24/7 at: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html ------------------------------ From: Huw Jones <newswire@telecom-digest.org> Subject: Campaigners Prepare to Battle EU Data Storage Bill Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:09:39 -0500 By Huw Jones Telecom firms and civil liberty groups are readying themselves to influence a battle next month between European Union member states and the European Commission over rival plans to log calls and emails to combat terror. A council of EU justice and interior ministers put forward a data-logging plan after the March 2004 Madrid train bombs, saying retaining such data would help tackle terror and other crime. The attacks in London in July revived the plan. EU ministers have pledged to reach final agreement in October, but the Commission hopes it can persuade ministers to switch to the executive's proposal for a directive next month. The council text would only need member state approval, while the Commission's would need the go-ahead from the European Parliament as well as member states. "We expect the directive to be presented mid-September," said Alexander Alvaro, the German EU deputy responsible for data retention. The Commission has said it would present its proposal after the summer. "I don't believe the council will ignore this because if they do it would be an institutional slap in the face. Lobbying has increased quite a lot and now it's becoming serious." The presidency of the EU, currently held by Britain, had no immediate comment. Neither proposal seeks to log the content of email and telephone traffic. A draft of the Commission's proposal was recently obtained by the European Digital Rights group EDRI. The Commission wants calls and email traffic to be retained for six months to a year, while member states proposed up to 48 months. The council plan wants all Web addresses people use to be logged but the Commission draft makes no mention of this. Over 27,000 people have already signed an EDRI online anti-logging petition. "Large scale data mining will lead to many people's innocent behavior becoming suspicious," said Sjoera Nas, board member of EDRI, which sees no need for either proposal. "There will be this whole climactic battle in September between the Commission and the justice ministers," Nas said. Telecom firms outside the European Union also worry a lengthy retention period would become the norm for them as well. "What benefit is only half a call record? If American carriers are either originating or terminating an international call, then they are in fact covered by this requirement," Stephen Trotman, a senior vice president at U.S. carrier industry group CompTel in Washington said. "What's going to happen is that the additional cost of retaining, storing and sorting that data is going to be shifted to the consumer. The consumers will pay for their own privacy to be invaded," Trotman said. The council plan makes no mention of who would pay extra IT costs, while the Commission says in its draft proposal that governments should contribute toward compliance costs. A study by Dutch Erasmus University shows in nearly all 65 cases where traffic data was useful in combating crime, the police got the information they needed from data going back three months -- the typical period data is already stored by telecom firms for billing purposes. "Three months in general should be enough for storing data," Alvaro said. German industry bodies BITKOM, BDI and VATM said a solid and adequate impact study of the proposals has not been done and that any retention period must not exceed six months. Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new articles daily. ------------------------------ From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:47:56 -0000 Organization: Widgets, Inc. In article <telecom24.377.5@telecom-digest.org>, Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote: > 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? They are right. And you are right. To use their system, you have to contact their system at the IP address and port number(s) they specify. YOUR system, on the other hand, can be at any IP address you can use, and can _originate_ from any available port number on that address. Two devices trying to use the same originating address _and_ the same port number *will* confuse anything you try to talk to. Details of 'fixing' the situation depend on the gory details of your set-up. Do you have multiple IP addresses available to you? Or only a single address? Are you using DHCP? Are you using NAT/PAT? Depending on those answers, you _may_ be able to do the necessary things entirely in the Cisco 831. Or, you may have to access the configuration stuff for the VoIP devices. ------------------------------ From: gordonb.tqwky@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: Two VOIP Boxes on the Same Port Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:50:23 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > 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). A Sipura 3000 is effectively two SIP devices, one FXS (plug in an analog phone) and one FXO (plug in a phone line), which can cross-connect (e.g. dialing 911 can be routed out your local landline, and incoming calls on the analog line can be routed to the analog phone). Mine came with the FXS at port 5060 and FXO at 5061. If yours was preconfigured by a provider, it may be configured differently, and there may be lots of settings you can't change or even see at the option of the provider who configured it. > 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. You cannot have two devices on the same public IP and the same port, as a NAT gateway cannot decide where to send packets coming in from the outside. Since the Sipura 3000 is two sip devices, you'd need to set two alternate ports. If your setup has the two VOIP devices on two different public IP addresses (no NAT), this should present no problem (except for bandwidth and latency issues, which mostly has to do with pipe size). > 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. This may be administratively impractical. If you make an IP-to-IP SIP call (as your provider will be doing to send a call to you), is there even a syntax to specify an alternate port? Asterisk does have one, but it's far from obvious that everything else does. You might be able to get an alternate port to work for outgoing calls only on one of the devices. To take another example, if I set up an *EMAIL* server on an alternate port, I may be able to specially set up one of my servers to forward mail there (MX records do not include a port number), but there is no way to write an email address to get most of the servers in the world to forward mail there (e.g. user@do.main.com:26 doesn't work as an email address on most servers). I'd have to arrange for the mail to be routed through a server that uses a conventional port number. It is possible to set up SRV records to specify what port incoming calls come in on, if someone is calling using a domain name to dial. However this does not allow specifying two different ports where the caller is supposed to intelligently choose which one to used based on precognition. Providers usually figure out where to send the call based on registration, which may not track port numbers. > 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. I presume here that you have *ONE* public IP. This is part of the problem. > 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? An unlocked Sipura 3000 can be configured for an alternate port on your end. A locked one might also be configurable as to port number. The problem is more likely on their end, which does not consider the port to connect to on an outgoing call to be a variable. Gordon L. Burditt ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:32:13 -0400 From: William Warren <william_warren_nonoise@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Don't Forget Peter Jennings'... Flaw Pat wrote: > To answer your question bluntly and succintly (and with this benediction > I hope and pray this thread soon comes to a close without having to > rudely toss many of the messages on same) I _firmly_ and _strongly_ > support the US Constitution the way it is written. I do wish that > those guys in the 18th century, Adams, Jefferson, et al had been able > to tell the future, or been as succinct at times in their writings as > I attempt to be with mine. (snore!). Especially, a wee bit more > laborious in writing numbers one and two. Break up one to be more > plain about religion and speech and in the case of two, to be more > precise about terms like 'well regulated militia' and re-ordered their > punctuation a bit differently, removing any and all doubt about each > of those two Amendments. Both of them (one and two) give us much grief > when there are court battles about them. > My opinion: if number two means what many claim it means, that a 'well > regulated militia' refers to the National Guard or the military > service in general and this 'well regulated' National Guard or > military has a right to bear arms but the rest of us ordinary citizens > do _not_ have such a right, then I would have to say that is the one > item in the Bill of Rights which allows the _government_ (as opposed to > regular citizens a 'right'). The National Guard or the Army does not > have to get permission (in the form of a constitutional amendment) to > 'bear arms'. Think about it that way; the entire Bill of Rights was > written to provide we the people with certain rights; does it make > sense that the second amendment is an exception to that, and it > (second amendment) is to give the government 'rights'? The government > does not need protection from the people; the people are the ones > needing protection. So why would the Bill of Rights grant the 'right > to bear arms' to its own agencies (National Guard and Army, etc). > A 'well regulated militia', IMO, refers to _law abiding_ citizens who > wish to arm themselves. > Now if 'well regulated' equals 'law abiding' (instead of equalling 'a > government agency' as the government claims) then we have problems. > Far too many of us are not 'well regulated' in that sense; we grow > angry or we get drunk or we otherwise break the law and take our host- > ility out on police officers and other more 'well-regulated' > citizens. Does it seem a bit odd that the New York Times constantly > chatters about 'gun control' yet the late publisher of that journal > used to always get chauffered to work each day carrying a gun in his > suit pocket or briefcase? Many people think that 'gun control' should > apply to everyone else _except for themselves_. I can trust me, but I > can't trust you, that sort of thing. And you never hear of the ACLU > taking on a Second Amendment case; they seem to be happy with the > status quo also. [snip] Pat, If I had to guess, and I do, I'd guess that the writers of the amendments wanted to leave their descendants some room to maneuver. The amendments weren't part of the original constitution because those who wrote it believed that some things should be either understood or left open to interpretation: they had, after all, just finished the war for independence, and had seen first hand how easily the common men could be stirred up and set to march, so it's my guess that they were a little afraid of having an absolute right to bear arms. Nonetheless, the amendments were written and passed. I feel, though, that the second amendment was _suppossed_ to be vague: those who wrote it had heeded the lesson of the constitution's original authors. No one would advocate an absolute right to bear arms: a crazy man should not be able to buy a firearm, let alone bear or use one. A "Well Regulated Militia" is, of necessity, a _group_ of soldiers, not an individual. My interpretation of the amendment is that it was intended both to give citizens the right to band together in armed groups when needed to protect their other rights, and also to prevent individuals from claiming the "right" to show up at town meeting with a flintlock. Speaking of which, let's remember the class of firearms available in that era: single shot, muzzle loaded, non-rifled muskets which are, in comparison to today's machines, laughable. I don't and can't be made to believe that any of the amendment's authors would advocate a right of any private citizen, and probably not even of a militiaman, to have a submachine gun or even a Glock semi-automatic pistol. The Founding Fathers were, above all else, mindful of "The Last Argument of Kings" -- a phrase engraved on one manarch's canons -- and I think they wanted this to be a never-ending debate. They got their wish. FWIW. Your caliber may vary. Charles Cryderman wrote: > Steve Sobol responded to a somewhat crass commit on Mr. Jennings: >> You're entitled to your opinion. However, I think you're exceedingly >> foolish if you believe any particular slant in ABC's coverage is the >> fault of Jennings or any other reporter. Your posthumous attack seems >> rather sleazy to me -- you should direct your ire at the people actually >> responsible for making decisions about coverage. > Actually Steve you are wrong on this one. Last night August 10, 2006, > ABC had a wonderful retrospective on Mr. Jennings. His title was > "Senior Editor, ABC World News Tonight". As such, he was given total > control over the content of "ABC World News Tonight - With Peter > Jennings". This included what stores to present and how they were to > be presented. [snip] > Chip Cryderman > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not a 'proud gun owner' and in > fact guns scare me a lot. But I support the people who own them and > use them _properly_ as needed. If you went around Independence here, > you are not going to find a bunch of raving lunatics driving in the > streets waving or displaying or shooting off their weapons. But if > you went to at least a few private homes, you would find some weapons > put away, out of children's reach, unloaded, etc to be used as the need > arose. Peter Jennings was a good reporter, and he _did_ control the > stuff that went out on the air, but yes, he did have that one 'blind > spot' in his life; he did not 'believe in' the private ownership of > weapons, and he did not promote any positive publicity on private > gun ownership; many others in the media do not either. PAT] It's no surprise that Mr. Jennings didn't believe in a "right" to have guns: for most of his life, he was a Canadian citizen. That said, I'll also add that Mr. Jennings was a competitive television reporter, and he knew that telling people what they don't want to hear is a shortcut to the ratings cellar. I think he steered away from the topics because his polsters told him it was sure to offend a major portion of his viewers no matter what was said. This won't be popular, but it needs mentioning anyway: Peter Jennings was a reflector of public opinion, not a creator. The attention paid to his death amazes me; I haven't bothered to check, but I'd bet that there were at least ten people more worthy of our admiration and remembrance who died on the same date. We have confused popularity with statesmanship, and glibness with oratory. No matter what my opinion is of Mr. Jennings, the issue of gun "control" _deserves_ attention, and I'll ask you to ask yourself one question: Do you know someone who would be dangerous if they owned a gun? William (Filter noise from my email address for direct replies.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Define 'dangerous' in your context. As in taking _my_ life, for example? Is that supposed to be a major issue? Anytime it is my turn to go, I can assure you I will; there is nothing to be afraid of. Death is actually the last thing I worry about. And your theory on the Second Amendment is good, and worth considering. But I still want to know: the other nine (of the original ten 'basics') all address the protections given to _citizens_ in this land. Why should number two be an exception, and given the government the 'right to bear arms' (if well-regulated militia is taken to mean Army, National Guard, etc). The citizens have the right to speak, to have the religion they want, to be free from being searched or seized in their homes, etc. And then number two says 'the _government_ has the right to bear arms' ? Personally, I do not think so. I have heard these folks who say (in a real pissy, whimpering tone of voice) "Well, we citizens do not have to bear arms, that is what the National Guard and Army is for." Usually I tell those folks "well, in that case we do not need free speech either; we have the New York Times and the Washington Post and Katherine Graham's News Weak magazine, and TELECOM Digest to do our speeches. Why do you need the right to speak also?" And regards the 'final argument of Kings' that is also the final argument of the government is it not? Oh, we do not see them most days, and we 'voluntarily' do as we are told by the government, but the final solution, the gun, is back there waiting, is it not? And as needed, it will be produced and used. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows: TCO Comparison Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:43:25 GMT The Groklaw website, www.groklaw.com, has had quite a bit to say about Ms. DiDio's contributions to the Linux vs. everything debate. One might want to read that before taking this too seriously. jhhaynes at earthlink dot net ------------------------------ From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 22:10:16 -0000 Organization: Widgets, Inc. In article <telecom24.377.4@telecom-digest.org>, Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote: > 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 dilemma. 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. Your place of work has a PBX. Your home exchange is not known to the 'dialing plan' for that switch. "Company policy" has a problem, regarding handling exchanges assigned to CLECs. This is not an issue that _you_ need to fight. See to it that your *boss* has your home phone number, for 'emergency' use. Make sure said boss knows that you _cannot_ be reached via a 'company' phone due to a 'programming problem' in the company's switch. > Meantime, my colleagues cannot call me at home (from work) when a need > arises. Isn't that a SHAME! <*grin*> You cannot be disturbed on your non-work time, because the company you work for won't let other employees call and bother you. Some people would _pay_extra_ for that kind of an arrangement! :) ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:51:06 EDT Subject: Re: Hiroshima Marks 60th Anniversary of Atomic Bomb Attack In a message dated Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:07:24 -0300, jtaylor <jtaylor@deletethis.hfx.andara.com> writes: > 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. The Japanese intended that the message cutting off negotiations be delivered just before the attack. Since it was Sunday morning in Washington, the Japanese embassy had to call the code clerk to come in. Since the USA had broken the Japanese diplomatic code, and had people on duty all the time, the USA had the full text in President Roosevelt's hands before the Japanese ambassador delivered the note. And keep in mind that communications between Washington and Honolulu weren't the simple matter they are now. You couldn't just dial 1+.and be connected. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Yet More on FiOS Date: 21 Aug 2005 00:24:16 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article <telecom24.377.3@telecom-digest.org>, Lee Sweet <lee@datatel.com> wrote: > 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. Actually, that's not clear either. The FCC has given Verizon the right to exclude other ISP's from their DSL circuits, too. That is set to take effect in approximately a year. > 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. Verizon plans to deliver video content in competition with the local cable company (here it's Comcast). I doubt they're worried about bandwidth issues. And inbound port 25 (SMTP) doesn't use any bandwidth to speak of. > 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.) That's a possible alternative. But the main reason for running my own mail server is the complete control over it. My spam blocking, for instance, currently is running at over 150 per day with almost 100% efficiency. I don't quarantine, and I don't worry about lost messages. If I have to rely on someone else then I'll still have to look at ~150 spams per day just to make sure they're legit. The ONLY spam blocker I trust is the one my current ISP uses, which also happens to be what I'm using. There's lots of other reasons for running my own servers ... I can add domains for the cost of the registration, for instance, which is real useful with teenage kids around. At times I've hosted an IRC server for work. The list goes on. With my own system I'm free to do what I want with it. John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> Subject: Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:41:32 -0600 Organization: Disorganized In message <telecom24.378.10@telecom-digest.org> TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to DevilsPGD spamsucks@crazyhat.net>: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where did you get this idea that there > is going to be an en-masse removal of sites from one domain to another? > I do not recall ever saying that ... those web sites who are willing > to and gracious enough to take up residence in .xxx will be permitted > to do so, just as sites took up residence in .info, .biz, .aero, and > .museum ... and those of us Moderators and others who do not give a > shit about dubious information, biz-iness ventures, museums or > aeroplanes would be free to filter it out. But we won't be permitted > to filter out .xxx which I suspect will be the rudest, crudest and > lewdest of all because (name the red herring of your choice) is likely > to happen as a result. Oh, we will able to filter .xxx -like material > in a sort of half-assed way using the tools we are given, but that is > all, not .xxx domains in their entirety. I'm not against the creation of .xxx -- I'm only pointing out that making it mandatory won't work. If we make it optional then all that has been done is to open up more domain space (Which isn't a bad thing, but .biz and .info haven't exactly been successful, and how many .name domains have you seen?) ------------------------------ From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com> Reply-To: Die@spammers.com Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc. (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co. Subject: Re: Last Sad Laugh! new.site.p0rn0..ch|ldren$ 4601527 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:50:45 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to spam sent by hongli@levitte.org: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those among us who are still in > denial about the extent to which child pornography has become a big > part of email and web sites, below is a piece of email I receive > every few days from someone in Russia. What you see is just the > way it arrives here each time. Much of the text below is apparently > Cryllic or similar and unprintable on American screens, but the > intent is quite plain. PAT] > ============================================== > Hello dear friend ! Ptownson > NEW (HILDREN P()RN@ AROUSE FOR YOU > New#site#2005#years#CH!LDREN#P0RN0#... > DISCOUNT 5 DAY 25% click here and VELCOME in site ch!l dear friend ! > > çäðàñòâóéòå åñëè çàõ&icrc;òèòå óâèäèòü íàø ñàéò ò&icrc; âàì íàäà çäåëàòü 3 ýòàïà > 1) çàéäèòå íà ñàéò http://hondaclub.by > 2) çàéäèòå íà forum > 3) &icrc;ñòàâòå âàø åìàë è íàïèøèòå íàì ( ò&icrc;åñòü åìàéë àäìèíà) > íà ñàì&icrc;ì ñàéòå http://hondaclub.by > è âàì ïðèøëþò &icrc;ñòàëüíóþ èíô&icrc;ðìàöèþ > ========================================== > CHILDREN$ P()RN0 > new.s*candal0us.material*ch|ldren$. > CHILDREN$ P()RN0 > ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu > 21H0rny.super.site._ch|ldren$.f0r.adult.abs0luty.new I get the same one, but my filters catch it and it gets dumped in the trash and is deleted. The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co. ------------------------------ 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 ************************ In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #379 ****************************** | |