- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: How low can Worldcom stock go?
by Gordon Cook 26 Jun '02

26 Jun '02

Check out an earlier case of worldcom long distance resale sending out bills they can't collect. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0610/064.html "Ring of Thieves" by Neil Weinberg, 06.10.02 Ring of Thieves by Neil Weinberg A former MCI billings manager sits in a federal prison, convicted of crimes he said he learned to commit while working for his former employer. this one resulted in 600 million write off in 2000 >I have a $132,000 bill for an $4k/mon oc3 that was installed less than a >year ago. > >I have a $77,000 bill for UUNet bandwidth -- one months billing, according >to them -- for a 9meg ds3. > > > >On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> >> > Remember, this is just the beginning. Do you remember you >>WCOM bills for >> > services that you had canceled years ago? That will come out >>as well... >> >> Heh, just today, I received a bill from WorldCom for $75,097.30, for >> nothing in particular, that I can discern, which they claim to have been >> the unpaid accumulation of some monthly service from May, 1999 through the >> present. Um, yeah, right. :-) >> >> -Bill >> > >-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- >-- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- -- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml ========================================================

1 0

OT: How low can WorldCom stock go?
by Rowland, Alan D 26 Jun '02

26 Jun '02

I keep waiting for someone to ask the FTC, SEC, etc., exactly what they've been doing with their budgets for the past decade or so. Doesn't seem like anyone has been minding the store except members of congress collecting money from business interests with little, if any, attention to public interest. Enron was the number one contributor in the energy sector. Any bets on WorldCom in the telecom sector? If shareholders ever look up from the short-term bottom line they might notice the horses are long gone from the barns. MBA - Manipulator of Business Assets Waiting for the next 50 or so shoes to drop... Just my 2¢. Al Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Jain [mailto:deepak@ai.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:02 PM To: blitz; ekgermann(a)cctec.com Cc: nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu Subject: RE: How low can Worldcom stock go? I am pretty sure a 5 quarter restatement will reduce its chances of future respectability. DJ -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of blitz Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:40 PM To: ekgermann(a)cctec.com Cc: nanog(a)trapdoor.merit.edu Subject: Re: How low can Worldcom stock go? Worldcom stands a chance of making money in the future, Adelphia has absolutely NO chance of ever regaining any sort of respectability. After all Wcom owns UUnet...they own the fat pipes.. Adelphia cries when it has to purchase a few T3's cause their cablemodem system is clogged... At 19:03 6/25/02 -0400, you wrote: >Any bets where they will bottom out at? Lets see if they can beat Adelphia >at $0.05 on 6/21/02 > > >---- > > >From WSJ Tech alerts. > >WORLDCOM UNCOVERED what appears to be one of the largest corporate frauds in >history with the discovery of more than $3 billion in expenses that were >improperly booked as capital expenditures. > >For more information, see: > >http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1025044139757626480,00.html > > > > >========================================================================== > Eric Germann CCTec > ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 > http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 > Fax: 603 825 5893 > >"The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the >extent of one's ignorance, while still remaining ignorant, may ultimately be >more interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky" > > -- Jon Giorgini of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

3 2

Re: Popular IM program?? was: How important is IM?
by Martin Hannigan 26 Jun '02

26 Jun '02

At 03:38 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, Keith Woodworth wrote: >Long time lurker but have a quick question: what is the most popular IM >then with all the discussion of IM software? > >Dont use any myself but just curious is all. Try trillian, www.trillian.org <I believe> does them all, encrypted. -M Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

3 3

Re: How low can Worldcom stock go?
by Eric Rogers 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

Look's like another ENRON scandal. CFO (cooking the books) fired, 3.6 billion dollars in overstated earning's over the past year. Uh, how many hundreds of millions did Ebber's loan(steal) himself? -Eric ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Eric Germann" <ekgermann(a)cctec.com> Reply-To: <ekgermann(a)cctec.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:03:24 -0400 >Any bets where they will bottom out at? Lets see if they can beat Adelphia >at $0.05 on 6/21/02 > > >---- > >>From WSJ Tech alerts. > >WORLDCOM UNCOVERED what appears to be one of the largest corporate frauds in >history with the discovery of more than $3 billion in expenses that were >improperly booked as capital expenditures. > >For more information, see: > >http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1025044139757626480,00.html

1 0

RE: How important is IM? was RE: How important is the PSTN
by Rishi Singh 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

Our NOC uses IM all the time to stay in touch with us regarding emergencies. Our field engineers use IM to stay in touch with us for scheduling and jobs. Engineers working from home use IM to stay in touch with us. A few of our engineers carry cell phones that are IM capable. Trader support techs at different branch offices use IM to convey outage information to us. Pretty important for us. As for people slacking off on IM, we are a project based team with strict deadlines. If you wanna stay on AIM and chat all day, and you miss the deadline, we'll soon find out why. So personal responsibility goes a long way. I'll tell you one thing, it sure helped a lot during Sept 11th. I'd never remove it, just for that reason here. Eventually it might go away due to increased security policies, and then we'll just find something a lot more secure. But it is very handy. I do agree, though, that it isn't the most secure chat product out there. Just so many people use it because of the large installed base. I've even seen AIM IDs on some business cards now. They seem to be more permanent than a cell phone number :-). > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:chris@bblabs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:17 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: How important is IM? was RE: How important is the PSTN > > > > Jane, > > This brings up a good point about IM. IMHO, IM is a > security risk and I am establishing a company standard > where users behind the firewall are prohibited from using > IM, IRC, and peer-to-peer file sharing programs. My > opinion is that these types of programs contribute more > to lack of productivity than to real problem solving. > > So my question for the group is, do chat programs (IM, > IRC, yahoo) serve a substantial network support purpose > or are they more of a distraction, allowing staff to > communicate with friends, relatives, drifters, > interlopers on company time? > > Regards, > Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO > Broadband Laboratories > http://www.bblabs.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Pawlukiewicz > Jane > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:06 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: How important is the PSTN > > > Hi all, > > Thanks so much for all the great answers. (Could everyone > please stop telling me that im = instant messaging). I > knew I should've never gotten out of bed this morning. > > Anyway, 75% of the respondents said the phone is > critical. 25% said some form of IM is critical. > > Just in case anyone was curious. > > Is it me or is it very quiet in here today? > > Jane > > >

1 0

RE: How important is IM? was RE: How important is the PSTN
by James Smith 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:chris@bblabs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:17 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: How important is IM? was RE: How important is the PSTN > > So my question for the group is, do chat programs (IM, IRC, > yahoo) serve a > substantial network support purpose or are they more of a distraction, > allowing staff to communicate with friends, relatives, > drifters, interlopers > on company time? > > Regards, > Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO > Broadband Laboratories > http://www.bblabs.com > > It also allows other employees to ask/answer quick questions, have an impromptu engineering con-call (with hard copy!) without having to get someone to approve the cost, provide a support channel for customers (ever try to talk a dyslexic through a command line config? cut-paste is your friend...), and several other things that we find useful. In fact, every engineer in the company is told to get a hotmail account and load MSN Messenger when they come on board. IMHO, abuse of company resources should be handled in HR, not IT. Tools don't waste time, people waste time... James H. Smith II NNCDS NNCSE First Call Response Center Professional Services - Network Engineer The Presidio Corporation

1 0

Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

Hi, How important is the phone to you? I mean, given some situation that arises, can we solve it without the phones? Just curious. You can ignore me if you want. That's okay. Jane

16 19

Re: Bet on with my boss
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

Hi Jeff, I'm finally collating this information. I may have won the bet but now I have to figure out what percentage of y'all said what. I'll post the results but my boss . . . go figure. Anyway, what's IM stand for? Thanks, Jane Jeff Shultz wrote: > > No phone? No way... I may dislike the gadget, but it is in large part > the reason for my existence here. If more people had a clue about IM, > it might take up some of the slack. > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 6/21/2002 at 3:37 PM Pawlukiewicz Jane wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >How important is the phone to you? I mean, given some situation that > >arises, can we solve it without the phones? > > > >Just curious. > > > >You can ignore me if you want. That's okay. > > > >Jane > > -- > Jeff Shultz > Network Support Technician > Willamette Valley Internet > 503-769-3331 (Stayton) > 503-390-7000 (Salem) > tech(a)wvi.com

1 0

Re: packet inspection and privacy
by Steven M. Bellovin 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

In message <3D1879B5.4010405(a)marconi.com>, David Charlap writes: > >Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >> Mark Kent writes: >>> >>> I recently claimed that, in the USA, there is a law that prohibits an >>> ISP from inspecting packets in a telecommunications network for >>> anything other than traffic statistics or debugging. >>> >>> Was I correct? >> >> No. Or at least you weren't; the Patriot Act may have changed it. >> (I assume you're talking about U.S. law.) >> >> There was a quirk in the wording of the law -- what you say is correct >> for *telephone* companies, but not ISPs. > >You're referring to "common carrier" status, I think. No, I'm referring to the wiretap act. And this is based on conversations with various Federal prosecutors. > >This isn't exclusively restricted to phone companies, but that's the way >it is right now. I think it may also apply to non-voice carriers that >sell circuits. I'm pretty certain that it does not apply to ISPs. > >A common carrier is not allowed to monitor/filter traffic on customer >circuits. They also can't be held responsible for the traffic on those >circuits. > I'm referring to 18 USC 2510 and 2511, which you can find at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2510.html and 2511.html. In particular, 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(i) says: It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. Note that the ban on random monitoring applies to a "provider of wire service communication services". 2510(1) defines "wire communication" as "aural transfer", i.e., voice. ISPs provide "electronic communication" services, as defined in 2510(12); ''electronic communication'' means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include - (A) any wire or oral communication; (B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device; (C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or (D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds; I'll let a real lawyer tell me what category VoIP or EFT over the Internet falls under... Btw, I referred to Eckenwiler's presentation. See http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0010/justice.html for the full thing; see especially slide 12, which discusses what system operators can do, and the part that says "phone companies more restricted than ISPs". Eckenwiler is an attorney at DoJ. And yes, I was the one who suggested that he speak at NANOG, precisely to clear up some of these points. Oh yes -- since I have the statute in front of me, see 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B): No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520.

1 0

Re: packet inspection and privacy
by Steven M. Bellovin 25 Jun '02

25 Jun '02

In message <200206241631.g5OGVw2q037988(a)noc.mainstreet.net>, Mark Kent writes: > >I recently claimed that, in the USA, there is a law that prohibits an >ISP from inspecting packets in a telecommunications network for >anything other than traffic statistics or debugging. > >Was I correct? No. Or at least you weren't; the Patriot Act may have changed it. (I assume you're talking about U.S. law.) There was a quirk in the wording of the law -- what you say is correct for *telephone* companies, but not ISPs. > >I'ld also like to get opinions on privacy policies for network >operators. It has been suggested that we should adopt a policy that >says that we'll notify customers if: >1) we inspect traffic, >2) we're aware that an upstream is inspecting traffic >3) we're required to inspect traffic (by anyone). > >Point 3) is just about the same as 1), but it does imply >a slightly different motivation behind the inspection. Point 3 is explicitly prohibited by U.S. wiretap law, if it's a legal, court-approved wiretap under either the regular wiretap statute or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Btw -- see the slides from Mark Eckenwiler's tutorial on wiretapping at a recent NANOG (October 2000, as I recall, and definitely in D.C.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

2 1