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 Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:17:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Piercing the Peer-to-Peer Myths: Examination of Canadian (Monty Solomon) Computer-Aided Music Distribution: Future of Selection (Monty Solomon) Verizon Wireless Expands Availability of Ringback Tones (Monty Solomon) Verizon Agrees to Buy Stake Of MCI (Marcus Didius Falco) Report Critical of Philly's Wi-Fi Plan (Marcus Didius Falco) Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight (Marcus Didius Falco) Why Must a Cordless Phone be Away From Other Electronics? (curious) Re: Reporters Get Credit For Simple ID Switch (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: Spammer Gets 9 Years (Ed Clarke) Re: Simultaneous Ring Problem With Cell (Nathan Anderson) 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:03:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Piercing the Peer-to-Peer Myths: Examination of Canadian Piercing the peer-to-peer myths: An examination of the Canadian experience by Michael Geist Abstract Canada is in the midst of a contentious copyright reform with advocates for stronger copyright protection maintaining that the Internet has led to widespread infringement that has harmed the economic interests of Canadian artists. The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) has emerged as the leading proponent of copyright reform, claiming that peer-to-peer file sharing has led to billions in lost sales in Canada. This article examines CRIA's claims by conducting an analysis of industry figures. It concludes that loss claims have been greatly exaggerated and challenges the contention that recent sales declines are primarily attributable to file-sharing activities. Moreover, the article assesses the financial impact of declining sales on Canadian artists, concluding that revenue collected through a private copying levy system already adequately compensates Canadian artists for the private copying that occurs on peer-to-peer networks. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/geist/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:08:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Computer-Aided Music Distribution: The Future of Selection Computer-aided music distribution: The future of selection, retrieval and transmission by Nancy Bogucki Duncan and Mark A. Fox Abstract The Internet has made music more widely available and increased the convenience with which we can listen to music. We increasingly recognize that recorded music can take the form of digital files. The Internet and related technologies for music delivery have been made viable by advances in compression, data storage, and transmission technologies. To provide greater value to consumers, music labels need to make greater use of retrieval and selection technologies. Contents Introduction The product of music Why do we choose to experience music in different ways? Technology and the provision of value to consumers. Conclusions http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_4/duncan/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:05:34 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Verizon Wireless Expands Availability of Ringback Tones; Verizon Wireless Expands Availability of Ringback Tones; Customers Can Play Their Favorite Song, Soundtrack or Voice Track for Callers; New Service Now Available to More Verizon Wireless Customers - Apr 11, 2005 03:14 PM (BusinessWire) PHOENIX--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 11, 2005--Verizon Wireless, the first national carrier to offer Ringback Tones -- short clips of real music that replace the standard ring callers hear when they call the Verizon Wireless phone of a Ringback Tone subscriber -- has expanded the availability of the service to include Arizona. The service is now available in most western states. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=48289993 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:49:16 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Verizon Agrees to Buy Stake Of MCI's http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40350-2005Apr9 washingtonpost.com Verizon Agrees to Buy Stake Of MCI's Biggest Shareholder $1.1 Billion Purchase an Attempt to Shut Out Qwest's Bids By Yuki Noguchi Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 10, 2005; Page A12 Verizon Communications Inc. said yesterday it agreed to pay $1.1 billion in cash to purchase the shares of MCI Inc.'s largest shareholder in an attempt to lock up its deal to buy MCI and shut out rival Qwest Communications International Inc. New York-based Verizon agreed to buy about 43.5 million shares -- or 13 percent of MCI's stock -- from Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim Helu. At $25.72 a share, MCI's market price at the time of the agreement, the price is higher than the $23.10 per share Verizon has offered to pay other MCI shareholders to acquire the company. It's the latest chess move between Verizon and Qwest, two regional phone companies locked in a two-month battle to acquire MCI of Ashburn. So far, MCI's board of directors has sided with Verizon, citing that company's greater resources and financial strength, even though Qwest is offering to pay substantially more. Analysts described Verizon's move as a significant development, but some said Qwest could still muster support for its offer. Qwest has sweetened its bid three times in its attempts to win the support of the MCI board, forcing Verizon to raise its original offer, but the MCI board spurned Qwest each time. For the past week, Qwest has been considering ways to pursue a hostile offer, including seeking the backing of MCI shareowners to vote down the proposed merger with Verizon. In buying Slim's shares, Verizon sought to reduce Qwest's maneuvering room. The deal "was an opportunity for us to purchase a block of shares under unique circumstances and is an important step forward in our acquisition of MCI," Verizon chairman and chief executive Ivan Seidenberg said yesterday in a statement. The purchase of Slim's shares, which must be approved by regulators, is expected to close in several weeks, the company said. Verizon will not be able to acquire more shares one block at a time from MCI investors because of a "poison pill" provision in MCI's charter that makes it prohibitively expensive for a single entity to accumulate more than 15 percent of the company's shares. Verizon's deal with Slim came after Denver-based Qwest said a survey it commissioned showed that a majority of MCI shareholders supported Qwest's most recent offer. The company declined to disclose details of that survey but said Slim was not among the investors it had been counting on to support the Qwest offer of $27.50 a share, or a total of $8.9 billion, in cash and stock. Verizon's offer totals $7.65 billion in cash and stock. "I don't think it's over for Qwest at all," said Martin Hyman, an independent telecommunications consultant. "It was a very clever move on Verizon's part. Obviously, it gives Verizon additional support, but this is a very, very critical acquisition from [Qwest's] standpoint." The company needs MCI's corporate customer base and its cash, he said. "It's do or die." Striking a deal with a single shareholder may create pressure for Verizon to increase its bid to the rest of MCI's shareholders, many of whom have spoken in favor of Qwest's offer or have demanded that MCI seek a better deal from Verizon. "Verizon has basically told the world what they think MCI shares are worth, and what they've said is that they're worth more than $23.10," said Patrick Comack, an analyst with Zachary Investment Research in Miami. If Verizon offers what it's paying to Slim to the rest of MCI's shareholders, that could put MCI out of Qwest's reach, Comack said. "I think today's move may make Qwest say, 'Uncle.' " Calls and e-mails requesting a comment from Slim were not returned yesterday, although his office released a statement confirming the deal. In a statement responding to Verizon's latest move, Qwest said Verizon was trying to drive a wedge between shareholders. "By entering into this deal with Mr. Slim, Verizon has both created two classes of shareholders and called into question the MCI board's previous determination that Verizon's lower offer to the other MCI shareholders was superior and fair," the statement said. Qwest spokesman Tyler Gronbach said the company previously had its own negotiations with Slim. Gronbach said Qwest is considering all of its options, including a higher bid for MCI. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis declined to comment, as did MCI spokesman Peter Lucht. Copyright 2005 The Washington Post Company 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. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Washington Post Company. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:16:17 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Report Critical of Philly's Wi-Fi Plan http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=newsat2direct&starting=1&pubdate=04/11/05& www.wirelessweek.com Report Critical of Philly's Wi-Fi Plan By Mark Rockwell April 11, 2005 news@2 direct WASHINGTON -- A Bell company-supported think tank has issued a report that's highly critical of the City of Philadelphia's recently announced plans for a city-sponsored, city-wide Wi-Fi network. "My principal conclusion is that the analysis and financial projections contained in [the City of Philadelphia's Wi-Fi] business plan are simply not plausible," says Thomas Lenard, senior fellow and vice president of research at the Progress & Freedom Foundation. Last Thursday, the City of Philadelphia began asking for bids on the $10 million Wi-Fi project that would provide low-cost Wi-Fi access to all Philadelphia citizens across the city's 135 square miles of territory. The project's aim is to provide low-cost, high-bandwidth connections for all Philadelphia residents for about $16 to $20 a month. The winning bidder will install the network by next summer. The city's plans call for services on the network to be marketed, sold and billed by the 430 independent, private ISPs operating in the city. "The Business Plan projects that Wireless Philadelphia [the city's plan] will be able to offer wireless broadband access to everyone, everywhere in Philadelphia, at a lower cost than competitive broadband offerings such as DSL and cable modem," Lenard says. "Notwithstanding this rosy scenario, the Business Plan asserts that this service [Wi-Fi] will not be offered by the private sector. But there is no explanation as to why the private sector would pass up such a profit opportunity." The foundation also issued an accompanying essay questioning the wisdom of local governments' involvement with the rollout of high-speed networks. The Progress and Freedom Foundation is backed by many high-tech companies, including big local wireline phone companies such as BellSouth, SBC Communications and Verizon Communications, as well as big wireless companies like Nextel Communications and T-Mobile USA. The city of Philadelphia got an exemption last fall from a state law that restricted local governments from installing wireless Internet access networks. Verizon Wireless had backed the legislation that forced the city to accelerate its installation plans and forced the city to give Verizon Wireless "right of first refusal" on any other plans for wireless network services. 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. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Wireless Week. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:19:39 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=3Ddocument&doc_id=3D1340004344 www.wirelessweek.com Study: Consumers Oppose Cell Phones in Flight By Susan Rush April 8, 2005 news@2 direct Worried about "air rage" and constant phone calls, 67 percent of air travelers would prefer current airborne cell phone restrictions remain in place, according to a new air passenger poll. The survey also found that 78 percent of respondents said cell phone use during flight could hamper passengers from hearing emergency instructions. As in the days when people could smoke on airplanes, 70 percent of respondents indicated if the ban is lifted, airlines should separate out cell phone users on flights. However, not everyone in the survey was against lifting the ban on in-flight cell phone use -- 21 percent supported allowing passengers to chat during flight. The Association of Flight Attendants and the National Consumers League sponsored the survey conducted with 702 air passengers. "This survey and the popularity of the Do Not Call Registry for telemarketing illustrate the growing desire of many consumers to put up the 'do not disturb' sign and have some peace and quiet," said Susan Grant, the National Consumers League vice president for public policy. The FCC is currently reviewing rules governing the use of cell phones on aircraft. In December 2004 the commission said it would make 4 MHz of 800 MHz spectrum available to providers through an auction process, but at the time of the announcement, it stressed that whether to give the green light to enable cell phone use on board flights is an issue the industry and consumers need to hammer out. Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new articles daily. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Wireless Week. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: curious@nospam.com Subject: Why Must a Cordless Phone be Away From Electronic Devices? Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:02:56 -0400 I just got a 900 MHz DSS cordless phone, and I had the perfect spot for it, right on top of my tower computer case. But then I noticed that the manual says that the base unit must be placed away from all electronic equipment, including PCs, stereos, TVs, and microwaves. What is the reasoning for this? Could the magnetic fields generated by the speakers in the phone cause any problems? ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:02:19 EDT Subject: Re: Reporters Get Credit For Simple ID Switch Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the early to middle 1960's, as VISA > franchises were first getting started in Chicago, they were known as > 'Bank Americard'; named after Bank of America which was then a one or > two branch bank in San Francisco. First National Bank of Chicago were > the idiots responsible for VISA (Bank Americard) taking such a > dreadful hit from fraud in the first few years. I don't know about the First National Bank of Chicago, but Bank of America was not then a "one or two branch bank." It was a massive operation with branches all over the West, many through subsidiaries, until they were required to limit themselves to one state, and of course they limited themself to their largest state, also their home state, California. They had hundred of branches throughout California and were the prototype for today's banks that have branches on every street corner. At a about the time they launched BankAmericard, they were the largest bank in the world, surpassing any of the New York banks. As you know, in later years they fell on less prosperous times and were eventually acquired by NationsBank, formerly North Carolina National Bank (NCNB). NationsBank, upon acquiring Bank of America, changed its name from NationsBank to Bank of America and still has its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I should have originally said BoA was not very common in the Chicago and other midwest areas. To Chicago people, BoA was considered a San Francisco operation. Our local branch of BoA here in Independence did not arrive until about 1990. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Clarke <clarke@cilia.org> Subject: Re: Spammer Gets 9 Years Date: 12 Apr 2005 00:32:10 GMT Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc. Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org On 2005-04-08, Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> wrote: > North Carolina spammer gets nine years; Sentence postponed while > appeal is heard. Jeremy Jaynes was among the top 10 spammers in the > world when arrested, prosecutors say. > ASSOCIATED PRESS > LEESBURG, Va. A man convicted in the U.S.'s first felony prosecution > for illegal spamming was sentenced to nine years in prison today, but > the judge postponed the sentence while the case is appealed. Here's what he'll get if there's any justice: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050410 This signature left blank. ------------------------------ From: Nathan Anderson <nathan@anderson-net.com> Reply-To: Nathan Anderson <nathan@anderson-net.com> Subject: Re: Simultaneous Ring Problem With Cell Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:54:18 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will tell you how I handle the same > problem here: Instead of simultaneous ring, my home phone is set > up for 'transfer on busy/no answer' to my cell phone. If I do not > answer my home phone (or am already on a conversation) then the > incoming call forwards (after 3-4 rings) to my cellular phone, then > the cellular phone 'transfers on busy/no answer' to voicemail. Thanks for the response, Pat. I had thought of that actually, and I suppose that this solution is the "lesser of two evils" (since at least people will not get the "wrong message"), but this solution has several disadvantages that I was hoping to avoid: 1) If my cell phone is off, then the caller hears the average 4 rings before voicemail kicks in. If my cell phone is ON (which is true most of the time), the caller is going to have to wait for 8 rings! This has confused people in the past who just give up before voicemail even comes on to take their message ("oh, I guess he's not home and doesn't have an answering machine"). I'm sure that the number of rings before my cell phone transfers to voicemail can be adjusted, but I don't want it ringing less than 4 times otherwise I don't have much time to answer the call if I want to. 2) If my cell phone provider's voicemail system takes the call, then my cool little "Message" indicator light on my Packet8 DTA won't tell me if I have a message or not because Packet8's system didn't take the message. I will also not have a "stutter" tone on my home phone anymore to alert me of the presence of a new message. Granted, if I don't use my cellular carrier's voicemail system, then my cell phone can't alert me about new messages either, but if the call is "simulring"-transferred to my phone, I at least have a record from the phone that someone called, I missed the call, and caller ID tells me who it was. At that point I can call Packet8 voicemail from my cell to see if I have any new messages. 3) Although it is a trivial charge, with the plan that I'm on with my cellular provider, voicemail is not "standard" unless I add it on for an extra fee. If I don't have to pay that fee, I don't want to. 4) Packet8's voicemail system has some cool features (such as the ability to e-mail myself a copy of a voicemail that I'd like to keep as a WAV file attachment) that I'm sure my cellular provider cannot replicate and which I don't wish to lose. This gent claims that he managed to find a way to solve this problem without using cellular voicemail; I wonder how he did it? (hit "Complete Thread" and look at his last response): http://groups.googlecom.com/groups?selm=telecom23.408.7%40telecom-digest.org Thanks again, -- Nathan Anderson <mailto:nathan@anderson-net.com> <xri:=nathan.anderson> <http://www.anderson-net.com/> "You can't appreciate Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon." -- General Chang, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, as I see it, those are your two choices. But, bear in mind that after the first 3-4 rings (the ones going to your landline), there is a very brief pause in the ringing as the call is pulled away from your landline and switched over to your cellular. The regular people who call me at least understand that pause means the call is being shifted elsewhere. I don't think you can ever make everyone happy on this, short of spending a lot more money on a very sophisticated system. Understand, the above is relatively sophisticated for 'residential' service. And most people, in my experience, are willing to wait 7-8 rings for _something_ to kick in, although not much more than that. 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 #157 ****************************** | |