TELECOM Digest     Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:45:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 587

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Phishers Nabbed (jared)
    AT&T Plans to Deliver 'Your World' Campaign (USTelecom dailyLead)
    Build Your Own PBX With a PC (Jim Haynes)
    Call for Papers: The 2006 IAENG Workshop on Electrical Engineering (imecs)
    Call for Papers: June 26 - 29 - Special Track on Wireless Tech (N Gupta)
    Re: NSA Puts Cookies on Your Computer (Barry Margolin)
    Re: NSA Puts Cookies on Your Computer (jared)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones) (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones) (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones) (AES)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (Rik)
    Re: Cell Phone Extenders? (harold@hallikainen.com)
    Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones? (John Levine)
    Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones? (DevilsPGD)
    Re: Mother Decides to Fight Downloading Suit on Her Own (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Reliable, Easy, and Cost Effective Way to Record Calls? (L Hancock)
    Re: What Carriers Does Vonage Use to Terminate Calls? (John Levine)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  

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

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:58:36 -0700
From: jared@netspacenospamnet.au (jared)
Subject: Phishers Nabbed


NAB closes eight bogus websites overseas
   
The National Australia Bank and federal police have moved swiftly to
shut down eight overseas websites involved in an email banking scam
targeting many thousands of Australians.

The sites in China, Turkey, Korea and Germany - linked to a "phishing"
scam operating Australia-wide -- were put out of action over the past
four days.

http://smh.com.au/news/technology/nab-closes-eight-bogus-websites-overseas/2005/12/29/1135732681755.html

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

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:39:38 EST
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: AT&T Plans to Deliver 'Your World' Campaign


USTelecom dailyLead
December 29, 2005
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/ASyAatagCDyXcNyeBE

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* AT&T plans to deliver "Your World" campaign, logo
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Comcast enters VoIP game in Atlanta
* Russia to profit from Svyazinvest selloff
* Microsoft, Japan Telecom unite to offer combined service
* AOL rounds up top spam headers
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT
* Telecom Bookstore:  Everything for the Telecom Professional
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
* Americans fall in love, break up via SMS
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Bush administration takes heat over recent phone tapping
* Emergency communications system in the spotlight
* Former Qwest executive pleads guilty

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/ASyAatagCDyXcNyeBE

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

Subject: Build Your Own PBX With a PC
Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu
Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni
From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:13:41 GMT


There is an article in the January 2006 issue of Linux Journal on how
to make a home PBX using a personal computer and some free software.
(But you have to buy some hardware) Also an article about building a
Skype server for your home.

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

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

From: imecs__2006@iaeng.org
Subject: Call for Papers: The 2006 IAENG Int Workshop on Electrical Engineering
Date: 28 Dec 2005 21:39:39 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com

 From: International Association of Engineers (IAENG)

Call For Papers

The 2006 IAENG International Workshop on Electrical Engineering (Part
of The International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer
Scientists IMECS 2006)

IMECS 2006: 20-22 June, 2006, Hong Kong

The IWEE'06 workshop is held as part of the International
MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2006. The IMECS
2006 is organized by the International Association of Engineers
(IAENG), and serves as good platforms for the engineering community
members to meet with each other and to exchange ideas. Extended
version of the papers under this workshop can be included in the
special issue of our journal Engineering Letters. And, further
extended version can also be included in a book called "Current Trends
in Electrical Engineering " to be published by IAENG.

The IMECS 2006 multiconference has the focus on the frontier topics in
the theoretical and applied engineering and computer science subjects.
It consists of 14 workshops (see the details at IMECS website:
www.iaeng.org/IMECS2006). The multiconference serves as good platforms
for the engineering community members of different disciplines to meet
with each other and to exchange ideas. The current conference
committee of the IMECS 2006 includes over 140 workshop co-chairs and
committee members of mainly research center heads, department heads,
professors, research scientists from over 20 countries, while a few of
the committee members are also experienced software development
directors and engineers.

The topics of the workshop include, but not limited to, the following:

Biotechnology: such as EEG, ECG, and EKG, various other monitoring
equipment

Electronics: such as integrated circuit, computer, electronic amplifier

Power engineering: such as electrical generators, electric power
transmission.

Telecommunication: such as television, radio, mobile phone, optical
multiple access technologies

Control engineering: such as auto pilot, cruise control, climate
control, space exploration, smart bomb.

Signal processing: such as electronic filter, digital filter, video and
audio codec, radar, sonar, beamforming.

Submission:

Prospective authors are invited to submit their draft paper in
abstract format (one page) or in full paper format to imecs@iaeng.org
by 12 March, 2006. The submitted file can be in MS Word format, PS
format, or PDF formats.

The first page of the draft paper should include:

 Title of the paper;
 Name, affiliation and e-mail address for each author;
 A maximum of 5 keywords of the paper;

Also, the name of the workshop session that the paper is being
submitted to should be stated in the email.

Important Dates:

Proposals for special conference sessions and tutorials deadline: 30
December, 2005
Draft Manuscript / Abstract submission deadline: 12 March, 2006
Camera-Ready papers & Pre-registration due: 2 April, 2006

IMECS 2006: 20-22 June, 2006


More details about the IWEE 2006 can be found at:

http://www.iaeng.org/IMECS2006/IWEE2006.html

IWEE'06 Workshop Co-chairs and Committee Members:

Yen-Wen Chen
Associate Professor, Dept. of Communication Engineering
National Central University, Taiwan

Yung-Sheng Chen
Professor, Electrical Engineering Department
Yuan Ze University, Taiwan

Jong-Sheng Cherng
Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering
Da-Yeh University, Taiwan

ES. Chung, FIEE (co-chair)
Professor, Electrical Engineering Department
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Yi-Nung Chung (co-chair)
Associate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering
Da-Yeh University, Taiwan

Feng-Li Lian
Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering
National Taiwan University, Taiwan

Chih-Min Lin (co-chair)
Chair and Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering
Yuan-Ze University, Taiwan

Prof. A.B. Rad (co-chair)
Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Tsung-Han Tsai (co-chair)
Associate Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
National Central University, Taiwan

Rong-Jong Wai
Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Yuan Ze University, Taiwan

EC. Yang
Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering
National ChungHsing University, Taiwan

It will be highly appreciated if you can circulate these calls for
papers to your colleagues.

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

From: Nitin Gupta <nitgupta@alumni.usc.edu>
Subject: Call for Papers: June 26 - 29 Special Track on Wireless Technologies
Date: 29 Dec 2005 10:10:19 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Call for Papers

Special Track on Wireless Technologies and Digital Cities.

The 2006 International Conference on Security and Management (SAM'06)
June 26 - 29, 2006, Monte Carlo Resort, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

The SAM'06 Conference will be held simultaneously with a number of
other international conferences and workshops, and will be sponsored
by the World Academy of Sciences and co-sponsored by CSREA.

This year SAM'06 will offer a Wireless Technologies and Digital Cities
Track aimed at promoting discussions on industry efforts to implement
digital cities using secure wireless technologies. A digital city
refers to the concept of using wireless technology to integrate a
city's infrastructure to promote economic development and improve the
quality of citizens' lives.

You are invited to submit a paper which may be about 5 pages (see
below for submittal information), or a panel proposal. All accepted
papers will be published in the conference proceedings.


SCOPE OF THE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES AND DIGITAL CITIES TRACK

Topics of interest should be centered on Wireless technologies and
Digital cities and include the following:

Secure Digital City Architecture     	       	Personal Information
Security and Privacy
Mobile Device Security			        IEEE 802.1x, WiMAX, Wi-Fi, and
WAPI Security
Mobile Identity Management		        Security for Wireless
Sensor Networks
Mobile Lightweight Cryptography		        Data Federation,
Security and Privacy
Instant Messaging Security 			Secure Location Related
Services
Wireless Authentication and Key Exchange 	Privacy of GSM, CDMA, and 3G

Secure Wireless Mesh Networks			Secure Voice over Wireless
Mobile Device Security				GSM and 3G Security
Secure Wireless Network Management		Secure Ad-Hoc Networks

SUBMISSION OF PAPERS AND PANEL PROPOSALS

Prospective authors are invited to submit a draft copy of the paper
(about 5 pages - single-spaced, font-size of 10 to 12) to Nitin Gupta
at nitgupta@alumni.usc.edu by the due date (see schedule below).

The length of the Camera-Ready papers (if accepted) will be limited to
7 (IEEE style) pages. Papers must not have been previously published
or currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Panel proposals
should be no longer than three pages in length, should include
possible panelists, and should include an indication of which
panelists have confirmed participation.

The first page of the paper or the panel proposal should include:
title and each author's name, affiliation, postal address, E-mail
address, telephone number, and Fax number. The first page should also
include the name of the author who will be presenting the paper and a
maximum of 5 keywords.

IMPORTANT DATES

Feb. 20, 2006:        Draft papers and panel proposals due
March 20, 2006:       Notification of acceptance
April 20, 2006:       Camera-ready papers and pre-registration due
June 26-29, 2006:     2006 International Conference on Security and 
                      Management (SAM'06)


GENERAL CHAIR         WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES AND DIGITAL CITIES TRACK
Prof. H.R. Arabnia    Nitin Gupta, CISSP - Intel Corporation  (Chair)

Please refer to http://www.world-academy-of-science.org/Home/ws for
up-to-date information on the 2006 International Conference on Security
and Management (SAM'06).

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

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: NSA Puts Cookies on Your Computer
Organization: Symantec
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:54:22 -0500


In article <telecom24.586.1@telecom-digest.org>, Anick Jesdanun
<ap@telecom-digest.org> wrote:

> By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer

> The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on
> visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite
> strict federal rules banning most of them.

> The first thing they do is examine your computer to see where you have
> been, according to other cookies. Then they implant a cookie of their
> own. 

Cookies aren't sent to unrelated sites, so I don't see how they do
"the first thing".  Cookies are only sent back to the site that
originally sent them.  While it's possible for cooperating sites to
arrange communication using cookies (e.g. a site that hosts banner
ads, and the site whose pages contain the banners), a site (even the
NSA) cannot simply examine all your other cookies to see where you've
been.


Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

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

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:07:18 -0700
From: jared@netspacenospamnet.au (jared)
Subject: Re: NSA Puts Cookies on Your Computer


Nothing unique about the site ... many commercial sites, esp for the
cookies that appear to support advertising, cluster in the 2036-2038
time frame. Probably lazy programming. Or the usual 'if the customer
doesn't like it then ...'

The cookies won't last a month using a browser that restricts the number
of cookies, given the number of cookies which many sites use.

By the way, Mozilla has a preference to reject cookies that either are
not for the current session or that do not expire within a
configurable number of days. Nice feature!

> Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not
> expire until 2035 -- likely beyond the life of any computer in use
> today.

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

From: DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:12:59 -0700
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.585.13@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:

> John Levine wrote:

>> The amount the payphone owner charges the calling card company is
>> regulated, but you are correct that they can mark it up as much as
>> they want.  I would think that the obvious solution would be to find a
>> calling card that doesn't.  It's not like there is a shortage of
>> options.

> Well, one obvious option is to require payphones to run like any other
> business and post its rates clearly on the phone.  Today, pay phones
> still treat customers like the old days, where toll charges were
> instantly available 24/7 by asking the operator, so there was no need
> to post rates.  Yet, they don't charge like that nor make the pricing
> known.  That IS sleazy business to hide your costs.

> Another example of how modern day phone "competition" screws customers.
> But we're just so better off that we got rid of the evil Bell System!
> <sarc>

Huh?

Payphones do disclose their costs.  The cost for a local call is
usually printed right on the phone, and as soon as you dial a long
distance call you'll be told (either via a display, or by a voice)
what you're being charged.

The costs charged by payphone operator to a calling card operator
aren't any of your concern, all that you (as a consumer) need to worry
about is the cost your calling card charges you.

That's between you and your calling card provider, and the rates are
clearly disclosed on most cards these days.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)
Date: 29 Dec 2005 07:35:01 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


DevilsPGD wrote:

> Unless the owner of the payphone is threatening or inflicting harm
> upon you causing you to make a call, no extortion has been committed.

In terms of the letter of the law you are correct.  But when someone
is in a captive situation, such as being in a hospital and needing to
call family (either as a patient or visitor) the person has no
choices.  In other words, when I had to take my mother to the
emergency room, I had to notify both my employer and my sister of the
situation.

Indeed, there was a risk of physical harm -- to my mother -- if I
didn't consult with my sister concerning my mother's medical situation
so I could properly advise the doctors.  So, actually, I would call it
extortion per your definition.

> Feel free to contact your AG or a local ADA and see if you can get
> extortion charges filed against a payphone operator or owner, if you
> want confirmation.

In any event, it is certianly deceptive fraudulent behavior.
Attorneys General DO go after this sort of thing and it is publicized,
but it is one of only many things they must deal with.

> If you're paying too much, get a better calling card -- There are tons
> of options.

I was using a calling card and the pay phone used the long distance
carrier I used.  But I didn't know I _still_ had to dial a special 800
number.  After complaining, they took off the $25/minute charges.
That's fraud and deceptive business practice.  (BTW, there were no
directions on my calling card number -- which was merely my phone number
with a PIN and I've had it for many years.)

Do you think a supermarket could get away with advertising a big
special but charging you outrageous prices because you didn't dial an
800 number first?

> Making a payphone call is not a right.  Your "need" to make a call
> does not give you the right to do so at a rate of your choosing.

Interesting how you put it.  Let's be clear about something.  Until
divesture, making a phone call was indeed a right under the philosophy
of universal telephone service.

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

From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges (was: Unanswered Cellphones)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:45:48 -0800
Organization: Stanford University


In article <telecom24.586.10@telecom-digest.org>, sethb@panix.com
(Seth Breidbart) wrote:

> For 800 number, the FCC set the charge the (last I checked) just under
> $0.30.  That's paid by the recipient (who may be a long distance
> carrier, or any sort of company with a toll-free inbound number).
 
Asking the following just as a matter of fact checking:

If I call an 800 (or 888?) number from a coin-operated payphone (e.g.,
in an airport concourse), does the owner or operator of that 800
number get charged 30 cents for each time I call (and they answer)?

More specifically, does this apply to *all and every* 800 number
owner?  Or do some 800 number owners negotiate special (that is, much
cheaper) deals?

And do some 800 number owners -- scumbag types, maybe -- just not pay
these charges?  And if so, do they perhaps get away with not paying?

(There's obviously a viewpoint hidden behind these questions -- but for 
the minute I'm just seeking to get the "true facts" of the matter.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe the subscriber to the 800 
number charges no one anything; _he_ is the person who agreed with
telco to automatically accept all incoming calls on a collect basis. 
(Except for the sleaze 800 operators; they will claim _they_ are
merely paying for the carriage to them; _you_ are paying for whatever
'service' they render on the phone, i.e. sex talk, horoscope, whatever.
[Their rationale is if a sore has an 800 line to place orders, you 
call to place an order; do you expect the merchandise you receive at
a later time to be 'free' since the store agreed to pay for the
carriage of the original phone call? The only difference they say, is
that the merchandise or service was delivered on the spot, rather than
at a later time _as a reaction to_ your phone call.])

Another party to the transaction, the COCOT owner has to pay _nothing_
for dialing to and connecting with the 800 number. He gets the call
for 'free' since the 800 subscriber noted above has agreed to pay for
it. The COCOT owner's complaint however, is he wants someone to pay
him for the occupation of his instrument which becomes necessary since
telco (alias AT&T) no longer includes payphones in the Separations and
Settlements plan. Just as hotel switchboard operators get paid for
their guarantee of payment of telco's charge for service, my feeling
is that lacking some internal process for doing so, COCOT owner should
get paid for his guarentee of payment to telco.  

Bear in mind that a hotel/rooming house guest is entitled to
_universal phone service_, but it would be very difficult administra-
tively for telco to meet that goal with _transient persons_. Telco 
cannot go string wires and install an instrument for everyone who
demands it, and what about the payment afterward? So telco, as a long
established practice has had a deal with hotels, rooming houses,
motels, hospitals [a hospital is merely a 'motel' or 'hotel' for an
ill person is it not], college dormitories [merely a transient lodging
place for a studious person, is it not]: To the management of such a
place, "here are your wire pairs, here is the apparatus to use, _you_
situate it as needed, provide 'universal service' to these transient
persons, you guarentee the payment of the charges involved; in return
you get a commission or percentage of the revenue for your troubles.'

Now everyone goes away happy: telco meets its burden of universal
service, (with a payment to its 'helpers'), telco does not have to
worry about getting paid by the end user (presumably switchboard
operator has more trustworthy credit than the transient user, etc.
Switchboard operator resells a valuable service to its users it
could not afford to pay for or install on its own, i.e wire pairs,
central office switch, etc. And no one would stay in a hotel with no
phone there to use would they? So it enhances the value of _your_
primary business as well, all for the cost of paying the monthly bill
to telco, processing (reselling) the telephone calls, and diddling
with some paperwork. For your labor, telco pays _you_. Everyone goes
away happy. And whether or not the end user actally pays, or winds up
stiffing the in-between reseller does not matter to telco, the 
in-between organization has _guarenteed_ the payment. So the
in-between organization makes a very diligent effort to collect from
the end transient user, something telco was trying to avoid in meeting
its burden of universal service. 

With COCOTS, it should ideally be the same way: transient user demands
universal service (walks up to payphone, makes his call.)COCOT
operator collects for his service at rates which should be regulated,
at the end of the month, collects from the coin box, and remits
proceeds to telco less his 'commission', i.e. whatever is left over in
the box after paying telco. COCOT owner has a few burdens which do not
generally apply to other resellers (hotels, etc). His _extremely_
transient users are more likely to try and stiff him than the others.
So he collects in advance, and telco helps by flagging his line as
'coin service' to prevent third party underfeeders (sleazy 800 numbers
for example) from abusing him, but otherwise the principle is the
same. It all went away when telco divested; the worker-hive called
'Separations and Settlements' (a huge number of employees who sat in a
back-office, pushing scraps of paper worth two or three cents each
back and forth at each other, busy with their adding machines, and
filing cabinets, etc) -- a _terribly boring_ job if there ever was one
 -- a lot like credit card processing offices) was one of the first to
vanish. Greed took over, everyone from telco downward wanted a bit
more.  PAT]

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

From: Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:25:11 GMT


DevilsPGD wrote:

> As for the devices, they're not illegal to own, only to operate (And
> then, they're only illegal without a license, or only if they operate
> outside the licensed bands)

They (cellular/PCS repeaters or "enhancers") are entirely legal to own 
and operate as long as they are operated under authority of the 
licensee(s) whose signals are involved.  They cannot be used legally on 
an independent, unlicensed basis.  They are, in the eyes of the FCC, 
cellular or PCS transmitters.

If you're a Verizon (or whoever) customer, contact Verizon (or
whoever) to see if they will authorize installation of the
transmitter.  Absent such authorization, these are no more legal than
pirate FM stations.

niallgal@yahoo.com wrote:

> A quick web search comes up with
> http://www.digitalantenna.com/cellamprep_DA4000SBR.html which makes the
> following claims:

> Q: Does the owner of this equipment (installed location) require an FCC
> license to operate the repeater?

> A: No, neither the user nor the installer needs an FCC license. All of
> our products are FCC approved. In the instruction manual, you will
> find guidelines to follow to comply with all FCC requirements, such as
> proper separation between antennas, and persons must be 6 meters
> horizontally away from outside antenna.

Well, the manufacturer seems to be playing fast and loose.  The unit's
FCC approval is valid only under Part 22 and 24, which require a
license (i.e., you have to be the licensed cellular or PCS operator
whose signal is involved), but the manual says it's approved under
Part 15, which is for unlicensed operation.

I have seen similar deceptive FCC "approvals" with other cellular/PCS
enhancers.  The test report for the unit under the Part 22/24 rules is
at
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=440134&native_or_pdf=pdf ;

the FCC certification grant is available at
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPY&RequestTimeout=500&application_id=286287&fcc_id=PZODA4000SBR clearly 
showing authorization only under Parts 22/24.  Can the company show
any Part 15 (unlicensed) approval?


Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(Replace "example.invalid" with "com" in my address.)

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

From: Rik <hrasmussen@nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: 29 Dec 2005 05:49:46 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Manufacturers and vendors of these active devices lie about their
legality. The FCC has issued written clarifications and replied in
writing to inquiries. In both instances they make it clear that it is
only legal for licensees to install these BDAs. There are no licenses
issued just to operate a BDA.

One problem is that many of these devices, especially those sold to
repeat Nextel signals, also repeat the signals of many other licensed
systems.

Much accurate information on this subject is available here:

http://www.rfsolutions.com/

I have no connection with that web site, but know the owner to be an
expert on this subject.

Rik Rasmussen
Two Way Radio Directory
http://twowayradiodirectory.com

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

From: harold@hallikainen.com <harold@hallikainen.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Extenders?
Date: 29 Dec 2005 07:45:16 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Looks like these ARE legal! Go to
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm and
use PZO (letter O) for the Grantee Code. Lots of information comes up.

Harold
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com

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

Date: 29 Dec 2005 04:47:22 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> As others pointed out, all charges the customer pays on a pay phone
> are UNREGULATED.  The pay phone provider can charge you whatever you
> wish.

> Unlike normal businesses, pay phone providers do not have to tell you
> their prices; you only find out a month later when you get the bill.

Good lord, are you still using an ILEC calling card going to whatever
ripoff AOS the payphone uses?  Don't do that.  I honestly don't
understand why ILECs even issue calling cards any more, since even the
normal rates from the ILECs and mainstream IXCs are absurdly high.

There's about a bazillion cheap calling cards available, both prepaid
and postpaid, all of which have an 800 access number.  They cost what
they cost, the payphone only sees the 800 call.  Is there some reason
you can't use one?

R's,

John

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

From: DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Unanswered Calls to Cell Phones?
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:12:59 -0700
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.585.18@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:

> DevilsPGD wrote:

>>> And using a calling card from a payphone can be significant these
>>> days since the payphone owner can now "legally" extort huge charges
>>> from the long distance carrier or card provider, who will then extort
>>> those surcharges from us.

>> No extortion involved.  If someone held a gun to your head or
>> otherwise forced you to use the payphone, it would be extortion.

>> Since you choose to use a payphone, you choose to absorb that cost.  A
>> cost, which is regulated, and which helps telcos continue to run pay
>> phones at all, since they're not generally considered profitable
>> anymore, at least around here.

> Utter nonsense.  It IS extortion.

> When you are in an emergency situation (ie in a hospital) and they
> don't allow cellphone use or you don't have one, you indeed are forced
> to use their phone and pay their charges.

No.  You aren't forced to make a call at all -- If you choose to make
a call, then you will need to be prepared to pay for that call.

> As others pointed out, all charges the customer pays on a pay phone
> are UNREGULATED.  The pay phone provider can charge you whatever you
> wish.

What a customer pays the pay phone IS regulated.  What you pay your
calling card is not regulated, but is disclosed by the calling card
vendor up front.  Read the fine print on your card (or at the point of
sale)

> Unlike normal businesses, pay phone providers do not have to tell you
> their prices; you only find out a month later when you get the bill.
> Imagine going food shopping with the prices unmarked and not knowing
> how much you spent for food until the bill comes.  Would you tolerate
> that?  But it's perfectly fine with pay phones.

How exactly does the pay phone provider bill you?

Unless you're putting money directly into the phone, chances are
pretty good that the pay phone provider isn't even billing you
directly -- your beef is with whoever is billing you.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Mother Decides to Fight Downloading Suit on Her Own
Date: 29 Dec 2005 07:44:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Lisa Hancock:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are close, Lisa, but not completely
> correct. You can type on a computer (as in downloading music) and an
> unsophisticated mother will not know _exactly_ what the kid is doing,
> whether she stands there for a couple minutes or all day. On the flip
> side, if the little guy has a camera turned on and is acting out
> sexually with either his friends or an older guy or whatever, if mother
> comes in and sees it, there will be hell to pay. I am sure mother is
> not _that_ unophisticated.  PAT]

Well, it's easy to hide a webcam by merely throwing a sock over it or
putting it in a discrete corner of the desk.  As to performing for the
webcam, look at it this way: When a boy reaches around 13, he'll start
to take up "private time" in his bedroom or bathroom.  Presumably the
mother is aware of this biological need and will respect his privacy.
If she happens to walk in on him she'll discover him doing what other
boys do in private, but she shouldn't necessarily realize he's doing
it for the webcam.  Years ago this practice was discouraged by
parents, but not now.

The TV show "Roseanne" did an episode about their son going through
that phase and had a scene where the father was awkwardly trying to
explain the need for discreteness to the son.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Reliable, Easy, and Cost Effective Way to Record Calls?
Date: 29 Dec 2005 07:49:20 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Phil Earnhardt wrote:

> I'm going to be doing interviews over the phone; I'd like to be able
> to easily and reliably record the calls.

My old Panasonic answering machine had a record-call feature to it,
and it put out the beep tone every 15 seconds so your taping is legal.
This machine used tape cassettes and I don't think they use them
anymore.  A better grade electronics store (not Radio Shack) might
have such equipment.

Radio Shack sells a suction cup with a small audio plug that works
tolerably well on most handsets and tape recorders.  This set up is
very inexpensive.  One problem is that the suction cup falls off the
receiver in mid-call, and the wire from it is cumbersome.

I never used the plug-in device you mentioned, but that should be all
you need.

Note that in some states you must have the beep tone although that
seems to be rare these days.

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

Date: 29 Dec 2005 04:39:21 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: What Carriers Does Vonage Use to Terminate Calls?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> I'm just currious what companies Vonage users to terminate calls
> across the country since they do not have their own true
> infrastructure.  Any ideas?

Lots of different ones.  Here in upstate NY it's Paetec but they have
lots of different deals with different CLECs.  If you're wondering and
have a lot of spare time, visit their voicemail help page at
http://www.vonage.com/features.php?feature=voicemail which has a list
of their voicemail access numbers which are in the same number blocks
as their phone numbers.  Look up the NPA-NXX of the voicemail number
to see what CLEC they use in that area.

Regards,

John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711
johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, 
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

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


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 2005-06 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 #587
******************************