TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:05:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 383

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    NY AG Spitzer: AOL's Been Very Naughty ... (Danny Burstein)
    AOL: The Full Story of Spitzer's Lawsuit (Reuters News Wire)
    Google to Launch Messaging, Voice Service Today (Matthew Fordahl)
    Google Talk (Monty Solomon)
    Gmail Account For Mobile Phone Users (Monty Solomon)
    Problem Acessing Some Sites (ive.cal@gmail.com)
    FCC Could Add VoIP to USF (USTelecom dailyLead)
    Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
    Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief (DevilsPGD)
    Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief (Dave Garland)
    Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Yahoo Verizon Launch Internet Service (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Norvergence ... Update on Its Owners' Problems (nstrom@ananzi.co.za)
    Re: Debate Over Cell Phone Towers Growing (Dave Garland)
    This Digest Article Was Spam! (John L. Shelton)
    Help Wanted With Telecom Chat Room (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: NY AG Spitzer: AOL's Been Very Naughty ...
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:58:23 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC


" Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced an agreement that
requires the nation's leading internet service provider to reform its
customer service procedures.

     .....

" For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or 'save'
percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to
meet. These bonuses, and the minimum 'save' rates accompanying them,
had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise
making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.

" Many consumers complained that AOL personnel ignored their demands
to cancel service and stop billing ...

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/aug24a_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: My thanks to Danny for the tip off on
this latest legal action by Mr. Spitzer. The full report from Reuters
is included in this issue of the Digest. PAT]

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

From: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: AOL to Reform Customer Service in Spitzer Pact
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:25:10 -0500


America Online, the world's largest Internet service provider, has
agreed to reform the way it handles customers who want to cancel
service, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on
Wednesday.

Spitzer, announcing settlement of a lawsuit, said AOL is also required
to provide fee refunds for up to four months of service to all New
York consumers who claim harm based on improper cancellation requests
and pay New York state $1.25 million in penalties and costs.

Spitzer's office, responding to about 300 New York customer
complaints, conducted a probe into AOL's customer service policies and
procedures. AOL, owned by media conglomerate Time Warner Inc., serves
about 21 million subscribers, of which 1.9 million customers reside in
the region.

With the settlement, AOL agreed to alter incentives it offers customer
representatives who try to dissuade customers from canceling their
subscriptions.

It also agreed to eliminate customer service quotas on the number of
subscribers dissuaded from canceling and to record all cancellation
requests. Cancellation requests will need to be verified by a third
party monitor by June 2006.

Customers seeking refunds will need to submit claims to either AOL or
the attorney general's office within 120 days.

"AOL is pleased to have reached an agreement with the state of New
York on customer care practices that we believe will increase quality
assurance and assist with the verification of certain member
intentions online," an AOL spokesman said.

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. To discuss this news with other readers, use our
chat page: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/chatpage.html

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

From: Matthew Fordahl <ap@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Google to Launch Messaging, Voice Service Today
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:26:56 -0500


By MATTHEW FORDAHL, AP Technology Writer

Further expanding beyond its roots in Internet search, Google
Inc. plans to launch a long-rumored program Wednesday that provides
both text instant messaging and computer-to-computer voice chat.

The new program, Google Talk, will compete against similar free
services offered for several years by America Online Inc., Microsoft
Corp. and Yahoo Inc. All are vying to increase their presence on PCs
to boost online ad revenue and name recognition.

The launch was due to come two days after Google unveiled another free
program that aggregates information on a computer desktop. It also
comes less than a week after the company announced plans to raise $4
billion in a secondary stock offering -- which some analysts
speculated could be used to fund far-flung projects such as Internet
telephony.

As a newcomer to messaging, Google could face an uphill battle.

AOL's messaging program has about 41.6 million U.S. users, followed by
Yahoo Messenger with 19.1 million and MSN Messenger with 14.1 million,
according to ComScore Media Metrix's July report.

Users of those services are unlikely to switch unless the friends and
colleagues on their "buddy lists" do the same. The top instant
messaging services still do not communicate with each other, though
promises of such "interoperability" have been made for years.

Google based its software on open standards, so it will work with
smaller networks that are based on the same technology. Text messages
can be exchanged with users of Apple Computer Inc.'s iChat, Cerulean
Studios' Trillian and the open-source Gaim program.

Google also is inviting programmers to build its technology into their
software.

"It means other people and developers will be able to add value to our
network by being able to add this to computer games, productivity
applications and anywhere else they want," said Georges Harik,
director of product management at Google.

The new Google program features a basic user interface with few
graphics, much like the main Google search site. It does not spawn
pop-up windows or display ads like America Online's Instant Messenger.

"We'll have an uncluttered interface that allows you to search over
your contacts pretty easily," Harik said. "It just stays out of your
way unless you want to connect to someone."

Google Talk, which is being released in a beta test version, works
only on PCs running Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Eventually, the
company plans to release a version for Apple's Mac OS X.

Google Talk also requires users to have an account with the company's
free Gmail e-mail system. Gmail previously was available only to those
invited by a current account holder, but now Google is opening up
registration to anyone in the United States.

Voice chat requires that both the caller and recipient have speakers
and a microphone hooked up to their computers. It does not currently
offer an adapter to which regular phones can be connected.

And unlike Internet phone services such as Vonage and Skype, Google's
voice service does not support calls to the regular telephone system.

Harik also made clear that Google has no intention of trying to become
a popular bridge to the other major instant-messaging
providers. "We're not going to do anything like force other networks
to interoperate with us," he said. "We're not going to arbitrarily
break into their protocols."

However, since Google Talk runs on open standards, outside developers
who incorporate the service into their programs could try to enable
such interoperability.

Because of Google's large and loyal user base, the company's foray
into instant messaging could threaten the other players, said Sara
Radicati, head of The Radicati Group Inc., a technology research
firm. As evidence, Radicati cited Google's entry into e-mail, when it
became chic to have a Gmail account.

"We've seen people show off their Google address," she said. "It's on
the level of `Hey, look at my new Swatch. I've got the yellow one
while you're still wearing the blue.' ... It's a little thing, but it
helps."

AP Technology Writer Greg Sandoval contributed to this report.

On the Net:
http://www.google.com/talk

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. For AP News Reports go to:
http://telecom-digest.org./td-extra/newstoday.html
To chat with other users about this or other stories:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/chatpage.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Our correspondent Monty Solomon summar-
izes this news and has an additional report from Google in another
message in this issue.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:49:38 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Google Talk


http://www.google.com/talk/

They say talk is cheap. Google thinks it should be free. Google Talk
enables you to call or send instant messages to your friends for
free-anytime, anywhere in the world.

 ...

http://www.google.com/talk/

http://www.google.com/talk/start.html

Google to Offer Instant Messaging and Voice Communications on Web
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/technology/24google.html?ex=1282536000&en=14bfd19debb1e094&ei=5090

Where Does Google Plan to Spend $4 Billion?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/technology/22google.html?ex=1282363200&en=56c24d008a489caf&ei=5090

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:50:17 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Gmail Account For Mobile Phone Users


Excerpt from the press release

Google Launches Open, Instant Communications Service
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/talk.html

Greater Availability of Gmail

Google Talk requires a Gmail username and password, and starting
today, Google is making it easier for anyone in the U.S. with access
to a mobile phone to sign up for a Gmail account. When users visit
http://gmail.com and enter their mobile phone number, they will
receive an invitation code via a text message. This code enables them
to open an account. With a Gmail account, users can try both Gmail and
Google Talk, and begin inviting their friends and family to talk with
them for free over email, IM or a voice call.

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

From: ive.cal@gmail.com
Subject: Problem Acessing Some Sites!
Date: 23 Aug 2005 21:13:14 -0700


Hello! Please ... do reply ... I have a problem accessing some
sites.It took me minutes to access it. This is the case with Yahoo
(but not Google).  It says "The document contains no data." What does
this means? Is it something to do with the configuration?

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:47:35 EDT
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: FCC Could Add VoIP to USF


USTelecom dailyLead
August 24, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=24087&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* FCC could add VoIP to USF
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Study: Broadband growth opens new market for Web portals
* Sprint Nextel details plans for local phone unit spinoff
* Microsoft offers rebate on set-tops
* Can Yahoo! become the fifth network?
* Time Warner invests in mobile gaming startup
* Google joins IM crowd
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Skype offers IM developer tools
* Intel, Cisco work together on VoIP/Wi-Fi combo
* Akimbo to offer MLB highlights online
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* NTIA chief defends national broadband deployment policy

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=24087&l=2017006

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

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working
Date: 23 Aug 2005 23:16:20 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.382.10@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> jmeissen@aracnet.com wrote:

>> That is a Straw Man argument. The phone company DSL revenue was/is
>> generated from existing infrastructure that was developed with the
>> benefit of government sponsored monopolies and subsidies. They have an
>> existing revenue and equipment base to support the expansion to
>> fiber. Also, the cable companies that you reference were deploying in
>> a new non-telecom market, also with monopoly protection. It wasn't
>> until recently that they offered Internet or telecom services (I know
>> when they did it, I had one of the first cable Internet connections in
>> the area).

> I don't agree.  The "existing infrastructure" you speak of consisted
> of obsolete technology in both switching and the local loops.  It
> worked fine for POTS and low speed dialup but it was no good for
> higher speed work.  The phone company had to invest in new facilities
> to support broadband.  This investment was done in a competitive
> marketplace.

I didn't say anything about the capability of the existing
infrastructure. What I meant was that they had an existing revenue
stream based on that infrastructure to support their expansion, as
well as buildings and network facilities.

> The cable companies had to compete against plain old rabitt ears, high
> gain rooftop antennas, and satellite TV.

Not much competition there. When the cable companies first deployed
satellite TV consisted of an 8' dish in the back yard and rabbit ears
pulled in a couple of local stations with serious ghosting.

> Obviously rollouts in different areas occured at different times.  But
> generally consumer broadband service was offered on cable and phoneco
> at roughly the same time.

And in both cases used the existing infrastructure developed and
maintained under a government sponsored monopoly.

> I still maintain that the capital cost to lay fibre optic, esp when it
> can be done selectively to areas with the best customers, is not
> unsurmountable.  The cellphone world was supposed to be two companies,
> but quite a few have built networks, and quite a few more sublet
> services from those networks.

There was a lot of fibre laying activity a few years ago. All of those
companies a defunct now. The problem isn't so much that as generating
revenue from it. In the case of Verizon, they're migrating their
existing telephone customer base onto the fibre as well as existing
and new Internet customers. So the cost is offset by more than just
the Internet revenue. And as they shift their income to the fibre
circuits they also shift their costs, since they're physically pulling
the copper wires whenever they connect fibre. Any new competing
company creating their own infrastructure from scratch would have to
take customers away from Verizon, which is much harder to do.

The problem is that it's extremely inefficient to have multiple
infrastructure providers. That was shown in the early days of the
power companies and the phone companies, and is why we have government
sanctioned monopolies in the first place. Even when they tried to
recreate competition in the power industry it involved the power
itself, not the infrastructure that handled local distribution of that
power.

> I understand what you're saying -- since Verizon FIOS is deregulated,
> they can do as they please, just as any other business may require
> exclusive packages with their customers.  (I don't think a nice fancy
> restaurant would appreciate it if I came in, ordered only a cup of
> coffee, and then ate a pizza I brought in with me.)

An interesting analogy. If I may extend it a bit, what you're
essentially saying is that if Verizon says,"We offer our own VOIP
product, so we're not allowing Vonage to connect over our fibre
circuits" then that's OK, because if Vonage wants to compete then they
should build their own infrastructure to run over.

You see the problem? The people who own the infrastructure shouldn't
be able to control who has access to it or what flows over it. The real
mistake was affirming that priviledge for cable, as it set a precedent.
The cable system, also built with the protection of a government
sponsored monoply, was/is the only serious infrastructure competition.

> There is nothing stopping the cable company or a new business from
> laying their own fibre or whatever network and offering their own
> service, undercutting Verizon's FIOS prices.  If Verizon FIOS is
> priced so unfairly high, someone else should be able to undercut them
> (presuming there is a demand by customers to use their own ISP.)

There's nothing inherently wrong with Verizon's prices, other than
they don't seem to be going in the direction the government says the
deregulation should be moving them.


> The other alternative is to go back to regulation and control the
> prices.  Then we're back to the old Bell System.

We're almost there, anyway, because of consolidation in the telephone
industry. The difference is that we'll have the monopoly back, but not
the control and regulation. :-/

A more appropriate analogy would be if the local farm coop and food
distributor (Verizon) contracted to exclusively provide product to one
restaurant (MSN). You're free to run your own competing restaurant,
all you have to do is find and buy enough tillable land to create your
own farms and establish your own food distribution network.  There's
certainly nothing to prevent you from doing it.

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Broadband Competition Must Surely be Working
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:53:36 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.382.10@telecom-digest.org>,
 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> jmeissen@aracnet.com wrote:

>> That is a Straw Man argument. The phone company DSL revenue was/is
>> generated from existing infrastructure that was developed with the
>> benefit of government sponsored monopolies and subsidies. They have an
>> existing revenue and equipment base to support the expansion to
>> fiber. Also, the cable companies that you reference were deploying in
>> a new non-telecom market, also with monopoly protection. It wasn't
>> until recently that they offered Internet or telecom services (I know
>> when they did it, I had one of the first cable Internet connections in
>> the area).

> I don't agree.  The "existing infrastructure" you speak of consisted
> of obsolete technology in both switching and the local loops.  It
> worked fine for POTS and low speed dialup but it was no good for
> higher speed work.

"Bullsh*t" applies.

DSL was expressly designed to work on pre-existing physical-plant
wiring.  *NO* wholesale replacement of physical plant was needed.

My DSL circuit is carried on a wire-pair that is nearly 50 years old,
with the possible exception of the _first_ 130 ft out from the
C.O. switch. There is one, and only one, 'patch point' on the circuit,
and it appears to be within the C.O., itself.  Aside from that, it is
a dedicated point-to-point cable from the C.O. to the building I'm in.
'direct-burial", not in a utility tunnel, or anything like that.

> The phone company had to invest in new facilities
> to support broadband.  This investment was done in a competitive
> marketplace.

"head-end" DLSAMS, and splitters, yes.  "Distribution" facilities,
*NO*.  And, at least locally, the ILEC was very-much a 'trailing edge'
participant in the DSL market.  It was very late in the growth cycle
before they climbed on the bandwagon, and their offering was 'not
competitive' (either on price or performance) with what the other
players were offering.  They eventually killed that offering
completely, and replaced it with a more 'conventional' offering, which
then sold well.

> The cable companies had to compete against plain old rabitt ears, high
> gain rooftop antennas, and satellite TV.

> Obviously rollouts in different areas occured at different times.  But
> generally consumer broadband service was offered on cable and phoneco
> at roughly the same time.

*snicker*

In the Chicago area, DSL availability pre-dated cable-Internet by
around 10 years.  It was also available from a CLEC at least
*five*years* before the ILEC offered DSL.

>> I suspect the ROW is grandfathered onto existing ROW agreements used
>> with the existing phone service. They are only deploying into areas
>> that they already serve.

> No, it is not.  FIOS is treated differently.  It is more difficult for
> the phone company, but I suspect they chose this path to avoid
> regulations.

> I still maintain that the capital cost to lay fibre optic, esp when it
> can be done selectively to areas with the best customers, is not
> unsurmountable. 

"That depends".  <grin>

ROW access _is_ a problem in many locales.  Generally, erecting your
own poles is _not_ an option, so (if you're going 'overhead') you have
to rent space on the existing poles.  *IF* there is space available on
the poles to rent.

Going 'underground' has its own set of problems, involving avoiding
'collisions' with pre-existing buried cables, gas/water/sewage piping,
etc.  Try to figure out how you lay two cables down the block, with
taps going out to each house, *without* the two systems crossing over
each other (making maintenance of the lower' system "difficult).

> The cellphone world was supposed to be two companies,

Correction: two in any _specific_ locale.  *NO* assurance that either
of the companies serving your town would also be providing services in
the next town/county/state away, in any direction.  with one of the
two licenses going to the 'wire-line' provider in the area, you had
some hope of 'equivalent' coverage to local land-line patterns.

> but quite a few have built networks, and quite a few more sublet
> services from those networks.

>> You're missing the point. I currently have phone company DSL, and I'm
>> quite happy with it. But I =DON'T= use the phone company ISP. Because
>> the phone company is an infrastructure provider I can choose a
>> different ISP, allowing me to tailor the services to my needs. I even
>> pay a premium for that. What Verizon is doing is eliminating that
>> option, forcing everyone into the FIOS equivilant of Verizon
>> Online/MSN DSL but charging them 30% more for the priviledge. ...

>> Because of the way the service is classified they are also free to
>> control what traffic flows on their network. They can block Vonage
>> just as easily as any other service; they can block traffic to
>> "objectionable" web sites. This is not moving in a good direction at
>> all.

> I understand what you're saying -- since Verizon FIOS is deregulated,
> they can do as they please, just as any other business may require
> exclusive packages with their customers.  (I don't think a nice fancy
> restaurant would appreciate it if I came in, ordered only a cup of
> coffee, and then ate a pizza I brought in with me.)

In fact, there are FEDERAL regulations that prohibit that. :)

Bringing your own _food_ into a place where food is served is a no-no.
(there are some special cases -- like 'sealed' beverage containers --
that are _legally_ allowed; although the establishment may have it's
own prohibitions.)

> There is nothing stopping the cable company or a new business from
> laying their own fibre or whatever network and offering their own
> service, undercutting Verizon's FIOS prices.  If Verizon FIOS is
> priced so unfairly high, someone else should be able to undercut them
> (presuming there is a demand by customers to use their own ISP.)

> The other alternative is to go back to regulation and control the
> prices.  Then we're back to the old Bell System.

There *IS* a third alternative.  Separate the 'content' from the
'delivery infrastructure'.

Have one regulated-utility operation that *only* operates the local
'physical plant' and distribution facilities.  Access to which is made
available to 'all comers' (content providers) at the _same_ rates for
the same level of access.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:39:19 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.382.7@telecom-digest.org> shlichter1@aol.com
<shlichter1@aol.com> wrote:

> DevilsPGD wrote:

>> In message <telecom24.380.11@telecom-digest.org> J Kelly
>> <jkelly@*newsguy.com> wrote:

>>> The problem with checks is that all I need is your routing and account
>>> number, and guess what?  Those are printed on every one of your checks
>>> in plain human readable numerals.  I can print up new checks on my
>>> computer with any ID on them I want, and your account number.  I can
>>> start passing them around town same as your sneak thief.  And guess
>>> what?  I can easily get a fake ID to match the ID of the person I put
>>> on the check.  Checks are terribly insecure.

>> You also need a signature, at least if you want the money to come from
>> my account.

>> Now you obviously don't care if a merchant gets screwed since you've
>> long since run off with the goods, but for the consumer, it's not as
>> bad as the above makes it sound.

> Most banks don't even look at the signature, that is unless the check
> it presented in person at the issuers bank.

Correct.  But a quick phone call to your bank (or potentially some
signed paperwork) will get the cheque reversed.

I've written cheques with no date, with a date over a year earlier
(and not around Jan/Feb), without a signature, with mis-matched
written and numeric dollar amounts, and that had the word VOID in the
signature line, all cleared without difficulty.

However, should I have disputed any of the above, a simple email or
phone call, I'd get the money back immediately.

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

From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:54:44 -0500
Organization: Wizard Information


It was a dark and stormy night when shlichter1@aol.com
<shlichter1@aol.com> wrote:

> Most banks don't even look at the signature, that is unless the check
> it presented in person at the issuers bank.

This is true, I've had checks go through that weren't signed at all.

I don't think they read anything else (except the dollar amount, and
mechanically the routing and account numbers) either, once I mixed up my
business and personal deposits (different names, different banks) and
all that happened was both banks sent me a "deposit correction" saying
that I'd added the total up wrong, and fixing it to the amount they'd
actually received.

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:57:09 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.382.7@telecom-digest.org>, shlichter1@aol.com
<shlichter1@aol.com> wrote:

> DevilsPGD wrote:

>> In message <telecom24.380.11@telecom-digest.org> J Kelly
>> <jkelly@*newsguy.com> wrote:

>>> The problem with checks is that all I need is your routing and account
>>> number, and guess what?  Those are printed on every one of your checks
>>> in plain human readable numerals.  I can print up new checks on my
>>> computer with any ID on them I want, and your account number.  I can
>>> start passing them around town same as your sneak thief.  And guess
>>> what?  I can easily get a fake ID to match the ID of the person I put
>>> on the check.  Checks are terribly insecure.

>> You also need a signature, at least if you want the money to come from
>> my account.

>> Now you obviously don't care if a merchant gets screwed since you've
>> long since run off with the goods, but for the consumer, it's not as
>> bad as the above makes it sound.

> Most banks don't even look at the signature, that is unless the check
> it presented in person at the issuers bank.

And they *don't* do any comparasion with the signature card that is
'on file'.  This has been the case for 20 years or more.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:39:19 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.382.9@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:

> Fred Atkinson wrote:

>> True, but you have to understand the culture of the area I'm in to
>> fully get the picture. ...
>> It is a problem when you have folks who are constantly watching the
>> amount of long distance calls being made.  Unfortunately, we *are* in
>> that position.

> I'm glad it worked out for you.

> But I thought _I_ was old fashioned about modern technology.

> My mother was extremely frugal.  When she wanted to talk to her sister
> (a long distance call), she would use the drugstore phone and bring
> only enough change for a 3 minute call.  That forced her to limit the
> call to 3 minutes.  Normally she and her sister sent postcards back
> and forth.  But about ten years ago they got 5c/min Sundays.  They
> stopped using postcards and used the phone instead, talking for an
> hour or more.  My mother also regularly called relatives across the
> country.  BTW, even in the nursing home they'd let my mother make
> occassional free toll calls from the nurse's desk.

> Anyway, the point is that a once-frugal elderly person who once
> thought of long distance telephone as very serious business changed
> and used the phone freely.  Certainly you don't want toll calls all
> over the place all day long, but I would think today a business would
> be looking at a bigger picture.

I still have relatives that limit themselves to 3 minute long distance
calls, even though they have unlimited evening and weekend calling
plans, it's just habit and one that seems to be unbreakable in some
people.

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

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Yahoo Verizon Launch Internet Service
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:26:14 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Greg Sandoval wrote:

> Verizon Communications Inc. and Yahoo Inc. have teamed up to launch a
> cheaper high-speed Internet service designed to compete against cable
> operators and dial-up service providers.

So what happens to MSN? Verizon's been partnered with MSN for a few
years now. Do Verizon Wireless customers get access to Yahoo content
too? (VZW has been touting their "VZW with MSN" content...)


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

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

From: nstrom@ananzi.co.za
Subject: Re: Norvergence ... Update on Its Owners' Problems
Date: 24 Aug 2005 08:27:07 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Danny Burstein wrote:

> http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyOSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NjcyODc5MCZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=

I'm having problems contacting www.northjersey.com. If others are
having problems, a quick Google search shows a copy of this article
available here:

http://www.rednova.com/news/technology/184576/former_norvergence_chiefs_new_venture_falls_just_as_hard/

(or via tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/c4fhq )


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to you also for this follow
up. Like yourself, I found some hassles locating that article on the
site; the link was no good as originally published. Thanks again for
locating it and correcting it for us.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: Debate Over Cell Phone Towers Growing
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:56:31 -0500
Organization: Wizard Information


It was a dark and stormy night when Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> You don't see people railing against the power companies
> for running high voltage transmission lines through neighbourhoods
> "ruining" their property values either.

Around here you do.  Not for property values, but for health concerns.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:45:27 -0700
From: John L. Shelton <john@jshelton.com>
Subject: This Digest Article Was Spam!


Telecom Digest has gone off-topic before, and many of us have kept
quiet. But in the anti-spam spirit of the digest, some of us would
appreciate not having additional advertising included, particularly in
the form of "articles".

> Each of these items are $1.00 with no reserve.  Buyer would just pay
> actual shipping costs.

> (BTW, I also have a couple ASCEND terminal servers available you may
> contact me privately if you are interested).


=John=
john@jshelton.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your comments on this. I
frequently print messages about things 'for sale' of a telecom nature,
simply because the items for sale are peculiar enough to telecom that
the people here _might_ be interested where in other forums there
might not be any interest. In this instance, I was _told_ the items
were surplus and it seemed to me there might be some interest in them
among Digest readers. I am sorry if it gave some readers more the
appearance of spam. 

It is indeed unfortunate, IMO, that there is not a classification on
the net for '.spam' since there is so much of it everywhere. 'They'
(net authorities) have categories for so many new phenomena on the net
these days including '.biz' and '.info' much of which amounts to spam
anyway, but 'they' refuse to offer categories for actual '.spam'
and/or '.scam' and '.xxx' (.sex) which is also plentiful.  
Go figure ...  PAT]

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

Subject: Help Wanted With Telecom Chat Room
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:55:44 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)


Anyone who likes to chat on telecom topics is invited to use the
chat area we have available:

         http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/chatpage.html

I would also like to have a few people agree to take over the
moderator duties in the Telecom Chat. It is an IRC-style chat program,
in javascript. It is a volunteer position, but intended to have
someone around at various times to help answer questions from
newcomers, and promote conversations on the topics going on here in
the Digest. Please check it out, and if you would like to volunteer to
be a chat room moderator, please let me know.

Patrick Townson

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


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 #383
******************************