Archive for Uncategorized

Link: ‘Quantum Teleportation’ Beams Information Farther Than Ever Before

Comments off

The most evil thing that Christian fundamentalists have done to us?

(Just so you know, I wrote this article a while back, but since we were almost into the holidays at the time I didn’t want to publish it then, because I was afraid that someone who is already depressed during the holidays might take it the wrong way — and for too many people, the holidays are by far the most depressing time of the year.  And even now, I will say that if you are feeling very depressed, please don’t read this article at this time.  Hopefully at some point life will seem brighter to you, so come back and read it then if you like.  Also, I had no idea when I scheduled publication of this article for the middle of January that the tragedy in Arizona would occur, so please don’t read this article as a response to that).

Of all the evil things to come out of fundamentalist Christianity, including the hatred of people who are not pretty much exactly like them (they don’t even like most other Christians), I think one of the most evil things is something they have promoted ever since the start of organized religion.  And that is, the fear of death.

Now, I’m not talking here about the normal human tendency for self-preservation.  I’m talking here about a specific control mechanism; the idea that they have planted into society that no matter how much someone is suffering, we must preserve their life above all else.  To understand this, bear in mind that for a major part of human history, there was no “separation of church and state”, and therefore we had what many fundamentalist Christians (the “Christian Taliban”, as some now refer to them) would like to bring about once again:  A government run by the most hardcore religious types.  These are people who seek money and power and control, not the betterment of humanity.  And here’s the thing to remember: The longer they can keep someone around as a productive member of society, the longer that person can tithe to the church (or, now that church and state have been separated, pay taxes to the government).

Some Democratic legislator, and I’m sorry but at the moment I can’t remember which one it was, recently famously defined the Republican health care plan:  1) Don’t get sick.  2) If you do get sick, die quickly.  This legislator was partly right and partly wrong about that.  Yes, that’s exactly how many Republicans seem to feel about people if there is no longer any hope that they will be productive members of society, and strangely enough, it’s also how some fundamentalist Christians seem to feel about people in general who aren’t part of their religion (try substituting the word “AIDS” for “sick” if it will help you understand how the fundies feel). But if there is any chance whatsoever that a person will live to pay more taxes or give more tithes to the church, then those institutions suddenly have a much greater interest in keeping that person around.

But the point is, for centuries the churches, in an effort to keep potential tithers from giving up on life and dying off too quickly (particularly during the huge chunk of history when many humans died in the prime of life), have promoted a theology that in a roundabout way taught people that they should fear death above all else — unless, of course, they were going into war on behalf of the church (the idea being that if you died in a righteous war, you got a free pass to heaven).  Not only that, they promoted the notion that suffering is a virtue, and that everyone must suffer during their lives.

They have been so successful in promoting this fear of death that it’s gotten to the point that even the fundamentalists themselves seem to fear death.  Oh, sure, on Sunday mornings they’ll sing songs about how they are looking forward to that “mansion over the hilltop” (A mansion? Where do they get these ideas, anyway? And just who’s going to clean this mansion, if no one in heaven has to do any work?), but they always want it to be “in the sweet by and by” — hopefully the very distant by and by.  Because their biggest secret fear — indeed, the thing that drives them in their madness — is the fear that they will be “left behind”, that they will somehow not be found worthy, that they will miss out on heaven.  And it’s a very real and present fear for them, because if you’ve ever heard a real fundamentalist loon preach, nearly everything is a sin, and any sin has the potential to keep you out of heaven (and you know what they think is the only alternative to heaven).  It’s not even just the actual sins you commit, even your sinful thoughts can keep you out of heaven, according to these guys.  It’s an impossibly high standard that no human could ever hope to meet, though that doesn’t stop them from trying.  Strangely, they don’t seem to see hate of those not like themselves as one of the sins that might impede their upward progress.

Guess what the biggest fear of most teenage and young adult fundamentalists is?  It’s that Jesus might return, or that they might die while they are thinking about sex, or heaven forbid, engaging in any “unapproved” sexual practice. I shouldn’t need to elaborate on this – if you’ve ever been there, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

So, we have the strange situation where the people who claim to be the most secure in the knowledge of what’s going to happen to them after death are actually the most fearful of death.  If you were to ask most of them (and if they were honest with you), their preference would be to die at a ripe old age, long after youthful urges and “impure thoughts” have departed, and possibly while in a state of partial dementia so that their deity couldn’t possibly hold them accountable for any bad thoughts on their deathbeds.

Now, this would not be a problem for the rest of us, except that these people have had enough control of our governments for so long now that our society is now permeated with an institutionalized fear of death.  Even when it makes no sense, we prolong life as long as possible.  In part, this is because fundamentalist Christianity teaches us that we only have one life to live, and that’s it, so we’d best prolong it as long as possible because in all eternity we’ll never again get this “wonderful opportunity” to incarnate as a human being. People of other faiths don’t necessarily believe that, many early Christians didn’t believe it, and a growing body of scientific evidence suggests it may not be true. But the church/government wanted to keep the tithe/tax-paying church members around as long as possible, so they discouraged any idea that you could escape a not so great life by dying, and possibly being reborn into a better situation (or at very least, one where you were not under the thumb of organized religion). Again, you have to keep in mind that virtually every church policy was designed to bring money and power to the church, and it just wouldn’t do for church members to be leaving this mortal coil prematurely, or to have small families or no children at all (which is why they’re really so opposed to family planning and abortion, not that abortion isn’t a gruesome practice, but sometimes the reason people say they are against something and the real reason they’re against it are two very different things).

When you think of it that way, you even have to wonder if many of the “compassionate acts” of the church had an ulterior motive.  If they built hospitals with the idea of saving lives, but only because they hoped that those whose lives they had saved would be forever indebted to the church… well, that sort of puts a different angle on their acts of compassion, now doesn’t it?

Let me tell you a true story that happened to someone I knew.  This lady was in her 80′s and had been very healthy, but then she developed a type of breast cancer.  The cancer was successfully treated, but the treatment (which included a harsh form of chemotherapy) apparently did something that affected her sense of balance, so she started having frequent falls and broken bones, all of which were very painful, and a couple of which landed her in a drab, dreary nursing home for a time (seriously, I think some prisons are probably more cheerful inside than that nursing home was). As an aside, this lady finally started taking a 1000 IU Vitamin D supplement pill every day, and never had a broken bone after that, even though she still had frequent falls — just something you may want to think about if you have any senior citizens in your family.

She lived for another full decade, but could no longer get up and move around as she had in the past.  She couldn’t do any yard or garden work anymore, something she’d always loved. If she went to the store, someone had to push her around in a wheelchair, or in one of those carts with a bench seat attached that’s designed for kids. In the final two or three years of her life, she started losing her eyesight to a much greater degree than she had in the past, so she could no longer enjoy watching her game shows and soap operas on television.  In short, her quality of life dramatically declined.

What I’ve omitted from this story is that not too long after she had finished her cancer treatments, her heart started skipping beats, eventually stopping completely for several seconds at a time, and she started blacking out.  The doctors wanted to install a pacemaker, and she didn’t want it but was talked into it.  The pacemaker fixed the problem of the irregular heartbeat but in retrospect, her family wonders if that was the compassionate thing to do.  On the one hand, she got to live long enough to see (as well as she could see anything) a couple of great-grandchildren she wouldn’t have seen otherwise.  But on the other hand, she was so unhappy and depressed the last few years of her life that in looking back, it might have been better for her if everyone had just let nature take its course, so to speak.  Chances are that she would have died peacefully in a still relatively healthy state, without having to suffer the broken bones, the failing eyesight, the indignity of soiling herself and urinating on herself, and many other afflictions that only beset those whose lives have been prolonged perhaps longer than they should have been.

Having witnessed that, I am convinced that this is NOT how I want my life to end.  So if you are a physician and someday I am forced to be under your care and you think I’m the “patient from hell”, it may be because I really, truly, don’t want your help.  Just let me go naturally, as the song says¹, so that I may get on to my next incarnation or the next plane of existence, or whatever lies ahead.  I’m no longer scared of the phony-baloney, un-biblical “fire and brimstone” hell that the fundamentalist preachers love to rant² about, because I know that even if such a place exists, it’s only for the devil and the sinning angels, not for any human being that has ever lived or will ever live (once again, I refer you to Those Lazy Old Blokes of 1611 if you need help understanding that the “fire and brimstone” preachers are pretty much pulling their teachings about hell out of their collective posteriors).

Along with prolonging life to the point that people suffer, it’s the self-righteous fundamentalists that are often in the forefront of the anti-drug hysteria.  Ever wondered why?  Well, it’s because certain “illegal” drugs, though definitely not all of them, have valid uses as religious sacraments, expanding the consciousness and in the process, potentially revealing that some of the fundie teachings are unadulterated b.s. The problem with that is that some of the drugs to which they are so opposed could dramatically ease the suffering of those who don’t have much time left (and often at far less expense than the “approved” painkillers that don’t work nearly as well).  What is so bad about giving heroin to a terminal cancer patient, to ease their pain and suffering? Seriously, you have to wonder how evil these people are if their goal is to prolong life, only to prolong suffering that they won’t lift a finger to relieve. Oh, they’ll pray for the sufferer? All well and good (and they should do that³) but sometimes a bit more practical form of pain relief is also needed. With some of these guys, you’d like to see which they’d prefer if they were in severe pain — a bunch of people coming around to pray for them for a few minutes, or a good strong painkiller!

I’ve said if before and I will say it again, if there is such a thing as an antichrist⁴, he or she or it will likely come right out of fundamentalist Christianity, and the fundamentalists will love him/her/it, because it will be telling them exactly what they want to hear – much of which is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.  Hate your neighbor because he’s not a fundie like you? Have little to no compassion for the poor and the dying?  Preach doctrines that come straight out of a religion obsessed with power and control? Sure sounds like something an antichrist would do, doesn’t it?  Maybe organized religion is the antichrist, and if and when Jesus reappears, they won’t recognize him at all, and may even seek to kill him again.

As a parenthetical note, you may be asking, do I actually think there is a chance Jesus could reappear?  Well yes, but probably not in the way the church envisions.  There are three possibilities I can think of (which is not to say there aren’t others I haven’t considered).  He could reincarnate and be reborn into a new body, though I think that’s somewhat unlikely.  He could be an interdimensional being, and at some point he will use whatever advanced technology is available on “the other side” — or maybe some form of spiritual method, for want of a better term — to cross the veil between dimensions.  Or, he could be an alien from elsewhere in the universe, where the lifespans are much longer than they are here on earth (early Sumerian tablets say that the Annunaki had incredibly long lifespans compared to humans, such that our ancestors thought they were immortal). I tend to go with the second option, if only because it’s my belief that our universe is comprised of multiple dimensions and when we are resting between incarnations, we live in another of those dimensions, so there’s no reason to think that Jesus couldn’t occupy another dimension from us — that thought really shouldn’t even challenge anyone’s theology. But if he does come back, I suspect he’s not going to be any more approving of today’s churches, preachers, and evangelists than he was of the religious institutions and leaders of his day.

I just find it very interesting that of all the peoples on the earth, fundamentalist Christians seem to be more fearful of death than anyone, and their deep-seated fears have to some degree crossed over into society at large.  Yet those who have had near-death experiences usually say they have no fear of death at all (by the way, they also report that committing suicide is a very bad thing for your spiritual development and for those around you — I mention that only in case someone reading this is encouraged to think that suicide is a great way to escape your troubles.  It isn’t — in your next incarnation you’ll likely get the very same troubles, or worse, and some report that you don’t even get the usual rest period in between incarnations. So, don’t even think about it). And many people of other faiths, and even many non-religious people, seem to have far fewer concerns about death than the fundamentalists do.

I’m not looking to check out early or anything, but in some ways this life has been a disappointment (and I think a lot of older people feel that way, particularly when we realize that our children and grandchildren have less freedom and fewer opportunities than we did⁵).  So if I ever do get really sick, I’m probably not going to look too kindly upon any doctor or institution that tries to prolong my life.  The only thing I really want them to do is ease my pain insofar as is possible, and let me die naturally!

_____

¹ The particular song I have in mind is “And When I Die” by Blood, Sweat, and Tears, a song I hated when I was a teenager, by a group I didn’t care for at all. Possibly one of the more weird and/or depressing songs to hit the charts (at least for those times), but it comes to mind now because of this verse: “Give me my freedom for as long as I be / All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. / All I ask of living is to have no chains on me, / And all I ask of dying is to go naturally. / Oh I want to go naturally.” To me, this seems like a plea for freedom in life and death, and it seems like there are far too many in our society who are determined to give us freedom in neither.

² Does anyone besides me find the speaking style of some preachers really annoying? You’d think they were living in the days prior to the invention of vacuum tube amplifiers, the way they shout and carry on, but what really gets me is the way they deliberately change the inflections of their words. It’s almost as if they’re trying to hypnotize the audience by their speech patterns. If that’s really the point, then what does that say about the actual message? That you have to hypnotize people and turn off their critical thinking facilities before they’ll accept the crap you’re shoveling?

³ There is pretty good scientific evidence that prayer actually works — but the dirty little secret the fundies don’t want you to know is that no one religion has a monopoly on the power of prayer. So if you are sick and someone of another faith offer to pray for you, I’d suggest you don’t turn them down or assume that their prayers will be ineffective, because you might be denying yourself some real “help from above.”

⁴ When talking about Biblical prophecy, we must keep in mind that few or no prophets throughout history have ever foretold the future with 100% accuracy, mostly because the future is malleable and we do have the power to change it. Plus, there’s the case where Jonah (of “Jonah and the big fish story” fame) predicted the destruction on the ancient city of Nineveh, the people supposedly repented of their evil, and the god of the old testament changed his mind (leaving poor Jonah twisting in the wind — who’d believe him after that?). Maybe the people really did change their ways, or maybe the god of the old testament discovered that his destructo-ray wasn’t working as well as he’d hoped, and he wouldn’t be able to destroy the entire city (which was huge by ancient standards) — but the point is that a Biblical prophet foretold something that didn’t happen.  So maybe if an antichrist is supposed to make an appearance, something might occur to prevent that from happening.

⁵ I also tend to blame the fact that our kids have less freedom than we did on the fundamentalist “one life to live” philosophy, and the resulting desire to prolong this life as long as possible. Because that way of thinking has taken such a strong hold in Western society,  I think that today there is a very unhealthy overemphasis on safety, to the degree that our kids are only allowed to live life, and not really experience it as our generation did. Back then most parents did not know where their kids were every single minute of the day; all they knew was that we were out playing in the neighborhood somewhere. Now it’s like, ohmigod, if I let my kid out of my sight for two minutes there are ten guys hiding in the bushes waiting to kidnap him or her.  I’m just wondering how long it will take before out government decides we should all be locked in rubber rooms from cradle to grave so we can’t hurt ourselves or be harmed by anyone else.  At the same time, and on the flip side of that coin, our little darlings know that the government wants above all else to keep them safe, so if they want to get an adult in trouble all they have to do is lie a little and say that an adult did something that harmed them in some way, and suddenly the adult is facing an inquisition (if you know a teacher, ask them if any of the kids have figured out how to manipulate the system and cause trouble for school personnel they don’t happen to like).  I figure in about four or five years there’s going to be a huge market for wearable video camera/recorders, sold to adults who work with kids so that they have a video record of every interaction with a kid, to prevent trouble because some bored-to-tears kid lied through his teeth, just to create a little drama in his life.

Think about it: If you don’t fear death, and think that we come back (reincarnate) many times, you’re probably going to be less concerned about being absolutely safe at all times, and you’re probably going to be more willing to enjoy life and take chances. You might still be mindful that if you do something dumb and check out early, it’s going to make your relatives and friends feel pretty sad, but it won’t be the same kind of paralyzing fear that seems to grip many fundamentalists.

Comments (3)

Want to sample the new Digg? Here’s an invitation link

If this works properly, the following link should let you sign up for the new Digg and follow us there.  You can either use your existing Digg account, or create a new one:

http://new.digg.com/login/n760a5f14cc06be22d25b6615aac6b1d3

I only have 1,000 invitations to share, so better get in quick. :)

Please ignore the following line – it’s here so Digg will pick up our RSS feed:

<!–813480f5724240cb988edc8e27fb216d–>

Comments off

The Consumerist: Beware Buying Advice From Bloggers On The Take (Commentary)

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

The Consumerist has posted an article entitled, Beware Buying Advice From Bloggers On The Take. The gist of the matter is that there is no “code of ethics” for bloggers, and therefore you get all sorts of opinions, some bought and paid for. And that is true, as far as it goes.

I will tell you this much up front. I have accepted freebies in the past, in two categories. One is books — publishers frequently send out review copies of books, and I’m not above reviewing one, once in a while. I did this 25 years ago when I was writing for a computer club newsletter and I’ll still very occasionally do it today. The difference today is I’m a lot more selective – usually I won’t even accept a book unless I think there’s at least some chance it will be interesting or useful to me. Just within the last week, I declined the opportunity to review a book because, frankly, I have a bias against both the company behind the product that is the subject of the book, and against the author of the book, due to (ironically enough) what I considered unethical practices by both.

To my way of thinking, once a book goes out to a reviewer it cannot be resold as new anyway, so why would the publisher want it back? At that point it has minimal value — sure, I suppose that I could resell it as a used book if I were so inclined, but I don’t ever do that. But more to the point, the fact that it’s a free book isn’t sufficient to cause me to write enthusiastic praise about it, particularly if the book is a real dog.

The other category is hardware. In the two cases where I have reviewed a hardware product since starting this blog, I have contacted the distributor of that product because it was something that I was interested in and because I thought the product was something more people should know about. I basically wanted to verify that the product worked as advertised. In one case the product was so interesting to me that what I had intended to be a one-post review turned into a seven-part series, and yet I still reported as honestly as I could on the subject (does anyone who read that series not get that I thought the documentation that came with the unit was deficient?). I didn’t say good things about the unit because I got to keep it after the review; instead I said good things about it because it works well and could solve a problem that many users have (getting VoIP to work through a difficult firewall setup).

The actual reason that I had become interested in that particular product was because I had recently tried (and failed) to help someone get a SIP connection working using a Linksys PAP2 on a connection that had to go through two routers. The double NAT setup just killed the audio in both directions, and the guy I was trying to help wasn’t inclined to spend a lot of time troubleshooting. I got to thinking how nice it would be to have a VoIP adapter available that uses the IAX protocol, which usually works quite well in that sort of situation. The Atcom AG-188N seemed like a good choice, but I didn’t have an immediate need for one, so I thought I’d try requesting a review sample. And when I received it, it was one of those happy situations where the unit actually delivered a lot more than I had expected (even if the documentation left something to be desired).

But would I ever write a bad review of a hardware product I had received for free? Oh, yes, I certainly would. Back in the early days of the TRS-80 computer, I had an early dot matrix printer (to this day I’m embarrassed to say what I paid for that thing – suffice it to say I could probably buy about ten laser printers today for what that underpowered dot-matrix printer cost back then). Anyway, a company that was advertising in one of the computer magazines was selling a device that, when inserted between the computer and the printer, was supposed to provide enhanced page-formatting capability (remember, back then most dot-matrix printers were LINE printers and had no text formatting capabilities whatsoever). I requested a review unit, and had it worked even reasonably well I would have reported that honestly. But frankly, the product sucked. Not only did it not work as advertised, it actually interfered with normal printing!

I reported that as accurately as I could, and advised people to avoid the unit. The manufacturer was very upset with me, to put it mildly, and wrote me a nasty letter demanding I return their product, which I was more than happy to do (who needs a piece of useless electronic junk lying around?), even though I was under no legal obligation to do so (I then wrote a followup article, noting the manufacturer’s petulance). Apparently they thought that by giving me a free unit, I could be bought – and they were wrong. Free or not, it still has to work as advertised.

There are two things I will not do. One is that I will not let someone else write a review for me and publish it in my blog. If and when I use someone else’s words, I clearly identify them (for example, I might include a list of product specifications from the manufacturer’s web site, but I will tell you the source, and usually include a link). The other is that I would never accept any payment to write a review. I guess I don’t consider being allowed to keep an under-$100 product as payment (now, if I were reviewing expensive wide-screen TV’s, that might be a different matter). Again, my reasoning is that once I’ve had the product in my possession, it can no longer be sold as new, and frankly I don’t want the bother and expense of having to ship it back, and I usually wouldn’t have requested it in the first place if I didn’t think it might be useful to me at some point. But think about it – if the only “compensation” I am getting is being allowed to keep the product, and the product is a piece of crap, what possible inducement would I have to say anything good about it?

I know that a few of the major print magazines make it a point to ship review products back to the manufacturer when they are finished with them, but they usually have a lot larger budgets than most bloggers (not to mention an in-house shipping department). But keep in mind that not all reviews you see in a magazine are necessarily the result of in-house testing. Some of them may be “work for hire”, which is to say, articles purchased from independent writers not directly affiliated with the magazine. In those cases, you (and perhaps the magazine publisher) have no way of knowing if the reviewer got to keep the product — or got any other form of compensation (beyond what the magazine paid) for writing the article.

Because the FTC and others are suddenly become concerned about this, I’m probably going to have to add a line to any future reviews, that says something like “Disclosure: The publisher let me keep the book after I was finished reviewing it”, or, “Disclosure: The distributor or manufacturer provided this product for review purposes and is not requiring me to return it” whenever that is the case. I’d suggest that other bloggers who accept books or products for review may want to do the same.

But what you really need to beware of are those bloggers that will publish “ghost written” reviews, or that actually accept money (or other compensation) to write positive reviews. The thing you are trying to detect is the “quid pro quo”, where there is an actual or implied understanding that the blogger will only write a positive review. One possible tipoff is when a review says only good things (nothing is perfect, after all), but on the other hand, keep in mind that it is possible that the reviewer was simply very impressed with the book or product (it does happen — sometimes a product really surprises you). Perhaps a larger clue is if the blog in question seems to deal almost exclusively in reviews and other “PR” type material — or has only one or two posts since creation, and they both just happen to be reviews! Of course, I would hope that (whenever possible) people would seek out multiple reviews before buying a product, and not just depend on a single blog posting.

Anyway, if anyone has a VoIP-related product they want reviewed, my conditions would generally be these: First, I don’t write reviews for hire, so expect an honest evaluation. Second, if the product costs under $100 (retail) and you decide you want it back after the review, I’m probably going to think you’re a little bit chintzy, but you’d best mention that fact up front. Third, in any case, if you want it back you’ll need to provide a prepaid UPS return shipping label (and be aware that I don’t live all that close to a UPS dropoff point, so it might be a little while before you get it back). Fourth, in the future I’ll probably have to add a disclosure line to my reviews, as mentioned above. And fifth, and most important, I don’t have the time or inclination to review anything and everything, so unless it’s something I have a particular interest in (such as a VoIP-related product) don’t be surprised if I decline — I do not want this to turn into a “review blog.”

Comments off

Comment on Michael Jackson’s death

As if you haven’t read enough already, right?

Normally I’m not a person impressed by celebrities. I remember one time, when I was much younger, helping a friend out with a show that was essentially an opening act for a private birthday party for someone who was very big in the motion picture business (people today might not recognize the name, but let’s just say he was a huge name in the 30′s and 40′s, and this was like his 80th birthday party, if I recall correctly).  It was held in the Palmer House in Chicago, another institution that had once been huge, but was already past its prime. There were some big name celebrities there (one big TV star in particular) and everyone was going ga-ga over the fact that all these big shots were around.  And I remember being totally unimpressed – I was so tired from the setup work we’d done that I wouldn’t even go out to see the show. Everyone looked at me kind of funny, but I just explained that those people didn’t impress me, and I meant it.

But I would have gone to see Michael Jackson.  I liked his music.  Unlike most folks, I think I liked him better when he was with the Jackson Five (I didn’t care for “Thriller” much, although the song “Billie Jean” definitely got stuck in my head for a while).

The reason I bring this up is that I remember when I first saw the Jacksons on TV, probably when I was in my late teens, and upon learning that Michael was only eight years old, I remember thinking “this kid has already done more with his life than I will probably ever do with mine.”  And I think it was the first, and maybe one of the only times that I was ever genuinely envious of any celebrity.  Of course, I had no way of knowing that he’d been raised in an allegedly abusive home (I can’t believe that his father is being allowed to take care of his kids, even temporarily!), nor how much he envied “normal” kids. And I certainly had no idea of the paths his life would take, nor how it would end. I suspect that when the dust clears, there’s going to be plenty of blame to go around for who caused his death (see this article from the U.K. Daily Mail for some additional insight), but probably not enough to pin on any specific individual.

I’ve always said that groups of individuals will do evil that no one of them would do if solely responsible (hence my dislike of large corporations, which are almost always evil to some degree). That was probably the case here. No one person killed Michael, but many people – primarily greedy people – took their toll. It may have been a case of “death by a thousand cuts”, some much deeper than others.

In any case, looking back, it’s obvious how foolish I was to in any way be envious of Michael Jackson. And nowadays, I always wonder why celebrities seems to have so much “clout” with the public. Why can they get elected to public office, even if barely qualified for the job? Why can they address legislative bodies on social matters, delivering their opinions as if they were some type of authority on any subject? Why do people look up to them at all?

If there’s any lesson to be learned from Michael Jackson’s life and death, I think it is this: Although we can appreciate the talent a particular person may have, we should not wish to be them, nor to emulate them. Sometimes it seems as though the bigger they are, the more troubles they have, and the more likely they are to fall into a destructive lifestyle and (sometimes) early death. Not only that, but if they have kids, those kids will always be in their shadow. No matter what Michael Jackson’s kids do, they will always be known as his children, for whatever that is worth. Would you really want that sort of life? I wouldn’t, and most people wouldn’t. Michael was sort of forced into it by the choices his parents made, and by the time he was old enough to make his own decisions, much of the direction of his life had already been set. Would you want that sort of life for one of your kids?

I’m not big on organized religion (to put it mildly), but one thing most major religions teach is that envy is a destructive force. And it really is, but the kicker is that most of the people we envy (celebrities in particular) we probably would not envy at all if we really knew what they were going through. Is envy driving your life, or your aspirations for your children’s lives? Just something to think about.

Thank you, Michael, for all the great music.

Comments (3)

Review of Atcom AG-188N IAX+SIP ATA (VoIP adapter) – Part 4 – Setting up SIP, and securing the adapter

After yesterday’s installment we had pretty much configured the VoIP side of the Atcom AG-188N (sold in North America by CIGear) using the IAX protocol. Of course, even though IAX is the superior protocol for getting audio through difficult firewalls, there are still many reasons someone might need to use SIP — perhaps the most compelling reason being that many commercial VoIP providers only offer connections using SIP protocol.

Fortunately, setting up the SIP configuration on this unit is pretty straightforward. Just click on SIP Config (not SIP) in the left-hand menu, and this screen appears:

Atcom AG-188N SIP configuration screen

Atcom AG-188N SIP configuration screen

If you’re connecting to an Asterisk or FreePBX server, you probably only need to fill in the following:

  • Register Server Addr — this is the address of your server, such as 192.168.0.100 or myserver.dyndns.com
  • Register Server Port — the SIP port number of the server — note that while the default of 5060 is most common, there may be cases where a different port is used, so it pays to check.
  • Register Username — just use your extension number here, unless you are instructed otherwise.
  • Register Password — the same as the Asterisk “secret” for your extension.
  • Phone Number — your extension number (again).
  • Display Name — The name you want to appear in the other party’s Caller ID display if you ever do a direct SIP-to-SIP call.  FreePBX and most providers will ignore this, instead using the name associated with your account.
  • Enable Register – Always check this box, to enable SIP registration, if you plan to use SIP.
  • SIP(Default Protocol) — This sets the default protocol to SIP for outgoing calls. If you check this box, it automatically unchecks the box that makes IAX the default protocol on the IAX setup screen.

As long as you haven’t changed any of the default settings (as shown on the above screenshot), everything will very likely work.  You should try a test call and see if you can connect. If so, I then recommend that you try changing the Register Expire Time — the manual says the default on this is 600 seconds, but as you can see from the screenshot above, it’s actually set to 60 seconds, which means it re-registers once per minute, which may generate a lot of unnecessary traffic between you and the server. The manual also says that the AG-188N “will auto configure this expire time to the server recommended setting if it is different from the SIP server.”  Huh? In any case, I’d try setting the registration higher – you can try the 600 second default, but many adapters  go even higher (a 3600 second re-registration is not uncommon).  However, if you pick up the phone and find you don’t get dial tone sometimes, or if your callers get a congestion signal sometimes, you may need to go for a lower value.  I can tell you from personal experience that some users served by a DSL line might need a shorter re-registration interval.

Here’s what the other settings are for.  You probably won’t need to change any of these from the default, unless your system administrator or provider specifically tells you to do so:

  • Proxy Server Addr, Proxy Server Port, Proxy Username, Proxy Password — in almost all cases these will be the same as the equivalent Register values, and that’s what the AG-188N assumes if you leave these blank, so very few users would have any need to fill these in.
  • Domain Realm — if you leave this blank, the AG-188N will use the proxy server address as the SIP domain, which in most cases is fine.  However, if you are using a dotted IP address (such as 192.168.0.100) as the server address, and the server is misconfigured, you (very rarely) might need to put the server’s external address (such as myserver.dyndns.com) here.
  • Detect Interval Time — this is only applicable if you check the Auto Detect Server checkbox, in which case the AG-188N will try to detect whether the SIP server is available at the interval specified here. I had originally thought that perhaps, if  the server could not be detected (or the network connection was lost), the AG-188N would stop delivering dial tone.  But nooooo — in my testing it made absolutely no difference. What it actually does is let you use a second, “fallback” SIP account if your first account goes down!  See the note on the “Auto Detect server” checkbox below.
  • Encrypt Key — the manual is silent on this, but if the server supports encryption on SIP connections, then I would guess you’d put the key here.
  • DTMF Mode — with SIP connections you have three different ways of sending touch tones to the server: RFC2833, DTMF_RELAY (inband audio), and SIP info.  In most cases you’ll leave this at RFC2833, but in some cases, particular if you are having issues with distant systems not recognizing your touch tones, you may want to try a different method.  Inband audio should probably be your last choice, but I have seen cases where it’s the only thing that would work.  Note that the way the server is configured can also have an effect on how tones are passed – even if you send the tones inband, your server may be converting them to RFC2833 before sending them “upstream.”
  • Local SIP port — the local SIP registeration port, which defaults to 5060, which is almost always what you want to use.
  • RFC Protocol Edition — according to the manual, you would only need to set this to RFC 2543 if you are trying to communicate to devices (such as a CISCO 5300) using the SIP 1.0 protocol. The default is RFC 3261, and unless specifically instructed otherwise, that’s the setting you should use.
  • Server types in SIP config window

    AG-188N Server types in SIP configuration screen

  • Server Type — leave this on “common” unless you happen to be connecting to one of the “uncommon” servers shown in the dropdown (pictured at right).
  • User agent — much as your web browser sends a User Agent string to identify itself, VoiP adapters also send an identification string.  By default, the AG-188N sends the rather boring “Voip Phone 1.0″ but you can change that here, although about the only person who would ever see it is the system administrator of the system you’re connecting to.  While you could possibly put something more interesting in here (I’ll leave it to your imagination!), I wouldn’t advise it if the system administrator is not known to have any discernible sense of humor. :)

The AG-188N manual is mostly silent with regard to the checkboxes we’ve not already mentioned. In fact, it only mentions these three:

  • Enable Register — Enable or Disable SIP registration. The AG-188N won’t attempt to register with the SIP server if this isn’t checked, so leave it checked as long as you’re using SIP.
  • Auto Detect server — Okay, here’s how the manual describes this one: “co-work with Server Auto Swap and Detect Interval Time. Enable this option, AG-188N will periodically detect whether the public SIP server is available, if the server is unavailable, the AG-188N will switch to the back-up SIP sever, and continue detecting the public sip server. AG-188N will switch back to the primary SIP server if the server is available again.” Yes, folks, this device lets you use TWO sip accounts, and fallback to the second if the first goes down! Interestingly, although the manual makes reference to a “Server Auto Swap” checkbox, I’m sure not seeing it anyhere on this page.
  • Enable Via rport — checked by default, this configures support for RFC 3581.  If you really want to know, see this FAQ.  If you don’t, just leave it checked.

What about the other checkboxes? Here’s my best guesses, supplemented by additional information from Atcom manuals for some of their other products.  I’d leave all of these at the default setting unless you really know what you are doing:

  • Enable PRACK — read this — the phrase “Numerous implementation problems seen in the field” is enough to discourage me from checking this box! Another Atcom manual offers this: “enable the PRACK in SIP which is mainly used in special ring tone, recommend to keep the default setting.” Do you need any other reasons to avoid it?
  • Enable Keep Authentication — feel free to check this if you like, but the unit seems to stay registered without it. A manual for a different Atcom device says  that this enables “registration with authentication request to be sent to sever together”, while yet another Atcom manual says that it enables “registering signal together with the authentication information. If enable it, the server will confirm the registering and send back the confirmation massage directly instead of requesting the terminals to send authentication information if needed.”  Yeah, that clears it right up for me!
  • Signal Encrypt, RTP Encrypt — if your server supports encryption, and you have filled in the Encrypt Key field, you almost certainly need to check these to make it work.
  • Enable Session Timer — a session timer is a way to determine whether a call session is still active.  Apparently this “enables RFC4028 to refresh the SIP sessions”, according to another Atcom manual.
  • Answer With Single Codec — other Atcom manuals say, “only answer the call with a certain Codec.” My best guess here would be that this will only use your “preferred” codec when answering a call. If the server doesn’t support your preference, you probably won’t receive any calls.

Now, above I mentioned that you can actually have two active SIP accounts on this device, in addition to an active IAX account, presumably in addition to having a landline plugged into the PSTN port.  I suppose that means that potentially, one phone could receive calls from, or place calls to as many as four different sources!  I doubt many people will actually use the device with more than one account, but it’s interesting nonetheless that this adapter has this capability!

I will note that things may not always work quite as you’d hope in a multi-account configuration.  I set it up so that there would be one SIP account and one IAX account active on the unit.  When I had an active call in progress on one account, I’d try calling the other and I always got a busy signal, even though call waiting is enabled. I had rather hoped that if you were using one account and a call came in on anther, it would activate call waiting, although since I am among those that would probably never have a reason to use this device with multiple accounts, that’s kind of a non-issue for me. Call waiting DOES work if another call comes in on the same account while you are on a call, and there may be situations where it would work across multiple accounts (I didn’t test with two SIP accounts, for example).

The manual seems to confirm my suspicions that IAX and SIP don’t work together as well as one might hope:

How many SIP servers may AG-188N register simultaneously?
AG-188N support 2 SIP servers and a IAX server. The Default server is SIP. If you want to use the IAX server you must set IAX as default protocol in the IAX config page. IAX and SIP can register simultaneously but not work simultaneously. If you set 2 SIP servers in the SIP setting page, you can choose the route (server) by dialing plan which is edited by you. Please see “How to use the dial rule?” for detail.

Before you get too perturbed by this, ask yourself how many other devices let you use multiple accounts from the same phone.  And if you’re wondering how you would select which account to use for a particular call when multiple accounts are available, that sort of thing is accomplished in the Dial-Peer screen, which we briefly covered yesterday.  You probably will need to read the manual to learn how to set it up.

You might be wondering how you’d set up that second SIP account. That’s accomplished by looking in the “Advance” section of the left-hand menu, and clicking on SIP.  When you do that you get this screen:

Atcom AG-188N Advanced SIP configuration screen

Atcom AG-188N Advanced SIP configuration screen

As you can see, it’s pretty much a duplicate of the other SIP configuration screen, but without as many settings, and with the word “Private” inserted into many of the description texts (not sure why they chose the word “Private” to describe the second account, but oh well).  Really, there are only five new settings here:

  • STUN Server Addr — If you use a STUN server, enter its address here
  • STUN Server Port — If you use a STUN server, enter the port number here. The default STUN server port is 3478.
  • STUN Effect Time — a different Atcom manual is far less confusing on this item: “STUN detect NAT type interval time. If NAT found a link inactive for a certain time, it will close the link so you need to send a packet within a interval time to keep the link alive.”
  • Enable URI Convert — convert # into %23 when sending URI (from a different Atcom manual, since it’s not in the one for the AG-188N).
  • Enable SIP Stun — A different Atcom manual sums this STUN stuff up nicely: SIP STUN is used for NAT transverse. When you config STUN server’s address and port (default 3478) and enable it, then you can use the normal SIP server to make the IP phone transverse NAT.

I will point out that more than likely, if you define a STUN server on this page, the AG-188N will be able to utilize it whether you are using the primary SIP account, or the “Private” account defined on this page. So it’s just slightly confusing that although at first glance this appears to be the settings for the second account, there are a few items here that could affect the ability of both accounts to penetrate NAT firewalls.

By the way, if you want to know more about STUN you can always try Wikipedia, and if you need to find a public STUN server, just Google public stun servers, and your desire should be met! That said, I’ve never had much luck trying to use a STUN server, and in most cases you won’t need to use one, which perhaps is why these settings were placed on this page.

If you’re starting to see that in many ways this device is more full-featured than some other VoIP adapters that are out there (and probably easier to configure), you can understand why I really like this unit – well, for the most part. And that brings me to the subject of security.

When you first access the unit, you have to login, and that’s to be expected. While some competing adapters don’t force you to use a username and password, they basically only have two accounts — user and admin.  The AG-188N has those (well, actually, guest and admin) by default, but you can add more.  If you click on “Account Management” in the left-hand menu, it brings you to the screen shown below, minus the entry fields at the bottom — those only come up when you press Add, to add an account:

Atcom AG-188N Account configuration page

Atcom AG-188N Account configuration page

It’s probably obvious that this is also the page you’d go to if you wanted to change a user’s password, or to delete an account.

There are two user levels possible, Root and General. General users only get to see a limited subset of the pages: WAN Config, LAN Config, Audio Settings, WEB Update, FTP/TFTP Update, Auto Provisioning, and Logout & Reboot. I’m not sure why you’d need to add additional users, but you can. Anyway, it appears you have to set a User name and Password for all users.

And normally that would not be any problem at all, except that while writing this review I’ve had to go back into the interface several times to look at the configuration, and if I haven’t done anything in there for a few minutes it apparently logs me off, and then I’m forced to login all over again! While I suppose this is really a good thing — if you happen to leave your browser open to this device and then leave, some mischief-maker can’t come along half an hour later and start changing settings on you — it’s still kind of a pain when you are doing something like this.  Oh, well, I guess it really is a good thing!

For those that want extra security, you can go to the “MMI Filter” page and set a filter by address range:

Atcom AG-188N MMI Filter screen

Atcom AG-188N MMI Filter screen

When the MMI filter is enabled, only IP addresses between the start IP and the end IP can access the AG-188N. It’s a good dose of extra security, but be careful not to lock yourself out — and remember, if you ever take your adapter with you when you travel, whatever network you happen to land upon may not be using the same IP range as your home network.  So I don’t think I’d advise setting this if you travel a lot, but at least the AG-188N gives you the option, something that some other adapters do not.

What’s next?  Well, we haven’t even really touched on the networking functions in this unit. Stay tuned for the next installment!

Disclosure: CIGear provided me with an Atcom AG-188N for review purposes, and allowed me to keep it after I was finished writing this series, and for that I am most grateful.

Previous Installment | Next Installment

Articles in the series: Review of Atcom AG-188N IAX+SIP ATA (VoIP adapter)

Part 1 – The unboxing
Part 2 – Initial setup using IAX
Part 3 – Setting the time and configuring outbound dialing
Part 4 – Setting up SIP, and securing the adapter
Part 5 – Networking and Internal Router
Part 6 – Final Thoughts and Summary Review
Part 7 – Addendum

Comments off

Is this a case of thinly-veiled racism in Muskegon County?

To those of you outside of Michigan, please bear with me while I post about a Western Michigan issue.  Go read this story in the Muskegon Chronicle – it’s short (only four paragraphs) and to the point.

Muskegon County is a funny place.  There are places that are racially mixed, and people of different races seem to get along just fine.  But there are also places that are not so diverse.  It’s not exactly overt discrimination, it’s just that in certain neighborhoods you get the strong impression that if you are of the “wrong” race you might not get along so well with your neighbors. If you look at the county as a whole, I think that race relations are probably better than in some other Michigan counties, and if you don’t like diversity you probably shouldn’t be living there.  But that said, there are the neighborhoods that are mostly black or mostly white.  The Oakridge School District probably tends to fall into the latter category. Some of its neighboring districts have a much higher percentage of black students.

What bothers me about the article is that the Oakridge School District says that the policy (of not accepting students from other districts) is one of their “six points of pride.”  Which raises the question – why should any district be proud of any form of non-acceptance?  That ought to be a point of shame.  If the reason you can’t accept other students is that your schools are overcrowded, or that you can’t afford enough quality teachers, or any other valid reason I can think of, that’s no reason to be proud.  If, on the other hand, you are offering a quality education but you are afraid that a student from an adjacent district might want to take advantage of it, well, that sure sounds like it might be a case of thinly-veiled racism from where I sit, and that’s certainly nothing to be proud of.

As it happens, I’m white, but I see that there are good (and bad) people of all races. When I was younger, I had hoped that my generation would be the one that would eradicate the scourge of racism from our nation.  Well, we’ve certainly come a long way, but then you see things like this which in my opinion are a step backward. It seems to me that the Oakridge School District has some explaining to do, and if they don’t want to explain, then they should understand that some people will perceive them as racist bigots trying to keep their schools as white as possible. And even if it turns out that they have a valid reason for not accepting “schools of choice” students, they probably ought to re-think calling it a point of pride.

Comments (1)

BroadbandReports.com: Frontier Imposes 5 GB Cap For DSL

There are a few Michigan residents in sparsely popluated areas of southern Michigan that are stuck with Frontier as their local wireline phone company. If any of those folks were sticking with Frontier just so they could get their DSL service, this might give them pause. According to this article at BroadbandReports.com, Frontier has imposed a ridiculously small monthly usage cap:

Frontier now declares that any monthly usage above 5 GB (bi-directional) is an unreasonable amount of usage.

What?!?!? On 56k dial-up, perhaps, but not on any wireline broadband service! A broadband user could possably use 5 GB in one evening if they decided to download a few (legal) videos, or maybe a few different Linux distros for comparison purposes. Granted that most people don’t blow through 5 GB in a day, but I’ll bet that a fairly high percentage of broadband users manage to exceed that in a month.

This kind of crap has the potential to serious backfire on the phone and cable companies (yes, some cable companies are starting to play these same games). The Internet has become too important to the nation’s commercial interests, and as gasoline prices continue to rise it will become even more important for people to be able to do things online. Watch for calls for regulation of the nation’s broadband companies if this nonsense keeps up.

Comments off

WTF?? DSLreports editorializes in favor of broadband caps!

At first I checked the calendar – nope, it’s not April Fools Day. Then I read the article to see if the title, “Editorial: Caps are welcome” was really a bit of headline sarcasm, and that the body of the article would complete the sentence in some way that would make sense (as in “Caps are welcome – in retirement homes”, though even that would make the unwarranted assumption that no senior citizen would actually want to use the bandwidth they are paying for).

I did discover that the author on this particular editorial actually lives in Australia, where apparently the broadband service is horrible, like it will be in the United States if the phone and cable companies get their way.

Anyway, without responding to the editorial point by point, I just want to mention what I think is the underlying fallacy behind the editorial, at least insofar as we in North America are concerned, and that is that the caps will only affect a small percentage of “broadband hogs” – these are supposedly the “heavy downloaders.”

Chicago Skyway toll plaza
Creative Commons License photo credit: mshobe

Now, let me point out that the satellite broadband providers have actually come up with a method of dealing with broadband over-usage that makes some degree sense, even though users tend to hate it. The way it generally works is, you are allowed to download so much per day. If you come close to reaching the limit, your download speed is severely reduced, for example to somewhere around 256K. The next day, you again receive full bandwidth (at least until you use up that day’s allotment). The point is, this makes sense for a lot of reasons – it accomplishes the goal of keeping anyone from using far too much bandwidth (to the point that it degrades service for other customers) but it still lets the customer access basic services like e-mail and web pages (although pages that contain embedded video will load rather slowly). And no customer ever gets hit with an unexpected bill for overage charges.

But, that’s not what some cable and phone companies want to do. Instead of actually limiting the bandwidth of those whose usage they consider excessive, their plan is to let them keep using bandwidth to their heart’s delight, then send a huge bill at the end of the month. If anyone can’t see the problem with this plan, you’re probably either not a U.S.A. resident or you are still in Junior High school using your parents’ Internet service.

Let’s think about this for just a moment. Do we think that, in the future, new Internet-based applications are going to use MORE or LESS bandwidth? Looking at past trends, my guess is MORE.

Now, then, do we think that new technology will make it MORE or LESS expensive to provide that bandwidth? Again, if we go by past trends, the cost of providing bandwidth should continue to drop, particularly as new technologies are developed that squeeze more bandwidth out of existing fiber circuits (that’s the nice thing about fiber, when you want more bandwidth you don’t usually have to replace the fiber, you just replace the equipment at the endpoints with something that utilizes the existing fiber more effectively).

Okay, now I want you to think really hard about this one. Even if customer bandwidth consumption stayed at current levels, and the cost of moving those bits around the world kept going down, do you think that a phone or cable company would ever reduce their prices (absent serious competition that does not now exist in most areas?). Have your phone and cable bills increased or decreased over the last several years?

Okay, so if your bandwidth usage has a tendency to go up, AND the phone and cable companies have a tendency to raise prices, do you suppose that it’s at all possible that as the bandwidth usage goes up, the “caps” before metering starts will keep getting REDUCED? I’m sure the goal at the cable company, and the wet dream of the phone company executive, is to see the day when no one pays flat rate for their Internet service anymore. Just as in the days when you paid a “flat monthly rate” for your phone service as long as you didn’t go over a certain number of calls per month, so it will be with your Internet service. And just as there were senior citizens that never made phone calls and always paid the minimum rate, there will be people who do nothing but read and send the odd piece of e-mail who, in theory, will pay the basic rate.

Why do I say, “in theory”? Well, here are a couple other things to keep in mind. First, broadband service isn’t presently regulated by any public service or public utilities commission, and is barely regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. What that means is that if your phone or cable company decides that you aren’t paying enough – that you are a “deadbeat” (to use the term that some credit card companies use about customers who always pay they balances off in time, and never incur any interest charges) – they may simply decide to tack on a few extra GB of usage. How will you contest it? Who will you complain to? They will have you by the part of the anatomy where it hurts the most (speaking as a guy here). Even if you then decide you can live without the Internet and cancel your service, they will still sic the bill collectors on you.

(I am convinced that one reason the phone companies are losing wireline customers is because so many have in the past had billing disputes and, not knowing how to complain effectively, either paid money they did not rightfully owe or had their service disconnected and/or their credit rating harmed by their refusal to pay. That sort of thing leaves a REALLY bad taste in the mouth of a customer).

And then there’s the other possibility. Let’s say that someone doesn’t like you and is out to get you. Maybe your kid is being cyber-bullied. Whatever. All someone has to do is somehow get a “trojan horse” program onto your system that does whatever it takes to suck up loads of bandwidth. Today if that happened, your broadband provider would probably notice and notify you (and maybe suspend your service until the problem was fixed), but from your point of view it would be a denial-of-service attack, nothing more. But the minute bandwidth caps go into effect, suddenly your ISP has a financial incentive to let as much traffic flow into your system as possible, since YOU will get stuck with the bill. Note we are not talking here about traffic you instigated (say, by foolishly using a torrent-type program) but rather about traffic sent to you without your knowledge and prior approval – and without even trying too hard, I could probably think of a dozen or so ways that could happen (everything from a piece of software that too aggressively “phones home”, to misdirected packets that come to you because some teenage hacker was trying to instigate a denial-of-service attack against the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and fumbled-fingered the IP address, and is sending his zillion packets to you instead).

U.S. Interstate 80 toll booth close-up
Creative Commons License photo credit: jetzenpolis

Now, if the past is any indication, I am urinating into the wind here. The big broadband providers, who (in case you hadn’t noticed) are quickly becoming duopolies or monopolies in their service areas, will crank up their PR machines and tell you that bandwidth caps are necessary and good and right, and that only an unpatriotic supporter of all that is evil would oppose them. AND (the Big Lie), they will only affect a very small percentage of customers. Yeah, right. That’s possibly true TODAY. And YOU, little lobster, have just been lowered into the pot of cool water, and never mind the hissing sound and that faint whiff of natural gas you smell.

Does anyone remember how people used to place calls to each other back in the days of the black-and-white movies? You picked up the phone and told Tillie the operator who you wanted to speak to, and she connected you, and (if local) it was a free call. Then along came rotary dialing, and people hated having to look up phone numbers and dial them, but they were placated by being told that they could call “Information” and get the number for free, if for some reason they could not look it up. THEN the phone company said some people were hogging the time of the Directory Assistance operators (by then it was called Directory Assistance) so they had to start charging the heaviest users, those who made more than 20 calls a month to Directory Assistance. Then the number of “free” calls went down to ten, then five, then three. THEN they started using computerized equipment so that the actual time a human operator was online with a customer dropped significantly. Did they then increase the “free” call allowance? HAH! When was the last time you got a free telephone number from a telephone company operator, or even one of their voice-recognition computers?

They say that those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it. But nowadays I sometimes feel like I’m surrounded by stupid people – the history of how phone and cable companies promise the moon and stars, then do nothing but raise rates, is so recent that it would be hard to overlook, yet people continue to believe the crap that the phone and cable company PR and advertising departments crank out. If, in this day and age, you really think that phone or cable companies have your best interest at heart by imposing bandwidth caps, then you have to be among the stupidest people on this planet. If you really are in that group, and what I just said offends you, don’t let the door hit you on the way out – you don’t deserve to be a reader of this blog.

Comments off

Maybe this is why phone bills are so high…

AT&T plastic bag

Puzzle question: What company would pay good money for DHL 2-day shipping to send a customer an unsolicited plastic bag? Might we assume that a certain large phone company would be capable of this? Of course we might!

Excerpt from AT&T: Your plastic bag. Delivered.:

Yes, it was an unsolicited, rush delivery, plastic iPhone bag. This is definitely not a first for AT&T and the monetary waste involved in packing and shipping a completely unnecessary plastic bag is, I assume, passed back to the consumer. Next time you look at your AT&T bill, you can think about my MISC iPhone PPA BAG … which I’ll be cherishing forever. Or at least until the novelty wears off.

Full story at The Unofficial Apple Weblog.

Comments off

Verizon Wireless Reminds Michigan Nonprofits to Apply for HopeLine Grants

Like many corporations, Verizon occasionally gives away some money, possibly in the hope that we will see them as civic-minded and therefore overlook some of their other transgressions.  I’ll pass this little bit of PR along because it may mean that some Michigan organizations will get some funding, but at the same time I will note (as a male of the species) that the types of organizations that will benefit for Verizon’s contributions sometimes have a rather dismal record in protecting battered and/or physically/emotionally abused men – and yes, such creatures do exist. I could make some snarky comments about Verizon perhaps having a feminist agenda, but on the other hand this might really be an act of corporate goodwill, and there is no denying that such organizations as these sometimes save the lives of women and children.  I just wish that the organizations that are “guilty as charged” would get rid of their huge blind spot insofar as the battered or abused male is concerned – men aren’t always the abusers in a relationship.

SOUTHFIELD, Mich., May 5 /PRNewswire/ — Applications for Verizon Wireless’ HopeLine grants are due from community groups by June 30. Michigan non-profit groups are eligible to apply if they directly benefit domestic violence survivors and their families or offer programs that raise awareness of and prevent domestic violence, teen dating violence, partner violence or elder abuse.

Grant applicants must have a 501(c) 3 tax status, and funding requests should not exceed $10,000. Proposals may be submitted in writing to Michelle Gilbert at michelle.gilbert@verizonwireless.com. The deadline for submitting proposals is June 30, 2008. All applicants will be notified between July 1 and Sept. 30. …..

Read the rest of the Verizon press release.

Comments off

Moved Article

Comments off

The Morning Sun: Phone service lacking for many Charter customers


Creative Commons License photo credit: billjacobus1

When cable companies try to become phone companies, they don’t always get it right…

Charter Communications announced late Monday what many of its customers already had figured out: Some of its Internet-based telephone lines in mid-Michigan have not been able to receive incoming calls from local and long-distance callers.

Over the past week, many concerned Charter customers have been told by customer service representatives that the problem has not been identified and they do not know when it will be fixed.

Full story here:
Phone service lacking for many Charter customers – The Morning Sun

Comments (1)

Happy Leap Day!

Comments off

Must Reading: Jeff Pulver analyzes FCC’s order requiring VoIP companies to pay into the Universal Service Fund

Has Anyone Read the FCC’s USF for VoIP Order yet? To lift from Stephen Colbert, “Is it bad or the worst thing we have ever seen out of Washington?”

In a monumental act of misdirection, the FCC released an Order making all prior regulations of VoIP (both Interconnected and potentially peer-to-peer) look like kindergarten musings.

All I can do is ask: Was recent DC activity on Capitol Hill a calculated effort of misdirection of David Copperfield proportions (David Copperfield of modern magic and Claudia Schiffer fame, not the David Copperfield of Dickens fame, although many a VoIP provider might, as a result, find itself living in a Dickensian “Bleak House” as a result)?

How come we couldn’t see the humungo elephant right in front of our eyes? While we were amassing all our troops on the hill trying to protect our flank on the eastern front, we were getting wiped out this week on the western front. Why does the FCC say VoIP providers give us all your money?

Frankly, many of us got sucked up in the hysteria on Capitol Hill. Perhaps we should have figured out a better way to divide and conquer. I kind of hate the analogy, but I feel a little like Germany in World War I (World War II is simply too disturbing an analogy), fighting a war on two fronts – the Eastern Front on Capitol Hill and the Western Front at the FCC. While we were amassing all of our troops on Capitol Hill with our current allies (e.g., Google, yahoo, Amazon, eBay), we were quietly getting wiped out on the Western Front with little news of the massacre reaching us on the Hill.

What were we fighting for on the Hill? To move the line of scrimmage a few inches towards Net Neutrality? Maybe we should have left that political battle to the better heeled, better connected behemoths of the Internet. In turns out we had a fight for our lives on the Western Front. …..

Full article here. Take some time this weekend to read it and think about it.

Comments (1)

Try to cancel AOL, get the CSR from hell??

According to this MSNBC story, that’s just about what happened to this guy:
How hard can it be to cancel an AOL account?

Two weeks ago, Vincent Ferrari tried to cancel his 5-year-old account—he’d heard from others in the blogosphere that AOL customer service could be awful. So he recorded the conversation with a representative named John. Here is the transcript of the conversation: [more...]

More commentary on this story, including a link to the actual audio, can be found here.
My attitude when calling to cancel something would be this: I don’t owe you any explanation other than that I’m no longer willing to pay for the service. That should be sufficient. EVERYTHING else is irrelevant, and none of your damn business.

Were it not for credit card billing, we’d simply be able to say something like “go ahead and leave the service on if you want to give it to me for free, but I’m not paying you another dime!” and that would put them on notice that it would be in their best interest to turn off the service.

However, when credit card billing enters the picture, things get complicated because even if you explicitly say no, they can attempt to keep billing your card. And then you are put in the position of trying to explain to your credit card company why a charge that you have authorized for months is suddenly no longer a valid charge.

Here’s what I’d love to see someone in Michigan do, though. Before calling to cancel a service where the CSR’s are known to give departing customers a hard time, I’d like to see them call the Michigan Attorney General’s office and see if someone there would be willing to listen in during a three-way call, then use three-way calling to bring in the customer service representative. Just let the AG staff listen in, and count the violations of Michigan consumer protection law. Heck, the state of Michigan could probably make a few thousand bucks on each call, if there really are violations taking place.

In fact, maybe that’s an idea for states that want to make some easy money, given the declining cost of toll charges. Pass some strong consumer protection legislation, which authorizes creation of an “Attorney General’s call recording line”. The idea is, when someone wants to call a company and figures they might do something illegal during the call, they first dial a toll free number at their state AG’s office, which reads a short explanatory message, gives them a tracking number for the call, and then a second dial tone, whereupon they dial the toll free number of the business in question. The call is then recorded. If the call proceeds satisfactorily, the customer simply hangs up at the end of the call and does nothing further.

If, however, the company says or does anything that the customer believes may be illegal, the customer has 24 hours to go to a form on the Attorney General’s web site and enter the tracking number, and some details that would identify the nature of the alleged infraction committed by the company. An AG staff person would then review the recording to see if it appears to be actionable under the state’s law, and then go from there. Recordings for which no web site complaint is filed would be deleted after a few days. Depending on how good a deal the state can get on in-state long distance, they may decide to allow calls to go through to in-state (non-toll-free) business telephone numbers as well, so that problems with local and regional businesses could be recorded and tracked.

This could probably all be set up with an Asterisk box and VoIP service (inbound and outbound) for a few hundred bucks a month (I’m just guessing here because I do not have the expertise to set something like this up, but I suspect that’s pretty accurate), which could easily be recovered with just one significant fine. The hardest part would be figuring out how to eliminate abuse (that is, people simply using the line to get a toll-free call to a business, when they have no intention of making a complaint). But I think that it could be made to work, assuming that anyone in government is still the least bit interested in seeing that customers are treated fairly by big corporations.

Comments off

Did The Telcos Break The Law In Getting Merger Approvals?

The following quote is from an article in Techdirt with the above title:

….. Larry Lessig points out that Gary Reback (the famed lawyer who spent a good part of the 1990s trying to get Microsoft taken down for antitrust violations) is focusing on a new case: showing how the telcos and the government broke the law in approving some of the recent big telco mergers (the same mergers that helped those telcos get rid of competition, now allowing them to do things like get rid of network neutrality). In this case, the claim is that the mergers were approved while the Senate held back the Justice Department appointee charged with enforcing antitrust law (over concerns that he might actually, well, enforce antitrust laws). Once the deals were approved, the Senate dropped their hold on the appointee. Following this, the Justice Department is accused of ignoring parts of antitrust law (the Tunney Act) that forbid backroom dealings between corporations and governments on antitrust matters, and approving the mergers before a judge could do a review to make sure the Tunney Act wasn’t violated. …..

Read the full article plus reader comments here. I, for one, would like to see a full investigation into these allegations.

Comments (2)

Bad news month continues

I can’t remember any other time when the news has been so universally bad for users of phone and Internet service. Let’s take a look at just some recent headlines:

FCC-Internet phones must pay into subsidy fund

AT&T rewrites rules: Your data isn’t yours

Vonage served with lawsuit from Verizon

AT&T offers broadband by itself – Unpublicized DSL service won’t save subscribers much (article talks about how standalone DSL broadband service will only save consumers about $1 over the price of the bundled DSL + dial tone that is currently offered)

And those are just within the past week.

I did not intend for this to become a political blog but I just want to point out that Republicans now have a majority in the FCC as well as in Congress, and this is what we get. I do think there is a connection. Republicans love big corporations and their big campaign contributions and would sell you AND your grandmother down the river to get those bribes contributions. In this case the big phone companies are the big corporations being favored, and that’s because they know from decades of experience how to manipulate the political process to their advantage.

I had a discussion with someone a while back who basically was of the opinion that even if the Republicans were doing us wrong on telecommunications and Internet-related issues, he had to vote for them because they took the right position on abortion and gay marriage, in his opinion. I was first of all a bit dumbfounded that those were the only issues that seemed to matter to him, but also that he couldn’t perceive that on those issues, it was all talk. On the federal level the Republicans haven’t actually done anything to significantly change the situation with regard to either of those issues in decades. Those are the types of issues the courts will ultimately decide, and the courts are not supposed to be partisan (at least that’s the theory).

The issues that the Republicans are voting on – are passing laws and regulations that affect all of us, usually adversely – are not the issues that they are using to pander to the ultra-conservative religious crowd. Both Republicans and Democrats pander to certain constituencies, but if you really want to know who they are, the thing to look at is their voting record, not at the speeches they are making. Talk is cheap, as the saying goes.

And yes, I do realize that Democrats take corporate campaign contributions too, and sometimes sell their votes. The fact that this happens at all means that there’s something wrong with our system of government – if the politicians were honorable they would pass some very strict campaign finance reform legislation. But having said that, it’s the Republicans that openly support big business, at the expense of individual citizens and smaller businesses.

I personally would like to see a third party that actually represents the people. But third parties can’t raise millions of dollars to spend on TV ads. Anyone happen to notice that our political system has really gone downhill since the advent of mass media? But also note that the Internet, if it’s not killed entirely or placed under complete corporate control, can be something of an equalizer. Sick of being preached at by TV ads supporting this or that politician? Go online and read what other people like you are saying (just keep in mind that some of the people commenting online are “sock puppets” that work for public relations firms that are hired by the big corporations to promote their point of view. Often you can tell who they are by their insulting demeanor and the fact that they have no respect for those who oppose their views, and simply by the fact that they are “toeing the corporate line” in what they write).

In closing I want to say that I do not identify myself as either a Democrat or a Republican – at various times I detest politicians of both parties.smile However, in recent times it seems like it’s Republicans who have been doing everything possible to assist in putting bad old “Ma Bell” back together, while simultaneously trying to kill the open Internet and VoIP. At least that’s how I see it.

Comments off

Vonage stock price driven down by short selling?

Marguerite Reardon of CNET News.com writes:

The New York Stock Exchange is looking into how short sellers may have contributed to the sharp decline of Vonage’s stock after it debuted two weeks ago.

Regulators from the NYSE sent a letter to Wall Street securities firms on Thursday asking how dealers may have facilitated the short sellers’ trades, according to a story published Friday by The Wall Street Journal.

Short sellers make money by betting a stock will decline in value. They borrow shares of the stock and sell it. Then they buy back the stock at a lower price hoping to make a profit. Because short sellers can drive down the price of a stock, they are often blamed when share prices decline rapidly.

Read the rest of the story.

Now, here’s a question you should be asking yourself: Who, besides Vonage’s direct competitors (most of which are smaller than Vonage and often fairly cash-strapped), stands to benefit most if Vonage’s stock price stays low?

I’m not making any accusations here. But considering that we have a large monopolistic industry that has engaged in tricks like setting up phony “astroturf” organizations that pretend to represent consumers, and hiring public relations firms to post pseudononymous comments in blogs and other forums, I wouldn’t put anything past them.

Obviously, if certain large communications companies consider Vonage a direct threat, it’s quite possible that there’s not much they wouldn’t do to try and put Vonage out of business. Last year many people suspected they were spoon-feeding the news media stories of VoIP 911 failures, and specifically Vonage 911 failures (while quietly sitting on reports of their own, similar failures) but now that Vonage offers 911 service to something like 80% of their customers (and some other VoIP companies already have 100% 911 coverage), that’s become pretty much a non-issue. The real question is, would they ever resort to possibly illegal tactics, and specifically, would they (or perhaps one of their PR firms) engage in short selling of stock (in this case, what is called “naked” short selling, which is apparently an even bigger offense) to deliberately cause Vonage’s stock price to tank?

If it were ever actually proven that any large communications companies were behind this, I can imagine there would be a lot of fallout, and quite possibly some major litigation. It will be interesting to see where this investigation ends up.

Oh, by the way, from now on if you leave a comment in this blog and you should like a phone company shill, your comment will never get past moderation. Since I can’t tell the actual paid shills from the poor, misguided souls that side with the big phone companies, I simply won’t use comments from anyone that sounds like they might be a paid shill, unless you can somehow prove to me that you aren’t one. I think you’re going to find that many other bloggers are cracking down on this as well. If you really have something to say, feel free to start your own blog – Blogger will give one to anybody (probably even to telephone company shills and PR flacks), so you DO have freedom of speech, just not in MY blog.

Comments (1)

Art Brodsky: eBay’s Meg Whitman enters the Net Neutrality fray

Art Brodsky writes,

eBay CEO Meg Whitman could potentially be an influential voice in the Net Neutrality debate. In addition to heading one of the most prominent Internet companies, she also is a well-known Republican.

Read the full article here.

Comments off

Older Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: