Date: 8 Aug 2000 06:15:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20000808101514.24951.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #11 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: 5feede2bd7a2019c827870542b48a2fa Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Tuesday, August 8 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 011 In this issue: Will Caller ID Become Mandatory? When? AT&T Wireless ill-prepared for rollout of 866 Brown Orifice reveals major holes in Java, Netscape Re: ICB spam Re: ICB Spam Re: ICB spam getting listed in Gale's Telecommunications Directory Yahoo! Finance Story - Yahoo - Verizon Provides Tips for Consumers During Strike strategy vs. entitlement Re: Further to this ICB Toll Free issue Re: ICB spam Re: Number portability D O E S N O T W O R K ! ! ! ! Re: ICB "free" articles in Telecom Digest Re: It's time to ante up ... Re: Number portability D O E S N O T W O R K ! ! ! ! Re: Extraordinary waste of prefixes in Peoria, IL AOL, NTT DoCoMo Near Cellular Pact Wild About Wireless? Court Approves Massive Hong Kong Telecom Merger Privacy Report Criticizes 'Infomediaries' EPIC to FBI: While We're Still Young, Please MSNBC on 411 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Aug 2000 07:22:52 -0400 From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Will Caller ID Become Mandatory? When? I received a minor complaint from a friend of mine in the South Carolina area. He dodges calls from numbers that are unidentified on caller ID so that he can avoid telemarketers. It appears that my number comes through that way when I use my long distance carrier to call his number. After this occurred several times, I called my carrier (CTI) to ask them about this. They confirmed that they did *not* handle caller ID on their lines. I asked them when they projected that they would transport caller ID information. She said that as far as she knew there were no plans for CTI to carry it. For some reason, I was under the impression that caller ID was going to be mandatory on the long distance callers. Was I mistaken? If I wasn't, is there a deadline when the long distance carriers are required to have caller ID installed on their lines? Thanks for the information. Fred - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 07:22:50 -0400 From: Fred Atkinson Subject: AT&T Wireless ill-prepared for rollout of 866 At my recent job, my employer required me to get an AT&T wireless portable telephone. I ordered one from AT&T. I had a number of problems getting them to post my payment. Additionally, after I had had the service for less than two months, I developed a problem with the unit that required calling upon them to honor the warranty. They transfered me to the person who handled that. She asked me to read a code on the back of the phone. When I read it to her, she put me on hold for the longest time. When she came back, she told me that the code on the telephone indicated that it was four years old and therefore there was no warranty to honor. I explained to her that I had purchased the phone from them new less than two months before by credit card. She told me that her 'hands were tied' and there was nothing she could do unless I had the receipt with me. I pointed out that they should have a record of what they had sold me. But, it didn't seem to matter. Needless to say I was quite angry. I called the AT&T wireless customer service and tried to get a resolution. I could find no one to help me resolve this problem. So, I canceled the service. I demanded that they waive the cancelation fee in view of all the problems I had had while I was their customer (and there was more than this). After a little arguing, they agreed to do this. I got my credit card company involved and they managed to get my money back for the telephone. I used it to pay for the rest of the service for which I was being charged. My experience with them was less than acceptable. I will likely not do business with them again. Fred - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 07:34:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Brown Orifice reveals major holes in Java, Netscape http://www.tbtf.com/blog/2000-07-30.html#4 ____________________________________ Friday, 2000-08-04 ++ Brown Orifice reveals major holes in Java, Netscape 10:52:18 pm Dan Brumleve, the perpetrator of the delicately named Cache-Cow [1] Netscape security exploit of nearly two years ago, is at it again. He has discovered two new ways to make Java misbehave, one residing in the Java core and the other in Netscape's implementation of Java. He calls the new vulnerabilities Brown Orifice [2] (playing off the infamous Back Orifice [3], [4] trojan from the Cult of the Dead Cow). Brumleve writes on the BrO page [2]: > The first [vulnerability] allows Java to open a server which > can be accessed by arbitrary clients. The second... allows Java > to access arbitrary URLs, including local files. > As a demonstration, I've written Brown Orifice HTTPD for Net- > scape Communicator. BOHTTPD is a browser-resident web server > and file-sharing tool that demonstrates these two problems in > Netscape Communicator. BOHTTPD will serve files from a > directory of your choice, and will also act as an HTTP/FTP > proxy server. Brumleve has verified that the exploit works on Netscape 4.{5-7} running on Linux and assorted flavors of Windows. He has seen it work behind a firewall that was doing network address translation, and also fail with a mysterious message when a browser was con- figured to use a proxy. You can download the Java applet in various forms here [5]. I was unable to experience this security hole firsthand, as my firewall blocks incoming HTTP requests. [1] http://tbtf.com/archive/1998-10-12.html#s03 [2] http://www.brumleve.com/BrownOrifice/ [3] http://tbtf.com/archive/1998-07-27.html [4] http://tbtf.com/archive/1998-08-10.html [6] http://www.brumleve.com/BrownOrifice/BOHTTPD_download.cgi ____________________________________ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 08:46:08 -0400 From: Peter Morgan Subject: Re: ICB spam In comp.dcom.telecom I saw that on 6 Aug 2000 17:46:41 -0400 Jay Hennigan wrote: >If they don't want to share information freely and simply want to >lure people to a paid website, they are spammers ... If there's sponsorship coming from this source for things to keep going, then I think it is a case of "live with it", or put your hand in your pocket everyone. I am in the UK, so might argue it "doesn't matter" but in the past have sent the odd cheque to Pat and rang him when he was in hospital, to wish him well. I hope the list keeps going, and if this source of revenue is something which keeps it alive, so be it. Peter Morgan, UK. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 08:54:13 -0400 From: Alistair@caribsurf.com (Alistair Gale) Subject: Re: ICB Spam On 6 Aug 2000 18:39:17 -0400, Peter Hope-Tindall wrote: >I agree in substance with you. However, some of the ICB content is >certainly useful in this case. As I said in my previous posts, I think >a single (or even a couple) of tasteful links are appropriate for a >sponsor (just like the ITU and/or Microsoft used to get credit). Third >party ads are another matter. > >I complained a little last week (although, without realizing that this >was formally announced in April). > >The response I was given by the individual at ICB and the acting robo- >admin was that this person goes back a long way with Pat and pays a >sponsorship fee for the privilege of doing this. > >I don't agree with it, but I guess this digest (and comp.dcom.telecom >news group) is not a democracy. > >In many respects we have nobody to blame but ourselves if Pat has to >turn to third party sponsorship to finance his moderation. > >If there is a group inclination here, possibly we could find out how >much Judith contributes to the digest and replace those funds with >subscriptions. (the put-up-or-shut-up approach). > >Comments anyone? > > >Peter Hope-Tindall >peter@hope-tindall.com > > >"Jay Hennigan" wrote in message >news:Pine.SO4.4.05.10008061443211.24770-100000@slowpoke.sb.west.net... >> Can we do something to lose this spam? >> >> Spam is not about content. The message of "Visit this URL and pay to >> view something" is every bit as much spam whether the website being >> spamvertized is telecom related or a porn site. If it's really news, >> and it's really on-topic and telecom related, then let the ICB people >> simply post each item separately with an appropriate subject line for >> that item. If they don't want to share information freely and simply >> want to lure people to a paid website, they are spammers and should >be >> banned. >-- I have no problem with Judith's posts, however I think its amusing that she is against Mega Corp registering all permutations of their trademarks on the web, because for the last few years she was ruining the expanded toll-free numbering space by trying to get clients to buy 1-800-crap-1234 1-888-crap-1234 1-877-crap-1234 when 800-crap-1234 was adequate. Hypocrisy? - -- alistair Ah, Blackadder. Started talking to yourself, I see. Yes...it's the only way I can be assured of intelligent conversation. -- Melchett and Edmund : Potato - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 09:19:59 -0400 From: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: ICB spam It was 6 Aug 2000 17:46:41 -0400, and Jay Hennigan wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: | Can we do something to lose this spam? | | These repetitive "newsletters" are essentially advertisements | for a paid subscription web site. | | Spam is the same thing over and over again, and the message | "Visit this URL, pay money, and see what's there" is what is | being said over and over again. I'd rather not use the definition of spam for this. Spam is such a badly redefined word and there are better terms. UCE - Unsolicited Commercial Email seems to come closest, although in essence the email was kinda solicited by our esteemed and currently absent moderator. It does run against the admonation of 'no advertising' that is sent out by the robot. Evidently that text does not apply to comp.dcom.telecom or there is a special case. The digest has suffered greatly from the absense of an active moderator, and we really got no chance to discuss this particular sponsor when the posts began to flood the group. Perhaps when Pat returns something can be worked out. Otherwise I'd feel free to openly advertise my telecom services here, and send Pat a commission check. If it is OK for one sponsor it should be OK for all. | If it's really news, and it's really on-topic and telecom | related, then let the ICB people simply post each item | separately with an appropriate subject line for that item. I am looking forward to comp.dcom.telecom becoming a discussion forum again, and not a write only medium. Hopefully we will not have to pay to hear ICB's response to the 866 issue, or register at the site to see them free. Only time will tell. JL - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 10:02:31 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: getting listed in Gale's Telecommunications Directory Telecommunications carriers and consultants might find it useful to be listed in the Telecommunications Directory so that journalists, researchers and potential customers could get in touch with you more easily. There is no charge to be listed. Here is a description of the directory: A Detroit-area publishing company, The Gale Group, is preparing a new edition of its {Telecommunications Directory}, which it describes as "an international descriptive guide to telecommunications companies, services, systems, and related organizations in the field." The editors would like to include a comprehensive listing of companies in the telecommunications industry. There is no charge to be listed in the directory. All that you have to do is to complete a questionnaire. If you would like your company to be listed in the directory, you can obtain a questionnaire that you can complete at http://www.interlog.com/~ndallen/tdq.html If this is inconvenient, I would be happy to send you the questionnaire by e-mail. Alternatively, you could send an information package about your company and the telecommunications services that it provides to: Telecommunications Directory The Gale Group 27500 Drake Rd. Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 U.S.A. fax to +1 248 699-8069 The Editor, Jackie Mueckenheim, may be contacted directly: Telephone: +1 248 699-4253 ext. 1515 or 800-347-4253, ext. 1515 in Canada and the U.S. E-mail: Jackie.Mueckenheim@galegroup.com - -- Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~ndallen/telecom.html - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 10:39:21 -0400 From: Mike Pollock Subject: Yahoo! Finance Story - Yahoo - Verizon Provides Tips for Consumers During Strike Verizon Communications customers are unlikely to have problems during the strike making calls or surfing the Internet because the company's phone network is fully automated. However, they could experience delays with directory assistance and repairs. Here are some tips for consumers from Verizon... Yahoo - Verizon Provides Tips for Consumers During Strike http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000807/dc_verizon.html - --Mike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 11:03:07 -0400 From: "Judith Oppenheimer" Subject: strategy vs. entitlement I have no problem with Judith's posts, however I think its amusing that she is against Mega Corp registering all permutations of their trademarks on the web, because for the last few years she was ruining the expanded toll-free numbering space by trying to get clients to buy 1-800-crap-1234 1-888-crap-1234 1-877-crap-1234 when 800-crap-1234 was adequate. Hypocrisy? ************** (a) Adequate for whom? If new 877 number holder is losing revenue (and phone number expense dollars), to misdials going to the matching 800 number, then the 877 number is indeed INadquate, to say the least. BTW, this impacts new and small businesses to a much greater degree, than big corps with easier access to their 800 needs. (Read the SBA's comments to the FCC on this issue.) That said, I am not opposed to any corp registering all permutations of their domain names. In fact, I recommend it, BUT as a marketing strategy, not a legal entitlement. Same with toll free numbers. I am opposed to anyone having entitlement to the domain name space - sunrise or first dibs or whatever you call it. Corp domain name entitlement - control of the DNS - boils down to control of the Internet, the real TM objective to begin with. But I do think corps should have the same first-come first-serve opportunity at domain names to protect or expand their franchises, as others have for their purposes (non-tm-infringing speculation; parody; non-profit and personal or hobby use; etc.) Judith Judith Oppenheimer, +1 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Publisher, http://www.icbtollfree.com/testimny.cfm Register for FREE 800/Dot Com Headlines here: http://www.icbtollfree.com/reg.cfm?NextURL=Index.cfm - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 13:16:29 -0400 From: phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) Subject: Re: Further to this ICB Toll Free issue In article , Peter Hope-Tindall wrote: >I notice that the ICB Toll Free web site extols the Telecom Digest as >an opt-in marketing partner:... >Well - I didn't opt-in at all for this ICB advertising. Please - if you >want to send the news; that's OK - please don't send the ad's - or if >you wish merely post a url to link to that has both news and ad's. I agree, this ICB spam is annoying and detracts from the noncommercial feeling of Telecom Digest that we've enjoyed for so long. If Pat really intentionally let this kind of advertising in when he took on ICB as a sponsor, I'm disappointed. The ICB posts prior to the recent newsletter were informative and interesting and didn't have all those ads. I don't mind a signature blurb with a URL promoting the ICB site, but the repeated, interspersed ads are just spam and I'd rather lose the ICB posts altogether than put up with them. ICB can run the articles and the ads on its own web site. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 14:08:11 -0400 From: Jay Hennigan Subject: Re: ICB spam On 7 Aug 2000 09:19:59 -0400, Justa Lurker wrote: :It was 6 Aug 2000 17:46:41 -0400, and Jay Hennigan :wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: :| Can we do something to lose this spam? :| :| These repetitive "newsletters" are essentially advertisements :| for a paid subscription web site. :| :| Spam is the same thing over and over again, and the message :| "Visit this URL, pay money, and see what's there" is what is :| being said over and over again. : :I'd rather not use the definition of spam for this. Spam :is such a badly redefined word and there are better terms : :UCE - Unsolicited Commercial Email seems to come closest, :although in essence the email was kinda solicited by our :esteemed and currently absent moderator. It does run :against the admonation of 'no advertising' that is sent :out by the robot. Evidently that text does not apply to :comp.dcom.telecom or there is a special case. Actually, the term "spam" was applied to Usenet long before UCE became an issue. :The digest has suffered greatly from the absense of an :active moderator, and we really got no chance to discuss :this particular sponsor when the posts began to flood the :group. Perhaps when Pat returns something can be worked :out. : :Otherwise I'd feel free to openly advertise my telecom :services here, and send Pat a commission check. If it :is OK for one sponsor it should be OK for all. Precisely, and this is why it doesn't scale. That might work for the short term, but the value of this newsgroup is the *absence* of commercial clutter and spam. If sending money to Pat becomes a license for a 200-odd line daily commercial, then the value of the newsgroup becomes nil, as thousands of people will do just that. I, too, have sent money to support the newsgroup, and did so without any concept that doing so granted a license to pollute it with daily, "Come see my pay site" advertisements. :I am looking forward to comp.dcom.telecom becoming a :discussion forum again, and not a write only medium. :Hopefully we will not have to pay to hear ICB's response :to the 866 issue, or register at the site to see them free. And the concept of reading a teaser here with little useful telecom news that directs one to a site where you have to jump through hoops and give personal information to "register" also flies in the face of the spirit of the newsgroup. Pat vehemently objects to this technique when the New York Times uses it, yet endorses the so-called "ICB News" commercial which contains little if any real information, just links to pay and register-so-we-can-track-you sites? Hello? Sure hope they paid you well, Pat. - -- Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 15:02:59 -0400 From: "Wineburgh, Joseph \(Exchange\)" Subject: Re: Number portability D O E S N O T W O R K ! ! ! ! Sounds like it IS working - kinda. Who is the resporg for the toll-free numbers? I would approach them with the expectation that they fix at least that portion of the problem, even if they have to re-route to POTS lines or something... W. Joseph Wineburgh Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. Carrier Services Engineering +1 973-793-6058 *********************************************************************** Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information about any transaction, customer account or account activity contained in this communication. *********************************************************************** - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 15:58:04 -0400 From: Jay Hennigan Subject: Re: ICB "free" articles in Telecom Digest On 2 Aug 2000 01:09:10 -0400, Joseph Singer wrote: :I do appreciate Judith Oppenheimer's contribution of articles to the :digest, but every "free" article that I clicked on in both of her :submissions in the latest digest were met with: : :The page you requested is available only to Registered Users. : :If you are already registered log in now, if not Register here. : : User name : Password : :If the article in the digest has an "F" next to it and you have indicated :in your article that it is free to view why am I met with the above stuff?? It is the same technique used by the New York Times, to which Pat has strongly objected. When you register you're required to give personal information such as industry affiliation, etc. The "free" articles are peppered with advertisements. With the registry information, the sites (NYT or ICB, etc.) can either target the ads to the demographics of the viewer, justify higher prices to the advertisers with claims of more "quality" viewers, or if the site is truly greedy sell the data itself to junk mailers, junk faxers, and telemarketers. I'm not saying that ICP or NYT do this now, but when you put marketers and that type of database in close proximity it is always a possibility. For a mild example, see: http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,16718,00.html Such sites are, in my opinion, inherently evil. Nobody in their right mind who has been the vicitm of spammers and telesleaze provides correct information to them. - -- Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 16:13:22 -0400 From: Jay Hennigan Subject: Re: It's time to ante up ... On 2 Aug 2000 20:12:04 -0400, RegrettableError@netscape.net wrote: :Fellow netizens, : :As a longtime Telecom Digest reader, and someone whom has supported the :Digest in the past, I'm writing to ask that Digest readers contribute to :Pat's support. I have also supported it in the past, and would be willing to contribute in the future, *if* at least the newsgroup is kept free of commercial spam. Apparently Pat has migrated from his stance supporting the free open exchange of information which has been the hallmark of comp.dcom.telecom for several years. If what others are saying is true, Pat will, for a fee, permit the posting of lengthy commercial advertisements for pay-for-access and register-for-access websites. This shifts the focus of the newsgroup from a discussion forum to an advertising medium. I'm not sure that I want to make a donation to further someone else's paid advertising. Until this issue is resolved, I'm keeping my wallet in my pocket. - -- Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 16:50:00 -0400 From: "W.D. \"Bill\" Garfield" Subject: Re: Number portability D O E S N O T W O R K ! ! ! ! On 7 Aug 2000 15:02:59 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom you wrote: >Sounds like it IS working - kinda. Who is the resporg for the toll-free >numbers? I would approach them with the expectation that they fix at = least >that portion of the problem, even if they have to re-route to POTS lines= or >something... Resporg is QWEST and they have been contacted and trouble tickets opened. The 800 service still does not work. A satellite office of mine in Oklahoma (also with Qwest as their carrier) also cannot reach any of the ported numbers. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. However, the burned child fears the fire. Lesson learned. I'm getting ready to move an entire trading floor later this year or early next. =46rom the experience gained here it would appear that we should forget number porting and in lieu thereof simply have the new PRI trunks backhauled into the present host CO. Hang the cost, those numbers simply must work. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 19:17:16 -0400 From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Extraordinary waste of prefixes in Peoria, IL On 4 Aug 2000 23:11:01 -0400, "Michael G. Koerner" wrote: >Linc Madison wrote: >> >> I was just browsing through the August 2000 NNAG document from >> Telcordia TRA, and I noticed something astonishing. Within a one-month >> period (8/18 to 9/18/2000), a single operating company is activating >> TWENTY prefixes in the Peoria, Illinois, rate center... >Check the April, 2000 issue: > >ACTIVATING(ED) 2000-04-16: >(309) 210 213 214 215 216 218 273 276 279 285 294 296 412 414 416 417 >419 422 423 424 > >ALL for company 7393 (McLeod USA Telco of Illinois), same CLLI as below. >... >The *ONLY* thing I can think of is that they are getting an NNX for >every rate center in 309 and they somehow all got assigned to 'Peoria'. > Could be. There are a lot of tiny rate centers in 309. My father lives in one that includes two NXXs and maybe 5000 total population, not phones. They get charged 5 cents per local call and toll for everything else. McLeod could reasonably hope to take a large chunk of such an area. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 21:25:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL, NTT DoCoMo Near Cellular Pact July 26, 2000 AOL, NTT DoCoMo Near Cellular Pact The deal would add content from the world's largest ISP to the Internet services available by cell phone. By Martyn Williams TOKYO - Japan's largest cellular telephone carrier, NTT DoCoMo, and America Online are close to a deal that would allow customers of cellular Internet services to access AOL content on their telephone handsets, according to two local media reports Wednesday. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17115,00.html - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 21:29:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wild About Wireless? July 31, 2000 Wild About Wireless? Europe stumbles on its way to unplugging the Internet amid lagging sales of Web-enabled phones. By Sally Whittle Europeans are generally regarded as pioneers in wireless technology. But figures released recently by two companies indicate that people on the Continent have been slow to embrace the wireless Internet. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17166,00.html - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 21:56:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Approves Massive Hong Kong Telecom Merger August 01, 2000 Court Approves Massive Hong Kong Telecom Merger Hong Kong's High Court gives the go ahead for the $27 billion deal between Cable & Wireless HKT and Internet start-up Pacific Century Cyberworks. By Stephen Lawson HONG KONG - A Hong Kong court approved Tuesday the merger of Cable & Wireless HKT Ltd. (C&W HKT) and Pacific Century CyberWorks Ltd. (PCCW), removing the final hurdle to a $27 billion deal that will put the territory's dominant telecommunications carrier in the hands of an ambitious local Internet startup. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/1,1151,17282,00.html - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 22:08:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy Report Criticizes 'Infomediaries' August 02, 2000 Privacy Report Criticizes 'Infomediaries' It says Toysrus.com and others may violate privacy standards by not telling customers about contracts with a data-collection firm. By Elinor Abreu A new report released by Internet security firm Interhack, based in Columbus, Ohio, warns that the practice of outsourcing data collection on the activities of Web site visitors creates significant potential for privacy breaches. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/1,1151,17328,00.html - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 2000 22:10:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC to FBI: While We're Still Young, Please EPIC to FBI: While We're Still Young, Please The Electronic Privacy Information Center wants the juicy details of Carnivore, and it wants them now. EPIC came a step closer to viewing the Carnivore X-ray Wednesday when a federal judge put the Feds on a schedule. The government now has 10 working days, until Aug. 16, to set a date for disclosing how Carnivore works - not 10 days to actually reveal anything. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17360,00.html - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 2000 04:12:07 -0400 From: "Tad Cook" Subject: MSNBC on 411 http://www.msnbc.com/news/442864.asp By Pete Williams NBC NEWS Aug. 7 - At about a dollar a pop, you expect to get what you're looking for when you dial directory assistance. But how good is it? More and more, consumer groups say, that dollar is wasted. "YOU COULD EXPECT at least one out of three times to get the wrong number, if not more frequently, even from the long-distance companies," says consumer advocate Sam Simon. Those companies say they do much better and are wrong only about 15 percent of the time. But even at that rate, that's costing customers $300 million a year, consumer groups estimate. And the most recent test of long-distance information, by a reporter in Chicago, found the picture even worse. The Chicago Sun-Times made nearly 400 calls. AT&T got the best score, but it was wrong 29 percent of the time. MCI was wrong 39 percent of the time. "In the most obvious numbers - like Yellowstone Park, Comiskey Park, the FCC, things like that - that we would think they definitely know. And what we found was, that wasn't always the case," says Shu Shin Luh of the Chicago Sun-Times. Why? Industry analysts say operators, expected to work fast, just pass on the first number that pops up. And when you call long distance to ask for a number in Chicago, your phone company's operators might be in Portland. And we discovered what consumer groups say may be a growing problem - suppose the number isn't listed at all? Bob Witeck, a partner in a Washington, D.C., public relations firm, depends heavily on his business phone lines. But when we called directory assistance several times to ask for his number, all we got was: "Sorry. Checking that spelling. There's nothing listed in the D.C. or surrounding area as a business listing." It turns out his number vanished four months ago, when he switched phone companies, dropping Verizon. "I always turned on the tap, and water came out. Whenever I dialed 411, I always got the answer to my question. Not so right now," says Witeck. Deregulation was supposed to make this easy. But his old carrier, Verizon, says it's his new phone company's fault, that it forgot to put in an order to list his number. That new company, Net 2000, blames Verizon for making the process overly difficult, rejecting orders if, for example, they're typed in all capital letters. After we started asking questions, Bob Witeck's business number suddenly appeared in the directory listings. So it's there now - if the operators can find it. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #11 *******************************