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
TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:52:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NEC NEAX IPX (phillip) Mike Wendland: Phone Over Internet is Last Nail in (Jack Decker) Michael Powell on Charlie Rose Tonight 3/11/05 (Monty Solomon) Remote Physical Device Fingerprinting (Monty Solomon) FCC Approves National Standard For Cell Phone Bills (Telecom dailyLead) Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (LB@notmine.com) Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Clark W. Griswold, Jr.) Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Robert Bonomi) Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Carl Navarro) Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (Brad Houser) Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack (John Beaman) Re: Long Distance Carrier Verification (Dave Garland) Re: Long Distance Carrier Verification (Bill Matern) Re: Technion (Robert Bonomi) Re: Technion (sean) Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers (Dean) Re: Vonage Outage Last Thursday (Steve Sobol) A Push to Explain Cell Phone Costs (Carl Moore) Re: Other Firmware For Linksys wrt54g? Satori (gary) Re: Jail Sentence for Phone Line "Denial of Service" (Robert Bonomi) Re: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills and Invoices (Lisa Hancock) Re: DoJ: VoIP Providers Avoiding CALEA Mandate (Sean) Iraq's 'Saviors' Guilty of Vandlism (Patrick Townson) 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: phillip <phillip.sass@med.va.gov> Subject: NEC NEAX IPX Date: 11 Mar 2005 08:57:48 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Has anyone using a NEC NEAX IPX telephone switch run across telephone lines mysteriously becoming unforwarded from voicemail? BTW, the voicemail system we are using is Cisco Unity. This is a random occurance that is becoming a hot issue. Also what are the experiences with integrating this switch with Cisco Unity. We are having issues there as well. ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@Withheld at request> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:58:06 -0500 Subject: Mike Wendland: Phone Over the Internet is Last Nail in Coffin Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwendland11e_20050311.htm MIKE WENDLAND: Phone over the Internet is last nail in landline coffin BY MIKE WENDLAND FREE PRESS COLUMNIST The most basic way the world communicates -- by telephone -- is rapidly moving to the Internet. The technology is called Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. Just as cell phones started us down the road of replacing our traditional landline phones, so VoIP will eventually cut the wired connection. Oh, there will still be landline phones, just like some people still have rotary dial phones. But in the next few years, many of us will be making our calls via the Internet. This week, America Online, arguably the most influential Internet service in the world, announced that it will start to bring VoIP service to its customers within a month. Full story at: http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwendland11e_20050311.htm How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:57:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Michael Powell on Charlie Rose Tonight 3/11/05 MICHAEL POWELL Chairman, Federal Communications Commission The Charlie Rose Show http://www.charlierose.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:00:59 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Remote Physical Device Fingerprinting http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2005/fingerprinting/ Remote physical device fingerprinting To be presented at the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 8-11, 2005 Tadayoshi Kohno Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of California, San Diego Andre Broido and kc claffy Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis - CAIDA San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of California, San Diego We introduce the area of remote physical device fingerprinting, or fingerprinting a physical device, as opposed to an operating system or class of devices, remotely, and without the fingerprinted device's known cooperation. We accomplish this goal by exploiting small, microscopic deviations in device hardware: clock skews. Our techniques do not require any modification to the fingerprinted devices. Our techniques report consistent measurements when the measurer is thousands of miles, multiple hops, and tens of milliseconds away from the fingerprinted device, and when the fingerprinted device is connected to the Internet from different locations and via different access technologies. Further, one can apply our passive and semi-passive techniques when the fingerprinted device is behind a NAT or firewall, and also when the device's system time is maintained via NTP or SNTP. One can use our techniques to obtain information about whether two devices on the Internet, possibly shifted in time or IP addresses, are actually the same physical device. Example applications include: computer forensics; tracking, with some probability, a physical device as it connects to the Internet from different public access points; counting the number of devices behind a NAT even when the devices use constant or random IP IDs; remotely probing a block of addresses to determine if the addresses correspond to virtual hosts, e.g., as part of a virtual honeynet; and unanonymizing anonymized network traces. http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2005/fingerprinting/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:21:03 EST From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com> Subject: FCC Approves National Standard for Cell Phone Bills Telecom dailyLead from USTA March 11, 2005 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=19980&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * FCC approves national standard for cell phone bills BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * Dolan to use own coin to fund Voom * FCC chief calls for return of civil discourse * EchoStar faces accounting investigation, report says USTA SPOTLIGHT * At SUPERCOMM: Register today for the IP Video Conference EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * Tokyo plans citywide WiMAX network * Wireless companies display wares at CeBit VOIP DOWNLOAD * Report: VoIP key to wireless growth * Search players next to enter VoIP space? * Cox embraces VoIP * Q-and-A with Vonage's chief REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * SEC plans charges against former Qwest CEO Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=19980&l=2017006 ------------------------------ From: LB@notmine.com Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:21:25 -0500 Organization: Optimum Online emb120skw@aol.com wrote: > Hi, > I would like to wire one jack for two lines. Here is the setup of the > wires after opening the jack. > The red screw terminal has two blue and 1 orange wires connected to > it. The green screw terminal has 2 white/blue and 1 white/orange wire > connected to it. I'm just curious as to why there are 3 wires > connected per terminal. > The yellow an black screw terminals are not connected to any > wires. Now what should I do to be able to access a second line? > Thank you! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Red/green is traditionally one pair; > and yellow/black is traditionally the second pair. You want to use > the unused yellow/black screw terminals for your second line. Can > you tell us more about the _type of phone instrument_ currently in > use on your (I presume) working single line? With no other knowledge > it is difficult to answer your question; was this/is this part of > a business phone arrangment? Does the pair which is 'wired' at > present go to a working instrument? PAT] As Pat says red-green and black-yellow are what you care about. You (actually the telco does this when you sign up) would normally add the extra line to the yellow-black at the box where the phone enters the premises. The extra wires sound like they go to extra phones. If that box (with extra wires) is outside the premises you might want to ask the telco or the cops unless those wires clearly go to extra phones or devices you know about. ------------------------------ From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <spamtrap100@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:56:10 -0700 emb120skw@aol.com wrote: > I would like to wire one jack for two lines. Here is the setup of the > wires after opening the jack. > The red screw terminal has two blue and 1 orange wires connected to > it. The green screw terminal has 2 white/blue and 1 white/orange wire > connected to it. I'm just curious as to why there are 3 wires > connected per terminal. I think you will find that your house was not wired "home run" to each jack. In other words, one pair goes back to the demarc block and the two other pairs go to other jacks in the house. > The yellow an black screw terminals are not connected to any > wires. Now what should I do to be able to access a second line? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Red/green is traditionally one pair; > and yellow/black is traditionally the second pair. You want to use > the unused yellow/black screw terminals for your second line. Can > you tell us more about the _type of phone instrument_ currently in > use on your (I presume) working single line? With no other knowledge > it is difficult to answer your question; was this/is this part of > a business phone arrangment? Does the pair which is 'wired' at > present go to a working instrument? PAT] The colors don't really matter other than for keeping track of what's going on. You need to start at the demarc and select an unused pair for the second line. When you get to the phone jack, you need to know if your phone is a single line or dual line phone. If its a dual line phone, then Pat's advice is correct. Wire line 1 to the inner pair of the jack (red/green on some jacks) and wire line 2 to the outer pair (yellow/black). If the phone is a single line phone and you want it to access Line 2, you will need to wire Line 2 to the inner pair. ------------------------------ From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:49:36 -0000 Organization: Widgets, Inc. In article <telecom24.106.5@telecom-digest.org>, <emb120skw@aol.com> wrote: > Hi, > I would like to wire one jack for two lines. Here is the setup of the > wires after opening the jack. > The red screw terminal has two blue and 1 orange wires connected to > it. The green screw terminal has 2 white/blue and 1 white/orange wire > connected to it. I'm just curious as to why there are 3 wires > connected per terminal. Because your wiring is a 'spider web'. <grin> The 3 pairs of wires go to three different places. Two of them go to other jacks, or where other jacks 'used to be'. The other pair goes "towards" where the phone line comes into your house. Maybe 'directly", or may to another jack that is 'closer' to the entry-point. > The yellow an black screw terminals are not connected to any > wires. Now what should I do to be able to access a second line? You need another pair of wires from the telco entry-point (or wherever the 2nd line originates) to that jack. connected to the black/yellow terminals. Of course, this implies that you _have_ a "second line", from the telephone company, or 'somebody else' (e.g. a VoIP provider). Then, obviously, you have to have a "two line capable" telephone instrument, or some sort of a 'switch' (as in a simple mechanical "DPDT" device) between the phone and the wall jack. ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org> Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:03:52 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On 10 Mar 2005 19:21:37 -0800, emb120skw@aol.com wrote: > Hi, > I would like to wire one jack for two lines. Here is the setup of the > wires after opening the jack. > The red screw terminal has two blue and 1 orange wires connected to > it. The green screw terminal has 2 white/blue and 1 white/orange wire > connected to it. I'm just curious as to why there are 3 wires > connected per terminal. > The yellow an black screw terminals are not connected to any > wires. Now what should I do to be able to access a second line? If you haven't already guessed, the blue pair in a cable is the first line and the orange par is the second. The reason for 3 wires is that one jack is feeding another one or two jacks somewhere else in the building. If you carefully tag the 3 cables that go to the jack, you can remove one at a time until you don't get dial tone, or remove them all and put them back one at a time until you get dial tone. That is the feed pair to that jack and if you search, you'll find that 2 or more other jacks are now dead. The trick is to find the closest jack to the demarc and hope that it is the one that feeds dial tone to the whole building. Get out your toner and probe and start testing :-) or just do it by trial and error. When you're finished, you'll bring the second dial tone into the building on the orange pair and wire that orange pair to the black/yellow wires on the jack. If you need to send that dial tone to another location, you'll need to put 2 or 3 pairs down on every jack just as they did with the first line. I would guess that the reason for the orange pair is because the previous tenant either had DSL, or a broken blue pair on that cable. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Brad Houser <bradDOThouser@intel.com> Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:52:59 -0800 Organization: Intel Reply-To: Brad Houser <bradDOThouser@intel.com> <emb120skw@aol.com> wrote in message news:telecom24.106.5@telecom-digest.org: > Hi, > I would like to wire one jack for two lines. Here is the setup of the > wires after opening the jack. > The red screw terminal has two blue and 1 orange wires connected to > it. The green screw terminal has 2 white/blue and 1 white/orange wire > connected to it. I'm just curious as to why there are 3 wires > connected per terminal. > The yellow an black screw terminals are not connected to any > wires. Now what should I do to be able to access a second line? Many homes were wired with a "daisy chain" or loop. The Blue/Blue-White lines are probably going off in two directions, no way of telling from your description, but it could be one to the demarc and one to another jack. The Orange/Orange-White pair could also be going to one of the first two locations, or to a third location. There may even be yet another Orange pair that isn't connected that could be used for line two. You need to figure out what is available for use, if you don't want to change any of the other phones. You can do this by trial and error or by "toning" the lines. (Ask your Home Depot electrical guy if you don't have one of these.) You could also have a situation where the lines are "home run" but someone added a jack by extending a line from that jack to another. Brad Houser ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:55:16 -0600 From: John Beaman <jbeaman@good-sam.com> Subject: Re: Wiring Two Lines on One Jack emb120skw@aol.com wrote to inquire about Wiring Two Lines on One Jack on 10 Mar 2005 19:21:37 -0800: > Hi, > I would like to wire one jack for two lines. Here is the setup of the > wires after opening the jack. > The red screw terminal has two blue and 1 orange wires connected to > it. The green screw terminal has 2 white/blue and 1 white/orange wire > connected to it. I'm just curious as to why there are 3 wires > connected per terminal. > The yellow an black screw terminals are not connected to any > wires. Now what should I do to be able to access a second line? > Thank you! Greetings, Sounds to me like your residence is wired with CAT3 (4 pair) cable instead of the old standard wiring used for phone jacks. It would also seem that your phone jacks are "daisy chained" together instead of each being wired directory from the demark (star topology). I am also assuming that the orange pair is wired to the terminals because there is an open in one of the blue pairs, and someone just grabbed the next available pair as a workaround. Or, they could be used as some sort of intercom / door access system. Please see the attached chart documenting the relationship Standard wire Cat 3 Tip- Green -----Line 1----- Blue Ring- Red -----Line 1----- White/Blue stripe Tip- Black -----Line 2----- Orange Ring-Yellow ----Line 2----- White/Orange stripe With that in mind, there is no reason you cannot use the green or brown pair for your second line. Provided that they are not in use at any other jacks. I would highly recommend opening up the other phone jacks, and see if you can find another jack where the orange pair is in use. While that would not be conclusive, it would further substantiate my guess about the orange pair being used in place of the blue pair. JB The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> Subject: Re: Long Distance Carrier Verification Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:34:32 -0600 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when Michael Muderick <michael.muderick@verizon.net> wrote: > Has anyone tried 700-555-4141 lately to verify long distance carrier? Works fine here (Minneapolis, with LDC Lightyear). ------------------------------ From: Bill Matern <wtm@ncomm.com> Subject: Re: Long Distance Carrier Verification Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:49:10 -0500 Organization: MV Communications, Inc. When I worked on a 700 number service, the number was 700-555-1212 to find out about your IXC. This was over 10 years ago. However, when I just tired it in Salem, NH it did not work, but you may want to try this alternative number. On Verizon's site, they indicate the 700-555-4141 number so it probably has changed in that time. This number did not work either for me. Bill Some info on 700 numbers (from http://www.nanpa.com/faq/sitefaq.html) Area code 700 was assigned in 1983 on the eve of the introduction of long distance competition in the US. The intent was that interexchange carriers could use 700 numbers to implement new services quickly. When a 700 number is dialed, the local exchange carrier processing the call routes it to the presubscribed interexchange carrier, unless the caller has overridden presubscription by dialing 101XXXX before the number. Thus each interexchange carrier has access to all 7.92 million 700 numbers. 700 numbers are different from all other North American Numbering Plan numbers because the destinations are not unique, and, in fact, depend on the network the caller has selected. Michael Muderick <michael.muderick@verizon.net> wrote in message news:telecom24.105.12@telecom-digest.org: > Has anyone tried 700-555-4141 lately to verify long distance carrier? > It's still a published number, but in the Phila. area, I keep getting > a busy signal. Is there a new number available? > Michael Muderick ------------------------------ From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Technion Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:26:38 -0000 Organization: Widgets, Inc. In article <telecom24.106.6@telecom-digest.org>, Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote: > This afternoon I rushed into the room to answer a call on the third > ring. "This is Tell Nants calling on behalf of Bell South in regards > to telemarketing. Sorry we missed you. If you have any questions, > call 1-866..." > It's pretty bad when somebody programs a robot to call homes and hang > up without saying what it's about. > The call came from 954 443 9404, which is Technion Communications. On > the web I've found complaints that their telemarketing robots will > bombard a Bell South customer day after day. Apparently the law > doesn't apply if the victim has a business relationship with the > client, in this case Bell South. The language of the statute (47 USC 227) does *NOT* support that interpretation. It gives a free pass if the _caller_ has a "prior business relationship" with the party being called. There is nothing to indicate that the party with the prior business relationship can "delegate" that right to a third party. See: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html> Particularly sections (a) (3) (B), and (a) (4) (B) > Two hours later I found a similar message on my answering machine, > again telling me to call Bell South at the 866 number. Because the > robot was programmed start speaking immediately, I didn't get the > whole message. That could lure the victim into calling in case it was > important. (On the web I've found a document where Technion argues to > the FCC that the law doesn't apply if they can lure the victim into > making the call.) > It seems like harassment to me. Can I do anything to stop it? Consider a small-claims lawsuit for 'statutory damages' ($500) under 47 USC 227. File a formal complaint with the Federal *TRADE* Commission, for violation of the 'telemarketing rule". Get on the federal "Do Not Call" list, if you're not there already. The FTC rules make it clear that 3rd-party telemarketing agencies have to scrub against that list -- even if their client is 'exempt' from regulation. Dunno about Bell South, but SBC -- who is *really* egregious with their telemarketing --_will_ flag a customer account for "do not call for marketing purposes", upon request. I betcha Bell South will too. The law *requires* that companies maintain their _own_ internal Do not call list -- for *anyone* who has expressly requested that "that company" not call them. The 'prior business relation- ship' exemption does *not* trump the company-maintained 'do not call' list for marketing calls. Note: When requesting (demanding) addition to the company DNC list, the companies are prone to tell you that it will take some period of time before that request becomes effective. Reply that the only delay sanctioned by law is for a number entered on the *NATIONAL* Do Not Call registry. that there is *NO* provision in law for any delay in implementing a company-specific "do not call" request. For a telco, require that they put in the account 'notes' that "customer has directed that his number be put on the company-maintained do-not-call list, and that therefore, in compliance with federal statute, all telemarketing calls cease IMMEDIATELY." The telco _is_ "responsible" (as in 'legally liable') for the actions of any 'agent' or contract marketing service that violates the law. This opens the door for small-claims action against *both* the actual telemarketer, and the telco. subpoenaing the records for when _anyone_ "requested" addition to the company-maintained do-not-call list, when the add was _actually_ made, and the date/time of the last call each such number, does wonders for showing 'knowing and wilful' violation --- allowing for treble damages to be collected. ------------------------------ From: sean <sean@snerts-r-us.org> Subject: Re: Technion Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:27:33 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Choreboy wrote: > This afternoon I rushed into the room to answer a call on the third > ring. "This is Tell Nants calling on behalf of Bell South in regards > to telemarketing. Sorry we missed you. If you have any questions, > call 1-866..." > It's pretty bad when somebody programs a robot to call homes and hang > up without saying what it's about. > The call came from 954 443 9404, which is Technion Communications. On > the web I've found complaints that their telemarketing robots will > bombard a Bell South customer day after day. Apparently the law > doesn't apply if the victim has a business relationship with the > client, in this case Bell South. > Two hours later I found a similar message on my answering machine, > again telling me to call Bell South at the 866 number. Because the > robot was programmed start speaking immediately, I didn't get the > whole message. That could lure the victim into calling in case it was > important. (On the web I've found a document where Technion argues to > the FCC that the law doesn't apply if they can lure the victim into > making the call.) > It seems like harassment to me. Can I do anything to stop it? > Choreboy Give em a dose of their own medicine: Get a cheap PC and a cheap modem, and set up a script to repeat dial the 800 number over and over and over, with a recorded message saying that auto dial robots are illegal. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But _your_autodial robot is _also_ illegal. People have tried that, thinking they would not get caught, but they do get caught, and frequently punished, sometimes severely. ------------------------------ From: Dean <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers Date: 10 Mar 2005 22:08:55 -0800 Isaiah Beard wrote: > Dean wrote: >> A while back some on this list engaged in a lively debate about cell >> phone radiation risks. This article may have some information of >> interest to those of you who think this issue isn't dead yet. >> The cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0? >> By Molly Wood, senior editor, CNET.com >> Tuesday, March 8, 2005 > Oh, C|Net. Now we KNOW it's quality journalism. </sarcasm> > Consider that Ms. Wood readily admits she has an agenda (she has an > axe to grind with cell phone manufacturers over what she perceives as > "iron-clad control over phone releases and pricing, its > ever-lengthening contracts, and the annoying habit it has of crippling > Bluetooth phones so that [she] can't use them the way [she wants] > to"). I would thus take this with a heavy handful of salt. > E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. > Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. OK OK, I'm not saying there's anything absolutely definitive in that article. But it seems certainly prudent to use a headset and try to keep the antenna at a certain distance -- just as she suggests toward the end of the article. (although I think I read somewhere that the cord of the headset can have some adverse effect too - one can only take so many precautions and still be reasonable:-) Regards, Dean PS As for Ms Wood's honesty, I am certainly not qualified to offer an opinion (haven't read her enough). But the evidence you mention is hardly enough to dismiss her as biased. If I had to guess, I would say that her grievances are shared by the vast majority of people interested in telecom, and I don't think too many of us want to see phone manufacturers brought to their knees by unwarranted lawsuits. ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> Subject: Re: Vonage Outage Last Thursday Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:52:53 -0800 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Brian Inglis wrote: > It works, ship it ... we're all beta test sites now! Given this discussion of apparent Vonage incompetence, their whining about their traffic being blocked is quite funny. Seems they are quite capable of blocking their own traffic, if inadvertently. ;) JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:24:01 EST From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.ARMY.MIL> Subject: "A Push to Explain Cell Phone Costs" For as long as it's good: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/31105-bb-cellphones.html Story starts "Have trouble understanding how all those fees add up on your cellphone bill?" In the path I furnished above, notice "bb", which stands for "Bizarre Bazaar" -- strange but true stories. ------------------------------ From: gary <garys_groups@nb.net> Subject: Re: Other Firmware For Linksys wrt54g? Satori Date: 11 Mar 2005 07:35:47 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com pattyjamas@hotmail.com wrote: > I have put in a few wireless routers but never got into the internals. > I now have one in my home and will be adding a Range Extender. > I possess a WRT54G, running Windows 2000 and uploaded the latest > firmware (version 3+ dated Dec 2004 I think) from Linksys.com. > In reading the latest PC Mag, I ran across an interesting article on > the Satori firmware and extra options it adds. (www.linksys.org) > A few questions: > 1. Is this the best choice of stable firmware for my WRT54G to add new > options, perhaps increase signal power (if it really works) and tweak > other necessary parameters for best performance/range? > 2. Are there other firmware vendors worth looking at on linksys.org? > Thank you, > Patty Patty, Look on the bottom of your router, on the sticker that has your s/n and mac address, it should have you hardware version. (WRTG54g vx.x) If your version is 2.2 or greater you will probably have to subscibe to sveasoft.com for $20/yr and use the Alchemy release as I have. If your version is 2.0 or lower then you should be able to load the older versions like Satori(available without subscription) or openwrt(only supports through v2.0) The signal power increase does work, but so do better antennas ------------------------------ From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Jail Sentence for Phone Line "Denial of Service" Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:39:37 -0000 Organization: Widgets, Inc. In article <telecom24.106.3@telecom-digest.org>, Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: > Fascinating ... could this be extended to spammers? Please? Looks close > enough to be worth a looksee ... No chance. unfortunately. The statute involved (47 USC 223) is *expressly* limited to _telephone_calls_ made with the intent to harass or annoy. > "Ex-GOP Party Head Charged in Phone Jamming" > "By ERIK STETSON Associated Press Writer March 10, 2005, 1:23 PM EST" > "CONCORD, N.H. The former executive director of the New Hampshire > Republican Party was sentenced Thursday to seven months in prison for > jamming Democratic telephone lines during the 2002 election. > "Chuck McGee pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiring to make > anonymous calls with the intent to annoy or harass. He was also fined > $2,000 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service." ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Re: FCC to Cellcos: Clean up Your Bills and Invoices Date: 11 Mar 2005 09:41:32 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Danny Burstein wrote: > "FCC Extends Truth-in-Billing Rules to Wireless Phones; Seeks > Comment on Additional Measures to Increase Ability of Consumers to > Make Informed Choices ... I wonder if this will make bills _harder_ to understand. As a result of all the "fair disclosure" laws, companies now send out whole books in fine print on their numerous policies. They're impossible for a lay person to understand, and they're constantly changing. Overloading someone with detail is an easy way to fraud someone. Years ago our electric bill was on a postcard. Name, address, KWH hours used, total cost. Now it's several pages of graphs and charts. Our phone bill used to be one small slip of paper -- fixed costs on one side, toll charges on the other. Now it's so thick it requires extra postage -- and I don't even have toll charges! (And it's on double-sided paper too!) I'm pretty sure it was the PUCs that ordered the breakouts of toll/non-toll and basic/non-basic data blocks. Further, all imposed charges, ie 911, FCC line, should be rolled up in service and equipment; all taxes rolled into one item just as the old days. Can anyone justify mailing out the Encyclopedia Britannica for a monthly utility bill? ------------------------------ From: sean <sean@snerts-r-us.org> Subject: Re: DoJ: VoIP Providers Avoiding CALEA Mandate Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:26:59 -0500 Tony P. wrote: > I'm pretty sure that most VoIP providers encrypt from the terminal > adapter back to the server. But everything is based on IP aware > telephone switches so it isn't a problem to tap at the switch. Most do NOT encrypt. That is what makes this so funny. It's extremely easy to tap VOIP. All one needs to tap SIP based voip is the latest vesrion of ETHEREAL - capture the packets, and it will save the sip streams as .au files that can be played in windows media player! I have verified this works for tapping Vonage calls. > It's because law enforcement by and large is ignorant when it comes to > technology. > Even the FBI, the leading agency in the U.S. trips over it's own feet > when it comes to information technology. ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson <ptownson@telecom-digest.org> Subject: Iraq's 'Saviours' Guilty of Vandalism Date: Fri, Mar 11 2005 00:00:00 GMT A very sad story about a bit of 'collateral damage' in the historically significant country called Iraq. Now it seems, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the 'Hanging Gardens' has been irreparably damaged by Iraq's 'saviors'; American troops have ruined it. I thought I read somewhere they were trying to take care of the museums and other historical artifacts in this part of the world where so much of the Old Testament was based. I guess I thought wrong, but what else is old? http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1106088610017&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795 PAT ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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 #107 ****************************** | |