TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Oct 96 12:20:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 551
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Phone Type Specifications (Russell Hammond)
AT&T's Navy to Go on the Block (Robert McMillin)
Anyone Know About MediaPhonics TAPI Board? (menon1@ixc.net)
Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Jon Solomon)
International Dialing Excess Charges (jnorton@alltel.net)
Re: "Just Say Yes" (Jay R. Ashworth)
Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? (Matthew D. Porter)
Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? (Lionel Ancelet)
Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (hisys@rmi.net)
Re: Cellular Phones In Aircraft (Barry Ornitz)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hammond <Russell_Hammond@dgii.com>
Subject: Phone Type Specifications
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:03:48 -0500
I got your email address off of a newsgroup posting (which was at
http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/uk.telecom/archive/caller-id-specs.bellcore).
I'm looking for a document explaining the differences in phone types.
I've read through several specifications, including BS6305, ANSI
T1.401, and EIA-470-A; all in the effort to get a nailed down
specification of the requirements of a POTS line card (in terms of
alerting signaling, analog transmission, etc.). One thing that I'd
like to get more info on in particular is a definition of what the
phone types A thru Q are, and which are most prevelent.
If you know any info about this, or can refer me to someone who might,
I'd appreciate a reply.
Thanks much,
Russell Hammond
email: Russell_Hammond@dgii.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:48:23 -0700
From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin)
Subject: AT&T's Navy to Go on the Block
According to an article in the October 17, 1996 issue of the {Wall
Street Journal}, AT&T is looking to sell its $850M submarine
cable-ship business. According to the article, "AT&T Submarine
Systems operates seven cable ships and assorted underwater gear to
install and maintain undersea communications lines. The unit, which
laid the first underseas phone line in 1956, has 1,000 workers."
Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com
------------------------------
From: Menon <menon1@ixc.net>
Subject: Anyone Know About MediaPhonics TAPI Board?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:02:17 -0400
Organization: South Carolina SuperNet, Inc.
Reply-To: menon1@ixc.net
I read a rave mention about a MediaPhonics TAPI board in the 'Computer
Telephony' magazine. Apparently, this board is highly recommended by
Com2001 guys.
I am interested in this board ... its a two-line ISA board that will do
TAPI etc and has full SoundBlaster and MIDI support.
The company (MediaPhonics) is based in Switzerland ... so I cannot quite
reach them ... unless someone has their e-mail address.
Please e-mail a cc. of your response.
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon)
Subject: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 12:45:45 GMT
I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers
required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code
in each state to cover cell phones and beepers.
In NYC there already is one, 917. I pr opose another two or three for
NY state, and some for California and Texas, to cover increased demand
for these numbers. All other states get one area code per state for
the increasing demand for these numbers, and as the state runs out of
numbers for these services, additional area codes can be provided.
This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having
to use ten digits to place local calls.
I expect there to be replies to this message, please send them to the
Digest (which I read daily).
--jsol
------------------------------
From: jnorton@alltel.net
Subject: International Dialing Excess Charges
Date: 18 Oct 1996 03:56:59 GMT
Organization: ALLTEL InterNet Customer (http://www.alltel.net)
I also heard about the 809 phone scam. According to the Netcom
message of the day, some callers to the 809 number could be charged
$25 (twenty-five dollars) per minute. Don't know whether this is
true, and am not about to call the 809 number in question to find out.
This leads me to another question. I talked to AT&T about this,
and they told me that several numbers can be called that are dialed as
international (011+) calls that can result in extremely high
per-minute rates. AT&T says that they classify these calls as "adult
entertainment". What happens if someone calls these numbers as wrong
numbers not knowing what they are? AT&T says that they can credit 50%
of the charge, but, that seems to be the only recourse. They also say
that these numbers are charged based upon a contract that the service
provider has with the LEC.
At any rate, is there a place or article someone can refer me to
so I can get more information on these practices? Going to check the
Telecom Archives when I get a chance, but, any other information might
be helpful for the list also.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well we have covered it in great length
here on several occassions, so the archives might be the best place
for you to begin. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth)
Subject: Re: "Just Say Yes"
Date: 17 Oct 1996 17:46:18 GMT
Organization: University of South Florida
Jean-Francois Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) wrote:
> I am trying to figure out why the telcos felt it so important to charge
> so much money on top of the already expensive 4-1-1 charges for such
> a function. Is it because when one does use this feature, his original
> connection to a 4-1-1 line continues to be tied up, or are the switches
> smart enough to *really* transfer the call to the desired number?
Because they can.
This is called a "revenue enhancement feature" in the feature
documentation that switch makers use to sell the features to telcos.
They charge the LEC extra for the feature package, so the telco,
unsurprisingly, charges whatever the traffic will bear for the
feature.
Very few such feature charges have _any_ relation to the incremental
charges you pay for them, and in those rare cases where there -is- a
relationship, the telcos rarely tell you what's _actually_ going on.
Case in point: have you ever wondered why you pay for "airtime" twice
on a forwarded cellular call, when you're not using _any_ airtime?
(This is called the "How can you be in two places at once when you're
not really anywhere at all?" syndrome.)
The reason is that they're not charging you for _airtime_ at all. What
they're charging you for is the thing they pay an incremental charge
for: trunk minutes to the LEC. When a call forwards, the forwarding is
done in the Mobile Telephone Switching Office, and therefore ties up
two trunks for the duration of the call. Airtime is an (effectively)
unlimited resource, trunk minutes aren't.
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For.
The Suncoast Freenet *FLASH: Craig Shergold aw'better; call 800-215-1333*
Tampa Bay, Florida http://members.aol.com/kyop/rhps.html +1 813 790 7592
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To Ameritech's credit here in the
Chicago area, they do not engage in the practice of billing for
'double air' or 'non-existant air'. They have something called
telephone company pass along charge for call forwarding, however in
the case of three-way calling or call-waiting on cellular phones,
they only charge for one actual use of air time for the whole thing. PAT]
------------------------------
From: porter@neta.com (Matthew D. Porter)
Subject: Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones?
Date: 17 Oct 1996 18:49:47 GMT
Organization: Internet Access, Chandler Arizona
Tony Toews (ttoews@agt.net) wrote:
> Here in Canada, or at least in Alberta and all the payphones I can
> recall noticing on my travels throughout Canada, have never allowed
> incoming phone calls.
> Why is this allowed in the States? Historical purposes? Surely this
> would help cut down a lot of the convenience of drug trafficing? As I
> understand it you a customer go to a payphone, not near your residence
> or place of business, dial the beeper of your drug dealer of choice
> with your pay phone number and said pusher calls you back. This just
> can't happen up here.
This isn't permitted in some locations in the States. However, it is
a real shame because a lot of honest people desire to get callbacks
from pager holders on payphones. Remember that every time you cut
down the convenience of a "drug trafficker's" use of a payphone you
also hurt the legit users. In all practicality, the legit user will
be hurt by inconvenience for good whereas the drug abusers and
suppliers, due to high demand, will still find a way to rendezvous for
their transactions.
Matt Porter KB8UVI Hoplophobia is a social disease that kills
porter@neta.com Finger for PGP key
------------------------------
From: la@well.com (Lionel Ancelet)
Subject: Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones?
Reply-To: la@well.com
Organization: The WeLL
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 1996 19:00:41 GMT
On 11 Oct 1996 01:42:21 GMT, hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote:
> that way by accident. Perhaps people's anger at finding so many pay-
> phones virtually useless for their needs is why the rest of us find
> so many payphones vandalized and defaced. PAT]
Another reason why payphones are vandalized is that they are
coin-operated. In France, when payphones became pre-paid cards
operated, the vandalizing rate dropped dramatically.
Lionel Ancelet <la@well.com> http://www.well.com/~la/
------------------------------
From: hisys@rmi.net
Subject: Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud via Email)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 19:10:19 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet
In article <telecom16.539.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, steven r kleinedler
<srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> In article <telecom16.533.11@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Jay Harrell
> <Jay@krusty.gtri.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> But at least Canada rates are reasonable. We really do need to get the
>> expensive calls out of the NANP.
> Or we could educate people about what area codes aren't US codes.
> Or is that assuming that people take too much personal responsibility
> to determine where an area code's at before the call?
With the proliferation of area codes, it's not exactly trivial. Most
phone books are out of date by the time they are printed, much less by
the time the next once comes out. Relatively few people are going to
follow the TELECOM Digest and write down all the splits. I don't
think it is an abrogation of responsibility for people to demand a
less tedious way of knowing whether a call is premium charged or not,
rather than expecting them to match every unrecognized area code
(which is most of them now) against a frequently changing list.
What point is there to having a NANP anyway? We could educate people
to any numbering plan, no matter how confusing or convoluted, no? If
we agree that having a consistent system is justified by the
convenience, then that same rationale could justify limiting the plan
to countries which conform to some standards.
Within most of North America, we have a set of conventions that
everybody can learn:
800/888 number are toll free (unless crossing borders, special
arrangements); directory assistence is at NPA 555 1212 (as well as maybe
elsewhere); 911 is often the emergency number the 900 NPA and the 976
NXX calls charge extra and pay the recipient.
By avoiding (or blocking) 900/976 services, we can avoid the charges.
Why are some Carribean countries jumping into this? It's not because
they are providing a special service. The SOLE reason is that phone
services operations can be stealth; there is no NPA or NXX convention
to allow consumers to know that they are being charged extra, nor is
there any regulation requiring them to publish the charges or announce
them on the phone giving people a chance to hang up without being
charged. That is, the whole point of moving to the Carribean is
deception by avoiding recognizable special prefixes, or avoiding
consumer protection laws.
I see zero point in *legitimate* services moving there -- after all, we
hear that they get a smaller portion of the total charges paid to the
operators, than with domestic 900/976 services (for long distance
charges), so there wouldn't be many repeat customers. (If you are
selling services at $2.99 per minute, would you rather the telco's
took $2.00 for internaltional long distance, or $.35 for domestic?)
Given that context, I would suggest that either:
1. Any Carribean country wishing to remain in the NANP pass and
enforce anti-fraud laws compatible with those in the US/Canada, and
restrict "kickback" numbers to, say, the 976 NXX within their NPAs, or
2. The NANP be restricted to countries which will so cooperate. The
others can still be reached via + (011). Nobody will be confused that
011 results in possibly large charges, and runs by different rules;
they will be on guard to check first.
My prediction is that the service bureaus would pull out as soon as
they lose the ability to deceive people (unless cheap labor there more
than compensated for the increased overhead $$ on the calls -- but I
doubt labor is THAT much cheaper, like $1 per minute).
Zhahai
------------------------------
From: ornitz@eastman.com (Barry Ornitz)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones In Aircraft
Date: 17 Oct 1996 18:31:17 -0400
Organization: Eastman Chemical Company Research
In article <telecom16.541.10@massis.lcs.mit.edu> Bob Keller writes:
> Interestingly, the FCC regulation has nothing to do
> with interference to aircraft navigation equipment. Rather, the
> concern was that a cellphone used at even a modest altitude might
> create havoc by accessing more than one cellular system at a time.
This is fairly obvious. You do not want one cell phone "hogging the
channel" over hundreds of miles locking out other users.
> Also,
> unless my memory is failing me (and it often does these days), I think
> the FAA regulation was broader in scope than just cellphones, and
> included any sort of electronic device -- computers, electronic games,
> tape recorders, etc.
This regulation falls under the FAR's or Federal Airline Regulations.
> I've always been skeptical of the cited concern for navigation
> interference. If the aircraft navigational equipment is so vulnerable
> that we have to be concerned about a cellphone being "on", much less
> actually being "used," (yes, I know it can and often does transmit
> even in stanby mode, but obviously not to the same degree as if I'm
> yakking away), then should I not also feel unsafe on a flight with 28
> businessmen tip tapping and mouse (or alternative travel pointing
> device) clicking away at notebooks (some of them with internal CD-ROM
> drives also whirring) and maybe half a dozen or more kids playing
> their portable Nintendo's or Sega's or whatever?
The other devices you mention generate RF as an incidental function of
their operation. All of these devices MUST meet FCC standards for
incidental radiation. Your cellular phone, on the other hand, is
DESIGNED to be a transmitter and radiate energy. It must meet
standards for spectral purity too but these are generally less
restrictive than for other consumer electronics.
> Also, if there is any
> legitimacy to the concern for cellular interfering with navigation, is
> this unique to the precise cellular bands? The frequencies used in
> those SkyPhone's on some airlines are not all that distant from the
> cellular band?
The SkyPhones have external antennas such that the aircraft's body
acts as a Faraday shield preventing most of the radiation from
entering the plane and interfering with internal equipment. The
cellular frequencies (900 MHz band) are not particularly close to air
navigation bands or air communication bands. The new PCS bands,
however, are much closer to some air navigation frequencies. However
there are two additional problems with cellular phones. The first is
that their spectral purity is not particularly good. This is not
because it cannot be; it is merely because it costs much more to make
it so. Cellular telephones generate wideband noise and spurious
signals outside their working spectrum.
These unwanted signals are weak compared to the cellphone's desired
output, but they can be a problem with nearby sensitive receivers such
as those on aircraft. The second problem is known as fundamental
overload. Even though not on the same frequency as a nearby receiver,
a local transmitter can decrease the sensitivity of a receiver by
overloading the first amplifier stages in a receiver. This can be
largely corrected with better selectivity in the receiver and better
shielding between the transmitter and the receiver. Since all sorts
of wiring runs throughout an aircraft, it can act to carry unwanted
signals to other portions of the aircraft. One approach would be to
shield all these wires or run them in metal conduit. This works - but
it adds considerable weight to the aircraft, which is already using
plastics and composite materials for weight savings.
> I suppose the answer might be that for some strange reason they are
> only concerned about interference while the aircraft is sitting on the
> tarmac. That could explain why I can't use *anything* on the ground,
> but once airborne I can use my computer, but not my cellphone -- because
> the *FCC* prohibits the use of the cellphone once in the air. But why
> is the interference potential greater sitting at the airport? Are we
> talking about interference to the air traffic controller station
> itself rather than to the aircraft? If that's the problem, why should
> I not also be prohibited from using my cellphone in the terminal or
> the airport parking lot? Something just does not make sense to me.
I agree with you here. This makes little sense.
One possible solution to the problem of using cellular telephones on an
aircraft would be to design special cellphones with the added shielding
and spectral purity. They would be bigger, heavier, and cost much more.
This approach already exists with Intrinsically Safe cellphones.
These are cellphones that may be used around flammable and hazardous
materials without causing an ignition -- even if the phone is dropped
or mishandled, etc. All walkie-talkies in our plant, for example,
must be intrinsically safe -- a feature that costs quite a bit more. I
believe we allow I-S cellphones too, but we constantly have hassles
from contractors that want to use their own cellphones on our site.
The problem here is that these phones are not rated as I-S, and
insurance restrictions REQUIRE a Factory Mutual Intrinsically Safe
rating. Most of the contractors know nothing about this so the
simplest approach is to ban them from using cellphones in the
plant...period! The same problem would likely occur with special
aircraft-approved cellphones.
==========
| | Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ
| | Online Instrumentation for Automatic Process Control
| |
/ ###### \ Process Analytical & Optical Spectroscopy Research
/ # \
/ ##### \ Eastman Chemical Company
/ # \ Research Laboratories
/ ###### \ P.O. Box 1972, Eastman Road
/ Eastman Chemical \ Kingsport, TN 37662 - 5150
/ Company \ 423/229-4904, FAX 423/229-0637
|Research Laboratories| ornitz@eastman.com
\____________________/
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #551
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Oct 19 00:01:03 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id AAA01641; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 00:01:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 00:01:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610190401.AAA01641@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #552
TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 96 00:01:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 552
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room (Peter Marshall)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (John R. Levine)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Phillip Ritter)
IEEE EMC/ACES Sponsored Survey - Computational Electromagetics (igssurvey)
Re: International Dialing Excess Charges (Linc Madison)
Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy (Linc Madison)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Marshall <techdiff@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:40:39 -0700
Organization: Netcom
Reply-To: techdiff@ix.netcom.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A very interesting report forwarded
to the Digest on Friday ... about the organization which once or
twice led me to declare in this same journal that I was glad I
was not Socially Responsible. I believe that the Computer Professionals
For Social Responsibility has taken some very irresponsible positions
at one time or another in the past, but my personal opinions notwith-
standing, this latest very controversial report deserves your careful
review and response. PAT]
-------------------
"Meanwhile, Back In the CPSR Board Room: Past as Prologue"
Aki Namioka is from Seattle. She works for IBM. She's also the still-new
President of CPSR; before that, a member of their board and chair of the
org.'s personnel committee. Interesting things have happened on Ms.
Namioka's watch, and on occasion, she goes through the motions of
responding to them.
Case-in-point: an item captioned "CPSR & Backroom Deals of the
Infobahn" that appeared online about a month ago both in plain view and
in a newsletter. Ms. Namioka's purported "response" was not only a few
weeks in coming, but struck several observers as off-point, vacuous and
generally lame. Said Namioka in an 8/29 msg to "CPSR Supporters" on the
"cpsr-cyber-rights"mail-list: "I have been reluctant to respond.... I was
shocked and hurt.... I...didn't anticipate that friends and supporters would
question the ethics of the board members...." This particular dog wouldn't
hunt.
Now, on the cusp of CPSR's current"Communications Unleashed"
Conference in D.C., in terms of what Namioka called "the ethics of the
board members," it seems from materials that became available in the
interim, that the "past" Namioka wanted to be seen as dealing with, is
apparently "but prologue."
The contrast between the note struck by the conference description and
its high moral ground, on the one hand, and what these sources say, on
the other, is itself attention-grabbing. From the conference description:
In today's world of corporate mergers and the mega-packaging of
services, what's at stake for consumers and who will represent their
views? What is the meaning of public interest in the new digital
environment?
Who and what, indeed?
In the meantime, not only do recently available records contrast with the
tone of the current conference and with Namioka's letter; but so do a
number of communications from involved CPSR members themselves.
Item: Brennon Martin, in "CPSR: From the Outside Looking In:"
...the vision is...in the members and not so much in the organization
itself.... I had expected an organization driven by the vision of its
members.... the organization lacks vision, purpose, and an ability to
get things (anything) done.
Item: Craig Johnson, from "Position Paper on CPSR:"
...I...have..seen a lot of obfuscation and denial.... There is a widespread
perception that the board lacks transparency, responsiveness and
accountability.
Item: Eva Waskell
The soul of the organization is in disarray.... There appear to be
internal, fundamental differences [between board and membership]
about the future direction of the organization.
Item: Audrie Krause, CPSR's recent Exec. Director, 6/23, on "Leadership
Transition for CPSR:"
... significant and apparently irreconcilable differences over
the way in which CPSR should be governed and managed. It is my
understanding that the board hired me in order to provide leadership
and vision for CPSR as it moves beyond the vision of its founders
and begins to address new issues.
In the context of issues about CPSR's leadership, such an increasingly
apparent disjunction between the adopted public face and the
not-in-plain-view face of some of the org.'s leadership itself also didn't
seem to be at bottom merely the usual, garden variety NPO stuff. It was
also recently evidenced by CPSR's President, Aki Namioka, and by Doug
Schuler, who chaired the org.'s board until this summer.
Item:
In an 10/6 request to provide her own statements and comments on
a number of topics, the CPSR President was asked, among other things,
to respond to member concerns that the board had been out of touch
and unresponsive.; was "dysfunctional," and that the group's future
had been endangered and was uncertain. She was also asked to comment
on an apparent pattern of self-interest and conflict of interest or
appearance of such on the part of board members during her "watch"
in various internal leadership positions. Namioka was asked for
statements pegged to specific examples involving Schuler and for
statements on two examples of so-called "pass-through" grants.
She simply supplied copies of a PR-ish 9/9 letter she'd sent to
members and of her purported response to the earlier "Backroom Deals"
item noted above; neither responsive to anything she had been asked
about. The first, she stated, "answers the questions that I feel like I
can answer." What she called "concerns about Doug," said Namioka,
"should be discussed with Doug directly."
Item:
Doug Schuler, who had recently chaired the CPSR board, and who, like
Namioka, had previously functioned as a board member, had been asked
in similar fashion not only about the two occasions involving "pass-
through" funds, but also about two examples of payments to him
with apparent board approval; about his attempt to have the org.
hire him as an organizer, and about his role in a foundation grant
proposal that would have meant not-insignificant personal financial
benefit. Asked like Namioka, to provide statements or comments,
Schuler has yet to be heard from.
However, the meat of the matter is a matter of record, and that speaks
for itself. Made up of both electronic correspondence and other materials,
this is a "follow-the-money" record. It represents a pattern involving
members of the CPSR leadership. It is also not without precedent among
similar advocacy groups--previous questioning about EFF and its funding
sources comes to mind, for example. The litany presented by these
materials, while standing on its own, also rounds out and reinforces the
theme of disjunctions concerning CPSR leadership. Color this component
private v. public benefit, private v. public interest, in-house v. out-
house....
Item:
CPSR is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization, apparently with
about 1500 members and five active chapters of a total 22.
Backed up by e-mail correspondence, sources indicate that in 1993,
CPSR accepted for a small percentage of total dollar value, a
pass-through grant in the amount of $3000. In such transactions, the
tax-exempt org. is merely a vehicle, and sources indicate this
transaction was apparently midwifed by Terry Winograd, a CPSR founder
and computer scientist.
Apparently a friend of his wanted a tax deduction as a "charitable
contribution" for funds he wanted to provide to help update and edit a
1986 book called "Reinventing Technology," by a third friend. An
evidently willing CPSR leadership, sources say, provided the org. as a
conduit for the so-called "charitable contribution," a transaction one
source preferred to label "tax-laundering." Tax-exempt CPSR
apparently did not retain any copyright in the publication.
By way of background, An 4/94 article in "The Exempt Organization Tax
Review" refers to "the use of charitable funds to provide unwarranted
enrichment to individuals" and notes that "the penalty for a mistake by a
charitable organization is dire--loss of exempt status." Explaining that
such organizations "must...be organized and operated exclusively for
certain specified *exempt purposes,* the article notes that "no part of
its net earnings may *inure to the benefit* of a private...individual."
A 6/13/96 msg to Winograd cites this book's author asserting "that he
knew you," and that "he has made similar arrangements in the past."
Winograd's reply on the same date has him admitting "I know Michael
[the book's author] well;" and, referring to the 1993 transaction, "I
think we sponsored part of the work on the basis of outside funding
which he identified." The same day, CPSR's Exec. Director confirmed to
Winograd that "Our files show that in 1993 Oppenheimer gave us $3000,
all but $150 of which was passed through to Goldhaber to help him
update his book."
Item:
Both sources and records document a similar, although attempted, pass-
through involving the same principals this year, apparently intended to
update and edit the same book. However, under the heading "Charity as
Conduit," in a 6/24 letter, a San Francisco attorney specializing in
non-profit tax law advised CPSR:
...I assume...the reason the prospective donor needs the cooperation
of CPSR is to obtain an income tax deduction for the funds paid to
the author.
The principal problem with the arrangement is that CPSR, by
approving of this project, is essentially "selling" its status as a
qualified donee of charitable contributions for a price of 150....
In the situation posed..., unless the author is willing to assign
his interest in the copyright to CPSR, the use of charitable funds
to further the creation of the book is not permitted.
But it apparently was not this legal advice or any decision by CPSR
leadership that kept this transaction from being consummated like
the 1993 pass-through. According to other available documents, the
non-CPSR principals in this affair simply lost patience.
Notably, however, Aki Namioka had written deferentially on 6/16 that
"Terry has been on the CPSR Board since the birth of the organization
and I don't think he would have suggested something unless he thought
it were appropriate.... Terry comes across as very reasonable...."
The next day, Terry Winograd wrote that the "funding sponsor has
grown impatient with the problems with CPSR...."
Item:
Following the money in the context of the org.'s leadership also
appears to manifest a different sort of face, an apparent
pattern formed by a series of examples more directly involving
the board's former NW Regional Director and Chair, Doug Schuler.
Asked to delineate examples of attempts to realize personal
financial gain through CPSR, a source described then board chair Schuler,
along with two other board members, "all saying they would like a piece
of any funding we could get from the Markle Foundation to do a post-
telecom bill policy paper on NII issues;" in addition to--again, while he
was board chair--
three attempts by Doug to be paid:
...an Independent Project Fund grant proposal, which was referred
to the Executive Committee and resulted in his being paid $2000
to organize five working group within one year....
applying for the full-time organizing position....
Third, asking to paid to organize the DIAC, while activist members
were not paid to organize other conferences.
This source added to the mix Schuler's requesting that his then-
recent book be promoted through CPSR channels, noting also that
the organizer staff job paid about $30,000 and that Schuler's
payment for the upcoming DIAC conference was apparently worth
about $2000-$2500.
Schuler's involvement in the ultimately unsuccessful Markle
Foundation funding proposal also seems to have been worth a
sizable chunk of change. From a 3/21/96 letter to Markle signed
by Schuler and board member Steve Miller:
We are writing at this time to inquire whether The Markle
Foundation would consider a proposal from CPSR for a grant of
$50,000.... Our plan is to complete the white paper in time to release it
at our Annual Meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for late October in
Washington, D.C. .... Both of us, as well as a third member of the CPSR
Board, Hans Klein, are available to provide technical and policy
expertise on a paid consulting basis.
In the face of recent and growing questioning and criticism from some
activist CPSR members and others, the litany of apparent self-dealing
recited here also appears notable because even when, as in the pattern
demonstrated by Doug Schuler, one responsible individual's apparent
financial self-interest is at play, the other iterations indicating
disjunctions implicating the org.'s leadership occurred "on the watch" of
board members and officers including, but obviously not limited to,
Schuler and Namioka.
Unsurprisingly, activist members and others have concerned themselves
with questions of where the buck stops and who is minding the store.
Backbone for much of these themes is a record that largely stands on its
own, enabling what amounts to a "follow the money" treatment and a
picture of disjunctions and of contrasts--public interest
and private gain, a public face and an in-house face--the appearance of
a comprimisable, shell-like organizational leadership with apparently
ample evidence of its own inner "cognitive dissonance."
------------------
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps someone authorized to do so by
CPSR would care to respond to this article. It will will recieve a
priority place in the first issue of the Digest available following
its receipt. The charges alleged by Peter Marshall seem rather serious,
particularly those pertaining to misuse of CPSR's tax exempt status. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 21:03 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers
> required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code
> in each state to cover cell phones and beepers.
Too bad the FCC said they couldn't do that. (917 was grandfathered
from before this rule.) The rationale was that a separate area code
for non-wireline ghetto-izes them and inhibits competition.
Also, one area code per state could have toll rating problems -- 917
is easy enough to handle because all calls within NYC are local to
each other. But what about cell phones and beepers here in upstate
N.Y.? You want cellular numbers to be local to the city where the
subscriber lives, so you'd have some extremely bizarre "local" calling
rules, e.g. you can make local calls from here in Trumansburg to
607-387, our prefix, 607-253 through 607-259 and 607-279, neighboring
Ithaca, but you'd have to add something like, 980-666, Ithaca's new
cellular prefix! Huh? (In fact there are few enough cellular numbers
here that the cellular carriers use blocks of numbers from wireline
prefixes, e.g., my number is 607-279-XXXX, so assigning a whole prefix
for cellular would be wasteful. This is common in less dense areas).
Finally, remember the big unheralded culprit in area code depletion:
competitive carriers grabbing huge piles of prefixes to hold in
reserve against the day they might start serving an area. At this
point, every carrier that might serve an area needs a unique NXX-NXX
for each billing point, even if they're unlikely ever to have more
than a few hundred numbers there. The reason is that billing software
all depends on NXX-NXX, so you can't share prefixes among different
billing points, even if they are in fact in the same switch, while
call routing routes by prefix, so you can't share prefixes among
carriers.
I believe it was Fred Goldstein who proposed here that it wouldn't be
all that hard to share a prefix for a given city among different
carriers and route on the thousands digit of the number, e.g. 666-1XXX
might be MFS, 666-2XXX AT&T, 666-3XXX MCI, and so forth. This would
only require software changes to routing software in switches close
enough that they'd route calls to that prefix differently to the
different local carriers, and no changes at all to billing software
since regardless of carrier it's the same city so the rates would be
the same. Do that and you can reclaim thousands of reserved but
unused prefixes in "full" area codes.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof
------------------------------
From: Phillip Ritter <RitterP@coxpcs.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:41:28 -0700
> In TELECOM Digest V16 #551 jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) writes:
> I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers
> required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area
> code in each state to cover cell phones and beepers.
> In NYC there already is one, 917. I pr opose another two or three for
> NY state, and some for California and Texas, to cover increased demand
> for these numbers. All other states get one area code per state for
> the increasing demand for these numbers, and as the state runs out of
> numbers for these services, additional area codes can be provided.
> This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having
> to use ten digits to place local calls.
This is an interesting idea. It has been proposed in at least three
jurisdictions that I am aware of (Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles)
and has been the subject of litigation in all three cities. Both the
State PUCs and FCC have been involved, with strong arguments presented
on both sides of the issue.
The current state of affairs is that the FCC has ruled that there can
not be a "service specific overlay" of NPAs within the US portion of
the NANP. What effect this will have on the New York situation is
unclear at this point, but there cannot be a new overlay specific to a
given service (e.g., a "wireless only" overlay).
The reasoning is, basically, that over time the FCC desires that all
providers of telecommunications service will be allowed to compete
"head to head". This means that the IXCs and CAPs are getting ready
for competitive local exchange service, the LECs are getting ready to
provide inter-exchange service, and the CMRS carriers (wireless) will
be allowed to provide "fixed wireless local loop" services. Forcing
the CMRS providers into an overlay NPA is seen as anti-competitive
when these carriers try to compete with traditionally "wired"
services.
Whether you agree or not, it is currently the "law of the land" (well,
actually, the R&O that finalized this ruling is the subject of a
"stay" until January for other reasons, but I don't think that this
part is currently in hot dispute. Service specific overlays do not
solve the NPA split problem without adding new significant number
administration problems.
Phil Ritter RitterP@coxpcs.com
------------------------------
From: isgsurvey@aol.com (ISGsurvey)
Subject: IEEE EMC/ACES Sponsored Survey on Computational Electromagetics
Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:51:28 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: isgsurvey@aol.com (ISGsurvey)
The IEEE/EMC Society and ACES are co-sponsoring a technical survey to
establish the state-of-the-art in the application of advanced
Computational Electromagnetics (CEM) tools by commercial industry. The
survey is being conducted by the ICEMES Development Team in
conjunction with research funded by the US Air Force s Rome
Laboratories. By exploring the needs and wants of potential users of
advanced CEM analysis tools, we intend to compile information about:
The rate of adoption of advanced CEM analysis tools by
different segments of commercial industry;
External trends and influences that will accelerate/retard
the adoption of CEM analysis;
Suitability of currently available CEM software to the
needs of commercial industry;
Directions of improvement in CEM tools.
By taking 10-15 minutes to complete our survey, you will benefit in
two ways. First, we will report a summary of the survey results back
to you, giving you important information about industry trends in the
use of advanced CEM tools. Second, your feedback will help to create
better CEM tools, which will help you to do your work better, faster,
and more easily. All survey responses will be kept entirely
confidential. Your individual response will be merged into an
anonymous responses database. We will not attribute any published
responses to you, or to your company. We also will keep your identity
strictly confidential, will NOT provide any information to be used for
telemarketing, or sold or rented to junk-mail list compilers. You can
find the survey at the ICEMES homepage, http://www.auragen.com/icemes.
Also posted is a technical paper describing ICEMES, a sophisticated
software pre-processor being designed with funding by the US Air Force
s Rome labs. If you have any difficulties with the survey, comments
you d like to make that don t fit in the survey format, or other
questions about any of this, please e-mail them to ISGSurvey@AOL.com.
Many thanks for your help and input. See you on the web!
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: International Dialing Excess Charges
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:45:26 -0700
Organization: Best Internet Communications
In article <telecom16.551.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, jnorton@alltel.net
wrote:
> I also heard about the 809 phone scam. According to the Netcom
> message of the day, some callers to the 809 number could be charged
> $25 (twenty-five dollars) per minute. Don't know whether this is
> true, and am not about to call the 809 number in question to find out.
I think this falls into the category of urban legend. I don't believe
that any of the long distance companies has a tariff on file that
would permit this. If they charge $25/minute to that particular
number in the British Virgin Islands, they have to charge the same for
all other numbers in the B.V.I.
> This leads me to another question. I talked to AT&T about this,
> and they told me that several numbers can be called that are dialed as
> international (011+) calls that can result in extremely high
> per-minute rates. AT&T says that they classify these calls as "adult
> entertainment". ... They also say that these numbers are charged based
> upon a contract that the service provider has with the LEC.
Can anyone give me one single example of an international call from
the U.S. that is billed at higher rates than other calls to the same
location, based on some sort of "premium" surcharge?
(By the way, the term "LEC" as used above may be a bit confusing; it is
referring to the foreign telco, not the U.S. caller's local telco.)
We have indeed discussed this issue before, but no one has ever given me
a concrete example of an international number -- either Caribbean 1+ or
otherwise 011+ -- that is billed with a surcharge when called from the
U.S. I submit that no such numbers actually exist.
In all cases, U.S. international call rates are based exclusively on:
* selected long-distance company and any optional "savings plan";
* country of destination;
* class of call (direct-dial, collect, person-to-person, etc.);
* time of day/day of week (possibly);
* distance between city of origin and city of destination (possibly).
If anyone has a counterexample, please provide all the specific
details -- the LD company, the country, the city routing code or other
prefix, and the surcharge.
As an example, I just checked with Sprint, and on the rate plan I am
on, calls to the British Virgin Islands, 1-809-494 are billed at
$1.45/minute peak, $1.15/minute off-peak (5pm to 8am, plus Sat/Sun).
The rates for 1-809-496 (the prefix where the "past due account" scam
is located) are PRECISELY THE SAME. There is NO surcharge.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:35:06 -0700
Organization: Best Internet Communications
In article <telecom16.550.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tweek@netcom.com
(Mike Maxfield) wrote:
> [Contra Costa News article quote:]
>> The other plan, which uses a north-south split, would bring a new area
>> code to Contra Costa and the Alameda County suburbs of Pleasanton,
>> Livermore and Dublin. The more established cities of Albany, Oakland,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Berkeley, Hayward and Fremont would retain the current 510 number
>> designation, according to the plans released by the California Code
>> Administrator.
> Huh? "The more established cities..."?
Oakland has been a major metropolitan center much longer than Walnut Creek.
What's mysterious about that? It doesn't say "the communities that have
had the 510 area code longer," it simply says the more-established cities.
Indeed, one of the questions about this split is what city on the east
side will be the "standard bearer" for the new area code. (Another point
to clarify: it sounds to me from the description that Richmond and El
Cerrito will move to the new area code in either of the proposed plans.
Is that correct?)
> FWIW, At the time of the '89 Quake, the 510 AC was laying on top of
> the 415 AC, and reportedly, one way for someone to dial into the
> area in the early hours after the quake (including into the current
> 415 AC as well, if I recall) was to use the 510 AC which had not had
> the indial limits placed on it as the 415 system did.
If this worked, it was a fluke caused by people doing a little bit of work
far in advance -- the 510 area code did not even start PERMISSIVE dialing
until almost two years after the earthquake (9/2/91). Perhaps you are
thinking of the Oakland Hills firestorm in October 1991.
The 510 area code may have been temporarily implemented as an overlay on
415 in some switches as an interim measure in preparation for programming
in the actual area code split, but it was never a legitimate part of the
numbering plan. In particular, it should never have been possible to dial
a number in San Francisco using 510.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #552
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Oct 20 09:10:18 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA29593; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610201310.JAA29593@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #553
TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Oct 96 09:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 553
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Pacific Bell/Proposed FCC Competition Rules (Mike King)
Re: The Birth of Cable TV (Neal McLain)
BellSouth and ACSI Reach Settlement on Key Issues (Mike King)
Book Review: "Educators' Essential Internet Training System" (Rob Slade)
Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback (David W. Vaughan)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: Pacific Bell/Proposed FCC Competition Rules
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 22:06:04 PDT
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:48:24 -0700
From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com
Subject: Pacific Bell Executive Calls Proposed FCC Competition
Rules Unfair and Counter-Productive
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
John E. Lucas
(415) 394-3892
Pacific Bell Executive Calls Proposed FCC Competition Rules Unfair and
Counter-Productive
Says Will Hurt Entire U. S. Telecom Industry
London -- October 18, 1996 The president of Pacific Bell's Industry
Markets unit today told an international forum of telecommunications
executives that rules proposed by the United States' Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) would retard innovation by "robbing us
of the very margins that encourage research and development."
Speaking before systems interconnection managers at the IIR Telecoms &
Technology Global Perspectives Forum on Interconnection in A Changing
Regulatory Environment, Fetter said "the FCC is essentially confiscating
our assets and usurping the authority of state commissions..."
Under newly proposed rules, Fetter said Pacific Bell, as well as the
other Bell operating companies would have to provide their reseller
customers with 17-25% discounts, allowing those other companies the
unfair advantage of undercutting local operating companies steeply on
price. In California, she said, Pacific Bell now has thousands of
wholesale customers who use its network to provide services to others.
In 1984, it had three.
Fetter, the event keynote speaker, said that, instead of helping to
assure competitors of a level playing field, the rules would discourage
innovation, with a major ripple effect throughout the American
telecommunications industry.
Calling them misguided and counter-productive, Fetter said the rules are
being vigorously appealed by telephone operating companies and state
commissions.
Regulation is supposed to serve as a surrogate for competition, but
these rules would pose heavy regulatory burdens on existing operating
companies while purportedly opening local U. S. telephone markets to
fair, market-based competition, she noted.
Fetter said the long-anticipated U. S. Telecom Reform Act of 1996 has
already turned the U. S. telecommunications industry in a completely new
direction, adding that it has been the biggest single reason for the
huge growth in wholesale customers that the company has experienced.
Under terms of that sweeping law, the interconnection process is already
working well, she noted.
Fetter pointed out that Pacific Bell has completed interconnection
agreements with 15 carriers under state regulations, several of which
now also meet federal requirements. Another 60 are well underway.
Her parent company, Pacific Telesis, like several other phone companies,
had little choice but to appeal the FCC decision, she said. The appeal
is pending hearings in the U. S. Circuit Court that are scheduled to
begin in January. "Our vision is to keep and grow customers on the
Pacific Bell network, under terms that do not prescribe a suicide
mission," she stated.
"Why should Pacific Bell (or any other local operating company) invest
capital only to face substantial unnecessary risk in recovering that
capital?"
Fetter was skeptical of wording in the proposed rules that says
operating companies like Pacific and Nevada Bell are entitled to a
reasonable profit, because "reasonable" was not defined.
"This creates a scenario whereby we could develop the latest and
greatest telecommunications service, be forced to make it immediately
available to wholesale customers who can then use their discount to
substantially undercut us on price, robbing us of the very margins that
encourage research and development, and creating a disincentive for us
to explore and progress as an industry," Fetter said.
She went on to say that while local phone service in California is $4
billion strong, her company cannot "give away the store" to be allowed
into the long distance market.
Calling its network the most efficient of the major local phone
companies in the United States, Fetter told the executives that Pacific
Telesis is committed to continuing to increase the number of carriers
that it serves.
And, she predicted strong rates of growth: Internet providers will
provide the greatest percentage of growth for Pacific's wholesale
operations -- 200% over the next three years. The company's wireless
customers base will also jump sharply at least doubling in size, she
said, and the number of local service providers will continue to
steadily rise.
"It simply does not make good economic sense for several carriers to
build redundant networks when we are perfectly willing to sell
components or full service deals on ours." Fetter said the Pacific Bell
network is one of the most modern in the world with an investment of
about $30 billion to date. She said Pacific Bell is now investing even
more for increased network security to provide added assurances that no
carrier ever has access to the records of another.
Embracing her unit's dubious task of striving to efficiently equip her
company's competitors, she cautioned that Pacific Bell and other local
phone companies must be allowed to make a fair rate of return on all
fronts in the process.
She informed conference attendees that, in addition to the local
exchange market, the long distance (or interLATA) market is thriving,
though Pacific Bell and the other former Bell operating companies are
still prevented from entering it. She estimated that consumers in
California and Nevada are spending $7.5 billion annually for long
distance voice traffic alone -- 73% of which originates in areas served
by Pacific Bell or Nevada Bell. She added that California, which by
itself has the seventh largest economy in the world, accounts for 40% of
all United States Internet traffic and 50% of the American cellular
phone market.
Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of the Pacific Telesis Group (NYSE: PAC), a
diversified telecommunications company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, U. S. A.
-------------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
Date: 19 Oct 96 03:43:09 EDT
From: Neal McLain <103210.3011@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: The Birth of Cable TV
My post in DIGEST V16 #519 about the article THE BIRTH OF CABLE TV
(published in the Fall, 1996 issue of AMERICAN HERITAGE OF INVENTION &
TECHNOLOGY) elicited comments from several readers. I reproduce some
of them below, along with my responses.
On 10/1/06, John R. Grout <grout@polestar.csrd.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I appreciate your article, but, technologically, do you know
> what distinguished Astoria's system from, say, CATV within a
> single apartment complex (which is not considered "cable TV")?
> Was it only that a charge was made? Did it use equipment
> (e.g., amplifiers) which smaller, single-premises CATV systems
> didn't?
I'd rephrase this question as follows: what is the difference between
a "Master Antenna TV (MATV) System" which serves only one building (or
a small group of buildings) and a "Cable Television (CATV) System"
which serves a larger urbanized area?
Under current FCC regulations, this distinction is purely a matter of
legal definition. This definition hinges on one question: whether or
not any physical part of the system (e.g., cable, amplifier, or even
just part of the supporting strand) occupies public "right-of-way".
If any part of the system encroaches on public right-of-way (i.e., a
city street), the system is legally deemed to be a "cable television"
system, and all sorts of legal requirements kick in.
I would assume that Parsons' system crossed public right-of-way, so he
probably needed permission from the City of Astoria. Therefore, under
modern law, his system would be classified as a CATV system.
But, of course, in Parsons' day, this distinction didn't exist. In
fact, even the term "cable television" didn't exist. When the term
CATV was first coined, it was an abbreviation for "community antenna
television."
The presence or absence of amplifiers does not distinguish an MATV
system from a CATV system. Virtually all MATV systems employ at least
one amplifier; even a small MATV system in a four-unit building
usually has some sort of amplifier buried in the attic. Large
apartment and condo complexes often have elaborate distribution
systems constructed with equipment identical to that used by CATV
systems. Many such systems also include satellite-delivered
programming; for this reason, they are sometimes called "Satellite
Master Antenna TV (SMATV) Systems."
The Astoria system certainly must have used amplifiers. However, back
in 1948, what we now know as cable-TV amplifiers didn't exist, so
Parsons must have either built his own amplifiers, or adapted/modified
some sort of commercial broadband amplifier for outdoor use. The I&T
article does not address this question. The picture on pages 42 and
43 shows a cylindrical device which looks like an amplifier; however,
it has a distinct home-brew appearance.
The presence or absence of a monthly charge does not distinguish an
MATV system from a CATV system. Most large MATV/SMATV systems impose
a monthly charge, although it may be buried in the rent bill.
Parsons did charge for his service; indeed, I've heard this fact cited
as a factor that substantiates Astoria's claim to having been the
first cable system.
On 10/1/96, R. Thomas Benner <BX2@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> wrote:
> A friend forwarded this to me. The inventor of CATV is in
> dispute. In fact, it supposedly began in Pennsylvania in the
> Anthracite regions where I grew up (but I claim no credit).
> A colleague of mine, coincidentally named Parsons, is writing
> a history of cable.
> I recall that he said CATV could have also begun in Wisconsin.
> I'll share your posting with me.
I agree that the inventor of CATV is in dispute. I have frequently
heard the claim that the first system was in Pennsylvania; however, as
noted in my response to the previous post, Astoria is generally
credited as the first system to impose a monthly charge.
I've spent most of my 20 years in the cable industry right here in
Wisconsin, and I've never heard a claim that first system was here.
But I suppose it's possible: there are many cities in the northern
part of the state which didn't have access to over-the- air television
until well into the 60s.
On 10/1/96, Bob Johnson <rejohnson@greenville.edu> wrote:
> You might or might not know that there is a cable tv museum
> of some kind on the campus of Penn State University. I wasn't
> aware that Oregon had the first system, but PA towns were very
> early cable users -- because so many towns there are located in
> narrow valleys with no hope of receiving signals from outside
> without going to the top of the nearest ridge or mountain.
Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to visit the cable museum
at Penn State, but I'm told that it includes lots of early equipment
including home-brew amplifiers.
Within the past year or so, this museum has been closed. Portions of
the collection owned by the Society of Cable Telecommunications
Engineers (SCTE) are now in display at the society's headquarters
building in Exton, PA. The rest of the collection is now in storage
in the Denver area, awaiting the completion of new museum space.
On 10/5/96, Brent Graham <bgraham@direct.ca> wrote:
> I enjoyed your note re; Astoria & cablevision. My wife & I go
> to Oregon often to visit her sister and I'll make sure next
> time we too stop at the Astoria column.
Enjoy!
In TELECOM Digest V16 #537 (10/9/96), Andrew Emmerson <midshires@cix.
compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> This sounds good but as is so often the case, it is wrong.
> There were commercial community antenna (cable) television
> installations in London as early as 1936 [K.J. Easton: THIRTY
> YEARS IN CABLE TV. 1980: Pioneer Publications, Mississauga,
> Ontario] and also during the second world war in Berlin and
> Hamburg. According to Easton's book, the first cable TV system
> in the USA was established by John Walson in Mahanoy City,
> Pennsylvania in 1948, although he did not start charging
> for service until the following year.
> All credit to the good folk of Astoria for celebrating their
> pioneering work but it's certainly not the first, even in the
> USA.
The inventor of CATV is indeed in dispute!
------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: BellSouth and ACSI Reach Settlement on Key Issues
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 22:03:45 PDT
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:13:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: BellSouth <press@www.bellsouthcorp.com>
Subject: BELLSOUTH AND ACSI REACH SETTLEMENT ON KEY ISSUES
BellSouth .......................................October 18, 1996
BELLSOUTH AND ACSI REACH SETTLEMENT ON KEY ISSUES
Need for Arbitration Hearings Removed
(Atlanta, GA)--October 18, 1996--BellSouth (NYSE: BLS) announced today
it reached an agreement with American Communications Services,
Inc. (ACSI) that addresses key remaining issues between the companies
on local competition interconnection. The agreement will allow ACSI to
get into business in the BellSouth region immediately after the
appropriate state commissions approve the agreement. This settlement
comes on the heels of the partial stay of the FCC's interconnection
order which was granted in part because of the restrictive nature of
the FCC's rules on the pricing of BellSouth's services for resale and
unbundled network elements.
The two companies signed a partial interconnection agreement in July
and had continued negotiations which resulted with this pact. This
settlement allows the two companies to terminate the arbitration
process which was scheduled to begin yesterday in Alabama, and later
in the fall in other BellSouth states.
"This type of settlement is exactly what the national legislation
intended, and what the Appeals Court has now allowed by granting a
stay of parts of the FCC order. The court has removed the barriers to
free and open negotiations between competitors in the local telephone
market that the FCC order had erected," stated Roger Flynt, Group
President - Regulatory and External Affairs. "This full settlement
agreement with ACSI is another demonstration that we are committed to
bringing competition to our markets. To this end, we have been
aggressively negotiating with our competitors to assure that the
competition intended by the national legislation develops. Also, with
each agreement we sign, we move closer to being allowed into the long
distance business," stated Flynt.
This settlement covers BellSouth's nine states and addresses the
prices of BellSouth's unbundled loops, loop channelizations, and cross
connects in BellSouth's switching facilities. The companies have
incorporated a true-up process in order to adjust these prices after
six months, if necessary, or if different rates are approved or
required.
In addition to this settlement, BellSouth has signed agreements with
25 regional and national competitors including: Time Warner,
Intermedia, Teleport Communications Group, Hart Communications, The
Telephone Company of Central Florida, Southeast Telephone Company,
American MetroComm, Payphone Consultants, Georgia Comm South, MediaOne
(US West Subsidiary), National Tel, Business Telecom Inc. of Georgia,
Intetech, WinStar Wireless, MFS Communications, Brooks Fiber,
Preferred Long Distance, Tie Communications, Annox, Inc., Competitive
Communications and Communications Brokerage Services. The company is
also expected to sign additional agreements with competitors in the
near future.
BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications services company. It
provides telecommunications, wireless communications, directory
advertising and publishing and other information services to more than
25 million customers in 17 countries worldwide. Its telephone
operations provide service over one of the most modern
telecommunications networks in the world for approximately 22 million
telephone lines in a nine-state region that includes Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Tennessee.
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Chandler BellSouth Telecommunications
(404) 529-6235
Bill Todd BellSouth Telecommunications (205) 972-2984
-----------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 12:37:32 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Educators' Essential Internet Training System"
BKEDESIN.RVW 960627
"Educators' Essential Internet Training System", Tim McLain/Vince DiStefano,
1996, , U$249.00
%A Tim McLain
%A Vince DiStefano
%C 1866 Colonial Village Lane, PO Box 10488, Landcaster, PA 17605-0488
%D 1996
%E Chris Noonan Sturm
%I Wentworth Worldwide Media
%O U$249.00 800-638-1639 fax 717-393-5752 connect@wentworth.com
%P ~350 pages, 85 min. video
%T "Educators' Essential Internet Training System"
This package contains a complete set of materials for a basic Internet
training seminar. There is a curriculum, a set of "slides" in both
softcopy (PowerPoint format, with a viewer) and black and white
printed format, a set of (twenty) student workbooks, and even an
introductory video. Further sets of student workbooks can be
purchased separately for U$50.00. The "Trainer's Guide" also gives
suggestions on seminar setup and presentation, as well as minimal
information on related Internet topics.
The material is rather short. A run through the whole set would take
about three hours. This could, of course, be extended with ancillary
material from the instructor, depending upon expertise. The use of
exercises from the student workbook could also be used to extend the
session.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKEDESIN.RVW 960627. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: david_vaughan@ibm.net (David W. Vaughan)
Subject: Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:08:04 GMT
Hi folks!
Has anyone else had problems with Callwise Distribution Company (Joel
Kaye and Roderick Jones) of the UK and Advance Audio-Com of Encino,
CA's offering of callback services? [Update: I just called my CC
company now and it gave me the merchant's name as Cross Communications
not Advance Audio-Com. Has there been a merger/buy-out or something?]
In summary, I signed up for callback telephone service (with pyt via
my CC) after online solicitations in public CompuServe fora (Italian
forum) by Callwise offering no monthly fee/no minimums callback
service and after initial problems getting the service to work, I made
a single test call - at a total cost of $0.94, to check on the
accuracy and timeliness of billing. Well, after repeated requests to
Callwise I finally got the itemized billing some two months later but in
the meantime Advance Audio-Com billed my credit card three different
occasions for a total of approximately $75, so I promptly advised
Callwise of the problem and had my CC company reverse/dispute the
charges!
Well, after returning from a long overseas trip I discovered that not
only had Callwise not resolved the situation correctly but that
Advance Audio-Com had recharged my CC, this time for a total of $80!!!
So, I have again pointed out the erronous charges to Callwise and had
my CC company again contest the charges but Callwise is refusing to
get involved saying that my problem is with the principal (Advance
Audio-Com), whom I've never dealt with and for whom I do not even have
a contact name and/or address. Indeed, it is Callwise that publicly
solicited my business (I retain copies of all its messages on file)
and advised me of rates and charges and Callwise also receives billing
details from Advance Audio-Com, for dispatch to its clients.
As an ex-pat New Yorker I have some ideas as to whom I need to
approach (e.g., BBB, CC company, CA Attorney General) and the types of
pressure I need to bring to get Advance Audio-Com's attention (as a US
company), though any contact address for AAC and any suggestions on
who else I might contact, the pressure I might bring and any other
user experiences with Advance Audio-Com would be very welcome.
However, my real question is what authorities I should approach -
presumably i n the UK, though I'm sure CI$ would like to know if one
of its subscribers is engaging in illegal activities in public fora on
its service - to bring pressure to bear on Callwise in the UK. For
example, is there the UK equivalent of BBBs, Attorney Generals, mail
fraud laws etc?
TIA for any help and based on my experience DO NOT RISK YOUR CREDIT
CARD NUMBER DEALING WITH CALLWISE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (principals
Joel Kaye and Roderick Jones) of the UK and ADVANCE AUDIO-COM of the
US.
Best! /dwv
PS. As background, I've enclosed the text of my letter to my CC
company, with apologies for the length:
October 2, 1996
[CC company address]
Dear Sir/Madam:
Re: Billing Dispute with
The Callwise Distribution Company and Advance Audio-Com
(Case No-###)
On the basis of a public promotion (of which I hold a copy on file)
dated October 4, 1995 for a telephone callback service by Mr. Joel
Kaye of The Callwise Distribution Company (Sandor Lodge, 56 Castlenau,
London SW13 9EX, UK, Tel: +44-181-749-4024, Fax: +44-181-741-0387 or
749-4024, E. mail: 00417.1561@compuserve.com; "Callwise") as
representative of Advance Audio-Com, Encino, CA; S/E #: 5047000419) in
which it was clearly stated:
"There is no monthly subscription, no minimum monthly usage, no
joining fees. You only pay for the calls that you make."
I applied for this service per my letter and completed application
form of November 16, 1995 to Callwise, with billing to be to my credit
card.
Upon advice by Callwise in late November, 1995 that my new service had
been activated I attempted to make a single test call, to ensure that
the service and the associated billing worked correctly. After I
experienced a number of technical difficulties which I communicated to
Mr. Joel Kaye and Mr. Roderick Jones of Callwise and following their
advice that my original personal account number (xxx) had been changed
(to yyy) to overcome these problems, I finally managed to make ONE and
ONLY ONE test call on the service, using the new personal account
number, on December 8, 1995.
I then waited for the associated billing to arrive, to check its
timeliness and accuracy. No such billing arrived for a long period,
during which I contacted Callwise several times to register my
dissatisfaction and to request that the billing be sent immediately.
In the meantime, Callwise and Advance Audio-Com made three different
unauthorized charges to my credit card, each for an amount of $25 and
on three different dates: November 22, 1995, December 1, 1995 and
December 4, 1995.
As soon as I discovered these three unauthorized charges, I notified
Callwise of the problem and also requested [my credit card company] to
credit back 2 of the 3 charges (which occurred on January 15, 1996),
leaving the balance of the third charge to be credited back later,
less the cost of the one call I made and for which I still did not
have billing, as of mid-January 1996.
Then, in a communication dated January 29, 1996 (a copy of which I
hold on file), Joel Kaye of Callwise advised that:
"Effective the 1st February 1996, our service provider is instituting
a new charging structure and this will have an effect on the amount
that you are charged to use our service. Our terms and conditions
will change and this will affect the charges that we levy.
We are now required to impose a monthly fee of 89 cents per line and
there is also a requirement to charge a minimum $25 per month per
line, - this is a credit towards call charges, and is not refundable.
(It is a minimum usage requirement. If you make more than $25 of
calls in one month, then there is no additional charge apart from the
$0.89c. If however you make less than $25 in one month then you will
be charged $25 instead of the lesser amount of calls that you
actually made.)
It would seem from the our past usage of our system over the past few
months that you will not be making more than $25 per month of phone
calls, and therefore we have taken the step to deactivate your
account before the 1st February, in order to avoid you having to pay
this new charge un-necessarily."
Then finally, again per copy which I am holding on file, I was advised
on February 2, 1996 in a communication from Mr. Roderick Jones of
Callwise that:
"A clerical error led to the incorrect rates being loaded into the
system and I have not sent out any bills until this has been corrected"
and that:
"Your call to New York on December 8 was timed at 1.7 minutes and, at
a rate of 55 cents, has been charged to your account at 94 cents."
I also hold on file a copy of the "Call Detail Summary" sent by
Callwise detailing the billing of $0.94 to my Callwise account (#yyy).
I then left on a long overseas trip, during which time, not only did
Callwise and Advance Audio-Com not credit back the remaining $24.06
balance from the final errant $25 charge still outstanding but they
also made two new unauthorized charges to my credit card, in the
amounts of $30.09 on February 26, 1996 and $25.50 on March 3, 1996.
Again, on discovering this problem I notified Callwise and requested
my credit card company to credit back the 3 errant charges - being the
two new unauthorized charges just detailed above along with the $24.06
balance due to me from the third original errant charge dating back to
November-December, 1995.
To conclude I look forward to your prompt resolution of this matter.
To put it mildly, my patience is wearing very thin and I have now
prepared this letter in support of [my credit card company's]
investigations on my behalf into this matter. Please feel free to
contact me for any additional clarification etc. (and please send me
Advance Audio-Com's postal address so that I may send a copy of this
communication directly to it).
I continue to want to believe that this is a case of gross
bureaucratic incompetence by Callwise and Advance Audio-Com. However,
their continued delays in promptly refunding what are clearly
unauthorized charges to my [credit card] Account may indicate that
this is a case of clear and outright fraud by Callwise and Advance
Audio-Com.
Should this prove to be the case, I look forward to [my credit card
company] taking legal action against Callwise and Advance Audio-Com. I
will also bring this matter to the attention of State and Federal
authorities in the US and to the anti-fraud authorities in the UK. I
will also go online to warn other unsuspecting consumers of the
fraudulent actions carried out by Callwise and Advance Audio-Com in
respect of my [credit card] Account.
Yours sincerely,
David W. VAUGHAN
CC: Mr. Joel Kaye
The Callwise Distribution Company
Sandor Lodge
56 Castlenau
London SW13 9EX
United Kingdom
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #553
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 11:08:46 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA17378; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610211508.LAA17378@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #554
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 11:08:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 554
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke (TELECOM Digest Editor)
D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (cats8@erols.com)
Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" (Linc Madison)
Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response (Hank Nussbacher)
GTE Says Competition Into Local Markets Will Not be Delayed (Marcel White)
Re: Second Line Installation Problems (Leonard Erickson)
Re: The Truth About 809 Area Code Scams (Leonard Erickson)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (James W. Anderson)
Re: PacBell Stalling on Caller ID For ISDN (J. DeBert)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:27:39 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke
It appears that Sunday and Monday someone known as TipToe0001@aol.com
and also as R9ch@aol.com has been busy spamming and junk-emailing the
net with an advertisement for the sale and trade of child pornography.
He has been attaching the name of -- I believe -- an unwitting person
in Jackson Heights, NY and claiming the order should be placed through
that person.
It is my recommendation that the mail be forwarded to the address
assigned at AOL to investigate and deal with these things. It is
'abuse@aol.com'.
I say that I think the person in Jackson Heights, NY -- if the address
and person even exist -- is unwitting and not part of the scam/spam
because I cannot imagine any person actually involved in such an activity
giving out a real name and street address. There would be a post office
box and some bogus name at the very least.
Please do not contact the poor guy in Jackson Heights with any sort of
correspondence, phone calls, etc unless at some later point it is actually
found out that he is involved; again IMO this is doubtful.
I also would not waste even five minutes corresponding with postal
inspectors or other law enforcement people on this. The subscriber at AOL
who did this is just a sick and stupid person.
The one problem I see with AOL is their total lack of any security in
cases like this. Screen names are made up one minute for use in some prank
and then deleted the next minute. I venture to say if you wrote to the
sender of the message, the screen name has already been deleted.
By the way, I *personally* got a copy of it in my mail as well. According
to the introduction, I was on a mailing list they had chosen because
of the likelyhood of interest in the material being sent out.
Please forward this message around, with my strong recommendation that the
person in Jackson Heights, NY *not* be contacted. Give him his privacy
and don't help perpetuate the sick scam any further. It is also my belief
that the poor victim of this 'joke' in New York has a **very good claim**
against America OnLine if he wishes to pursue it, and I am hopeful an
attorney will contact him and assist him with doing just that. AOL can
claim no responsibility if they want, but the fact is that the lack of
security on their system and their 'attractive nuisance' nature to
every crackpot and criminal in America makes this sort of thing possible.
Don't *you* be further victimized by getting all involved in scolding
or harassing letter-writing.
PAT
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:10:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
I have a suggestion that would change the fundamental existing problem
that LECs face in that the ISP only gets calls and never makes
them. In other words, existing tariffs cause LECs to lose money to
supply the ISPs' feed. If the LEC could refuse this business, they
would, but they have an obligation to the public to NOT refuse
service. This is an imbalance, the LECs' tariffs are based on models
of hold time that do not match the ISP feed. BA and PB are attempting
to change that. If successful and the ISPs are treated like long
distance companies such that the ISPs will need to pay access charges
to receive their access feed, then the Internet will eventually adopt
per-usage charges anyway.
I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to
ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most
packets go towards the user, so the ISP can call the user back on one
or two B-channels for the downlink when needed but only if the user
has elected to pay for this usage sensitive time, else the D-channel
can be used for downlink, too. The call from ISP to user, instead of
user to ISP, would save login and authentication time for each call,
and the B-ch(s) can be dropped when idle.
Now ISPs would look more like PBXes to the LEC and the LECs' tariffs
would cover their costs. As it stands now, the long hold time for the
ISPs' feed is requiring the LECs to expand switch fabric, not an easy
or inexpensive task!
I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load
the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video
conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage
sensitive, no matter what.
There was a good article in the October Wired "Dataheads vs.
Bellheads". DHs believe the Internet should remain *free* or at least
unlimited (never mind that the call model that feeds the Internet is
imbalanced) and BHs like me believe the Internet will eventually come
to the same economic, usage sensitive solutions that the public
switched network has adopted. Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat
that for $19.95 a month I can call Europe any time I want with
Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs can't support this for everyone
and make any money. I would think the flat rate would need to be more
like $100-200 a month for this.
Do ISPs with low flat rate service make any money now, or does
investment pour in anyway based on "cash flow" like it did in the
early years of cellular when only equipment manufacturers were
making any money?
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 15:45:02 -0400
From: Joann <cats8@erols.com>
Reply-To: cats8@erols.com
Subject: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number
Recently, I had a phone installed in Silver Spring, MD, which is in
Bell Atlantic territory. When he was checking to make sure he had the
right `line (there are six pairs coming into the house, and currently
only two are in use), the lineman dialed a number for the DNIC
recording to tell from which phone number he was calling.
What I saw was that he dialed only a three-digit number to obtain the
phone number of the line, and that the number ended in 1-1. This
meant, with 411, 611, and 911 in use, that left essentially 2,3,5,7 or
8. I discovered it was the last.
I found out that 811 works for returning the calling party's telephone
number on private lines in both Maryland and Virginia, and also works
from Bell Atlantic pay phones in Virginia. (Although I have not tested it, I
presume it would also work from Washington, DC as well.)
The other day I had to take a trip out to a veterinarian in Manassas, VA
which, as it turns out, is not only outside of the Washington DC metro local
calling area, it is serviced by GTE of Virginia.
I asked for permission to make a local call while I was there. As it turns
out, they have a "metro" line so people can call them without paying a toll,
and this metro line isn't merely a call-forwarded number,it has an actual
dial tone.
Well, 811 works from the Metro number, but does not work from the GTE
lines. However, I remember that GTE lines to use 211 for the same
thing, and as it turns out, that's what they use there.
I also note that 811 DOES NOT WORK from COCOTS (Private Pay Telephones).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:08:44 -0700
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service"
I got my phone bill today, and it had one item that caught my eye. I
have a friend in Texas who has actually replaced his POTS line with a
cellphone, for various reasons having mostly to do with local calling
areas. He actually lives in Denton, but the cellphone number is in
the 214-507 prefix, which is rated as "Grand Prairie" (GRANDPRARI, in
telco abbrevspeak). This caught my eye, because I had earlier
verified that the 214-507 prefix will not be moving to the new 972
area code; I had assumed that this meant that it was designated a
"Dallas" exchange.
I thus did a little digging, and of the 179 exchanges I found that are
designated "Grand Prairie," 43 are moving into 972, but the other 136
are staying in 214. The division does not seem to be geographic -- as
far as I know, Grand Prairie is not subdivided (a la San Francisco 1,
2, and 3), but is only a single rate center. It seems that most of
the 135 exchanges that get to keep the existing area code are
cellphone prefixes, although a few cellphone prefixes are moving
(e.g., 457) and a few non-cellphone prefixes are not moving (e.g.,
332). However, the great majority of the wireless prefixes get to
keep the 214 area code and the great majority of landline prefixes
have to change.
That sounds to me a whole heck of a lot like "discrimination on class
of service" in favor of the wireless carriers. They scream bloody
murder at the notion that cellphones should be "unduly burdened" with
the new area codes, but they have no problem at all with placing an
"undue burden" on landline customers.
Of course, saying that these cellular prefixes are "located" in Grand
Prairie is purely a convenient fiction, since only a small fraction of
the billing addresses for those cellphones are in Grand Prairie.
For your reference, here is my list (with some guesswork, since my list
of cellular/landline prefixes doesn't include all of these):
GRAND PRAIRIE CELLULAR PREFIXES REMAINING IN 214:
202 207 212 213 215 232 236 244 246 249 268 322 344 354 356 359 362 364
384 408 410 415 439 460 478 502 505 507 510 512 532 533 534 535 536 537
538 543 546 549 577 581 582 588 595 597 598 616 632 639 649 656 657 668
673 674 675 676 679 683 693 695 697 704 707 725 728 729 737 755 759 762
763 769 781 785 786 793 794 795 796 797 798 801 802 803 804 805 808 813
814 816 822 825 829 832 833 834 835 836 839 847 848 850 852 859 862 865
877 885 892 895 896 897 898 899 908 910 925 926 957 961 963 967 983 984
992 993
GRAND PRAIRIE LANDLINE PREFIXES REMAINING IN 214:
314 332 730 807 906 912 913 914
GRAND PRAIRIE CELLULAR PREFIXES MOVING FROM 214 TO 972:
297 457 622 667 873
GRAND PRAIRIE LANDLINE PREFIXES MOVING FROM 214 TO 972:
204 206 209 229 237 260 262 263 264 266 269 282 305 336 397 451 504 558
561 601 602 603 606 609 614 623 641 642 647 660 799 809 901 909 933 949
975 988
So, pretty much, if you're a cellular user, you get to keep 214, but
if you're a landline user, you have to switch. Hrumph.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: hank@ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher)
Subject: Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 11:33:35 GMT
Organization: IBM Israel
In article <telecom16.549.11@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Niall Rudd
<niall@comsys.co.uk> wrote:
> herrera@athena.mit.edu (Ramon F Herrera) wrote:
>> I have been collecting ICMP ECHO data (i.e., pings) for several months
>> now, for comparison purposes. By just using pings there must be some
I have a table collected over many years for lines from 9.6kb up to 10Mb/sec.
Send email to hank@vm.tau.ac.il if you want a copy.
>> precise way to find out if the link in question goes through undersea
>> fiberoptic cable or via satellite. I was very surprised when I saw
>> the short responses from a site in Australia; the only possible
>> explanation being that there is already a fiber link with the land
>> down under. Now, given that we know the great circle distance from a
>> city in the USA to the country in question, and we of course know the
>> altitude of geostationary satellites, we should be able to know the
>> media used, but I will need some empirical formulae which takes into
>> account the router delays, which are probably the main factor. It
>> would also help if I knew the precise path taken by the fiber in
>> question (the Americas II).
> I also did some experiments on this: from London to Antartica. The
> results were interesting as the delay was always over 900ms.
> I am not sure if you have done this calculation, but the delay
> incurred by a signal making the 72,000km round trip to and from a
> Geostationary satellite is around 500ms (twice the one way delay).
On any sat circuit I have tested the delay is about 580ms. That
always includes the local loop at both ends connecting to Cisco
routers. The extra 400ms you are seeing to Antartica has to do with
the added delay from UK to USA. Do a traceroute to the site in
question and see the first 4-5 lines and you will be able to see the
times for each hop. At one hop you should see a jump of around 600ms
which is the sat link.
> What realy interests me is the reason why my delay was loads longer
> than just 500ms. Any ideas?
See above.
> I could not tell either if you knew this, but it reflects on the
> second aspect of your inquiry. The implications of a delay over
> satellite are being argued about right now. Any TCP/IP signal crossing
> a GEO satellite is likley to be bandwidth restricted as a result. But,
> for a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite, (of which there are none in the
> business right now!) at perhaps an altitude of less than 1,000km, the
> distance delay is negligable and hence the bandwidth is unaffected
> (seamless with fibre).
I have been using sat links (128kb, 256kb, T1) for the past five years
and there is NO effect on bandwidth. The protocols that will suffer
are telnet and audio (like Vocaltec). Streaming audio will probably
compensate for that problem. The way TCP/IP works with a sliding
window on ACKs negates any sort of delay of a sat link. A small 1K
file will take longer, but a 1MB file will see NO difference between
an unsaturated T1 fibe line and an unsaturated T1 sat line. Once TCP
starts its window going, the packets start streaming in and the extra
580ms delay is of no consequence.
> This is one of the major issues that the proposed multi-media
> satellite systems (Gates/McCaw Teledesic - LEO and Hughes Spaceway -
> GEO et al.) are mulling over. The LEO guy's claim the impact of this
> delay on standard protocols: TCP/IP, is to reduce bandwidth -- the
> bits per second. To quote a Teledesic paper, (as I would mess up the
> theory) ...
> "Since the packet may be lost in transmission, a copy of it must be
> kept in a buffer on the 'home' computer until an acknowledgement
> that the packet arrived succesfully is received from the 'destination'
> computer." (My quotes.)
> Thus they argue that a GEO slows things down -- effectively restricting
> bandwidth, although it only realy kicks in at data rates above 1.5Mbps.
Bull. LEO may be faster for voice but then again FR is faster than
LEO. Protocols that are "chatty" will go slower via GEO/LEO. But
once you hit files of over 50KB the IP protocol kicks in and there is
NO difference.
Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs
Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1
Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank@ibm.net.il
------------------------------
From: Marcel White <marc.white@telops.gte.com>
Subject: GTE Says Competition Into Local Markets Will Not be Delayed
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:03:57 -0700
Organization: GTEDS CSTI/CBSS BI&I
GTE SAYS COMPETITION INTO LOCAL TELEPHONE MARKETS WILL NOT BE DELAYED AS
A RESULT OF STAY BY U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The following is attributed to GTE Senior Vice President and General
Counsel William C. Barr:
"Contrary to what some have said, the introduction of competition in
the local telephone market will not be delayed one second by the stay
order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed by Congress in February is the
law of the land and sets forth a timetable for the introduction of
competition. This statutory timetable is unaffected by the Eighth
Circuit's stay of the FCC's pricing rules.
"In the Act, Congress carefully crafted a fast-track process to set
the terms of local competition -- a nine-month process consisting of
private negotiations backed up by arbitrations conducted by state
commissions. This process is proceeding on track. Currently, many
states are conducting arbitration proceedings and these proceedings
will be completed on schedule. The sole effect of the stay is to
ensure that these proceedings comply with the Act's pricing
provisions, not with the FCC's unauthorized pricing rules.
"The Court in its ruling rejected arguments that a stay would slow
down the introduction of competition in local markets. The Court said,
'Presently, we have no reason to doubt the ability of the state
commissions to fulfill their duty to promote competition in the local
telephone service markets and thus conclude that the public interest
weighs in favor of granting a stay.'
"In addition, a number of new entrants into the local phone market
have issued statements since the ruling which confirm that the Act
provides the necessary framework for them to move forward to provide
local service."
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Second Line Installation Problems
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 16:06:46 PST
Organization: Shadownet
jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) writes:
> *NOW* I'm told! Silly me, I bought the simple phone wire at Home
> Depot. Do they sell the CAT-3?
Look for Graybar in the phone book. If there's a local one, they'll
cheerfully sell you whatever sort of twisted pair you want. But only
by the box (1000 feet?)
Current recommendations are for 4-pair (8 wires total) cat-3 to cat-5.
I think that runs around $60-70.
>> One technique to specifically avoid is to wire from the NIJ to one jack,
>> from that jack to the next, etc etc. More junctions to fail, harder to
>> isolate when it fails, and a failure knocks out all jacks further down
>> the line. AKA "Daisy-Chaining".
> Guilty as charged, but no failures yet. If I had a failure, I'd use a
> binary serach (try middlemost jack and go right or left until fault is
> pinpointed).
> Perhaps that is what I had in mind when I did my best to not cut the
> wires but to slit them open and wind once around the screws. That way
> screws coming loose or corroding won't damage the 'downstream' jacks.
A *much* more common problem in my experience is a *shorted* jack. If
sufficiently abused (say, by kids stick things into it) the little
wire "fingers" will get bent out of line and touch. That makes every
phone in the house useless. Then once you isolate the "bus" that has
the problem, you get to go hunting all over to find the specific jack
with the problem. In my case, it was the (unused!) jack for a wall
mount phone next to the front door. :-(
Seems that if you (or the wind) slammed the door, the "fingers" in the
jack would "bounce", and have a good chance of landing shorted. I had
to disassemble the jack and re-bend some wires to fix it.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: The Truth About 809 Area Code Scams
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:25:11 PST
Organization: Shadownet
s9607948@westgate.vut.edu.au (Michael Ellis) writes:
> You know what I think is stupid? The fact that you can just dial 809
> like any other area code. If you want to dial ANYWHERE in another
> country in Australia you need to use 0011.
> I think that a similar code should be needed to dial 809 in the US (I
> think your equivalent is 011?)
> Just not well planned in the first place.
The problem is that the "country code" boundaries and the "national
borders" don't match up many places. The most noticeable are country
code 1 (US, Canada, parts of the Caribbean, and soon places like Guam!)
and country code 7 (large parts of the former USSR). But there are
other places where things get rather strange.
011 (in the US) or 0011 (in Australia) indicates that what follows is a
*country code*. Since 809 is part of country code 1, we *can't* use
that prefix.
This grew out of the planning that made direct dialing of all these
points possible *before* international direct dialing was otherwise
possible. So one could agrue that we planned *too* well.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: James W. Anderson <jander8@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: 20 Oct 96 17:29:03 GMT
Organization: B.Y.U.
jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) wrote:
> I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers
> required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code
> in each state to cover cell phones and beepers.
> In NYC there already is one, 917. I pr opose another two or three for
> NY state, and some for California and Texas, to cover increased demand
> for these numbers. All other states get one area code per state for
> the increasing demand for these numbers, and as the state runs out of
> numbers for these services, additional area codes can be provided.
> This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having
> to use ten digits to place local calls.
Actually, a lot has been said in the Digest about overlays and there
has been a whole lot of government action regarding them.
First, a little history.
After the NYC 917 overlay there was no more done until 713/281 in
March of 1995. However, the FCC had by then ruled wireless-only
overlays to be discriminatory and the 630 overlay was in place but
only temporarily to cover demand for numbers in the Chicago suburbs
until 630 could be split off from 708, which it since has.
In Dallas, the 972 code was supposed to be an overlay as well but that
was denied at the same time the 713/281 overlay was ordered to be a
split. Now the overlays will be splits in both 713/281 (effective
11/3/96) and 214/972 (effective 9/14/96). On 214/972, there was such
a demand for numbers that some 972 numbers were assigned as far back
as 8/96!
The Maryland overlays effective 6/1/97 will be of the type the FCC
agrees with, and that is all new numbers assigned after that date will
be in the new codes.
In that case, 301 will be overlaid with 240 and 410 will be overlaid
with 443.
In Pittsburgh, 412 will be overlaid with 724 and should take effect in
early 1997 barring any court challenges, etc. by the Allegheny County
commission. et. al.
Florida: Have heard no history on 305/954 but understood that to have
originally been planned to be a wireless only overlay which was shot
down on sight by the PUC there.
California: Thumbs down on overlays there until the number portability
issue can be resolved. Wireless only overlays tossed out as well.
------------------------------
From: J. DeBert <onymouse@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: PacBell Stalling on Caller ID For ISDN
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:52:28 GMT
Organization: Hooked Online Services
(Due to the temperamental nature of this Windoze machine and all the
not-so-compatible-software-after-all stuff on it, I lost the thread,
as well as all the replies to it.)
I did receive mail on the subject, though (thanks, all) and one message
from someone in PacBell did provide the info that the PacBell CS reps
failed to provide: PacBell has a tariff pending that covers caller id
for ISDN, amongst other things.
Well, golly gee! Why couldn't the CS reps just __say so__?!?
Even with this info, I'm not letting PacBell off the hook. Their CS
reps either need more training or someone upstairs needs a swift kick
in the derrier. There's no excuse for this and this is not the first time
they have failed to be helpful or even useful. It reflects badly on
PacBell as an organization and goes a long way toward customer
estrangement.
(I remember some old take-offs on telco ads before the breakup. One
in particular has alleged telco employees singing "We Don't Know ...
What We're Doing". It is beginning to appear that CS reps, at least
are going back to the good old days of not knowing nothing.)
I've changed my mind about contacting the PUC but I am going to contact
the head office in San Francisco -- and then call the PUC if they behave
the same way.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #554
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 13:25:55 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id NAA02247; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:25:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:25:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610211725.NAA02247@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #555
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 13:25:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 555
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Maximum Theoretical Bandwidth of Voice Line? (Joel M. Hoffman)
Callback Software in Unix or NT 4.0? (antilles@antelink.com)
Own Your Own Undersea Cable-Laying Business (Greg Monti)
Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response (Derek Elder)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Linc Madison)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Jon Solomon)
Re: Cellphone Theft Escalates (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Sprint Can't Handle Area Code 773 (Tim Crowley)
Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology (Kevin Kadow)
Re: Inter@ctive Magazine Article: FCC Contemplates Access Fees (L. Poulsen)
Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70 (Linc Madison)
Re: Reinventing ISDN For Internet (Ben Parker)
USPS Getting Into Spam? (Robert A. Virzi)
AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs (Richard J. Kinch)
Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Tom Beckman)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Joe Schumacher)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 10:59 EDT
From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Maximum Theoretical Bandwidth of Voice Line?
Organization: Excelsior Computer Services
In article <telecom16.550.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> is written:
>> I am writing an article for SCO World Magazine. I remember learning
>> how to caluculate the theorretical maximum throughput (in bits per
>> second) of a phone line. As with all things I don't use regularly, I
> [...]
> The last time I measured it, I got about 200 - 3700 Hz on a PacBell
> [...]
> Using that 3600 Hz bandwidth, the maximum number of signalling events
> would also be 3600 (i.e. 3600 baud). The actual bit rate limitation
> would depend on how good an encoder you can make (V.34 goes up to
> around 9 bits per baud). V.34 also uses up 3430 Hz, so it's pretty
> close to using the full capacity of a voice line.
But bits per second doesn't really tell you very much, because you can
convey an arbitrarily high amount of information in a bit. The
original question specificaly asked for bits per second, which is an
interesting engineering question, but the question of how much
information can be conveyed is still open.
Joel (joel@exc.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:49:22 -0400
From: Antel, Inc. <antilles@Antelink.com>
Subject: Callback Software in Unix or NT 4.0?
Dear Tele-aficionados,
Don't know why I didn't think of contacting the list first, rather than
calling sales people at 800 numbers (who rarely get back to you.)
We're looking for a callback application written in SCO Open Server
Enterprise System Ver. 3.0 or (awk!) in NT 4.0. We're a small
engineering company with engineers worldwide and since 1993, we're had
our own "in-house" callback platform running on a single T-1. (Oddly
enough, we hold a section 214!). The software we presently have was
put together by a firm who now seems destined to go belly-up and we're
looking for replacement software that has already been developed for
international callback and which would have to be "tweaked" only a
bit.
We have few "special needs" other than the fact that when our switch
dials a number, our software listens for a 400 hz tone from the
carrier, then fires four digits that correspond to the account code of
the individual placing that call. We than take the carrier's billing
from magnetic media and "sort" it by these same account codes to
identify each user's share of billing. If someone or some firm on the
list can meet these needs at a reasonable price with software that has
already been developed, we'd like to hear from you at the above email
address. Please include available features, hardware necessary to run
the app., and base cost of software prior to "tweaking."
Doug Antel, Inc.,
tel: (802) 496-3812
fax: (802) 496-3814
snail: PO Box 318
Warren, VT 05674
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:41:17 GMT
From: cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti)
Subject: Own Your Own Undersea Cable-Laying Business
A short item in _The Wall Street Journal_ (I think October 16, 1996)
notes that AT&T is looking for a buyer for its cable-ship business.
The business unit, known as "AT&T Submarine Systems" employs 1,000
people and takes in $850 million a year. It's based in Morristown,
NJ, and owns seven cable ships which can either lay new cable or fish
up old ones for repair. At least one ship dock and supply warehouse
are in Baltimore, MD (visible from Interstate 95 just south of the
Fort McHenry Tunnel). It's been in business since 1956. An AT&T
spokeswoman interviewed for the article said the unit was, "not
strategically central to our core services strategy."
If you buy the business, you'll have a built-in customer. AT&T will
continue to buy cable-laying services from the successor firm. Morgan
Stanley & Co. is handling the sale.
Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@interramp.com
------------------------------
From: djelder@accessus.net (Derek Elder)
Subject: Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response
Date: 19 Oct 1996 21:43:29 GMT
Organization: accessU.S.
Niall Rudd (niall@comsys.co.uk) wrote:
> I also did some experiments on this: from London to Antartica. The
> results were interesting as the delay was always over 900ms.
> I am not sure if you have done this calculation, but the delay
> incurred by a signal making the 72,000km round trip to and from a
> Geostationary satellite is around 500ms (twice the one way delay).
> What really interests me is the reason why my delay was loads longer
> than just 500ms. Any ideas?
This is because the links are typically saturated. The ICMP packets
are just hanging around waiting their turn to get into the circuit.
> I could not tell either if you knew this, but it reflects on the
> second aspect of your inquiry. The implications of a delay over
> satellite are being argued about right now. Any TCP/IP signal crossing
> a GEO satellite is likley to be bandwidth restricted as a result. But,
> for a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite, (of which there are none in the
> business right now!) at perhaps an altitude of less than 1,000km, the
> distance delay is negligable and hence the bandwidth is unaffected
> (seamless with fibre).
The key to successfully working with satellites in the near future
will be some sort of traffic specific routing. Terminal sessions such
as telnet are inherently realtime and more affected by time delay.
Transfer sessions such as FTP don't really have that problem and are
prime candidates for satellite transport.
I am not positive about this but I believe in IPv6, you will have the
ability to transmit packets without getting NAK'd on the prior ones.
This will help to keep the per packet latency lower.
Unfortunatly, for now satellite isn't the ticket. I have heard a rumor
that someone has ATM over satellite functional though ... anyone know
more about this? That would be an intersting twist :)
Derek Elder V.P., Network Operations
djelder@accessus.net 888-637-3638 Ext. 21
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:01:05 GMT
Organization: Best Internet Communications
In article <telecom16.551.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John
Solomon) wrote:
> I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers
> required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code
> in each state to cover cell phones and beepers.
Wake up, John, you haven't been paying attention in class! ;-)
The FCC has consistently, in fact vehemently, ruled that your plan is
unfairly discriminatory against the wireless companies, who would be put
at an unfair competitive disadvantage. 917 in NYC is "grandfathered"
for the time being, but may be dealt with later. Ameritech tried to do
this with 630 for Chicagoland, and Texas tried to get wireless overlays
for Houston and Dallas, but the FCC forbade them.
Incidentally, I do now actually know someone who has *replaced* POTS
service with a cellular phone. A friend of mine lives in Denton, Texas,
but works in Dallas and spends most of his time in the Dallas area. On
a POTS line, it is an expensive toll call from Denton <-> Dallas. However,
by having a cellphone "homed" on Dallas, it is a local call for someone in
Dallas to call the cellphone, Denton is within the local "airtime only"
zone for a Dallas cellphone, and he popped for the "unlimited off-peak"
option, so he actually comes out ahead. Of course, he has to deal with
the inconvenience of battery life, plus the oddity that it is an expensive
toll call for his next-door neighbor to call him, but on the other hand he
doesn't have to deal with Denton's GTE POTS "service."
There is also the irony that, with the 214/972 split, one of the three
people I know whose home number is remaining in 214 lives in Denton,
which is in area code 817. (Denton is just northwest of Dallas, where
Interstates 35E and 35W rejoin to form I-35.)
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: jsol@eddie.mit.edu (Jon Solomon)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 09:48:14 EDT
Well, considering that 860 has local and toll calls in its area code,
I don't see why another area code couldn't do that. I mean dialing
from Hartford (860) to New London (860) is a toll call, and calls
from Hartford to Manchester (860) is local. You just have to keep a
file in the phone book explaining the local calls and toll calls.
I think the FCC is a loser in this case. I think a separate area code
would be good. Also check out (609) which is in two latas, and uses a
carrier to send calls through.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock)
Subject: Re: Cellphone Theft Escalates
Date: 20 Oct 1996 21:00:39 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net
Unfortunately, property crime is a fact of life today in the U.S.; not
only in urban areas, but in "nice" suburban areas as well.
For motorists driving _anywhere_, I would suggest not leaving _anything_
at all in your car. Even innocuous items might attract a thief to break
your window.
Break-ins to steal phones is very common in the Philadelphia suburbs.
And of course, when using a calling credit card, always be certain no
one is watching you key in your number. (This is one reason I wish they
still had phone booths, since the phone was mounted at an angle and they
offered a bit of privacy.)
------------------------------
From: turmoil@animal.blarg.net (Tim Crowley)
Subject: Re: Sprint Can't Handle Area Code 773
Date: 20 Oct 1996 15:57:02 -0700
Organization: A Red Hat Commercial Linux Site
Calling from Seattle (US West) over ATT -- can't place a call to
either of those numbers. The recording says "you do not need to dial a
1 in front of this number". We get the same thing when we try
773/555-1212 My local US West operator tried it failed, she brought in
an ATT operator, she also reported "my equiptment won't place the
call." Both operators confirm that they show it should be a working
area code.
Tim (turmoil) Crowley
turmoil@blarg.net
206-325-4964
turmoil's seattle music web ------------------- http://seattlemusicweb.com
turmoil@blarg.net
------------------------------
From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology
Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 23:10:35 GMT
In article <telecom16.540.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor
<ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> Here's a thumbnail sketch of the 56K technology. Readers may find it
> of value.
> The propsed 56 kb/s techology is designed for ISPs or anyone who can
> warrant a digital connection to the central office. The proposed scheme
> calls for a standard V.34 modem connection upstream from the user to the
> C.O., but the path to the ISP (or as Rockwell calls it,"central site")
> must be a digital connection, typically a T1 line.
Correct -- one 'local loop' _can_ be an analog circuit, the rest of the path
must be 100% digital. This implies ISDN (BRI or PRI) or channelized T1.
If the call was end-to-end digital, say if the customer had an ISDN BRI
and the ISP had a channelized T1 (which normally cannot accept 'data'
calls over ISDN), this would be even easier. I wonder if Motorola, Adtran
or USR will add '56K analog' capability to their ISDN products?
> The path from the "central site" through the C.O. and right up to the
> line card must stay completely digital. The digital signal is then
> sent out through the line card's codec, effectively modulating its
> output a a rate equivalent to the codec's signalling rate which is 56
> kb/s here in North America. It would be 64 kb/s, except for the use
> of "robbed bit signalling" in the T1 connections that allows the telco
> to indicate the status of the call (dialing, answered, ringing, etc.).
> The key to the technology is that only one hop is analog. If only one
> codec is involved in the connection, the imperfections created by the
> codec can be predicted and avoided.
Unless the imperfections are intentionally manipulated by the Telco, in
order to reduce the impact of this 'trick' on their ISDN revenues ...
> It is for this reason that the
> link must be digital from the central site to the C.O. In fact,
> Rockwell's white paper states: "(The) 56 Kbps technology looks at the
> PSTN as a digital network which just happens to have an impaired
> section in the communications path. That impaired section is, of
> course, the copper wire connection between the telephone central
> office and the user's home, usually referred to as the analog local
> loop.
If you look at the math, the new 56Kbps analog modems are more
accurately 'fake digital modems'. The switch digitally samples the
line voltage 8,000 times per second -- the modem 'guesses' when the
sample is going to be taken, and puts just the right voltage on the
line to get the switch to come up with the binary value the modem
wants it to see.
Basically, this is equivalent to ISDN's 56K DOSBS, but with one end
being analog and 'tricking' the switch into producing the right binary
values.
Because this is achieved by fooling the switch into sending binary-like
data, there are quite a few ways the telephone company can throw a
monkey wrench into the works, especially if they perceive this as
cutting into their ISDN and 64K-leased circuit revenues.
Yes, my company is one of the dozens of ISPs in and around Chicago who
offer dialup via POTS lines (and several ISDN BRIs), but it's not _ALL_
sour grapes :-)
------------------------------
From: lars@anchor.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Inter@ctive Magazine Article: FCC Contemplates ISP Access Fees
Date: 21 Oct 1996 11:47:18 GMT
Organization: RNS / Meret Communications
John Stahl (Aljon Enterprises) writes:
> ... back in 1984 I used to pay about $12.00 per month for the same
> service I pay over $23.00 per month for today. Where is the savings
> that the break-up of the "Bell System" was supposed to generate?
The savings are in the long-distance portion of the bill. In 1984, I
am told that the local operating companies charged their subscribers
almost twice what they had to pay the long lines division to carry the
calls, (and long lines was still the most profitable division). The
excess subsidized the local service, which made local regulators
happy. With competition in long distance, this cross-subsidy had to
end; in its place appeared (1) the "FCC mandated subscriber line
access charge" which is included in the $23 you mention, and (2) a
per-minute access fee that the long-distance company pays to the LEC
at each end of the call.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> Regarding divestiture and how it would be so great for the average
> person, I can tell you in the 1970's my monthly phone bill was eight
> dollars per month on occassion, and rarely over ten or eleven dollars.
> Now you do expect the cost of things to go up with inflation, but my
> latest 'go to the nearest online agency and pay $200 by tomorrow or
How much is your monthly telephone bill? How much of it is long-distance
charges? How many minutes of long-distance calls did you have per
month in the 1970's?
In the 1970's, I lived in Europe, and a telephone call to the United
States was an unthinkable luxury for ordinary people. People sent
LETTERS to their family overseas. Today, I don't worry too much about
spending an hour on the telephone with my parents in Denmark. Still
my average telephone bill is less than $50/month, so the long-distance
carriers don't bother me with offers of rebate checks.
Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM
RNS / Meret Communications Phone: +1-805-562-3158
7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256
Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Internets: designed and built while you wait
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I published my phone bill here in detail
last week but perhaps you did not get to read that issue yet. My bill
for local service now exceeds my entire bill including long distance back
in the 1960-70's. A big chuck of the local bill is for 'network access
fees' (about $11 per month) and 'local access' of $5.60 per line/month.
Over $20 per month goes merely for the right to be connected, before
any usage charges come into the picture. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:54:39 GMT
Organization: Best Internet Communications
I just made a curious discovery. Up until very recently, when I dialed
*70 for cancel call waiting, I got stutter dialtone but could dial right
through it without any problems. Just this week, though, I noticed that
when I dial *70, I get two short bursts of what sounds like stutter BUSY
tone, then return to steady dialtone. Furthermore, if I don't pause and
wait for the regular dialtone, my call is not completed correctly.
Specifically, I dialed *70-1-800, but the 1 and the 8 got lost, so I got
my long-distance operator.
If I dial other star codes, specifically *82 or *67, I get normal stutter
dialtone and can dial right through.
This is on a number in 415-255, in San Francisco 1. I don't know what
central office or model of switch serves this line (shameful to admit, I
know ;->). Does this reflect some recent "upgrade" on the telco switch?
This is definitely something that falls into my idea of "misfeature."
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker)
Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 22:33:42 GMT
Organization: Best Effort Co.
Reply-To: bparker@interaccess.com
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 21:00:14 GMT, caf@omen.com (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
wrote:
> The data channel(s) would only be brought up when
> needed, and taken down after a few seconds of inactivity.
Technical considerations aside there are also tarriff implications to
this idea. Here in Ameritech land (Illinois) each time a B channel is
opened a little cash register adds another $.05 to my bill. If it is a
local (8 mile from CO) call, I can stay online for unlimited time.
So I can browse the web for an hour, read email and newsgroups, and have
long pauses where the circuit could be broken down and remade several
times. Good idea! If I keep the line up the whole hour, it costs me
$.05. If the connection is broken/remade say 10 times in the hour (a
reasonable guess) it suddenly costs me $.50, not so good anymore.
Ben Parker ............ (Oak Park IL) .......... bparker@interaccess.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:44:39 +0100
From: rvirzi@gte.com (Robert A. Virzi)
Subject: USPS Getting Into Spam?
I came across this blurb. One can read it as a move by the USPS to move
its lucrative junk mail program to cyberspace. Note the wording, 'bulk
mailers'. -Bob
POSTAL SERVICE E-MAIL PLANS
The U.S. Postal Service has signed agreements with three California
companies (Cylink, Sun and Enterprise Productivity) as part of its
expanding activities in electronic mail services. Cylink will provide
a system for electronically postmarking and encrypting messages; Sun
and Enterprise Productivity will provide software that will let bulk
mailers calculate the price of mail shipments on the Internet.
(Washington Post 17 Oct 96 A21)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I will tell you something else that
is ***bad news*** where having the US Postal Disservice involved in the
the net is concerned: There will be no more messing around by ISP's
deciding what junk-email they want to deliver and what they do not
want to deliver. For example, in AOL's case, that lawsuit by Cyber
Promotions accusing them of 'censoring' their mail would be a moot point
because under US Postal Regulations, no one can tamper with mail which
is addressed to a person other than themselves or their employer (if
their employer has assigned them the duty of opening/reading/sorting
mail, etc.)
So although you now can treat junk-email with the respect and priority
handling it deserves <grin> ... if you are an ISP for example and some
clown sends out fifty gazillion pieces of identical spam **via the
postal disservice connection to the net** you WILL deliver that mail.
If a spammer emails his stuff to five-thousand-newsgroups@uunet for
another example, that spam will show up in all five thousand newsgroups
and a federal-level felony conviction is in store for whoever chooses
to tamper with the mail. To do otherwise would be the same as someone
coming up to your mailbox and taking the stuff out and walking away
with it or otherwise detroying it, etc.
You didn't know that did you? When the US Postal Disservice becomes
involved in the net, your mailbox will become their mailbox, just as
now, the regulations state that no one can place anything in a mailbox
which does not have the proper postage. Watch how when the post office
becomes involved in the net and in email in a big way how they start
to get very heavy-handed and breathe on you.
The times, they are getting very tough for the government-owned monopoly
mail service. So tough in fact, they are resorting to a lot of strong
pressure tactics to maintain their control. As an example, about two
years ago they decided to begin enforcing the law which says they have
the exclusive right to handle first class mail **except if it is of
an emergency 'must deliver same day/next day' nature**. So what they
did was send auditors out to a few very large companies which had a
reputation for using Federal Express/Airborne/United Parcel Service to
deliver a great deal of business correspondence. Those companies were
forced to produce all the records of every letter (as opposed to larger
packages) they had sent by private courier service over the previous
two or three year period. Any such correspondence which had not been
clearly marked 'urgent' on the letter itself and on the front of the
'overnight letter' container they were mailed in (and most of them did
not) were deemed to have been mail illegally diverted from the post
office. The companies were forced to pay the prevailing postage rate
for first class mail on each and every such item. I believe IBM as
one example got a bill for 'postage due' for over a hundred thousand
dollars. Several companies were squeezed in this way; all the courier
services were screaming about it as well.
The last people you want getting their hands on email is the post office.
They'll have burdensome and oppressive regulations in place in no time
at all; naturally you will all comply. PAT]
------------------------------
From: kinch@netline.net (Richard J. Kinch)
Subject: AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs
Date: 21 Oct 1996 02:07:27 -0400
Organization: TrueTeX Software
The recent thread on Lucent TV commercials reminded me of a peeve.
The AT&T "Death Star" logo comes in two very different versions, one for
light and one for dark backgrounds. The corporate trademark compliance
document is very strict about using these properly. But you are forever
seeing the opposite logo on banners, imprinted trinkets, broadcast TV,
etc.
Once as an AT&T computer reseller (another sad experience) I had a
$1000 outdoor sign made with the logo. Yup, the sign maker got it
reversed. I had him do it over. He did it again, wrong. Then he got
mad and gave up and ate the loss.
Richard Kinch
Lake Worth, Florida
------------------------------
From: hrtmath@netcom.com (Tom Beckman)
Subject: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract?
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 15:55:37 -0300
Organization: Institute of HeartMath
I have an offer from a long distance carrier that offers .108 per
minute with the 10th, 16th and 25th month free, based on the average
calls in the previous two months. This comes to .095 per minute, with
the free months included. Six second increments, etc. I'm paying .12 per
minute now.
The rates cannot go up. Seems like a very good deal for a call volume
around $6K per month. My only concern is what is going to happen in
the long distance industry in the next two years -- a long time for
that business.
Any opinions on how good a deal this is, and what the next couple of
years holds for long distance rates.
Thanks,
Tom Beckman P.O. Box 1463 408-338-8700
Institute of HeartMath Boulder Creek, CA 95006 408-338-9861 fax
A Nonprofit Corp. hrtmath@netcom.com
http://www.webcom.com/hrtmath/IHM/AboutIHM.html
------------------------------
From: Joe Schumacher <schmchrj@cig.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:26:17 -0500
Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group
John R. Ruckstuhl wrote:
> In recent months, Lucent (or is it AT&T?) has been running a series of
> television commercials in which we have a narrow view of a computer
> monitor, and we watch while the advertisement message is typed ... the
> message goes by quickly, but I could swear I've seen punctuation
> errors on more than one.
> Today I saw one with "lets" instead of "let's", and during the Olympics,
> I saw one with "your" instead of "you're". Maybe "lets" is acceptable
> for meaning "let us" (I don't know), but I'm sure "your" is not
> acceptable for "you are", which is how these words were used.
> Anyone else notice this? Assuming I'm right, I wonder if this would be
> a deliberate error to catch attention in some subliminal way, or,
> could this be someone's goofup on a major ad campaign?
Maybe their trying to make it look like Usenet %-]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now listen, that isn't funny. Very true
perhaps, but not funny. I don't know whether your use of 'their' above
(which is incorrect, it should be *they're*) was deliberate or if you
are just as illiterate as a lot of other people around here.
There are those people who say we should pay attention to the message
itself and not the way it is delivered, and that we discourage people
from presenting very valuable thoughts and ideas if we insist that
they present them in a grammatically correct way with correct spelling
and punctuation. I feel that the presentation is part of the package,
and that a carefully presented (i.e. spell-checked and grammar-checked)
message has some additional credibility to it. I only wish I could give
as much attention to this Digest as it needs, but it has become almost
an assembly-line process as the messages march past on my screen one
after another. Quality and quantity battle one another again.
By the way, a person last week said I must have had my statistics
reversed on the status of the Chicago Public Schools and their policy
of placing certain schools on academic probation. I did not have anything
confused at all. Here is the rule once again:
Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent
of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate
with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation;
(essentially in recievership).
Note I did not say a fifteen percent failure rate (with eighty five
percent of the students passing) I said a fifteen percent *success*
rate with not more than eighty five percent of the students unable
to reach the desired goals. They were going to set the level at
twenty five percent success and seventy five percent failure, however
then all but a dozen or so schools out of several hundred would have
been placed on probation, and that was just too much of an embarassment.
By setting the level at fifteen/eighty five, only a couple hundred
schools had to be categorized in this way.
Well, that's it for this issue, and don't forget to pick up a supply
of free condoms from the box on the teacher's desk on the way out, and
be sure to read the school's policy on sexual harrassment when you get
home. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #555
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 15:39:11 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id PAA17602; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:39:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:39:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610211939.PAA17602@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #556
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 15:39:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 556
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
A New Attack on DES (Monty Solomon)
Book Review: "The Internet Voyeur" by Howard (Rob Slade)
Pac Bell Repair Service Deteriorating? (Brian Kantor)
Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing Internet) (Garrett Wollman)
NPA's 415 and 510 (was Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy) (Mark J. Cuccia)
Volunteers Wanted For Focus Group Discussion (Ted J. Gaiser)
One Sick Bastard! ('klaatu' via Matthew B. Landry)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:33:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: A New Attack on DES
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Shamir Adi <shamir@wisdom.weizmann.ac.il>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 16:30:34 +0200
Subject: A new attack on DES
Research announcement: A new cryptanalytic attack on DES
Eli Biham Adi Shamir
Computer Science Dept. Applied Math Dept.
The Technion The Weizmann Institute
Israel Israel
October 18, 1996
(DRAFT)
In September 96, Boneh Demillo and Lipton from Bellcore announced an
ingenious new type of cryptanalytic attack which received widespread
attention (see, e.g., John Markoff's 9/26/96 article in the New
York Times). Their full paper had not been published so far, but
Bellcore's press release and the authors' FAQ (available at
http://www.bellcore.com/PRESS/ADVSRY96/medadv.html) specifically
state that the attack is applicable only to public key cryptosystems
such as RSA, and not to secret key algorithms such as the Data Encryption
Standard (DES). According to Boneh, "The algorithm that we apply to the
device's faulty computations works against the algebraic structure used
in public key cryptography, and another algorithm will have to be devised
to work against the nonalgebraic operations that are used in secret key
techniques."
In particular, the original Bellcore attack is based on specific
algebraic properties of modular arithmetic, and cannot handle the
complex bit manipulations which underly most secret key algorithms.
In this research announcement, we describe a related attack (which we
call Differential Fault Analysis, or DFA), and show that
it is applicable to almost any secret key cryptosystem proposed so far
in the open literature. In particular, we have actually implemented
DFA in the case of DES, and demonstrated that under the same
hardware fault model used by the Bellcore researchers, we can
extract the full DES key from a sealed tamperproof DES encryptor by
analysing fewer than 200 ciphertexts generated from unknown cleartexts.
The power of Differential Fault Analysis is demonstrated by the fact
that even if DES is replaced by triple DES (whose 168 bits of key were
assumed to make it practically invulnerable), essentially the same attack
can break it with essentially the same number of given ciphertexts.
We would like to greatfully acknowledge the pioneering contribution
of Boneh Demillo and Lipton, whose ideas were the starting point of
our new attack.
In the rest of this research announcement, we provide a short technical
summary of our practical implementation of Differential Fault Analysis of
DES. Similar attacks against a large number of other secret key cryptosystems
will be described in the full version of our paper.
TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE ATTACK
The attack follows the Bellcore fundamental assumption that by exposing
a sealed tamperproof device such as a smart card to certain physical
effects (e.g., ionizing or microwave radiation), one can induce with
reasonable probability a fault at a random bit location in one of the
registers at some random intermediate stage in the cryptographic
computation. Both the bit location and the round number are unknown
to the attacker.
We further assume that the attacker is in physical possesion of the
tamperproof device, so that he can repeat the experiment with
the same cleartext and key but without applying the external
physical effects. As a result, he obtains two ciphertexts derived from
the same (unknown) cleartext and key, where one of the ciphertexts is
correct and the other is the result of a computation corrupted by a
single bit error during the computation. For the sake of simplicity,
we assume that one bit of the right half of the data in one of the 16
rounds of DES is flipped from 0 to 1 or vice versa, and that both the
bit position and the round number are uniformly distributed.
In the first step of the attack we identify the round in which the
fault occurred. This identification is very simple and effective: If
the fault occurred in the right half of round 16, then only one bit in
the right half of the ciphertext (before the final permutation) differs
between the two ciphertexts. The left half of the ciphertext can
differ only in output bits of the S box (or two S boxes) to which this
single bit enters, and the difference must be related to non-zero
entries in the difference distribution tables of these S boxes. In
such a case, we can guess the six key bit of each such S box in the
last round, and discard any value which disagree with the expected
differences of these S boxes (e.g., differential cryptanalysis). On
average, about four possible 6-bit values of the key remain for each
active S box.
If the faults occur in round 15, we can gain information on the key
bits entering more than two S boxes in the last round: the difference
of the right half of the ciphertext equals the output difference of
the F function of round 15. We guess the single bit fault in round
15, and verify whether it can cause the expected output difference,
and also verify whether the difference of the right half of the
ciphertext can cause the expected difference in the output of the F
function in the last round (e.g., the difference of the left half of
the ciphertext XOR the fault). If successful, we can discard possible
key values in the last round, according to the expected differences.
We can also analyse the faults in the 14'th round in a similar way.
We use counting methods in order to find the key. In this case, we
count for each S box separately, and increase the counter by one for
any pair which suggest the six-bit key value by at least one of its
possible faults in either the 14'th, 15'th, or 16'th round.
We have implemented this attack on a personal computer. Our analysis
program found the whole last subkey given less than 200 ciphertexts,
with random single-faults in all the rounds.
This attack finds the last subkey. Once this subkey is known, we can
proceed in two ways: We can use the fact that this subkey contains
48 out of the 56 key bits in order to guess the missing 8 bits in
all the possible 2^8=256 ways. Alternatively, we can use our knowledge
of the last subkey to peel up the last round (and remove faults that
we already identified), and analyse the preceding rounds with the same
data using the same attack. This latter approach makes it possible to
attack triple DES (with 168 bit keys), or DES with independent subkeys
(with 768 bit keys).
This attack still works even with more general assumptions on the
fault locations, such as faults inside the function F, or even faults
in the key scheduling algorithm. We also expect that faults in
round 13 (or even prior to round 13) might be useful for the analysis,
thus reducing the number of required ciphertext for the full analysis.
OTHER VULNERABLE CIPHERS
Differential Fault Analysis can break many additional secret key
cryptosystems, including IDEA, RC5 and Feal. Some ciphers, such as
Khufu, Khafre and Blowfish compute their S boxes from the key material.
In such ciphers, it may be even possible to extract the S boxes
themselves, and the keys, using the techniques of Differential Fault
Analysis. Differential Fault Analysis can also be applied against
stream ciphers, but the implementation might differ by some technical
details from the implementation described above.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:16:01 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Voyeur" by Howard
BKINTVOY.RVW 960625
"The Internet Voyeur", Jim Howard, 1995, 0-7821-1655-8, U$19.99
%A Jim Howard djhoward@aol.com
%C 2021 Challenger Drive, Alameda, CA 94501
%D 1995
%G 0-7821-1655-8
%I Sybex Computer Books
%O U$19.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 info@sybex.com
%P 388
%T "The Internet Voyeur"
Oh, get your head out of the gutter and go and stand in the corner
with Senator Exon. This book is about getting and processing graphics
and multimedia files from the Internet. The author covers the
difference between text and "binary" files, Usenet postings, encoding,
ftp, archiving and compression, graphics, sources, animation, sound,
viewers, and MIME (Multi-purpose Internet Mail Extensions). Oddly, it
does *not* cover the World Wide Web. (It does cite a number of W3
sites.)
Howard does a very serviceable job. (Except for the part on viruses.)
While not as extensive as "Internet File Formats" (cf. BKINTFLF.RVW),
his material covers the most common standards. The explanations are
clear, and he is generous with the locations of decoding and other
utility software (although his URLs are sometimes a little ragged).
Two chapters list a wide variety of online sources of visual content.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINTVOY.RVW 960625 Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca
Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
Research into rslade@vcn.bc.ca
User Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca
Security Canada V7K 2G6
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:17:11 -0700
From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Pac Bell Repair Service Deteriorating?
I sure would like to know what's happened to Pacific Bell's "priority
business repair" service.
Last month they fixed a ring-no-answer problem by moving a bad pair,
on to a pair that was already in use. So the first number was now
answered, but on the wrong equipment. And the pair they moved it to
was just simply cut off, so it rang without answering. And it was
the published access number of a hunt group, so the eight lines in the
group were unreachable unless two or more customers just happened to
call at the same time. It took them three days to get it right.
Now it's Monday morning, and we're working on a new one. I've been
waiting since 9:30 Friday for them to fix three problems: some busied
out channels on a supertrunk, and 44 out-of-service channels on two
ISDN PRIs. When I called back to check progress at 3:15pm Friday, the
service rep told me that all three were "pending test" and that she'd
expedite it.
Over the weekend, a PacTel tech left me a voice mail telling me
that he'd unbusied the two busied-out channels on the supertrunk. What
he didn't mention is that in the process, he'd apparently managed to
busy out EIGHTY-THREE other channels on the supertrunk, leaving me with
just 13 working circuits in the group. I'm still waiting for a call
back on that one.
The two PRIs are a little different -- apparently ever since they were
installed (a few weeks ago) as part of a group of 12 PRIs, two of them
have had only one working channel -- the other 22 on each show OOS on
our newly-installed equipment. Friday morning, I called in the trouble
report, after spending a significant amount of time making sure it
wasn't our stuff.
I still haven't gotten a call back on these. The robot voice assures
me that they're scheduled for repair by 11:30am today (Monday). Letssee,
that's 77 hours -- yup, real priority service.
The service rep I spoke to put me on hold whilst she transferred me to
"the bureau that handles that service". 15 minutes later I hung up
whilst still on hold. I'll guess I'll have to try again after they've
had their morning coffee.
Am I just having a run of bad luck?
Brian Kantor
Manager, Network Infrastructure and Services
Academic Computing Network Operations 0124
University of California at San Diego (619) 534-6865
La Jolla, CA 92093-0124 USA fax: 619 534 1746
brian@ucsd.edu ucsd!brian
------------------------------
From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet)
Date: 21 Oct 1996 11:30:32 -0400
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
In article <telecom16.554.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Jeffrey Rhodes
<jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> to change that. If successful and the ISPs are treated like long
> distance companies such that the ISPs will need to pay access charges
> to receive their access feed, then the Internet will eventually adopt
> per-usage charges anyway.
"The Internet" will adopt usage-based charging? Unlikely. Certain
providers who are locked into an obsolete access mechanism may well do
so, particularly if they are charged on a time bases for use of that
access mechanism. People need to look beyond the current ``call
somebody's router up on the PSTN'' brain-damage to the inevitable
evolution of general-public access to the network by way of telco,
CAP, cable, electric utility fiber, and wireless dedicated access
mechanisms. *What most people have now is only a transitory stage,
and economically unsupportable in the long run.*
(One local dial-up ISP is actively promoting the fact that they charge
by the hour, which keeps hold times down and thus reduces the
likelihood of receiving a busy signal.)
> I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to
> ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most
> packets go towards the user,
This assumes the continuation of more of the current brain-damage,
where poor network access results in most users being unable to
distribute their own content (or requiring them to pay others to do
so, which is essentially the same thing).
> I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load
> the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video
> conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage
> sensitive, no matter what.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. It is not meaningful to talk
about `the Internet [becoming] usage sensitive'. Some providers may
find it preferable to charge more to send certain packets. But a
provider cannot long remain in a competitive business if he is selling
a service far above marginal cost, and the marginal cost of forwarding
one packet in a period of little congestion is zero. A number of
people are doing research into the economic models which work (i.e.,
can be operated at a profit) in congested networks. The Senior
Research Scientist in our group here at MIT, Dave Clark, is currently
working on techno-economic mechanisms by which customers and providers
can agree on what sort of service is provided when the network is
congested, and provide measurement mechanisms to determine whether
both parties are meeting the terms of that agreement.
> switched network has adopted. Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat
> that for $19.95 a month I can call Europe any time I want with
> Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs can't support this for everyone
> and make any money. I would think the flat rate would need to be more
> like $100-200 a month for this.
Indeed, it seems that a lot of dial-up providers minimize their
financial exposure by underprovisioning their networks to discourage
such usage.
Garrett A. Wollman
wollman@lcs.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:20:16 -0700
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: NPA's 415 and 510 (was Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy)
Mike Maxfield <tweek@netcom.com> wrote:
> FWIW, At the time of the '89 Quake, the 510 AC was laying on top of the
> 415 AC, and reportedly, one way for someone to dial into the area in the
> early hours after the quake (including into the current 415 AC as well,
> if I recall) was to use the 510 AC which had not had the indial limits
> placed on it as the 415 system did.
The 1989 quake was in September or October of 1989 if I remember right.
However, NPA 510's split from 415 wasn't even *announced* until sometime in
1990, to take effect (permissive dialing) in the latter part of 1991!
BTW, NPA 510 was the first "geographic POTS" use of an 'N10' type of area
code. NPA's (or more correctly at the time, SAC's = 'Special' Area Codes or
Service Access Codes) of the N10 format (510, 610, 710, 810, 910) had been
used for 4-row/ASCII/110-speed Dial-TWX (TeletypeWriter eXchange) service
beginning in 1962.
AT&T sold the US portion of TWX to Western Union Telegraph Company around
1970 or 71. However, TWX continued to be switched over the DDD *Telephone*
network, as if it were still a Bell System Telephone service, until the
early 1980's, when WUTCO finalized their 'removal' of (US) TWX (at that
time it TWX was 'officially' known as "Telex-II") from the Bell System and
onto WUTCO's *own* network, to operator alongside WUTCO's own/original
Telex(I) service.
As far as AT&T (and later Bellcore) were concerned, SAC's 510, 710, 810 and
910 were 'reclaimed' as then unassigned NANP Telephone area codes. (610 for
TWX in Canada remained as such in Canada until 1 October 1993).
AT&T/Bellcore's *first* assignment of an N10 format area code was of 710 to
the US Federal Government in 1983, which since 1994 has been used for
"GETS" (Government Emergency Telephone System). It wasn't until 1991 when
the N10's began to be activated for geographic "POTS" regions, with 510 the
split of 415 in San Francisco Bay area, 410 for the split of Maryland's
until that time only area code (301), and 310 for the split of 213 in the
Los Angeles area.
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: Ted J Gaiser <gaiser@bc.edu>
Subject: Volunteers Wanted For Focus Group Discussion
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:36:18 -0500
I am looking for cyberfolk willing to make a short-term (one week)
commitment to participate in a focus group discussion (on-line) about
their experiences participating in "on-line groups" (MUDs, MOOs, IRC
groups, newsgroups, discussion lists, etc.). Each focus group will
consist of approximately twelve participants coming from diverse
locations throughout the Net.
If you are interested in participating or would like more information
about the project, please contact me directly (gaiser@bcvms.bc.edu).
Ted Gaiser
------------------------------
From: mbl@mail.msen.com (Matthew B Landry)
Subject: One Sick Bastard!
Date: 21 Oct 1996 16:43:38 GMT
Organization: Flunkies for the Mike Conspiracy
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: More news -- I use the word in a loose
way -- regarding the latest pedophile threat to this fine wholesome
community in which we live. Matthew passed this along from wherever
he got it; apparently you can find it in most participating newsgroups
on Monday. To make it somewhat easier to follow along, my own responses
are interspersed with the forwarded message marked 'PAT'. PAT]
-------------------
The original poster's sig is at the bottom. The perpetrator's
snail address is in the message. Needless to say his email box was
already full and bouncing at 3am.
Matthew Landry
---------------------
[ Article reposted from nyc.general,la.general,austin.general,dc.general,seattle.general,houston.general,news.admin.net-abuse.misc ]
[ Author was klaatu ]
[ Posted on Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:00:42 -0400 ]
SICK BASTARD ALERT!
Now this is one sick bastard. As a rule, I don't give a damn about
ridiculous E-mail that comes to my mailbox, but this one, so far, takes
the cake for being the most egregious violation. For one, the guy says
my e-mail address was on a list that fits the category of someone who
would buy child pornography. For one, who the hell maintains such a
list?
PAT> That is a standard message which goes out as part of the software
PAT> used for collecting names, etc and mailing spam. There is no such
PAT> 'list of people who fit the category'; they just do not want to say
PAT> they collected names at random. They sort of make up the 'list' as
PAT> they go along. Almost every piece of junk-email I receive -- and I
PAT> even got a copy of this latest one -- begins with that same iden-
PAT> tical paragraph. So don't worry about it.
Such a list is clearly defamatory, and to have one's E-mail
address on it could cause all sort of problems should the cops capture
it, as I sadly hate to say they should. (mostly I don't think that the
cops have a lot of business on the internet - or that's what I thought
until I got this mail).
PAT> Police still have no place on the internet snooping around in my
PAT> opinion. But this 'list' consists of millions of names collected
PAT> willy-nilly by software designed to crawl around over the net
PAT> picking up whatever names and newsgroups it can find, etc. Even
PAT> the police, as happy as they are to make criminals where none exist
PAT> probably would not be decieved.
I don't know if this guy is some bizarre troll out on a blackmailing
binge or something - maybe trying to collect respondents for future
shakedowns - , or if this is really an FBI sting or something, but this
is amazing.
PAT> What has been ascertained thus far with about ninety percent certainty
PAT> is that 'Steve Barnard' had no part in this at all. No one is yet
PAT> certain if 'Steve Barnard' even exists or not. There is no listing
PAT> for 'Barnard' in the 718 area which includes Jackson Heights, NY.
PAT> I'm sure I'll hear sooner or later from some one or more persons who
PAT> either x-reffed the address or made visitation to check it out for
PAT> themselves.
PAT> Concurrently the FBI, the United States Postal Service and the
PAT> United States Customs Service have operated and may still be
PAT> operating 'stings' relating to kiddie porn. Rumor has it they are
PAT> are so incompetent they were even mailing kiddie porn to each
PAT> other at one point not realizing the names the others were using
PAT> in their operations. So far as I know, Customs still has that
PAT> big facility in South Florida where a number of people are employed
PAT> sending out kiddie porn hoping some fool will take the bait and
PAT> accept the package they send in the mail, etc. Wouldn't you love
PAT> to be employed there? But even so, they are not quite as brazen
PAT> as today's spam would seem to indicate. What you have been reading
PAT> is not a sting operation or a blackmail thing. We beleive it is
PAT> either a complete fabrication *or* there is such a person and the
PAT> poster of the message (not one and the same) did this in an
PAT> effort to humiliate, embarass or harass 'Steve Barnard'.
I'm particularly freaked by the part where he offers to take a photo of
you (which he asks you to supply) and he'll use digital editing to morph
your face into an image of you buggering a child. If that's not a
blatant request to get yourself blackmailed, I don't know what is... and
another reason to not put your face on your homepage, I might add. Oh,
he wants your creditcard numbers too.
PAT> It all sounds pretty unreal doesn't it ... maybe because it is
PAT> unreal. I would certainly doubt that any pedophile would want to
PAT> have any identifiable part of himself in such a picture. I am
PAT> certain most pedophiles understand the reasoning for that simple
PAT> bit of wisdom. This seems to me to be further evidence that
PAT> someone is not playing by the rules around here <grin> ... and
PAT> that far from being a pedophile who posted that message on AOL to
PAT> sell photos, etc, the person is someone with a grudge against
PAT> 'Steve Barnard' who would like you to think there is some such
PAT> thing going on.
Maybe some of the NYC readers should promptly head down to their
precinct house and raise hell or maybe just head on down to this guy's
house and raise hell. See if maybe he's got dead missing children buried
under the floor or something.
PAT> And you see, even you fell for it. The person who posted that
PAT> message *wants* attention drawn to that apartment and street
PAT> address for some reason. It is doubtful any dead children will be
PAT> found there; but I would not be surprised if the poster of the
PAT> message is at least aquainted with the resident of that apartment
PAT> in some way. Perhaps they were friends/lovers and now for some
PAT> reason have broken their friendship and the one wants to get even
PAT> with the other. Maybe the poster told the other one "I know how
PAT> to use the Internet to make your life complete hell for awhile."
PAT> Maybe it was an effort by someone who got fired to harass their
PAT> their ex-employer. Maybe -- and this sort of nags at me and sticks
PAT> in my craw a little -- it was done as a 'practical joke' by a
PAT> young person wanting to 'get even' with an older adult in their
PAT> neighborhood about whom they have some 'suspicions'. Teenagers
PAT> who are insecure or uncertain about their own sexual feelings will
PAT> sometimes act out in bizarre and hateful ways against an older
PAT> person they suspect (or know for a fact) is gay. Lots of people,
PAT> and particularly teenagers automatically make the 'gay=pedophile'
PAT> assumption. Are any teenage guys susbcribers on AOL? <grin>
--------------------
TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Below is the signature of the person
whose message was forwarded by Matthew Landry. I call your attention
to the Scriptures cited.
--
Be kind to your | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae. |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 --
---- INCOMING! http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/incoming.html ---------
"Sarah Connor?" All UseNet and BitNet postings are copyrighted.
---------------------
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I encourage everyone in a position to
do so to remove the message from their spools and let it go at that.
If you wish, send a copy of it to 'abuse@aol.com'. Although 'klaatu'
thoughtfully included the entire spam -- as if I have not already seen
a dozen copies of it this morning since I woke up -- I choose not to
print it here nor to give the street address mentioned in the posting.
I am sure whoever lives in that place -- and there is no listing for
'Barnard with a first initial S in 718' as the operator told me --
has already received a lot of commotions and trouble. Don't add to the
confusion. If someone wants to investigate the address further and
try to find out what is going on -- ** in an unobtrusive way, which
it is doubtful most in the media would do ** -- I'll consider printing
a general summary. I am not so much interested in the occupants' names
or their sexual predilictions as I am in how/why the message came to
be posted in the first place.
If the person named in the message is totally innocent of any of this,
they may have very good grounds for a large lawsuit against America On
Line. AOL may try to claim they have no responsibility in the matter,
but the fact remains they know or should know how their total lack of
system security can be and is abused on a regular basis.
In summary, it is very doubtful that any sort of law-enforcement sting
or blackmail is going on. People who do those things are much more
sophisticated. They do not have the repeated references over and over
in their message to 'little boys' using precisely that phrase. There
would never be a situation where a pedophile would have his picture as
part of it, nor his name included on any audio tapes, etc. It is
also doubtful that 'Steven Barnard' exists or if he does that he
anything but a victim himself. It appears this is just a prank played
by some boor on a net which itself is becoming increasinly boorish. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #556
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 17:06:04 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id RAA27085; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:06:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:06:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610212106.RAA27085@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #557
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 17:06:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 557
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room (Bill Hofmann)
Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Not Necessarily) (Keith Brown)
Re: Reinventing ISDN For Internet (Hank Karl)
Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US (Jay R. Ashworth)
Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (John Brothers)
Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (F Goldstein)
Re: Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke (Sir Topham Hatt)
The Steven Barnard Caper Updated (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Bob Goudreau)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:12:04 -0700
From: Bill Hofmann <wdh@fresh.com>
Subject: Re: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room
I should say as a prolog that I haven't got strong opinions about the
state of CPSR, I stopped caring when they failed to take a position on
the Gulf War (an application of technology if there ever was one), but
this article reads like the standard "they wouldn't listen to my
ideas, they must all be power-hungry conspirators" rant that is common
among people who can't seem to figure out who their enemies are.
> Backed up by e-mail correspondence, sources indicate that in 1993,
> CPSR accepted for a small percentage of total dollar value, a
> pass-through grant in the amount of $3000. In such transactions, the
> tax-exempt org. is merely a vehicle...
This is called "fiscal sponsorship," and there are pretty strict rules
about how it's done, but fundamentally, in order for an organization
to be a fiscal sponsor for some activity (organization, etc.), the
goals of the activity have to align pretty closely with that of the
organization, which it sounds like the book mentioned does.
The reason this is legitimate is that getting a tax-exempt status
takes time and brings with it a bunch of corporate responsibilities
(tax filings, etc), which many small groups don't really have the
people power to manage. Foundations *won't* in general grant to
non-tax-exempt organizations for tax reasons, so if a small group or
individual wants to apply for a grant, it needs a fiscal sponsor. And
it's part of the standard rules of the game that the fiscal sponsor
takes a small percentage for administrative overhead. (5% is low, 10%
is more common.)
Bill Hofmann wdh@fresh.com
Fresh Software and Instructional Design voice: +1 510 486 8203
1408 Carleton Street, Berkeley CA 94702 USA fax: +1 510 486 8203
------------------------------
From: Keith Brown <newsinfo@callcom.com>
Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Not Necessarily)
Date: 21 Oct 1996 19:35:16 GMT
Organization: CallCom International
Tom Beckman <hrtmath@netcom.com> wrote in article <telecom16.555.15@
massis.lcs.mit.edu>:
> I have an offer from a long distance carrier that offers .108 per
> minute with the 10th, 16th and 25th month free, based on the average
> calls in the previous two months. This comes to .095 per minute, with
> the free months included. Six second increments, etc. I'm paying .12 per
> minute now.
> The rates cannot go up. Seems like a very good deal for a call volume
> around $6K per month. My only concern is what is going to happen in
> the long distance industry in the next two years -- a long time for
> that business.
Tom:
Judging from the rates you quoted, it looks like we are talking about
Switched Service. If you are a switched customer billing about $6K a
month, perhaps you should look at going to Dedicated T-1 Service!
1+ SWITCHED & 800 SERVICE
Instate CA: $0.0625
Interstate: $0.11 (Peak), $0.102 (Off-Peak)
T-1 DEDICATED & 800 SERVICE
Instate CA: $0.0456
Interstate: $0.0675
*No minimums, No term contracts, No monthly fees on switched service!
Hope this helps!
Keith Brown
CallCom International
URL: http://www.callcom.com
------------------------------
From: hankkarl@ix.netcom.com (Hank Karl)
Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:40:50 GMT
Organization: Telenetworks
Reply-To: hankkarl@ix.netcom.com
Please see the "Always On/Dynamic ISDN" initiative of the VIA at
http://www.via-isdn.org/init.htm. This is a proposal to use X.25 on
the D channel for the home channel of BACP MP, and bring up B channels
as needed.
According to the VIA home page (http://www.via-isdn.org/), The
Vendors' ISDN Association (VIA) is a non-profit corporation and open
group chartered with the express purpose of accelerating the
deployment of ISDN through rapid convergence of end user ISDN to
public network interoperability specifications and industry-wide
promotion of ISDN.
Hank Karl Regional Manager
Telenetworks
Adaptable Data and Telecommunications Software
hk@tn.com (203)791-3904
Telenetworks home page http://www.telenetworks.com
------------------------------
From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US
Date: 21 Oct 1996 17:47:06 GMT
Organization: University of South Florida
Bill McMullin (bill@interactive.ca) wrote:
> We are trying to determine which RBOCs are currently delivering the
> Original Called Number across their SS7 networks. In case you are not
> clear the Original Called Number is the number first dialed in a call
> which subsequently gets forwarded through Call Forwarding.
I'm informed by my local advanced services rep that GTEFL can deliver
_all_ DN's involved in a forwarded call over a PRI link to the final
subscriber. This applies, she informs me, regardless of whether the
final switch is GTD-5 custom or NI-2, or 5ESS custom, NI-1 or NI-2.
Since they can deliver it, I'd have to assume that they can transport
it. The thing that really frosts _me_ is that they apparently can't
transport stutter dialtone control any other way than to backhaul SMDI
to every switch.
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For.
The Suncoast Freenet *FLASH: Craig Shergold aw'better; call 800-215-1333*
Tampa Bay, Florida http://members.aol.com/kyop/rhps.html +1 813 790 7592
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 18:15:49 +0000
From: john brothers <johnbr@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet)
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Inc., Norcross, GA
In article <telecom16.554.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Jeffrey Rhodes
<jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to
> ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most
> packets go towards the user, so the ISP can call the user back on one
> or two B-channels for the downlink when needed but only if the user
> has elected to pay for this usage sensitive time, else the D-channel
> can be used for downlink, too.
> Now ISPs would look more like PBXes to the LEC and the LECs' tariffs
> would cover their costs. As it stands now, the long hold time for the
> ISPs' feed is requiring the LECs to expand switch fabric, not an easy
> or inexpensive task!
Neither is redesigning ISDN and internet protocols to provide 'dynamic
callback' as you describe. And there are already a number of products
in development to address the ISPs, and remove them from the circuit
network, to avoid having to increase switch fabric.
> I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load
> the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video
> conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage
> sensitive, no matter what.
I predict that competition for the local loop, and demand for high
bandwidth will cause equipment vendors to manufacture super-fast
routers and networking systems, and bandwidth will become so cheap
that charging per-hour would be a waste of money - (10 cents for 100
hours vs a 29 cent stamp).
But then I'm just a net-head :)
> There was a good article in the October Wired "Dataheads vs.
> Bellheads". DHs believe the Internet should remain *free* or at least
> unlimited (never mind that the call model that feeds the Internet is
> imbalanced) and BHs like me believe the Internet will eventually come
> to the same economic, usage sensitive solutions that the public
> switched network has adopted.
It has -- for local calls, its a flat, per-month fee, at least where I
am.
Besides, given that Bellsouth is getting into the flat-rate ISP biz,
and various service providers lurches towards flat-rate billing, it
appears that everyone loves flat rate.
> Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat
> that for $19.95 a month I can call Europe any time I want with
> Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs can't support this for everyone
> and make any money. I would think the flat rate would need to be more
> like $100-200 a month for this.
The ISPs can support this. Packets are far more efficient
bandwidth-wise than circuits. In the same trunk that carries 24 phone
lines, you can carry 600 Iphone conversations (2400 bps each) - It may
not be quite the same Quality of Service, but given enough bandwidth,
it will probably end up being close enough. And transport/data
bandwidth has been quadrupling every 2 - 2.5 years.
> Do ISPs with low flat rate service make any money now, or does
> investment pour in anyway based on "cash flow" like it did in the
> early years of cellular when only equipment manufacturers were
> making any money?
Some do. Netcom probably does, considering how long it has been around.
Dunno about others. It is a very tricky business to be in.
John Brothers | Minds are just like parachutes. They...
!nortel.opinion | well, actually they're not at all like parachutes. *SPLAT*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:33:51 -0400
From: Fred R. Goldstein <fgoldstein@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet)
Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net> wrote,
> I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to
> ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most
> packets go towards the user, so the ISP can call the user back on one
> or two B-channels for the downlink when needed but only if the user
> has elected to pay for this usage sensitive time, else the D-channel
> can be used for downlink, too. The call from ISP to user, instead of
> user to ISP, would save login and authentication time for each call,
> and the B-ch(s) can be dropped when idle.
This has two fatal flaws. The big one is that it depends on ISDN.
Something over 99% of dial-up Internet access in the United States
uses modems, not ISDN. Most US telcos don't want resi subscribers to
move to ISDN; it's only a Centrex option with state-forced
availability to a small number of hardy subscribers who either are
insensitive to price (in different ways, the Bell Atlantic, GTE, US
West and Bell South models) or who can run a terrifying gauntlet of
obstacles in the way of actually getting it installed (the NYNEX
model). (FWIW, PacBell's "old" tariff -- the state decision on a new
one is pending -- and Ameritech's are examples of attractive ones,
while Southwestern Bell's is tolerable if you order "on sale" when
they drop the $450-ish installation charges.) Perhaps telcos think
that ISDN users spend more time connected, so they should be forced to
use analog lines which (on average) have shorter holding times. Only
the same *users* on analog lines end up with longer hold times because
of the slower connections, but that tends to elude telcos!
Problem two is that the D-channel packet-switching fabrics have bo
diddley capacity. They were designed for call control signaling and
*incidental* levels of traffic. Of course this is self-fulfilling --
since they couldn't carry much, they never got much use, so there was
no reason to improve them. And in most states, D-channel packet
traffic is VERY expensive. NYNEX here in MA wants 55c/kilosegment,
where a segment is around a megabit. It's great for credit card
transactions, meter reading, etc., but not heavy Internet use. Bell
South, to its credit, doesn't seem to charge for D channel packets.
> I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load
> the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video
> conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage
> sensitive, no matter what.
While there are plenty of $20/month flat rate ISP accounts, even
costlier "pay as you go" ISPs only cost a couple of bucks an hour,
more or less. Yet the telcos want to reclassify ISPs as IXCs, who are
charged around 3 cents/minute for incoming calls! That would *more
than double* the rates of the *highest priced* ISPs. Let's get real
folks; every telco cost study worth the disk space it's not printed on
indicates that busy-hour local minutes have a fully-loaded cost under
a penny a minute; most show much less. IXC treatment is a firing
squad for a parking meter violation. (Well, I suppose it would fit in
Singapore ;-( .)
Many ISPs will probably end up capping their "free" hours, and telcos
might end up capping their "free" hours, so the 100 hour/month guys
might be okay but the 700 hour/month ("never give up and never hang
up") guys won't.
But PB and BA proposals have ISPs paying to *receive* calls at the
same time callers are paying for flat-rate calling plans to *place*
the calls, so it's double-dipping. Each of my NYNEX lines carries
around a $20/month surcharge (over available measured rates) for
"metropolitan" flat rate service, vs. measured. It's therefore not
"free", just not billed by the minute or the call.
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone. Sharing requires permission.
------------------------------
From: lr@access4.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt)
Subject: Re: Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke
Date: 21 Oct 1996 18:24:30 GMT
Organization: Intentionally Left Blank
TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu) wrote:
> It is my recommendation that the mail be forwarded to the address
> assigned at AOL to investigate and deal with these things. It is
> 'abuse@aol.com'.
> I say that I think the person in Jackson Heights, NY -- if the address
> and person even exist -- is unwitting and not part of the scam/spam
> because I cannot imagine any person actually involved in such an activity
> giving out a real name and street address. There would be a post office
> box and some bogus name at the very least.
The first thing I did after forwarding the copy to AOL was to call the
Jackson Heights (actually NYPD) Police. Evidentally, I wasn't the
first person to call as they first thing they said was "If this is
about the Internet child porn we have all the information we need on
it already."
> The one problem I see with AOL is their total lack of any security in
> cases like this. Screen names are made up one minute for use in some prank
> and then deleted the next minute. I venture to say if you wrote to the
> sender of the message, the screen name has already been deleted.
> By the way, I *personally* got a copy of it in my mail as well. According
> to the introduction, I was on a mailing list they had chosen because
> of the likelyhood of interest in the material being sent out.
What's really amazing is that my copy was not sent to the address I
read any of the alt.sex or even comp.dcom.telecom but that of the
machine at work with a very limitted news feed (so the address was
stripped out of comp.lang.* or comp.sys.*).
As Pat says, complain first to the ISP and if criminal acts appear to
be involved (as opposed to nuisance spams) call the police, but don't
assume that the message was not a forgery.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:11:01 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: The Steven Barnard Caper Updated
So, I just got off the phone with the New York Police Dpartment Vice
Control Office. This followed a call to the 115th Precinct which
serves Jackson Heights. The woman said to me they have received calls
'numbering in the thousands' as of 4:00 pm Eastern time from all
over the world wanting to register a complaint about the allegations
of pedophilia circulating on the net today.
Calls have reached them from Germany, the UK, Australia, and elsewhere.
The lady said to me, 'wait until the people in Hawaii wake up and start
reading their email ... we will get a few more calls.'
I told her when I woke up this morning I had my very own personal copy
of the letter along with sixteen or so other copies from readers of
this Digest who sent them to me to look at.
No more calls are needed to the New York Police ... puh-leeze! She would
not reveal what actions are underway at the present time, which is
quite understandable, but she did say every officer in their unit as well
as all the officers in the 115th Precinct were now quite aware of the
incident. She would not say if it is unfounded, or if there is any
credibility to the report. Printed copies of the message have reached
them via fax, email and courier service.
If its true -- that one can obtain that type of material from the
occupant of that address -- Steve Barnard or whoever -- then this is
certainly a novel way of getting a report to the police. And I still
doubt that any attempt was being made to sell anything ...
If it is false -- just someone being vicious -- then I hope Mr. Barnard
gets an attorney who turns the screws ***so hard*** on American OnLine
that they never forget they day they got sued.
By now the persons at that address are being investigated and examined
by every law enforcement agency in New York. Wouldn't it be something
if it was all part of a lover's quarrel, or the result of someone's
overactive imagination?
More news when it becomes available.
PAT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:19:53 -0400
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
PAT writes:
> By the way, a person last week said I must have had my statistics
> reversed on the status of the Chicago Public Schools and their policy
> of placing certain schools on academic probation. I did not have anything
> confused at all. Here is the rule once again:
> Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent
> of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate
> with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation;
> (essentially in recievership [sic]).
>
> Note I did not say a fifteen percent failure rate (with eighty five
> percent of the students passing) I said a fifteen percent *success*
> rate with not more than eighty five percent of the students unable
> to reach the desired goals.
PAT, I think this proves that you are working too hard on the Digest
(for which we thank you!) and need to get more sleep :-). Please
re-read, slowly and carefully, the rule you quoted above. Now consider
a school in which, say, 80 percent of the students pass the test. This
means that 20 percent of them failed and are thus "unable to read and
write at a level commensurate with their age and grade-level". Twenty
percent certainly qualifies as a number that is "at least fifteen
percent", so this school will be placed on probation *even though it
has a literacy rate of 80 percent*!
To end up with your interpretation would instead require a rule like
the following:
Any public school in Chicago in which fewer than fifteen percent
of the students are able to read and write at a level commensurate
with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation;
(essentially in receivership).
Regards,
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Look for the last time already. Here is
the definition of a successful public school in Chicago:
School has 1000 students. 150 of them can read and write. The
other 850 are illiterate. The school is a success.
If in this school fewer than 150 of the 1000 students can read
and write at the proper level for their grade/age, then the
school needs remedial action taken.
The rule was *going to be* that at least 250 students of the
the 1000 had to be able to read and write at the proper level
(leaving 'only' 750 who were illiterate) but this meant that
all but six schools would have required such remedial action.
By setting the standards 'a little lower' -- as if the standards
are not horrifying enough as originally proposed -- the Board
of Education was able to rig things so that 'only a few hundred
schools need remedial action...'
Am I making my point clear? Somewhere between 70-85 percent of the
students who graduate from the Chicago Public Schools or who are
enrolled therein are functionally illiterate at worst or not close
to the level they should be at best. I agree my original wording
was perhaps not the best. I sometimes think I need to work on
improving my syntax. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #557
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 22 11:16:27 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA06071; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610221516.LAA06071@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #558
TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Oct 96 11:16:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 558
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Corporate Email Replies (Tad Cook)
Deja News Research on Steven Barnard (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Pacific Bell/Universal Service Fund (Mike King)
New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan (Monty Solomon)
Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Richard Brody)
Caribbean Phone "Scams" Needed (Van Hefner)
Help Needed With Information on This KSU (MarkS10254@aol.com)
The Bandwidth Brokers: How Does it Work? (Alan Ball)
800/888 Numbers That Charge? (Pete Ashdown)
VTech Phones Information Wanted (Jerry W. Lee)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Corporate Email Replies
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 00:13:42 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Simplest e-mail queries confound companies
BY THOMAS E. WEBER
The Wall Street Journal
Ever wonder whether Duracell batteries will last longer if stored in
the fridge? Or how much corn it takes to make a single Frito? Or how
McDonald's makes round bacon for its new Arch Deluxe sandwich?
Asking the companies that make these products is easier than ever:
Just leave a message at their sites on the World Wide Web.
Getting an answer is another matter.
Many big companies invite a dialogue with consumers at their Internet
outposts but are ill-prepared to keep up their end of the
conversation. Tony Pittarese tapped Coca-Cola Co.'s Web site to help
him plan a visit to the Summer Olympic Games, typing his question on a
screen that pledged, "We're all ears." All ears, but no mouth: The
reply never came. He ended up dialing Coke's toll-free number. "If
you're going to go onto the Web and you can't do it right, don't do it
at all," says Mr. Pittarese, a college instructor in Pensacola,
Fla. Coke says contritely that it had a big e-mail backlog around the
time of Mr. Pittarese's query but has since improved its system.
Web sites are set up in different ways. Some provide e-mail addresses;
others provide no address but solicit electronic comment by asking
visitors to the site to type in messages directly on a Web page; still
others provide no means for electronic comments. One recent survey
randomly checked Web sites of 100 of the 500 largest U.S. companies,
and only 17 of them sent back electronic-mail replies; almost half of
the sites didn't include any e-mail capability at all.
In a similar effort, The Wall Street Journal zapped e-mail inquiries
to two dozen major corporate Web sites with e-mail capabilities and
found many of them decidedly speechless. Nine never responded. Two
took three weeks to transmit a reply, while others sent stock
responses that failed to address the query. Only three companies
adequately answered within a day.
"When someone comes to your Web site, a customer is seeking you out,"
says Elizabeth Stites, marketing director at Matrixx Marketing Inc.,
the Cincinnati Bell Inc. unit that surveyed the 100 big Web sites. "If
you're not talking back to them, you're crazy." That argument may be
self-serving for Matrixx, which runs toll-free consumer lines for
marketers and now wants to handle their e-mail, but there is no
denying its truth: Answering e-mail, after all, is simply an
up-to-date way of maintaining the good customer relations every
company presumably wants.
Certainly, many companies are courting customers by computer.
Corporate Web sites on the Internet, virtually unknown just two years
ago, now number in the thousands. Among the 500 biggest companies,
almost 80 percent will have Web pages up by year end, more than double
the portion of a year ago, research company International Data
Corp. forecasts.
Why, then, the poor e-mail record? Some companies explain that
full-scale electronic interaction is more hassle than they bargained
for when they threw up a signpost in cyberspace. Internet users, they
say, often make inordinate demands and hold unrealistic response
expectations. That's why General Motors Corp.'s Saturn unit, among
others, explicitly states on its Web site that it doesn't do
e-mail. "You don't want to diminish the customer's passion by not
responding when they take the time to contact you," says Greg Martin,
a Saturn spokesman.
Typical of corporate Web sites is that of McDonald's Corp. Replete
with colorful animation, it offers information (nutritional data) and
entertainment (a "coloring book") along with some merchandising (ads
hawking T-shirts). It also has a "Feedback" section, which is where we
clicked to ask about that round bacon. But it turns out "feedback"
means your answers to their questions: McDonald's uses the Web to
grill visitors on their eating habits, asking how many times they had
visited the Golden Arches in the past month ("PLEASE ENTER AN EXACT
NUMBER"). We entered our question in a box reserved for plaudits about
the site. No answer came.
"I don't think we've taken our Web site to a high level of
interactivity at this point," admits McDonald's spokesman Chuck
Ebeling. Replying to individual questions from users would require an
"appropriate response system" that doesn't exist, he adds.
As for our questions to Duracell International Inc. about batteries
and to PepsiCo Inc.'s Frito-Lay division about corn chips, neither was
answered. Duracell says it tries to answer e-mail within 24 to 48
hours, though some take longer; the company wasn't able to determine
what happened to our response. Frito-Lay declined to comment.
Even high-tech companies can falter at Web talk. International
Business Machines Corp. answered a product inquiry with an e-mail
message bucking the question to its toll-free number. When we quizzed
Eastman Kodak Co. about storing film in a refrigerator, the company
sent a technical brochure on the subject through the U.S. mail.
Apple Computer Inc. lost a chance to proselytize to a follower whose
faith was weakening. The query: "My wife is reluctant to purchase
another Macintosh ... What should I tell her?" The response: "If
you wrote to webmasterapple.com for help with a question about Apple's
products or policies, we need to let you know that the webmaster can't
answer these questions."
Apple says it provides plenty of customer support on its toll-free
hotline, which can route common inquiries to prerecorded
answers. E-mail requires labor-intensive, personal follow-up, says
interactive marketing vice president Steve Franzese. "Apple doesn't
have a religious aversion to answering someone's question at a
keyboard," Mr. Franzese says. "The issue is, how do you do it
economically?"
Some companies seem to manage. Whirlpool Corp. wrote back to us by
e-mail within 24 hours (Q: Just how hot is the hottest setting on a
clothes dryer? A: About 155 degrees), yet no one at the company is
devoted to the task full time. Carol Sizer, the Whirlpool
public-relations employee who oversaw the creation of the company's
Web site, persuaded others to pitch in and answer the e-mail.
"Reading the e-mail makes you feel connected with your customers," she
says.
Other marketers -- albeit only a few -- answered quickly, thoroughly
and with a chatty tone mirroring the informality that pervades the
Internet. L.L. Bean Inc. provided the requested tips for
waterproofing a pair of hiking boots in a brief note signed by "Kate,
Customer Satisfaction." After gently emphasizing that "it is virtually
impossible to make your boots `waterproof' -- they would have to be
Gore-Tex for that," Kate recommended a thorough cleaning and a
silicone protectant. The reply popped up on the Internet just three
hours after the question was sent.
"When we got into this, there weren't any industry standards for
turnaround time, or tone and so forth," explains Jeff Seger, the
L.L. Bean analyst who set up the e-mail response center. He concluded
that 24 hours was the longest an on-line customer should have to wait.
Meeting that standard meant pulling nine employees from Bean's
800-number support center to peck away at keyboards in two different
shifts, seven days a week. With e-mail sometimes topping 500 messages
each week, the cataloger figures it soon will have to add a third
shift. Mr. Seger warns Web marketers: "Don't underestimate customer
expectations ... or how many are on the Web."
More advice: "It's important to be fast. It's a fast medium," says
Larry Dale, a marketing specialist on Ford Motor Co.'s Web site. "Some
of these people might well be sitting at their PC, waiting for a
return e-mail." We wrote the Ford site wondering "exactly what is a
dual overhead cam," since the site touts that feature in Ford's Taurus
SHO. The response came within a day, and though it had a few
misspellings it thoroughly answered the question. (In 162 words, it
basically said camshafts open and close valves; the more cams an
engine has, the greater its horsepower.)
For the time being, however, a more typical response to an e-mail
inquiry is this reply received on the Mercedes-Benz Web site: "Thank
you very much for your e-mail ... it would be helpful if you could
give us your post address."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:19:15 GMT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Deja News Research on Steven Barnard
Organization: TELECOM Digest
After thinking a bit more about the now infamous spam which hit the
net on Sunday and Monday and considering that it might be some sort of
'internet quarrel' I decided to see if deja news had anything on file
about Barnard in the past; to see if he had any sort of net presence.
Well, someone named Steve Barnard does post quite a bit and one post in
particular:
http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=4749355&server=dnserver.db96q4&CONTEXT=845957111.6605&hitnum=4
said this: (This is October 10, 1996.)
Bill Miller wrote:
>
> In article <53h9ij$5gq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bterr@aol.com (Bterr) wrote:
>
> > Cross gender assault exists in Western and non-Western cultures alike.
> > However, any attempt to discuss sexual homicide would require a very
> > precise definition of terms. All I can really say at this point is that
> > it appears to be on the increase in contemporary America, at least as it
> > is currently understood and defined by law enforcement authorities and the
> > courts.
>
> I am specifically interested in whether it is only in Western civilization
> that pedophilia exists and is such a problem.
No way. In some traditional Islamic cultures (I'm thinking specifically
of North Africa) adult men and young boys commonly have sexual relations,
and no one thinks much of it.
Steve Barnard
--------------------
If you follow the thread (click on the subject at deja news) there's a
fairly angry reply from some other (presumably Muslim) guy.
It might be helpful to the people investigating this matter if they
would look into the response given to Barnard's posting and others who
participated in that thread.
In other news, the New York Police Department says please do not call
them any more on this. They are dealing with it. AOL has also issued
a request for no more copies to be sent to their 'abuse' address.
I've had correspondence from people who feel I was wrong in suggesting
that Barnard -- assuming he is innocent -- has a good case against AOL
in court. They feel that AOL should no more be held responsible than
any common carrier. But AOL lost the common carrier argument when they
started screening junk-email arriving at their site. Plus it is important
to remember that they make absolutely no effort at all to screen new
subscribers as to their identity. For example, I have five or six
copies of their introductory diskette laying around here where you log
in, give them some bogus banking or credit information, and as long as
you are smart enough to get the algorythms and check digits right on
the information you give them, then bingo! you get ten free hours to
mess around, send out a little spam, etc. By the time they send the
'check free authorization' you agreed to on line or get around to
actually putting through the credit card charge, you are long gone,
having taken a dump and left the mess behind for someone else to
clean up.
There is no reason they cannot limit contact with the internet until
they have verified the subscriber's identity. There is no reason
they cannot limit mass mailings to the net at all times. I hope a
good attorney helps Barnard prove that point to them.
PAT
------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: Pacific Bell/Universal Service Fund
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:22:18 PDT
----- Forwarded Message -----
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:58:34 -0700
From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com
Subject: Pacific Bell Calls for a Fair & Equitable Universal
Service Fund for All Californians
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Shelley Cullimore
415 394-3633
shelley.cullimore@pactel.com
Pacific Bell Calls for a Fair & Equitable Universal Service Fund for All
Californians
SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Bell told the California Public Utilities
Commission late Friday that the Commission's recent proposed decision on
universal service still falls short of what's needed to keep basic
telephone service affordable for all Californians.
After 18 months of regulatory proceedings, the Commission's
Administrative Law Judge recently proposed $352 million for a new
universal service fund, a mere 28 percent of the subsidies that support
universal service today. Pacific Bell's customers already contribute
more than $1 billion in subsidies through higher prices they pay on toll
and other services. Pacific filed its formal comments today disputing
the proposed decision.
"The ALJ's proposal ignores 72 percent of our customers," said Rex
Mitchell, Pacific Bell vice president for regulatory. "Their cost of
service is not covered by the price they pay nor by the fund. Moreover,
the very source of today's $1.4 billion in subsidies will disappear with
competition."
The Commission's task has been to replace a 60-year old universal
service program funded solely by local exchange companies, to one that
is funded by all telecommunications providers, on the premise that all
competitors should share equally in the responsibility to keep basic
service affordable. A new surcharge on all customers bills will create
the universal service fund. But new competitors have attempted to keep
the fund small so that their customers have an advantage over Pacific's
customers who will continue to pay the surcharge.
"The Commission has taken a positive first step by covering nearly the
full cost of providing service in the highest-cost areas. Now they need
to take the next step for the rest of the state," Mitchell explained. "A
universal service program that is properly funded, could create a hotbed
of competition everywhere across the state. As it stands now, most
people will be left out in the cold." Pacific Bell urges the full panel
of Commissioners to increase the size of the fund in order to ensure
that all Californians reap the dual benefits of affordable service and
competitive choice.
Pacific Bell is subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified
telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco.
-----------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:30:22 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
AT&T is now running an unadvertised promotion for a rate of $0.10/min
24 hours per day for six months. After six months the rate changes to
$0.15/min 24 hours per day. There are no monthly charges.
You can optionally request a calling card - $0.30/min with a $0.30
surcharge.
If you want this rate, you will need to explicitly request the
promotional rate and make sure they don't confuse your request with
their other $.10/min off-peak plan (which competes with Sprint).
Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01703-2486
monty@roscom.com
------------------------------
From: rabrody@earthlink.net (Richard Brody)
Subject: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:14:37 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
Hi. I'm having a COM ports conflict that I don't know how to resolve.
Computer is Pentium 133 running Windows for Workgroups 3.11, not
networked (sole user, no network card, etc.), MSDOS is 6.22. Modem is
a bundled voice/fax/data modem, 33.6 Kbps. I can't find a brand name
I'm familiar with, the cover of the scant User's Manual says RW-33600V
Voice/Fax Internal Modem. A diagnostic program says the modem is a
Sierra V.34 Voice Modem. The modem is factory configured to operate
at COM2 using IRQ3.
Prior to experiencing the problem (I'm about to describe), the modem
has been working great, connecting and transferring either via DOS
comm software (such as Telemate) or various PPP Winsock dialers and
clients (to dialup ISPs, local BBSes, etc.). Transfer rates are
typically indicated between 2.6K to 3K cps.
Today I finally got around to installing the voice/fax software that
came with the computer (it's a new computer, took delivery last week).
The program is Cheyenne Communications' BitWare VFD for Windows.
Installation went along without a hitch. All features work fine,
connections, transfers, etc. The voice/fax/data/pager answering
system works flawlessly. I was impressed. :-)
And then came the problem. :-(
When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and
attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually
received this error from the dialer:
"The com port is either being used by another application
or is not supported."
This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself.
I then tried my DOS comm program, Telemate, and recieved:
"Com port is busy."
So I went back into my just-installed BitWare program and clicked a
different com port in the Settings just to see what might happen. I
clicked COM1 (instead of the COM2 setting created by the installation
program).
I went back to my Winsock dialer and clicked an ISP. The call went
through fine, I was connected in seconds. I quit and tried my DOS
comm program, Telemate, and it too worked fine again, I was connected
straightaway. I quit and tried the BitWare program, it wouldn't
initialize the modem (wrong com port).
That's the gist of the problem. If I connect the BitWare program to
COM2 in its Settings menu, all of the BitWare for Windows modules work
perfectly. But, my Winsock dialer won't engage, nor will my DOS comm
programs. If I click a different com port in the BitWare Settings,
just to get it off COM2, all of my Winsock and DOS comm stuff works
again (but BitWare does not, of course).
Do you have any thoughts on what I might do to resolve this conflict
so that each of these programs can work?
Thank you for your help.
RB
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:16:47 -0700
From: vantek@northcoast.com (Van Hefner)
Subject: Caribbean Phone "Scams" Needed
I have been contcted by a network news reporter (working at a local
affiliate) that is preparing a story on the Caribbean (area code 809,
etc.) phone scams that have hit in recent months. If you have
actually been ripped-off by one of these cons, please drop me a line
via the internet with your name, location, a contact number the
reporter can reach you at, and a -brief- explanation of the
circumstances.
All submissions will be held in the greatest confidence. Since this is
TV, an affiliate of the network will probably do some actual video
(and interviews) of a few of the people who have been ripped-off.
If you are in the Northern California region, that's a plus, but not
necessary. You can also FAX your tale of woe to the below FAX number
(it's NOT in the Caribbean!), but the internet is the fastest way to
do it. Thanks for your assistance.
Van Hefner - Editor
Discount Long Distance Digest
The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry
326 Eye Street, Suite #148
Eureka, California U.S.A. 95501-0522
http://www.webcom.com/longdist/
E-mail: vantek@northcoast.com
Phone: 1-707-444-6686
Fax: 707-445-4123
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think you will find many such
reports here, Van ... the guys here are all too smart to fall for
those things, especially as much as we talk about them. PAT]
------------------------------
From: marks10254@aol.com
Subject: Help Needed With Information on This KSU
Date: 21 Oct 1996 22:08:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: marks10254@aol.com (MarkS10254)
I need information on a NEC KSU; it is a Electra 616. I'm new to
KSU/PBX's but I am familiar with telco wiring; is there anyplace on
the net which may have information on this unit?
The existing wiring is 4pr UTP, does this unit require UTP, or could I
use reg. high count (50pr.) to extend these stations?.
The current system has 8 ports, how difficult, and expensive is it to
upgrade up to 10 ports, or the next available no. of ports??
Is is possible to configure the system so that the existing 8 ports work
as normal, but with 2 additional stations, which would do NO outside
calling i.e. just answer calls?
Last but not least:
I have never really charged on my own for a cabling job (I've always been
the one sent out to do the work); so what type of a fee is appropriate
for the following:
extend 6 ksu lines 200'
extend 3 dedicated lines 200'
run 6-10 station cables avg. of 40' ea. to block (my choice of surface or
flush mnt.)
run 3 dedicated lines from dmarc to stations avg 40' ea.
I will be supplying all materials
There are station cables present for some of the locations, but I'm
not yet sure if they are good, and they may be reg JK, I would like to
use cat.3, if I must.
I really appreciate any and all responses,
Marks10254@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Alan Ball <106253.1305@compuserve.com>
Subject: The Bandwidth Brokers: How Does it Work?
Date: 22 Oct 1996 08:05:50 GMT
Organization: Interpac Belgium SA/NV
As an editor for a Belgian IT magazine, I'm trying to gather data on
the way bandwith is managed between the owners of the cables/satellite
connexions and the international providers and the relative importance
of the various suppliers.
Next to the "official" telcos here and the large contenders (BT,
Global One, AT&T,...) "waiting" for the full 1998 liberalization,
there is a mass of "grey" offerings for the management of
international calls. Seems anyone can negotiate a "good deal" with
quite a few very discreet companies (advertisement of these services
is forbidden). Does anyone here know more or less what is really
going on, who is selling what to whom and where?
Thanks for any European oriented answers.
Alan Ball
Chief Editor BI Technology - Brussels.
------------------------------
From: pashdown@xmission.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: 800/888 Numbers That Charge?
Date: 21 Oct 1996 15:05:56 -0600
Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900)
We're having a small debate amongst the staff here regarding whether
or not there are 800/888 numbers that charge people who call them. Is
it legal to forward these numbers to a 900?
Pete Ashdown pashdown@xmission.com Salt Lake City, Utah
XMission Internet Access - Data: 801 539 0900 - Voice: 801 539 0852
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not legal to do, but it is done
sometimes. Getting the billing straightened out when it happens is a
long, involved thing at times. There are also 800/888 numbers which do
not transfer the call to a 900 number but none the less manage to
send through a charge to the calling party. You cannot assume that 800/888
numbers in every single case are 'toll-free' to the caller. Over 99
percent of them are, but here ad there sleaze operators pull tricks on
you. It is best when possible at your PBX to screen 800/888 to the
full seven digits following, and when you get word of word of any particular
'toll free' number which is likely to generate a charge or other hassle
for your phone system then block that particular number entirely. PAT]
------------------------------
From: wrenstar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jerry W. Lee)
Subject: VTech Phones Information Wanted
Date: 21 Oct 1996 14:24:11 -0700
Organization: Where the Wild Things Are
I was wondering if anybody out there have had any experience with VTech
900 MHz digital cordless phones. I'm thinking of getting one through my
company, but the only problem is that I more or less have to pay for it
and won't get a chance to try it out before then.
Any information is appreciated.
Thanks,
Jerry wrenstar@leland.stanford.edu
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #558
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 22 21:11:13 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id VAA08106; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:11:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:11:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610230111.VAA08106@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #559
TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Oct 96 21:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 559
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" (Bill Goodin)
SS7 Signalling Links (Eoghan O'Suilleabhain)
Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept (spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)
A Cleanout and Articles Missed (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Interner Service Provider? (J Decker)
Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition (Jeremy Buhler)
Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 (Jay Hennigan)
Re: 214/972 Split Observations (John Cropper)
Yummy Incentive to Switch LD Carrier (Alan Frisbie)
Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet (Jeffrey Rhodes)
NPA 250 (British Columbia) Just About Officially Started (David Leibold)
FCC Listing of Carrier Code Assignments (Barry Mishkind)
Re: Is This a First in Local Competition? (John R. Grout)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BGoodin@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (Bill Goodin)
Organization: UCLA Extension - contact Postmaster@unex.ucla.edu for problems
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:40:18 -0700
Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications"
On January 28-31, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Commercial Satellite Communications: Systems and Applications" on the
UCLA campus in Los Angeles.
The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, Hughes Space & Communications,
David A. Baylor, DirecTV, and David Bell, Universal SpaceNet.
Each participant receives the course textbook, "The Satellite
Communication Applications Handbook", B. Elbert (Artech House, 1997),
and extensive course notes.
This course is intended for practicing telecommunications engineers,
satellite and earth station designers and manufacturers, professionals
in the satellite communications industry (technical, operations and
marketing), and major private and governmental users of satellite and
terrestrial telecommunications services, domestic and international.
It covers all aspects of the design, operation and use of satellite
networks, with a heavy emphasis on commercial applications. The
latter include television transmission and broadcasting (distribution
and direct-to-home), voice and data networks using Very Small Aperture
Terminals (VSATs), mobile satellite services, and advanced broadband
capabilities of satellites under development. Each of the four days
is broken down into a major segment to provide background in the
engineering fundamentals, a detailed review of the current
applications and implementations, and evolution of the technology and
use of satellite systems in the coming millennium.
Course topics include:
Evolution of Satellite Technology and Applications
Satellite Links and Access Methods
Satellite System Implementation
The Range of Television Applications
Digital Video Compression Systems and Standards
Direct-to-Home TV Broadcasting by Satellite
Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Networks
Telephone Services by Satellite
Use of VSATs for Video Applications
Mobile Satellite Communications--GEO and Non-GEO
Advanced Mobile Satellites--Service to Handheld Terminals
Digital Audio Broadcasting--A New Application on the Horizon
Broadband and Multimedia Systems
Evolution of the Satellite Business
How to Stay Abreast and Valued in the Satcom Industry
The course fee is $1295, which includes the course text and extensive
course materials.
For a more information and a detailed course description, please contact
Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
From: Eoghan <eeieosn@eeiacns01.eei.ericsson.se>
Organization: Ericsson Systems Expertise, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:28:20 GMT
Subject: SS7 Signalling Links
Reply-To: eeieosn@eei.ericsson.se
I have a question regarding the signalling links used between
exchanges for SS7 signalling.
In Europe, a speech channel (64kbps) is given over completely to
signalling (we ain't no bit-stealers) so you have a signalling
terminal in each exchange, with an unrestricted 64kbps channel between
them.
I have learned that in North America, a different system is used to
connect the signalling terminals.
Can anyone shed some light on what this mysterious connection is? Is
a separate cable run between exchanges? Are modems involved?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Eoghan O'Suilleabhain
Ericsson Systems Expertise
Dun Laoghaire, Ireland
------------------------------
From: spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept
Date: 22 Oct 1996 16:38:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
The *82 function temporarily turns off per-line blocking, which you
(in Texas) have to write a letter to the PUC to get turned on and off.
The -not available- on your CID unit means they are using a cheapo LD
carrier that doesn't transmit their name and number to your phone
company. This also happens if someone has just moved in to a house
and has just gotten their phone set up.
Shaver wrote:
> I received a card from US West announcing that I had the ability to
> not receive calls which did not transmit caller ID. It seemed to
> work for both local and long distance, although a LD call with *82 no
> longer gave "anonymous" but "not available".
spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:50:33 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: A Cleanout and Articles Missed
Once again, unfortunatly, a clean out of the queue of waiting items for
publication in the Digest resulted in 1374 items getting sent to the
bit-bucket unpublished. First and foremost, I apologize to everyone
who wrote to the Digest during September and October whose articles were
not used. Were I to use them all, you would receive ten to twelve
issues of the Digest daily for the indefinite future, As things now
stand, when I send out more than three or four issues per day, I
invariably get people who complain about the volume of stuff coming
out.
One thousand three hundred seventy four items unused! It is really
sad to me. That's editorial submissions, not administrative mail. It
has almost become an assembly line process, like Lucy and Ethel working
in the candy factory. If your article was not published, believe me
it was nothing personal. I try to help as many people as I can here,
and there are times I feel so darn oppressed with how little I am able
to do that I feel like junking the whole thing. Seriously.
My network connectivity of late has much to be desired as well, and
there have been hints that perhaps some friends of the Digest will
soon supply a dedicated line, a decent machine and a name in the .org
domain to help with such problems. Not to sound cynical, but I count
on those things when they arrive. A contributor in September sent a
check for five-hundred dollars to the Digest which I promptly spent
paying a few bills ... and then his check bounced. He is unable to
make it good. He meant well when he sent it, I feel certain of
that. Helen, the branch manager at the bank I use has covered me for a
long time and she did once again after that fiasco. I guess that's
what I get for using the same bank for many years.
Now that I have that off my chest let me tell you what you are getting
in the rest of this issue in the final few messages which follow: A
few articles were found that had 'fallen on the floor'; that is they
had come in and gotten shoved aside into inappropriate categories and
just recently re-located after having been presumed lost. They are
dated in September and earlier in October. They've been redated so
they will pass muster on Usenet spools which tend to throw old stuff
away, but the original date has been inserted in the article itself.
One I felt particularly bad about finding at this late date was sent
in by Jack Decker telling how well GTE had responded to his complaint
which originally appeared here. I like publishing articles like his.
A few others found in the same obscure file are included to finish off
this issue.
PAT
------------------------------
From: jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker)
Subject: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Interner Service Provider?
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:06:44 GMT
Organization: GTE Intelligent Network Services, GTE INS
(Original date was Fri, 20 Sep 1996)
Some of you may recall my post of about a week ago (Thursday, 12 Sep
1996) in which I discussed my problems in getting an "all circuits
busy" recording while dialing into the Muskegon, Michigan modem pool
of Novagate Communications Corporation (while at the same time, calls
to other locations in the same phone exchange always went through).
I had concluded my article by saying:
> ... And if, by any odd chance, anyone from GTE happens to
> read this, it would be much appreciated if you could find out why ONLY
> calls to Novagate's Muskegon POP seem to encounter the "all circuits
> busy" condition, when other calls to Muskegon virtually always seem to
> go through without a hitch (and also, why have the GTE folks here been
> unresponsive to this problem)?
Well, I can tell you now that GTE does indeed read the TELECOM Digest!
I got a call about half an hour ago from Peter Johnson at Novagate.
He was calling about an unrelated matter, but mentioned during the
conversation that someone at GTE had seen my message, and that they
were working on the problem.
Shortly after I hung up with him, the phone rang again and it was
Nanci DeLong, an area manager with GTE. She mentioned that she had
seen the message I posted here. She explained that calls to
Novagate's POP go through a 5ESS switch, and that they had found that
one card in the switch (affecting about ten of Novagate's lines) was
sending an "all circuits busy" message out when it should have been
sending a simple line busy. She said that this problem has now been
corrected and if all of Novagate's lines are busy, people should
receive an actual line busy signal and not an "all circuits busy"
recording. What no one apparently seems to know is how this card (or
whatever is causing the problem) got configured incorrectly in the
first place, but I suppose there are a number of ways that could have
happened.
She indicated that their studies have shown that Novagate has 35 lines
in this POP, but should really have 37 to handle all the traffic at
peak periods. They are going to run another study over the weekend
(or sometime in the next few days) to see if this is still the case.
Peter had mentioned to me that they probably would be adding more
lines once this problem was corrected (I think that the feeling
originally was, "Why add new lines if users can't access the ones we
already have?")
I will mention that Novagate's lines are normal Centrex lines, which
as far as I know are fed by plain old copper from the GTE central
office to Novagate's POP, which is only a distance of about four
blocks. I mention this only because some readers seemed to be of the
opinion that there might be something special about the service
provided to Novagate. Other than being Centrex (which was the case
long before this particular problem started), these lines are plain
vanilla, going into standard modems.
In any case, I'm inclined to believe now that there was probably no
real malice intended toward Novagate, it was just the all too common
situation of an out-of-the-ordinary problem that no one really wanted
to work on until something happened to elevate the priority of
diagnosing and fixing it. In this case, it may have been the article
I posted here that put the spark under them, or it may have been the
calls from people at Novagate, or even the call from one other
Novagate customer that was pretty irate about the situation. I don't
care who gets the credit here, I'm just happy to see that the problem
is being worked on, and I trust that GTE will follow through and make
sure the problems are eliminated.
I also want to thank Ms. DeLong for taking the time to call me and let
me know what the situation was. Although she did not ask me to do it,
I felt that it was only fair to post a followup to this group to let
you know what GTE's response was.
I do wish that all phone companies (not just GTE) had better
procedures for handling "unusual" complaints. If you call about
something that turns out to be a programming error in the switch, you
almost stand a better chance of getting an audience with the President
than getting to talk to someone who actually understands the problem
and can do something about it (especially if you call Repair Service).
But that is not just a GTE problem, I've had similar problems with
Ameritech in the past and I'm sure it happens at the other "baby
Bells" as well.
Jack
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I am sorry this is a month later
getting out that it should have been. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:15:32 -0700
From: Jeremy Buhler <jbuhler@cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: jbuhler@cs.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Subject: Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition
(Original date was Fri, 20 Sep 1996)
I saw your question in the TELECOM Digest about the ACTA petition.
While you wait for your correspondents to make an official report,
here is what I found with a little surfing:
According to the FCC web site, the end of the public comment period
for the ACTA petition was May 8, and the reply period ended June 8.
The FCC's CCB homepage says that questions on the proceeding should
be directed to Kevin Werbach, kwerbach@fcc.gov . I didn't see any
announcements about the FCC's position on the matter, though.
After striking out at fcc.gov, I went looking for comments from the
participants in the action. Opposition to the petition appears to
be united as the Voice on the Net Coalition (VON), which has a web
at http://www.von.org/ . VON seems to be dealing with several
telephony-related issues, but internet phone is the major one.
Most of the ACTA-related stuff on the VON site is rather old, but
there was one interesting item. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt composed
an address which was delivered by FCC Chief of Staff Blair Levin
at INET '96 in Montreal on June 28. The address was pretty
unambigously in favor of internet telephony. See
http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh629.txt
for the complete speech, but here's the most relevant portion:
### BEGIN QUOTED TEXT ###
The FCC has received a petition from the America's Carriers'
Telecommunications Association asking that we restrict the sale of
"Internet phone" software, because the providers of that software do not
comply with the rules that apply to telecommunications carriers.
Similar issues are being discussed in other countries, including
Canada. We've just finished getting comments on that petition. We're
in the process of reviewing those comments now, but I would just note
that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the
Administration's telecommunications expert, has filed very thoughtful
and well-reasoned comments with us asking us to reject this petition.
I am also strongly inclined to believe that the right answer at this
time is not to place restrictions on software providers, or to subject
Internet telephony to the same rules that apply to conventional
circuit-switched voice carriers. On the Internet, voice traffic is
just a particular kind of data, and imposing traditional regulatory
divisions on that data is both counterproductive and futile. Even if
most of the FCC wasn't working around the clock on implementation of
the Telecommunications Act, I can't imagine that we would have the
time to keep track of all the bits passing over the Internet to
separate the "acceptable" data packets from the "unacceptable" voice
packets.
More importantly, we shouldn't be looking for ways to subject new
technologies to old rules. Instead, we should be trying to fix the
old rules so that if those new technologies really are better, they
will flourish in the marketplace. For years, some engineers have been
telling us that voice over a packet switched network wasn't possible.
The latency periods were too great, they said, and you'd never get
acceptable quality. Well, it is going to be possible, and in the
short period of time since the first commercial products became
available, the quality has been rapidly improving. But the last thing
we want to do is stop that improvement by thoughtless regulation.
Internet telephony may well become, in time, a competitive
alternative to traditional circuit-switched voice telephony. After
all, as the growth of the cellular industry demonstrates, people are
willing to give up a significant level of quality in exchange for
other benefits. In the cellular case the benefit is the ability to
make a call from virtually anywhere, in the case of Internet telephony
the benefit is a vastly lower price. This is especially true, for
example, for international telephone calls.
### END QUOTED TEXT ###
It's been quite a while since the address was given, but there's no
newer FCC-related info on the VON site, just some announcements about
new iphone technologies and new coalition members.
Incidentally, you may be pleased to know that the lead item on
the VON page, "Bells Allege Internet Growth Clogging Network", is
a copy of the August 22nd Digest posting on the same subject.
Jeremy
------------------------------
From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan)
Subject: Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946
Date: 22 Oct 1996 13:19:14 -0700
Organization: West.Net Communications
(Original date was 22 Sep 1996)
Mark J Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote:
> In Summer 1946, Philadelphia went from "3L-4N" local numbering to "2L-5N".
> This wasn't simply a change of the third letter of the exchange name to a
> digit. In Philadelphia in 1946, when the third "dialpull" changed from the
> third letter of the exchange name to a numerical digit, the numerical was
> *NOT* necessarily the corresponding number on the third letter. *MOST* of
> Philadelphia's exchanges changed over using a *DIFFERENT* numerical for the
> third dialpull.
> There weren't many other cities in the US which had 3L-4N. Unlike
> Philadelphia, most of those locations changed the third letter of most of
> their exchange names to the directly corresponding numerical digit.
[snip]
> There is a {Bell Telephone Magazine} article documenting the changeover:
> "Philadelphia Goes 2-5", by Harold S. Le Duc, volume 25 (1946), issue 3
> (Autumn '46). The article begins on page 175 of v.25 (1946).
Was there any discussion in the atricle of why Philadelphia would have
deliberately changed the third dial pull in the majority of exchanges?
It would seem to me that this deliberately made things much more
difficult for both the telco and for the subscribers. The same
advertising campaign, phone books, etc. but translating the alpha to
the corresponding numerical would have achieved the desired result of
freeing up combinations unspellable with three consecutive letters and
allowing 1 and 0 as a third dial-pull, as well as adopting a national
standard. As new exchanges were created, they could have been
introduced with a new name that deliberately did not match the third
digit.
For example, change BALdwin xxxx to BAldwin 5-xxxx (no equipment
changes needed), and name the next 22x exchange CAstle.
In the days of hand-soldered equipment of that vintage, the added costs
and interruption in service to change the city's numbering over a brief
period must have been substantial.
FWIW, going to 2L-5N clearly was a move toward freeing additional number
space, but even in large metro areas the use of 1 or 0 as a third dial
pull didn't occur until much later than the 1940s time-frame.
The justification of all-number calling on the basis of the
"unspellable" 2-letter combinations, 55, 57, 95, and 97 has always
been a challenge to me. KLondike is obvious and was used in 415-land
for 55, and although KRemlin works for 57, it would have been
politically incorrect during the cold war era. KRypton works as well.
Many of the WR- words are OK for 97 but probably misspelled by a large
segment of the population. One couldn't imagine the telco deliberately
issuing "WRong" numbers. YPsilanti also works. The only one that is
a real stumper is 95. Any takers?
It was great fun to come up with outrageous but numerically equivalent
"exchange names" when placing operator assisted calls in the good old
days. Gone are the days of asking the operator to be connected to
CHeeseburger 4-xxxx or STriptease 8-xxxx.
-- Jay Hennigan jay@west.net --
WestNet: Internet service to Santa Barbara, Ventura and the world.
805-892-2133 805-289-1000 805-578-2121
"Witch parking only. Violators will be toad."
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I recall, all the kids had an
'exchange name' for 382 also which was 'FU__ You-2' and although
they dared not ask the operator for such a number, they would go
to pay phones on the 382 exchange (which was EUclid-2 to the phone
company) and carefully alter the inscription on the round number
tag in the center of the rotary dial. If you recall, on the old
rotary dial phones the number tag in the middle could be picked off
with your fingers quite easily and then put back in place after
changing the little round piece of carboard inside. Sometimes they
cut a tiny 'postage stamp size' picture of a naked woman out of a
sex magazine and stuck it under the clear plastic where the number
of the phone would go and always with the 'number' of the phone being
that outrageous 'FU__ You-2' (last four digits). The idea was that
some dimwit would come along to use the pay phone and when asked by
the operator 'what number are you calling from?' look up at the dial
to see and blurt that out without thinking in which case the oper-
ator would either hang up on him or most likely put the supervisor
on the line to bawl him out for using profanity to the operator.
The customer would try to explain, and the conversation would just
go downhill from that point on.
The kids knew every dirty word there is of course, and any pay phone
with an exchange name which could be converted to something nasty
matching the same letters/numbers was fair game. Eventually though,
Illinois Bell began to notice a decline in the number of people who
could correctly spell the more esoteric exchange names with a larger
and larger volume of wrong numbers due to people who for example did
not realize that EUclid was not 'UKelid' or 'YUklid'. The two-part
exchange names were also a hassle as lots of people would dial 'HP'
for Hyde Park instead of 'HY' or 'RP' for Rogers Park instead of 'RO'.
Numbers made better sense and should have been used from the start.
In 1965 my phone number was (formerly RAVenswood) 728-7425 which also
spelled my first name. PAT]
------------------------------
From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper)
Subject: Re: 214/972 Split Observations
Date: 22 Oct 1996 00:58:35 GMT
Organization: Pipeline
(original date was 28 Sep 1996)
On Sep 26, 1996 10:24:47 in article <214/972 Split Observations>, 'Mark
Tenenbaum <mark.tenenbaum@telops.gte.com>' wrote:
> We're almost two weeks into the 214/972 split in the Dallas area and I
> have a few very random PERSONAL (not company for as you can see I do
> work for GTE) observations, questions and experiences to relate:
> 1) As is human nature, though all media, telephone company correspondence,
> etc. says to do so, I still have not re-programmed my speed dials either
> at home or at work.
You'll have two to three more weeks of freedom ... four at the outside,
before you start running into more frequent problems.
> 2) I think I recall that only new cellulars and pagers will have 972.
> Now tell me this, in the future, if I am told to page someone at
> XXX-XXXX, how in the heck am I going to know which area code to use?
> I guess if I know the person has had the particular pager for a long
> time, I'd try 214 first. I see frustration ahead ...
Pagers issued from companies in downtown Dallas will still be 214. Suburban
companies will be forced to use 972 for their wireless services.
> 3) What are Caller ID boxes showing for cross area code calls: ten
> digits with the new area code? Ten digits with the old area code? Only
> seven digits? Does it even matter because you're getting the person's
> name anyway?
I would think that eventually CID would reflect ten digits, regardless of
calling number. SBC can answer this question best ...
> 4) Why is it that even though I have changed the appropriate 214s to
> 972 on some fax lists that I use from my computer, I am getting the
> faxes back undelivered? I changed those lists back to 214 and no
> problem. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fax machines on
> the other end needing to be re-programmed.
Permissive dialing period lasts until the middle of next spring. While
your clients might not be experiencing problems yet, by winter they'll
be receiving redirection messages (maybe sooner, depending on whether
or not your exchanges are among those to be duplicated).
> 5) Because I am familiar with D/FW geography, I am not running into
> much difficulty in knowing when to dial ten digits (in my case when I
> call 214) or seven (in my case to any 972). Just in case, I have
> posted a list of 214 exchanges on the bulletin board next to one of my
> phones at home for possible reference. Haven't had to even look at it
> yet. I can just imagine what difficulties the geographically
> challenged D/FW tele-consumer is facing and certainly will face when
> the permissive period ends. Not to mention the frustrations
> out-of-towners will encounter.
If it's a 214, and the address says "Dallas", there's an 85% chance it's
staying 214 ... otherwise, it's 972.
> 6) One of the most common arguments against geographic splits is that
> businesses will have to have new stationery, business cards, etc. made.
> Just driving around town, I've noticed that another major expense for
> businesses will have to be re-painting their fleets to reflect correct
> area codes on the phone number on the sides of their trucks/cars.
This is being used in pro-overlay arguements nationwide.
> 12) The world did not come to an end when the split occurred.
Oh really? Pro-overlay people will be very upset about that rather
unfortunate development ... :-)
> Mark D. Tenenbaum
> Plano, TX (972, at least til the next split!)
Which (for 972), is not very far off ... 972 received the bulk of the
exchanges as a result of the split, and will end up in jeopardy as soon as
1Q98.
On Sep 27, 1996 11:21:52 in article <Re: 214/972 Split Observations>,
'exukev@exu.ericsson.se (Kevin Autrey)' wrote:
> What is even more interesting about the 214/972 split is its apparent
> lack of consistency among the two companies that serve the D/FW area
> (GTE and Southwestern Bell (SBC)). Both my work and a friend's house
> are in the new 972 area code. My home is in 214. If I call home from
> my work (where both are SBC exchanges), I only have to dial 7 digits
> (although 10 does work as well). If I call home from my friend's
> house (which is a GTE exchange), I get a message informing me that
> that number is no longer in service.
Uneven switch reprogramming. As soon as everyone is in synch (or
reprogrammed), this effect will disappear, and you will get uniform
reactions when you dial from both locations.
> I never really thought that the whole area-code split was going to be
> too much of a problem -- but that was before I realized how much of a
> mess the phone companies could make out of it.
The phone companies are only *part* of the problem. This split was put
off for almost EIGHTEEN monthes while SBC, local businesses, and the
Texas PUC argued the issue of split versus overlay in court. Overlays
won out at first (February 1996), but were almost immediately reversed
by a Texas judge. The matter was finally settled by late spring, and
dates set. The problems continue though, since 713 already had over
100,000 numbers assigned to 281, and Dallas' pool of available numbers
had dwindled to bare minimum.
If the relief had been definitively decided, and all parties had just
shut up once the decision was made, it might not have been as much of
a disaster as it's shaping up to be now.
John Cropper, NiS / NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Inside NJ: 6o9.637.9434
Toll Free: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362)
Fax : 6o9.637.943o
email : psyber@usa.pipeline.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 15:23:15 PDT
From: Alan Frisbie <frisbie@Flying-Disk.Com>
Subject: Yummy Incentive to Switch LD Carrier
(original date was Fri, 11 Oct 1996)
After getting the usual $50 and $100 checks for switching long
distance carriers, I had to chuckle at the one I received today from
Working Assets Long Distance. Their claim to fame is that they donate
1% of your charges to "socially progressive" non-profit groups.
But the incentive is, in addition to 60 minutes free calling, a free
pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream!
It isn't much, compared to a $100 check, but it certainly got my
attention. They really know one of my weak spots. :-)
Alan E. Frisbie Frisbie@Flying-Disk.Com
Flying Disk Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:41:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
(Original date was Thu, 17 Oct 1996)
Bill Sohl wrote:
> hh@pc012004.is.paradyne.com (Heflin Hogan) wrote:
>> Interesting idea. Ascend and several other suppliers of ISDN equipment
>> already implement something similar in their small and home office
>> equipment. The devices have timeout parameters, and drop the
>> connection when no traffic is passed for the specified length of
>> time. ISDN connects so fast that there is no noticable delay when the
>> connection is reestablihed by the user. The "D" channel is used in its
>> normal fashion, with no special handling by the telco. It would be
>> trival for USR, Moto, or any of the other ISDN "modem" manufacturers
>> to implement this feature in their consumer products.
> Remember, however, that upon reestablishing a B channel connection to
> the ISP involves a new switched connection and a new login to the ISP
> for that connection since there's no way the ISP can be sure that any
> new switched connection being established is associated with the X25
> dialog being maintained from your ISDN station.
Why not use the D-channel X.25 for user-to-internet processing and
have the Internet Service Provider use the D-channel X.25 to bond with
a call on the B-channel for internet-to-user?
The call setup from the Internet Service Provider would not need to
login, authenticate, etc, and could drop when the bits going towards
the user are idle.
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:01:20 EDT
From: David Leibold <aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: NPA 250 (British Columbia) Just About Officially Started
(Original date was Fri, 18 Oct 1996)
Tomorrow (19 October 1996 as I write this) is listed as the official
start date for NPA 250, which splits the British Columbia 604 code
into Lower Mainland (Vancouver and area) and the rest of BC. Victoria,
the provincial capital, will switch to 250, for instance.
There were test numbers of (250) 372.0123 and 372.0124 listed, so I
tried these last night (17th) on a few lines. Calls via the Fonorola
long distance service completed to the test recording (something like
"2-5-0 area code, thank you and goodbye"), but calls via AT&T Canada
(ex-Unitel) met with a fast busy for either number.
Hopefully my list of BC exchanges, with the new area code assignments,
is still in the Archives somewhere, for those wanting to know what's
going where. Other sites are available from BCTel, Rifton, Bellcore,
etc.
David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca
------------------------------
From: Barry Mishkind <barry@broadcast.net>
Subject: FCC Listing of Carrier Code Assignments
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:22:46 -0800
Organization: The Eclectic Engineer
(Original date was Fri, 18 Oct 1996)
> From the FCC server:
FCC RELEASES REPORT ON LONG DISTANCE CARRIER CODE ASSIGNMENTS.
The FCC has released the latest available information on Carrier
Identification Codes, 500 service, 555 line number assignments,
toll-free 800 and 888 service, and 900 service as of June 30, 1996.
CCB Contact: Katie Rangos at (202) 418-0940.
Internet URL: /Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/nrcc6075.txt
Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ
http://www.broadcast.net/~barry
------------------------------
From: grout@sp55.csrd.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout)
Subject: Re: Is This a First in Local Competition?
Date: 22 Oct 1996 13:27:33 -0500
Organization: Center for Supercomputing R and D, UIUC
In article <telecom16.550.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu> jack@novagate.com
(Jack Decker) writes:
> This is the first time I've actually heard of an existing local
> telephone company reaching out to serve customers in adjacent
> exchanges. I guess what particularly impressed me in this case was
> this paragraph from the order:
> "The Staff's comments identify this case as the first case in which a
> licensed incumbent provider of basic local exchange service has filed
> an application to provide service in another licensed incumbent
> provider's territory. The Staff's comments also note the unique,
> noncontigious configuration of the proposed Metro Exchange and the
> proposed innovative rate structures."
I believe there's an earlier case here in Illinois.
Consolidated Communications, the incumbent LEC in the area around
Mattoon, IL (its headquarters), has steadily built up a presence over
a number of years here in Champaign and Urbana, IL (e.g., providing an
alternative phone book to all local households, offering telephone
services to business customers). This past spring, they took a next
big step and began offering residential service in competition with
Ameritech, our area's incumbent LEC.
Since I have read that they offer better rates to residential
customers who choose them as an IXC and are willing to change their
phone number, it seems reasonably likely that they have actually
installed switches here in town and are not just reselling local
service provided by Ameritech equipment.
John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu
Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am surprised that Centel, which has
been the local telco in Park Ridge and Des Plaines, Illinois for over
a half-century (as well as having a couple of exchanges in one small
area of Chicago on the northwest side of the city) has never made
any plans to compete with Ameritech for local service in the majority
of the Chicago area; nor has Ameritech ever made any effort that I am
aware of to move into the Des Plaines/Park Ridge communities. Maybe
they have a sweetheart deal with each other of some sort to not
invade the other's territory. Nor has AT&T which has been busy trying
to sign up Ameritech customers for their own 'local toll' service
cut any deals with Centel that I am aware of.
Speaking of local competition by AT&T, didn't I read in TELECOM
Digest or one of those rags about a year ago that during 1996 AT&T
was going to be turning up all these local switches they had ins-
talled all over the USA and begin local competition *in earnest*
with the local Bells? Has anyone yet seen any advertising or received
any solicitation from AT&T to be their local telco other than a few
of the 'intra-lata toll' things like they started in Chicago and
promptly made a royal mess out of with billing, etc? Has AT&T maybe
gotten less starry-eyed about local competition and decided it is not
really a sure fire way to Make Money Fast? I'm just asking is all;
no need for you to get touchy about it, AT&T ... PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #559
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 22 23:57:46 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA24428; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610230357.XAA24428@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #560
TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Oct 96 23:57:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 560
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
NPA 530 Proposed Boundary Shift (John Cropper)
FBI Investigating E-Mail Offers Of Child Pornography (Mike Pollock)
Book Review: "Access the Internet" by Peal (Rob Slade)
Narrowband Access Will Survive the Broadband Revolution (CIR Webmaster)
FLEX Protocol Articles Needed For Research (Fred Atkinson)
Material Wanted on 8th Circuit Stay of Interconnection Order (Ben Kuhn)
Programming Fax/Modem (Denis Moreeuw)
Questions About Spread Spectrum (mma@fox.nstn.ca)
Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (D. Richards)
Re: Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback (Al Niven)
Re: Cable Modems (Will Kim)
Re: Divestiture Not Good For Consumer? (was Re: ISP Fees) (Craig Fringer)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: NPA 530 Proposed Boundary Shift
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:20:43 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
From Pacific Bell
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Dave Miller
(916) 972-2811
dnmille@legal.pactel.com
Plan Filed to Adjust New 530 Area Code Boundary Dixon, El Dorado
Hills, Newcastle, Lincoln and Pleasant Grove Impacted
San Francisco - Four communities in Northern California, previously
scheduled to move into the new 530 area code next year, would remain
in the 916 area code under a proposed modification plan filed with the
California Public Utilities Commission.
The plan, filed earlier this month by California Code Administrator
Bruce Bennett on behalf of the telecommunications industry, also calls
for moving the city of Dixon into the 707 area code, instead of the
530 area code as originally planned. The final decision on the
proposal rests with the CPUC.
Bennett said the modification plan was filed in response to concerns
from residents and elected officials on the new 530 area code, which
is being split off from the 916 area code on Nov. 1, 1997. None of the
proposed changes would impact the price of calls, Bennett said. "Call
prices are not affected by an area code change," he said. "What is a
local call now would still be a local call with an area code change."
Under the proposal, the following changes are requested:
Dixon area residents and businesses served by prefixes 678 and 693
would move into the neighboring 707 area code on October 4, 1997.
Newcastle, Lincoln and Pleasant Grove in Placer County and El Dorado
Hills in El Dorado County would stay in the 916 area code, rather than
move into the 530 area code. This modification would affect six
prefixes which serve these areas: 434 and 645 (Lincoln), 663
(Newcastle), 655 (Pleasant Grove), and 933 and 939 (El Dorado Hills).
Bennett, who coordinates area code relief for the California
telecommunications industry, said letters requesting the Dixon move
into 707 were received in August and September from Dixon Mayor Don
Erickson and Skip Thompson, chairman of the Solano County Board of
Supervisors. The proposal to keep Newcastle, Lincoln and Pleasant
Grove in the 916 area code was supported by Lincoln Mayor Willie
Preston, Lincoln City Manager Bill Malinen and Roseville Telephone
Company, which serves several nearby communities.
Bennett said these requests can be implemented without cutting short
the life of the new 530 or 916 area codes. However, he added, not
every request could be accommodated in the modification proposal. "The
industry tried to balance all of the requested changes with the need
to provide meaningful area code relief. Because of this, there were
some areas that wanted to stay in 916, but which couldnmt be moved
back in without diminishing the life of the 916 area code. As it is,
the new 916 area code will only last about five years."
Persons who wish to comment on the proposed changes can write to the:
California Public Utilities Commission
President P. Gregory Conlin
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
In his letter supporting the Dixon change, Mayor Don Erickson wrote:
"It would be to the city of Dixonms advantage to be excluded from the
new 530 area code and included into the existing 707 area code. We are
currently the only city in Solano County that is not in area code
707. I feel this would be ideal timing for us to go to 707 since a
change is imminent anyway."
Bennett said the change can be made with no adverse impact to the 707
area code since Dixon has only two prefixes, 707 is not a crowded area
code and the two Dixon prefixes are not currently being used in the
707 area code.
On retaining Lincoln, Newcastle and Pleasant Grove in 916, Ron Miller,
manager of rates and tariffs for Roseville Telephone Company, said the
company filed a petition of support on Oct. 4 with the Public
Utilities Commission. The three communities are a local call for much
of the area served by Roseville Telephone. "The feedback wemve
received indicates a strong community of interest between these areas
and Roseville as well as the other south Placer County communities
that will remain in the 916 area code," he said.
Similar reasons were cited regarding El Dorado Hills. Although
physically located in El Dorado County, El Dorado Hills has a strong
community of interest with Sacramento County, Bennett said.
The proposed modifications follow CPUC approval of the new 530 area
code boundary in August. The new 530 area code will be created through
a geographic split of the existing 916 area code and is needed to
avoid running out of the phone numbers in the Northern California
region currently served by the 916 area code.
As planned, the new 530 area code will go into effect Nov. 1, 1997 and
serve all or portions of 22 Northern California counties with more
than 1 million residents and businesses. Meanwhile, 916 would be
reconfigured to cover most of Sacramento County, south Placer County
including the cities of Roseville, Loomis and Rocklin, and the city of
West Sacramento in Yolo County.
A telecommunications industry group representing more than 30
companies proposed the 916 geographic split. Residents were invited to
comment at a series of public meetings in June before final CPUC
approval of the new 530 area code boundary.
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:44:34 -0700
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Organization: SJS Entertainment
Subject: FBI Investigating E-Mail Offers Of Child Pornography
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Authorities were trying Tuesday to determine
whether a prankster distributed a child pornography e-mail ad to
computer addresses around the world, including to San Francisco Bay
area residents.
The e-mail, sent Monday, apparently originated in the New York City
borough of Queens from an America Online subscriber.
Among the recipients were people who work for missing and abducted
children's foundations and several newspaper offices. Some of the
recipients were outraged.
"Am I liable for prosecution?" one worried Internet newsgroup user
wrote after publicly posting the letter and asking for mail from
others who received the ad.
San Francisco FBI spokesman Doug Perez said an arrest could be made as
early as Wednesday, but he would not elaborate. FBI offices in New
York, San Francisco and Baltimore were involved in the investigation.
"I'm hoping this is somebody's sick idea of a prank," said New York
City Officer Kevin Hui, who added that police were inundated with
calls from people who received the ad.
The e-mail letter asked recipients to send from $2.99 to $49.95 to
"Child Fun" in exchange for child pornographic photos, videotapes and
audio tapes. The letter also offered to trade or buy child pornography
and emphasized "action shots" of adults having sex with young
boys. Photos and tapes of girls as young as 4 and boys as young as 7
were listed.
The ad also said recipients could have their faces "morphed" onto
pornographic photos with children.
"I am a fan of child pornography and for the past 4 years, I have been
able to gather quite a collection of it. ... I send out these
advertisements to this mailing list once a week," the e-mail letter
said.
Lee Altschuler, chief of the U.S. attorney's office in San Jose, said
advertising child pornography for sale in interstate commerce is a
felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
The letter writer said the mailing list had been compiled from another
list of e-mail addresses.
America Online spokesman Andrew Graziani said that the fact that the
e-mail had an AOL return address didn't necessarily mean it originated
from AOL.
------------------
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor Steve Barnard -- or whoever lives
at that address -- must be completely mortified by all this. While
one would expect the Usenet hen house to get in an uproar when a
chicken hawk came prowling around, now even the FBI -- those damn
fools! -- has been taken in by it. In their press release what they
should have said was, "Attention all Usenetters! Quiet down and go
back to your anarchy. Leave us alone!"
Can you imagine all the police officers on Monday who were slobbering
at the mouth at the very thought of breaking up this big child porn
ring on the Internet? According to the NYPD, calls are still rolling
in to the Vice Control section from people whose mail or news usually
is slow in arriving and who just saw the item for the first time on
Tuesday. This has all the potential of Make Money Fast and or Craig
Shergold, where people who read the news for the first time over the
next few weeks/months keep sending out flames about it and calling
up their local police department, etc.
And now a word for that fabulous America OnLine spokesman, Andrew
Graziani quoted in the above report:
Hey Andy, wake up and smell the coffee cooking. *Of course*
the message originated at AOL. We are not talking about a
simple 'From:' line that anyone could forge or a 'Path:' line
that someone diddled with. Nor a 'Sent-By' nor the 'From ' at
the very top which is hard to mess with unless you have root
or trusted user status at your site. We are talking about
the machine indicia in the middle of the envelope; you know,
where it says received by one-machine.aol.com from another-
machine.aol.com on the way out the door to whatever place
handles the mail for AOL. Oh I know there are ways around that
also, but that's not what happened. It was one of your Bozos
alright.
And Andy, hopefully the FBI/NYPD/Mothers Against Child Porn
or whatever bunch of Good Citizens investigates this case
will find at least some smidgen of porn at that address or
reason to make a case -- you know how they hate to go away
empty handed once their minds are made up -- and AOL will
walk away free on the whole thing with Barnard sufficiently
discredited so he has no viable claim against your employer.
But Andy, we are told your employer has a fraud rate of about
20 percent on new subscribers; that he expects to get defrauded
by one out of every five new members and that he factors that
in to the budget. At the very least, Steve Case could deny
off-site mail, Usenet news and other Internet privileges
until the bank tells him the credit card or checking account
used belongs to a real person who has confirmed their membership
couldn't he? I mean, let them mess all over your chat rooms and
forums unvalidated if you want, but please keep them away from
the rest of us.
Oh, and Andy, in case you were thinking the 'common carrier'
argument would get AOL out of any responsibility for this -- in
the event Barnard is as pure as the new fallen snow and the
authorities are unable to make him a criminal no matter how hard
they try -- in that event, if you think 'common carrier' is going
to save you, then you best get a better attorney. As soon as you
started tampering with the mail in that fight with Cyber Promotions
you blew the common carrier thing right out of the water. In fact
Andy, I'll bet Cyber Promotions is splitting their sides with
laughter right now ... what do you think?
If by some chance you do get out of this unscathed Andy, and
the bad PR may be worse in the long run than any legal action
against you, my recommendation is Steve Case had better start
blowing his nose with a silk handkerchief. Best clean up that
whole operation a lot. Your welcome.
Well, now it is Wednesday, just about, so let's see if anyone gets
arrested either as pornographer or messenger and bearer of false
witness. We live in exciting times don't we! PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:55:26 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Access the Internet" by Peal
BKACCINT.RVW 960624
"Access the Internet", David Peal, 1995, 0-7821-1744-9, U$22.99
%A David Peal dpeal@ix.netcom.com
%C 2021 Challenger Drive, Alameda, CA 94501
%D 1995
%G 0-7821-1744-9
%I Sybex Computer Books
%O U$22.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 info@sybex.com
%P 349
%T "Access the Internet"
This book is documentation for NetCruiser, the set of access tools for
use with the Netcom Internet Service Provider. Third party docs are
usually nothing to write home about, particularly when the product is
ISP specific. Peal, though, has done a very good job of integrating
the actual use of the net in with directions on what buttons to push.
His explanations are thorough and useful, and he adds helpful tips on
topics from uuencoding to netiquette, as well as interesting
historical tidbits.
For the majority of Internet users who *don't* use Netcom, this book
will be of little interest. For those who are signed up with Netcom,
you have a very handy guide specially built for you.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKACCINT.RVW 960624. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: CIR Webmaster <webmaster@cir-inc.com>
Subject: Narrowband Access Will Survive the Broadband Revolution
Date: 22 Oct 1996 09:31:02 -0400
Organization: Mail to Usenet Gateway
[ News release reposted from http://www.cir-inc.com/news/broadbandAccess.html ]
NEWS RELEASE
Communications Industry Researchers, Inc.
PO Box 5387
Charlottesville, VA 22905 Contact: Lawrence Gasman
(804) 984-0245
(804) 984-0247 (fax) Phone: (804) 984 0245 x 11
http://www.cir-inc.com/ e-mail: ldg@cir-inc.com
October 21, 1996
Narrowband Access Will Survive the Broadband Revolution Says Report
$11.8 Billion in Narrowband Internet Access Forecast
Charlottesville, VA--For more than a year, service providers and
equipment vendors alike have been in a state of excitement about
broadband access. xDSL, cable modems -- even ATM -- are said to
promise a brave new world of high-speed Internet access,
video-on-demand and much more. Some analysts believe that broadband
access will lead content developers to build a new class of
high-quality multimedia content products.
But the market for narrowband access will continue to thrive according
to a new report from Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. (CIR),
a leading high-tech market research house based here. The new CIR
report, Who Needs Broadband Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis
predicts that even by the year 2006, narrowband access revenues will
be worth almost $80 billion.
"We believe that high-speed network access is the wave of the future,"
says Lawrence D. Gasman, the project manager, "but don't expect the
narrowband infrastructure to go away anytime soon." According to CIR,
the reason for this is that there will be many applications for which
narrowband access -- including POTS, ISDN, X.25 and frame relay --
will remain the most cost effective solution. For example, CIR expects
the revenues from narrowband business video to grow from $1.4 billion
today to $9.4 billion in 2006, while revenues from narrowband access
to the Internet and online services will grow to $11.8 billion from
$2.7 billion over the same period.
Who Needs Broadband Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis takes an
applications-oriented look at the access issue. Examining both
established and emerging communications markets, it analyzes where and
when access technologies will be required and indicates where narrowband
technologies will continue to make business sense. Who Needs Broadband
Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis takes a unique look at how
different applications are shaping the access infrastructure of
telephone companies, cable television companies and Internet service
providers. It compares narrowband and broadband access technologies in
both business and residential markets and examines the impact of
emerging applications such as corporate intranets, the World Wide Web,
videoconferencing, telemedicine and distance learning on access rates
and technologies.
The Table of Contents and Executive Summary for Who Needs Broadband
Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis are available at CIR's Web
site (http://www.cir-inc.com).
It is priced at $3,500 and provides detailed volume and value forecasts
by applications and technology as well as complete descriptions of major
application trends. Further details of these studies can be obtained
from Robert Nolan at 617-484-2077.
Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. has been in business since
1979 and publishes market studies and newsletters and carries out
demanding custom market research assignments on the commercial aspects
of new communications technologies.
------------------------------
From: Fred_Atkinson/SkyTel_at_SkyTelNotesPO@mtel.com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 14:14:00 CST
Subject: FLEX Protocol Articles Wanted For Research
Does anyone know of any articles on FLEX (acronym for 'flexible wide
area protocol') that have been printed within that last five months?
I need at least two more for my term paper. The professor requires
three articles that are less than six months old.
FLEX is the newest protocol that is being adopted by the paging
industry.
Thanks for any information you can provide.
Fred
------------------------------
From: Ben Kuhn <bkuhn@jldavis.com>
Subject: Seeking Material on 8th Circuit Stay of Interconnection Order
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:54:41 -0400
Mr. Townson,
The law firm I work for represents small rural telephone
cooperatives. We are trying to get as much info on the recent stay
handed down by the 8th Circuit. I found the article in your Telecom
Digest very helpful. If you have further information regarding this
issue, please forward same at your convenience to my address
(bkuhn@jldavis.com). Especially helpful (since I have been unable to
locate it), would be the text of the 8th Circuit' opinion. However,
any other useful info would be extremely helpful, and much appreciated.
Thanks,
Ben Kuhn
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could some of you who have information
on this forward your files to Ben? He thanks you; so do I. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:44:13 GMT
From: Denis Moreeuw <denismor@mtec.com.br>
Subject: Programming Fax/Modem
Dear Friends,
I have a project in course and I need some information. I intend to
program the bios of the fax/modem, not to communicate but only to
capture the signals of the phone line and show on a video what is
occuring. Must display all data, in and out between two machines. My
idea is reprogramming the chip mounted on the board to do this task. I
would like to know if it's possible and, in case of yes, how can I get
the informations that I need. Must run under windows 3.xx. Any
information to help me will be apreciated.
Best Regards,
Denis Moreeuw -----> Electronic Engineer
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
denismor@mtec.com.br
------------------------------
From: mma@fox.nstn.ca
Subject: Questions About Spread Spectrum
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 22:27:28 GMT
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network
I am shopping around for a 900MHz cordless phone. One of the 900MHz
cordless phone advertised it is using spread spectrum trchnologies.
What is spread spectrum and what is its advantage over others without
spread sprectrum?
Thanks,
Mike
------------------------------
From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards)
Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 19:36:32 GMT
Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service
In article <telecom16.554.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Jeffrey Rhodes
<jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> There was a good article in the October Wired "Dataheads vs.
> Bellheads". DHs believe the Internet should remain *free* or at least
> unlimited (never mind that the call model that feeds the Internet is
> imbalanced)
The real difference is between a circuit-switched environment where you
either get through or you don't, and the packet-switched internet where
congestion means delays long before it results in denial of service.
> and BHs like me believe the Internet will eventually come
> to the same economic, usage sensitive solutions that the public
> switched network has adopted.
Personally, I see Internet connectivity being sold like Frame Relay
service- 24x7 availability, no per-packet charge, but your monthly
rate is based on both how 'wide' a pipe you have (burstable bandwidth)
and the 'Committed Information Rate', or maximum guaranteed bandwidth.
For example, you might have a 128Kbps link to an ISP, but you'd pay
less per month if you were only 'guaranteed' 32Kbps- most of the time
you'd still get the full bandwidth, but at periods of heavy load you'd
run the risk of being throttled down to your CIR.
> Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat that for $19.95 a month I can
> call Europe any time I want with Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs
> can't support this for everyone and make any money. I would think the
> flat rate would need to be more like $100-200 a month for this.
Actually, it's not quite that bad. We have a 'dedicated' analog account
rate of $50/month, which some people say is too high, others ask us how
we can offer it so cheap :-)
> Do ISPs with low flat rate service make any money now, or does
> investment pour in anyway based on "cash flow" like it did in the
> early years of cellular when only equipment manufacturers were
> making any money?
There's a big difference between a 'low flat rate' on a personal account
which on the average is used for a few minutes/day, and a real, dedicated
account where the capacity exists to allow users to be on 24x7.
The monthly recurring cost to your ISP for the phone line alone is greater
than the $19.95 you're paying for 'unlimited' access ...
David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago
But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
dr@ripco.com (312) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
------------------------------
From: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven)
Subject: Re: Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:22:07 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
Call Cross Communications in Encino, California and speak to Mike and
he will credit your credit card.
I was the Cross Com agent that signed up RJ and Joel Kaye and then all
of us, our customers, the agents, etc. got SCREWED by Cross Com.
They are not ugly and threatening and violent and unethical. But if
you speak to Mike (an employee) and explain the situation, he might
credit your card. We were promised no monthly minimums and then they
changed the policy on us without warning, among other egregious
problems.
I don't have their phone number but you can look it up in Encino
directory assistance.
Good luck.
------------------------------
From: wkim@medialight.com (Will Kim)
Subject: Re: Cable Modems
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 13:46:25 GMT
Organization: MediaLight Inc.
In article <telecom16.543.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote:
> ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard
> copper phone lines.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something
like that. :)
Will Kim MediaLight Inc.
wkim@medialight.com 20 Queen St W, Suite 208
416.598.3200 / 1.888.999.ADSL x222 Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 Canada
World's First ADSL PC Card http://www.medialight.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In defense of Tad Cook, he is one of a
couple 'press watchers' who contribute here on a regular basis with
interesting items found in the print media. The item in question came
from a newspaper in Florida, and I'll grant you the newspapers would
do well to research things a bit better than they do. A letter to that
newspaper might be in order. PAT]
------------------------------
From: fringer@midget.towson.edu (Craig A. Fringer)
Subject: Re: Divestiture Not Good For Consumer? (was Re: ISP Access Fees)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 15:22:32 GMT
Organization: Towson State University, Towson, MD
Having followed this thread a bit, I wanted to insert my two cents.
In my mind the critical question concerning divestiture is; Public
Utility or Competitive Service? I can fathom the competition in
terminal equipment. Perhaps the customer's ability to choose
equipment has caused innovation. The essential network, the service
that the equipment attaches to, I believe, is utility.
I do not look forward to competition for local dialtone. Who is going to
fix the problems? Having worked in the telecommunications field, I am
quite familiar with the finger pointing that already exists when a phone
doesn't work. I feel it will only get worse.
I have just concluded reading Peter Temin's "The Fall of the Bell
System". As a result, it is my feeling that AT&T may have needed some
constraint but the needs of the network and the customer were met. Now
that we have a market driven service, I am not convinced that we are
better off.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #560
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 11:46:26 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA08070; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610231546.LAA08070@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #561
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 11:46:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 561
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Matthew B. Landry)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Andrew C. Green)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Derek Balling)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Fred Farzanegan)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Mark Gabriele)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Hillary Gorman)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Craig Macbride)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Michael Ellis)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Martin Baines)
Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US (Steve Forrette)
Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US (Clarence Dold)
Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (John Cropper)
Re: AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs (Bill Newkirk)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mbl@mail.msen.com (Matthew B. Landry)
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
Date: 22 Oct 1996 19:10:08 GMT
Organization: Flunkies for the Mike Conspiracy
Our Beloved Moderator wrote:
> reputation for using Federal Express/Airborne/United Parcel Service to
> deliver a great deal of business correspondence. Those companies were
> forced to produce all the records of every letter (as opposed to larger
I'd be interested to see what the warrant/subpoena for that
looked like. Didn't civil liberties groups get upset at the idea that
being a customer of a courier or express service gives the government
the right to demand copies of all the mail you've sent?
Can Americans ever FedEx safely again?
Matthew Landry
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone else has pointed out that the
companies were tricked into producing their records with the USPS
claiming they wanted to help the companies do better with mail. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:00:35 -0500
From: Andrew C. Green <acg@dlogics.com>
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
rvirzi@gte.com (Robert A. Virzi) writes:
> I came across this blurb. One can read it as a move by the USPS to move
> its lucrative junk mail program to cyberspace. Note the wording, 'bulk
> mailers'. -Bob
Duly noted; comments below ...
> The U.S. Postal Service has signed agreements with three California
> companies (Cylink, Sun and Enterprise Productivity) as part of its
> expanding activities in electronic mail services. Cylink will provide
> a system for electronically postmarking and encrypting messages; Sun
> and Enterprise Productivity will provide software that will let bulk
> mailers calculate the price of mail shipments on the Internet.
Bulk mailers, not bulk emailers. I believe they're referring to a web
page or some such USPS-supported service that will allow the mailer to
enter specs on his proposed post office third- or fourth-class mailing
such as ZIP codes to be sent to, weight per piece, etc., and get a
quote in return for mailing expenses to be incurred. Nowhere does it
indicate, IMHO, that the finished product, the mailing, is actually an
email ad campaign.
Perhaps rewording their last sentence to read "... will let bulk mailers
calculate on the Internet the price of mail shipments" would have been
better.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I will tell you something else that
> is ***bad news*** where having the US Postal Disservice involved in the
> the net is concerned: There will be no more messing around by ISP's
> deciding what junk-email they want to deliver and what they do not
> want to deliver. For example, in AOL's case, that lawsuit by Cyber
> Promotions accusing them of 'censoring' their mail would be a moot point
> because under US Postal Regulations, no one can tamper with mail which
> is addressed to a person other than themselves or their employer (if
> their employer has assigned them the duty of opening/reading/sorting
> mail, etc.)
But nothing relating to email falls under the purview of the United
States Postal Service, even if we call it "mail" instead of "email".
Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431
Datalogics, Inc.
441 W. Huron Internet: acg@dlogics.com
Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, nothing does presently, but they
know a good deal when they see one. They are going to get into
delivering it also, although I doubt they would claim -- or be
successful if they did claim -- to have any monopoly on it. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:17:21 -0500
From: Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org>
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
Pat wrote:
> So although you now can treat junk-email with the respect and priority
> handling it deserves <grin> ... if you are an ISP for example and some
> clown sends out fifty gazillion pieces of identical spam **via the
> postal disservice connection to the net** you WILL deliver that mail.
> If a spammer emails his stuff to five-thousand-newsgroups@uunet for
> another example, that spam will show up in all five thousand newsgroups
> and a federal-level felony conviction is in store for whoever chooses
> to tamper with the mail. To do otherwise would be the same as someone
> coming up to your mailbox and taking the stuff out and walking away
> with it or otherwise detroying it, etc.
Here's the trick to that. You cannot just "bitbucket" the mail. What
you CAN do is "Return to Sender - Not Being Reimbursed By USPS To
Route" the mail. If you receive mail to someone other than yourself,
your ONLY responsibility is to mark it "RTS". In fact, you can in turn
say to the USPS that by not routing the mail directly to the recipient
(ie. is the user joeblow@isp.com running their own SMTP server, or are
they routing it through the ISP's server?) that the USPS is violating
its own regulations (that they may not, knowingly, deliver mail to
anyone other than the intended recipient).
Just take the USPS right out of the equation. The only mail they can
legally deliver to an ISP under their own charter is to the OWNER of
the SMTP-server.
Derek J. Balling
dredd@megacity.org
http://www.megacity.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:50:05 +0000
From: Fred Farzanegan <fredf@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
The USPS tried before in the electronic mail arena back in the late
80s. It flopped.
I believe that PAT's response is a little hysterical -- the mail
system that's covered by federal law is that of physical mail
delivery. Electronic mail 'tampering' is not covered by any stretch
of the imagination.
The reason email spammers are hated is that they claim "free mailing".
It is true that sending a 100K mailing list is essentially free for
the sender, but costs each recipient the online time and fees
associated with reading email. Junk snail mail is encouraged by the
USPS (low rates), etc. because everything involved between the sender
and receiver is paid for by the sender.
The USPS _can't_ charge for email delivery unless they provide the
email boxes as well. This may be their line of thinking as it was
what they tried a decade ago. I support this kind of thing -- imagine
an email account that doesn't cost you a penny to read your mail. But
it costs some trivial amount to send mail. Advertisers would have to
PAY to send you email which would certainly cut down on the crap.
They'd also have to abide by the various mail fraud acts. It would
legitimize electronic mail if they did it right.
Email spammers may be prosecutable under U.S. code.
If it costs the recipient money to read an ad (Fax machine), or is
done by an electronic means (pre-recorded messages), it is illegal and
is fined at $500 PER INSTANCE. It doesn't take a genius to see how it
could apply to email. This code was written in the days of automated
telephone spammers and FAX machine spammers- those demons have been
slain. The next beast on the block are the e-spammers.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular
telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio
common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is
charged for the call;
(B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line
using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is
initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by
the Commission under
paragraph (2)(B);
(C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to
send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; or
------------------------------
From: gabriele@rand.org (Mark Gabriele)
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
Date: 22 Oct 1996 17:59:47 GMT
Organization: The RAND Corporation
In article <telecom16.555.13@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, rvirzi@gte.com (Robert
A. Virzi) wrote:
> POSTAL SERVICE E-MAIL PLANS
> The U.S. Postal Service has signed agreements with three California
> companies (Cylink, Sun and Enterprise Productivity) as part of its
> expanding activities in electronic mail services. Cylink will provide
> a system for electronically postmarking and encrypting messages; Sun
> and Enterprise Productivity will provide software that will let bulk
> mailers calculate the price of mail shipments on the Internet.
> (Washington Post 17 Oct 96 A21)
[...long rant by moderator deleted...]
No, I read this as saying that bulk mailers will be able to enter
information about the type, weight, and destination of their
*physical, paper mailing* into a fancy calculator that is available
via the internet (probably a Web site).
In another correction: The {New York Times} story on the courier
vs. USPS scam that PAT cites described it somewhat differently: postal
authorities contacted the companies under the guise of "can we observe
your operations and help show you how the USPS can serve your needs
better." The auditors showed up, watched how things worked, and
reported back with an estimate of how much "first class" mail was sent
by courier instead. The USPS billed the companies, who all called
their congresspeople, and the charges were withdrawn.
Not quite as malevolent, and thus lacking the theatrical quality of a
really good urban legend, but I think it's probably a bit more accurate.
Mark Gabriele / gabriele@rand.org
------------------------------
From: hillary@netaxs.com (hillary gorman)
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:48:45 -0400
Organization: Downtown branch of Dip'nStrip has moved
TELECOM Digest Editor Noted:
> You didn't know that did you? When the US Postal Disservice becomes
> involved in the net, your mailbox will become their mailbox, just as
> now, the regulations state that no one can place anything in a mailbox
> which does not have the proper postage. Watch how when the post office
> becomes involved in the net and in email in a big way how they start
> to get very heavy-handed and breathe on you.
Excuse me, but that's a load of BS if you ask me (although, you
weren't asking, were you? <G>). The mailbox we all know and love, that
we all keep somewhere on our property, is property of the USPS, not
private property. My network, on the other hand, is MINE. *NO ONE*
can tell me that I have to recieve ANY unwanted traffic on my network.
I don't think there's anything the USPS can do to change that, either.
Unless my bandwidth and storage media is going to be subsidized by the
USPS ...
hillary
http://www.hillary.net
info@hillary.net
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except don't forget *who* bought that
mailbox which sits in front of your house. You bought it, installed
it, and then the under the law you gave it for free to the post office
for the delivery of mail. USPS did not buy it and install it there or
pay you to hang it on the front of your house. Neither do they pay you
to walk out to the corner (or the street in front of your house, etc)
to get your mail. If they don't pay for the little metal mailbox on
the front of your house that they expect you to install for their
exclusive use under penalty of law, what makes you think they are
going to buy you a computer or pay for any bandwidth? I have always
wondered about the situations where there is a slot in the front door
or next to the front door and they shove the mail through that slot
and it falls directly onto the floor in your home or office. I wonder
if they claim exclusive rights to that little slot also? PAT]
------------------------------
From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: 22 Oct 1996 18:41:22 GMT
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) writes:
> You want cellular numbers to be local to the city where the
> subscriber lives.
Why even do that? Why not make them local to wherever the cellular
phone currently is? If I'm standing 10 feet from you and call you on
my cellular phone, that should be a local call, regardless of where
either of our homes is.
Given that model, it is extremely easy to allocate area codes. You
just allocate a new one to a service provider when they need one, and
it doesn't matter what the number is, because they are not used in any
way for charging, which is according to the current location of the
phone, wherever it may be.
Craig Macbride <craig@rmit.edu.au> URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm
------------------------------
From: s9607948@westgate.vut.edu.au (Michael Ellis)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Organization: Victoria University of Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:52:44 GMT
Phillip Ritter (RitterP@coxpcs.com) wrote:
> In TELECOM Digest V16 #551 jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) writes:
>> I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers
>> required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area
>> code in each state to cover cell phones and beepers.
>> This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having
>> to use ten digits to place local calls.
> The current state of affairs is that the FCC has ruled that there can
> not be a "service specific overlay" of NPAs within the US portion of
> the NANP. What effect this will have on the New York situation is
> unclear at this point, but there cannot be a new overlay specific to a
> given service (e.g., a "wireless only" overlay).
> The reasoning is, basically, that over time the FCC desires that all
> providers of telecommunications service will be allowed to compete
> "head to head". This means that the IXCs and CAPs are getting ready
> for competitive local exchange service, the LECs are getting ready to
> provide inter-exchange service, and the CMRS carriers (wireless) will
> be allowed to provide "fixed wireless local loop" services. Forcing
> the CMRS providers into an overlay NPA is seen as anti-competitive
> when these carriers try to compete with traditionally "wired"
> services.
> Whether you agree or not, it is currently the "law of the land" (well,
> actually, the R&O that finalized this ruling is the subject of a
> "stay" until January for other reasons, but I don't think that this
> part is currently in hot dispute. Service specific overlays do not
> solve the NPA split problem without adding new significant number
> administration problems.
Unfair unfair unfair?
I don't believe it is so. We've got overlays for mobile phones in
Australia and they work wonderfully.
014/015/017/018/019 are for analogue mobiles ... ie. 018 018 111.
0410/0411/0412/0414/0416/0418/0419 are for digital mobiles ... ie. 0419
588 262.
Calls from mobiles are charged at off peak or peak rates, depending on
the FlexiPlan, and they also have a distance component, under 175km or
over 175km. Simple as that.
Calls to mobiles are caller-pays (I insist it's logical), and because
of the prefixes, no one get's confused.
Your idea of assimilating mobiles into normal area codes etc. just
doesn't work. The only way to get it to work is to charge the mobile
customer airtime, and this is even more stupid.
BeMike
------------------------------
From: Martin Baines <martinb@reading.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:11:36 +0100
Organization: Silicon Graphics
Seeing this discussion regarding the idea of separating US mobile
"area" codes from other codes I was surprised to see the FCC seem to
be taking a very different line from the regulator here in the UK.
Over here, mobiles have always been on different dialing codes and
have had national coverage. This has also allowed them to always be
charged differently from geographic calls -- hence charges for inbound
calls on mobiles are non-existent (except when roaming outside the
country).
In the latest numbering proposals, OFTEL is suggesting placing mobile
codes in similar number space to other non-geographic numbers, which
to me seems pretty sensible.
If anyone is interested, the proposals can be found at
http://www.open.gov.uk/oftel/num896.htm
I'd be interest to hear view from people in the US.
Martin Baines - Telecommunications Market Consultant
Silicon Graphics, 1530 Arlington Business Park, Theale, Reading, UK, RG7
4SB
email: martinb@reading.sgi.com
phone: +44 118 925 7842 fax: +44 118 925 7606
vmail: +1 800 326 1020 (in USA), 0800 896020 (in UK), mailbox: 57940
URL: http://reality.sgi.com/martinb_reading/
Surf's Up at Silicon Graphics: http://www.sgi.com/International/UK/
------------------------------
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US
Date: 22 Oct 1996 17:47:53 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn
In article <telecom16.557.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
says:
> The thing that really frosts _me_ is that they apparently can't
> transport stutter dialtone control any other way than to backhaul SMDI
> to every switch.
Why would telco want to allow this to happen over SS7? If they did
that, it might just open the doors up to a viable competitor to their
unregulated voice mail offering. You see, the way it is now, having
to have a leased facility to each switch for the SMDI connection, the
only way to (profitably) offer voice mail with stutter dialtone is to
have a substantial market penetration in the entire area, to allow you
have enough customers on each switch to pay for the SMDI link. The
current policy creates a convenient (for telco) "Catch-22", making it
prohibitively expensive for a voice mail provider to offer stutter
dialtone unless they have a large market penetration, which of course
they will never get unless they already offer stutter dialtone.
Another tariffing trick is the difference between "busy/no answer
transfer" and "busy/no answer transfer extended." In Washington
State, the first offering costs something like $.45/month for a
residential line, but allows forwarding only within the same switch.
The second offering does exactly the same thing, but allows forwarding
outside of the switch, and costs $2.45/month for a residential line.
What is the cost basis justification in the difference between these
two services? None, really. In forwarded calls that leave the
switch, the forwarding customer has to pay for the call, either as a
toll call if it's long distance, or through message units (or higher
monthly rates for unmeasured service) for local calls.
Did you know that telco voice mail actually has leased circuits from
the voice mail platform to each switch for all of the incoming calls
to voice mail, in addition to the SMDI link? This way, the busy/no
answer transfer that the "unregulated" voice mail side of telco
purchases from the regulated side is the non-extended version, since
the switch routes it to the voice mail platform over the leased line,
instead of over the regular switched network.
For any other provider to try to compete with this, they either have
an enormous investment in leased ciruits to make, which will never be
profitable without capturing a large percentage of the voice mail
market, or they have to use the "extended" transfer, in which case the
regulated services they must purchase make their "raw goods" cost
again too high to compete.
Add to this that busy/no answer transfer extended nor SMDI stutter
dialtone were tariffed at all until immediately prior to the
unregulated side of telco offering voice mail, and it's no wonder that
the "competitive" unregulated side of telco has virtually the entire
market of CO-based voice mail.
And, all of this goes on under the ever-vigilant watchful eye of the
PUC, who is told that the unregulated side of telco is playing
perfectly fair, since it is doing nothing other than purchasing all
regulated services at the tariffed rate, just like anyone else is able
to do. Hmmm ...
Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
------------------------------
From: Clarence Dold <dold@rahul.net>
Subject: Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US
Date: 22 Oct 1996 21:55:56 GMT
Organization: a2i network
Bill McMullin (bill@interactive.ca) wrote:
> We are trying to determine which RBOCs are currently delivering the
> Original Called Number across their SS7 networks. In case you are not
> clear the Original Called Number is the number first dialed in a call
> which subsequently gets forwarded through Call Forwarding.
We have recently been catching this. In our case, it is often a
customer who has their phone forwarded to our voice mail. On the Dex
switch, there is a field CL, that holds the Calling ANI, except in the
case of a forwarded call, where it becomes the ANI of the original
caller. The most recent addition to the chain, our customer, falls
into a field PN, or Third Party Number, which is the ANI to be billed
for this leg of the call. PN is usually vacant. In the case of an
800 number being used to forward the call, PN might be an 800 number,
or it might be the forwarding ANI, which we then have to correlate to
an 800 RingTo, for lack of any other indicator.
As nearly as I can tell, this started happening the day PacBell turned
on Caller ID.
Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net
- Pope Valley & Napa CA.
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:35:59 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
Joann wrote:
> Recently, I had a phone installed in Silver Spring, MD, which is in
> Bell Atlantic territory. When he was checking to make sure he had the
> right `line (there are six pairs coming into the house, and currently
> only two are in use), the lineman dialed a number for the DNIC
> recording to tell from which phone number he was calling.
Bell Atlantic also uses '958' in much of its service area for ANI
purposes.
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
From: Bill Newkirk <wenewkirk@rodes.cca.rockwell.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:08:14 -0400
Organization: Rockwell Avionics/Collins
Reply-To: wenewkirk@rodes.cca.rockwell.com
Richard J. Kinch wrote:
> The AT&T "Death Star" logo comes in two very different versions, one for
> light and one for dark backgrounds. The corporate trademark compliance
> document is very strict about using these properly. But you are forever
> seeing the opposite logo on banners, imprinted trinkets, broadcast TV,
> etc.
OK, it's not unusual for a company to be jealous over their various
trademarks, but what's the visual cue to know they used the wrong logo
in the wrong application? Sort of like the ligatures used in the last
couple of Rockwell logos, for example.
Bill Newkirk (who has a bag with "the system is the solution" and the
last "Bell" bell logo embossed in it that we discovered behind some
furniture some years ago when rearranging the office ... no doubt left
here when the old dimension system was up for replacement some two or
three pbxes ago...)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #561
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 14:51:27 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id OAA27780; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610231851.OAA27780@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #562
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 562
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Mark R. Wilkins)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Alan Dahl)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Gary Breuckman)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Scott Montague)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Mariana Sanchez)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Alex T. Ramos)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Wes Leatherock)
Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (I-Contact Media)
Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (grendel6@ix.net)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Babu Mengelepouti)
Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Ed Kleinhample)
Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Stuart Zimmerman)
Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Herb Oxley)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:28:31 PDT
From: Mark R. Wilkins <mrw@muddcs.cs.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA
In article <telecom16.555.16@massis.lcs.mit.edu> you write:
> I did not have anything
> confused at all. Here is the rule once again:
> Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent
> of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate
> with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation;
> (essentially in recievership).
> Note I did not say a fifteen percent failure rate (with eighty five
> percent of the students passing) I said a fifteen percent *success*
> rate with not more than eighty five percent of the students unable
> to reach the desired goals.
"Any public school in which at least fifteen percent are unable to read
and write..."
That means any school with a failure rate equal to or more than fifteen
percent is to be placed on probation, because at least fifteen percent of the
students are unable to meet the standard.
I'm afraid you have been confused by the language of the rule.
Mark Wilkins
------------------------------
From: Alan Dahl <alan.dahl@attws.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 18:29:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
You know PAT, I have read and re-read this rule and unless I'm missing
a double negative I just don't read it that way. What I *think* it
says is that if more than 15% _can't_ read that the school will be
placed on probation. What makes you think it says the opposite?
While I suspect that the school system in Chicago is probably nothing
to write home about I can't imagine that it's _that_ bad without
someone, at least outside of the city, making a National issue of
it. Or is Kelly Bundy more representative of the Chicago school system
than I'd like to think?
P.S. You misspelled "receivership" in the quote above. "i" before "e" except
after "c", remember? ;-)
Alan Dahl
Axys Core Development Team alan.dahl@attws.com
AT&T Wireless Services Phone: (206) 702-5231
P.O. Box 97060 Fax: (206) 702-5452
Kirkland, WA 98083-9760 http://www.eskimo.com/~adahl
------------------------------
From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman)
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 03:23:08 GMT
I think the person who wrote was correct, and your view not correct, on
the percentages in the quote. "at least 15 percent...unable...will be
placed on academic probation" means to me that 15 percent unable =
probation, 20 percent unable = probation, etc.
By the way,
recievership should be receivership
eighty five should be eighty-five
twenty five should be twenty-five
seventy five should be seventy-five
embarassment should be embarrassment
harrassment should be harassment
I really enjoy the digest. I hope you don't think I'm being too picky
here, but it was the topic of your article.
puma@netcom.com
------------------------------
From: Scott Montague <4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca>
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:06:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
I hate to say this Pat, but I believe you are wrong. Perhaps we
speak a different language up here in Canada, but if I read this
correctly, it's saying any school in which MORE than 15% of students
FAIL to read and write at the proper level will be placed on academic
probation.
Give it a re-read with my emphasis added.
> Any public school in Chicago in which at LEAST fifteen percent
> of the students are UNABLE to read and write at a level
> commensurate with their age and grade-level will be placed on
> academic probation; (essentially in recievership).
Therefore, to restate, If 15% or MORE of the students of a school can
NOT read and write at the level appropriate for their age, the school
will be placed on academic probation.
I'll promise to run this by my local English teacher if you do... :)
Scott Montague / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tomorrow
4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I agree that the way I phrased it was
incorrect. The circumstances are however that if 15 of 100 students in
the school are at the level they should be, the school is considered
a success by Chicago standards. If more than 85 of the 100 students
are not up to the level they should be then the school needs help.
Interestingly, when this item appeared in the Chicago papers, there
were people writing to the papers saying the same as yourself, 'surely
you must have the figures backward ...' nope ... PAT]
------------------------------
From: sancmari@telefonica.com.ar
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 16:03:00 PDT
Hello Pat and all of you reading,
I have been following the great ammount of articles that have been
written in the last weeks about this subject and I think that I can
add some additional comments.
In first place, I may say that for those of us that English is not our
native tongue (and if you followed the last year publications, you
must have noticed that we are an interesting quantity) it is easier to
follow the ideas if we can recognize the words than if we have to
start guessing what was intended to be said. To be fair, I have to say
that many times it is just a question of ignorance (or "luck of
information" as I have been previously told) but if you are not living
in USA, you cannot follow the "last tendencies" in language (that is
one of the reasons for not using contractions, all of the others are
related with a very stiff education).
Besides, and I know this will probably mean nothing for many of you, I
think that perhaps a sociologist will help more about this than we
all. This behave of changing words, lessening vocabulary, just using
"common words" is not a privilege of your country, not even your
language. Spanish is a very rich language, full of different words
that allows you to express exactly what you want to say and not
something just similar ... or it used to be like that. Generation after
generation have been reducing the available expressions to a handful
of them and even changing their meaning. We are witnesses of the
defeat of culture. How many of you can say that have ever read a book
of a writer that won the Literature Nobel Prize? Not to talk about
classics. We just consume best sellers.
We, as telecommunications professionals are very responsible too. We
have been providing alternative enjoyment, leaving books back. You can
say whatever you want about it, the only way to have good spelling,
and manage a certain ammount of words is just reading and using them,
and that is what we have been losing.
It sounds like coming from an old old person. Well, I am not. I
include myself between all that people that are putting aside culture
but (at least) I still can feel guilty.
Mariana Sanchez
PS: All misspelling and other errors are just mistakes (there is no
intention on them).
------------------------------
From: Alex T. Ramos <atramos@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:24:06 -0500
Organization: Lucent Technologies
PAT,
After reading your two responses on this, I think you're glossing over
the "at least" and reading it as "less than", because your conclusion
is precisely backwards.
Let me attempt to prove it step by step:
Would you agree that the following four phrases can be substituted
as follows without a change in meaning:
"Any public school in Chicago" ==> "A School"
"at least fifteen percent of students" ==> "15% or more students"
"unable to read and write ... age and grade-level" ==> "illiterate"
"be placed on academic probation (essentially receivership)" ==> "Fail"
If you agree, then please substitute for the longer phrases
in your original statement:
> Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent
> of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate
> with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation;
> (essentially in recievership [sic]).
Simple string substitution then yields:
[A School] in which [15% or more students] are [illiterate] will [Fail].
If "U" is the universe set of schools, and "P(S)" is the percentage
of students who are illiterate in a given school "S", then the set
"F" of failed schools (schools in probation) is defined by
F = S in U where P(S) >= 15%
This leads to the following conclusions:
- A school with 14% illiterate students is a success (not in F). - A
school with 15% illiterate students is a failure (in F). - A school
with 15% literate students (85% illiterate) is a failure. etc..
> School has 1000 students. 150 of them can read and write. The
> other 850 are illiterate. The school is a success.
Your conclusion is backwards. Such school has 85% unable to read
and write, which is more than 15%, therefore it is a failure.
You must be glossing over the "at least" and reading it as "less than",
or reading the "unable to" as "able to", or something...
QED.
Alex T. Ramos
atramos@lucent.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The report in and of itself is so shocking
that the figures are quite naturally suspect. Add to that my own
error in the presentation and I can easily see your point. The figures
are how I meant them, regardless of how I said them. There is some
concern in Chicago right now about it. In fact the entire Board of Educa-
cation was fired and replaced by another bunch of cronies who will
report directly to Mayor Daley. They'll see if they can do any better.
All responsibility for financial matters was taken away from the Board
several years ago when they went into a form of bankruptcy used by
municipal and government bodies which cannot pay their bills and was
turned over to the 'School Finance Authority' -- another bunch of
cronies who report to the governor rather than the mayor. PAT]
------------------------------
From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 01:50:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
In a comment to Joe Schumacher's and John R. Ruckstuhl's
posts, Pat wrote:
> There are those people who say we should pay attention to the message
> itself and not the way it is delivered, and that we discourage people
> from presenting very valuable thoughts and ideas if we insist that
> they present them in a grammatically correct way with correct spelling
> and punctuation. I feel that the presentation is part of the package,
> and that a carefully presented (i.e. spell-checked and
> grammar-checked) message has some additional credibility to it. I only
> wish I could give as much attention to this Digest as it needs, but it
> has become almost an assembly-line process as the messages march past
> on my screen one after another. Quality and quantity battle one another
> again.
Literate persons do not find that the message has been presented
if it is full of this kind of errors. If the readers understand the
language -- and obviously very many of us do -- "it's" and "its" are two
different words, with two entirely different meanings. So are "there,"
"their" and "they're." And many others.
So when you read them you discover you are reading gibberish
because the wrongly spelled words mean something different, and with
the different meaning the statement, sentence, whatever, does not make
any sense whatever.
It's true that you can decode it, but in the meantime your
thought process has come to a screeching halt and the flow of information
is broken. I've seen material that probably averages two errors a
sentence, and it's almost impossible to read because you're spending
all your time decoding it.
Normal reading does not involve decoding; you've learned how
to pass the information directly to your brain from the words.
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com
wes.leatherock@origins.bbs.uoknor.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 06:24:34 -0700
From: I-Contact Media <icmedia@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials
I think you still got this a little muddled; I think you wanted to say
"fifteen percent or less"; not "at least fifteen percent", which would
indicate the 15% success/ 85% failure rate to which you were referring.
Also, receivership is "i before e except after c."
Bob Ponce I-Contact Media Inc.
(914) 761-4328
Interactive Phone Cards/ Web Sites/ Promotion, Marketing and Public
Relations for Online Ventures/Profit Center Marketing/ Interactive Communities
------------------------------
From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Jeff)
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number
Date: 22 Oct 1996 23:09:33 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net
In the Yardley PA (215-493) 811 is "ringback", that is, you dial it,
wait for a second dial tone, dial 6, flash the hookswitch, and hang up.
Your phone will ring. No number information is given.
This code does NOT work in other Phila area exchanges.
This code works the same as "579" did years ago in the Phila area.
Speaking of return call, in New Jersey, if you dial 1169, the system
will tell you the number of the caller and ask you if you want to ring
it back. In my area, 1169 only rings the person back. Further, NJ
will ring back Penna, but Penna won't call NJ.
------------------------------
From: grendel6@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:53:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number
Here in BA/Pennsylvania land, it's 958-2323. As far as I know,
nothing else in the 958- NXX is assigned for anything. Dunno about
the Conestoga Telephone and other non-BA areas.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:01:58 PDT
From: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>
Reply-To: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I will tell you something else that
> is ***bad news*** where having the US Postal Disservice involved in the
> the net is concerned: There will be no more messing around by ISP's
> deciding what junk-email they want to deliver and what they do not
> want to deliver. For example, in AOL's case, that lawsuit by Cyber
> Promotions accusing them of 'censoring' their mail would be a moot point
> because under US Postal Regulations, no one can tamper with mail which
> is addressed to a person other than themselves or their employer (if
> their employer has assigned them the duty of opening/reading/sorting
> mail, etc.)
Point 1: Electronic mail is not subject to postal regulations. It would,
I think, literally take an act of Congress to do so. This is a
frightening prospect, because things are rarely a "new thing" for long
before they become "a new thing to tax." Nonetheless, it'd be
politically difficult to give an agency which is rife with inefficiency
and corruption control over the entire electronic frontier when it can't
even deliver snail mail properly.
Point 2: As a sysop (or an ISP), my computer's mine, NOT the Postal
Service's. And if I choose not to deliver its mail, that's my right.
The Postal Service is welcome to endeavour to deliver its spam and
whatever else DIRECTLY TO MY SUBSCRIBERS, WITHOUT me as an
intermediary. Furthermore, per the ECPA I provide no facility for
private communication on my system, therefore I can read whatever I
want to. I choose not to, but I reserve the right.
Point 3: Wind would soon be gotten of a new source of spam, and the
Postal Service would soon find that it cannot easily draft legions of
ISPs to assist in its efforts. They would have to resort to
delivering their version of email through their own POP servers,
assign email addresses to everyone, etc.
Point 4: Why would anyone pay the Postal Service lots of money for
something that they can do now for free? Try to take away free email
from internet users and the uproar will be tremendous. It's an
essentially universal service; you'd have everyone from businesses to
individuals to schools and universities up in arms. There's no way
you can do it "quietly" like Clinton is doing in creating a new
"anti-electronic-terrorism" branch of the FBI, or the monitoring of
domestic email done by the NSA.
.
/|\
//|\\ Welcome to the rainforest...
///|\\\
|dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
------------------------------
From: edhample@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare
Date: 23 Oct 1996 18:19:08 GMT
Organization: K-Systems
rabrody@earthlink.net (Richard Brody) writes:
> Today I finally got around to installing the voice/fax software that
> came with the computer (it's a new computer, took delivery last week).
> The program is Cheyenne Communications' BitWare VFD for Windows.
> Installation went along without a hitch. All features work fine,
> connections, transfers, etc. The voice/fax/data/pager answering
> system works flawlessly. I was impressed. :-)
> And then came the problem. :-(
> When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and
> attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually
> received this error from the dialer:
> "The com port is either being used by another application
> or is not supported."
> This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself.
> I then tried my DOS comm program, Telemate, and recieved:
> "Com port is busy."
<snip>
Very likely, what has happened is that your Fax software (BitWare) has
installed a program (possible to monitor the modem for incoming faxes)
that starts as soon as Windows starts up. Look in your Windows Startup
group (i.e. Program Manager group). If you don't see anything
suspicious in Startup, look in the Win.Ini for a "run=" line with
something suspicious.
Good luck,
Ed Kleinhample - Consultant
Land O' Lakes, FL
edhample@sprynet.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:35:11 -0400
From: Stuart Zimmerman <f_save@snet.net>
Reply-To: f_save@snet.net
Organization: Fone Saver
Subject: Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare
In TELECOM Digest V16 #558 Richard Brody wrote:
> When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and
> attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually
> received this error from the dialer:
> "The com port is either being used by another application
> or is not supported."
> This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself.
I have experience with several similar software packages. It appears
that you need to turn off the voicemail software before you try to use
your modem. The voicemail software is automatically loaded whenever
you go into windows. (It is either loaded through the win.ini file or
it is placed in the "STARTUP" group. Whenever you are in windows it
is running, unless you shut it off. If it is running, it has "rights"
to the COMM port it is assigned to, and will continually check the
COMM port to see if you are getting a call. Simply turn off the
program before you try to use your modem. That should solve your
problem.
Fone Saver, LLC
Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1
Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver
E-Mail: f_save@snet.net
------------------------------
From: hoxley@cybercom.net (Herb Oxley)
Subject: Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare
Date: 23 Oct 1996 12:39:59 GMT
Organization: Cyber Access Internet Communications, Inc.
It looks like BitWare is loading a Windows driver which takes over the
COM port you have configured (presumable to allow for background fax
reception.)
Unless there's an official way of stopping the driver, your workaround
(selecting a different COM port) is probably the best way to go.
> When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and
> attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually
> received this error from the dialer:
> "The com port is either being used by another application
> or is not supported."
This is the tipoff to BitWare still running.
> This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself.
> I then tried my DOS comm program, Telemate, and recieved:
> "Com port is busy."
If you're getting this outside of Windows (as opposed to running
Telemate from MS-DOS Prompt in Windows) Bitware may have installed a
resident program in your AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS file.
Herb
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #562
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 16:32:52 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id QAA08129; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:32:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:32:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610232032.QAA08129@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #563
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 16:32:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 563
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "Online Market Research" by Lescher (Rob Slade)
Cellular Anomalies -- Updates (Stanley Cline)
Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology (Dave Gellerman)
Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Re: SS7 Signalling Links (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum (Henry Baker)
Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum (Mariana Sanchez)
Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (Ed Ellers)
Re: 214/972 Split Observations (Brian Purcell)
Questions About Manchester Code (Isaac Fung)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:45:45 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Online Market Research" by Lescher
BKOLMRRS.RVW 960624
"Online Market Research", John F. Lescher, 1995, 0-201-48929-5, U$19.95/C$27.00
%A John F. Lescher jfl@vivamus.com
%C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984
%D 1995
%G 0-201-48929-5
%I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O U$19.95/C$27.00 800-822-6339 Fax: 617-944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com
%P 269
%T "Online Market Research"
Here is some market research for you. The latest business trend is to
write a book about doing some type of business, or some business
function, on the Internet. The competition is fierce, with everyone
and his dog putting something into the channel. The demographics
(dogs aside) tend to fall into one of two camps: business consultants
and hack writers. The products are almost uniformly terrible. (See
"Free Business Stuff From the Internet" [BKFRBUST.RVW], "How to Grow
Your Business on the Internet" [BKHTGYBI.RVW], and "World Wide Web
Marketing" [BKWWWMRK.RVW] for some singular exceptions.)
Lescher's work, of course, is not confined to the Internet. In fact,
aside from three chapters it concentrates on the commercial online
databases. (It does not, in fact, mention the Internet's major value:
that of access to potential customers and primary research.) However,
there is surprisingly little information about the actual task of
research. The major database firms are mentioned, and there is some
description of the material available, but little after that. The
"case studies" of research tend to suggest you do some, rather than
giving any pointers as to how you might. An explanation of boolean
logic for queries takes up a whole four pages, more than a page of
which is occupied by three simplistic diagrams. Tables of query terms
provide limited information on a whole two services.
For any technical writers out there, some market research for free:
there is a hole in the literature dealing with online business.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKOLMRRS.RVW 960624 Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | Nam tua res agitur, paries
Institute for rslade@vcn.bc.ca | cum proximus ardet.
Research into Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca | - For it is your
User rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | business, when the wall
Security Canada V7K 2G6 | next door catches fire.
------------------------------
From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Cellular Anomalies -- Updates
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:22:49 GMT
Organization: Catoosa Computing Services
Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com
An update on a couple of cellular-related things I've mentioned in the
Digest lately:
1) The "long distance local call" situation in Chattanooga was finally
fixed. After threatening BellSouth Mobility with an FCC complaint(!)
a BellSouth rep called and said the prefix was now "local" and would
no longer be subject to long distance charges. They still appear to
be routing calls to the area (Villanow, GA) through Sprint, but since
I don't get charged, how they route calls is irrelevant.
The situation with "long distance local calls" between Atlanta and=20
Newnan, GA is even worse than I thought, though:
(BellSouth/ATL)
ATL -> Newnan = home airtime + LD charge
Newnan -> ATL = 95c/min (InterCel) + LD charge
(AirTouch/ATL)
ATL -> Newnan = home airtime, NO LD charge
Newnan -> ATL = 35c/min (BWC/CellOne) + LD charge (even though
AirTouch switches Newnan CellOne's calls!)
(InterCel/Newnan)
Newnan -> ATL = home airtime, NO LD charge
ATL -> Newnan = 35c/min (AirTouch) or 50c/min (BellSouth),=20
LD applies for calls on both carriers.
Note that BellSouth's customers must pay LD for calls either to
Newnan from Atlanta, or from Newnan to Atlanta. Customers of the
other carriers get a break one way or the other...
Georgia is currently the only state where BellSouth doesn't have some
sort of "statewide local" or at least "statewide reduced roaming"=20
rate plan -- InterCel seems to be the reason why. (A BellSouth
Atlanta tech rep basically agreed with me, that InterCel was
"gouging".)
2) I confirmed that call completion ("just say yes") does NOT work
from US Cellular's territory (Knoxville, TN) -- as I mentioned,
USCC's calls are routed through a TDS Telecom CO and not BellSouth.
(I wish they'd recognize BellSouth customers and give us the call
completion, since it works in the rest of Tennessee.) =20
But USCC is too stingy to do that; they have not answered any of my
letters or [now] faxes about the Ocoee situation! I am filing
complaints not only with the FCC, but with the Tennessee Attorney
General (since USCC is providing patently misleading coverage maps,
has a listing in the Copperhill area phone directory when they have
no coverage there, etc.) One of their "roamer support" reps actually
ENCOURAGED me to file the complaints! How dare them!
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/
CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:23:13 -0400
From: dave_gellerman@Newbridge.COM (Dave Gellerman)
Subject: Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology
Organization: Newbridge Networks
In article <telecom16.540.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor
<ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> Here's a thumbnail sketch of the 56K technology. Readers may find it
> of value.
> The proposed 56 kb/s techology is designed for ISPs or anyone who can
> warrant a digital connection to the central office. The proposed scheme
> calls for a standard V.34 modem connection upstream from the user to the
> C.O., but the path to the ISP (or as Rockwell calls it,"central site")
> must be a digital connection, typically a T1 line.
Pat,
I just finished reading Rockwell's white paper while traveling yesterday,
and I think that you've mistated the bit about the upstream direction. I
don't recall anything in the paper talking about the upstream being a
standard V.34 modem connection, but rather, that the data rate being used
upstream would not need to be as high (fortunately, since they didn't feel
they could accurately control the symbol space in that direction).
The main reason I'm sending this is to make it clear that the user must
use a 56K modem in their PC, not an existing V.34 modem (unless this could
be added via a firmware change -- the white paper didn't address this
issue).
However, they did talk about the 56K modem being able to interoperate with
a conventional analog V.34 modem.
Actually I would call this "amplitude shift keying" rather than 56K
digital modems (but I'm not in the modem biz, so...) Clearly good digital
coding is also needed to ensure sufficiently low error rates (Rockwell
mentions Trellis8 but didn't get into any detail on it).
Dave Gellerman dave_gellerman@newbridge.com
Newbridge Networks http://www.newbridge.com
Herndon VA USA 703 736-5313
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:50:22 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Kevin Kadow wrote:
> If you look at the math, the new 56Kbps analog modems are more
> accurately 'fake digital modems'. The switch digitally samples the
> line voltage 8,000 times per second -- the modem 'guesses' when the
> sample is going to be taken, and puts just the right voltage on the
> line to get the switch to come up with the binary value the modem
> wants it to see.
> Basically, this is equivalent to ISDN's 56K DOSBS, but with one end
> being analog and 'tricking' the switch into producing the right binary
> values.
I finally gave up, but I once thought of using a similar technique of
"fooling" the US gateway to pass 32-56kbps DOSBS data past the
mu-law/A-law boundary. As I recall, there are over 240 of 256 PCM
words that map to unique values between mu-law/A-law. I thought of
sending a pattern of octets like 1, 2, 3 ... 256 to be echoed back
from Europe and looking for 128 "uniques", thereby being able to
encode 56kbps. If only 64 "uniques", then 48kbps, if only 32 "uniques"
then 40kbps, etc. This could be done dynamically for each call during
a negotiation phase after call setup, by each end of the call.
My collaborator at the other end was able to make his Euro-ISDN TA
answer a "voice" call as data and wrote a nifty C-program to echo back
any octet received. I called his setup from an analog line once and
"THIS IS VERY, this is very, INTERESTING, interesting, TO HEAR, to
hear" would echo back.
Some people gave me European digital loop-back numbers but these would
not answer a DOSBS call. I did discover that 19,200 async would echo
characters back correctly using a 64kbps clear channel, 38k4 async
would be about 45% correct, 57k2 was garbage.
If anyone at USR wants to consider this technique for crossing the
ocean with their X2 technology, I'd be willing to look for my notes on
the negotiation program I was considering.
> Yes, my company is one of the dozens of ISPs in and around Chicago who
> offer dialup via POTS lines (and several ISDN BRIs), but it's not _ALL_
> sour grapes :-)
Do you offer a DOSBS capability? Do you get hassled by the phone
company for offering this service? I notice that the BSPro is crippled
and only makes 56kbps DOSBS calls, but calling within the same switch
is bound to be able to support 64kbps DOSBS. Maybe phone companies
only object to 64kbps DOSBS because it steals revenue for "premium"
64kbps data calls. By tolerating 56kbps DOSBS, phone companies can
justify a premium for 64kbps clear channels.
Thanks for explaining the analog encoding technique for X2. For those
interested, see also http://www.nb.rockwell.com/mcd/56kmodem/
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net
See also, http://www.nb.rockwell.com/mcd/56kmodem/
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: SS7 Signalling Links
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:24:57 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Eoghan wrote:
> I have a question regarding the signalling links used between
> exchanges for SS7 signalling.
> In Europe, a speech channel (64kbps) is given over completely to
> signalling (we ain't no bit-stealers) so you have a signalling
> terminal in each exchange, with an unrestricted 64kbps channel between
> them.
SS7 is very prevalent in the US, except ours is "out-of-band" for the
signaling link. Like SS6 that uses analog modems for transport of the
data link, this transmission path is separate from the transmission
path given to the voice circuits. The signaling link is usually only
56kbps using physical transport provided by data "lines" but the
physical transport can usually support 64kbps. I bring up remote SS7
data links using dial-up ISDN BRIs requesting 64kbps clear channels,
but the link still runs at 56kbps because the signaling link terminal
does not have a 64,000bps option. Sometimes the other end doesn't
support 64kbps clear channels or the TA is provisioned to only answer
56k requests, and I have to fall-back to a 56kbps Unrestricted data
bearer channel request ISDN call.
SS7 links in the US are concentrated at a Signaling Transfer Point
(STP). This has the advantage of only needing to provision Global Title
Transfer (GTT) routes at a concentration point, rather than at the
end-nodes.
Europe has 30 channel trunks, which are really 32 channels, the first
one repeats a sync octet pattern, and the 17th is an "in-band" SS7
link (the link is contained within the same physical media that the
voice is contained).
Bit robbing T-1 signaling is becoming archaic but it has not been
entirely eliminated, so when you call a rural area, your call
may be routed to a bit-robbing "in-band" signaling trunk. These
can also be used for 56kbps data transport which has not been
entirely eliminated either.
SS6 is similar to SS7 but the signaling link uses an analog modem,
not a data "line", for physical transport. I don't think anyone in
the US uses SS6.
> I have learned that in North America, a different system is used to
> connect the signalling terminals.
> Can anyone shed some light on what this mysterious connection is? Is
> a separate cable run between exchanges? Are modems involved?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.>
> Ericsson Systems Expertise
> Dun Laoghaire, Ireland
Hope that helps. I understand that the Dutch have dedicated 5ESSes
with no voice trunks to concentrate their 64kbps SS7 data links like
an STP in the US.
Jeffrey.Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 18:57:13 GMT
In article <telecom16.560.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, mma@fox.nstn.ca wrote:
> I am shopping around for a 900MHz cordless phone. One of the 900MHz
> cordless phone advertised it is using spread spectrum trchnologies.
> What is spread spectrum and what is its advantage over others without
> spread sprectrum?
Spread spectrum techniques were invented around the time of World War
II, by the actress Hedy Lamarr, among others, who obtained a U.S.
patent for a frequency agile torpedo control system.
In traditional narrow-band radios, the object of the game is to
squeeze the information into the narrowest band of frequencies
possible, and then utilize FCC licenses to keep everyone else from
interfering with your signal.
In spread-spectrum radios, however, interference is considered to be a
fact of life, and the signal is intentionally spread over a much
larger bandwidth with a 'spreading code' -- a pseudo-noise signal
typically generated by algebraic techniques. By having the receiver
synchronize with the transmitter, the receiver can generate the same
pseudo-noise signal and thereby decode the transmission.
(Frequency Modulation (FM) -- to the extent that it uses a bandwidth
much larger than that of the signal it is carrying -- can also be
considered to be a form of 'spread-spectrum' communications.)
The factor by which the signal is artificially spread can be used to
reduce any interference, which is almost certainly not correlated with
the pseudo-noise signal. This reduction in interference is called the
'processing gain' of the spread-spectrum system.
Two of the commercial uses of spread spectrum technology are GPS
(Global Positioning System) and 'CDMA' (IS-95) cellular telephone
technology.
Although spread-spectrum cordless phones are harder to eavesdrop on to
the casual listener (other 800-900 MHz phones, including FM cellular
phones, can be listened to using the UHF tuners of older US TV sets),
they should not be considered to be 'secure', since they use very
simple codes.
References:
Costas, J.P. "Poisson, Shannon and the Radio Amateur". Proc. IRE, Dec.,
1959. (Probably the best single paper arguing against 'narrow band'
modulations.)
Dixon, Robert C. "Spread Spectrum Systems, with Commercial Applications",
3rd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994, ISBN 0-471-59342-7.
Torrieri, Don J. "Principles of Secure Communications Systems", 2nd Ed.
Artech House, Boston, 1992, ISBN 0-89006-555-1.
Viterbi, Andrew J. "CDMA: Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication".
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995, ISBN 0-201-63374-4.
Kesteloot N4ICK, Andre, and Hutchinson K8CH, Charles L. "The ARRL Spread
Spectrum Sourcebook". American Radio Relay League, 1991, ISBN 0-87259-317-7.
------------------------------
From: sancmari@telefonica.com.ar
Subject: Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 15:16:00 PDT
mma@fox.nstn.ca (Mike) asked about spread spectrum. As far as I know,
this is a tricky way (I am sorry technicians) of avoiding interference
and obtaining better results in quality (noise is less noticeable) than
traditional systems. It is used in digital cellular systems.
There are two main technologies involved in the suject: frecuency
hopping and (I have to say I do not remember the specific name in
English so you will have a translated from Spanish version of it)
direct assigment.
Frecuency hopping: The main idea is to divide the spectrum available
in k-channels. When you make a call, traditionally, you are asigned to
a channel (one of all the available ones). When using spread spectrum,
you use all the alternative channels in different slots of time,
hopping from channel to channel during all the conversation.
Advantages: if any portion of the spectrum is having too much noise,
you almost cannot notice it as you are changing of frecuency
continuously. Besides, if someone wants to listen to your
conversation, must follow you from channel to channel; he/she must get
the logical sequence of hopping (near-random sequence).
Direct assigment: CDMA is based on this philosophy. You also use the
whole spectrum available, providing different channels by the use of
different codes instead of different frecuencies. Advantages: once
again, noise is less noticeble and it is more difficult to interfere
intentionally a conversation.
Good luck!
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <edellers@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:24:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Joann <cats8@erols.com> writes:
> The other day I had to take a trip out to a veterinarian in Manassas, VA
> which, as it turns out, is not only outside of the Washington DC metro local
> calling area, it is serviced by GTE of Virginia.
> I asked for permission to make a local call while I was there. As it turns
> out, they have a "metro" line so people can call them without paying a toll,
> and this metro line isn't merely a call-forwarded number,it has an actual
> dial tone.
That reminds me of a photo I saw years ago in {The Courier-Journal},
accompanying a story about some rural area of Kentucky. The picture
was taken at a gas station in a town on the border between South
Central Bell's (now BellSouth's) and General Telephone's territory;
the owner had somehow obtained a line from the "other" telco so he
could call folks in that area toll-free, and on the wall he had two
black phones, one Western Electric, the other Automatic Electric
(GTE's former equipment division).
------------------------------
From: bpurcell@centuryinter.net (Brian Purcell)
Subject: Re: 214/972 Split Observations
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:25:41 GMT
Organization: Wide-Lite
> The phone companies are only *part* of the problem. This split was put
> off for almost EIGHTEEN monthes while SBC, local businesses, and the
> Texas PUC argued the issue of split versus overlay in court. Overlays
> won out at first (February 1996), but were almost immediately reversed
> by a Texas judge. The matter was finally settled by late spring, and
> dates set. The problems continue though, since 713 already had over
> 100,000 numbers assigned to 281, and Dallas' pool of available numbers
> had dwindled to bare minimum.
> If the relief had been definitively decided, and all parties had just
> shut up once the decision was made, it might not have been as much of
> a disaster as it's shaping up to be now.
I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, it appears that the TX PUC, SWB,
and others involved have learned from the 713 and 214 fiascos.
Approval for relief for the 210 and 817 NPAs is expected next month.
Both will be geographical splits (210 will be split twice). The only
real debate seemed to be who would keep the old codes (San Antonio and
Ft. Worth won out repsectively; a no-brainer if you ask me.)
Brian Purcell
bpurcell@centuryinter.net
------------------------------
From: wkfung@vol.net (Isaac Fung)
Subject: Questions About Manchester Code
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:30:41 GMT
Hi all,
Is Manchester II code = Differential Manchester code?
Where can I find it? (Gophers or WWW)
Thanks,
mailto:wkfung@vol.net
Isaac Fung http://www.vol.net/~wkfung
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #563
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 17:54:28 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id RAA16680; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:54:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:54:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610232154.RAA16680@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #564
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 17:54:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 564
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 (Lisa Hancock)
Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition (Bill Sohl)
Re: SS7 Signalling Links (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Eduardo Kaftanski)
Reference Wanted on 10 Gbit/s (STM-64) Optical Systems (Marone Giuseppe)
Azimuth Online - Opinions? (Mark Edward Monnin)
Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equiupment (Dana Rozycki)
Screen Telephones - What Are They Good For? (Peter Bartnik)
Seeking Information on Lebanon Telecom Market (Raymond Ho)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:36:12 -0700
Organization: Tulane University
Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
> Mark J Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote:
>> In Summer 1946, Philadelphia went from "3L-4N" local numbering to "2L-5N".
>> This wasn't simply a change of the third letter of the exchange name to a
>> digit. In Philadelphia in 1946, when the third "dialpull" changed from the
>> third letter of the exchange name to a numerical digit, the numerical was
>> *NOT* necessarily the corresponding number on the third letter. *MOST* of
>> Philadelphia's exchanges changed over using a *DIFFERENT* numerical for the
>> third dialpull.
>
>> There weren't many other cities in the US which had 3L-4N. Unlike
>> Philadelphia, most of those locations changed the third letter of most of
>> their exchange names to the directly corresponding numerical digit.
> [snip]
>> There is a {Bell Telephone Magazine} article documenting the changeover:
>> "Philadelphia Goes 2-5", by Harold S. Le Duc, volume 25 (1946), issue 3
>> (Autumn '46). The article begins on page 175 of v.25 (1946).
> Was there any discussion in the atricle of why Philadelphia would have
> deliberately changed the third dial pull in the majority of exchanges?
> It would seem to me that this deliberately made things much more
> difficult for both the telco and for the subscribers. The same
> advertising campaign, phone books, etc. but translating the alpha to
> the corresponding numerical would have achieved the desired result of
> freeing up combinations unspellable with three consecutive letters and
> allowing 1 and 0 as a third dial-pull, as well as adopting a national
> standard. As new exchanges were created, they could have been
> introduced with a new name that deliberately did not match the third
> digit.
> For example, change BALdwin xxxx to BAldwin 5-xxxx (no equipment
> changes needed), and name the next 22x exchange CAstle.
> In the days of hand-soldered equipment of that vintage, the added costs
> and interruption in service to change the city's numbering over a brief
> period must have been substantial.
Not many cities in the US ever had "3L-4N" numbering. I don't think
any in Canada ever did. In France, only Paris ever used 3L-4N, and I
submitted an article on Paris' EXChange names as of the early 1960's
when they changed the presentation of numbers to "ANC" (All-Number
Calling). In the UK, the major cities which used 'director' registers
in their step-by-step switches had seven dialpull numbers, all of
which were presented as 3L-4N. These cities were London (01),
Birmingham (021), Edinburgh in Scotland (031), Glasgow in Scotland
(041), Liverpool (051), Manchester (061). I have included the
old-style STD used for those cities (pre-phONEday, and also for
London, pre-split of 01 to 071/081). Also note that the STD (or Area
Codes) used in the UK frequently used a letter of the town: Birmingham
021 (B=2), Edinburgh 031 (E=3), etc.
I know that Denmark had a dial similar, but not identical to the North
American dial, and while similar, it wasn't identical to the UK or
France dial. Most digits on the Denmark dial had three letters, but
they weren't exactly arranged as the other countries. I don't have any
old Coppenhagen directories, but I think that they too used 3L-4N
numbering.
In the US, only Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and New York City ever
displayed their seven dialpull numbers as 3L-4N.
New York City changed from 3L-4N to 2L-5N in late 1930, over a few
weeks period. I haven't had the chance to verify old microfilms of the
{New York Times} for any articles or sample advertisements to see if
how the third letter changed over. i.e. did the majority of their
EXChanges change the third letter to its corresponding numerical
digit, or not?
Boston changed from 3L-4N to 2L-5N in either 1947 or 1949. I have been
told that in *EVERY* case, the third letter of their EXChanges mapped
over exactly to the corresponding numerical digit.
Chicago changed from 3L-4N to 2L-5N in the latter part of 1948. I have
been told that all EXChanges mapped over their third letter to the
corresponding numerical digit *EXCEPT* for about four or five central
offices.
There was *NO* mention in the 1946 {Bell Telephone Magazine} article
as to *WHY* Philadelphia changed the third lettered dialpull to a
*different* third dialpull numerical rather than the numerical which
corresponded with the original third letter. My *guess* is that this
would have *forced* the locals to actually *dial* the newly indicated
numerical rather than out of habit try to dial the old letter for the
third pull of the dial. Some locals might have tried to dial:
PENnypacker-xxxx, now PEnnypacker-5-xxxx as PEN-5-xxxx, which would
have translated into 736-5xxx, rather than 735-xxxx.
Forcing most of the misdialed calls to a vacant code recording or
intercept during the first few days, weeks or months after the cutover
would have made most Philadelphians begin to *always* dial the
modified exchange names and digits.
> FWIW, going to 2L-5N clearly was a move toward freeing additional number
> space, but even in large metro areas the use of 1 or 0 as a third dial
> pull didn't occur until much later than the 1940s time-frame.
> The justification of all-number calling on the basis of the
> "unspellable" 2-letter combinations, 55, 57, 95, and 97 has always
> been a challenge to me. KLondike is obvious and was used in 415-land
> for 55, and although KRemlin works for 57, it would have been
> politically incorrect during the cold war era. KRypton works as well.
> Many of the WR- words are OK for 97 but probably misspelled by a large
> segment of the population. One couldn't imagine the telco deliberately
> issuing "WRong" numbers. YPsilanti also works. The only one that is
> a real stumper is 95. Any takers?
Well, it has frequently been mentioned that San Francisco had their
KLondike exchange (55x), and also KLondike-5 (KL-5) was the
recommended 'generic' exchange mentioned in fiction (radio, TV,
movies, etc) and in 'generic' telephone advertisements. Note that KL-5
is 555 which is the exchange code frequently seen in fiction since
the mid 1960's. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, when exchange
names were still quite in popular use, TV/Movie fiction used KL-5 or
KLondike-5. As for the other 'unpronounceable' combinations, Bell Labs
and AT&T Long Lines had done numerous tests to see if it were feasable
to use names formed from letters using those digit combinations. And
back in the 'good-olde-dayze' of the old Bell System, Bell Labs was
*QUITE* meticulous about its public testings.
BTW, around the late 1950's, still during the EXchange name days of
2L-5N, New York City and other large places which needed new central
office codes were beginning to get new codes of two letters plus a
digit, where the first two letters were *just that* -- letters, but no
'name'. There were NNX codes indicated as something like LL-x, TT-x,
PM-x, etc. I think that the 55, 57, 95, 97 blocks were also begun to
be used in such large cities, using 'letters only' with no name.
As for the 'third digit zero', AT&T recommended that it *NOT* be used
back during the 2L-5N days, as the third dialpull of '0' (zero) could
be confused with the letter 'O' ("oh"), which would have been
mistakenly dialed as a '6'. Many telephone directories have had a
special instruction box indicating that the letter 'O' is a '6' and
*not* the digit '0' (zero), and that the letter 'I' is a '4' and *not*
the digit '1' (one); and to dial 'OPERATOR' as a '0' (zero) for
assistance and emergencies (police, fire, ambulance), unless '911'
service was available.
While a third digit of zero was rare to non existant during the 2L-5N
days, it did exist in a few situations. Here in New Orleans, for about
a year or two back in the late 1950's, we had a WHitehall-0
exchange. This was a temporary setup for the expanding area of New
Orleans East. The step-by-step equipment for WH-0 was located in a
housetrailer near a new subdivision. It homed on the older WHitehall-x
stepper exchange in an older part of New Orleans. As mentioned,
WHitehall-0 was only temporary, as Southern Bell (later South Cental
Bell, now BellSouth) was building the *very first* #5XB exchange for
New Orleans, which served the N.O. East area, CHestnut-2. Now
fastforward to 1995, Bell did recently add a new 940 exchange within
the other 94x, so we have a WHitehall-0 exchange again, for those of
us who still refer to central offices by their old dialable 2L-5N
names!
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course there was no such thing as
911 in that era; so the phone books would have said nothing about it.
Quite often the number for the police was (exchange)-1313 or in many
cases (exchange)-2121 and the fire department was (exchange)-2131.
In the event you had two communities sharing the same exchange but
each had their own police department then one of them had 2121 and
the other had 2161. Chicago had POLice-1313 (later PO-5-1313) and
FIRe-1313 (later FI-7-1313). Police and Fire were always very short
dialpulls as a rule, with repeating digits to make them easy to
remember. Other 'standard' numbers included Western Union which
was always (exchange)-4321 for the message-taker and (exchange)-9411
for the telephone company business office. There was an exception in
Chicago where WABash-4321 went to the Western Union administrative
offices (although the operator could connect you to a message-taker)
and WABash-7111 which was the direct line to the message-takers).
The phone book told you to dial zero in any emergency and an operator
would help you, and if you wished to place a telegram from a pay phone
you also had to dial zero 'and ask the operator for Western Union'.
The reason was that once you had dictated the telegram, the WUTCO
clerk would tell you to flash the hook to get the operator back on the
line. WUTCO would then quote the charges for the telegram and the
operator would have you deposit the money in the phone. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Jeff)
Subject: Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946
Date: 23 Oct 1996 03:36:24 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net
For reasons I'm not clear, the Philadelphia conversion seemed to
intentionally change everyone's number. Perhaps they wanted to make a
clean break with the past. Perhaps, to avoid customer confusion from
continuing to dial 3 Letters, they wanted to enforce the change by
changing everyone's number. (The newspaper the day after the change
reported 25% wrong intercepts, and the phone company was pleased with
that.)
As much as I personally mix the exchange names, I can understand the
problem with the growth of long distance calling, especially direct
dialing. (Remember before the 1960s long distance was pretty expensive
and used only for very urgent business.) In Philadelphia for example,
we had LOmbard pronounced LUMBARD--a chance for misseplling. A real
problem causer could be BAring, which was pronounced BEARING.
To squeeze out names, some exchange names got pretty creative, such as
SWinburne (Plainsboro NJ). Names with a Y (9) as the second letter
could be mistaken for an I, such as HYatt, HYacynth. The phone company
also had trouble with people switching 1 and I, and 0 and O.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They were also pretty creative here
with INTerocean, BITtersweet, HOLlycourt, SUnnyside-4, NORmal, and
a few others. Actually NORmal was not that much off the wall; it
was located in the neighborhood of the Chicago Normal School (later
known as Chicago State University). But it was a source of fun at
times when people would call it abNORmal. PAT]
------------------------------
From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:39:19 GMT
Organization: BL Enterprises
Jeremy Buhler <jbuhler@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> Most of the ACTA-related stuff on the VON site is rather old, but
> there was one interesting item. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt composed
> an address which was delivered by FCC Chief of Staff Blair Levin
> at INET '96 in Montreal on June 28. The address was pretty
> unambigously in favor of internet telephony. See
> http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh629.txt
> for the complete speech, but here's the most relevant portion:
> ### BEGIN QUOTED TEXT ###
> The FCC has received a petition from the America's Carriers'
> Telecommunications Association asking that we restrict the sale of
> "Internet phone" software, because the providers of that software do not
> comply with the rules that apply to telecommunications carriers.
> Similar issues are being discussed in other countries, including
> Canada. We've just finished getting comments on that petition. We're
> in the process of reviewing those comments now, but I would just note
> that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the
> Administration's telecommunications expert, has filed very thoughtful
> and well-reasoned comments with us asking us to reject this petition.
It would be interesting to see what the NTIA comments actually
were. If anyone knows where they can be found online, please post.
> I am also strongly inclined to believe that the right answer at this
> time is not to place restrictions on software providers,
While I'm no attorney, I really would question if the FCC or any other
agency would have the power to restrict the availability of the
software in any case. This is not at all a matter of national
security which established the export control on encryption software,
so I can't see how any restriction, if put forth, would stand up in
court. Additionally, the practical aspect of stopping software
availability is laughable at best and totally unenforceable because of
the ease of which such software can and would be distributed anywa.
> or to subject
> Internet telephony to the same rules that apply to conventional
> circuit-switched voice carriers. On the Internet, voice traffic is
> just a particular kind of data, and imposing traditional regulatory
> divisions on that data is both counterproductive and futile.
Thankfully, a voice of reason and understanding. The actual reality
being that there's no way to even monitor andd/or stop such traffic.
> Even if
> most of the FCC wasn't working around the clock on implementation of
> the Telecommunications Act, I can't imagine that we would have the
> time to keep track of all the bits passing over the Internet to
> separate the "acceptable" data packets from the "unacceptable" voice
> packets.
Ditto the above.
> Internet telephony may well become, in time, a competitive
> alternative to traditional circuit-switched voice telephony. After
> all, as the growth of the cellular industry demonstrates, people are
> willing to give up a significant level of quality in exchange for
> other benefits.
> In the cellular case the benefit is the ability to
> make a call from virtually anywhere, in the case of Internet telephony
> the benefit is a vastly lower price. This is especially true, for
> example, for international telephone calls.
The cellular is a bad analogy because the quality was given up in
exchange for the mobility of access. The only bbenefit to internet
phone is cost avoidance. That'll find favor with consumers, but
business users will not (IMHO) routinely abandon their quality
(quality in terms of transmission and immediate availability) to save
a few bucks.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net
Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor
Budd Lake, New Jersey
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: SS7 Signalling Links
Date: 23 Oct 1996 16:25:50 -0400
Organization: Panix
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom16.559.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Eoghan
<eeieosn@eei.ericsson.se> wrote:
> I have a question regarding the signalling links used between
> exchanges for SS7 signalling.
> In Europe, a speech channel (64kbps) is given over completely to
> signalling (we ain't no bit-stealers) so you have a signalling
> terminal in each exchange, with an unrestricted 64kbps channel between
> them.
> I have learned that in North America, a different system is used to
> connect the signalling terminals.
> Can anyone shed some light on what this mysterious connection is? Is
> a separate cable run between exchanges? Are modems involved?
Separately provisioned DS0 (that is, 56k or 64k) circuits are used
between signalling network components (that is, SSPs a.k.a end
offices, STPs a.k.a. routers, and SCPs a.k.a. database/route servers)
to carry SS7 traffic.
Some places these circuits are still subrate; Summa Four, for example,
offers an 8-way 8kbps card that splits a single DS0 out into eight
signalling links. I have no idea what physical transport for a raw
8kbps link is; they're probably always muxed up to 56k or 64k.
That's actually the trick to the whole thing. Very little interoffice
traffic ever moves on physical T-1 facilities these days, and I'm sure
the same is the case on E-1 in Europe. Since you have to mux all this
stuff together anyway, you just throw the signalling channels in
somewhere and pull them out at the other end.
In the case of A-links between central offices, "the other end"
probably really is a V.35 connector on the SSP. In the case of links
to STP or SCPs, there's really no way to tell how many physical
offices the things hop through on the way to the other end.
I couldn't swear that this is the way it works in Europe, but I'd be
quite surpbised if it weren't. We have T1 circuits with a separate
signalling channel here in North America, too, you know; we call them
PRI. :-)
The signalling on that channel, however, is *not* SS7; SS7 is spoken
between elements of the carrier network only, and essentially
obsoletes the primitive signalling facilities built into the T1
itself; this is why these days you can buy a "clear channel" DS0 from
an SS7-equipped carrier, though they'll charge you extra for it.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
------------------------------
From: ekaftan@ns.rdc.cl (Eduardo Kaftanski)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: 23 Oct 1996 14:04:13 -0300
Organization: Webhost Chile S.A.
In article <telecom16.561.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Craig Macbride
<craig@rmit.EDU.AU> wrote:
> Why even do that? Why not make them local to wherever the cellular
> phone currently is? If I'm standing 10 feet from you and call you on
> my cellular phone, that should be a local call, regardless of where
> either of our homes is.
In Chile there is ONE (1) area code for ALL cellurar phones in the
entire country (guess that makes us really small). Code is 9, so if
you are dialling 09-XXX-XXXX that is a Celll phone that can be
anywhere in the country.
The nice part of it, is that all calls to a Cell phone are local to
the caller. Called party pays long distance if they are roaming AND
the call is not local. Else, its local always.
I admit it, we are small. There are 4 providers of Cell service, two
for the central states (the capital and the second largest city) and
two for the rest of the country (15 Million people.)
Two of them (the ones serving A-side on both locations) just merged in
one company, so we just have now three. I have a contract with the
B-side server for the central states, and B-side server for the rest
of the country honors my contract and lets me keep my number when I
roam and more or less my same tariffs.
Eduardo Kaftanski
Beeper: 7378087 Codigo 5271
ekaftan@rdc.cl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:22:10 +0100
From: Marone Giuseppe <marone@XRR1.CSELT.STET.IT>
Subject: Reference Wanted on 10 Gbit/s (STM-64) Optical Systems
Hello everybody,
I have been asked by Telecom Italy to provide a brief survey on the
installed 10 Gbit/s (STM-64) optical system. I would like to get data
both about on-field trials and installed systems carrying paying
traffic (if any). Could anybody provide me with some reference (www,
papers, articles, etc.)?
TIA,
Giuseppe Marone - giuseppe.marone@cselt.stet.it
Optical Networks Architectures Dept.
CSELT - Centro Studi E Laboratori Telecomunicazioni S.p.A.
via Reiss Romoli 274, I-10148 Torino, Italy
------------------------------
From: monnin@staff.uiuc.edu (Mark Edward Monnin)
Subject: Azimuth Online - Opinions?
Date: 22 Oct 1996 21:24:59 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
In August there were several posts about Azimuth Online's flat rate
cellular service. Several people started to look into it to see if
the service was real or a scam, however I don't think I ever saw any
answers. So ...
Does anyone know if the flat rate cellular service from Azimuth
Online was a legit deal or a scam? Or if you know of any other
flat rate cellular service that's legit, I'd like to know that too.
Mark Monnin
------------------------------
From: Dana.Rozycki@octel.com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:22:00 -0700
Subject: Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equiupment
Pat --
The American University theatre department here in Washington,
D.C. is staging a play that has many scenes of operators working
manual switchboards, featuring phones from the 40s, etc.
Do you or any of your readers have any info., pictures, etc. of
the old manually switched central office equipment that the theatre
department could use to construct the sets? (They're real sticklers
for detail.)
Better yet, is anyone aware of anyplace in the D.C. area that
sells (or rents) old telephones or central office switching equipment?
A call to Bell Atlantic yielded nothing more than a refusal to help.
Thanks very much,
Dana Rozycki
Octel Communications Corporation
Federal Systems
dana.rozycki@octel.com
voice/fax:703/206-5513
------------------------------
From: Peter Bartnik <pbartnik@explore.net>
Subject: Screen Telephones - What Are They Good For?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:38:03 -0500
Organization: New Era Technologies, Inc.
According to a recent announcement from the Yankee Group, there are
over 500,000 screen telephones in use in the US today, and this number
is expected to incease to over 10 million by 2001.
Screen telephones not only display Caller ID name and number, but can
also be used for other applications: directory enquiries, home banking
and bill-paying, stock quotes and even email. The drivers behind
screen telephone deployment are currently the regional operating
companies, who benefit from a visual interface for consumers to
simplify the use of switch based services like call conferencing,
repeat dialling and call forwarding.
But, who is using them and how, and what do users perceive as the
major benefits they derive as telecommunications consumers? I'd be
interested in starting a discussion about screen telephones, their
potential and limitations, and how this learned group sees their role
in the household of the future, both in the 40 odd percent of US
households that have PCs, and the 60% that don't.
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:39:14 HKT
From: Raymond Ho <rayho@iohk.com>
Subject: Seeking Information on Lebanon Telecom Market
Hi,
Is there anybody who has contact or capability and interest to work on
a project regarding obtaining market information on Lebanon telecom
market?
Raymond
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #564
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 12:48:18 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id MAA29004; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610241648.MAA29004@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #565
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 12:48:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 565
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
NJ ... it's a Twin Split! (John Cropper)
Telecom Licences Half-Signed Amid High Drama in India (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Laser Problems [Hints] (Christopher Lusardi)
Safety Hand Tools, Protective Devices (CableGuards) (Steve Drab)
Tormenting Telemarketers! (Maddi Hausmann Sojourner)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: NJ ... it's a Twin Split!
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:52:24 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
Hot off the press (AP):
State to Split Calling Regions, Add 2 Area Codes
By DAVID WILKISON
The Associated Press
10/23/96 4:01 PM Eastern
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- Millions of numbers will change next year for
some northern and central New Jersey telephone customers under a plan
approved Wednesday by the state Board of Public Utilities to split
calling regions and create two new area codes.
The geographic split of the 201 and 908 area codes will create 16
million new numbers but is only a short-term solution to handle the
growing demand of additional lines for computers, fax machines, pagers
and cellular phones.
An alternative plan the BPU rejected would have kept current numbers
the same and given new area codes to new customers, requiring
statewide 10-digit dialing even for calls to a next-door neighbor.
"I think customers would have been led into the belief that dialing 10
digits means that `I've got to pay more,"' said BPU President Herbert
Tate. "We did not want that to happen in their minds at this point in
time."
The board approved the change over the objections of Bell Atlantic,
which now provides virtually all local phone service in the state and
preferred the overlay method to keep numbers the same.
"As we have said repeatedly, we believe that a geographic split is
more costly and more disruptive for customers than the alternative,"
said Len J. Lauer, president and chief executive of Bell Atlantic-New
Jersey.
"`We predict the board will be faced with this decision again in a few
more years, sooner than would have been the case if an overlay had
been chosen," Lauer said.
But Tate said regardless of which plan was chosen, the numbers would
likely be exhausted within four years. The cost of the change, which
Bell Atlantic places at $12 million, will not be passed on to
consumers, Tate said.
However, the split will mean that businesses like Lesa Essig's
messenger business in Newark will have to repaint signs and delivery
cars, get new stationery printed and reprogram automatic dialers,
among other chores.
"My entire business is run by phone," said Essig, president of
Efficient Courier, told The Associated Press. "Your clients are going
to try to reach you, and they're not going to remember the area
code. It's going to be a hassle."
The new area codes numbers won't be designated until next month. The
numbers would likely become effective in May 1997 and become mandatory
in November 1997 when the 201 and 908 numbers are exhausted.
The decision was an important one for long-distance carriers like
AT&T, MCI and Sprint, which plan to compete with Bell Atlantic next
year by offering local service.
Bell Atlantic has about 5 million of the 8 million numbers in the 201
area code and if the overlay had been implemented, Bell Atlantic would
have had an advantage in being able to assign numbers to businesses
and homes with multiple lines that wanted the same area code,
opponents said.
"The overlay provides a competitive advantage for the incumbent
monopoly because you will have to essentially give up your number if
you chose a new competitor like MCI or AT&T," said MCI spokesman
Bernie Tylor.
"By giving up that number, we felt consumers would not want to
exercise that choice," Tylor said.
Russ Mayer, director of government affairs for AT&T, said the overlay
plan would have been too confusing for consumers and praised the
geographic split.
"In addition to being the right way to go for customers it is the
right way for competition to be given the opportunity to get a toehold
... in the (local) business," Mayer said.
Under the plan, about 5 million customers in the affected regions will
keep their seven-digit numbers but be given new area codes.
The geographic boundaries do not always follow county or municipal
lines.
The BPU's decision affects all the counties currently in the 201 and
908 area codes except Hunterdon and Hudson counties. Most of Bergen
County was left alone.
All of Monmouth, Sussex and Passaic counties and most of Essex,
Morris, Middlesex, Ocean and Warren counties will be affected. Newark,
the state's largest city, also will find itself with a new area code.
"One would think that New Jersey's largest, premier city would not
have to be put through the inconvenience, not to mention the expense,"
said Pam Goldstein, spokeswoman for Newark Mayor Sharpe James. "I
can't even imagine what the expense is going to be."
East Rutherford and 20 other municipalities will have split area
codes. Officials would have the option to have one area code, but it
would require some residents to change their entire number.
"We have a large senior population and it's going to be confusing for
them and the other residents as well," Darlene Sawicki, municipal
clerk of East Rutherford, told The AP. "No one is in favor of them
doing this."
The other 20 municipalities that would have more than one area code
are: Bernards Township; Bridgewater; Clark; Edison; Fair Lawn;
Franklin Township (Somerset County); Green Brook; Kearny; Linden;
Lodi; Piscataway; Ridgewood; Saddle Brook; Scotch Plains; South
Plainfield; Wallington; Wanaque; Warren Township; Westfield; and
Wood-Ridge.
State ratepayer advocate Blossom A. Peretz said she was hopeful Bell
Atlantic and the board could work together to provide "some kind of
remediation" for the split communities but called the decision the
correct one.
"It's going to provide for entry for new local exchange competitors,
which in the long run is going to bring greater advancements in
technology and lower rates for the customers," she said. "It's less
confusion for the customers at this time."
---------------
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
Subject: Telecom Licences Half-Signed Amid High Drama in India
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:21:23 PDT
From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org
The Indian Techonomist: bulletin, October 23, 1996
Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved
Telecom licences half-signed amid high drama in India
October 23, 1996: It has been an eventful week for
telecom in India, that began with an ultimatum to
prospective telecom operators from Beni Prasad Verma,
the Minister of Communications, that was much weaker
than it seemed; and ends after tense midnight
conferences with six firms apparently bowing to the
government's demands, while in fact continuing to hold
most of the cards.
The Minister was addressing a surprise press conference
the day before the Department of Telecommunication's
(DoT) third deadline to private firms to take on their
licences to run local telecom networks spanning well
over half of the country, on October 18. After missing
two previous dates, July 31 and September 12, because
the private operators called its bluff and preferred to
wait until their concerns with the terms of agreement
were met, the DoT was not going to tolerate further
postponement, threatened Mr Verma. However, the effect
of an ultimatum was somewhat dampened with the Minister
conceding, in principle, to the main demands of the
private firms - who, after winning in three rounds of
tenders, hold letters of intent (LoIs) from the DoT.
Two of these have to do with the interconnect
agreement, which is to set terms for revenue and
traffic sharing between the DoT's nation-wide network
and the regional networks of private operators, with
whom the DoT will compete locally. Conflict between an
incumbent losing its monopoly and its competitors is
hardly limited to India, but the unique situation here
is that the monopoly will remain under government
ownership. An independent regulator is obviously
required to ensure fair play, but until the proposed
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is
actually constituted, the DoT acts as both plaintiff
and judge. Mr Verma agreed, after repeatedly dodging
the issue, that the terms of the interconnect agreement
would be subject to the TRAI appeal process even if it
was signed before the TRAI's creation. He also agreed,
somewhat vaguely, to consider modifying parts of the
agreement that specify port charges for connections to
a DoT exchange from a private one.
Perhaps more significant was Mr Verma's third
concession, that should reduce the worries of telecom
companies trying to find the money to pay for the high
licence fees they bid, as well as costs of building and
running their networks. He agreed to the principle of
transferability for the 15-year licences, so that they
can be used as collateral for loans. They will not be
ideal collateral, however, as the DoT will reserve the
right to evaluate, for technical and financial
soundness, any prospective buyers of licences assumed by
lenders if the original licensees default. Still, this is
a major concession from a government that has been
stonewalling the issue for several months (the bidders
should have known what they were going in for, DoT
Secretary M P Modi has implied in the past). Together
with an independent decision from the Finance Ministry
effectively permitting foreign investment of up to 73% in
telecom operators last week (see next report), Mr Verma's
statement could be a breakthrough.
Given these positive signals, one might well have been
surprised that the seven LoI holders did not sign on the
dotted line on Friday and grab their 10 licences, rather
than risk penalties and forfeit of their earnest money.
Well, one of them is out of the running: the venture
between Israel's Bezeq, Thailand's Shinawatra and India's
HFCL (which failed to sell 49% of a holding company to
AIG after the American insurance firm got scared by the
implications of the recent telecom financial scandal)
failed to extend its bank guarantees (given as earnest
money) in June and has taken the DoT to court. As for the
others, they hemmed and hawed, and after meetings with
DoT officials which ran until just before midnight on
Friday, three formally accepted the DoT's letters of
intent (LoIs) to sign the licence agreement: Reliance-
Nynex, Ispat-Hughes and Techno Telecom, which is promoted
by India's Usha group.
Their acceptance was carefully worded; like those
reported today of Tata-Bell Canada and Essar-Bell
Atlantic, and the one expected tomorrow from RPG-NTT,
acceptance of the LoIs is far from the end of the matter,
even if accompanied by further extending bank guarantees
of earnest money. None of the LoI holders are likely to
sign either the licence or the interconnect agreement
immediately; it will take at least a few weeks to make
formal and acceptable changes to the agreements based on
Mr Verma's imprecise promises. The deadline, though,
remains October 18 and technically the LoI holders are
liable to pay penalties for the period until they sign
up, properly this time.
In this elaborate game of bluff and Asian face-saving
(the DoT could not, of course, simply give in to private
operators' demands without a simultaneous toughly worded
ultimatum) the licensees-in-waiting remain a rather
worried lot. On the one hand, they would like a fair,
competitive environment not largely clouded with
uncertainties. Rather than vague promises, they want real
initiatives - Tata-Bell Canada reportedly insisted, at
first, that it would only sign after the TRAI was set up
- and have yet to see Mr Verma's concessions detailed in
writing.
On the other hand, the huge potential of India's market -
under 1% of India's 900 million people have phones - may
justify taking some risks, and often these appear greater
than they really are. Fuzzy government policies and
unclear risks are common to most fast-growing developing
countries, and India has a pretty reliable (if slow)
legal system - though litigation can, of course, delay
thing further. As far as the TRAI is concerned, the track
record of similar institutions, notably the Securities
and Exchange Board of India, is quite good. Although the
current TRAI Bill awaiting Parliament's clearance (which
is little changed from a Presidential ordinance that
lapsed without Parliamentary ratification) could do with
many improvements, not least of all greater powers, the
delay in setting it up need not be a big problem.
The TRAI has hiccoughed along for over a year, largely
due to procedural snags. Legislation is likely to pass in
the coming session of Parliament, but this will start
only next month. It could take six months after that to
locate members for TRAI, which will have the status of a
High Court. All in all, it will be well into next year
before the TRAI can reasonably be expected to start
operation. Even if the LoI holders sign licence and
interconnect agreements (suitably modified for a stronger
TRAI role) next month, they are unlikely to complete much
of their networks till the third quarter of next year.
Till then, they could concentrate on matters other than
paying the DoT interconnect fees - such as finding the
money to operate.
For more information, including the full text of the
TRAI ordinance, see the hypertext version of this document
at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/23oct96.html
The Indian Techonomist: http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/
Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org)
A4/204 Ekta Vihar 9 Indraprastha Extension New Delhi 110092 INDIA
May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached
------------------------------
From: lusardi@acsu.buffalo.edu (Christopher Lusardi)
Subject: Laser Problems [Hints]
Date: 23 Oct 1996 21:54:26 GMT
Organization: UB
A profesor of mine has strongly advised me to seek help with the below
problems. I'm looking for what I can get in the way of hints, etc!
Thank you,
Christopher Lusardi
1)An InGaAsP semiconductor laser operates around 1.3 um. The lenght of the
cavity is 250 um and the index is 3.4. Determine the separation between
longitudinal modes in Angstrom.
2)A 250-um long semiconductor laser operating at 1.55 um has a threshold of 20
mA. The differential quantum efficiency is 35% per facet. What is the output
power per facet when biased at 30 mA? The cross-section of the beam is 2X4um.
How many photons are inside of the laser cavity when it is biased at this
level.
3)The same laser described above has a relaxation frequency of 3 GHz when it is
biased at 30 mA. What is the relaxation frequency when biased at 40 mA?
4)A 250-um long semiconductor laser with cleaved facets has an index of 3.5.
The operating wavelength is 1.3 um. What is the facet reflectivity? What is
the equivalent distributed loss of the mirrors? If the internal loss is 40
cm^(-1), what is the gain coefficient needed to reach the threshold?
5)A second order Bragg reflector is used to design a single-mode semiconductor
laser which operates at 1.55 um. The index is 3.4. What is the physical
period of the grating?
6)A Fabry-Perot interferometer consists of two parallel mirrors. It can be used
as a narrow linewidth filter. If the mirror reflectivity is 90%, what is the
ratio between the maximum and minimum transmission coefficients? If the
interferometer is 5 cm long, what is the spacing between adjacent
transmission peaks? How about 2.5 cm? Can you think of a design using
multiple fiber sections of different lenghts so that there is one 5-GHz
transmission peak every 100 GHz?
7)The transient turn-on of a semiconductor laser is similar to an electronic
circuit with R, L, and C components. Design an RLC circuit so that under the
excitation of a step voltage, the output voltage has a 5-GHz damped
relaxation oscillation with a decay time of 1.5 nsec. Can you think of a
circuit which even has a turn-on delay of 1 nsec in addition to the
relaxation oscillation? Verify your design by performing the integration
over time. Show the output voltage as a function of time.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, this is not the Homework Hotline,
which is a telephone service of the Chicago Public Library. In this
one case, here are your questions in case anyone can help you, but you
you should really do your own homework in the future. :) PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:52:01 -0500
From: Steve Drab <31mile@31mile.com>
Reply-To: 31mile@31mile.com
Organization: 31 Mile Equipment Company
Subject: Safety Hand Tools, Protective Devices (CableGuards)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steve Drab raises an important subject
in this next message which we do not cover a lot in the Digest, and
that is the safe handling of high voltage equipment and wires. In
addition, he has agreed to help sponsor this Digest on a temporary
basis for a month or two, and a link has been established on the web
page that you might get better aquainted with his products. I hope
you will stop in to say hello to him and thank him for his support of
the Digest. Look for him at http://www.31mile.com - And while there,
check out the page with the lightning bolt; it takes a minute or so
to load the page, but it is a very interesting graphic. PAT]
------------------
Most people these days are concerned about safety and getting the job
done more quickly; the following two items may be of interest and
solve some problems.
OSHA - "Electrical Safety-Related Work Practices" - 29CFR
1910.331-.335 "The regulation requires qualified persons, that are
working on or near exposed energized parts (50 volts to ground or
more) where contact might occur, to wear rubber insulating gloves or
use other insulating materials in addition to using insulated tools
where the tool might make contact with the energized parts." The
complete article can be read at my web site for those who may have
interest.
In the telecommunications industry, voltage isn't the only problem;
with the use of battery backup systems there is a great risk of
encountering high amperage. A dropped or misplaced tool could
potentially cause great damage and serious injuries.
If anyone is interested in the tools that are available, please check
out the insulated hand catalog contained at my web site. I would also
like to mention that we make custom insulated tools for any special
application or requirements.
The other item that merits mentioning is cable protection. Many times
cable is left exposed in temporary or emergency situations. Placing
that cable out of the way can mean placing the cable overhead or
underground(both methods relatively time consuming). An alternative to
these methods is a product called CableGuards. CableGuards are a
portable interconncting way of providing protection against physical
damage, as well as reducing the possibility of tripping incidents.
OSHA 1926.403(j)(2)(i)(ii) "If equipment is exposed to physical damage
from vehicular traffic, guards shall be provided to prevent such
damage)" There is a catalog section on Cableguards at my website for
anyone to check out.
Hope this is helpful. Contact me if you have any questions; I'll
try to help.
Steve Drab 31 Mile Equipment Company
http://www.31mile.com
mailto:31mile@31mile.com
------------------------------
From: Maddi Hausmann Sojourner <madhaus@genmagic.com>
Subject: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 21:23:39 +0000
Organization: General Magic, Inc.
I recently posted on the limitations of Caller ID as implemented by Pac
Bell.
Our biggest disappointment with the service was that many phone calls
were tagged "OUT OF AREA" rather than giving a phone number. In
particular, banks of phones behind switchboards or in a Centrex are
marked that way, which covers most of those pesky telemarketers that
make our lives so miserable.
We've found a way to work around that which others with Caller ID may
also wish to use.
When we get calls marked OUT OF AREA, especially at the prime
telemarketer time (6-8 pm), we now answer the phone "KDNA, you're on
the air!" Usually the telemarketer will be a bit befuddled, and ask
for one of us by name. We will repeat that we are a radio station,
that the caller is on the air, and is, in fact, the twenty-fifth
caller.
Here's a dialog with one telemarketer who bit real hard:
Me: (seeing OUT OF AREA on Caller ID, using bouncy DJ voice) KDNA,
you're on the air!
Telemarketer: May I speak to Mad-uh-LEEN So...So...So-johr-NOHR?
M: This is KDNA, and you are ON THE AIR! You've just won your choice of
a new Ford Explorer or $25,000 in cash!!!
T: I have?
M: You certainly have.
T: Oh my god!
M: Happy? Which will it be, the Explorer or the money?
T: I don't know! Let me get my supervisor!
M: You don't need your supervisor, it's your prize. Are you calling us
from work?
T: Yes I am. (background voices) My boss says to take the money.
M: The money! So you listen to KDNA while you're working?
T: I didn't even know we were calling you!
M: Well, where are you calling us from?
T: <some place thousands of miles from us>
M: My, my! I guess you can't pick us up all the way out there! So
what's your name?
T: Sherry.
M: Sherry, tell us here on KDNA what kind of music you like.
T: I'm so nervous I can't even think! Nothing like this has ever
happened to me!
M: Sherry, if you like the kind of music that we play here on KDNA,
we'll play one just for you!
T: But I wouldn't be able to hear it. Where's your radio station,
anyway?
M: We're broadcasting out of Silicon Valley, California, at 106.6 FM.
[obviously telemarketer isn't smart enough to know FM stations don't
end in even decimals.]
T: This is just so great!
M: Sherry, how old are you?
T: I'm 20.
M: And what do you do?
T: I'm a business student at <some college>.
M: What will you do with the money, Sherry? Start a business?
T: Oh, I just don't know!
M: I thought you said you were at work, Sherry.
T: I am. This is to help pay for college.
M: What's your job?
T: I'm a telemarketer.
M: You're a WHAT?
T: I'm a telemarketer. I call people up and ask them if they want to
buy <product/service/etc>
M: Oh, that's too bad.
T: Why?
M: Because we here at KDNA think telemarketers are the lowest scum on
earth, and I don't think we can give this prize to a telemarketer. You
folks are always interrupting people during dinner and I think that's
rotten. So I don't think you should win.
T: But that's not fair!
M: Hey, it's my radio show, I get to make the rules.
T: But you can't do that!
M: I sure can, I'm giving this prize to the next caller. Meanwhile, I
suggest you quit your job. Today.
<click>
We apologize if there is a radio station actually named KDNA. We
picked it both for its closeness to our daughter's name, Diana, and
because it shows our disdain for certain folks stuck in the shallow
end of the gene pool.
Maddi Hausmann Sojourner madhaus@genmagic.com
General Magic, Inc. in beautiful Sunnyvale, CA 94088 USA
If you like this address you will also like madhaus@netcom.com
Visit my daughter's web page at http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~ds/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry Maddi, I don't think it was
funny. In fact, it was a bit hateful. I am not suggesting that
telemarketers are my favorite people, but I think you pushed it
a bit far. Put yourself in the position of a very young person
going to college and paying for it with a part time job that
they may very well not like any more than you like their calls.
Also you should note that there are many people in telemarketing
work because a physical handicap prevents them from doing other
work. They may be for example visually impaired or confined to
a wheel chair, etc. That does not of necessity put them on the
shallow end of the gene pool; it does mean they are ambitious
enough -- like the young lady who called you -- to want to
survive on their own in the world and accomplish something.
If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
feelings any. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #565
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 13:54:15 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id NAA07906; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:54:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:54:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610241754.NAA07906@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #566
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 13:54:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 566
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Seven Busted in California Recovery Room (Tad Cook)
Interesting Chattanooga Phone History (Stanley Cline)
Getting Someone at the Telco to Listen (grendel6@ix.netcom.com)
Possible NXX Lottery in CA (John Cropper)
Extra Expensive 809/Caribbean Calls (Mark J. Cuccia)
CFP: Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia (Rosh John Joseph)
904 ... Here We Go Again! (John Cropper)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Seven Busted in California Recovery Room
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:28:17 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Seven Arrested in Brea, Calif., Crackdown on Telemarketing Fraud
By Ronald Campbell, The Orange County Register, Calif.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
BREA, Calif.--Oct. 24--Federal agents have arrested seven people for
running a "recovery room," milking money from victims of earlier
telephone scams.
Nortay Consultants of Brea allegedly took nearly $500,000 in
"retainers" from 1,100 people to help them recover money they had lost
previously. Nortay paid only $11,000 to its customers, according to an
FBI affidavit filed in federal court Tuesday.
The seven Nortay arrests were part of a crackdown on telemarketing
fraud. Federal agents arrested six others and raided five businesses
in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties.
Nortay owners Norman Hefferan and Lori Blitz brought to the business
extensive experience in telemarketing plus a more tangible asset -- a
list of customers from their past ventures, according to an affidavit
signed by FBI Special Agent Nora C. Collas.
Nortay telemarketers claimed to be "investigators" from the "fraud
division" of Nortay, which they described as an "advocacy company."
They offered to recover money from those "pesky promotional and
telemarketing companies" for a refundable retainer plus 25 percent of
what they recovered. Nortay claimed a 96-percent success rate.
Most of Nortay's customers were elderly, according to the affidavit. One of
them, 87-year-old Leon Adams, paid Nortay $8,175 to get his money back. The
Monticello, Utah, resident visited Nortay three times. When he left, the
affidavit says, staffers called him "Elmer Fudd."
According to the FBI affidavit, Hefferan dipped into customer accounts
to pay restitution to the Orange County Probation Department for an
earlier conviction of telemarketing fraud.
Those arrested, in addition to Hefferan and Blitz, were Jerry Pierre
Ste. Marie, Dennis Choquette, Chris Hall, Harold Larsen and Jacob
Giffin.
------------------------------
From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Interesting Chattanooga Phone History
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 01:53:13 GMT
Organization: Catoosa Computing Services
Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com
While at the Chattanooga library looking for some other things, I
stumbled upon a collection of old *telephone books* for the
Chattanooga area (as well as many other areas of Tennessee.) I was
surprised to see some of the things I saw, such as:
* In the oldest book available (1958) DDD was available to *some*
exchanges, but not all. The 398 half of Trenton was a local call back
then (as was the Collegedale area). Calls were dialed as 2L + 5N;
there were some party lines (particularly in the CAnal-9 -> UN-6 ->
866 office, which is the one that now serves my home.) To reach a
long distance operator, one would dial "110"; for intra-NPA LD calls,
one would dial (I think) *only* the seven digit (2L + 5N) number.
(I used to have a city directory from the *1940s* -- at that time,
Chattanooga used four- and five-digit numbers. For example,
7-xxxx (my grandmother's number for many years) became AM7-xxxx,
then 267-xxxx. (When she moved about eight years ago, the number
was not reassigned to another customer for over FIVE YEARS!)
A frequently-mentioned area near Chattanooga (the Copperhill area)
apparently had their own version of "911" in place well before 911
was the real number; in their (very slim) directory it listed "for
emergencies dial 274 (or some similar number). At that time,
Copperhill (now 423-496, no B-side cellular service!) used
three- and four-digit numbers, with no DDD available (although an area
code map was given, and callers were urged to give the LD operator
the area code.) In that directory, party lines were listed as
"325-J" or similar (three numerals, followed by a letter, always the
first letter corresponding to a number (A,D,G,J,M,P,T,W -- they had
*eight-party* lines there!)
* With the 2L + 5N dialing, between 1958 and 1961 (the '59 and '60 books
are missing) Chattanooga made some major changes in phone numbers.
For example, the Rossville exchange (now a #5E, 706-866) used to be
known as the "CAnal-9" exchange...by 1961, it had been changed to
"UN-6" (no word representation was given.) So all the numbers in CA9
(229) were moved to 866! Other exchanges, such as the MAdison and
AN(word?) offices, didn't have their numbers changed.
On the front of the phone books, it said "start using these listings
on [directory effective date] -- DO NOT DIAL FROM MEMORY."
The Trenton 398 area used EX-8 as their prefix; the Soddy-Daisy (Bell)
and Collegedale (Collegedale Telephone, now Century Telephone) were
already using seven-numbers dialing (332 for Soddy-Daisy, and 396 for
Collegedale.)
The Ringgold, GA area went local to Chattanooga in about 1963 (no more
areas became local to Chattanooga until the 1970s, when part of
Chickamauga, GA became local, then no more additional local calling
until the EAS explosion in the past few years.)
* Bell used "standard" names for exchanges, although in a couple of
cases, I can figure out another, *regionally related* name for the
exchange:
62x - Bell "MAdison" - me "MCCallie" (McCallie School, from which
Pat Robertson and Ted Turner graduated, is just about next door
to the CO.)
89x - Bell "TW"something - me "TYner" (Tyner is a neighborhood in
that CO's area.)
82x - Bell "VA"something - me "VAlley" (CO serves Lookout Valley, as
well as Lookout Mountain.)
(I can't figure out anything for the other COs, including the main
"AM" CO. It could be that the names are just coincidences, but it's
weird nonetheless.)
A couple of Walker County Telephone Co.'s (now ALLTEL's) COs used the
town name for the CO name (KEnsington for 539, and NOble for 764); I
have no idea what was used for 638 [LaFayette] and 397 [Villanow.]
* Rates for long distance calls were extremely high (compared to today)
-- one of the directories quoted a rate of about $9 (~1960 dollars)
for a 3-min, daytime call to Anchorage, Alaska, and $12 for a call to
points in the Caribbean. Calls within the US averaged 35-50c/min,
depending on DDD availability, distance, time of day, etc. (No
mention was made of the pricing of "short-haul" calls -- for example,
from Chattanooga to Dalton or Cleveland or Copperhill, or even to
Atlanta.)
Ah, how far the phone network has come in less than 40 years ... about
12 prefixes back in '58, and nearing 50 (not counting EAS calling)
today...calls much cheaper now (usually) than then, better
reliability, wireless phones that work (almost) everywhere, etc.
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/
CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:32:19 -0700
From: grendel6@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Getting Someone at the Telco to Listen
In issue 559, Jack [better late than never :-)] said...
> I do wish that all phone companies (not just GTE) had better
> procedures for handling "unusual" complaints. If you call about
> something that turns out to be a programming error in the switch, you
> almost stand a better chance of getting an audience with the President
> than getting to talk to someone who actually understands the problem
> and can do something about it (especially if you call Repair Service).
> But that is not just a GTE problem, I've had similar problems with
> Ameritech in the past and I'm sure it happens at the other "baby
> Bells" as well.
Your story reminds me of an experience that I had about
thirteen years ago, when I was still a data communications
tech/programmer/strange problem repair person at a major online data
communications company in southern NJ. We had a pool of four NYC FX
lines (originally five, but at some time in the far past, the last of
the five was disconnected) coming in to our PBX. They hadn't been
used much for several years, and when I added them into our LD routing
tables so that outgoing calls to 212/718 would try to route onto the
FX's first, then the WATS lines, then regular toll. The first FX was
numbered 212-NXX-5714, and we had -5715, -5716 and -5717.
It developed that when all four FX's were busy, incoming callers
would get an intercept stating that "212-NXX-5718" the (old) FIFTH FX had
been disconnected, instead of a busy signal.
I called NYNEX repair (611 on the FX), and was politely
referred to the Camden (NJ) test board, through which office our FX's
were routed. When I *insisted* to the 611 clerk that the problem was
in NYC, she said that she'd refer it to a technician.
Two hours later, I got a call from Tom (or Dick, or Harry; I
forget his real name) who said he was calling from the CO in New York
to look at my problem. He had me make -5717 busy on our demarc, and
then called -5718. He got the intercept, asked me if that was the
problem, and then said "...hmmm, looks like you're ISG-ing...."
What THAT means, I don't know, but he asked me to hold on a
second, went off the line, and came back and said "try it now." It
worked fine, of course. Amazing what happens when you get to talk to
the right person. He said the same thing's true from his end; "... it
doesn't work ..." isn't much of a trouble ticket.
Bill
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: Possible NXX Lottery in CA
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:15:23 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
From The CA PUC:
CPUC APPROVES PREFIX LOTTERY IF CONSERVATION MEASURES FAIL
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved today a
lottery system to be used to distribute new telephone number prefixes
to telecommunications companies serving customers in the 310, 415 and
619 area codes if conservation measures fail to avert a shortage of
prefixes within those area codes.
In June, Pacific Bell, the State Code Administrator (SCA) declared
a temporary freeze on prefix assignments to carriers serving these
area codes because of impending number shortages.
New telecommunications technologies and competition for local
exchange service have increased telephone number use and new area
codes must be introduced statewide to meet that demand. The SCA
generally follows standard industry guidelines which are intended to
assign codes in an efficient manner. Because of concerns that
prefixes in the 310 area code may be used up before a new area code
can be introduced, in June the Commission adopted more restrictive
conservation measures for assigning prefixes. The Commission is also
considering whether similar restrictions should be applied to other
area codes.
The additional conservation measures the Commission imposed on the
310 area code include: all carriers - cellular, paging, personal
communications services, local telecommunications companies and local
competitors - must return or confirm that they have unused numbers;
disconnected telephone numbers will be reused after two months for
residential service and nine months for businesses; and all prefixes,
including those that are the same as nearby area codes, will be used.
Today's order directs the SCA to report to the CPUC whether
conservation measures specified last June will be sufficient to ensure
number availability in those area codes or if rationing by means of a
lottery is necessary.
Since the freeze was declared, Pacific has been meeting with
industry representatives to devise additional voluntary conservation
measures that would extend the life of prefixes in these area codes.
If the voluntary measures are not sufficient, a lottery will be
conducted to determine which carriers get the remaining codes within
these three area codes. At a later date, the Commission may decide to
extend the lottery to other area codes facing similar number
shortages.
To mitigate risks that new entrants to the telecommunications
industry may be denied any prefixes, the lottery would reserve 60
percent of the prefixes for carriers who are new in the area and the
rest to carriers that want to expand business in an area. However, to
avoid denying new service to customers, priority will be given to a
carrier which is the only service provider in a community and has run
out of numbers for that area.
Area code 310 has 53 new prefixes left and they must last until
the area is split in October 1997. Because numbers may run out before
the area code split is completed, the Commission ordered the SCA to
evaluate the feasibility of splitting the 310 area sooner.
The 415 code has 120 new prefixes left which must last until May
1998. The 619 code has 57 to last until December 1997. There are 792
prefixes in an area code, 10,000 numbers in a prefix.
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:26:35 -0700
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Extra Expensive 809/Caribbean Calls
There has recently been a discussion regarding 'extra expensive'
charges (over and above the expected tariffed international rate) on
calls to certain NXX exchanges or seven-digit numbers in the Caribbean
(NPA 809 and the new split ones down there). I have called the AT&T
operator to see if some of these 809-NXX codes or new Caribbean
NPA-NXX codes have a valid 'nameplace' and also to inquire about the
rates. They *do* have a valid nameplace, and a standard international
Caribbean rate. Incidently, many Caribbean islands do have *internal*
976-xxxx numbers, but 976 and similar type local PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call
NXX exchanges are blocked from inward access from outside of the local
area.
Regarding extra-expensive charges to the Caribbean, here is what
'could' be happening:
Similar to the 'pay-per-call' chargeback 800/888 numbers
(toll-free???), the called party in the Caribbean gets the caller's
number via a realtime ANI hookup. I don't know if SS7 Caller-ID type
of number delivery works yet on inbound calls to 809 and the new
Caribbean NPA's, except for maybe calls to Puerto Rico and the USVI,
as these are *US* locations and fall under FCC jurisdiction, probably
including interstate Caller-ID and other SS7 CLASS features.
You get your 'standard' but rather high ( >$1.00-per-min.)
international Caribbean charges via your primary toll carrier, via
whatever billing procedures you normally have, either on a separate
long-distance company bill, or via a page(s) for that LD company with
your monthly local telco billing.
But THEN, you get a bill from some sleaze billing company, most likely
via a separate page(s) associated with your local telco, for
'voicemail' charges or 'paging' charges or 'conference call'
charges. The 'bill' claims you 'ordered' such 'services' from some
unknown sleazeball company, and at rates of something like $50.00 or
$100.00 or whatever. Since your telephone number was delivered via
realtime ANI to the called sleazeball sex company, they can prepare
such 'bogus' charges and route it thru some billing consolidation
third-party entities which have billing/collection contracts with
most/all LEC's in the USA. Sometimes, they will even say that you did
dial an 809 (or new Caribbean NPA) number, even though you were
already billed for the tariffed international Caribbean toll charges
via your LD company.
As for the charges for bogus 'conference calls', I've been told that
there is NO indication of the telephone numbers included in the
so-called 'conference', nor the connection time, nor any other detail
that a legit carrier would indicate in billings for conference
calls. You simply get 'Conference Call' made at 3:00 am on
such-and-such-a-date, at a cost of US$75.00. MAYBE it says that there
were twenty parties and that you were connected for fifteen minutes,
but no numbers of the conferees.
This is similar to the 800/888 chargeable numbers. Back in 1984, some
of them were even indicating on their extra page(s) with your local
telco bill that you were being charged for dialing an '800'
number. Customers began to complain (and RIGHTFULLY SO) to telco, FCC,
state reg, consumer advocacy groups, media, etc. Most telcos which did
the end-billing began to drop such billing if the AMA/RAO tapes had
charges which specifically indicated charges for calling an 800
number, and the FCC began to issue some orders or the like to prohibit
or limit such practices of the sleazeball companies.
To get around that, the sleazeball companies began to 'make up' bogus
'services' to indicate on the bill, such as described above
(conference call, voicemail, paging, etc), when they got (realtime)
ANI from someone dialing their sex/astrology/horoscope/psychic/etc.
800 (and now 888) numbers.
I would think that the *same* thing is probably happening with 809
(and new Caribean NPA's), however they can 'slip by' more easily since
the sleazeball billing entity could show the actual 809/Carib. NPA
again, since unlike 800/888, it is not a toll-free NPA.
On another similar related note:
Remember about six years ago ... there was a pay-per-call scam or
rather a scam which billed to your telephone bill which was referred
to as 'collect 900'?
You'd get a call from a recording telling you that you'd won a prize
or something, but had to pay a processing fee. The processing fee
would be charged to your telephone bill (via a billing entity). If you
WANTED the gift(?) and agreed to the processing charges, just press
'1'. If you did NOT want the 'gift' (gift?), just press '2'. If you
hung up, you didn't press '2'. If you had a pulsedial or rotary phone,
you didn't press '2'. If you didn't speak English and couldn't
comprehend the instructions, you didn't press '2'. Could an answering
machine 'press 2'? Could a modem? What about little children at home,
or elderly/handicapped people getting such calls?
Even if you did press '2' to REJECT, were you certain FOR SURE that
you really DID reject that call/gift(?)/charges?
The FCC did do some investigations on it and there are prohibitions on
such.
Due to the divested environment we are in now, such scams and sleaze
billing practices will continue to slip thru the cracks! :(
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: Rosh John Joseph <rosh.john@aspex.co.uk>
Subject: CFP: Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 18:21:53 +0100
Organization: Aspex Microsystem Ltd.
Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia
Geneva, Switzerland - Tuesday, April 1, 1997
Call for Participation
The Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia will be held in
Geneva, Switzerland on April 1, 1997. The workshop is part of the 11th
International Parallel Processing Symposium (IPPS '97) which is
sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Parallel
Processing and is held in cooperation with ACM SIGARCH.
In the recent years multimedia technology has emerged as a key
technology, mainly, because of its ability to represent information in
disparate forms as a bit-stream. This enables, everything from text to
video and sound to be stored, processed and delivered in digital form.
A great part of the current research community effort has emphasized
the delivery of the data as an important issue of multimedia
technology. However, the creation, processing and management of
multimedia forms are the issues most likely to dominate the scientific
interest in the long run. The focus of the activity will be how
multimedia technology deals with information, which is in general
task-dependent and is extracted from data in a particular context by
exercising knowledge. The desire to deal with information from forms
such as video, text and sound will result in a data explosion. This
[requirement to store, process and manage large data sets] naturally
leads to the consideration of programmable parallel processing systems
as strong candidates in supporting and enabling multimedia technology.
The workshop aims to act as a platform where topics related, but not
limited, to:
* parallel architectures for multimedia
* mapping multimedia applications to parallel architectures
* system interfaces and programming tools to support multimedia
applications on parallel
processing systems
* multimedia content creation, processing and management using
parallel architectures
* parallel processing architectures of multimedia set-top boxes
* multimedia agent technology and parallel processing
* `proof of concept' implementations and case studies.
Workshop plans include a keynote address, submitted papers, and a panel
discussion.
Submitting Papers & Publication Details
Authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting original
unpublished research and recent developments in the topics related to
the workshop. The language of the workshop is English. All manuscripts
will be peer-reviewed. Submissions should be in uuencoded, gzipped,
postscript form and e-mailed to Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk. In cases
where electronic submission is not possible, send 4 copies to the
Workshop Organiser. Manuscripts must be received by October 30, 1996.
The manuscript should not exceed 15 double-spaced (i.e. point size 12),
single-sided A4 size page, with a 250-word abstract. The corresponding
author is requested to include in the cover letter:
1. complete postal address
2. e-mail address
3. phone number
4. fax number
5. key phrases that characterize the paper's topic.
Receipt of submissions will be promptly acknowledged by e-mail.
Notification of review decisions will be e-mailed by January 10, 1996.
Camera-ready papers will be due by February 20, 1997.
A book of the accepted papers will be available at the Workshop. In
addition, the accepted papers will be appearing in a planned special
issue of the Journal of Parallel Computing.
Workshop Organiser
Argy Krikelis
Aspex Microsystems Ltd.
Brunel University
Uxbridge, UB8 3PH
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 1895 274000, ext: 2763
Fax: + 44 1895 258728
E-mail: Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk
Programme Committee
V. Michael Bove Jr. MIT Media Lab.
Shih-Fu Chang, Columbia University
Edward J. Delp, Purdue University
Ophir Frieder, George Mason University
Martin Goebel, GMD, Germany
Argy Krikelis, Aspex Microsystems Ltd., UK
Tosiyasu L. Kunii, The University of Aizu, Japan
Yoshiyasu Takefuji, Keio University,
Japan & Case Western Reserve University
Registration:
This workshop is being held as part of IPPS. The usual IEEE Computer
Society guidelines apply wrt registration; the workshop is open to IPPS
registrants and separate registration for the workshop is not needed.
Information about IPPS can be obtained over the Web at the following
URL:
http://cuiwww.unige.ch/~ipps97
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: 904 ... Here We Go Again!
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:26:59 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
In early September, BellSouth filed with the FL PSC for intervention
in relieving the rapidly growing 904 area code. Despite a split in
late '95 (a 65-35 split at that), and projections that 904 would late
until 2000, action is sorely needed. Last Thursday the PSC decided to
consider open hearings on the matter, to be scheduled at an upcoming
meeting of the board.
As usual, BellSouth *wants* to overlay, but will present a split
option.
The following is a list of dates and times for discussion of NPA 904
relief plans:
FAW NOTICE OF 11/4/96 service hearing at 6:30 p.m., Pensacola City
Hall City Council Chambers 1st Floor in Pensacola.
FAW NOTICE OF 11/5/96 service hearing at 6:30 p.m., Panama City
Hall, Commission Room, in Panama City.
FAW NOTICE OF 11/7/96 service hearing at 6:30 p.m., Rm 148, Betty
Easley Conference Center, 4075 Esplanade Way, in Tallahassee.
FAW notice of service hearing to be held 11/13/96 in Daytona Beach.
Specific location and time not available at time of posting.
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #566
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 16:31:14 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id QAA26065; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610242031.QAA26065@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #567
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 16:31:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 567
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Stanley Cline)
Western Union = New Valley Corp? (Stan Schwartz)
New *XX Service Code? (Stan Schwartz)
Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Ernie Holling)
Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (R. Van Valkenburgh)
Re: Would You Sign a Two Year Contract? (Maybe) (Arnold Brod)
Re: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" (Wes Leatherock)
Re: AOL, Microsoft Network Mull Flat Rates (Doug Sewell)
Two New NPAs For New Jersey (Tad Cook)
Re: Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equipment (Craig A. Fringer)
Re: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70 (Steve Forrette)
Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted (Zev Rubenstein)
Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted (Ken Jongsma)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 02:33:24 GMT
Organization: Catoosa Computing Services
Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com
craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) wrote:
> johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) writes:
>> You want cellular numbers to be local to the city where the
>> subscriber lives.
> Why even do that? Why not make them local to wherever the cellular
> phone currently is? If I'm standing 10 feet from you and call you on
I think that a mix of the two ideas (number based on subscriber's home
base, and number based on caller's location) would be the most
logical. In most cellular systems, this would mean that a cellular
phone would be a local call from *anywhere in that cellular system's
territory*, instead of persons calling to the cellular having to pay
LD charges.
For example, the Atlanta BellSouth Mobility local coverage area covers
at least 45 counties in Georgia. Calls FROM cellphones to anywhere in
the 45 counties are local, but inbound calls are local ONLY from the
area where the cellular's number is based (*unless* one knows how to use
roamer access numbers.)
Example: Dalton, GA customer of BellSouth can call TO Atlanta (and
Toccoa, etc. but not Newnan :^( ) without LD charges, but persons in
Atlanta calling the cellular customer (whether they're in Dalton,
Atlanta, or Toccoa) must a) pay intraLATA LD to call the Dalton number
"POP", or b) use the Atlanta roamer access number then enter the
Dalton number. (This doesn't take into account inter-carrier or
inter-switch roaming situations, which are much more complex.)
Why not set up a central pool of numbers that's local from anywhere in
the 45 counties? My opinion: BellSouth (and the many teensy
independent LECs in north Georgia) don't want to see that one-way LD
revenue go away. (Sort of like the argument surrounding local calling
between Trenton, GA and Chattanooga. In fact, ANY call to a cellular
phone from Trenton is LD, even though cellular customers can call TO
Trenton without LD charges! This is one of the Georgia PSC's arguments
against Trenton Telephone, that they have denied cellular carriers the
opportunity to establish "POP"s in Trenton.)
(In reality, it is possible to expand local inward calling somewhat with
BellSouth/Atlanta by establishing a number in the Adairsville "POP"
[770-773, etc.] which is local to Rome, Calhoun, and the Extended
Atlanta Metro calling area. This still doesn't address Dalton or
northeast Georgia.)
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/
CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1
------------------------------
From: Stan Schwartz <stan@vnet.net>
Subject: Western Union = New Valley Corp?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:38:56 -0400
This is from the FCC Daily Digest of 10/18/96:
THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. TRT :TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION AND FTC COMMUNICATIONS, INC - CORRECTED. Ordered IDB
Worldcom Services, Inc. the successor in interest to TRT
Telecommunications Corporation and FTC Communications, Inc., to pay
New Valley Corporation (formerly Western Union Telegraph Company)
certain amounts, insofar as undisputed, for which the Commission
previously determined they were liable.
Action by the FCC. Adopted: October 10, 1996. by MO&O. (FCC
No. 96-410). CCB Internet URL: /Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/index.html
----------------------
For how long has Western Union been "New Valley Corporation"? I don't
remember seeing that mentioned in the "History of..." special issues
of TD a few months back. Notice they specify "Western Union Telegraph
Company" in the header, so there's no mistaking it for the defunct
long distance company.
Stan
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'New Valley' has been around for a
couple of years, maybe three. It is the remains of what was left after
Western Union filed bankruptcy and after much of the old company was
picked apart and sold off. I think New Valley is mostly into the
money transfer side of the old business. New Valley bought the rights
from the Bankruptcy Court to use the 'Western Union' name. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Stan Schwartz <stan@vnet.net>
Subject: New *XX Service Code?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:45:25 -0400
My local telephone company, BellSouth, has informed me that I can now
use *47 to activate "Variable Ring No Answer" at no additional charge,
since I'm also using their "Memory Call" voice mail service.
In my 5ESS central office, I am supposed to dial *47 and I receive a
second dial tone. Then, I am supposed to enter the NUMBER OF SECONDS
that I would like the phone to ring before it gets pulled over to voice
mail. They tell users to allow six seconds for each ring.
In the digital offices, the number entered after the second dial tone is
the NUMBER OF RINGS that I would want to hear before the call gets
pulled. While this makes it easier for the average user, the option I
was given allows me to program "oddball" cycles of 3.5 rings (21 seconds).
Stan
------------------------------
From: Ernie Holling <holling@intech-group.com>
Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 02:52:21 GMT
Organization: The InTech Group
Tom,
Keith is on the right track.
It sounds as though you are looking into switched rates. You should be
able to probe the T-1 rates.
What type of PBX do you have? Is it T-1 equipped?
If you'd like a local consultant, I be happy to refer you to someone
who is not in the LD business themselves.
Ernie Holling holling@intech-group.com
The InTech Group, Inc. 610-524-8400
75 East Uwchlan Avenue 610-524-8440 (Fax)
Exton, Pa 19341
The Society of Telecommunications Consultants
Eastern Technology Council
BISCI
------------------------------
From: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh)
Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:46:45 GMT
Organization: auburn.campus.MCI.net
Reply-To: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net
My crystal ball is on the fritz, so I can't help you with the future
except to say that some people think that long distance rates will
approach local rates before settling down.
Another issue you don't mention that I think is important is that most
of the contracts insist on a minimum usage. I have found that the
carriers often try to keep the minimum at the level you are currently
using (or above). This means that you must keep up your consumption
AND even increase it if rates go down -- else you'll be paying a
penalty in addition to your "discount".
Many large companies seem to insist that the minimum requirement be no
larger than 85% of their current usage.
Good luck on what ever you decide.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:54:33 EDT
From: Arnold Brod <TeleCom@cris.com>
Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two Year Contract? (Maybe)
I initially responded to this post to Tom's private e-mail because I
was doing some solicitation and did not want to do it in an open
forum. He told me that T1 service would not be practical because he
has 2 sites and 80 some lines. This may or may not be a correct
analysis.
But my question is this. I think that his volume should generate more
competition for his business and would not require a term
committment. I would think that the local marketplace would be the
place to look for service providers. I only say this because I
represent several resellers on the East Coast and one can provide
9.9cpm with no contract on as little as $400 per month in volume. And
one niche provider that can bypass high intrastate rates. Now
nationally, these resellers cannot compete with the product that Tom
was quoted.
So what about the local market Tom?
Arnold Brod
TeleCom Associates
TeleCom@cris.com
http://spring-board.com/one/telecom/tele.htm
------------------------------
From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:25:32 GMT
Subject: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service"
Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) wrote:
> I got my phone bill today, and it had one item that caught my eye. I
> have a friend in Texas who has actually replaced his POTS line with a
> cellphone, for various reasons having mostly to do with local calling
> areas. He actually lives in Denton, but the cellphone number is in
> the 214-507 prefix, which is rated as "Grand Prairie" (GRANDPRARI, in
> telco abbrevspeak). This caught my eye, because I had earlier
> verified that the 214-507 prefix will not be moving to the new 972
> area code; I had assumed that this meant that it was designated a
> "Dallas" exchange.
> I thus did a little digging, and of the 179 exchanges I found that are
> designated "Grand Prairie," 43 are moving into 972, but the other 136
> are staying in 214. The division does not seem to be geographic -- as
> far as I know, Grand Prairie is not subdivided (a la San Francisco 1,
> 2, and 3), but is only a single rate center.
There would not seem to be any reason a single rate center
should not be divided between two (or more) area codes. There are
multiple wire centers in Grand Prairie, and while it may be a little
unusual now to have a rate center split between area codes, there will
probably more in the future.
After all, the billing equipment both before and after the
split still has to do a lookup on all six digits to rate the call and
to determine what rate center name to print on the bill, so this does
not seem a major issue.
Of course, that does not address your question as to whether
cellular numbers are getting special consideration.
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com
wes.leatherock@origins.bbs.uoknor.edu
------------------------------
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: AOL, Microsoft Network Mull Flat Rates
Date: 23 Oct 1996 10:58:57 -0400
Organization: Youngstown State University
Thus spake Tad Cook <tad@ssc.com>:
> AOL, Microsoft Mull Flat Rates for Internet Access Via AP Dow Jones
> News Service
> VIENNA, Va. (Dow Jones News) -- America Online Inc. and Microsoft
> Corp. are considering charging their users flat rates for unlimited
> Internet access, a move that could spark a new round of price
> competition in the on-line industry.
> AOL, the nation's largest on-line service, is testing an offer to its
> more than six million customers of one flat monthly fee, the company
> said Monday.
Two months ago I switched to AOL's value plan ($19.95/20 hours, extra
hours at $2.95) but it was still too expensive. In addition, all kinds
of mail-spammers got hold of my AOL screen name, every day I'd toss two
to four junk e-mails. So, yesterday I called AOL customer service to
cancel my account.
They were *very* intent on keeping my business -- they offered me 50
free hours plus waiving next month's $19.95 fee ... they suggested
their GNN as an alternative if it was internet use that was costing so
much (it wasn't -- and GNN's just one fish in a big pond of ISP's
around here) ... and I had to play 20 questions to get them to close
the account.
Yes, there are a few features I'd miss ... but I can get them elsewhere.
Doug Sewell (doug@cc.ysu.edu) (http://cc.ysu.edu/~doug/)
------------------------------
Subject: Two New NPAs for New Jersey
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:31:47 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
New Jersey to Create Two New Area Codes
By Michael L. Rozansky, The Philadelphia Inquirer
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Oct. 24--New Jersey officials Wednesday jumped into the emotional
battle over how to create new telephone area codes, choosing to slice
the North and Central Jersey area codes into smaller geographic
sections.
Voting 2-0, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities opted for
geographic splits instead of "overlay" codes which would have fitted
atop the existing 201 North Jersey and 908 Central Jersey area codes.
With an overlay, phone numbers would be assigned from the old area
code until it was exhausted. Then, new numbers would be in the new
(still-unnamed) code. It could have meant that two phone lines in a
home could have different area codes.
Herbert H. Tate Jr., president of the New Jersey board, said of a
geographic split: "We felt it would be less intrusive and less
confusing for customers." With an overlay system, he said, everyone
would have to dial 10 digits -- the area code plus the number -- for
all calls, even those within one area code.
Tate said a geographic split would be fairer to competitors entering
the local phone business. Using an overlay, competitors would have to
assign their customers phone numbers in the new area code, while Bell
Atlantic would keep its huge customer base in the older, more familiar
area code.
Tate said he didn't know whether that logic would hold when the board
takes up the question of how to divide South Jersey's 609 area code.
Wednesday's decision highlights the confusion over the best way to
resolve the phone-number crunch created by soaring demand for cellular
phones, pagers, fax machines, second home lines and computer modems.
In June, Pennsylvania regulators decided to create a new area code for
the Pittsburgh 412 area by using the opposite method, an overlay code,
saying that it was "the least inconvenient." Pennsylvania regulators
are fighting a federal mandate that everyone in an overlay area code
use 10-digit dialing. They want Bell Atlantic customers to be able to
continue to use 7-digits dialing, which Bell's competitors say would
be unfair.
Bell Atlantic Corp. has favored the overlay method, saying it wouldn't
force anyone to change their current area codes. But competitors such
as AT&T and MCI, which are entering the local-phone business, say that
a traditional geographic split is less confusing.
"Obviously, we wanted something better for New Jersey," Bell Atlantic
spokesman Tim Ireland said. "We didn't think, of the two plans, that
this one was convenient, cost-effective, forward-looking."
AT&T spokesman Dan Lawler said: "Hopefully, it's certainly a positive for
consumers as far as we're concerned."
The splits approved Wednesday would cut through nine towns in the 201
area and 12 towns in the 908 area. The 201 area would encompass the
eastern parts of Bergen and Hudson counties; the rest of 201 would be
assigned to the new area code. The north and west parts of 908 would
retain that number, while Shore communities like Long Branch would get
a new number.
The 201 area is expected to run out of numbers next July, and 908 will
run out in a year, according to Bell Atlantic.
------------------------------
From: fringer@midget.towson.edu (Craig A. Fringer)
Subject: Re: Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equipment
Date: 24 Oct 1996 13:11:45 GMT
Organization: Towson State University, Towson, MD
Dana.Rozycki@octel.com wrote:
> The American University theatre department here in Washington,
> D.C. is staging a play that has many scenes of operators working
> manual switchboards, featuring phones from the 40s, etc.
From a Scene Designers standpoint, "A History of Science and
Engineering in the Bell System" is a great series of books published
by Bell Labs. Volumes 1 ("The Early Years") and 2 ("Switching
Technology, 1925 - 1975") would be of interest to the purpose. A
great number of photographs depict the types of equipment you seek,
especially in Volume 1. I was able to find these in the university
library where I work.
Additionally, Phoneco Inc. in Wisconsin specializes in antiques and
collectibles. The number I have for them is 608-582-4124. It has been a
few years since I called them so the number may not be good. I have,
however, heard their name in the past year, so here is the address:
Phoneco Inc.
PO Box 70
Galesville WI 54630
Hope this helps.
Craig
------------------------------
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70
Date: 22 Oct 1996 17:20:36 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn
In article <telecom16.555.11@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Telecom@Eureka.vip.
best.com says:
> I just made a curious discovery. Up until very recently, when I dialed
> *70 for cancel call waiting, I got stutter dialtone but could dial right
> through it without any problems. Just this week, though, I noticed that
> when I dial *70, I get two short bursts of what sounds like stutter BUSY
> tone, then return to steady dialtone. Furthermore, if I don't pause and
> wait for the regular dialtone, my call is not completed correctly.
> I don't know what
> central office or model of switch serves this line (shameful to admit, I
> know ;->). Does this reflect some recent "upgrade" on the telco switch?
The symptoms you describe (stuttering after *70 sounding like a busy
signal and the inability to dial while the switch is stuttering) are
indicative of a Northern Telecom DMS-100 switch. My guess would be
that you used to be on a 1AESS, and PacBell decided to upgrade from an
analog to a digital switch. BTW, AT&T's (Lucent's?) 5ESS digital
swtich behaves the same way as the 1A switch respect to *70.
Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
------------------------------
From: zev@wireless.att.com
Subject: Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:48:23 -0400
Jerry wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody out there have had any experience with VTech
> 900 MHz digital cordless phones.
I have not been happy with the quality of the 5 VTech phones I have
gone through. The older model I had (nearly 4 years ago) I had to
return twice till I got one that worked. Once it did, it had
outstanding range (I lived in Manhattan and could go down a concrete
stairwell on the other side of my floor and out the front door and
around the corner and would only experience some slight
dropouts). However, the quality of the voice (the microphone on the
handset) is just OK, and the buttons on both the base and especially
the handset would ignore being pressed or double-tone, depending on
how they felt. By comparison, my Panasonic analog cordless that is
about 7 years old has no such problems.
I recently spent about $65 plus postage to have the original unit
replaced (they replace the older ones instead of repairing them). I
was sent the 960 NDX, which worked fine for a while, except for a
clicking noise which happened continuously. Then the buttons went on
that one and the range suddenly dropped to about 30 feet. I sent that
one back (under warranty) and it was replaced by a 900 NDX. It seems
to have great range, but the clicking is really VERY annoying on this
one, and it would lose numbers stored in the memory. VTech is sending
me a fed-x sticker to send this one back with and it will be replaced
with a new unit of the same model.
The customer service rep said that the clicking is caused by the unit
performing frequency hopping -- can anyone out there confirm if that
makes sense?
A few months ago in the Digest someone did a survey of owners of 900
MHz cordless phones -- you might want to search for it and see what
the other comments were.
Finally, three years ago when I was still happy with my original
VTech, I recommended it to two friends who purchased their own, and
they were both happy with their original units and as far as I know
haven't had any problems.
Zev Rubenstein
Nationwide Telecommunications Resources
zev@ntr-usa.com
------------------------------
From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:13:03 GMT
Organization: Honeywell, Inc. - DAS
wrenstar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jerry W. Lee) wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody out there have had any experience with VTech
> 900 MHz digital cordless phones. I'm thinking of getting one through my
> company, but the only problem is that I more or less have to pay for it
> and won't get a chance to try it out before then.
Vtech makes a rather extensive line of 900Mhz phones, including some
private label models for other companies like AT&T. I have one that
I'm reasonably happy with, the 900NDL. My only criticism would be that
the handset volume is just a bit low, even at it's highest setting.
Some have commented that the phone also cuts out at very low levels.
I.e., if the person your are speaking with is talking very softly, it
can be difficult to understand. While I have noticed the effect, it
hasn't been a problem.
Be careful that you get one of the digital models. Vtech has recently
started selling a low end model (~$99) that is analog. Anyone with a
cheap scanner can listen in on that model.
Ken Jongsma kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com
Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems, Albuquerque, NM
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #567
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 19:56:14 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id TAA19978; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610242356.TAA19978@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #568
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 19:56:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 568
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Larry Schwarcz)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Hillary Gorman)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Cable Modems (tgreen@gte.net)
Re: Cable Modems (Bill Sohl)
Re: Cable Modems (Michael Wengler)
Re: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local ISP? (R. Van Valkenburgh)
Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey (Linc Madison)
Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud) (Leonard Erickson)
Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan (telcorp@worldnet.att.net)
Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet (Bill Sohl)
Re: Prison Telephone Revenues (Michael Wengler)
NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service (Mike Pollock)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 13:11:40 -0700
From: Larry Schwarcz <lrs@hpisrhw.cup.hp.com>
Pat,
> If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
> hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
> several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
> one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
> feelings any. PAT]
Hanging up just stops that one call. They could very well call you
back the next night or next week.
When I get those calls, I quickly interrupt their sales pitch and just
say, "No thanks, and please remove this number from your list." By
law, if you ask, the can't call again (if they care about the law).
Seems to work. Most of the telemarketing calls I get are actually for
someone else. They When I say that the person they're looking for
doesn't live here, they then try to sell to me. But, after doing this
now for many years, it seems as though the frequency of them is
decreasing.
Of course, your milage may vary :-).
Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/NCD Internet: lrs@cup.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Company Direct: (408) 447-2543
19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN Main: (408) 447-2000
Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-2264
------------------------------
From: hillary@netaxs.com (Hillary Gorman)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:00:37 -0400
Organization: the bottom of the bit bucket
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
> hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
> several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
> one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
> feelings any. PAT]
Sorry to burst your bubble ...
I used to do cold calling for my university. "hi, this is Hillary from
the CAL Keeping the Promise Campaign!" We were under direct orders to
start by asking the callees for 3% of their annual income every year
for 3 years. You can imagine the many hangups we got. Not only did it
in fact, hurt our feelings, but we also got NEGATIVE "points" for
every hangup our supervisor noticed. We had to fill out a form for
each call which listed the reason for the premature termination of the
call (eg, during dinner, person felt sick, person claims to have no
money, etc.) If we put "callee hung up" it was WORSE than if the
person simply said "no thanks, I'm broke" and then hung up. Not to
mention it makes you feel really small when someone just hangs up on
you. Luckily, after a couple of weeks, I was able to pay my rent that
month and I quit, figuring I had three more weeks to find a better job
(and I knew I could always go back if i had to.)
hillary gorman http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you, as Maddi suggested, consider
yourself on the shallow end of the gene pool? PAT]
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 23 Oct 1996 20:05:16 -0400
Organization: Panix
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom16.565.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, PAT wrote:
> If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
> hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
> several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
> one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
> feelings any. PAT]
I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree.
The fact that telemarketers don't reach a live customer with each call
is a signficant flaw in their business model both socially and
economically. It's a flaw socially because it means that they harass
us, the general public, by calling us to yammer about things we have
no interest whatsoever in buying; this is an interruption and quite
irritating; some would call it an invasion of privacy. I personally
don't have inbound telephone service at home because I discovered
quite quickly after moving to Chicago that telemarketing is far more
prevalent in the Midwest than on the East Coast, and I very much don't
care for it.
It's an economic flaw because if their operators can't quickly
distinguish between a "live one" and someone who's yanking their
chain, it drops the transactions per hour figure for each operator
substantially and raises costs.
If you don't like telemarketing as I don't, I heartily encourage you
to raise the business costs of telemarketing firms by keeping their
operators on the line as long as possible. They annoy you, although
what they do is technically legal; why shouldn't you annoy them, since
that's legal, too?
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've no objection with raising their
business costs, increasing their phone bills as a result, etc. I
strongly also believe in discouraging telemarketers -- as an organ-
ization -- but not personally insulting some twenty year old kid who
is doing it because s/he is desparate to pay college expenses and
rent, etc. You can stall them all you want, ask a million questions,
make it a very difficult call for them; but you don't have to get
personal with the person making the call by referring to them as the
shallow end of the gene pool or a 'droid' or 'scum' or whatever;
at least not in their presence. Most of them are no different than
Hillary as per the message before this one: they are trying to pay
their rent and survive in the world. I am sure for example Hillary
does not consider herself 'scum', either now or back then. My main
complaint with Maddi was not in expressing a dislike for those
organizations but in taking some poor naive kid and playing a cruel
trick like that. It is the same kind of objection I have to shows
like 'America's Funniest Home Videos' and 'Candid Camera'. People
are entitled to have their private thoughts and desires left alone
and not exploited so someone else can have a laugh. PAT]
------------------------------
From: tgreen@gte.net
Subject: Re: Cable Modems
Date: 24 Oct 1996 19:36:05 GMT
Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service
In article <telecom16.560.11@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, wkim@medialight.com
(Will Kim) wrote:
> In article <telecom16.543.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad
> Cook) wrote:
>> ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard
>> copper phone lines.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something
> like that. :)
Uhh, considering that this is being posted at 128kbps via ISDN over a
"standard" copper local loop, why would you say that?
Tom Green
------------------------------
From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: Cable Modems
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:46:13 GMT
Organization: BL Enterprises
wkim@medialight.com (Will Kim) wrote:
> In article <telecom16.543.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad
> Cook) wrote:
>> ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard
>> copper phone lines.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something
> like that. :)
The statement is essentially correct. An ISDN line uses standard a
copper pair from the ISDN phone to the central office line card. That
distance is up to 18Kft and can be extended with a digital repeater.
The 128K of throughput is attainable by dialing up a bonded connection
(i.e. 2 B channels or 64K each).
Using compression, it is possible to attain an actual throughput rate
that even exceeds the 128Kb/sec.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net
Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor
Budd Lake, New Jersey
------------------------------
From: Michael Wengler <mwengler@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Cable Modems
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:25:20 -0700
Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA
Will Kim wrote:
> In article <telecom16.543.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad
> Cook) wrote:
> > ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard
> > copper phone lines.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something
> like that. :)
All hail the cryptic correction!
However, I thought that:
1) ISDN ran over standard local loop, except with more restrictions on
bridges, splices &c. That is, a relatively unmunged local loop could
carry ISDN without modification, but a munged local loop might need to
be unmunged to carry IDSN.
2) ISDN is nominally either 56 or 64 kbits/sec DUPLEX, but that the line
could be switched so both data channels carried in the same direction to
carry a big monodirectional transfer, doubling the rates up to 28 kbits.
So what then was the error, or more to the educational point, what is
the actual situation?
Perhaps in the future corrections can actually carry the correct data,
or at least what the corrector thinks is the correct data?
Thanks,
Mike
------------------------------
From: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh)
Subject: Re: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Interner Service Provider?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:46:48 GMT
Organization: auburn.campus.MCI.net
Reply-To: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net
jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) wrote:
> I do wish that all phone companies (not just GTE) had better
> procedures for handling "unusual" complaints. If you call about
> something that turns out to be a programming error in the switch, you
> almost stand a better chance of getting an audience with the President
> than getting to talk to someone who actually understands the problem
> and can do something about it (especially if you call Repair Service).
> But that is not just a GTE problem, I've had similar problems with
> Ameritech in the past and I'm sure it happens at the other "baby
> Bells" as well.
I agree (that it may be easier to get an audience with the President
rather than talk to someone at the local telco who understands the
switch) ...
Here in BellSouth land our company began having problems soon after
another large company in the area got a number of new lines from
BellSouth. Don't know under what circumstances it was caused, but
many of the DID calls to our company were being dispatched to their
company. I complained and complained and complained, but all they
would ever do is ask what number was being called and what number was
being reached and then report that they could find nothing wrong.
Eventually after my incessant complaining the problem that couldn't be
found disappeared.
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:23:12 -0700
Organization: Best Internet Communications
One quote in this article especially caught my eye:
In article <telecom16.567.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote:
> New Jersey to Create Two New Area Codes
> By Michael L. Rozansky, The Philadelphia Inquirer
> Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
> [discussion of split vs. overlay in NJ and PA, etc.]
> AT&T spokesman Dan Lawler said: "Hopefully, it's certainly a positive for
> consumers as far as we're concerned."
"Hopefully, it's certainly..." How is it that I get the feeling that
I would know without asking what department this guy was in if I met
him at a cocktail party?
The other one that got me was the statement that overlays were not
"forward looking," which is precisely the reverse of reality. Whether
you like them or not, overlays are the way of the future; they will
eventually come at least to large metropolitan areas.
I was also struck by how poorly worded the descriptions in the news
report were of where the new area code boundaries would lie.
Something simple like "201 would retain xxx, yyy, and zzz counties,
plus most of aaa and a portion of bbb; the new area code in 201 would
include ..." and similarly for 908 and its new sibling.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud via Email)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:25:44 PST
Organization: Shadownet
tls@rek.tjls.com writes:
>> Or we could educate people about what area codes aren't US codes.
> That's ridiculous. Ordinary people ought _not_ have to remember all
> kinds of silly exceptions to the general dialing and billing rules in
> order to not accidentally make expensive international telephone
> calls.
Sorry, but given the way things have *always* been since direct
dialing of long distance was started, people are responsible for
knowing what they are doing.
> There is already a perfectly good dialing syntax which clearly
> distinguishes international calls as "different" -- the 011 prefix.
No. That syntax is for dialing calls to locations with a different
ITU-T "country code". While this is *usually* the same as dialing an
"international" call, it isn't always. Consider Guam and Americam
Samoa.
> If the Carribean telcos want to take advantage of the historical
> oddity in international calling rules that allows them to appear to
> U.S. customers to be "domestic", they have no business running scams
> that deliberately exploit the fact that they actually aren't;
> assisting through billing kickbacks in the running of such scams is
> equivalent to actually running them, of course.
> If the Carribean telcos won't play ball, the nations they're in should
> be unceremoniously -- and suddenly -- kicked out of the NANP. Perhaps
> the FTC will force Bellcore and the U.S. telcos to do so; it's about
> time.
Sorry, but country codes are assigned by the ITU-T, *not* by any US
agency. And there just plain *aren't* any spares for this part of the
world. They'd have to assign ones from *Asia*, assuming they felt like
doing it at all.
Kicking countries out of the NANP (or admitting them to it) is *not*
something the US can do on it's own, or even in conjunction with
Canada. *Any* changes affect the entire *world*.
>> Or is that assuming that people take too much personal responsibility
>> to determine where an area code's at before the call?
> That's ridiculous. The 809 area code violates a simple rule -- that
> 1+ calls are either in the continental U.S. and Canada or at least in
> U.S. posessions elsewhere in the world, and are far cheaper than
> 011-prefixed international calls.
Nice rule. Pity it has *never* had any resemblance to reality. Most US
possesions require a 011 "international" call *except* for the ones in
the Caribbean, and near Hawaii.
Also, 1+ calls *do* go to places that aren't in the Continental US.
Always have. And 1+ calls are *not* necessarily cheaper than 011 calls.
Consider Mexico.
> The exception should not exist,
> represents a significant inconsistency in the dialing rules as most
> telephone users understand them, and when used to deliberately mislead
> U.S. customers into dialing international calls, is used in a
> deliberately fraudulent manner. Allowing oneself to be defrauded may
> not be wise, but it is certainly not irresponsible.
The problem is that "most telephone users" (including you) *don't*
understand the dialing rules. Your entire argument is based on assuming
that the rules are something quite different from what they have *ever*
been.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: Telcorp Ltd. <Telcorp@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:41:33 -0400
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Reply-To: Telcorp@worldnet.att.net
Monty Solomon wrote:
> AT&T is now running an unadvertised promotion for a rate of $0.10/min
> 24 hours per day for six months. After six months the rate changes to
> $0.15/min 24 hours per day. There are no monthly charges.
> You can optionally request a calling card - $0.30/min with a $0.30
> surcharge.
Can someone who IS currently an AT&T customer get this rate?
------------------------------
From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:49:44 GMT
Organization: BL Enterprises
Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> (Original date was Thu, 17 Oct 1996)
> Bill Sohl wrote:
>> hh@pc012004.is.paradyne.com (Heflin Hogan) wrote:
>>> Interesting idea. Ascend and several other suppliers of ISDN equipment
>>> already implement something similar in their small and home office
>>> equipment. The devices have timeout parameters, and drop the
>>> connection when no traffic is passed for the specified length of
>>> time. ISDN connects so fast that there is no noticable delay when the
>>> connection is reestablihed by the user. The "D" channel is used in its
>>> normal fashion, with no special handling by the telco. It would be
>>> trival for USR, Moto, or any of the other ISDN "modem" manufacturers
>>> to implement this feature in their consumer products.
>> Remember, however, that upon reestablishing a B channel connection to
>> the ISP involves a new switched connection and a new login to the ISP
>> for that connection since there's no way the ISP can be sure that any
>> new switched connection being established is associated with the X25
>> dialog being maintained from your ISDN station.
> Why not use the D-channel X.25 for user-to-internet processing and
> have the Internet Service Provider use the D-channel X.25 to bond with
> a call on the B-channel for internet-to-user?
That's a possible scenario, but see more below.
> The call setup from the Internet Service Provider would not need to
> login, authenticate, etc, and could drop when the bits going towards
> the user are idle.
The call from the ISP will then result in the B channel call being
billed to the ISP. Probably not something the ISP is willing to
accept without some means to pass along the cost on a minutes of use
basis. Probably doable, but not the neatest arrangement.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net
Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor
Budd Lake, New Jersey
------------------------------
From: Michael Wengler <mwengler@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Prison Telephone Revenues
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:50:29 -0700
Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA
Bill Newkirk wrote:
> Once in a while we get to discussing some of the local news in the
> evenings when several of us are on the radio, and one day we were
> talking about prisons and access to telephones and we had something
> along the lines of this ...
> Off hand, it would seem like there's a problem with sticking it to the
> unconvicted when calls are made by those in the pokey. Amazing how all
> those little dimes add up. and of course, the Orange County, FL folks now
> realize what a gold mine they've unwittingly made ...
Hey, maybe most people in jail *BEFORE* their trial because they can't
make bail are guilty ...
BUT this is America, darn it, and they are legally innocent until proven
guilty.
I find it virtually unbelievable that the same coercive, obnoxious,
degrading facilities and rules can be used to hold people before their
trial as is used to punish them if/when they are convicted.
In my opinion, separate facilities with separate rules should be used
for people awaiting trial. AT LEAST, those facilities should include
access to telephones on which 800 numbers can be dialed.
These facilities can be reserved even for people who have NEVER been
convicted. That way, habitual criminals won't clog up this slightly
nicer hellhole, and make it too expensive to administer.
I'm not talking about coddling criminals here. I'm talking about
following our own American tradition of "innocent until proven
guilty," to at least the minimal extent of allowing communication with
the outside world without a completely unjustifiable
monopoly-revenue-producing revenue of the specialized COCOTS providing
the service now.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:12:17 -0700
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Organization: SJS Entertainment
Subject: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service
NYNEX to adopt uniform reach numbers for repair service
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 24, 1996--
Beginning on Jan. 1, 1997, NYNEX will adopt seven-digit telephone
numbers for telephone repair service across New York State. Residence
customers will dial 890-6611 and businesses will use 890-7711.
By implementing the seven-digit numbers, NYNEX will be able to
standardize the way its residence and business customers reach repair
service throughout New York State. The seven-digit numbers have been
in use for several years in upstate areas, while 611 mainly has been
in use in the New York City metropolitan area. Also, NYNEX now will be
on an equal basis with other local communications companies that may
have a seven-digit number for repair.
The numbers will replace 611 for NYNEX repair service in the 212, 718,
914 and 516 area codes.
The repair numbers are toll free, can be dialed from anywhere in the
state, do not require dialing an area code, and are staffed 24 hours a
day.
By standardizing the repair numbers across the state, NYNEX's
customers will have simple, easy-to-remember repair numbers no matter
where they are in the state. Also, operators, representatives and
other customer-contact employees will be able to provide callers with
the appropriate repair number without having to know where the call is
coming from.
From now through Dec. 31, customers in the New York City metropolitan
area will reach NYNEX repair service by dialing either 611 or
890-6611. Beginning Jan. 1, 1997, if a customer dials 611, a recorded
intercept announcement will tell the caller that the number has been
changed to 890-6611 for residence repair and 890-7711 for business
repair. The announcement also will alert callers who use a
communications company other than NYNEX for their local service to
call that company for repair.
Detailed information about the change will be included in customers'
November bills. In addition, NYNEX representatives are meeting with
consumer and community groups throughout the New York City and
surrounding areas to explain the change.
NYNEX is a global communications and media corporation that provides a
full range of services in the northeastern United States and
high-growth markets around the world, including the United Kingdom,
Thailand, Gibraltar, Greece, Indonesia, the Philippines, Poland,
Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The corporation is a leader in
telecommunications, wireless communications, directory publishing and
video entertainment and information services.
You can receive fax copies of recent NYNEX news releases, free of
charge, 24 hours a day by calling 800/331-1214. An automated system
will provide you with instructions.
CONTACT: NYNEX, New York
John Bonomo
212/395-0500
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #568
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Oct 25 10:10:18 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id KAA17430; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610251410.KAA17430@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #569
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Oct 96 10:10:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 569
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Maddi Hausmann Sojourner)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Phillip Ritter)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Rahul Dhesi)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Shalom Septimus)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Jeff Hollingsworth)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Chris Mauritz)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Rich Osman)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Clive D.W. Feather)
Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Tom Watson)
USPS to Offer Electronic Postmark (oldbear@arctos.com)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maddi Hausmann Sojourner <madhaus@genmagic.com>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 23:49:23 +0000
Organization: General Magic, Inc.
[my example of how to torment a telemarketer deleted]
Pat said:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry Maddi, I don't think it was
> funny. In fact, it was a bit hateful. I am not suggesting that
> telemarketers are my favorite people, but I think you pushed it
> a bit far. Put yourself in the position of a very young person
> going to college and paying for it with a part time job that
> they may very well not like any more than you like their calls.
> Also you should note that there are many people in telemarketing
> work because a physical handicap prevents them from doing other
> work. They may be for example visually impaired or confined to
> a wheel chair, etc. That does not of necessity put them on the
> shallow end of the gene pool; it does mean they are ambitious
> enough -- like the young lady who called you -- to want to
> survive on their own in the world and accomplish something.
> If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
> hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
> several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
> one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
> feelings any. PAT]
Sorry, Pat, but you are WAY out of line here. If someone's livelihood
is based on invading the sanctity of my private home, then I have the
legal and moral right to use any and all means to dissuade that person
from pursuing such an offensive practice. Your argument that some
of these people are disabled is a blatant appeal to emotion that is
irrelevent to the discussion.
Yes, these folks are not well-paid. That's the point. If enough of
us make the job so unpleasant to do, then the wages will have to rise
to the point that the firms will not find it practical to do business
via unwanted telephone solicitations.
Your method of dealing with telemarketers supports their business model;
by not answering your phone, their time is not wasted. The whole point
of my post was to show how to make the job so unpleasant that
telemarketing will eventually go the way of spittoons, buggy whips, and
indentured servitude.
For other humorous looks at dealing with these bottom-feeders:
http://www.izzy.net/~vnestico/torment
http://www.gis.net/~marcs/telemrkt.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~edge/telemark.html
http://aurora.etsiig.uniovi.es:3080/WWW/w.dir/pippin.dir/pgg/2r116.html
http://www.catch22.com/~arnie/rant.html
http://www.izzy.net/~vnestico/tactics.html
http://www.misty.com/laughweb/business/dealing.with.telemarketers.html
http://www.contrails.com/knapen/telemkt.htm
More telemarketer stuff (mostly legal) in:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/telemark/out.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/FFCTSRPM.htm
http://www.nolo.com/nn199.html
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9508/trule4.htm
http://spam.ohww.norman.ok.us/telejunk/fightbak.htm
http://www.cpsr.org/dox/factshts/telemarket.html
http://www.beacham.com/telephone_junk_605.html
and an excellent overall telemarketer page:
http://www.izzy.net/~vnestico/t-market.html
Maddi Hausmann Sojourner madhaus@genmagic.com
General Magic, Inc. in beautiful Sunnyvale, CA 94088 USA
If you like this address you will also like madhaus@netcom.com
Visit my daughter's web page at http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~ds/
------------------------------
From: Ritter_Phillip <RitterP@coxpcs.com>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:04:56 -0700
Regarding a rather amusing, but perhaps presumptively rude treatment
of telemarketers using a fake game show.
I have a method that quickly evaluates the ethics of the caller. When
I receive a call that is obviously a telemarketer ("OUT OF AREA" plus
the usual "may I speak to Mr. Ritter", usually mispronounced) I
respond with "What are you selling?" before they have any chance to
get into their useless pitch.
Most of them will immediately lie ("I'm not selling anything..."), at
which point I feel free to proceed with any one of a number of
relatively abusive scenarios that such lying scum deserve (thanks for
the game show, though I don't know how to integrate it without my
pre-test spoiling the fun. If they tell me the truth, and tell me
what they are selling, I will usually politely tell them that I don't
buy anything from unsolicited callers and request that they place me
on their "do not call" list, making careful note in a log of companies
that I have made such a request to.
In those infrequent times when I get a call from someone that I
know should have me on their do not call list, look out!
Phil Ritter
PARitter@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 25 Oct 1996 00:36:04 GMT
Organization: a2i network
In <telecom16.568.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu> PAT writes:
> I strongly also believe in discouraging telemarketers -- as an organ-
> ization -- but not personally insulting some twenty year old kid who is
> doing it because s/he is desparate to pay college expenses and rent,
> etc.
I always thought that anybody representing any organization should be
prepared to do his job, i.e., represent the organization. If you think
the organization is scum, you tell the person "you are scum".
He still gets to pay his rent, right? Only now he has an incentive,
next time around, to find work with an employer he respects.
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
------------------------------
From: septimus@acsu.buffalo.edu (Shalom Septimus)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 25 Oct 1996 02:48:52 GMT
Organization: UB
My method of dealing with these is simple and to the point. When I
answer the phone and hear those few seconds of silence before someone
starts talking, I already know what to expect. The voice says, "May
I please speak to [my name, or name of my ex-roommate, who has moved
downstairs, usually badly mis-pronounced]?" (Or, "May I speak to the
person in charge of long-distance telephone billing?" Or whatever.)
I say, "No, you may not."
Generally they hang up right away. Sometimes, they ask if they can
leave a message, They get the same answer. (If it's a personal call for
my ex-roommate, I might take a message for him; but he has instructed me
_not_ to pass on calls of this nature, nor to give out his new phone number.
I figure that if they can't pronounce his name, they're not personal
friends. I used to work for a guy named Matityahu, who used this method
to screen his calls.)
J.Alan Septimus septimus@acsu.buffalo.edu
------------------------------
From: hollings@cs.umd.edu (Jeff Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 24 Oct 1996 23:31:24 -0400
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
> hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
> several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
> one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
> feelings any. PAT]
Pat, I agree that telling someone they won money is out of line.
However, the reality is that some of us don't feel that telemarketing
is a reasonable way for a business to contact us.
I use a simpler approach. When a caller asks for me by name (and I
don't recognize the voice), I simply ask who is calling and what they
are calling about. I then ask them to hold and tell them I will check
if he is free. I then finish whatever I was doing that they
interrupted (eating dinner, taking out the trash - whatever). If they
are still on the line after I finish what I was doing, I am happy to
hear what they have to say. Most of the time they have hung up. If
they are not willing to wait 5-10 min. to talk to me, I don't wish to
talk to them. If it helps to make telemarketing less profitable, that
is a great side benefit.
Jeff Hollingsworth Work: (301) 405-2708
Internet: hollings@cs.umd.edu FAX: (301) 405-6707
WWW: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hollings Home: (301) 649-5829
------------------------------
From: Chris Mauritz <ritz@interactive.net>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Organization: IBS Interactive, Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 04:48:56 GMT
> If you don't like telemarketing as I don't, I heartily encourage you
> to raise the business costs of telemarketing firms by keeping their
> operators on the line as long as possible. They annoy you, although
> what they do is technically legal; why shouldn't you annoy them, since
> that's legal, too?
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've no objection with raising their
> business costs, increasing their phone bills as a result, etc. I
> strongly also believe in discouraging telemarketers -- as an organ-
> ization -- but not personally insulting some twenty year old kid who
> is doing it because s/he is desparate to pay college expenses and
> rent, etc. You can stall them all you want, ask a million questions,
I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there doing less wholesome
things (prostitution, drug dealing, etc ...) to pay college costs.
Do I need to be nice to them too? Your argument is flawed in that
respect.
I consider being interrupted during dinner (telemarketing is pervasive
in New Jersey, even with an unlisted number) and I make a point out of
voicing my annoyance at every turn. These people are a nuisance. It
ought to be illegal.
Regards,
Christopher Mauritz | For info on internet access:
ritz@interactive.net | finger/mail info@interactive.net OR
IBS Interactive, Inc. | http://www.interactive.net/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that prostitution and drug-
dealing are illegal. Telemarketing isn't illegal. Obnoxious maybe,
but not illegal. PAT]
------------------------------
From: osman@NTCSAL01DA.ntc.nokia.com (Osman Rich NTC/Dallas)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:06:49 +0300
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Pat,
I'm quoting you because I think you succinctly summarized a side of the
argument.
The fact is, that 20 year old accepted a job that begs for abuse. I
pay for a telephone in my residence for my convenience. I don't like
paying to be interrupted by intrusive advertising which often borders
on torment. I believe that Maddi's torment is a response to the
continuing torment from telemarketers. I simply do not respond to
telemarketers. I usually say no thanks and hang up, though I will
sometimes get so tired of answering calls that I just hang up as soon
as I identify a telemarketer. Last night I only got five calls, I've
had as many as 20. It goes way past fatigue into torment. I've
gotten caller ID in self defense, but it's only helped a little. CID
delivery isn't complete, and my wife and I are suffering living apart
for a year. My father in law is in and out of the hospital. I can't
afford to ignore un-id'd calls.
I will not be polite to people who invade my home uninvited, even if
they are a twenty year old kid. If you take the job, you need to take
the licking that comes with it. I'd be real happy if there was some
way to eliminate telemarketing. Asking to be removed from their lists
(verbally and in writing) doesn't seem to have helped over the years.
The fact is that actions have consequences, and the consequence of
abusing the phone that I place in my home for my convenience is that I
will treat you in the same way that I treat any one else who abuses
me, first with the law (which has no effect in this case) and then
with a return of the abuse.
I've recently read some articles that show that telemarketing is a
high stress job, subjecting the line workers to continuous frustration
and abuse. This is having the effect of making it HARDER TO FIND
OPERATORS. I'm all for tormenting telemarketers, even if they are
"some twenty year old kid who is doing it because s/he is desparate to
pay college expenses" (sic). It comes with the job, and it's the only
mechanism that telephone owners that seems to be effective in the long
term.
>Phew< Sorry, I'll put that soapbox away now.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 07:23:48 +0100
From: Clive D.W. Feather <Clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: clive@demon.net
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.)
Our Esteemed Editor wrote:
> I have always
> wondered about the situations where there is a slot in the front door
> or next to the front door and they shove the mail through that slot
> and it falls directly onto the floor in your home or office.
You mean the thing we call a "letterbox", and that everyone here has ?
Clive D.W. Feather | Associate Director | Director
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | CityScape Internet Services Ltd.
Fax: +44 181 371 1150 | <clive@demon.net> | <cdwf@cityscape.co.uk>
Written on my laptop - please reply to the Reply-To address <clive@demon.net>
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, exactly. Here in the USA there is
often as not a box on a pole out in the front of the house, or there
may be a metal box attached to the front of the house. Once installed,
the Postal Disservice claims this as its own property, and forbids the
use of the box for anything other than mail they deliver. Many places
however do have the slot in the door. I don't know if under the law
anyone else can put something in there -- or perhaps use it to peek
in at you! -- legally or not. I suppose peeking would be illegal in
an of itself. :) PAT]
------------------------------
From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:43:17 -0700
Organization: The 3DO Corporation
In article <telecom16.561.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, gabriele@rand.org (Mark
Gabriele) wrote:
> In another correction: The {New York Times} story on the courier
> vs. USPS scam that PAT cites described it somewhat differently: postal
> authorities contacted the companies under the guise of "can we observe
> your operations and help show you how the USPS can serve your needs
> better." The auditors showed up, watched how things worked, and
> reported back with an estimate of how much "first class" mail was sent
> by courier instead. The USPS billed the companies, who all called
> their congresspeople, and the charges were withdrawn.
> Not quite as malevolent, and thus lacking the theatrical quality of a
> really good urban legend, but I think it's probably a bit more accurate.
When this was going around, one of the "companies" that the USPS looked at
was (can you believe it!!) the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Yup, the feds were
using the "cheap way" of doing business, and got billed for it. From what
I heard, it busted a few budgets.
A similar thing happened to the FCC when they changed the way rates were
calculated (now we have time in each rate period, not time in the
beginning period). The cost of business went up, and the phone
companie(s) said well, that's how you wanted it ...
What goes around, comes around.
Moral of the story:
The federal government is Murphy!!
Tom Watson
tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 18:23:31 -0300
From: The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject: USPS to Offer Electronic Postmark
Business Wire, Ocotber 17, 1996.
Cylink Corporation Partners with U.S. Postal Service to
Build National Electronic Commerce System; Secure
Electronic Services to Include Postmarking and
Authentication for Legal/Medical Records, Tax Filings,
Delivery Receipts, Etc.
Sunnyvale, Calif. -- Cylink Corp., the world's leading
provider of network security and management solutions since
1984, today announced its partnership with the United
States Postal Service to build a national Electronic
Commerce System (ECS).
The ECS will be as easy-to-use and accessible to every
American as First Class Mail is today. When operational
next year, ECS will be the only system providing
sender/recipient authentication, as well as correspondence
privacy and protection to the average consumer as well as
for businesses nationwide.
Cylink has signed an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service
to design, build and test the Postal ECS system. Cylink
will provide a total security transaction infrastructure,
including client software and distributed server
processing. Cylink is the leader in developing scalable
public key certificate management systems for robust
transaction security and data protection.
The U.S. Postal Service, through ECS, will inaugurate
electronic postmarking (date and time stamping) later this
year. This postmark will prove that a document existed at
a particular point in time, has not been modified since,
and will add protection against postal fraud. This service
will be offered at roughly one-third the cost of today's
First Class postage rates.
In addition to postmarking, ECS will electronically protect
and deliver time sensitive or legally binding documents
such as notarized and legal documents, purchase orders,
medical records, stock transaction receipts, bill payments,
as well as other forms of private or proprietary
correspondence.
Postal ECS will also offer new electronic postal services
such as identity authentication (using digital signatures
and a Certificate Authority), verification of service and
registered return receipt confirmation. Additional services
will be added, such as the archival storage of transaction
records and bonded documents.
"The explosive growth of electronic communications,
including the use of the Internet, intranets and electronic
mail, has created a need to protect, validate and
authenticate electronic transmissions using digital
signatures and certificate authorities," said Dr. Jim
Omura, Cylink's acting chief executive officer and chief
technical officer. "Digital signature technology is the
foundation for secure electronic transactions between the
millions of people who will be conducting commerce on the
Internet."
Just as personal identification numbers are used to protect
credit cards, Certificate Authorities are tomorrow's
mechanism for protecting electronic commerce. Companies
that provide services such as electronic banking, data
interchanges and credit card purchases are well aware of
the need for an advanced digital signature identification
system. The Postal ECS will make available these security
services to all its customers.
"The U.S. Postal Service would be unable to provide its
corporate and individual customers with state-of-the-art
security services without using public key cryptography,"
according to Paul Raines, U.S. Postal Service project
manager for ECS. "We selected Cylink as our partner because
it has been designing security systems since 1984,
incorporating sophisticated encryption technologies that
enable the deployment of digital signatures and
certificates based on public key cryptography."
The U.S. Postal Service has a 200-year history with the
public as the reliable and trusted third party in sending
and receiving correspondence.
"We believe ECS is the logical extension of this role in
the electronic/digital age, where increasing numbers of our
customers are using the information superhighway," Raines
said. With more than 40,000 locations nationwide, the U.S.
Postal Service offers the public assurance of long-term
stability and legally enforceable protection of its
transactions.
Cylink's technology will enable the U.S. Postal Service to
guarantee to its customers the prevention of unauthorized
access and misuse of information within the ECS system.
This technology will identify the sender of the
correspondence, protect it from unauthorized viewing or
manipulation as it moves through public networks, and allow
the electronic transmission of tamper-proof, non-forgeable
documents.
"Based on our successful history and over 11 years of
expertise in developing certificate-based systems for many
information network customers, Cylink is in a unique
leadership position to design and implement certificate
authority security management for other organizations that
use the Internet and intranets for private and
authenticated communications," Dr. Omura added.
"Cylink intends to market its expertise in this category to
commercial organizations and the worldwide network of PTTs
[Posts, Telephones & Telegraphs, administered by
governments] that will offer similar security management
and electronic transaction services to their customers
before the year 2000."
Cylink Corp. is the recognized world leader in information
security solutions, providing the most comprehensive
portfolio of public-key cryptographic hardware and software
products available today. Cylink's products enable secure
data transmissions over local area networks (LANs), wide
area networks (WANs), public packet switched networks such
as the Internet, asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) and frame
relay networks.
Cylink, headquartered in Sunnyvale, is also the leader in
outdoor spread spectrum microwave radio communications.
Cylink's customers include national and multinational
corporations, financial institutions and government
organizations. For more information about Cylink and its
products, call the fax-on-demand number 800/735-6614, or
visit the company's Web site at http://www.cylink.com.
[End]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #569
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Oct 25 11:03:46 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA22700; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610251503.LAA22700@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #570
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Oct 96 11:03:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 570
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room (Peter Marshall)
Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? (Moshe Braner)
Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? (Hardy Rosenke)
Re: Western Union = New Valley Corp? (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Western Union = New Valley Corp? (Fred R. Goldstein)
Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud) (Eric Bennett)
Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service (Dick Deyoung)
Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Cable Modems (Will Kim)
Re: Would You Sign a Two Year Contract? (Maybe) (Keith Brown)
Information on Interconnection Stay (John Sullivan)
Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey (Col. G.L. Sicherman)
Re: Programming Fax/Modem (Gary Breuckman)
Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum (Henry Baker)
Problems With the 604/250 Split in BC (Joseph Singer)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Marshall <rocque@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 01:36:19 GMT
Bill Hofmann <wdh@fresh.com> wrote:
> I should say as a prolog that I haven't got strong opinions about the
> state of CPSR, I stopped caring when they failed to take a position on
> the Gulf War (an application of technology if there ever was one), but
> this article reads like the standard "they wouldn't listen to my
> ideas, they must all be power-hungry conspirators" rant that is common
> among people who can't seem to figure out who their enemies are.
Nonsense.
>> Backed up by e-mail correspondence, sources indicate that in 1993,
>> CPSR accepted for a small percentage of total dollar value, a
>> pass-through grant in the amount of $3000. In such transactions, the
>> tax-exempt org. is merely a vehicle...
This can be called a number of things, depending on the specific facts of
the situation in question. The article the snippet above is taken from
does just that, as apparently ignored by Mr. Hofmann; and, does it not
with a broad brush, but with material from an authority on NPO tax law,
among other sources. A letter from that attorney was recently made
available on several other online forums for the further edification of
Mr. Hofmann and others, btw.
> This is called "fiscal sponsorship," and there are pretty strict rules
> about how it's done, but fundamentally, in order for an organization
> to be a fiscal sponsor for some activity (organization, etc.), the
> goals of the activity have to align pretty closely with that of the
> organization, which it sounds like the book mentioned does.
Sorry; it apparently did not.
> The reason this is legitimate is that getting a tax-exempt status
> takes time and brings with it a bunch of corporate responsibilities
> (tax filings, etc), which many small groups don't really have the
> people power to manage. Foundations *won't* in general grant to
> non-tax-exempt organizations for tax reasons, so if a small group or
> individual wants to apply for a grant, it needs a fiscal sponsor. And
> it's part of the standard rules of the game that the fiscal sponsor
> takes a small percentage for administrative overhead. (5% is low, 10%
> is more common.)
Sorry, Bill; no foundation involved in the cases in question.
peter marshall
------------------------------
From: braner@uvm-gen.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner)
Subject: Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones
Date: 25 Oct 1996 02:43:26 GMT
Organization: EMBA Computer Facility, The University of Vermont
Reply-To: braner@sialia.snr.uvm.edu
Mark J. Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote:
> Pat, I *STRONGLY* agree with you that *ALL* forms of public telephones
> (coin and the "coinless" charge-a-call-only) *SHOULD ALLOW* incoming
> calls. IMO, any 'tampering' of 'traditional full-service' at
> payphones, due to the 'war on drugs' is prior restraint.
> And I also feel that the public phones should be provided by regulated
> telephone companies *ONLY*. As you know, I *HATE* the COCOT's.
Amen.
Saw something strange at O'Hare airport last week. The scene:
thunderstorms caused hours of delay in all flights leaving O'Hare.
Zillions of passengers milling about the airport. Many trying to call
somewhere on the pay phones. The strange thing: every phone that was
not being used was constantly ringing. If you picked up the handset,
it would say: "beep bleep, this phone does not accept collect calls.
Click. Dialtone.". Then you could use it, or hang up. If you did
the latter, it immediately started ringing again. A sticker on the
phones said "this phone operated by Ameritech... call 1-800-...". So
I called (nothing else to do). Got a voice menu that made no sense.
If I hit any digit, it said "your call cannot be completed at this
time". ???
Moshe Braner <Moshe.Braner@uvm.edu>
------------------------------
From: hardy@netcom.ca (Hardy Rosenke)
Subject: Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:37:49 GMT
Organization: Home HARDware (!) BBS
Reply-To: hardy@netcom.ca
ttoews@agt.net (Tony Toews) wrote:
> Here in Canada, or at least in Alberta and all the payphones I can
> recall noticing on my travels throughout Canada, have never allowed
> incoming phone calls.
BCTel started disallowing incoming calls to pay phones about three
years ago. Personally, I find this to be a HUGE embuggerance. I work
on the road all day, and people NEED to use my pager number to contact
me. Several of the people that do call me, have voice mail systems
that automatically pick up if their line is busy. Sometimes it costs
me over $2.00 (8 calls) to get in touch with them cuz I keep getting
dumped back to their voicemail where I can only leave a message
telling them to PAGE me again (never mind I get charged 10cents for
each page!).
Back before this, I could simply leave the message on their
voice mail "Yeah, it's me -- I'm at payphone 555-1212 for the next ten
minutes call me back."
Just my 2 cents, FWIW.
Hardy
Vancouver, BC
------------------------------
From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Jeff)
Subject: Re: Western Union = New Valley Corp?
Date: 24 Oct 1996 20:44:56 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net
As I understand, Western Union deliberately changed the name of the
corporation to "New Valley" when they were facing bankruptcy, so that
the "Western Union" name (which still has considerable marketing
value) would not be tarnished by the bankruptcy filing.
There was an article a few years ago that the company was trying to
transform itself into a financial services company, esp for those who
don't have regular bank access. Sort of a spinoff of its money
transfer business.
For a number of years, the bulk of WU's busienss has been money
transfers. They still transmit telegrams and mailgrams, though that
business has dwindled down considerably, esp with cheap long distance
and facsimle machines everywhere. I suspect the classic telegram
remains for use as a medium in which an official legally record of
transmission is kept (for which a fax doesn't do.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:11:09 -0400
From: Fred R. Goldstein <fgoldstein@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Western Union = New Valley Corp?
Stan Schwartz <stan@vnet.net> asks,
> For how long has Western Union been "New Valley Corporation"? I don't
> remember seeing that mentioned in the "History of..." special issues
> of TD a few months back. Notice they specify "Western Union Telegraph
> Company" in the header, so there's no mistaking it for the defunct
> long distance company.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'New Valley' has been around for a
> couple of years, maybe three. It is the remains of what was left after
> Western Union filed bankruptcy and after much of the old company was
> picked apart and sold off. I think New Valley is mostly into the
> money transfer side of the old business. New Valley bought the rights
> from the Bankruptcy Court to use the 'Western Union' name. PAT]
Close but no Cigar. Old Digest articles followed this more closely,
but a quick AltaVista search got a bit more info. I think you need a
scorecard to keep track of this story, though!
New Valley is the name of the corporation that used to be Western
Union Telegraph Company (aka WUD). When Western Union went bankrupt,
they started selling off assets. If I recall, AT&T bought the
Telex/TWX business (returning "telegraph" to more than their name),
and MCI bought the metro-area transmission (ATS, now part of MCI Metro
ATS). Then late in 1995, New Valley sold the Western Union money
transfer business, including the name, to First Financial Corp., a
subsidiary of NYSE-traded First Data Corp. In March 1996, First
bought out some messaging business (I'm not sure exactly what was
left) from them.
After that, New Valley was essentially rid of its old WUTC assets and
had a pile of cash. Their new business includes a broker-dealer-
investment banking firm. The chairman of New Valley is Bennett LeBow,
a well-heeled Wall Streeter who shows up in interesting places. (He
controls the tobacco company that recently entered into a settlement
over Medicaid health claims, jarring the much larger tobacco
companies. It was said that he did it in order to force the much
larger Phillip Morris to split into tobacco and non-tobacco firms.)
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone. Sharing requires permission.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:25:41 EDT
From: Eric Bennett <bennett@hpel.cees.edu>
Subject: Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud via Email)
shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
> tls@rek.tjls.com writes:
>> There is already a perfectly good dialing syntax which clearly
>> distinguishes international calls as "different" -- the 011 prefix.
> No. That syntax is for dialing calls to locations with a different
> ITU-T "country code". While this is *usually* the same as dialing an
> "international" call, it isn't always. Consider Guam and Americam
> Samoa.
What prevents the prefix from having a "dual meaning" similar to the
leading 1 before the area code? The 1 always indicates that an area
code follows, but it may also be required (along with the AC) whan a
call is toll within the same area code.
Similarly, 011 is always followed by a country code, etc. If the call
is international (or perhaps if it will cost an order of magnatude
more than usual) then the 011 is required regardless of destination.
Calls which are now dialed as 1-809-XXX-XXXX would become (the somewhat
unweildy) 011-1-809-XXX-XXXX without violating any numbering plan. Of
course, 011- should be allowed as a prefix on any calls WITHIN the NANP
without affecting billing.
Are there rules stopping a telephone company from intercepting
1-809-XXX-XXXX and directing the caller to dial the 011 form (aside
from the fact that country code 1 calls don't seem to go through with
a 011 prefix)? Does Bellcore have a position on whether
011-1-AAA-EEE-NNNN calls should be completed or not?
Eric B.
------------------------------
From: deyoung@frontiernet.net
Subject: Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service
Date: 25 Oct 1996 12:49:19 GMT
Organization: Frontier Internet Rochester N.Y. (716)-777-SURF
> NYNEX to adopt uniform reach numbers for repair service
> NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 24, 1996--
> Beginning on Jan. 1, 1997, NYNEX will adopt seven-digit telephone
> numbers for telephone repair service across New York State. Residence
> customers will dial 890-6611 and businesses will use 890-7711.
> The repair numbers are toll free, can be dialed from anywhere in the
> state, do not require dialing an area code, and are staffed 24 hours a
> day.
They are toll free as long as you are calling them from a phone number
within the NYNEX system. If you try to call them from a phone outside
of NYNEX land they are collect calls and NYNEX will not accept them. I
learned this when a contractor cut the underground cable in my area
and I had no service. I tried to report the trouble using a cell phone
(cell number was from Frontier) and NYNEX repair refused to accept the
call. I had to dial it like a long distance call and was also charged
as if it were a long distance call. This happened four or five years
ago; perhaps things have changed?
Dick DeYoung
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think your experience was unusual
and whoever handled the call at Nynex was in error. Most telcos
accept collect calls from anywhere. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Jeff)
Subject: Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service
Date: 25 Oct 1996 01:07:11 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net
This change to a seven digit number seems foolish to me. What's wrong
with 611 being the universal repair service number?
Further, with the shortage of numbers, why waste one on it?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the other hand, one could say that
with the shortage of numbers, why waste ten thousand of them by making
the combination 611-xxxx unusable, or perhaps even more than that
unusable by not (presently) allowing 611-xxx-xxxx. PAT]
------------------------------
From: wkim@medialight.com
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:45:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Cable Modems
I guess it's more of an interpretation of what was said. When I see
"... using standard copper phone lines," that, to me, implies a POTS
line (i.e. you can unplug a phone from the wall, and stick in an ISDN
terminal adapter, and voila, it works). Of course, this isn't the
case, which you probably know already. I guess if it said "... using
standard copper lines" (without saying the word 'phone' in there) I
wouldn't have said anything because I probably wouldn't have noticed.
Cheers,
Will Kim
------------------------------
From: Keith Brown <newsinfo@callcom.com>
Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two Year Contract? (Maybe)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 22:34:21 GMT
Organization: CallCom International
Arnold Brod <TeleCom@cris.com> wrote in article <telecom16.567.6@
massis.lcs.mit.edu>:
> I initially responded to this post to Tom's private e-mail because I
> was doing some solicitation and did not want to do it in an open
> forum. He told me that T1 service would not be practical because he
> has 2 sites and 80 some lines. This may or may not be a correct
> analysis.
> But my question is this. I think that his volume should generate more
> competition for his business and would not require a term
> committment. I would think that the local marketplace would be the
> place to look for service providers. I only say this because I
> represent several resellers on the East Coast and one can provide
> 9.9cpm with no contract on as little as $400 per month in volume. And
> one niche provider that can bypass high intrastate rates. Now
> nationally, these resellers cannot compete with the product that Tom
> was quoted.
Arnold:
Your right about one thing, if you are looking for low intrastate
rates, a regional service provider usually has the best pricing. But
Tom actually has the option to choose two different service providers
for Interstate and Intrastate traffic (provided his phone system is
capable of least cost routing). The obvious reason for utilizing two
different providers (besides acquiring lower rates), a certain level
of redundancy. If one provider goes down, you can utilize the other
without any loss of service (definately don't want to be casual
calling, with some providers charging up to an $0.80 per call
surcharge). California is one of the most competitive states in the
country for long distance ... anything is possible!
Keith Brown
CallCom International
URL: http://www.callcom.com ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 13:15:35 PDT
From: John Sullivan <pp001983@interramp.com>
Subject: Information on Interconnection Stay
Pat (and Ben),
Eighth Circuit documents are available at:
http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir/
the Stay ruling itself is online at:
http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir/Opinions/FCC/963321.008
john sullivan
sullivan@interramp.com
------------------------------
From: sicherman@lucent.com (A deaf heart, a loose liver)
Subject: Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey
Date: 24 Oct 1996 21:23:56 GMT
Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation
In <telecom16.566.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Tad Cook <tad@ssc.com> wrote:
> New Jersey to Create Two New Area Codes
> By Michael L. Rozansky, The Philadelphia Inquirer
> Oct. 24--New Jersey officials Wednesday jumped into the emotional
> battle over how to create new telephone area codes, choosing to slice
> the North and Central Jersey area codes into smaller geographic sections.
The Newark Star-Ledger for today (1996-10-24) has a map of the areas.
As nearly as I can judge from the map, 908 will split like this:
Still in 908:
Belle Mead, Belvidere, Bernardsville, Blairstown, Bloomsbury, Califon,
Chester, Clinton, Columbia, Cranford, Elizabeth, Flemington,
Frenchtown, Great Meadows, Hackettstown, Hampton, High Bridge, Hope,
Lebanon, Linden, Long Valley, Milford, Millington, Neshanic, Oldwick,
Oxford, Peapack, Phillipsburg, Plainfield, Roselle, Somerville,
Stroudsburg, Summit, Unionville, Washington, Westfield, Whitehouse
Moving out of 908:
Asbury Park, Atlantic Highlands, Belmar, Bound Brook, Carteret, Deal,
Dunellen, East Millstone, Eatontown, Englishtown, Fanwood, Farmingdale,
Franklin Park, Freehold, Holmdel, Jamesburg, Keansburg, Keyport,
Lakehurst, Lakewood, Long Branch, Manasquan, Matawan, Metuchen,
Middletown, Monmouth Jct, New Brunswick, Perth Amboy, Point Pleasant,
Rahway, Red Bank, Seaside Park, South Amboy, South River, Spring Lake,
Toms River, Woodbridge
I'm not sure about Plainfield and Fanwood. I expect we shall know more
in a day or two.
Col. G. L. Sicherman
sicherman@lucent.com
------------------------------
From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman)
Subject: Re: Programming Fax/Modem
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 03:26:21 GMT
In article <telecom16.560.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Denis Moreeuw
<denismor@mtec.com.br> wrote:
> I have a project in course and I need some information. I intend to
> program the bios of the fax/modem, not to communicate but only to
> capture the signals of the phone line and show on a video what is
> occuring. Must display all data, in and out between two machines. My
> idea is reprogramming the chip mounted on the board to do this task. I
> would like to know if it's possible and, in case of yes, how can I get
> the informations that I need. Must run under windows 3.xx. Any
> information to help me will be apreciated.
You would probably want to use a modem constructed with DSP chips
(digital signal processing) such as US Robotics rather than one using
the Rockwell chipset.
However, I think you will have considerable difficulty getting
information. I'm sure the design details of these modems are
extremely proprietary, and since what you're doing probably won't
result in a product they would be able to market. I wish you luck.
puma@netcom.com
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:42:26 GMT
In article <telecom16.563.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, hbaker@netcom.com (Henry
Baker) wrote:
> Spread spectrum techniques were invented around the time of World War
> II, by the actress Hedy Lamarr, among others, who obtained a U.S.
> patent for a frequency agile torpedo control system.
Altavista search turned up the following information:
U.S. Patent #2,292,387 (1942 ??)
Hedy K. Markey and George Antheil. "Secret Communications System".
"Markey" was Lamarr's real name, and Antheil was a symphony composer, hence
the suggestion to use 88 different frequencies (get it? 88 keys on the
piano...) for 'frequency hopping'.
------------------------------
From: Joseph Singer <dov@accessone.com>
Subject: Problems With the 604/250 Split in BC
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 06:59:51 -0700
Organization: AccessOne
Reply-To: dov@accessone.com
Sunday I attempted to call someone in Victoria, BC using the new NPA
250, but I got a recording that "it is not necessary to dial one on
local calls." I called MCI and they claim that there is no problem
and that this is a local problem. Which is it a local problem or a
problem with the carrier not programming in the new code?
And while we're at it why is it that these codes which are publicized
well in advance of their implementation *have* to be initiated on the
certain date that the new code is supposed to work? Why can't they
just do the work and allow the new code to work as soon as it's ready?
If there is a permissive period for dialing either way it seems to me
that this would assure that when the new code is supposed to work that
it indeed will.
Joseph Singer
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was probably a 'local problem' with
your local telco not having the code installed. I am assuming you did
this as a one-plus call with MCI as your default carrier. Your local
telco looks at what is dialed before it ever hands anything off to
a long distance carrier, and it saw no reason to give '250' to the
carrier due to its own programming error. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #570
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Oct 25 11:38:20 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA25916; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610251538.LAA25916@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #571
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Oct 96 11:38:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 571
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Numbering/Dialing/Billing (was Re: NANP Needs ...) (Mark J. Cuccia)
Book Review: "Digger" by Goddard (Rob Slade)
Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie (Scott Moffet)
Wanted: Manuals for Mitel SX-200 (geno@el.net)
Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (TELECOM Digest Editor)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:57:13 -0700
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: Numbering/Dialing/Billing (was Re: NANP Needs ...)
Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> wrote:
>> There is already a perfectly good dialing syntax which clearly
>> distinguishes international calls as "different" -- the 011 prefix.
> No. That syntax is for dialing calls to locations with a different
> ITU-T "country code". While this is *usually* the same as dialing an
> "international" call, it isn't always. Consider Guam and Americam
> Samoa.
Presently, Guam (+671) and CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (+670) are dialed *and* billed from the NANP as 'international'
calls, but will become incorporated into the NANP effective 1-July-1997.
There will be a year of 'permissive' dialing where they will have 'dual'
status from everywhere in the world, as their 'non-NANP' dialing (+670/671)
and as (+1-670/671).
From within the NANP, they have been dialed as (and can continue to be done
so until 30-June-98) as:
(10-xxx/101-xxxx)+011+670/671+seven-digits (station sent-paid)
(10-xxx/101-xxxx)+01+670/671+seven-digits (operator-assisted, card, etc.)
From within the NANP, they will be able to be dialed as NANP calls
beginning 1-July-97) as:
(10-xxx/101-xxxx)+1-670/671+seven-digits (station sent-paid)
(10-xxx/101-xxxx)+0+670/671+seven-digits (operator/card/person/etc.)
Their country codes will become their NPA codes within the NANP (+1). At
this point, there is nothing official on American Samoa (+684). I
understand that (+1) NANP area code 684 has been reserved for them when/if
they decide to officially join the NANP.
As for billing, they are still billed from the continental USA as
'international' calls. I was told by one of the representatives of one of
the 'US Pacific' territory locations when the monthly INC meeting was held
here in New Orleans in March that 'by the end of the year', all three US
Pacific Territory locations will become billed to/from the US and amongst
themselves as 'domestic' calls, using a rate schedule similar to calls
between the continental US and Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, US Virign Is.,
based on distances calculated on the originating and terminating V&H
co-ordinates from the six-digits of the NPA-NXX codes. I was told that this
was something in the recent Telecommunications Bill/Act/Law.
I don't check the FCC's webpages that often, so I haven't seen anything
'official' on changing the rates from 'international' to 'domestic'. If
they do change, this would only affect calls to/from the US Pacific and the
fifty states of the US (and maybe PR/USVI?). Calls between the US Pacific
and Canada could probably still be 'international' rated calls.
I have seen some sample rates in Canadian telephone books for calls to the
Caribbean, and the rates from Canada to Puerto Rico and the US Virign Is.
are rated as 'international', similar to the rates for calls to non-US but
still NANP Caribbean locations. Canada might still have a 'British'
connotation, but they don't even seem to give a special 'domestic-like'
rate to the 'British' C&W islands of the Caribbean!
>> If the Carribean telcos want to take advantage of the historical
>> oddity in international calling rules that allows them to appear to
>> U.S. customers to be "domestic", they have no business running scams
>> that deliberately exploit the fact that they actually aren't;
>> assisting through billing kickbacks in the running of such scams is
>> equivalent to actually running them, of course.
>> If the Carribean telcos won't play ball, the nations they're in should
>> be unceremoniously -- and suddenly -- kicked out of the NANP. Perhaps
>> the FTC will force Bellcore and the U.S. telcos to do so; it's about
>> time.
> Sorry, but country codes are assigned by the ITU-T, *not* by any US
> agency. And there just plain *aren't* any spares for this part of the
> world. They'd have to assign ones from *Asia*, assuming they felt like
> doing it at all.
Yes, the ITU-T (formerly CCITT) assigns the Country Codes. Bellcore's NANPA
assigns the area codes within World-Zone-1 (Country Code +1, aka the NANP).
If there was enough pressure placed on the Caribbean countries, probably by
regulatory agencies of other countries within the NANP and also by the
industry forums (by a consensus process), it 'could' be possible that the
non-US Caribbean islands 'be forced' out of the NANP, however, I don't know
if the INC and other industry forums have such procedures in their
guidelines and procedures. This is my opinion, only. If a country were
'kicked-out' of the NANP, there are still enough ITU-T country codes
available for them to be assigned.
The continent or 'World-Zone' first (or only) digit of the country code
hasn't always been followed 'to the letter'. The 29x range of country codes
is not necessarily assigned to Africa (2xx country codes). Take a look at
Dave Leibold's "History of Country Codes" at his own website and also in
the Telecom Archives. +290 and +291 however, are assigned to locations in
or near Africa.
Country Code 299 was assigned to Greenland. Country Code 298 was assigned
to the Faeroe Islands when it formally split from Denmark's 45. Country
Code 297 was assigned to Aruba when they got their independence from the
Netherlands (Aruba was part of the Neth. Antilles' 599 Country Code).
For a few years, Trinidad & Tobago had Country Code 296 on the 'official'
ITU list of Country Codes. Most of us understand that location to be a part
of the NANP, under 809. They are even getting their own NPA code, 868,
within the NANP. However, the ITU Country Code lists back in the 1960's,
70's and 80's don't seem to indicate Trinidad & Tobago as part of Country
Code +1, while just about every other 'British' location in the Caribbean
was indicated in the list. Present NANP/INC guidelines indicate that any
territory or country which is to be a part of the NANP (+1) indicate their
*ONLY* Country Code as +1. If they are 'just joining' the NANP (similar to
Guam and CNMI), they have a full calendar year to have 'dual' status and
then must 'officially' return their old ITU assigned Country Code back to
the ITU. BTW, +296 isn't listed as Trinidad & Tobago anymore ... it is
'unassigned' or 'spare'.
Country Code 295 was 'temporarily' assigned to San Marino, a small European
micro-state completely surrounded by Italy. For decades, San Marino and the
Vatican have been dialed and numbered as part of Italy (+39). But a few
years ago, I was seeing +295 for San Marino.
Since East Germany's +37 was consolidated into West Germany's +49 which
freed up the 37x range, and the 'old' Yugoslavia's +38 was split up into
several +38x codes, most of the European micro-states which never had their
own country code (i.e. they 'shared' from the country code of the
neighbering larger country) were assigned a code from the +37x range, or
the +38x range if that +38x code wasn't assigned to a former Yugoslavian
republic. San Marino changed their +295 to +378 when the 37x range became
available.
Many of the former Soviet republics which had been using Russia/USSR's +7
Country Code have since been assigned their own Country Code. Most of the
European former Soviet republics are using +37x or +38x codes, while most
of the Asian former Soviet republics are now using +99x codes. The
assignment of country codes to all of the former Soviet Republics doesn't
seems to be completed yet. There are about four countries in Asia which are
still sharing +7 from Russia.
If the non-US NANP Caribbean countries were to leave +1 and get their own
ITU assigned country codes, they could have them assigned from other
three-digit ranges, such as remaining +29x codes, codes from the +28x
range, or other available three-digit ranges in the east Asian block (83x,
88x, 89x). Ideally, it would be nice for all two/three country codes to
have their first digit indicate their 'world zone' continent, but it isn't
all that mandatory, and most switching equipment does *multi*-digit
analysis anyhow, not necessarily routing on the first one or two digits.
And who knows ... there could even be *WORLDWIDE* numbering portability for
'POTS' services at some time in the future!
> Kicking countries out of the NANP (or admitting them to it) is *not*
> something the US can do on it's own, or even in conjunction with
> Canada. *Any* changes affect the entire *world*.
As I said earlier, I don't know what *specific* procedures are in the
industry forum guidelines about countries being 'kicked-out' of the NANP,
if there are any guidelines. OTOH, I don't think that the NANP could
'prohibit' any country from unilaterally *withdrawing* from the NANP.
>>> Or is that assuming that people take too much personal responsibility
>>> to determine where an area code's at before the call?
>> That's ridiculous. The 809 area code violates a simple rule -- that
>> 1+ calls are either in the continental U.S. and Canada or at least in
>> U.S. posessions elsewhere in the world, and are far cheaper than
>> 011-prefixed international calls.
> Nice rule. Pity it has *never* had any resemblance to reality. Most US
> possesions require a 011 "international" call *except* for the ones in
> the Caribbean, and near Hawaii.
If there were a proper concensus at the industry forums, it could be
possible that other US possesions halfway around the world could even be
included in the NANP. Billing/Rating would be another matter, most likely
handled by bilateral/multilateral business arrangements by the carriers to
be involved in the calls, under regulatory/legal oversight.
> Also, 1+ calls *do* go to places that aren't in the Continental US.
> Always have. And 1+ calls are *not* necessarily cheaper than 011 calls.
> Consider Mexico.
As for Mexico, calls from the US to Mexico are based on distance, using the
V&H co-ordinates from the originating NPA-NXX and the terminating 52xxxx
within Mexico. There are 'rate-bands' in Mexico, but the determination of
*which* rate band the called +52 Mexican number is in, is from the first
six digits of the full international (+52) number, which the V&H code is
also associated with.
Calls from US points near the US/Mexican border to Mexican points just
inside Mexico can be much lower than calls from the US to a non-US
Caribbean NANP location. However, *some* rates regarding Mexico have been
some of the *MOST EXPENSIVE* in the world (probably excluding Marisat
calls). From some rate sheets I have from AT&T regarding Mexico,
"Person-to-Person" calls at certain times or on certain days can be close
to $20.00 for the first one or three minutes. Of course, these rate sheets
are a few years old, and the rates or surcharges might have been reduced
since then. Even "Station-Sent-Paid" calls from the US to Mexico, based on
distances, are noticeably higher than calls from the US to Canada, for the
same distances!
>> The exception should not exist,
>> represents a significant inconsistency in the dialing rules as most
>> telephone users understand them, and when used to deliberately mislead
>> U.S. customers into dialing international calls, is used in a
>> deliberately fraudulent manner. Allowing oneself to be defrauded may
>> not be wise, but it is certainly not irresponsible.
> The problem is that "most telephone users" (including you) *don't*
> understand the dialing rules. Your entire argument is based on assuming
> that the rules are something quite different from what they have *ever*
> been.
There's an old saying, "Let the buyer beware". It can be extended to
telephony, "Let the caller/dialer beware". IMO, if you don't recognize a
telephone number or code, and are concerned about it costing more than you
would expect it to, you should dial an operator to inquire. Most long
distance companies also have special plans and deals to join in on, by
simply calling their sales or customer service department. You can now
choose your 'primary' long distance company, or can use a 10-xxx/101-xxxx
code to dial individual calls over different companies.
However, I *WOULD* like to see *ALL* toll rates go down in price!
Particularly rates to those Caribbean locations. Maybe the telcos and
carriers will file tariffs for much lower rates as voice-over-the-Internet
and use of email increases, thus cutting down on their 'profits'.
Of course, I would *always* want to see certain codes or numbers be able to
be blocked or restricted, preferably at no extra charge or cost to the
customer, at the customer's request. This includes blocking against 900,
976, etc. And if a US customer requests an 'international' blocking, this
should block against 011+, as well as 809-NXX codes not in the US Virgin
Islands (and presently still in Puerto Rico, still under permissive
dialing), the NPA codes for the new Caribbean islands, and yes -- even the
Canadian NPA codes, unless they would still desire access to Canadian
NPA's. This would apply to 1+ access to those NPA's.
0+ and 01+ access 'could' be allowed on 'internationl' or 'toll' blocked
lines, *if* the OSPS/TOPS/TSPS system could determine that the originating
line had such blockings from a LIDB lookup, such that the operator would
always be able to say something like "only outgoing collect, 3rd-party and
card billing; and free/800/888 calls allowed from this line". This is
similar to what is said to the customer when you reach an operator (even an
AT&T oeprator) if you reached the operator with a 950 or 800/888 number,
even when calling from a *NON* restricted or blocked line.
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:38:24 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Digger" by Goddard
BKDIGGER.RVW 960713
"Digger", Kenneth Goddard, 1991, 0-553-28982-9, U$4.95/C$5.95
%A Kenneth Goddard
%C 666 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10103
%D 1991
%G 0-553-28982-9
%I Bantam Books
%O U$4.95/C$5.95 212-765-6500 http://www.bdd.com
%P 433
%T "Digger"
This is a nice conspiracy thriller, with CIA plots gone horribly
wrong, political office games that leave real bodies lying around, and
cops falsely accused of everything from murder to jaywalking. The
plot twists are a little convoluted for my taste (as a whodunnit, the
book doesn't even pretend to play fair), but it's a good read
nonetheless.
What gets it into this series, of course, is the use of technology.
The use of computers is fairly central to the plot, though it isn't
absolutely necessary. Computers are used as a means of
communications, and could have been replaced by something else.
Refreshingly, the author seems to actually know how to use a computer.
The uses are realistic, and the references make sense. The material
isn't detailed, but it isn't jarringly out of place, either. The
security loopholes of garage door openers, mag stripe cards, and other
common items are reasonably realistic, although they do occasionally
go a bit too far.
Ironically, it is probably the two points that the author most wants
to use for the story that are the weakest. The computer "network"
that is set up is supposed to prevent people from tracing calls or
otherwise finding one individual. In fact, the communications would
rely on direct calls, and so would be as easy to trace as any other
phone calls. In addition, the use of a "chat" function is supposed to
hide the identity of the caller, and allow a masquerade to go
undetected. As with "For the Sake of Elena" (cf. BKSELENA.RVW), at
least one of the characters would be skilled enough in chatting to
spot the substitution.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKDIGGER.RVW 960713 Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | Ceterum
Institute for Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1.fidonet.org | censeo
Research into rslade@vcn.bc.ca | Canter et Siegel
User slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca | delendam
Security Canada V7K 2G6 | esse
------------------------------
From: Scott Moffet <moffet@earthlink.net>
Subject: Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:32:38 -0700
Organization: Inkling
Help Please!
Can anyone provide counsel for a programming student and telephony
newbie? I want to start exploring writing code for IVR and related
systems. I know my way around C, C++ and some VB.
Am thinking about buying an entry-level Dialogic card and learning to
write the code to make it go.
Would the Dialogic programming toolkits in C be a good place to start?
And does anyone have experience/recommendation regarding Dialogic's
'Voice Starter Kit' that has a D/41D card, a pricey little
'Prompt-Master telephone', and 'MS-DOS Software Development Package'?
Is there even an alternative to this Dialogic stuff? Rhetorex??
I want to start at elementary levels, but focus my learning on areas
that will be applicable if/when I move up to industrial-grade
applications. I would also like to develop a skill set to enhance my
employability for companies doing this type of work.
I'm wondering what tools/compilers/languages the big guns are using. Is
the P.C. (running Win NT) even accepted as a serious platform in this
arena?
I have looked at the 'Visual Basic' toolkits, but I find it hard to
believe multiport commercial-grade apps are written in VB.
I'd love to hear YOUR not-so-humble opinions.
A googolplex of TIA's
Scott
------------------------------
From: geno@el.net
Subject: Wanted: Manuals for Mitel SX-200
Date: 24 Oct 1996 00:46:55 GMT
Organization: El Net
I am looking for manuals to purchase for the Mitel SX-200 switch and
1004 software.
Please reply to geno@el.net.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:42:19 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Just a couple of observations to close this issue:
Is it true that on Wednesday a federal judge worked over the FBI real
good in court and ordered them to finish their business with Richard
Jewell once and for all? Please recall that Jewell was the FBI target
in the Atlanta Olympics bombing case. The FBI never did charge him
with anything and was content to simply go around smearing him
wherever they could among their media friends. Word is that in court
on Wednesday a judge ordered them to produce what they had or else
back down. Jewell's attorney has stated that once the FBI officially
closes their investigation of Jewell, which they apparently will do
this week in response to the order of the court, he intends to file
lawsuits against at least a few of the worst slobs in the media, at
least as an example to the others. Good.
In the spam/scam child pornography matter with which we have been
blessed on the net this week, three bits of news, or factoids if you
wish:
1) The 'apartment' where the heineous child pornographer
was alleged to operate has been traced down. The
address is a remail/mail forwarding service, and the
'apartment 608' part was the mailing forwarding key.
None the less, the end-recipient has been located.
2) Said end-recipient has been identified by law-enforcement
as a blameless victim in the whole matter. He had
nothing to do with it, nor did Steve Barnard. The
authorities investigating the matter now say it appears
to have been 'part of a Usenet flame war' ...
3) Authorities are as yet unable to identify exactly *who*
sent the messages from AOL however, or if they know, they
are not saying. AOL is not saying either.
Isn't that marvelous? Now the whole world knows what a Usenet flame
war is and you get one more thing to explain to people who want to
know what it is you are doing when you sit at the computer all night
long and well into the early morning. Unfortunatly most of the world
is still computer-illiterate enough that they do not understand quite
for sure what it is that happened; and all they will know is 'there
are all these solicitations for pedophilia and child porn going around
on that Internet thing ...' as I heard the two women discussing it at
breakfast this morning at Skokie IHOP. Once again our stained
underwear gets laundered in public and hung out to dry with everyone
watching.
Quite a few people have written me saying I should not blame AOL. It
is as though any legal action taken against AOL at this point would
somehow set a precedent where other ISP's are concerned. But I have
frankly never seen any ISP with the gaping and apparently deliberate
security holes that are prevalent at AOL. Security holes wide enough
to drive a semi-trailer truck through at ninety miles an hour. It is
as though they are so anxious to get new subscribers they could care
less about the rest of the net in the process. They can't even take a
day or two to perform some modicum of verification prior to letting
the new subscriber loose in email and net news.
For their business purposes apparently, it is easier and less
expensive to assume a twenty percent fraud rate than it is to spend
time verifying the identity of new users and risking the wrath of a
few who seem to feel they have a God-given right to log in the very
minute they sign up. Even fifteen years ago I did not run my BBS as
loosely as AOL seems to operate today. Don't they feel any
responsibility at all to the rest of the net other than providing an
'abuse' mailbox for after-the-fact reports like the present situation?
If other ISP's want to behave in the same way, then they should get
sued also; but the simple fact is most of them don't behave that
way. They sincerely care about the quality of the net, and not just
after a bunch of angry netizens get after them with complaints.
Is that too much to ask of America OnLine? Is it, Mr. Case?
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #571
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Oct 25 23:09:06 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA28690; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:09:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:09:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610260309.XAA28690@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #572
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Oct 96 23:08:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 572
Inside This Issue: Don't Forget to Set Your Clock!
What Time is it in London? - AT&T Service That's Right on Time (M. Pollock)
NYNEX Glossary (was: Getting Someone at the Telco to Listen) (N. Wolff)
CompuServe Sends Cyberspace Junk Mail to Dead Letter Office (Stan Schwartz)
1+809 vs. 011+1+ (was Re: NANP Needs to be ...) (Mark J. Cuccia)
Never Enough Time in a Day (TELECOM Digest Editor)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:51:37 -0700
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Organization: SJS Entertainment
Subject: What Time is it in London? - New AT&T Service That's Right on Time
What time is it in London, Tokyo and Buenos Aires?--A New AT&T Service
That's Right on Time
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 25, 1996--AT&T announced the first
calling features that lets people know the time in the country that
they're calling--even before the call goes through. For the first
time, customers can make international calls with the certainty that
they are calling the right place at the right time.
The new service, called Time in Country (TIC), uses patented AT&T
Laboratories technology to relay valuable information during the time
a call is being connected to virtually anywhere in the world. TIC is a
free service, available now by request to AT&T customers, and
consumers can choose from among 51 languages and dialects.
"AT&T is committed to offering customers valuable features that
simplify the calling process, and developed TIC based on customer
research that showed people either don't know or have trouble
remembering what time it is in other parts of the world," said Helen
McGrath, AT&T's new product development director for the international
consumer division.
"AT&T customers no longer need to worry that they may be calling in
the middle of the night or in the middle of dinner because even before
the call is completed, the caller has the option to let the call go
through or try again at a more appropriate time," added McGrath.
The results of a recent consumer survey of international callers,
sponsored by AT&T, confirm that there is a great deal of confusion
about time zones and time shifts. This confusion is exacerbated by the
shift from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time, which is happening
again in most of the United States on October 27 at 2:00 a.m.
Some findings of AT&T's recent research include:
-- Only one out of four people in the United States who make
international calls knows the correct time in London and
only one in 10 knows the correct time in Tokyo.
-- Just 27 percent of people are certain about the time in the
country they're calling.
-- Sixty percent of respondents don't know if the country they
call observes Daylight Savings Time.
TIC is the latest feature available to all of AT&T International
Redial(R) customers which is free to any customer who requests it.
With the redial service, AT&T customers can simply let the network
redial their call for them when they encounter a busy signal, no
answer or unavailable circuits.
Customers interested in subscribing to AT&T International Redial with
the Time in Country feature should call 1-800-445-3231 to speak to a
customer service representative.
FACT SHEET
AT&T INTERNATIONAL REDIAL(R) with Time in Country and Priority Routing
AT&T International Redial service became available in March 1995 to 20
countries in 14 languages and is now available to all direct-dial
countries and areas. To access the service, customers simply push the
star button followed by the numbers 2, 3 and 4 when they encounter a
busy signal, no answer, or unavailable circuits in the United
States--and the AT&T network automatically redials the number up to 10
times during the next half hour. When the phone is answered, an
announcement asks the person, in one of 51 languages or dialects
chosen by the caller in the U.S., to remain on the line to be
connected to the U.S. caller.
Priority Routing was first introduced to 28 countries in October 1995
and is now available to 182 direct-dial countries and locations.
Priority Routing is another feature currently available to all AT&T
International Redial customers which simply places a customer's call
on a "priority status" in the network so that there is more chance for
the call to go through and is especially valuable during peak calling
periods such as weekends and holidays.
Time in Country is the latest additional feature available to all AT&T
International Redial subscribers and relays to the customer, the time
in the country called in the customer's chosen language--without
delaying the call.
AT&T International Redial Languages
(51 languages and dialects)
Albanian Amharic Arabic Armenian Bengali Cantonese Chinese Creole
Croatian Czech Dutch English/U.S. English/W. Indian English/Indian
English/W. African Estonian Farsi French French Canadian German Greek
Gujarati Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Indonesian Italian Japanese Khmer
Korean Latvian Lithuanian Malay Malayalam Mandarin Polish Portuguese
Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Spanish Spanish (Spain)
Tagalog Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnam
CONTACT: AT&T
Suzanne Chung Park,
908/221-6436 (office)
800/939-4252 (pager)
scpark@attmail.com (email)
Karyn Vaughn-Fritz, AT&T
908/221-7974 (office)
500/677-9087 (home)
kvaughn@attmail.com (email)
Allison Harmon, 212/704-4462
A NEW IDEA THAT'S RIGHT ON TIME; Global "Time In
Country" Feature Travels From Concept To Reality
BASKING RIDGE, N.J.--Where do ideas for telephone service
enhancements come from, and how are these theoretical concepts
transformed into reality? Like many other ideas, the TIME IN COUNTRY
(TIC) announcement now integrated into AT&T International Redial(R)
service came out of one scientist's personal experience.
Daniel Mayer Ph.D., the Israeli-born AT&T Labs scientist who came
up with the idea that led to TIC, wondered during his own calls to
relatives and friends in Israel whether the time spent while an
international call goes through could be used more productively. He
also wanted to ensure that he was not calling his relatives at an
inappropriate time.
"One day while calling overseas, I was struck by the relative
difficulty of placing international calls," he recalled. "Not only
do they take more time to set up, they are more likely to be
mis-dialed than other calls, because they have longer numerical
strings. I started to wonder what information might be possible or
useful to offer to callers while they waited for their connections to
be established."
Depending upon routing, network traffic, and the country being
called, establishing a connection with an overseas network can take
anywhere from about 5 to 20 seconds, so there isn't much time
available. But Mayer decided that a brief announcement verifying the
country being called and the local time there could fill the bill
admirably.
Announcing the country would give the caller a chance to hang up,
eliminating accidental calls to countries with similar codes. And
since international calls often occur at inconvenient times in the
dialed area because callers are unsure of actual time differences,
announcing local time information would also help callers decide
whether they wanted to complete the connection.
"When you hear the country and time announced you can terminate
the call, if it turns out to be 3 a.m. in the place you're dialing
and you'd rather not wake up your uncle from a deep sleep," said
Mayer. "But, if you realize it's early afternoon there, you can go
ahead and ask him if he enjoyed his lunch."
But Will It Fly?
Like any new idea that becomes a reality at AT&T, Mayer's
concept for customized announcements during the international
connection interval was subjected to a multi stage evaluation
process, both within his own group and in the international consumer
division. Mayer joined forces with fellow AT&T scientist Carol
Wegrzynowicz, who made sure that the idea was technically feasible,
cost-effective and useful from the consumer standpoint, and together
applied for a patent. As part of the patent application process,
they developed a detailed description and sample implementation of
the idea, worked with the AT&T legal staff, and responded to a series
of detailed queries from the U.S. Patent Office about whether the
idea was indeed unique and patentable.
It took four years from the time the application was submitted
until it was awarded, in July, 1996. "Applying for a patent is a
very long, arduous process, so it's a source of satisfaction when
it's finally granted. But it's even more satisfying to see it result
in a beneficial real-world service like Time in Country," said
Wegrzynowicz. Wegrzynowicz, who has been at AT&T Labs and its
predecessor (Bell Labs) for fourteen years, specializes in data
network architecture and holds four telecommunications patents.
According to Wegrzynowicz, the new patent covers any type of
customized announcement made during the overseas connection interval,
so it could be used to deliver other kinds of information besides
location and time.
Making the Announcement
How is the TIC announcement delivered? The information about the
time difference between each area or country code was initially
programmed into a database that is stored in the "adjunct" or
peripheral system connected to AT&T's main 4ESS digital switches.
The adjunct which uses a conversant interactive voice response
system contains multi-lingual recorded time announcements and
information about AT&T's subscribers. Once the conversant system has
identified the customer and the language of choice using the
automated number identification system, the system directly
generates the "Time in Country" announcement in each caller's chosen
language or dialect. This identification process only takes a few
nanoseconds, and the time announcement itself lasts about five
seconds.
Changing or updating the information at the voice adjuncts is a
relatively simple task, according to Wegrzynowicz, so it is the
flexibility of the voice response systems that makes TIC and other
personalized calling features economically and technologically
feasible.
"We produce the TIME IN COUNTRY announcement by applying some of
the same response features that are used for ordinary network
communications--like the network busy or local busy signals," said
Wegrzynowicz. "We are just using the existing AT&T network to
squeeze out more value added enhancements for AT&T's customers."
A winning solution
In field trials of the TIC announcement made in late 1994, the
initial response to the service was very positive, reported Helen
McGrath, new product development director for the international
consumer division. "When we stopped the tests, many customers
actually asked for it back. Especially when calling countries like
India, where there's a huge time difference, or Russia, where there
are eight time zones, callers can easily become confused," she said.
"With the Time in Country announcement we can give something
extra to our International Redial subscribers that they can really
use. It's yet another way to differentiate AT&T from other
telecommunications companies and provide value," said McGrath.
CONTACT: Suzanne Chung Park, AT&T Karyn Vaughn Fritz, AT&T
908-221-6436 (office) 908-221-7974 (office)
800-939-4252 (pager) 500-677-9087 (home)
scpark@attmail.com kvaughn@attmail.com
OR
Allison Harmon, 212/704-4462
------------------------------
From: nicwolff@angel.net (Nicolas Wolff)
Subject: NYNEX Glossary (was: Getting Someone at the Telco to Listen)
Organization: Angel Networks
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:51:59 GMT
In article <telecom16.566.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, grendel6@ix.netcom.
com wrote:
> I called NYNEX repair (611 on the FX), and was politely
> referred to the Camden (NJ) test board, through which office our FX's
> were routed. When I *insisted* to the 611 clerk that the problem was
> in NYC, she said that she'd refer it to a technician.
NYNEX routes 611 calls quite randomly -- except after midnight, when each
area has just one office open. In NYC, e.g., it's the Garden City office
out on Long Island. This can be helpful -- when you know you'll have to
make repeated calls you can do it after midnight and get the same office.
> Two hours later, I got a call from Tom (or Dick, or Harry; I
> forget his real name) who said he was calling from the CO in New York
> to look at my problem. He had me make -5717 busy on our demarc, and
> then called -5718. He got the intercept, asked me if that was the
> problem, and then said "...hmmm, looks like you're ISG-ing...".
> What THAT means, I don't know,
I don't know about the other RBOCs, but NYNEX personnel call a hunt either
"a hunt," "a rollover," "a hummel" (for "HML" or "multi-line hunt"), or
"an ISG." I've asked repeatedly and no one there knows what "ISG" might
stand for -- anybody?
> but he asked me to hold on a
> second, went off the line, and came back and said "try it now." It
> worked fine, of course. Amazing what happens when you get to talk to
> the right person. He said the same thing's true from his end; "... it
> doesn't work ..." isn't much of a trouble ticket.
He got on a channel to the switch and recoded your ISG -- no problem once
you're talking to the right guy. The trick is getting Tom's phone number,
so that next time you need your ISG changed you can call him right up.
The key, in my experience, is talking like a telco engineer. I've been
running an ISP for a couple of years here in NYNEXland, and once you get
enough of the jargon down you start to get some respect.
If you call 611 and say "Hi, my phone number is 555-1234 and my ISDN hunt
is broken. The first B channel on the first line doesn't hunt up to the
second. Can you have someone check it?" you will hear only the sound of an
RBOC sucking.
But if you call the MAC center on Pearl St. (212/429-5275) at and say "Hi,
I've got a customer, their BTN is 555-1234, and it looks like the
translation on their BRIs is wrong -- their ISG isn't working right. The
primary on the hunt number doesn't roll over to the virtual. It's hummel
1400 -- can you check it? Thanks." you'll get the service you deserve.
That "Thanks" is important, too -- the service delivery people at the
telcos are generally good and diligent people trying to do a
frustrating job, and they don't get a whole lot of appreciation. When
they do, they'll go the extra mile for you -- I've actually had a
repair supervisor call us from home to make sure a repair got done! If
someone really busts her butt to help you, write a letter to the
president of your telco commending her -- that's what I did (and
Richard Jalkut actually wrote me back!)
Don't threaten to call the Public Service Commission. That works, but
you don't make any friends that way. You catch more flies with honey ...
Eventually you get to the point where you can call in orders directly
to NYNEX's Account Team Center, which normally accepts orders only
from the "Authorized Agents" and from business accounts over
$US50,000/year. Then you have some real control over your orders, and
life gets much easier.
Just to start you off, here's a Child's Primer of NYNEX terminology:
--------------
ATC - the Account Team Center, who handle calls from Authorized Agents and
cas-medium customers
BTN - Bill Telephone Number. The number on your phone bill that identifies
your account.
cas-medium - a category for business customers who spend at least $50,000
annually with NYNEX.
channel - the UNIX 'tty' device on a 5ESS switch by which it is programmed
circuit number - identifies not a single pair but an end-to-end circuit
that may have many segments. Two digits, then four letters, then six
digits, whether it's for an ISDN line or a T1. It's probably written on
the jack or Pairgain box NYNEX screwed to your wall.
circuit layout - the specification of what wire pairs will be used in a
circuit. Has to be written up before a T1 or ISDN install.
CPNI - a special business office at NYNEX that handles accounts that don't
want to be marketed any other NYNEX services. (I gather the PSC made them
do this.)
Centrex Plus - Centrex capable of crossing COs. Used to be called Intellipath.
dialing plan - the switch programming that defines three- or four-digit
dialing in a Centrex group.
DPA - a Centrex line installed outside the customer's main office.
DS1 - the 1.55 Mb/s signal passed over a T1 line. Read
http://ece.wpi.edu:8080/EE535/virtext.html if you want to understand this
stuff.
five-E - an AT&T 5ESS switch. No one says 'five-E-S-S'.
frame - the wiring harness in the basement of the CO, on which each pair
of wires that come from your office is wired to a pair that goes to the
switch. The 'horizontal side' has your pairs; the 'vertical side' has the
switch's; ribbon cables run between.
HML - (say 'hummel') multi-line hunt. The 5ESS won't hunt more than 12 or
15 lines reliably without one of these being programmed; not everyone at
NYNEX knows that.
ISG - hunt
local loop - the pair of wires at your end of a circuit that run from the
switch (or, technically, from the frame) at your CO to your office.
MAC center - The group at NYNEX that debugs switch programming on repair
orders. Distinct from the RC-MAC, which programs only new installs.
Pairgain box - the box NYNEX screws to your wall to turn your two 765Kbps
HDSL lines into one T1.
POV list - the list of orders generated at the end of the day that are
supposed to be done already but aren't marked 'completed'.
pickle - an account held by the CPNI. Probably spelled PCL.
primary - one of the two B channels in an ISDN BRI, a.k.a. "B1".
RC-MAC - (say 'ar-cee mac') Recent Change Memory Accounting Center. The
group at NYNEX that actually programs the switches, from a central office.
SmartJack - the totally unnecessary box NYNEX screws to your wall and
plugs your T1 into. (The Pairgain can do remote loopback all by itself,
but many installers don't know that.)
translation - the switch programming that enables a line.
virtual - the other B channel in an ISDN BRI, a.k.a "B2".
----------
Corrections? Anyone with more jargon to contribute? Or maybe different
jargon from another RBOC? I smell a new chapter for the FAQ ...
Nic Wolff
Angel Networks, Inc.
New York City
------------------------------
From: Stan Schwartz <stan@vnet.net>
Subject: CompuServe Sends Cyberspace Junk Mail to Dead Letter Office
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:24:35 -0400
CompuServe Sends Cyberspace Junk Mail to Dead Letter Office
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- CompuServe (Nasdaq: CSRV),
announced today that it has been granted a temporary restraining order
in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, to prohibit Cyber
Promotions, Inc. from falsely identifying their electronic mail as
coming from CompuServe.
Cyber Promotions, Inc. is required to:
* stop using CompuServe's accounts, equipment or support services to send
or receive electronic mail;
* stop inserting any false reference to a CompuServe account or
CompuServe equipment in any electronic message sent by Cyber
Promotions; and
* stop causing their electronic mail to indicate it was sent from
CompuServe or a CompuServe account.
The full text of the restraining order is available on CompuServe's web
page at www.compuserve.com or on CompuServe at (GO CISCENTER) in the News
area.
"CompuServe's number one job is providing our users with the best online
experience available. This is just one step in working to manage the problem
of unsolicited or junk e-mail for our users," said Denny Matteucci, president
of Interactive Services for CompuServe. "Our users have told us they don't
want junk mail clogging their mailboxes and, frankly, neither do I. Junk mail
is as unwelcome in cyberspace as it is through the postal service."
Founded in 1969, CompuServe Incorporated provides the world's most
comprehensive online/Internet access through its three brands --
CompuServe, WOW! and SPRYNET. Through CompuServe, its Japanese
licensee NIFTY-Serve and its affiliates around the world, more than 5
million home and business users in more than 185 countries are
connected online and to the Internet. CompuServe Network Services
manages complex global data communication environments for more than
1,000 corporate customers. With world headquarters in Columbus, Ohio,
CompuServe's offices include European centers in London, Munich,
Amsterdam, Zurich and Paris.
SOURCE: CompuServe Incorporated
CONTACT: Gail Whitcomb of CompuServe Incorporated, 614-538-4457
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:25:08 -0700
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: 1+809 vs. 011+1+ (was Re: NANP Needs to be ...)
Eric Bennett <bennett@hpel.cees.edu> wrote:
> Similarly, 011 is always followed by a country code, etc. If the call
> is international (or perhaps if it will cost an order of magnatude
> more than usual) then the 011 is required regardless of destination.
> Calls which are now dialed as 1-809-XXX-XXXX would become (the somewhat
> unweildy) 011-1-809-XXX-XXXX without violating any numbering plan. Of
> course, 011- should be allowed as a prefix on any calls WITHIN the NANP
> without affecting billing.
> Are there rules stopping a telephone company from intercepting
> 1-809-XXX-XXXX and directing the caller to dial the 011 form (aside
> from the fact that country code 1 calls don't seem to go through with
> a 011 prefix)? Does Bellcore have a position on whether
> 011-1-AAA-EEE-NNNN calls should be completed or not?
*In theory*, 'station-sent-paid' calls to *anywhere* in the NANP, from
*anywhere* in the NANP (including local calls) 'could' be made dialable as:
(10-xxx/101-xxxx)+011+ '1' (our own NANP 'country' code) + ten-digits.
However, a problem occur if the same 'type' of dialing procedures
(prefix) were to be used for 'special billing' calls, such as
collect/person/card, etc. The '01+' prefix is used for such special
billing calls from the NANP to non-NANP points.
Dialing a call as 'special billing' to a point with *in* the NANP as:
(10-xxx/101-xxxx)+01+ our own NANP 'country' code + ten-digits would
really be dialing 011+, the prefix for 'sent-paid' station calls.
Since the 'assumed' NANP area code following in the 'plus ten-digit'
portion would begin with a '2' through '9', it would be some other
country code!
What was intended to be a 'special billing' call to another number in
the NANP, where billing would not start until there was both verification
of acceptance of charges *and* answer supervision, would turn out to
be a 'station-sent-paid' call to some point on another continent!
AT&T Long-Line and Bell Labs *carefully* made the choices of 011+ and 01+
for international dialing prefixes sometime in the late 1950's or early
1960's. They were chosen such that:
o If a caller thought (on NANP calls) that the 1+ toll/ten-digits
prefix is an 'integral' part of the number (which as an
'worldwide-based' number, it is), special billing NANP 0+ calls might
be dialed as '0-plus' 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX. This is the same numerical
dialing string as 01+cc+nn for 'special billing' international, which
is routed to an operator, or now a TOPS/TSPS/OSPS automated operator
system. In the past, calls placed 01+cc+nn (via "The Bell System")
would reach an operator who would ask "Are you calling
overseas/international?".
o And for locations where *no* 1+ prefix was used for ten-digit
'foreign' NPA toll calls within the NANP (i.e. places which dialed
'straight' ten-digits), some people began dialing before getting a
dialtone from the switch. Of course, now the 1+ has become required
for ten-digit (foreign) NPA calls due to the use of N0X/N1X central
office codes within NPA's and the use of NNX area codes within the
NANP. But years ago, suppose someone in San Francisco were dialing
someone in New Jersey. They began dialing 201-NNX-XXXX, but before
hearing dialtone. The originating switch might not have registered the
'2' in the dialing of the '201' area code. It would have picked up
01-NNX-XXXX. There were (still are?) some small islands in the Pacific
which have three-digit country codes (6NX) and four-digit
national/local numbers. A call to a New Jersey 201-6NX-XXXX number
would be picked-up as 01+6NX-XXXX. By routing 01+ to the operator
would have allowed the caller *not* to be charged an international
rate for a call they didn't intend to be placed!
The above two scenarios are described in an article by Robert
J. Keevers (now retired from Bell Labs), on international dialing in
an early 1979 issue of {Bell Laboratories Record} magazine. It was
never intended that 011/01+ be used for intra-NANP calls.
Also, at the time, 010 was 'reserved' for reaching customers to reach
a special 'international' operator for assistance on international
calls, such as reaching Directory in a non-NANP country. When TSPS
began to replace cord-boards, and due to the improvement of
technology, TSPS allowed local assistance operators to call most
non-NANP locations (and other inernational assistance) directly from
their own boards, it was intended for 010 to reach the local TSPS
operator, just like dialing '0' would, except that the "OVS/INTL"
button on the TSPS board would be lit-up, indicating that the customer
dialed 010 for 'international' assistance.
I know that 010 did get a Bell/AT&T TSPS operator from the SxS
exchanges here in New Orleans in the late 1970's. '010' also got an
AT&T OSPS operator (regardless of the chosen primary toll carrier of
the line) from #5ESS and DMS offices (both Digital) here in the New
Orleans area in the late 1980's and early 90's. But from #1AESS
offices, 010 always gave a 'reorder' (fast busy) or a
vacant-code/intercept type of recording.
Now, the ITU-T is recommending a new range of three-digit country
codes of the 0XX format, to begin being assigned sometime before or by
the year 2000. Any use of 010 from within the NANP for reaching an
operator is being ceased, as there will have to be an allowed dialing
string 01+0XX+nn+('#') for 'special billing' calls to 0XX country
codes! Station-sent-paid calls to such 0XX country codes will be
dialed 011+0XX+nn+('#').
IMO, when the choice of dialing prefixes for NANP-to-international was
being made, I would have chosen 011+ for station-sent-paid, and 010+
for special billing. This would have allowed a symmetrical dialing
string for both types of calls/billing. Also, 011+ would be 'similar'
to 1+ for station-sent-paid (which it already is), but 010+ should
have been used for special billing as it would have been 'similar' to
0+. There would have been no major problems on introducing country
codes of the 0XX format. Nor would have there been any real conflicts
in *dialing strings*, if intra-NANP calls were to have been
permissively dialed as 011/010+1+ten-digits, for both types of billing
(station-sent-paid *and* 'special billing').
Many other countries do allow national (and even local) calls permissively
dialable as:
00 (or whatever their international sent-paid-station prefix is), plus
their own country code+ a national number,
and it is still billable as 'national' or even 'local'. However,
unlike the NANP's 01+ code, they don't have a 'special billing'
international prefix.
A final note -- one thing that *IRKS* me to *NO END* is the
'international' pages in the front of many US phone books, and in the
'international' information from many LD carriers, is that the NANP
Caribbean locations (except for maybe Puerto Rico and the US Virgin
Islands) are included in the international section, but *WITHOUT* any
special instructions to dial them as NANP (i.e. 1/0+). The 809 area
code (and now even the new NPA codes for the Caribbean and Bermuda)
'appear' as if they are the *COUNTRY* code! Someone trying to reach
Bermuda (NPA 441) might try to dial 011/01+44-1-etc. which could
start off a number in the UK!
The NANP LEC's and LD companies *SHOULD* have a *SPECIAL* section for
the NANP Caribbean, particularly now that those (former) 809 islands
are getting their own new NPA codes, rather than simply 'mixing' them
with the 011/01 instructions. What they *COULD* do is place the names
of those Caribbean islands mixed in alphabetically with the other
011/01 countries, but a note to see the 'Caribbean' section, which
would give better (the correct) detail on dialing those places as
(10-xxx/101-xxxx)+1/0+. They don't necessarily have to give any rates
-- just say for billing/rate information, call your LD
company. Dialing instructions and numbering/code information is really
'generic' and 'carrier neutral'. The LEC wouldn't be 'favoring' one
carrier over another if the instructions were simply generic but
accurate information!
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:44:53 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Never Enough Time in a Day
I forget which of the 'old time television' shows it was -- Mary Tyler
Moore comes to mind but I may be wrong -- where the star of the show
was saying how busy she was and that there was never enough time to do
everything needed until she hit upon what seemed like the perfect
plan:
She said, "Every day when I get up in the morning, I just set my
clock back one hour. It makes it seem I got up an hour earlier
than I did and I get that extra hour for more work I need to do."
Then she continued, "The only problem was, when I got to the end
of the year, everyone else was celebrating New Year's Eve and
I discovered I was two weeks behind everyone else ... "
So this weekend, most of us in the USA get an extra hour to accomplish
whatever it is we are doing. Officially, all clocks get set backward
one hour as of Sunday at 2:00 am local time, at which point it becomes
merely 1:00 am; and we get to relive the previous hour or whatever.
In real practice. most of us just set our clocks before going to bed
on Saturday night. And remember, it is 'spring ahead and fall behind'
not the other way around, or you will be disconnected from reality
all day Sunday! :)
For a good time, try the talking clock at 1-202-762-1401, which is the
new number for the US Naval Observatory. If you try it at about thirty
seconds before 2:00 am Eastern Time and listen for the full minute
alloted before it cuts you off, you'll note how it handles the time
change: without missing a single second, after you are told it is now
1 hour, 59 minutes and 50 seconds Eastern Daylight Time you are then
told it is 1 hour exactly, Eastern Standard Time.
See you again on Monday hopefully, on the 'new time', and use your
extra hour on Saturday night wisely. :)
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #572
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 28 13:05:05 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id NAA25226; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:05:05 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:05:05 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610281805.NAA25226@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #573
TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Oct 96 13:05:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 573
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget? (Aaron Woolfson)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (Eric Tholome)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (joh@a3bgate.nai.net)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (Danny Burstein)
Re: What Time is it in London? - New AT&T Service (Tim Shoppa)
AT&T's "Time in Country" Service Downsides (Cris Pedregal Martin)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (Brian Wohlgemuth)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Glenn Foote)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Thomas Lapp)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (trumanjs@primenet.com)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Rob Carlson)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Jack Decker)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Gary Valmain)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Bob Ponce)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (seigman@stanford.edu)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Robert Bulmash)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Eric Hunt)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Rich Johnson)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Michael Rathbun)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: telone@shout.net (Aaron Woolfson)
Subject: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget?
Date: 28 Oct 1996 01:01:35 GMT
Is it possible that someone simply "forgot" about daylight savings in
Pacific Bell land out here in California?
Although many people consider daylight savings just a mere
inconvenience of setting their clocks back an hour behind, us at the
telephone companies have much more on our minds than that. And it
seems that someone must have had more on their mind last night, as
when we turned back our clocks here, unless I am completely mistaken
and the time recording at the LEC's is independent of the DMS-200's
internal clocks, someone forgot to turn back the clock. At 4:00am
Pacific Daylight Savings Time, the switching was reading "5:00am
Daylight Savings Time" which was actually the old time... and then
this morning, the time was finally right about 9am, but it was saying
"Pacific Standard Time"... I would like to know anyone elses'
experiences with this problem, and in particular, those of you who
work at telephone companies. I remember having to reconscile all
types of call data last year because of the time change forward one
hour ...
Aaron Woolfson
Tel-One Network Services
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They probably did not forget; they just
did not feel like having someone go there at 2:00 am to do it. I noticed
all day Saturday and Sunday in my travels that various public clocks
were incorrect by one hour. Those set on Saturday were an hour slow
all day and those set today stayed an hour fast all day Sunday. I am
thinking primarily of the time/temperature digital displays on the
front of banks, etc. And there were some business places which are
open 24 hours per day who chose to actually do the setting at a time
which related more closely to the 'close' of their business day, for
example at midnight, or at 7:00 am Sunday morning.
Also, if only a few people are in charge of setting all the clocks,
they cannot be everywhere at once. Wally, the old fellow who worked
for the WUTCO time service for forty or fifty years said the two changes
of time each year used to give him fits. In the spring it was not
quite as bad: they would start on Friday going around to all clcok
subscribers to get those who were not open on weekends, then they
would spend all day Saturday getting those who were open. The few they
missed, if any, they would get on Monday. They were able to do it in
about one minute per customer: unscrew the cover, lift it off, spin
the minute hand forward one hour, screw the cover back in place and
leave. Allowing a couple minutes for travel time between customers
and they were able to do twenty to thirty clocks per hour. But in the
fall, since the hands on those old clocks could not be set backward
further than the twelve, generally the minute hand had to spun
forward *eleven* times; that is twelve minus one. Now you were looking
at closer to two minutes per customer/clock, and many large companies
easily had five or ten clocks on the premises, each high enough on
the wall he had to set up his ladder there, etc. In the fall they
started on Friday early in the morning; worked all day Saturday and
a full day on Monday getting all the clocks adjusted.
Wally once said, "if there ever was a reason I would not vote again
for President (Franklin D.) Roosevelt it would be because he was
the person who started that nonsense with 'Eastern War Time'". Indeed,
the semi-annual clock changes in the USA began in the early 1940's
when we had to ration things like gasoline and electricity in the USA.
Having the clocks set ahead one hour sent us to bed earlier at night
and allowed for less electrical consumption in lighting, etc. PAT]
------------------------------
From: tholome@francenet.fr (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 17:14:30 +0200
In article <telecom16.572.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.
edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote:
> So this weekend, most of us in the USA get an extra hour to accomplish
> whatever it is we are doing. Officially, all clocks get set backward
> one hour as of Sunday at 2:00 am local time, at which point it becomes
> merely 1:00 am; and we get to relive the previous hour or whatever.
Pat, since you brought that subject up, I thought I'd give you a quick
update on what's happening in France ...
France has also had DST for quite some time now, but the time change
wasn't on the same day as the U.S.A. (rather end of September than end
of October). Actually, France was aligned with most of Europe, except
the U.K. which changed on the same date as the U.S.A. A real
nightmare for those of us who conduct international business and often
have to set up conference calls involving various parts of the
world. It's already hard to figure out which time it is supposed to be
in other countries normally, think of when you enter the March-April
or September-October period. As a side note, the most complicated is
when Australia is involved: they also have DST, but, because their
summer is our winter and vice versa, when we go forward, they go
backward, and vice versa!
Anyway, this time, for the first time, France is changing time at the
same date (i.e. tonight) as the U.S.A. and U.K. I don't know if this
is true for the rest of Europe (Germany, etc.) or if by synchronising
with the U.S.A. and U.K., we've just gone out of synch with the rest
of Europe.
Another point worth noting: for some reason, Europe (at least France
and Germany) goes from 3:00am to 2:00am, not 2:00am to 1:00am. I guess
politicians had to choose the least disrupting time, and studies
proved that it was one hour later in Europe than in the U.S.A. (I must
admit that in France, people's day is usually shifted 1 hour from the
typical American day: we start at work around 9:00am, stop at 7:00pm,
have dinner at 8:00pm, etc.).
And guess what; there are ongoing discussions in France that we might get
rid of DST entirely. October 1997 would be the last change if we were to
stick to the winter time, which is now the favorite, even though most
French people (as I do) would rather have summer time all year long.
Whether the rest of Europe does the same thing, it is yet unclear ...
Finally, I used to design Human Machine Interfaces and had to deal
with DST for all kinds of reasons (our software had to timestamp
things, schedule jobs, etc.). It was a real nightmare! Especially
because our product was sold in various countries (some countries are
1/2 hour or 1/4 hour ahead or behind the next time zone!) and could be
physically used simultaneously in several time zones. Luckily, there
are now libraries supporting DST, but most of them are buggy and don't
solve certain problems, e.g. when a job is scheduled to run every day
at 2:30am, should it run twice tonight? No obvious answer to this one!
GMT I tell yah!
Eric Tholome | displayed with | private account
23, avenue du Centre | 100% recycled | tholome@francenet.fr
78180 Montigny le Bretonneux |___ pixels! ___| phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47
France \________/ fax: same number, call first!
(if calling, remember that France is 6 to 11 hours ahead of the U.S.A.!)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 04:57:58 -0400
From: john <john@a3bgate.nai.net>
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
In article <telecom16.572.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> you wrote:
> I forget which of the 'old time television' shows it was -- Mary Tyler
> Moore comes to mind but I may be wrong -- where the star of the show
> was saying how busy she was and that there was never enough time to do
> everything needed until she hit upon what seemed like the perfect
> plan:
> She said, "Every day when I get up in the morning, I just set my
> clock back one hour. It makes it seem I got up an hour earlier
> than I did and I get that extra hour for more work I need to do."
"I Love Lucy" had this bit.
john
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is that who it was? Okay ... All the
television and radio stations here operating 24 hours per day just
added an hour of leftovers which they ran at some point during the
night. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 23:45:26 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
As I recall (warning, the law may have been changed in the last few
years), the clock switch occurs at 2 am STANDARD time, regardless of
the season.
Hence, the cutover in the fall (where most of the USA switches from
Daylight Savings to Standard) really and legally occurs at 1 second past
02:59:59 DST, which translates to 01:59:59 Standard time.
danny 'sitting on a stopped Amtrak train waiting for the hour to pass'
burstein dannyb@panix.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have heard that Amtrack literally
does that; they stop the train and just sit there for one hour which
has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard of. The airlines do not do
that; neither does Greyhound Bus. Of course I guess the airplane
cannot simply stop in mid-air <grin>, but Greyhound busses complete
the 'schedule' (or particular trip) they are on, arriving at the end
terminal one hour early. That way, passengers for whom it is the end of
their trip are not inconvenienced, although passengers who are trans-
ferring to another bus at that point do have to wait an extra hour.
Most of the overnight busses traveling at that hour are expresses
anyway up and down the interstate highways, and in the few cases where
there are local towns being served after 2:00 am until the next morning
the newly boarding passengers are warned the bus will be coming through
town one hour 'early' on that one night only.
The real challenge of course is in the spring when the clocks are set
ahead. Busses scheduled to leave at 2:00 am leave the station exactly
one hour late; busses leaving at 2:30 am leave the station thirty minutes
late at 3:00 am, etc. Busses which were in transit at 2:00 am are one
hour late as of the time change. Typically though they make up much of
the time by trimming the one hour rest stops down to thirty minutes
while enroute, and the thirty minute rest stops down to twenty minutes.
Effectively they wind up arriving twenty to thirty minutes late by
picking up anywhere from ten to thirty minutes at various stops along
the way where they just don't wait around quite as long as usual, to
the chagrin perhaps, of the McDonald's/Wendy's/assorted truck stop
operators along the way who owe their livelyhood primarily to Greyhound
agreeing to pull in there several times per night with a load of
passengers each time.
It creates a sort of 'ripple effect' where the first round of busses
going out from the terminals (big city stations) Sunday morning are
held back sometimes as much as an hour while waiting for the
overnighters to get into the station with passengers transferring to
another bus; that is the overnighters which were 'locals' who had no
chance to make up any of the hour lost. Then those guys run as much as
an hour late most of the day, again gaining back a lot of the time
with reduced time at rest stops. By grabbing a few minutes here and a
few minutes there, and because there is not a lot of traffic on the
roads early Sunday morning (usually enabling the overnight busses to
arrive a few minutes early anyway on a 'normal' Sunday) by sometime
late Sunday afternoon everything is back to normal. PAT]
------------------------------
From: shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: Re: What Time is it in London? - New AT&T Service
Date: 28 Oct 1996 04:59:45 GMT
Organization: Tri-University Meson Facility
In article <telecom16.572.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mike Pollock
<pheel@sprynet.com> wrote:
> NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 25, 1996--AT&T announced the first
> calling features that lets people know the time in the country that
> they're calling--even before the call goes through. For the first
> time, customers can make international calls with the certainty that
> they are calling the right place at the right time.
> through or try again at a more appropriate time," added McGrath.
> -- Sixty percent of respondents don't know if the country they
> call observes Daylight Savings Time.
What about those of who aren't sure if the part of the state we're
calling is on Daylight Savings Time or not? In particular, will AT&T
help settle my confusion when I'm calling colleagues in Indiana? :-)
Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Indiana however is not an 'international
point, not even in Gary. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Cris Pedregal Martin <cris@epoch.cs.umass.edu>
Subject: AT&T's "Time in Country" Service Downsides
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:29:55 EST
Reply-To: cris@cs.umass.edu
AT&T's new service that tells you the time at the country one is calling
is a good idea, however, on a call to Spain yesterday:
-- the time reported by AT&T was one hour earlier than actual time (this
probably because Spain now follows the EU in Daylight savings).
-- the system cut off ringing to make time for the time; i.e., it rang three
times at the remote end before it rang once on my end. Thus if I had
wanted to count rings to avoid an answering machine, say, I'd been
thwarted.
The other features (int'l redial, etc.) work nicely, connecting at the
remote end when it becomes available and asking the party to hold the
line, in a (fixed) language of your choice... it makes a point of saying
to the recipient of the call that this call is not charged to him or her.
Cris Pedregal Martin Computer Science Department
UMass / Amherst, MA 01003-4610 cris@cs.umass.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 8:59:20 -0500
From: Brian Wohlgemuth <brian.wohlgemuth@telops.gte.com>
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
Of course, never forget about your readers in Indiana who never change
time. The only way I remember that the rest of the country has
changed is when they move ER and X-Files around to an hour later. :)
Brian
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, Indiana is an exceptional case.
But then again, until Amtrack was started, the railroads never changed
time either. Quite literally, the railroads operated exclusively on
Standard Time year around. The clock in the railroad station was
always one hour 'slow' in the summer and that is the time the trains
used. PAT]
------------------------------
From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 27 Oct 1996 11:14:01 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet
For those who get their kicks by Tormenting Telemarketers, (no matter how
justified) a small dose of reality might be in order:
The supply of replacement telemarketers will always exceed the demand.
Telemarketers come from _all_ backgrounds ... including some which are
outright criminal in nature. Some (note: _some_ , not all, or even many!)
are capable of violence. Few, if any telemarketing companies do even a
routine background check.
The gathering (and selling) of lists containing your phone number will
increase. These lists include many things _in addition_ to your phone
number. Like your address(s)!
Just EXACTLY HOW ABBUSIVE do you _want_ to be to someone you don't know,
but who, in turn knows: Your name, your home and work addresses, mabye the
school your children attend, possibly which stores and shopping centers
you frequent ...
If you want to get off of a list, say so. You are more likely to actually
get off if you say so nicely ...
As for the shallow end of the gene pool ... consider this:
Telemarketing _is_ legal. If you don't like it you should work to change
that fact, but for the time being you will have to live with the issue.
The people who are calling you _are_ within the law (usually). They may
not like the work they do (but it _is_ honest and legal work), no matter
what you think of it. They have an excuse, and a legitimate reason, for
their behavior.
On the other hand, those who practice deception, cruelty and bad manners
(and who ENJOY and BRAG about their actions) seldom have much to say in
their own defense except: "It offends me to recieve calls from anyone I
don't know." To use this as an _excuse_ for their own antics seems to
define the dept of the mythical gene pool well enough for most of us to
make sense of what is really happening here ...
By the way, I haven't received over six telemarketing calls (at home)
in the last two YEARS! ... and I have two listed numbers. It's not
that hard when you know how.
Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us
------------------------------
From: thomas@menno.com (Thomas Lapp)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 09:20:38 EST
I didn't see my method of handling those calls: screen everything! My
outgoing message on an answering machine says basically, "You've
reached xxx-xxxx. All calls to this number are screened. Please
leave your message."
People I know already know I screen calls, so they start talking and I
pick up. Telemarketers hang up. I haven't talked to a telemarketer
in months with this technique.
tom
internet : thomas@menno.com or
: lapptl@a1.wmvx.umc.dupont.com
Location : Newark, DE, USA
------------------------------
From: Eric <trumanjs@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 26 Oct 1996 18:54:01 -0700
Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet
I have Caller ID and our telephone provider, US West, lets us block
"Anonymous" calls. I know this isn't perfect because I still get "Out
of Area" or "Unavailable" calls, but it seems to cut down the number
of calls I got from local companies trying to sell me on Auto repairs
or Lawn Service.
I did notice that all last week I came home to find three or four
calls on my caller ID box while I was at work. "Unavailable" on every
single one. Then on 10/24 I switched shifts with another worker so I
could run some errands that morning and as I'm heading out the door
damned if it wasn't "Unavailable" calling me again. Well I was curious
since I had been getting these calls all week and they clearly hadn't
figured out I have a job so I answered. It was AT&T trying to sell me
long distance! Didn't surprise me to much because I half suspected it
was a telemarketer. Said I was busy at the moment and got off the
phone. I'm just too nice of a guy to be mean to these people.
By the way I work on the phones, but they call me not the other way
around. I worked as a telemarketer for all of two days when I was in
college. Sold some type of coupon book with discounts at local
merchants. Worst job I ever had. I really don't know how they keep
people. Maybe it's the only job they can get. Some other postings made
reference to disabled people who can't get other jobs. That may be a
factor but maybe some of these people are convicted felons and can't
get another job? I don't know for sure but some of the people I worked
with then were definately scary individuals. Some years later when I
had my own business, the building I rented office space in leased some
space to telemarketers. I noticed the same thing then too. In fairness
though there were some nice housewives or college coed's at both
businesses.
I don't have my business any more but I never hired telemarketers to
advertise it. Let's face it though as much as we hate it telemarketing
works. Just like negative campaign ads at this time of year.
Eric
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
From: Rob Carlson <rob@cola.castle.net>
Reply-To: rob@cola.castle.net
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 96 14:52:38 GMT
Organization: The Cola Mail System South Plainfield, NJ USA
Pat said:
> complaint with Maddi was not in expressing a dislike for those
> organizations but in taking some poor naive kid and playing a cruel
> trick like that. It is the same kind of objection I have to shows
> like 'America's Funniest Home Videos' and 'Candid Camera'. People
> are entitled to have their private thoughts and desires left alone
> and not exploited so someone else can have a laugh. PAT]
I have to disagree. If I placed the call, yes, it would be a mean to
play any sort of trick on the person that I called, but I didn't. In
many cases, telemarketers can be very frustrating, because some of
them speak less than perfect English. Because many people that call
my home for legitimate reasons also have the same difficulty,
sometimes I am on the phone for almost a minute before I realize that
I am getting a sales pitch.
I understand the various situations and needs of the individuals on the
other side of the line. I also I believe that if you call a person
uninvited you have no choice but to accept their abuse, be it simply
nasty words, or a creative prank like Maddi described.
It's all in the job description.
Rob Carlson .. rob@cola.castle.net .. Tel: 908 937-0452
------------------------------
From: jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:01:13 GMT
Organization: Altopia Corp. - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 04:48:56 GMT, Chris Mauritz <ritz@interactive.net>
wrote:
> I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there doing less wholesome
> things (prostitution, drug dealing, etc ...) to pay college costs.
> Do I need to be nice to them too? Your argument is flawed in that
> respect.
I was going to make this same point, but Mr. Mauritz beat me to it!
> I consider being interrupted during dinner (telemarketing is pervasive
> in New Jersey, even with an unlisted number) and I make a point out of
> voicing my annoyance at every turn. These people are a nuisance. It
> ought to be illegal.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that prostitution and drug-
> dealing are illegal. Telemarketing isn't illegal. Obnoxious maybe,
> but not illegal. PAT]
However, I think that the only reason that telemarketing is NOT
illegal is because every time someone tries to make it illegal, the
telemarketers stand on "freedom of speech" and claim they have a right
to contact people in this way.
I personally don't agree with this -- after all, there are limits on
freedom of speech. Certainly you have the right to bring a soapbox to
the public square and make a speech (unless some bigwig politician is
going to be there holding a major event -- then you get the boot,
Constitution or not). If you can afford to own or rent the use of a
printing press, you can print just about whatever you want (though
even that's not absolute ... anyone remember Ramparts magazine?). If
you have a Web site of your own, you can even make your thoughts
available to the world at a very low cost. But none of this gives you
permission to go into people's homes, uninvited, and start proclaiming
your thoughts. I don't think it was ever the intention of the
founding fathers to allow people you don't know to come into the
sanctity of your home and start talking about whatever they want to
talk about.
And that is really why we object to telemarketers. Most of us have a
phone because we want to receive calls from friends, family, and
people that we have chosen to do business with. We did not put it
there so that it could be an interruption or a nuisance, although to a
certain extent that is unavoidable (even friends and family will
interrupt our dinner on occasion - I have one friend in particular
who, even though he lives 200 miles away, has an uncanny knack for
calling when I am either eating, in the shower, or otherwise in an
inconvenient place to get to the phone - and it's not because I do
these activities at the same time each day, because I don't!).
But to many of us, telemarketers are in business solely to harass
people. There are many people in the world that would NEVER buy
anything offered over the phone by a telemarketer ... in fact, I would
daresay that such people are in the majority. So these telemarketers
annoy the many in the hope of finding the few that are gullible enough
to take their bait.
Unfortunately, we have some fuzzy-headed judges in our country that
can't seem to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom to
annoy. And THAT is why telemarketing is not illegal. It's not
because the majority of people wouldn't want that to be the case, it's
because politicians are reluctant to pass laws that they feel will be
immediately struck down by the courts, especially when a small but
vocal percentage of their constituents might start yelling about about
"censorship" (although I can't imagine it would be a big percentage --
even liberals must get annoyed with the calls after a while!).
I would bet that if you took a survey and asked the following two questions:
1) Should drugs be legalized?
2) Should telemarketing to residential telephones be made illegal?
You would find a lot more people in favor of the first than are
opposed to the second (in other words, I think a lot more people would
prefer to see drugs legalized than telemarketing). That is not my own
view, by the way -- I'm personally opposed to legalizing drugs -- but
in conversations I think I detect a lot more hostility toward
telemarketers than toward drug users. In a way, that makes sense,
because while people's lives may be impacted in a far more serious
manner by someone who is high on drugs, it's probably an infrequent
event for most of us, whereas telemarketing in many areas is becoming
the annoyance that never ends, like a constantly dripping faucet.
There is one thing the government COULD do that would help a lot.
Force the phone companies to stop charging extra for NOT listing phone
numbers in the directory, or with directory assistance. There is no
rational reason for charging an extra monthly charge for an unlisted
number anymore, since it quite likely generates extra income in calls
to directory assistance as people attempt (unsuccessfully) to get the
number there. Another option would be to force the phone companies to
not list it in their printed directory (or the listings they sell to
other companies for competing directories) but make it available only
via Directory Assistance call completion (the operator would not give
out the number, but would complete the call for a standard or even a
premium "call completion" charge). Since telemarketers aren't going
to pay thirty to ninety cents a call to call their "prospects", that
would eliminate most of the junk calls to people who really don't want
them. But personally, I think that it is VERY wrong that people
should have to pay the phone companies extra to keep their private
information private.
I'd love to see someone start a class-action lawsuit against the Baby
Bells and the larger independents to force them to stop giving out
customers' private information without the express permission of the
customer. I realize that some folks think that the concept of
personal privacy is already dead, but I don't think it should be given
up without a fight - and I certainly don't think that the phone
companies should just be in effect handing their customer list over to
telemarketing and similar firms via the local phone book, if customers
don't wish to be listed there (and I also don't believe that customers
should have to pay extra to not have their private information given
out). In just about any other industry we'd have the choice of not
dealing with a company that is that careless with our personal
information, but the vast majority of residential phone customers
still only have once choice of local phone company, and that's the
only reason they've been able to get away with these types of bogus
charges for NOT doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the
first place!
Jack
------------------------------
From: gary valmain <dessoft@main.com>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 14:20:51 -0400
Organization: designed software, inc
> If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
> hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
> several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
> one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
> feelings any. PAT]
Pat,
The fundamental point to be made here is not how someone may be making
a living doing a 'dirty' job, or, how unfortunate that that industry
preys on the disabled to do the job for them. The point is who is
paying for the service?
I pay for telephone service to my home and my business. Each
telephone has a specific purpose. BOTH telephones are for _MY_
personal or business use.
I do not have a home phone to make it convenient for a telemarketer to
call me (be they rip offs, carpet cleaners, charities or the RBOC
selling services). This phone provides an easy method for my family
and friends to reach me. End of purpose.
My business line is for my business. I do not call the owner of a
business at home soliciting his business. I MAY call the same person
at his business asking for his business. However, that would be me
(the owner of one business) calling Joe (the owner of another
business). I will not use telemarketing (telemarketing firms) as a
means of soliciting business.
BTW I feel that most of the telemarketing aimed at the home to be
fundamentally rip offs. Charities want your money for nothing (want
to talk about their operating expenses compared to their assistance);
services offered (ie: carpet cleaning) are shoddy, if not damaging;
exterior sidings; air duct cleaning; ad nausem ...
But, there are some terrific scams aimed at small businesses.
gary valmain
designed software, inc___
voice_____713.367.8765___
fax_______713.367.4316___
dessoft@main.com_________
72203,2372@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 13:25:58 -0700
From: Bob Ponce <icmedia@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
I've got to agree with Pat that beating up on some poor kid trying to
make a living is of questionable value in deterring telemarketing
calls.
But I imagine some of these people are the same types that would take
out frustrations with a department store on the first lowly cashier
they encounter, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the
source of their frustration.
Telemarketing may be a rude and unwelcome interruption in someone's
household, but it still doesn't justify abusive behavior.
Bob Ponce
I-Contact Media Inc.
(914) 761-4328
------------------------------
From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (AES)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:33:11 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
For one idea concerning a sensible, feasible, low-cost solution to the
telemarketing problem which respects everyone's rights, have a look at
http://www-ee.Stanford.edu/~siegman/telemarketing_proposal.html
(Except, given the political clout of the parties involved, it will never
happen.)
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Robert Bulmash)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 27 Oct 1996 19:58:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.568.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tls@panix.com (Thor
Lancelot Simon) writes:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've no objection with raising their
> business costs, increasing their phone bills as a result, etc. I
> strongly also believe in discouraging telemarketers -- as an organ-
> ization -- but not personally insulting some twenty year old kid who
> is doing it because s/he is desparate to pay college expenses and
> rent, etc. You can stall them all you want, ask a million questions,
> make it a very difficult call for them; but you don't have to get
> personal with the person making the call by referring to them as the
> shallow end of the gene pool or a 'droid' or 'scum' or whatever;
> at least not in their presence. Most of them are no different than
> Hillary as per the message before this one: they are trying to pay
> their rent and survive in the world. I am sure for example Hillary
> does not consider herself 'scum', either now or back then. My main
> complaint with Maddi was not in expressing a dislike for those
> organizations but in taking some poor naive kid and playing a cruel
> trick like that. It is the same kind of objection I have to shows
> like 'America's Funniest Home Videos' and 'Candid Camera'. People
> are entitled to have their private thoughts and desires left alone
> and not exploited so someone else can have a laugh. PAT]
I tend to agree with PAT regarding the telemarketer's victimization by
their own profession. They'll be hung up on, or cut off before the
end of their pitch 66% of the time they reach a warm body. And of
that 66%, about 20% will `give em hell' for calling in the first
place.
Nevertheless, since we all agree that the attack on telemarketing
should be directed at the telemarketing firm, rather than the caller,
we should at least allow the telemarketer to get his/her company in
trouble. And that often means, staying on line until the pitch is
completed. Remember, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
allow a tele-victim to sue a telemarketing company that makes a sales
call to a residence without giving (voluntarily) either the address or
phone number of the firm on whose behalf they are calling. $ 5 0 0 is
the amount you can collect for this simple and common violation of the
federal regulation.
Indeed, our members have collected over $50,000 from telemarketing
firms so far this year due to various infractions of the TCPA and/or
acceptance of our member's pay-per-cal `offer' to 1,500 junk calling
firms.
Bob Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc.
http://webmill.com/pci/home
http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home
------------------------------
From: ehunt@bga.com (Eric Hunt)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:01:47 GMT
Organization: Lil' Ole' Me
In article <telecom16.569.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Ritter_Phillip
<RitterP@coxpcs.com> wrote:
> respond with "What are you selling?" before they have any chance to
> get into their useless pitch.
After less than two full weeks of having switched my LD service from
AT&T to a competitor, I got a call from AT&T's telemarketing arm.
I normally get very very few telemarketing calls, mostly because I am
young (24) and am almost never at home before 8pm each evening. Well,
they got me with this one, but I didn't hang up immediately. I should
have.
The first thing the polite gentleman asked me was for me to explain to
them why I switched from AT&T! I was floored and actually didn't say
anything for a second. I then responded with "I'm sorry, but I don't
have to tell you that. And would you please put me on your Do Not Call
List?" *giggle* That stumped *him* for a few seconds. He said yes to
the do not call agreement and then rephrased the exact same question
as before in a different way. I said a little more emphatically that I
did *not* have to explain to him why I switched. He decided to cut his
losses and wrapped up the call. I ended with a cheery "Thank you!
Goodbye!"
Eric Hunt - ehunt@bga.com (preferred) Austin, TX \/
hunt@metrowerks.com http://www.realtime.net/~ehunt
------------------------------
From: rj@tezcat.com
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 28 Oct 1996 13:15:35 GMT
Organization: Tezcat.COM, Chicago
OPEN ADMISSION: I have worked in telemarketing, both consumer and
business-to-business for 16 years, as a salesperson and supervisor.
hillary@netaxs.com (Hillary Gorman) writes:
> I used to do cold calling for my university. "hi, this is Hillary from
> the CAL Keeping the Promise Campaign!" We were under direct orders to
> start by asking the callees for 3% of their annual income every year
> for 3 years. You can imagine the many hangups we got. Not only did it
> in fact, hurt our feelings, but we also got NEGATIVE "points" for
> every hangup our supervisor noticed. We had to fill out a form for
> each call which listed the reason for the premature termination of the
> call (eg, during dinner, person felt sick, person claims to have no
> money, etc.) If we put "callee hung up" it was WORSE than if the
> person simply said "no thanks, I'm broke" and then hung up. Not to
> mention it makes you feel really small when someone just hangs up on
> you. Luckily, after a couple of weeks, I was able to pay my rent that
> month and I quit, figuring I had three more weeks to find a better job
> (and I knew I could always go back if i had to.)
Yeesh, now _there_ is a lousy economic model. The (mis)management of
that fundraiser is amazing. Any model that "blames" the solicitor for
normal terminations of the call (customer chooses to click off; no
money) is a management model that won't keep good solicitors around.
The first thing that I was taught as a salesperson is that the
customer is refusing the call or the business offer, not _you_
personally. Any sort of "they hung up, you are bad" technique is
bound to drive the solicitor nuts.
Maddi Hausmann Sojourner <madhaus@genmagic.com> writes:
> Yes, these folks are not well-paid. That's the point. If enough of
> us make the job so unpleasant to do, then the wages will have to rise
> to the point that the firms will not find it practical to do business
> via unwanted telephone solicitations.
> Your method of dealing with telemarketers supports their business model;
> by not answering your phone, their time is not wasted. The whole point
> of my post was to show how to make the job so unpleasant that
> telemarketing will eventually go the way of spittoons, buggy whips, and
> indentured servitude.
Hi, Maddi. I will be the first one to say that there are a _lot_ of
telemarketing efforts that, if they were physically removed from the
face of the Earth, the world would be a brighter place. However,
trying to put the genie back into the bottle (i.e., making
telemarketing so expensive that no one will want to use it) has one
serious flaw.
Like junk mail and the USPS, it is in the commercial interest of the
telcos to keep telemarketing alive. PacBell or Ameritech or whoever
doesn't care about the content of the call, just that billable calls
are being made.
As someone suggested earlier in this thread, a reputable company will
happily remove your name from their call list when requested. If they
are not a reputable company, call your states attorney's office.
www.cottonexpress.com
Rich Johnson | Cotton Expressions, Ltd.
Director of Marketing | Science, Science Humor & Science Fiction
rj@ cottonexpress.com | Imprinted Apparel
fax: 312-850-2562
------------------------------
From: mdr@iadfw.net (Michael Rathbun)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:29:19 GMT
Organization: The Electric Shoestring Proprietary
In <telecom16.565.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> (comp.dcom.telecom) on Wed, 23
Oct 1996 21:23:39 +0000 Maddi Hausmann Sojourner <madhaus@genmagic.com>
wrote:
> We've found a way to work around that which others with Caller ID may
> also wish to use.
Here's my script:
M: Hello.
T: May I speak with <whomever>?
M: Certainly! Thank you for calling! May I have your account number,
please?
T: <confused response>
M: I need your account information before we can proceed with the
evaluation of your performance. Or do you not yet have an account? I can
set you up right now with your PO number if your firm is D&B rated, or you
can pay by credit card. $100 US per call. Which option would you prefer?
<continue ad lib. until "click" is heard.>
mdr
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #573
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 28 15:52:24 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id PAA13127; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:52:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:52:24 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610282052.PAA13127@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #574
TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Oct 96 15:52:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 574
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
AOL Screws Small ISP (Ken Levitt)
Call Destination Announcing? (James E. Bellaire)
MCI/Discover Card/Microsoft Offer (Tim Shoppa)
Burbank & Glendale Leaving 818 NPA (Tad Cook)
Cyber Promotions Going Bankrupt! (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Bell Atlantic's Whiney Response to NJ PSC (John Cropper)
104th Congress Flunks Civil Liberties (Monty Solomon)
AT&T Getting Into the Callback Racket - oops! - Scheme (Danny Burstein)
Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (WD Baseley)
CTI Meeting Announcement For November 6 (Robert Becnel)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 12:19:45 EST
From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt)
Subject: AOL Screws Small ISP
I was alerted at about 11pm Friday night by a friend of mine that AOL
has installed spam blocking for all of its users. They have a list of
about 50 domain names that will be blocked without any notice to
either the sender or receiver. Users may elect to turn off junk mail
blocking, but the default is to block all mail from the designated
sites.
I was in full agreement with this policy under the assumption that AOL
would do through research before placing an ISP on their list. I also
assumed that they would attempt to resolve the problem with an ISP
prior to placing them on the list. This appears NOT to be the case.
When I was told that my ISP (CYBERCOM.NET) was on their list, I found
it extremely hard to believe. Cybercom has a very detailed written and
enforced policy against any of their users sending unsolicited mail.
(see usage policy at www.cybercom.net.)
I use Cybercom to host my company's domain name and web page and use my
account there to respond to information requests on our products from
potential customers. I find it totally unacceptable that my mail
messages are not being delivered to AOL users.
At 2pm on Saturday I wrote to my ISP and AOL about this situation
asking for an explanation. I asked AOL to explain what Cybercom did
to deserve this and if they had attempted to contact Cybercom about
the situation. As of noon on Monday, I have received no response from
AOL. The response from Cybercom is attached below. I have to assume
that since AOL did not respond to my message that they do not have a
defensible position.
If this situation is not properly resolved within 48 hours, I will be
urging everyone to boycott AOL.
=================== Response From Cybercom =========================
Dear Cyber Access Customer,
Unfortunately AOL has seen fit to place Cyber Access on a list of
domains from which it will filter email. This is a list of domains
which AOL claims are sources of "junk email."
This action on their part probably stems from an incident which
occurred about one month ago. Cyber Access had a "customer" sign up
who, as soon as their account was activated, immediately proceeded to
send unsolicited email to hundreds, if not thousands, of people, many
of them AOL customers. This email advertised an adult, i.e
pornographic, bulletin board on the south shore. This action was in
direct violation of Cyber Access' usage policies.
As soon as Cyber Access discovered what was going on, the rogue
account was cancelled. This happened within four hours, but,
unfortunately, the damage was done. To make matters worse, they had
another account with another ISP and continued to send this spam for a
couple of days (with the Cyber Access account listed as the reply-to
address) before the other ISP shut them off.
Note that this is not the first time they have done this. They will
sign up for an account under a bogus name and, as soon as their
account is activated, send as much spam as they can until their
account is shut off. Of course, they don't pay either. It is
difficult, if not impossible, for an ISP to protect itself from this
kind of abuse.
Cyber Access is working hard to re-instate our good name and to get
cybercom.net taken off of AOL's. list. If necessary, we will bring
legal action to correct the situation.
Please understand that Cyber Access is blameless in this situation. We
took immediate and decisive action as soon as we discovered the
situation. AOL did not in any way contact anyone at Cyber Access about
their impending action, as any responsible organization should.
Hopefully this unfortunate situation will be resolved soon.
mel mel@cybercom.net
------------------
Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 96 18:52 EST
From: James E Bellaire <bellaire@tk.com>
Subject: Call Destination Announcing?
The article "What Time is it in London? - AT&T Service That's Right on
Time" got me thinking about the current debate about international
calls.
AT&T has shown that the technology for TIC (time in country) is
workable. They are selling it as a package plan for certain
international callers. Why not add that service to all international
calls, or lease their patent to someone who will?
Now that they have shown that it is possible, why don't they offer a
complete package of information during call setup. A simple message
after dialing of:
Please hold the line, your call is being connected.
You have dialed a number in ... The United Kingdom.
Current time at destination ... 10:34pm.
It would not be much of a stretch to add other special information.
Price per minute to this country ... 95 cents
followed by the distant end ringing (which by now has been setup).
Of course the constant reminder of how much the call is costing every
time a call is placed may lower the number of calls, but it will
improve collections. Customers would not be able to complain that
they did not know the destination or charges.
This would work especially great for the international calls into 809 (and
its children). AT&T now says they have the technology? Why not use it?
James E. Bellaire bellaire@tk.com
Webpage Available 23.5 Hrs a Day!!! http://www.holli.com/~bellaire/
------------------------------
From: shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim Shoppa)
Subject: MCI/Discover Card/Microsoft Offer
Date: 26 Oct 1996 22:16:21 GMT
Organization: Tri-University Meson Facility
In my Burnaby, BC, Canada mailbox yesterday a offer from MCI, in
conjunction with Discover Card, for free Microsoft software showed up.
All I have to do is give them my home phone number and Discover Card
number, and in return they say they'll switch my line over to MCI and
send me my choice of Microsoft CD-ROM's.
Two potential problems:
1. I'm a US Citizen living and working in Canada. Discover Card
knows that, and presumably MCI knows it to, since they're the ones who
sent me the offer. As far as I can determine, MCI doesn't do business
in Canada (they aren't in the phone book, and I'm unable to call the
1-800 number listed with the offer, even if I do the usual trick of
dialing it as a 1-880 number through BCTel.) Interestingly, there's
absolutely nothing on the offer that says says it's no good outside
the US.
2. Discover Card isn't accepted anywhere in Canada -- not even Sears
-- to the best of my knowledge. (It does come in handy during trips
to the states, though.) So even if MCI does have a Canadian
subsidiary, they won't be able to charge my calls to that credit card.
Nevertheless, I'm going to stick a Cdn$0.52 stamp on the
"No-postage-necessary-if-mailed-in-the-US" envelope, drop it in the
red-and-grey mailbox at the end of my block, and see what happens. Is
the worst case that I get nothing for the effort, or will the "Phone
Cops" show up and arrest me for attempted fraud?
Tim (shoppa@triumf.ca)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How are you supposed to know the
intricacies of who can bill for what on which card in Canada? They
sent you an offer which looked good and you decided to try out the
service. Let them deal with it however they can if at all. Go ahead
and get yourself a nice Microsoft CD-ROM. PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Burbank & Glendale Leaving 818 NPA
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 23:54:12 PST
From: tad@ssc.com
Burbank, Glendale leaving 818 area code
Los Angeles Daily News
LOS ANGELES -- The California Public Utilities Commission has rejected
a proposal by Burbank and Glendale that would keep current phone
customers in the 818 area code.
The decision Friday means those cities now face being split off from
the rest of the San Fernando Valley when a new area code is
implemented by the PUC.
The two cities asked for an "overlay zone" for the 818 area code
rather than be shunted into a new 626 area code with the rest of the
San Gabriel Valley.
The new zone is needed because of demand for new telephone numbers.
Creating an overlay zone would keep all existing residential and
industrial customers in the 818 area. New customers would get a
different area code serving the same geographic area.
But everyone would then have to dial an 11-digit phone number,
including the area code.
The Area Code Relief Coalition, which includes major industry players
such as MCI Telecommunications and the California Cable Television
Association, has asked the PUC to adopt a configuration for the 626
area code that includes Burbank and Glendale with cities in the San
Gabriel Valley.
Burbank and Glendale officials oppose that plan. They maintain the two
cities are associated with the San Fernando Valley, not the San
Gabriel Valley.
"The city councils from both cities are adamant that we will do
whatever we can to stop it," said Burbank Councilman Ted McConkey. "It
would just be a real nightmare for everybody. We're not a part of the
San Gabriel Valley. We never have been. All of our commerce flows from
the San Fernando Valley."
McConkey said big businesses in the city such as Warner Bros., Disney
and NBC are supportive of the city's battle to stay in the 818 area.
"It would just be so disruptive to our local residents and businesses,"
he said.
Terry Stevenson, an assistant city attorney for Burbank, called the overlay
decision disappointing, but said it doesn't mean the battle is over.
"We are part of the San Fernando Valley geographically, we are part of
the San Fernando Valley socially, we are part of the San Fernando
Valley historically ... it's just that simple."
Although he had no specific number, Stevenson estimated that it could
cost larger companies tens of thousands of dollars to reprogram
telecommunications equipment and make other adjustments to a new area
code.
PUC spokeswoman Kyle Devine said a staff recommendation on the new
area code may be released next week. It would take at least a month
for the commission to act on any new plan.
The commission on Friday reiterated its position that overlay zones
won't be implemented until the technology is ready to make phone
numbers "portable" -- meaning that customers could switch between
local carries while keeping their phone numbers and retaining all
custom calling services, such as call forwarding.
"We want that to be in place before we consider overlays," DeVine said.
Pacific Bell and GTE California dominate the 818 area. Without
"portability," rival companies could get stuck with a new, unpopular
area code, she said.
In a related request, Monterey Park asked that the San Gabriel Valley
be allowed to keep the 818 area code and that the San Fernando Valley
get 626.
------------------------------
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:09:02 -0700
Subject: Cyber Promotions Going Bankrupt!
Take a look at http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/961024x.html
You'll enjoy this; I certainly did! :-)
PAT
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: Bell Atlantic's Whiney Response to NJ PSC
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:51:28 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
It's not so much what they said as how they said it, and the tone they
took ... from BA:
October 23, 1996
Bell Atlantic Response to State Approval of New Area Codes in New
Jersey
The following statement may be attributed to Len J. Lauer,
President and CEO, Bell Atlantic- New Jersey.
As we have said repeatedly, we believe that a geographic split is
more costly and more disruptive for customers than the
alternative of a new area code overlay. We predict the Board will
be faced with this decision again in a few more years, sooner
than would have been the case if an overlay had been chosen.
We at Bell Atlantic will do all we can to help the thousands of
New Jersey customers who will have to change their phone numbers
as a result of this decision. We will offer a comprehensive
education campaign to help keep confusion and disruption at a
minimum. We hope the competitors who fought so hard for this
solution will join us in that effort.
----------------
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:41:01 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: 104th Congress Flunks Civil Liberties
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Excerpt from ACLU News 10/25/96
104th Congress Flunks Civil Liberties, New ACLU Online Voting Guide
Shows
WASHINGTON -- From Internet censorship to increased wiretapping and a
punitive immigration law, the 104th Congress flunked civil liberties,
according to a new online voting guide launched today on the American
Civil Liberties Union.
The interactive guide published on the ACLUs Freedom Network on the
Web and the ACLUs Constitution Hall on America Online -- rates the
House and Senate members according to their votes on key civil
liberties issues and displays the percentage of times a member voted
to preserve civil liberties.
"We have been saying all along that this has been one of the most
anti-civil liberties Congresses in decades, and the voting guide
confirms everything we suspected," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of
the ACLUs National Washington Office. "The 104th Congress treated the
Bill of Rights more like a laundry list of suggestions rather than our
nations guiding principles for freedom."
The voting guide rates members according to 19 key issues, ranging
from a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration to
counter-terrorism legislation, from medical privacy to school
vouchers. Other key issues were same-sex marriage, campaign finance
reform and criminal justice.
The average rating for the Senate was 30 percent. No senator received
either a 100 percent rating or a zero. In the House, however, 13
representatives received 100 percent ratings; 57 members received 0
ratings. The average rating for the House was 36 percent.
"This past year weve been able to defeat some of Congresss worst
excesses, in part by providing tools online for people to directly
phone, fax or e-mail their elected representatives," Murphy said. "We
hope that civil libertarians will use the guide not only to monitor
votes but to put Congress on notice that citizens across the country
will not stand idly by while the Bill of Rights is legislatively
dismantled."
Following the signing of the Communications Decency Act, which
criminalized free expression on the Internet, she noted, more than
7,000 netizens used an "action alert" on the ACLUs website to fax,
e-mail and call Attorney General Janet Reno, urging her not to act on
the law until the courts reviewed the ACLUs legal challenge.
Once the new Congress is in session, the ACLU said that it plans to
use the voters guide to mobilize citizens to take action in advance of
important votes, with special functions that allow users to instantly
fax or e-mail their representatives. Starting with the 105th
Congress, the ACLU voting guide will be updated following key civil
liberties votes, so that users can immediately check on their members
record.
The online voting guide is just one feature of a revamped "ACLU in
Congress" section scheduled to debut on the ACLU Freedom Network in
January as the 105th Congress takes office. The ACLU said that the
new site will include more legislative alerts tied to key votes, as
well as a daily report from Washington when Congress is in session.
The interactive guide is user-friendly, offering visitors the option
of reviewing key civil liberties issues (with vote tallies linked to
individual members), or linking directly to their representatives
records. Users can click directly on a members name or look them up
using a search function that identifies members by zip code. Each
record for individual Representatives and Senators includes a list of
key issues and a scorecard indicating whether the member voted with or
against the ACLU position, or did not vote at all.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:17:14 EST
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: AT&T Getting Into the Callback Racket - oops! - Scheme
The Associated Press reported today (Monday 28-Oct-1996) that AT&T has
announced its intention to establish "callback" dialtone to Japan from
the US and undercut international pricing of its rivals.
The story starts off:
AT&T Plans Japanese Service
TOKYO (AP) -- AT&T Corp. has applied to provide international
phone service in Japan, taking on three established Japanese
companies, officials said Monday.
The article than continues with the super secret method they'll be using,
namely callback dialtone from the US:
AT&T's service would take advantage of the fact
that calls from the United States to Japan are
cheaper than those going the other way. Using a
special trans-Pacific leased line, AT&T's
so-called "callback system" would convert calls
placed in Japan into U.S.-to-Japan calls,
saving money for the user.
AT&T claims they'll be charging about 30-50% less than the three current
providers (only one of which, KDD, is mentioned by name), who currently
charge about "$4.20 for a three minute daytime call". The article also
quotes the Japanese telecom ministry as saying they have no objections.
------------------------------
From: wbaseley_removethistoemailme_@ptd.net (WD Baseley)
Subject: Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:39:06 GMT
Reply-To: wbaseley_removethistoemailme_@ptd.net
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:42:19 EDT, in comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Digest
Editor espoused:
> Just a couple of observations to close this issue:
> Is it true that on Wednesday a federal judge worked over the FBI real
> good in court and ordered them to finish their business with Richard
> Jewell once and for all?
[...]
> he intends to file
> lawsuits against at least a few of the worst slobs in the media, at
> least as an example to the others. Good.
You probably know that on Saturday the FBI officially dropped Mr.
Jewell as a suspect. I find it hard to hold the media responsible
nearly so much as the FBI. They grill the guy, confiscate property,
tow his truck, etc. The media simply reports these actions. The FBI
releases accounts of Mr. Jewell's previous employment. The media
reports this. Who's the bad guy?
Please recall that Jewell was the FBI target.
Then later TELECOM Digest Editor noted in the same article:
> Unfortunatly most of the world
> is still computer-illiterate enough that they do not understand quite
> for sure what it is that happened; and all they will know is 'there
> are all these solicitations for pedophilia and child porn going around
> on that Internet thing ...' as I heard the two women discussing it at
> breakfast this morning at Skokie IHOP.
Who needs them. They probably don't even vote.
> Quite a few people have written me saying I should not blame AOL.
AOL gets heat because they are so big. Like Microsoft. Easy target.
> It is
> as though they are so anxious to get new subscribers they could care
> less about the rest of the net in the process. They can't even take a
> day or two to perform some modicum of verification prior to letting
> the new subscriber loose in email and net news.
I've said this elsewhere, and I'll repeat it for you. I know a lot of
people who have used the painless AOL process to discover the wonders
of online life. These people would never get online if the only way
to do so was through an ISP, because they wouldn't put forth that much
effort for something they don't quite understand, or they don't have
the technical skill. Once online, they have a "wow!" epiphany, and
never look back. In my experience the good done by making it easy to
get online outweighs the bad done by a few ne'er-do-wells.
> For their business purposes apparently, it is easier and less
> expensive to assume a twenty percent fraud rate than it is to spend
> time verifying the identity of new users and risking the wrath of a
> few who seem to feel they have a God-given right to log in the very
> minute they sign up.
Twenty percent fraud rate - is that fact?
> Even fifteen years ago I did not run my BBS as loosely as AOL seems
> to operate today.
1/10th of one percent bad guys at your BBS meant, probably, one bad
guy every couple of years. The same rate on AOL yields 6000 baddies.
Again, their size makes them visible.
> Don't they feel any
> responsibility at all to the rest of the net other than providing an
> 'abuse' mailbox for after-the-fact reports like the present situation?
AOL is setting precedents in handling email abuse. That's
responsibility. Again, their size (and America's penchant for suing
someone at the drop of a hat, whcih you appear to share) forces them
to take a bit more care in how they respond. My image of AOL is that
they take strong action in a responsible fashion.
> If other ISP's want to behave in the same way, then they should get
> sued also; but the simple fact is most of them don't behave that
> way.
There are plenty of them that are far, far worse! Since they're
$mall, however, no one can get the lawyer-hunds to sic them.
> They sincerely care about the quality of the net, and not just
> after a bunch of angry netizens get after them with complaints.
> Is that too much to ask of America OnLine? Is it, Mr. Case?
One of the fabulous things about digital communications and networking
is the immediacy of response. The Pentium floating-point bug is a
great example. Feedback is part of the process. Rather than
chastising AOL for not being mind-readers, tell them when they have a
bad apple or a security hole. Then, if they don't fix it, you have a
gripe. But if they take responsible action, even if it's not what you
might have wanted or as immediately as you could respond on your BBS,
then you've contributed to the process, and we all benefit.
Regards,
WD Baseley
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But they *have been* told over and over
about their security holes and they choose to do nothing. Yes there
are situations where an ISP gets a bad customer. What do they do? They
drop him immediatly and trip all over themselves apologizing to the
rest of the net and explaining what actions were taken. They watch
more closely for similar problems in the future.
When is the last time AOL ever apologized to anyone on the net or
said they were going to try and mitigate or lessen some of their worst
security holes? They have never made any effort to work along with
the net community on anything other than providing an 'abuse' mailbox
where you can send complaints all you like. Do they drop the offending
customer? Maybe, maybe not. Even if they do, the very same customer
comes back and defrauds them a second or third time and is back online
the same day or the next day. They still send out all those diskettes
with lots of free time, not caring who signs up or how they get used.
You mention in glowing terms all the new users who have signed up who
would not have done so had they been required to make any real effort
to learn something about the technical aspects or the history of the
net. If they are not allowed to tap a couple keys and proceed to just
spam all over the place they are going to be discouraged and not
join at all ... I do not like the idea at all of 'licensing' users,
but we license drivers of automobiles because we say the rights of all
the other motorists on the highway is of equal or greater importance.
We want some recourse to know *who* the person driving next to us is
in the event of an accident, etc. Is it really too much to ask that an
ISP -- and that would include AOL -- validate their user's identity
before giving them their 'license' to drive on the information highway?
That information can and should remain a confidential part of the ISP's
records, with a severe penalty under the law for violating your users'
rights to privacy. But by golly when the Sheriff comes calling, to ask
who might be the person who dumped an obnoxious and smelly load of
garbage all over the highway the choices should be perfectly clear:
either the ISP produces the user and the community and the Sheriff
hold that person up to public ridicule with appropriate punishment to
follow or the ISP itself is held accountable. One or the other. And
none of us are so dumb we do not realize there will be cases in which
the ISP itself was defrauded through no real fault of its own, but
not time after time after time after time ...
You say Americans have become 'lawsuit crazy' or words to that effect
and that I seem to be part of that same group. Well yeah, I am
starting to get that way. The only thing that seems to work at all
these days is when the lawyers are tripping over their own feet coming
and going to the courthouse defending their clients. Now and then an
attorney takes his client aside, screams and yells at him and tells
him to get his act together. I can only hope that attornies for Steve
Case decide eventually to lay things out for him and tell him to shape
up the whole operation considerably before Congress or some federal
agency decides to do it for him. Maybe he will listen to his lawyers
after they have defended him in a few more lawsuits. God knows he
sure does not listen to anything anyone on the net has to say.
And in general that seems to be the way things are going with many
very large corporations and government agencies. When 'legal guns'
show up and tell them to get their backs against the wall, they listen,
but seldom before.
Regards Jewell, I think it is great he is suing the Atlanta newspaper
among others. If nothing else comes of it, possibly the media will
begin to distrust their police/law enforcement contacts and not take
what they say at face value as they seem to do now. It would be pretty
funny, wouldn't it if the next time a police officer met with some
newspaper reporter to whisper a few vicious lies he wanted to see in
circulation the newspaper publisher said, "Wait a minute; the last
time we printed stuff you told us, we wound up getting sued. Find
another sucker this time." Of course it won't happen immediatly, but I
like seeing wedges shoved between law enforcement and their media
friends; sort of the way police like to shove wedges between their
latest criminal-in-the-making and a supportive community which might
otherwise rise to his defense. PAT]
------------------------------
From: becnel@crl.com (Robert Becnel)
Subject: CTI MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT FOR NOV 6
Date: 28 Oct 1996 12:10:51 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
ANNOUNCEMENT
Contact: Tony Zafiropoulos (314) 537-3959
November 6, 1996
Demonstration by Inter-Tel Communications To Highlight Next
Computer Telephony Integration User's Group Meeting on November 6
Topic: The program will involve a demonstration by Inter-Tel
Communications's St. Louis staff members showing the desktop level
computer telephony integration applications utilizing TAPI. Both off
the shelf and customized third party software products will be
demonstrated and discussed. The program is geared for all experience
levels of computer telephony: beginner to developer.
Date/Time: Wednesday, November 6, 1996; 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM (approx)
Location: Bridgeton Trails Library (Room #1) - 3455 McKelvey Road
St. Louis, MO
(one block south of St. Charles Rock Road)
(see map below at
http://www.ctitek.com/ctiusers/library_map.html)
Robert G. Becnel becnel@crl.com (email) http://www.crl.com/~becnel (www)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #574
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 28 16:51:14 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id QAA20108; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:51:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:51:14 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610282151.QAA20108@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #575
TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Oct 96 16:50:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 575
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: ISDN is Expensive!! (David Riewe)
Re: ISDN is Expensive!! (Carter Fields)
Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted (Norm Dang)
Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted (Andrew B. Hawthorn)
Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted (John C. Musselman)
Re: Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie (Bruce Pennypacker)
Re: Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie (acompras@ix.netcom.com)
America Online's Preferredmail Combats Junk E-Mail (Mike Pollock)
Eliminating AT&T's LD Information Auto-Dial (Barton F. Bruce)
CPUC/Universal Service Decision (Mike King)
Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For? (Johan van der Stoel)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Riewe <driewe@onramp.net>
Subject: Re: ISDN is Expensive!!
Date: 28 Oct 1996 13:31:03 GMT
Organization: PREP Software
> If you compare ISDN 64K hardware and connectivity to 28.8 access,
> you can get twice the bandwidth for just about twice the price, and
> have an extra phone line, 3-way calling, and Caller-ID on the 'spare'
> channel.
Actually it can be better. In my case, with my old 28.8 I usually
connected at 26,400 and could FTP at best 25kbs. With my 1b I FTP at
70.1 kbs. Plus, my ping times to my favorite quake servers dropped
from 250ms to 50-70 :-)
David Riewe
driewe@onramp.net
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is sort of funny hearing people talk
about 28.8 modems as being 'old' ... I guess it is me getting old. PAT]
------------------------------
From: cfields@nwu.edu (Carter Fields)
Subject: Re: ISDN is Expensive!!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 16:33:38 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University
In article <DzyH9n.BLD@rci.ripco.com>, sysop@ripco.com (Ripco sysop) wrote:
> plus a TA can't keep up with 128Kbps.
Can you explain that comment? I don't understand.
Carter Fields
Northwestern University
cfields@nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: Norm Dang <norm.dang@hydro.on.ca>
Subject: Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:06:30 -0800
Organization: Ontario Hydro
Hi,
I've got two Vtech 900NDLs and I find that they are so-so for audio
quality. I did notice that the audio level is low and as well, my
callers report that "sss" noises are distorted, although they sound
fine to me. I also found, as you did, that the if the caller had a
soft voice, that the phone audio appears to "cut off" (quantization
errors?) . This is much more noticable on long distance calls than
local calls. As far as range goes, the 900NDL has slightly more than
my AT&T 49 Mhz model, but only about 100 ft more.
I kept the 900NDLs because being digital, they are more "private". I
found that the privacy problem with the 49 MHz units was that some
channels could be picked up on some baby monitors, rather than scanners.
Norm
------------------------------
Subject: Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 11:52:52 -0000
From: Andrew B. Hawthorn <ahawtho@emory.edu>
wrenstar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jerry W. Lee) wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody out there have had any experience with VTech
> 900 MHz digital cordless phones. I'm thinking of getting one through my
> company, but the only problem is that I more or less have to pay for it
> and won't get a chance to try it out before then.
I had one of the very first model VTech phones and had problems with
it double dialing, and I sold it and purchased an Escort 9020, 900
Mhz, digital spread spectrum phone. I've only had one problem with it
(so significant I can't remember the problem) and Escort was quite
responsive to my needs. I highly recommend the Escort line of phones.
They now sell phones which have an incredible range and battery backup
for when you have a power failure. You can check them out at:
http://www.escortstore.com/.
Andrew Hawthorn
------------------------------
From: John C. Musselman <john@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted
Date: 28 Oct 1996 10:00:03 -0700
Organization: Primenet (602)416-7000
zev@wireless.att.com wrote:
> The customer service rep said that the clicking is caused by the unit
> performing frequency hopping -- can anyone out there confirm if that
> makes sense?
I am glad that I am not the only one experiencing this. Do you have a
number for vtech? This is the BIGGEST annoyance in the world. And the
clicking is only occasional.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Pennypacker <bpennypacker@artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie
Date: 28 Oct 1996 19:58:52 GMT
Organization: Artisoft, Inc.
In article telecom16.571.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu, Scott Moffet
<moffet@earthlink.net> said:
> Can anyone provide counsel for a programming student and telephony
> newbie? I want to start exploring writing code for IVR and related
> systems. I know my way around C, C++ and some VB.
> Am thinking about buying an entry-level Dialogic card and learning to
> write the code to make it go.
> Would the Dialogic programming toolkits in C be a good place to start?
> I have looked at the 'Visual Basic' toolkits, but I find it hard to
> believe multiport commercial-grade apps are written in VB.
Scott,
Bell Atlantic wrote a cellular toll fraud system using a Visual Basic
telephony toolkit that runs on either 24 or 48 ports (I forget if it
was 1 or 2 T1 spans). The system is saving them over $100,000 PER
MONTH in fraudulent cellular calls.
The University of Hawaii developed a 24 port system in VB for allowing
students to call in and register for classes from home. In the first
three weeks of operation it took over 12,000 calls.
Prudential Securities wrote an internal IVR system for their 300
offices and 6000 financial advisors around the world. This system takes
around 1000 calls per day. This was also written in VB.
I could easily continue listing companies and apps for quite some
time, including fortune 500 companies like AT&T, MCI, Xerox, IBM,
Boeing, Federal Express, etc. that are all using the same toolkit for
developing high volume telephony apps. Granted I'm a more than a
little biased because I work for Artisoft (formerly Stylus Innovation)
and helped to develop the Visual Voice toolkit that all these
companies use. However Visual Voice isn't just a VB toolkit - you can
use it with C, C++, Delphi, PowerBuilder, Lotus Notes, or any other
environment that can use ActiveX/OCX controls or call into DLL's.
Visual Voice was the first Windows telephony toolkit and it's still
the best selling Windows toolkit. To quote from our latest
newsletter:
"Visual Voice ranked number one in number of IVR systems shipped in
North America in Dataquest's 1995 IVR Market Share and Forecast Report,
the most recent for which complete information is available. Visual
Voice's market share of 12.52% was significantly ahead of runner-up
AT&T/Lucent, which had a market share of 7.99%. The new figures
reverse the standings for 1994, when Visual Voice ranked second with a
9.6% market share behind AT&T (11.3%)"
So if Visual Voice is outselling all other IVR systems, according to
an independant market research firm, then it very well must be a
viable commercial-grade multiport solution. If you want to find out
more about Visual Voice then stop by our web site (http://www.stylus.com)
where you can read more detailed descriptions about some apps that
customers have written with Visual Voice, as well as a list of some of
the other Fortune 500 companies that use Visual Voice.
If you want to hear a VB application in action just call our office
(see my sig) and you'll be answered by a Visual Voice app. We've got
over 24 lines coming into our office since we have roughly 40
employees here currently.
Now to get off my soapbox ...
If you want to learn the intricacies of telephony programming then by
all means use the Dialogic toolkit. But you'll need to have a good
understanding of state machine programming, handling realtime
situations involving events like DTMF digits, line drops, etc. and a
lot of other low-level aspects of hardware/telephony programming that
higher level toolkits like Visual Voice hide from you. Just to warn
you in advance, the Dialogic API isn't all that intuitive and the
Dialogic programmers references are pretty cryptic as well.
If all you're looking to do is to quickly write a telephony app and
don't want to get into all the specifics of telephony or the Dialogic
API then use a toolkit like Visual Voice that offers a higher level C
or C++ API that you can call. Some of the things that higher level
toolkits offer are actually quite powerful and useful when developing
telephony apps. Many apps need to be able to speak things like dates,
times, numbers, etc. over the phone line. All the Dialogic API has is
a function for playing a file. Higher level toolkits have
functions/methods called PlayDate, PlayTime, etc. that do all the work
of parsing a value and determining how to speak it over the phone.
Higher level toolkits also offer abstractions for conferencing calls,
gathering DTMF digits, etc. that you have to figure out how to do
manually with the low level Dialogic libraries.
So the decision of whether or not to use a low level toolkit like the
Dialogic API is really dependant on exactly what you want to do/learn.
If you really want to get into the details of telephony programming,
real-time processing, unsolicited event handling, etc. then that's the
way to go. If you still want to create a high quality app without
knowing all the details of telephony programming then go with a higher
level toolkit.
Bruce Pennypacker | Telephony Products Group | Phone: +1 617 354 0600
Software Engineer | Artisoft, Inc. | Fax: +1 617 354 7744
Resident TAPI guru | 5 Cambridge Center | http://www.stylus.com
brucep@stylus.com | Cambridge, MA 02142 | sales: sales@stylus.com
------------------------------
From: ACompras@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:00:14 GMT
Organization: http://www.netcom.com/~acompras/new.html
Reply-To: ACompras@ix.netcom.com
Scott Moffet <moffet@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Can anyone provide counsel for a programming student and telephony
> newbie? I want to start exploring writing code for IVR and related
> systems. I know my way around C, C++ and some VB.
Check out http://www.phonezone.com. Very helpful site.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:24:34 -0700
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Organization: SJS Entertainment
Subject: America Online's Preferredmail Combats Junk E-Mail
America Online's Preferredmail Combats Junk E-Mail
New Tool Addresses Number One Complaint Of Aol Members
DULLES, Va., Oct. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- AMERICA ONLINE today introduced
PreferredMail, a new tool that allows members to avoid unwanted junk
e-mail, a major source of complaints from online users. PreferredMail,
gives each member an easy way to decide whether or not to receive junk
e-mail from certain sites.
"Junk e-mail is the number one complaint from our members," said Steve
Case, Chairman and CEO of America Online. "We have a strict policy
against AOL members sending unsolicited mass mailings and we want to
give them the tools to protect themselves from junk mail sent from
outside AOL. PreferredMail is a strong and fair response to the junk
e-mail problem. It's easier to use and more powerful than the mail
controls currently available to AOL members, and flexible enough to
allow individual members to receive junk e-mail if they wish."
The PreferredMail tool prevents the receipt of e-mails from a
regularly updated list of notorious junk e-mailers. The targeted junk
e-mailers routinely send mass quantities of unsolicited e-mail and
have elicited a large number of member complaints over a short period
of time.
Any members who wish to receive mail from these sites can turn off the
PreferredMail tool using a simple process. By using keyword:
PreferredMail, members can view a list of sites and choose to receive
mail from those sites with one click of their mouse.
In the past, AOL had blocked all junk e-mail to all AOL accounts from
a limited number of sites that had been the subject of vast numbers of
member complaints. Those blocks have been lifted now that the
PreferredMail safeguard is in place.
"PreferredMail is a great solution to the problem of junk e-mail
because it gives members a choice," Case said. "AOL is not making a
decision for its members, the power is in their hands." Case said.
AOL also introduced a way for members to opt-out of receiving AOL's
own marketing "pop-ups," which offer special products, often at
reduced prices, to member as they sign on to the service.
"Though our members' complaints have been focused mostly on junk
e-mail, we felt it was important to offer members a choice when it
comes to our own marketing initiatives as well," Case said.
AMERICA ONLINE , based in Dulles, Virginia, is the world's most
popular Internet online service, with more than 6.2 million members
worldwide. AOL offers its subscribers a wide variety of services
including electronic mail, conferencing, software, computing support,
interactive magazines and newspapers, and online classes, as well as
easy and affordable access to services of the Internet. Founded in
1985, AOL today has a global workforce of more than 5,000 people.
Personal computer owners can obtain America Online software at major
retailers and bookstores or by calling 800-827-6364. SOURCE America
Online, Inc.
------------------------------
From: bruce@eisner.decus.org (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Eliminating AT&T's LD Information Auto-Dial
Organization: CentNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:50:36 GMT
AT&T seems to insist on offering the expensive 'dial-it-for-you'
service when you dial LD information. I have NO intention of ever
using the option and really dislike wasting time listening to their
advertising for it when I dial LD info.
I asked to have that 'feature' removed from my home lines, but they
say it isn't possible which has to be a policy issue not a technical one
and their attitude about this is as offensive as their inflicting
it on users every call.
Clearly a hotel or business billing off SMDR records can't handle
billing for calls it doesn't know about, and so ATT is not inflicting
this service on those accounts.
How does one get AT&T to remove this from a home line or does one
simply have to change carriers?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's what most people are doing these
days; simply changing carriers. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: CPUC/Universal Service Decision
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 21:54:27 PST
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:55:18 -0700
From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com
Subject: CPUC Issues Landmark Decision On New Universal Service Fund
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Shelley Cullimore
(415) 394-3633
shelley.cullimore@pactel.com
CPUC Issues Landmark Decision On New Universal Service Fund
Pacific Bell States Customers are Shortchanged
SAN FRANCISCO -- In a major decision today, the California Public
Utilities Commission created a new universal service fund whereby all
telecommunications providers will contribute to the preservation of
affordable telephone service statewide. However the Commission's plan
still falls short of establishing the funding needed to maintain the
goal of affordable telephone service for everyone.
"The new universal service fund is an improvement over recent
proposals," said Pacific Bell Regulatory Vice President Rex Mitchell,
"but it does not totally replace the subsidy amount that our customers
pay today through inflated prices on toll. So Pacific Bell's customers
are still left shouldering an additional financial responsibility that
no one else will pay, which is unfair."
The change in the universal service program comes about as a result of
increasing competition in the telecommunications industry. A competitive
marketplace adjusts prices naturally, unless some prices are already
below cost. That's been the case for basic access service for more than
sixty years, which was kept affordable because the old monopoly system
required the sole telephone provider to inflate prices on some services
and shift profits to cover more costly services such as basic service.
But as competition drives down prices for competitive services, the
sources for funding universal service disappear. The Commission's new
plan applies a modest surcharge of 2.87 percent on customers' bills from
all providers which will then be used to cover the costs to serve
high-cost areas.
"This plan will certainly help fund some rural and ultra-high cost
areas," explained Mitchell, "and it may attract new competitors to those
areas that would have otherwise ignored them. But, the flip side is that
the universal service plan ignores much of the rest of the state. So
competitors will still have great incentive to seek only the low-cost
areas and find the high-revenue customers. That leaves a large gap of
suburban and rural Californians who may be left out in the cold."
Who Really Pays For Telephone Service
The crux of the contention lies in determining the cost of providing
service for any given area, and who pays for that cost. Pacific Bell
developed a Cost Proxy Model to calculate the cost of service for each
of more than 20,000 census block groups throughout the state. On
average, that cost is about $27 per line per month, but it can range
from $16 to more than $200. The CPUC uses the model for the new plan,
but claims the average cost is only $20.30 per line per month which
shortchanges the size of the fund and shortchanges customers who depend
on low prices that are kept low thanks to universal service.
It also leaves a gap between Pacific Bell's revenues on basic service
and the new benchmark of $20.30, a gap that will continue to be covered
by its toll customers. "This plan seems unfair for our customers. We've
already gone on record that any new monies from the universal service
fund will be offset by price reductions on competitive services such as
toll," explained Mitchell. "By not setting the fund at an amount which
covers the total cost of service, means our toll customers continue to
pay additional subsidies that should be covered by everyone."
The new plan will go into effect February 1, 1997 and will likely be
reviewed by other states around the nation as the Federal Communications
Commission explores its own alternatives to maintain affordable service.
The California Public Utilities Commission is certainly ahead of the
curve in implementing a new national policy. Other states and the FCC
will adopt similar plans. "Although we disagree with the small size
of the new fund and other aspects of this new universal service plan,"
Mitchell said, "its structure is sound and can be modified going
forward. It will complement the speedy transition we need in order to
achieve a fully competitive marketplace."
Pacific Bell is subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified
telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco.
---------------------------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
From: jvdstoel@worldaccess.nl (Johan van der Stoel)
Subject: Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For?
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 21:58:37 GMT
Organization: Teltroncis
Aan 23-10-96 16:38, in bericht <telecom16.564.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Peter
Bartnik <pbartnik@explore.net> schreef:
> According to a recent announcement from the Yankee Group, there are
> over 500,000 screen telephones in use in the US today, and this number
> is expected to incease to over 10 million by 2001.
> Screen telephones not only display Caller ID name and number, but can
> also be used for other applications: directory enquiries, home banking
> and bill-paying, stock quotes and even email. The drivers behind
> screen telephone deployment are currently the regional operating
> companies, who benefit from a visual interface for consumers to
> simplify the use of switch based services like call conferencing,
> repeat dialling and call forwarding.
> But, who is using them and how, and what do users perceive as the
> major benefits they derive as telecommunications consumers? I'd be
> interested in starting a discussion about screen telephones, their
> potential and limitations, and how this learned group sees their role
> in the household of the future, both in the 40 odd percent of US
> households that have PCs, and the 60% that don't.
Hai Peter,
I'm involved in the development of a series of screenphones, and for
this reason I'm very interested how people think about these
products. To start the discussion, I propose some discussion points.
1st. ADSI screenphones can be very useful for sending and receiving E-mail.
This works much easier are more convenient than using the PC.
2nd. Because of their price, (consumer prices will fall rapidly to about
US$300), telecommunication becomes much easier. You now easily can see
who has called you when you were not at home, how many times this
person has tried to reach you and the handling of Caller ID (also
Caller ID on Call Waiting) has become so easy that even my dad can
handle these features.
3nd. When a screenphone is extended with an input capability of hand-
written texts, you easily can send written messages to other
screenphones or even fax machines.
Johan
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #575
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 29 16:57:22 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id QAA21958; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:57:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:57:22 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610292157.QAA21958@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #576
TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 96 16:57:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 576
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
URL Blocking (Tad Cook)
Intranet and WWW Bandwith Statistics (Mark R. Kuijper)
Book Review: HTML 3: Electronic Publishing on the World Wide Web (R Slade)
Information About Satellite System Design (Maxime Flament)
Employment Opportunity: Professor in Telecommunication (wickstrom@jyu.fi)
Major Spammer Is On The Verge Of Bankruptcy (Stan Schwartz)
*70-PAUSE Update; Question For Northern Telecom (Linc Madison)
Caribbean Phone Sleaze: Another Angle (Linc Madison)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: URL Blocking
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:40:16 PST
From: tad@ssc.com
This is from a press release:
Secure Computing collaborates with Microsoft
ROSEVILLE, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 28, 1996--
Announces interoperability between Secure Computing's Webster
Control List and the Microsoft Proxy Server
Secure Computing Corp. (Nasdaq: SCUR), a leading provider of total
network security solutions, today announced an agreement that links
Secure Computing's Internet URL blocking tool and the Microsoft(R)
Proxy Server, allowing network administrators to protect their systems
from unwanted or unproductive Internet usage.
As part of the agreement, Microsoft Proxy Server customers will
receive a free three-month subscription to the Webster Control List,
which is provided by Webster Network Strategies, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Secure Computing. The Webster Control List contains tens
of thousands of URLs in 16 potentially harmful categories, such as
criminal skills, hate speech and online gambling. The list also
targets Web categories that may have a negative impact on employee
productivity including sports, entertainment, online merchandising and
job search.
`Executives have three concerns when connecting to the global Internet
-- security, loss of productivity and legal liability risks. Secure
Computing addresses each of these concerns with its complete security
offering including firewalls, identification and authentication,
encryption and filtering/monitoring products,` said Kermit Beseke,
chairman of Secure Computing. `Our relationships with Microsoft,
combined with our complete security product offering, represents our
commitment to a collaborative model that ultimately will make the
Internet and World Wide Web a more productive place to do business.`
`Corporations have a growing concern over employees accessing non-work
related sites on the Internet and World Wide Web. Together, Secure
Computing's Webster Control List and the Microsoft Proxy Server offer
a simple solution to this problem by enabling organizations to keep
unwanted content out of the workplace,` added Richard Viets, president
and chief technical officer of Webster Network Strategies. `The Secure
Computing-Microsoft solution results in the reduction or elimination
of non-business surfing and preserves bandwidth for productive
business use.`
`Security over the Internet and World Wide Web is an industry-wide
interest and is addressed at many levels,` said Mike Nash, director of
marketing for Windows NT Server and Infrastructure Products at
Microsoft Corp. `Secure Computing's Webster Control List enhances our
security feature set by allowing network operators to have
fine-grained control over access to the Internet and gives
administrators the ability to grant or deny outbound connections.`
About Microsoft Proxy Server
Microsoft Proxy Server is the easiest way to provide secure Internet
access to every desktop in an organization. It eliminates the need to
share a dedicated computer for the Internet or provide multiple
Internet lines and modems for each desktop. Microsoft Proxy Server is
the only proxy server that is fully integrated with the Windows NT(R)
Server 4.0 network operating system, making it easy to install and
manage and deliver high performance. Proxy Server works with the
applications and network customers have today. About the Webster
Control List and Toolkit
The Webster Control List and toolkit control and monitor Internet use
protecting the enterprise from undesirable content by logging,
reporting and blocking HTTP, FTP, Gopher and NNTP from sites contained
in the Webster Control List. The Webster Control list is a
subscription-based list that classifies inappropriate sites and is
updated weekly by Webster Network Strategies. The Webster solution is
made available to developers of proxies, firewalls, application
servers, gateways and other products to enhance their overall feature
set.
The Webster Control List and toolkit are available for Windows NT and
most UNIX platforms including Sun OS, Solaris 2 HP-UX, UNIXWare, AIX,
SGI's Irix, BSD/OS, and Linux. Additional Webster product and
strategic partnership information can be found at
http://www.webster.com or by contacting Webster Network Strategies at
800-967-0066.
Headquartered in Roseville, Minn., Secure Computing is one of the
largest network security companies in the world. Secure Computing's
comprehensive suite of interoperable products address every aspect of
enterprise network security including firewalls, web filtering,
identification, authentication, authorization, accounting and
encryption technologies. The only network security company that
provides end-to-end network solutions encompassing all universal
enterprise security standards, Secure Computing has more than 3,000
customers worldwide, ranging from small companies to Fortune 500
companies to government agencies. For more information, visit our Web
site at http://www.sctc.com.
-------------
Product and service names used within are trademarks, registered
trademarks and service marks of their respective owners. Microsoft and
Windows NT are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft
Corp. in the United States and/or other countries. In conjunction with
Private Securities Act of 1995, the company wishes to avail itself of
the stated `Safe Harbor` provisions and to caution readers that
certain statements contained herein are forward-looking statements.
CONTACT: Secure Computing Corp.
Aaron Tachibana, 510/827-5707 x108
aaron@safeword.com
---------------------------
Tad Cook | tad@ssc.com | KT7H | Seattle | "You see, wire telegraph is a
kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head
meows in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? Radio operates exactly
the same way; you send signals here, they receive them there. The only
difference is that there is no cat." --- Albert Einstein.
------------------------------
From: Mark R. Kuijper <Mark.Kuijper@cmg.nl>
Subject: Intranet and WWW Bandwith Statistics
Organization: CMG Finance, Advanced Technology division
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:07:37 GMT
Hi,
Are there any statistics around that could help me plan needed
bandwith for intranet/WWW deployment?
I've come across a book that says 10Kbps per user is a reasonable
metric. Any comments?
(I realise that planning WWW bandwidth consumption is very tricky. It
heavily depends on the design of the HTML pages viewed. Big images and
real-time audio /multi-media pages naturally consume _MUCH_ more
bandwitdth than "normal" text based pages).
ing. Mark R. Kuijper CMG Finance B.V.
Consultant Division Advanced Technology
PO Box 133
1180 AC Amstelveen
Mark.Kuijper@cmg.nl Holland
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:45:43 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: HTML 3: Electronic Publishing on the World Wide Web
BKHTML3.RVW 960720
"HTML 3: Electronic Publishing on the World Wide Web", Dave Raggett/Jenny
Lam/Ian Alexander, 1996, 0-201-87693-0, U$32.23
%A Dave Raggett
%A Jenny Lam
%A Ian Alexander
%C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984
%D 1996
%G 0-201-87693-0
%I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O U$32.23 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com
%P 398
%T "HTML 3: Electronic Publishing on the World Wide Web"
While it jumped the gun a bit on the HTML 3.2 standard, this is the
first book to authoritatively deal with the new extensions to the
language. A reference, more than a tutorial, it nevertheless has
solid writing and clear explanations of all the tags and uses.
While the topics of design and discussions of implementations in
various browsers are present, they are not covered in real depth. The
new functions are the real point of interest in this work. It
therefore makes a great resource for experience HTML coders.
Newcomers would be advised to start with Lemay's "Teach Yourself Web
Publishing with HTML" (cf. BKWPHTML.RVW) or "HTML: the Definitive
Guide" (cf. BKHTMLDG.RVW).
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKHTML3.RVW 960720. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: Maxime Flament <e3maxime@etek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Information Wanted About Satellite System Design
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 18:08:45 +0100
I wonder if anyone could help me in the field of satellite
communication system design.
I am studying the Master programme in Digital Telecommunication
systems at Chalmers university of technology in Gothenburg, Sweden.
We have a quite interesting course about satellite links. We must
complete a report about satellite link to the South Pole.
Here is the assignement:
'You are a consultant in the area of designing satellite
communication systems. You have been asked to evaluate possible designs
for a communication system that will support two expeditions in
Antartica to the South Pole. One will start at McMurdo and the other
will start at O'Higgins. The requirement is to have voice channels
through very small terminals so that the two expeditions can have
contact with each other as well as the rest of the world more than 99,9%
of the time.
There is also a potential desire for a channel with a higher
capacity, at least 2Mb/s (in order to transfer scientific data and in
case a commercial TV Channel would like to broadcast live pictures from
the expeditions). A channel availability of 95% of the time is
acceptable in this case.'
We already tried to determine the main problems. What do you think
about this:
* Determine the type of orbit of the satellites.(pole-to-pole orbit,
ellipsoid orbit, circular orbit... and so on).
* Determine the number of satellites such that it agrees with the
availibilty requirement.
* Determine the power of the transmitters. Small easy-to-carry
transmitters.
* Determine the sort of antennas (parabolics, omni-directionals,
trackers, but also crypting method and stuff)
* Determine then the receiving noise ratio. Look at the possible
interference due crystal effect in the polarization of the
signal in presence of ice in the air.
* any other ideas ...
It would be nice to continue the discution with everybody who is
interested in this stuff. The only stupid questions are the one which
are not asked ...
Please email and post.
Maxime Flament. - Student.
Ingenieur civil en Electronique - Telecomunications - U.L.B. - Belgium.
Master degree in Digital Communication Systems - Chalmers T.H. - Sweden.
mailto:mflament@ulb.ac.be http://student.ulb.ac.be/~mflament/
------------------------------
From: wikstrom@tarzan.math.jyu.fi
Subject: Employment Opportunity: Professor in Telecommunication
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:18:30 +0200
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
Call for Professorship in Telecommunication at the University of
Jyvaskyla
The University of Jyvaskyla in cooperation with Telecom Finland seeks
Professor position for its new Telecommunications Program (TP) for
teaching, research and development for the four year period (maximum)
starting in the beginning of 1997. The successful candidate must
demonstrate a strong commitment to graduate education and research
projects in Master School in Information Technology.
The telecommunications Program is focused on graduate and postgraduate
education and involvement in the industrial research projects. Course
development is to place emphasis on student participation in solving
practical problems from telecommunication networks.
Requirements:
The professorship position is eligible in one of the following areas in
telecommunications networks design:
* Network Management and Computer Controlled Interfaces
* Intelligent Networks and Mobile Phone Networks
* Database Processing of Automated Exchanges
* Electronics and Hardware Design of Communication Systems
* Digital and Adaptive Signal Processing
* Mathematical Modelling of Communication Systems
Although applications are welcome from anyone who holds a Ph.D. in
Telecommunication, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering or
Computer Systems Engineering, the Telecommunications Program has a
particular interest in candidates who are qualified in electronics and
telecommunication systems.
Duration & Salary:
The professorship position is available starting with 1st January 1997
for a four year term. An extension can be negociated, depending on the
quality of the teaching/reasearch activity and on the achievements in
applying the research to Telecom Finland development projects. A
shorter than four year term is also possible.
The starting salary is A27, which is, depending on the qualifications
of the person, about 20,000 - 28,000 Finnish marks per month.
Contact Person:
Applicants should submit a detailed resume and the names of at least
three references to: professor, Chair of the M.Sc. programs, Pekka
Neittaanmaki at the University of Jyvaskyla, BOX 35,
FIN-40351 Jyvaskyla, FINLAND by 7th November, 1996.
You can ask for further information from Pekka Neittaanmaki
(tel. (358)-14-602732, fax. (358)-14-602731,
e-mail: pn@tarzan.math.jyu.fi) and also from associate
professor Jukka Heikkila, Head of M.Sc. programs in IT
(tel. (358)-14-603096, e-mail: jups@cc.jyu.fi)
Additional information about the city, the university and the department
can be found starting from the WWW pages http://www.infoma.jyu.fi
(Msc Programs in Information Technology.)
------------------------------
From: Stan Schwartz <stan@vnet.net>
Subject: Major Spammer Is On The Verge Of Bankruptcy
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 23:32:50 -0500
My heart bleeds for these guys. How about everyone else?
Best news I've heard all week:
From Inter@ctive Week:
Major Spammer Is On The Verge Of Bankruptcy
By Will Rodger
Cyber Promotions Inc. of Philadelphia, one of the world's largest junk
e-mail companies, is on the verge of bankruptcy following its removal
from Sprint Communications Co.'s Internet service Oct. 18.
Combined with a new blocking service from America Online Inc. and two
separate court proceedings initiated in the past week, Cyber
Promotions' ejection means the superspammer is without a connection to
the Internet and may not survive to fight its rivals in court, Cyber
Promotions' president, Sanford Wallace, said today.
"We've been backed into a corner," Wallace said. "We provide a service
that's 100 percent legal and the online services are trying to help their
own interests because they're engaged in unsolicited advertising and they
see us as competition. They're ganging up on us."
The blockage came just before CompuServe Corp. of Columbus, Ohio, won a
court order Oct. 23 forbidding Cyber Promotions from using its computer
network to spam its clients and those of other services. Cyber Promotions
officials said they typically generate several hundred thousand messages
daily.
CompuServe officials sent members messages notifying them of the court
action the next morning. "CompuServe's No. 1 job is providing our users
with the best online experience available," CompuServe Interactive Services
President Denny Matteucci wrote subscribers. "Our users have told us they
don't want junk mail clogging their mailboxes and frankly, neither do I."
In its complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio,
CompuServe charged that Cyber Promotions had engaged in fraud, deceptive
marketing practices, infringement of copyright, unfair competition and
trespass in its daily operations.
Like most so-called spammers, or mass e-mailers, Cyber Promotions typically
sends its messages to computer users with false return addresses. By so
doing, Cyber Promotions avoids having to deal with the angry return
messages that such spam generates, as well as handle the thousands of
undeliverable messages that inevitably arise from mass e-mailings. Those
messages, instead, end up on the servers of the company whose address has
been forged.
In CompuServe's case, Cyber Promotions allegedly forged a CompuServe return
address. That supposed forgery, CompuServe lawyers told the Columbus court,
overloaded CompuServe computers with thousands of bounced messages on
several occasions, slowing delivery of e-mail by hours and, in some cases,
days.
Furthermore, CompuServe told the court, many customers evidently believed
the spamming was taking place with the consent of CompuServe since the
messages bore CompuServe return addresses.
Wallace denied any misconduct. Since he paid for the CompuServe account, he
said, the address was not "forged." Even so, Wallace conceded, the mail in
question originated from SprintNet, not the CompuServe account.
But the CompuServe suit is only one of Cyber Promotions' many problems. The
Prodigy Inc. online service filed suit against Cyber Promotions in a New
York court Oct. 17, alleging the company had infringed its trademarks by
forging return addresses bearing the words "Prodigy.com." Cyber Promotions
agreed to stop using Prodigy return addresses until the case is settled in
court.
Moreover, AOL announced Thursday it was beginning a new service which would
block receipt of junk e-mail from a regularly updated list of spamming
specialists. Users may block or not block any spam they choose, AOL
President Steve Case said. The message was evidently designed with Cyber
Promotions in mind
To date, Wallace said, Cyber Promotions has been blocked from or agreed to
stop spamming members of AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy, SprintNet and Concentric
Networks. The company is a defendant in lawsuits brought by all five
services.
A trial addressing AOL charges that Cyber Promotions' spamming amounts to
service mark infringement, violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was
scheduled for Nov. 12. The trial has been indefinitely postponed pending a
decision on First Amendment issues", Wallace said.
-------------------
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd like to stress again a point I have
stated a few times here: 'Spam' and its variants including junk-email
will cease or slow down tremendously when there is no longer the
*perception* that it is a profitable activity. The people doing this
and the sites helping them with it believe there is a lot of money to
be made. I think in general the commercialization of the net -- and
this is a wide ranging thing which extends on one end to the very
fancy and elaborate pages of large corporations on the web to the
opposite extreme of the new, and young, relatively unsophisticated
guys putting up their Make Money Fast letters and all the stuff in
the middle -- I think you will see a lot of it go away once the folks
who do it realize the net is just not what they were led to believe.
There is no Money to be Made Fast here. Remember a few years ago when
the online services were busily touting their online malls and home
shopping? It has not exactly been a bust, but neither has it come
anywhere close to what its promoters thought it would. Even the Home
Shopping Network on cable television is not doing that great. They
are hanging on, but by and large people do not want to buy things
that way. It gets hard to explain, and about all I have to go with
is my own experience and that of others who have told me things, but
people transferring money to other people -- which is what it is
all about -- as a result of what they see on the computer just is
not going to happen with any degree of success. I am talking now about
computer networks like this one, obviously not the networks which
are specifically designed for financial transactions.
The rest of this will probably sound like a pitch for myself, and
I really do not mean it to sound that way, but consider my own
experience here: Granted, this Digest is a relatively esoteric product.
It has an appeal to a limited audience. I am never going to reach
the circulation of {Reader's Digest} with the kinds of topics discussed
here. None the less, I do request the readers to toss coins in the
hat I hold in my hand. Someone asked me recently, "How is TD doing
for you business-wise? Is it true you can make a lot of money selling
stuff on the net?" My answer was that I am not picking up my mail each
day in a semi-trailer truck filled with postal type one bags at the
loading dock of the Skokie Post Office. I don't even have to go to the
Caller's Window because my box overflowed. :) or should that be :( ...
And I have a real service here; one that I hope is helpful to the
people who read it on a regular basis. I spend several hours per day
on it and the volume of email is such that the people at MIT look askance
at me when I have my sixth invocation of sendmail running in the past
twenty-four hours. I actually deliver long, detailed treatises on one
topic or another which you may like or you may hate, but they do get
delivered. I am not Making Money Fast; I sincerely doubt anyone is who
puts out email or sets up a web page saying 'send money' (for whatever
goods, services or pseudo-services are being offered.) The sooner the
new-comers realize this, the sooner you will see the frantic pace of
spam slow down. I wish it were not so; I would be the first to rejoice
if I could start eating dinner each night at the Skokie Club instead
of at McDonald's or the hot dog place. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: *70-PAUSE Update; Question For Northern Telecom
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:44:58 -0800
Organization: Best Internet Communications
I got a call from "an unnamed source" within Pacific Bell, who told me
that the switch serving my home line was recently "upgraded" to a
Northern Telecom DMS switch (I didn't think to ask if that's a DMS-100
or DMS-200 or what, but one of NT's Digital Multiplexing Switches),
which has this "feature," but is, I am assured, otherwise a fine
switch.
The feature I am referring to is that, when dialing *70, I must pause
and wait for the end of the stutter tone (which is different from dial
tone not only in that it is stuttered) before proceeding to dial the
rest of the number. The pause required is large enough that a single
"pause" in my telephone autodialer isn't enough; I have to program in
a "wait for dial tone" pause.
My question for Northern Telecom is quite simple: why did you spend money
to deliberately break a feature that worked perfectly well?
Previous switches had the imminently useful feature that, upon dialing
*70, the customer was presented with stutter DIAL TONE, which permitted
the customer to continue dialing without pausing. Someone at Northern
Telecom made a conscious decision to expend time, money, and engineering
resources to deliberately make this feature LESS useful.
The new system has ZERO advantages and significant disadvantages, and
yet it must have cost at least something to implement this carefully
planned reduction of usefulness.
The next question is, who is the person responsible for authorizing this
change in functionality? Is he or she still working for Northern Telecom?
If so, why??
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Caribbean Phone Sleaze: Another Angle
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 01:05:34 -0800
Organization: Best Internet Communications
There has been a lot of talk about how to deal with the problem of
several Caribbean countries/territories allowing various shady
characters to set up businesses ranging from simple phone-sex "chat
lines" to outright fraudulent scams. Much of the attention has
focused on various ways for the U.S. to put pressure on the other
governments to enact and enforce anti-fraud laws and anti-kickback
laws to prevent these abuses.
I have another thought on the matter. The way that these operations
(both the more legitimate and the total con jobs) make money is by
receiving a a portion of the "settlements" payment the island telco
receives from the U.S. long distance carrier for completing the
distant end of the call. For example, if you pay US$1.15/minute for
your call to the Caribbean, your long distance company might pay
US$0.60/minute of that to the island telco to complete the call, and
they might in turn pay US$0.30/minute to the "service provider" who is
generating the traffic for them. The rates for these "settlement
payments" are all set by treaties between the different countries
involved. (All dollar figures here are hypothetical.)
I think that the best approach is for the U.S. State Department to
argue quite vigorously that a change in the settlements rate is
clearly warranted if the island telco has enough leeway in that amount
to allow it to pay a substantial amount to a third party. In other
words, in the example above, the U.S. would argue that the settlements
rate should clearly be cut to $0.30/minute, since that appears, by the
island telco's own bookkeeping, to be a more accurate reflection of
their costs in completing the call.
I think that if the State Department simply chose one country to make
an example of (and I would nominate the Dominican Republic for that
honor) that the market for Caribbean phone sex lines (and "011" phone
sex lines, too) would rapidly dry up. The settlements payments are
intended to compensate the foreign telcos for their actual costs of
completing inbound international calls, not for providing kickbacks to
third parties. If you threaten to not only eliminate the cash stream
that pays for the phone sex operators, but also reduce the profit the
foreign telcos make on ordinary calls from the United States, the
foreign telcos will very quickly take the moral high ground of
banishing phone sex and scammers and all the other slimy beasts.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #576
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 29 17:44:11 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id RAA27281; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:44:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:44:11 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610292244.RAA27281@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #577
TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 96 17:44:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 577
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Bill Horne)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Eric Florack)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Mickey Ferguson)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Jeff Colbert)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Robert Bulmash)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Robert Casey)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Martin Tibbitts)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Ronnie Grant)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Tony Toews)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 29 Oct 1996 20:55:04 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
madhaus@genmagic.com wrote:
> I recently posted on the limitations of Caller ID as implemented by Pac
> Bell.
> We've found a way to work around [telemarketeers] which others with
> Caller ID may also wish to use.
[explanation of how Maddi imitates a radio station giving out prizes
deleted]
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry Maddi, I don't think it was
> funny. In fact, it was a bit hateful. I am not suggesting that
> telemarketers are my favorite people, but I think you pushed it
> a bit far. Put yourself in the position of a very young person
> going to college and paying for it with a part time job that
> they may very well not like any more than you like their calls.
Pat, I disagree. Frankly, I'm surprised that you'd adopt this
attitude at the same time that you encourage your readers to flood
spammers' 800 numbers. The telemarketing industry is the worst
example of how vicious and unprincipled hucksters have made millions
by breaking the rules of common courtesy: as far as I'm concerned,
those who choose to feed that beast do so at their own peril.
Like CB radios, telephones convey only a voice. The truth costs extra
-- and the truth is that they'll do ANYTHING to get that all-important
first minute with you. Sorry to disappoint, but ALL the sweet young
voices you hear while your dinner gets cold are "college students".
Or "Coeds". Or *anything else* that creates an image of an idealistic,
young, believable, friendly, girl/boy next door.
The most sophisticated operators program their computers to supply an
"ethnic" given name to the pitcher, keyed to the most common names
used in the ethnic group that matches your surname. Are you a Murphy?
Say hello to sweat, believable Kathy or bright, bushy tailed Sean. A
Brunet? Surprise, surprise: Kathy is now Heloise, Sean has become
Marcel. Ask them a question in their "native" tongue, and listen
while they recite a 28 second story about how their grandmother (God
rest her soul) tried to teach them but passed away so soon, always
reminding them to study hard, and will that be Visa or Mastercard?
> Also you should note that there are many people in telemarketing
> work because a physical handicap prevents them from doing other
> work. They may be for example visually impaired or confined to
> a wheel chair, etc. That does not of necessity put them on the
> shallow end of the gene pool; it does mean they are ambitious
> enough -- like the young lady who called you -- to want to
> survive on their own in the world and accomplish something.
So, by extension, it's acceptable to condone any sleazy, pimp-like
behavior that isn't covered by statute, so long as physically
challenged people are involved? Did you enjoy seeing the three toed
boy at the circus? Should I purchase pornography if the vendor is in
a wheelchair?
> If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just
> hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that
> several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach
> one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier
> feelings any. PAT]
I don't hang up. In cases where salespeople don't lie to me, I always
demand to know the name of the company, the address, their status with
the better business bureau, if they have filed a certificate of
compliance to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and anything
else that they don't want to tell me. I always refuse the offer to
"talk to a supervisor", and I always ask them to tell me their real name
and real telephone number. Time is money, and I believe in doing my
part to deprive them of both.
Of course, if they DO lie, then all's fair. Here's a summary of the
latest call I took:
Salesman: "Hello, Mister Horne! How are you this evening?!"
Me: "I'm getting my guard up, the way I always do when total
strangers pretend they're my friend! What are you pitching?"
Salesman: "We're not selling anything ..."
Me: (interrupting) "Shame on you!! Don't you dare lie to me
like that! Don't you have any personnal pride?!"
Salesman: (dead silence)
I WANT to hurt their feelings, Pat. I despise that kind of con artist
and the trust they arrogate from me by pretending to be something
they're not, and I despise the notion that I'm required to put up with
it almost as much as I hate the insinuation that they're entitled to
take advantage of my polite nature.
It's *MY* phone number, dammit! CALL IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!
Bill Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:47:36 PST
From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Eric Florack)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
In #573, jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) says, in part:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that prostitution and drug-
>> dealing are illegal. Telemarketing isn't illegal. Obnoxious maybe,
>> but not illegal. PAT]
> However, I think that the only reason that telemarketing is NOT
> illegal is because every time someone tries to make it illegal, the
> telemarketers stand on "freedom of speech" and claim they have a right
> to contact people in this way.
Hi, Jack,
Personally, I wonder how the ACLU arguments on free speech (Refer to
#574) mesh with this one. I suspect that given we're dealing with
capitalists trying to make a buck, suddenly their cry of 'free speech
at any cost' is no longer valid, and they stand rather silent. I'll
touch on this later.
> I personally don't agree with this -- after all, there are limits on
> freedom of speech. Certainly you have the right to bring a soapbox to
> the public square and make a speech (unless some bigwig politician is
> going to be there holding a major event -- then you get the boot,
> Constitution or not). If you can afford to own or rent the use of a
> printing press, you can print just about whatever you want (though
> even that's not absolute ... anyone remember Ramparts magazine?). If
> you have a Web site of your own, you can even make your thoughts
> available to the world at a very low cost. But none of this gives you
> permission to go into people's homes, uninvited, and start proclaiming
> your thoughts. I don't think it was ever the intention of the
> founding fathers to allow people you don't know to come into the
> sanctity of your home and start talking about whatever they want to
> talk about.
I respectfully submit, Jack, that what you're onto here, may be placed
in these terms:
While you have a right to free speech, there is no guarantee within
the constitution of enforced listenership. What the telemarketer, or
for that matter ANY advertiser is hoping for is a captive listener.
Telemarketing, with it's one on one attack style, and the traditional
taboos about turning the telephone off (being rude?) help to give the
telemarketer an advantage they advertisers in other mediums do not
have. People who have no guilt about hitting that mute button on the
TV or Radio, or even changing the channel, when the commercial comes
on, are suddenly guilt- struck when dealing with a telemarketer.
In my own case, I tend to view that form of advertising as I do any
other. If I don't like it, I change the channel, or turn it off. Of
course, having a modem on the listed line helps, too. Bloody hard to
sell someone something when all you get is EEEEEEEEEEEEE ...
> But to many of us, telemarketers are in business solely to harass
> people. There are many people in the world that would NEVER buy
> anything offered over the phone by a telemarketer ... in fact, I would
> daresay that such people are in the majority. So these telemarketers
> annoy the many in the hope of finding the few that are gullible enough
> to take their bait.
But is making it illegal the proper response? Doesn't anyone find it
interesting that there was such a loud cry of 'Free Speech on the
Internet!' just a few short months ago, and yet many of these same
voices are now screaming for federally mandated limits on telemarketers?
The real problem here is that the pay for telemarketers is fairly low,
or totally on commissions. Therefore, profitability for telemarketers,
even being hobbled by these concerns you mention, will be relatively
high, on average, even if the 'hit ratio' was low ... which, given the
'captive audience' factor, they're not ... or at least have not been
until recently ... I've not seen such figures of late, I'm afraid.
So, the real solution, then ... the only way that kind of sale is
going to go away, shy of outlawing it, which seems to be on, at best,
somewhat shaky constitutional ground, is to stop making such
operations profitable. ie; stop buying from them. If they weren't
making a buck, by selling to people, they'd not be there, on your
phone, just as you're getting in the shower.
Regards,
/E
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are making the same error many
people do in taking this as a Freedom of Speech issue ... the courts
have ruled many times that there is a distinct difference between
what they have termed 'political speech' and 'commercial speech'.
The former is granted a broad array of freedom and latitude as it
should be. 'Commercial speech' however is subject to more limitations.
Newspapers and television stations are given a great deal of leeway
in how they want to handle commercial speech. The distinctions between
the two should be remembered when talking about censorship, etc. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Mickey Ferguson <mickeyf@stac.com>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:40:29 -0800
Organization: Stac, Inc.
Jack Decker wrote:
> I personally don't agree with this -- after all, there are limits on
> freedom of speech. Certainly you have the right to bring a soapbox to
> the public square and make a speech (unless some bigwig politician is
> going to be there holding a major event -- then you get the boot,
> Constitution or not). If you can afford to own or rent the use of a
> printing press, you can print just about whatever you want (though
> even that's not absolute ... anyone remember Ramparts magazine?). If
> you have a Web site of your own, you can even make your thoughts
> available to the world at a very low cost. But none of this gives you
> permission to go into people's homes, uninvited, and start proclaiming
> your thoughts. I don't think it was ever the intention of the
> founding fathers to allow people you don't know to come into the
> sanctity of your home and start talking about whatever they want to
> talk about.
First, I am not a telemarketer, nor will I ever be one. I don't like
the calls, either.
Given that statement, it's all about civility. No one is invading
your home. They are merely calling you. If you tell them very
quickly that you are not interested, that's it, and it usually only
takes a minute to do. And if you really don't like the call, demand
that they put you on their "do not call" list, and then if they call
again, you can take legal action if you must. Remember, YOU chose to
answer the phone. If you really don't want the call, don't answer it.
Get caller ID if you must, and then you can use an answering machine
to screen the "out of area" type of calls (or whatever they are). See
below for more on this.
> But to many of us, telemarketers are in business solely to harass
> people. There are many people in the world that would NEVER buy
> anything offered over the phone by a telemarketer ... in fact, I would
> daresay that such people are in the majority. So these telemarketers
> annoy the many in the hope of finding the few that are gullible enough
> to take their bait.
If you have reason to suspect that they really are in business to
harass people, and you feel they truly have harassed YOU, you have
legal remedies. That's the purpose of the law -- to protect the lawful
from the unlawful. Laws currently allow unsolicited phone calls,
except when you've put your number on their do-not-call list.
> Unfortunately, we have some fuzzy-headed judges in our country that
> can't seem to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom to
> annoy. And THAT is why telemarketing is not illegal. It's not
> because the majority of people wouldn't want that to be the case, it's
> because politicians are reluctant to pass laws that they feel will be
> immediately struck down by the courts, especially when a small but
> vocal percentage of their constituents might start yelling about about
> "censorship" (although I can't imagine it would be a big percentage --
> even liberals must get annoyed with the calls after a while!).
Sir, I respectfully disagree. They are in business to make money, and
one way they've found successful is through cold calls. I can't
possibly see how any judge, fuzzy-headed or not, could rule
cold-calling illegal.
> I would bet that if you took a survey and asked the following two questions:
> 1) Should drugs be legalized?
> 2) Should telemarketing to residential telephones be made illegal?
> You would find a lot more people in favor of the first than are
> opposed to the second (in other words, I think a lot more people would
> prefer to see drugs legalized than telemarketing). That is not my own
> view, by the way -- I'm personally opposed to legalizing drugs -- but
> in conversations I think I detect a lot more hostility toward
> telemarketers than toward drug users. In a way, that makes sense,
> because while people's lives may be impacted in a far more serious
> manner by someone who is high on drugs, it's probably an infrequent
> event for most of us, whereas telemarketing in many areas is becoming
> the annoyance that never ends, like a constantly dripping faucet.
Public desire should not be the determining factor. There are far too
many druggies out there who would vote in favor of number 1. And
infrequent? I seriously doubt that if we weigh the frequency of the
inconvenience with the severity of the interaction, any reasonable
person could reach that conclusion that option number 1 is better than
number 2 (not that we would ever have to make such a choice... :-)
> There is one thing the government COULD do that would help a lot.
> Force the phone companies to stop charging extra for NOT listing phone
> numbers in the directory, or with directory assistance. There is no
> rational reason for charging an extra monthly charge for an unlisted
> number anymore, since it quite likely generates extra income in calls
> to directory assistance as people attempt (unsuccessfully) to get the
> number there.
No argument with the first part, although I seriously doubt most
cold-calls are generated through this means. Even unlisted numbers
get lots of these calls.
> I'd love to see someone start a class-action lawsuit against the Baby
> Bells and the larger independents to force them to stop giving out
> customers' private information without the express permission of the
> customer. I realize that some folks think that the concept of
> personal privacy is already dead, but I don't think it should be given
> up without a fight - and I certainly don't think that the phone
> companies should just be in effect handing their customer list over to
> telemarketing and similar firms via the local phone book, if customers
> don't wish to be listed there (and I also don't believe that customers
> should have to pay extra to not have their private information given
> out). In just about any other industry we'd have the choice of not
> dealing with a company that is that careless with our personal
> information, but the vast majority of residential phone customers
> still only have once choice of local phone company, and that's the
> only reason they've been able to get away with these types of bogus
> charges for NOT doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the
> first place!
Does anyone have any real data about how the numbers are obtained for
generating unsolicited calls? I would bet it is NOT via phone books.
It is usually via computer-generated lists, and sometimes, even
psuedo-random dialing.
Perhaps a solution might be that a phone service (at no extra cost to
the subscriber) could be set up such that if the number comes in with
its caller ID as "out of area" (or any type of unidentified type of
call), it would cause the caller to have to pay a fee to have the call
go through. That might help stop unidentified calls. Granted, this
makes for a small advantage to those who have caller ID versus those
(such as myself) who don't have it, because if you don't have caller
ID, you won't see that "Telemarketing Pests, Inc." is calling. But if
you do have it, you can just ignore the call, and if you don't, at
least those companies which are unwilling to unmask themselves won't
be calling you, or will be paying for it.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Colbert <jcolbert@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:53:37 -0600
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
Reply-To: jcolbert@earthlink.net
Actually, you don't even have to put a message with that on it. Just
having an answering machine on will do the trick. I had the misfortune
of being one of those annoying people for a month while I was
in-between jobs. The only good thing about that is I found out that
all you have to do is say "take me off your call list", and if they
don't, they are liable for a fine to be paid to you. Just make sure
you get the name and number of the company that called you. If they
call you back, you can crucify them.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Robert Bulmash)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 28 Oct 1996 17:41:06 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.573.12@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, jack@novagate.com
(Jack Decker) writes:
> However, I think that the only reason that telemarketing is NOT
> illegal is because every time someone tries to make it illegal, the
> telemarketers stand on "freedom of speech" and claim they have a right
> to contact people in this way.
Actually, their claim of `free speech' is just the a hook that
is used by those who seek to curb our fundamental right to be let
alone in our own homes. If politicians intend to be swayed by
campaign contributions from firms that benefit from telemarketing, the
can't just say, "Hey, they paid me to vote against your right of
privacy." Rather they've got to say, "Everyone has a right of free
speech".
Since most of this thread uses AT&T as the example of a
telenuisance call, let's take a look at how AT&T buys our right of
privacy from our legislators. During this election cycle, AT&T gave
the following to federal candidates: (as of April 1, 1996) A total of
$2,200,000.00 (that's $2.2 million folks) - some of it went to: House
challengers = $ 7,500 House incumbents = $ 810,170 Clinton/Dole = $
5,800. What does this tell us? That AT&T is more interested in the
country's legislation than administration. Why so much to incumbents?
Does AT&T think that those in office are the best their is? Or is it
pay-back time for friendly votes. Remember, every time a telemarketer
makes a call, some telco makes money regardless of whether a sale is
made or a person is annoyed. In this respect, telcos are like bookies.
Furthermore, AT&T is one of the biggest contributing members of the
Direct Marketing Association. And what's the goal of the DMA? Well,
the DMA's president says; "The goal of the DMA is to discover and to
thwart possible government regulation. And we have done it"
So when you think of legislation to protect us from telenuisance calls,
think of AT&T's campaign contribution, think of the DMA, and know that all
you have to offer our country is your worthless vote.
> But none of this gives you permission to go into people's homes,
> uninvited, and start proclaiming your thoughts. I don't think it was
> ever the intention of the founding fathers to allow people you don't
> know to come into the sanctity of your home and start talking about
> whatever they want to talk about.
You got that right. If you want to know why the Constitution was
written, read its Preamble: "We the People, in order to... insure
domestic tranquility .... " Domestic (from domis= home) Tranquility
(from trans= beyond + queis =peace, calm, quiet) One reason the
Founding Fathers framed the Constitution as they did was to insure our
right to maintain peace and quite in our homes. This is reflected in
its Amendments Third = No quartering of soldiers in another's home
Fourth= No unreasonable searches of a home Ninth= The enumeration in
the Constitution of certain rights does not deny other rights, like
our fundamental right to be let alone at home, by those we seek to
avoid.
> Unfortunately, we have some fuzzy-headed judges in our country that
> can't seem to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom to
> annoy. And THAT is why telemarketing is not illegal. It's not
> because the majority of people wouldn't want that to be the case, it's
> because politicians are reluctant to pass laws that they feel will be
> immediately struck down by the courts.
Not to my way of thinking. Politicians do not pass good law because
bad people (firms) pay them not to.
> I'd love to see someone start a class-action lawsuit against the Baby
> Bells and the larger independents to force them to stop giving out
> customers' private information without the express permission of the
> customer. I realize that some folks think that the concept of
> personal privacy is already dead, but I don't think it should be given
> up without a fight - and I certainly don't think that the phone
> companies should just be in effect handing their customer list over to
> telemarketing and similar firms via the local phone book, if customers
> don't wish to be listed there (and I also don't believe that customers
> should have to pay extra to not have their private information given
> out). In just about any other industry we'd have the choice of not
> dealing with a company that is that careless with our personal
> information, but the vast majority of residential phone customers
> still only have once choice of local phone company, and that's the
> only reason they've been able to get away with these types of bogus
> charges for NOT doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the
> first place!
Here in `AmeritechLand' you can ask Ameritech to stop selling your
phone number to other firms who publish `reverse directories' and
`alternative phone books' . However, that will not stop Ameritech
from publishing such reverse directories and marketing lists
themselves. To get Ameritech to stop doing it, you must first: 1)
Know they are doing it. and 2) ask them SPECIFICALLY to stop doing
it themselves. Whada country! You want justice? You want your
fundamental rights protected? Its not a right, its a privilege for
those that can pay for it.
Bob Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc.
http://webmill.com/pci/home
http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home
------------------------------
From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 19:49:54 GMT
I don't get that many telemarketing calls, probably because I'm
usually logged on reading and writing Usenet posts for an hour and a
half every night. (I have no "life" :-)). (Better than passively
watching TV all night). Anyway, I suppose I have busied out
telemarketers fairly often. And maybe they have marked my phone
number as a non-voice service?
My father used to hate telemarketer calls. I remember once we got a
call from a home improvement / fix-up company. He'd start argueing
with them, saying "What, you think my house is a real dump or something?!"
I just say "no thanks, not interested" and then disconnect the call.
I never buy from unsolicited phone calls, I'm usually not in the mood
to evaluate the product or service to whatever I need/want it, and
if then, if it is a decent competitive and quality item and price.
When I go to the mall or other shops, I obviously have shifted into
the need/want and evaluation mode. When I want to. Junk mail is less
annoying, I can leave it sit and get to it later. Postal paper mail,
that is, I hate spam e-mail, I delete it almost immediately. Eats up
disk space.
When I lived in Oregon a couple years ago (1994), the local phone
company in Beaverton had a feature that you could have your name in
the phone book marked as not wanting to be called by telemarketers.
It cost about 50 cents/month. I took that option, I recieved maybe two
telemarketer calls all year.
I see this of benefit to both parties, me in that I wont get bothered,
and the telemarketers know that calling me would be a waste of time
anyway.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:03:34 -0800
From: mjt@lcrtelecom.com (Martin Tibbitts)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Years ago, when I was a stockbroker (read: "telemarketer'), my fellow
cold-call cowboys would keep notes on some of the more inventive
anti-telemarketer tactics. One of the best had the homeowner turning
on a continuous tape halfway through the opening script, which said
"tell me more" every 15 seconds or so. The cold-caller thinks he has
a prospect and lays it on with relish, but begins to feel perplexed
and confused as he runs out of information and gets the feeling that
something is amiss. Great fun.
L C R -- A Full Service Telecommunications Brokerage Firm
Martin Tibbitts-President
2514 Sacramento Street Suite B, San Francisco CA 94115
TEL 415.441.0800 * FAX 415.441.1899
email: mjt@lcrtelecom.com * http://www.lcrtelecom.com
------------------------------
From: ronnie.grant@mogur.com (Ronnie Grant)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:25:00 GMT
Organization: TGT Technologies / The MOG-UR'S EMS: 818-366-1238
septimus@acsu.buffalo.edu (Shalom Septimus):
> My method of dealing with these is simple and to the point. When I
> answer the phone and hear those few seconds of silence before someone
> starts talking, I already know what to expect.
Here's what I do: everytime I answer the phone I use this greeting,
saying it in one breath, slowly, and in a slight monotone:
"Good [morning | afternoon | evening], and thank you for calling. How
may I help you?"
Most outbound call centers use predictive dialers, which depend on a
short burst of voice ("Hello?") to filter out answering machines. They
work on the assumption that residences answer their phones with "Hello?"
I don't use "Hello?" and neither should you.
The predictive dialers, thinking I am an answering machine, hang up.
Some will reque my number for later call-back, but I don't mind the
dialers as much as I do the sales people.
Problem solved.
Ronnie
------------------------------
From: ttoews@agt.net (Tony Toews)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:53:59 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
osman@NTCSAL01DA.ntc.nokia.com (Osman Rich NTC/Dallas) wrote:
> Last night I only got five calls, I've had as many as 20.
WHAT!!! Are you serious???? I figure one call a month on my business
line from a long distance outfit is pretty bad. And I can't recall
ever getting any telemarketers on my personal line. Which is listed
in the directory.
Wow! Are things ever easier when you live in rural small town
Alberta!
Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant
Jack of a few computer related trades and master (or certified) of none.
Microsoft Access Hints & Tips: Accounting Systems, Winfax Pro, Reports
and Books at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #577
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 29 20:41:49 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id UAA15559; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:41:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:41:49 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610300141.UAA15559@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #578
TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Oct 96 20:41:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 578
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (K. M. Peterson)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (Conal Walsh)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (John R. Levine)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (Matt Ackeret)
Re: Never Enough Time in a Day (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget? (Garrett Wollman)
Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget? (Carl Moore)
Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget? (Stan Brown)
Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget? (Jeffrey Mattox)
Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget? (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Rob Levandowski)
Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (Terry Kennedy)
Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (Todd L. Sherman)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
Date: 29 Oct 1996 19:42:37 GMT
Organization: KMPeterson/Boston
In article <telecom16.572.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> ptownson@massis.lcs.
mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes:
> For a good time, try the talking clock at 1-202-762-1401, which is the
> new number for the US Naval Observatory. If you try it at about thirty
> seconds before 2:00 am Eastern Time and listen for the full minute
> alloted before it cuts you off, you'll note how it handles the time
> change: without missing a single second, after you are told it is now
> 1 hour, 59 minutes and 50 seconds Eastern Daylight Time you are then
> told it is 1 hour exactly, Eastern Standard Time.
I was visiting the District this past weekend. Saturday night, getting
ready to go to bed, I inadvertantly reset the seconds on my watch in
addition to the hour, so remembering that there was a NPA 202 number
for the USNO, I looked it up in the local phone book in our hotel room.
The number is listed ... as the "900" number (900-410-8463). Sigh.
K. M. Peterson
<mailto:KMP@TIAC.NET> <http://www.tiac.net/users/peterson>
Phone: +1 617 731 6177 voice
+1 617 730 5969 fax
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, 900-410-TIME is one way of calling
the master clock, but like many people, I do not like having to pay to
have a good time. As far as 900 services go however, it is not that
expensive. I think they get something like fifty cents for the call.
And all that 900 number does is translates into 202-762-1401. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Conal Walsh <conal@ind.tansu.com.au>
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:48:42 +1100
Organization: Telstra
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Eric Tholome wrote:
> or September-October period. As a side note, the most complicated is
> when Australia is involved: they also have DST, but, because their
> summer is our winter and vice versa, when we go forward, they go
> backward, and vice versa!
And that's not all of it ... A few years ago we (on the east coast of
Australia) had the situation where three states in the same time zone had
differing DST arrangements. Queensland never has DST, Sydney changed in
the last week of October, while Melbourne changed a week later. Hence you
could get a plane from Sydney and arrive in Melbourne before you left,
without changing time zones, but only for a week. The airlines loved it...
(Aside: in Queensland the reasons for people not wanting DST vary; the
story goes that a woman actually stood up in a community meeting and said
that she didn't want DST because "the extra hour of sunlight would fade
the curtains").
Conal Walsh
Correct Procedures Pty Ltd Engineering and Consultancy
Sydney, Australia Services for the
correct@mypostbox.com Telecommunications Industry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 96 00:35 EST
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have heard that Amtrack literally
> does that; they stop the train and just sit there for one hour which
> has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard of.
Amtrak trains actually stop at the next station and wait for the hour
to pass. It's not dumb -- if they didn't do so, they'd be an hour
ahead of schedule for the rest of the run and all the passengers who
planned to get on the train at subsequent stations would be mightily
displeased to hear that the train left an hour earlier than their
tickets said. Unlike buses and planes, Amtrak has few simple point to
point routes, and most trains have a dozen or more stops, so this is a
real issue.
In the spring, all the trains just become an hour late and they treat
it the same as any other late train.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Greyhound does have a great deal of
local service with stops at many towns along the way, however in
recent years they tend to put these on somewhat shorter (overall)
routes -- 300 miles or less usually -- and they tend to start them
out from the big city terminals during the day meaning they reach
the distant terminal during the day or early evening. Skokie for
example is on Greyhound's route 314 between Chicago and Milwaukee,
an overall distance of less than a hundred miles. Skokie passengers
would connect to another bus in one of those two cities depending
on which direction they were going. There are four busses north
to Milwaukee and five busses south to Chicago each day via Skokie.
The earliest is 9:20 am and the latest is 9:30 pm. A dozen other
busses between those points around the clock just speed down and
up I-94 without stopping. There are instances though of extremely
long 'local' routes on Greyhound in the western part of the USA
with many of those going through tiny little places which have
essentially one bus a day in each direction going down the highway
and pulling into some bus agency long enough to pick up one passen-
ger and drop off some freight, etc. Many of those get their one bus
per day at some odd hour like 4:00 am since the schedules are made
up for the convenience of the bigger terminals, not the small agent
five hundred miles down the road.
Ditto the smaller, regional bus companies which largely survive by
what interline business they get. They write their schedules in
such a way that they 'meet Greyhound' at the common transfer point.
A little bus company called 'White Pine' operates across the upper
peninsula of Michigan between Duluth, Minnesota and St. Ignace in
Michigan. They also run from up that way south along the western
side of Lake Michigan. Why does their little bus start out at 1:45
in the morning and travel all night to Milwaukee through a bunch
of small towns along the way at 3:00 or 4:00 am? So they can meet
Greyhound in Milwaukee in time for the 7:00 am local to Chicago and
the 10-11:00 am stuff out of Chicago elsewhere. A lot of the little
bus companies get ninety percent of their business by 'interlining'
with Greyhound; accepting and selling 'long haul' tickets outside
their own territory involving Greyhound. And Greyhound's corporate
philosophy seems to be 'you meet our schedules; we do not meet yours.'
Which leads to interesting situations like the guy who owns the
McDonald's restaurant in Effingham, Illinois who is also the bus
agent. The McDonald's is open all night long and busy, with a half-
dozen Chicago <==> Memphis busses and the same number of St. Louis to
Detroit busses pulling in his parking lot every few minutes. The
busses swap out their passengers and everyone gets a cheesburger and
fries while they wait. The guy sells a couple thousand dollars in
bus tickets as well. During the day he might as well be closed. In
the little upper peninsula town of Powers, Michigan, population about
one thousand people the agent gets four busses each day from White
Pine. **All four in a thirty minute period from 1:15 to 1:45 am.** Two
east and west, two going to/coming from Milwaukee; all meeting Greyhound
a few hours later; all four in his parking lot at one time. Actually,
it is a 7/Eleven store. Besides the commission he makes selling a few
bus tickets, the guy rents his parking lot to the busses. I assume he
sells a few Slurpee drinks and sandwiches to the bus drivers and
the passengers as well. Greyhound says 'anytime you do not like the
arrangements or the hours, just let us know ... ' <grin> ' ... we
will find an agent in a town five miles down the road who will accept
a smaller commission than what we pay you and he'll be glad to sell
hamburgers all night long ... we will start having the busses stop
there instead.' Of course those guys have highly profitable agencies
so they never complain; at least not very much. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Matt Ackeret <mattack@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:12:14 PST
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
In article <telecom16.572.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> is written:
> So this weekend, most of us in the USA get an extra hour to accomplish
> whatever it is we are doing. Officially, all clocks get set backward
> one hour as of Sunday at 2:00 am local time, at which point it becomes
> merely 1:00 am; and we get to relive the previous hour or whatever.
Technically, not all clocks. There are certain states, or parts of
states, that do not adhere to the daylight savings time scheme. (I
want to say Arizona, but maybe I'm just thinking of them because of
their obstinance about Martin Luther King, Jr. day.) --
mattack@apple.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Indiana is another such case. Some
parts of the state move to daylight time in the summer while other
parts do not. The 11:15 am bus from Chicago to Indianapolis was
reaching Indianapolis at 2:40 pm all summer long. Starting
this week it gets to Indianapolis at 3:40 pm <smile> ... and
everyone asks my friend Jim at the station 'why is the bus taking so
much longer than it used to?'. Try and explain to people that they
do not move their clocks forward/backward like we do in Chicago. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:45:56 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: Never Enough Time in a Day
Eric Tholome <tholome@francenet.fr> wrote:
> France has also had DST for quite some time now, but the time change
> wasn't on the same day as the U.S.A. (rather end of September than end
> of October). Actually, France was aligned with most of Europe, except
> the U.K. which changed on the same date as the U.S.A. A real
> nightmare for those of us who conduct international business and often
> have to set up conference calls involving various parts of the
> world. It's already hard to figure out which time it is supposed to be
> in other countries normally, think of when you enter the March-April
> or September-October period. As a side note, the most complicated is
> when Australia is involved: they also have DST, but, because their
> summer is our winter and vice versa, when we go forward, they go
> backward, and vice versa!
I remember that I used to make brief (less than ten minute) calls to
Australia about once a month or so, back in the late 1980's and early
1990's. They are always 'flipped' regarding Daylight Savings
vs. Standard, as they are in the Southern Hemisphere, with 'flipped'
seasons. And what also complicated matters was that most of the time,
at the actual local New Orleans time when I would place calls,
Australia would even be one 'day-of-the-week' later than me!
There was a brief period during the March/April and September/October
months when we were either both on our respective Daylight Times or
both on our respective Standard Times. And I could never remember
exactly which day of the month in March or April that they went to
their Standard Time, and which day of the month in September or
October that they went to their Daylight Savings Time. And the actual
*time-zone* differences in time-of-day (as well as day-of-week as
mentioned above) didn't help out any at all!
This past "Spring Forward" (and is it still in April?), I asked some
Canadian friends of mine about their clock changes. At least most if
not all of Canada *does* 'sync' with the USA regarding
Daylight/Standard. However, Canada does have its Atlantic Time Zone
(one hour later than Eastern Time) for the eastern part of Quebec as
well as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Is. They even the
*Newfoundland* Time Zone, which is an hour *and a half* later than
Eastern Time! Parts of Maine are the easternmost parts of the
continental USA, and they are in the Eastern Time Zone, while some
parts of New Brunswick are actually *west* of these parts of Maine
(although also north), but are an hour *later* than Maine, in the
Atlantic Time Zone!
Does anyone remember what Alaska does regarding Daylight Time? I don't think
that Hawaii changes their clocks, however. What about Puerto Rico and the US
Virgin Islands?
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget?
Date: 28 Oct 1996 15:18:45 -0500
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
In article <telecom16.573.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor
noted:
> Wally once said, "if there ever was a reason I would not vote again
> for President (Franklin D.) Roosevelt it would be because he was
> the person who started that nonsense with 'Eastern War Time'". Indeed,
> the semi-annual clock changes in the USA began in the early 1940's
> when we had to ration things like gasoline and electricity in the USA.
Actually, no. A group of people (principally Paul Eggert these days,
with help from members of the mailing-list tz@elsie.nci.nih.gov)
maintain a complete database of standard time practices (which is used
on many UNIX machines to cause them to automatically get seasonal
changes right). According to this database:
# US Eastern time, represented by New York
# Rule NAME FROM TO TYPE IN ON AT SAVE LETTER
Rule NYC 1920 only - Mar lastSun 2:00 1:00 D
Rule NYC 1920 only - Oct lastSun 2:00 0 S
Rule NYC 1921 1966 - Apr lastSun 2:00 1:00 D
Rule NYC 1921 1954 - Sep lastSun 2:00 0 S
Rule NYC 1955 1966 - Oct lastSun 2:00 0 S
# Zone NAME GMTOFF RULES FORMAT [UNTIL]
Zone America/New_York -4:56:02 - LMT 1883 Nov 18 12:00
-5:00 US E%sT 1920
-5:00 NYC E%sT 1942
-5:00 US E%sT 1946
-5:00 NYC E%sT 1967
-5:00 US E%sT
This essentially says that New York observed solar time until 1883,
them standard time (except during WW1, described in the `US' rule not
shown here), then adopted summer (``Daylight Savings'') time
permanently in 1920, well before FDR and the Second World War. In
1967, the current national standard practice of ending summer time on
the last sunday in October was adopted; the starting day has been
variously the last Sunday in April (1967-1973 and 1976-1986), January
6th (1974), February 23rd (1975), and the first Sunday in April (1987
to the present).
Not all parts of the US have observed summer time consistently. Most
parts of Indiana do not observe it to this day, and those parts of
Arizona not controlled by the Navajo Nation stopped in 1968. Hawaii
does not have seasons (in a solar sense) and thus neither needs nor
observes summer time. Even those states which do observe summer time
did not do so consistently until 1976, and some places like Starke
County, Indiana, were in flux as recently as 1991. (Parts of Indiana
observe or have observed the summer time rules of nearby large cities
in other states, like Cincinnatti and Louisville.)
The situation is often even worse in other countries, where local time
practices change at the whim of the government. Thankfully, in Europe
at least, some standardization is finally coming into place (this last
changeover was the first one ever in which all of Western Europe
changed on the same day, although some countries changed by not
changing at all). In other large countries (and former countries like
the former Soviet Union), the situation remains rather complex.
Interested readers can join the mailing-list I mentioned above, or can
retrieve pub/tzcodeYY?.tar.Z by FTP from elsie.nci.nih.gov to see data
on other zones.
Garrett A. Wollman
wollman@lcs.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 15:59:05 EST
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget?
Daylight Saving Time was instituted to make daylight conform more
closely to the time people would be up and about; Ben Franklin noted
people were asleep when the sun was already up. In April-October, it
leaves more time in the daylight AFTER most people leave their
offices.
If you can remember the first part of 1974, DST was put in when it was
still winter. The biggest complaint against year-round DST (and what
prevents it now) is that children would be going to school in the dark
in the morning -- especially in the far western part of a time zone,
because when you hold the clock time constant, you find the sun
rising/setting later when you get further west. For example, the sun
didn't rise until 8 AM late last December in Mackinaw City, Michigan;
and a July 4 fireworks show in western Ohio (in a county bordering
Indiana, where just inside Indiana you find Eastern time but no DST)
started after 10 PM.
Some services depend on the time input by the user, like in the case
of the AT&T message service (when do you want the message delivered).
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Also, the further north one goes,
the more daylight/darkness one gets. In Alaska for example, the
longest days of summer produce 20-21 hours of sunlight with the
sun coming up at 3:00 or 4:00 am and not going down until about
midnight. In the winter, the situation is reversed in what must be
a very dreary place to live: darkness most of the time with two or
three hours of sunlight in the middle of the conventional 'day'. The
further north you go in Alaska, it never really gets dark at
'night' in the summer. Either it is quite bright during most hours
or you have 'twilight' for a few minutes to a couple hours. In the
winter, the constant darkness is broken for a couple hours every
day by what we would think of as early-morning grey, but never any
real sunlight until a couple months later. Each day the sun peeks
over the horizon for a few minutes then drops out of sight again
for another 24 hours. I wonder if in Alaska like the rest of the
USA parents tell their children to come home from whatever they
were doing 'when it gets dark outside'. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:03:49 -0500
From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget?
Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net
In <telecom16.573.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, our Esteemed Moderator wrote:
> Wally once said, "if there ever was a reason I would not vote again
> for President (Franklin D.) Roosevelt it would be because he was
> the person who started that nonsense with 'Eastern War Time'". Indeed,
> the semi-annual clock changes in the USA began in the early 1940's
Well, PAT, tell Wally he can finally forgive Franklin.
Daylight saving time, under one name or another, started in
Germany in 1915
Great Britain in 1916
U.S. in 1918
You are correct that "War time" was REinstituted in 1942, after a 22-year
hiatus; but Roosevelt certainly can't be credited (or blamed) with
starting the whole business.
source: _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 1967, at "Daylight Saving"
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA
email: stbrown@nacs.net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, Wally said that a long time ago;
thirty years ago I would guess. I am sure he is long since departed
this life. I have no idea where he is. But when I die and go to Hell,
I will be sure to mention it to FDR when I see him. <g> PAT]
------------------------------
From: jeff@cher.heurikon.com (Jeffrey Mattox)
Subject: Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget?
Date: 29 Oct 1996 17:56:22 GMT
Organization: Heurikon Corporation
I had to set 18 clocks in our house that night, and every one of them
used a different procedure. There are clocks in the microwave, video
machines, radios, etc. I have to keep the manuals out for many of
the devices because the programming procedure is so obsure. This is
rediculous. Why don't the designers include one button called "DST"
that you push and it toggles the time forward or back one hour? It
would be so simple and helpful. Maybe the design engineers run their
lives on standard time, year 'round ...
Jeffrey Mattox
Madison, WI
Jeffrey Mattox -- jeff@heurikon.com -- Madison, WI (Money Magazine #1 City)
Cartoon of the day: http://www.heurikon.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:59:46 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: Daylight Savings / Did Someone Forget?
Aaron Woolfson <telone@shout.net> wrote:
> Is it possible that someone simply "forgot" about daylight savings in
> Pacific Bell land out here in California?
> Although many people consider daylight savings just a mere
> inconvenience of setting their clocks back an hour behind, us at the
> telephone companies have much more on our minds than that. And it
> seems that someone must have had more on their mind last night, as
> when we turned back our clocks here, unless I am completely mistaken
> and the time recording at the LEC's is independent of the DMS-200's
> internal clocks, someone forgot to turn back the clock. At 4:00am
> Pacific Daylight Savings Time, the switching was reading "5:00am
> Daylight Savings Time" which was actually the old time... and then
> this morning, the time was finally right about 9am, but it was saying
> "Pacific Standard Time"... I would like to know anyone elses'
> experiences with this problem, and in particular, those of you who
> work at telephone companies. I remember having to reconscile all
> types of call data last year because of the time change forward one hour.
For a few years in the mid-to-late 1980's, I made most of my long
distance calls via MCI and (GTE)-SPRint, using their 950-1022 and
950-0777 numbers, with no surcharge if I originated the call from the
New Orleans area. I remember that one Spring, GTE-Sprint forgot to
change their clocks to Daylight Savings Time at the correct day/time
for my time zone. Some calls were billed at a lower rate period than
they were supposed to be - for an hour each day, until the time was
corrected in the clocks in their billing; other calls were billed at a
higher rate!
I would frequently make notes on toll calls such as day/time, lenghth
of call, etc. and compare it with the bill when it came. I called up
GTE-Sprint customer service and repair to inform them about what I
could tell was their not changing the clocks to Daylight Time. For
most of my calls, the incorrect charges were 'not' in my favor. I just
kept getting the runaround from Sprint.
On my next bill, the times were correct, so someone corrected the clock
errors. But what about previously charged calls which were billed wrong?
Two months later, there was a note in a Sprint bill which said that
they made a billing error due to their forgetting to adjust their
billing clocks to Daylight Time. They were doing a complete audit of
their toll records, from the time that Daylight Time took effect
(officially) until the time when they corrected their billing
clocks. All wrongly overcharged hours would be credited, however they
wouldn't be retroactively backbilling any wrongly undercharged hours!
I guess they feel that they might lose customers to other long
distance companies if they backbilled customers because of *their*
error!
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: macwhiz@phoebe.rochester.ican.net (Rob Levandowski)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:45:52 -0500
Organization: MacWhiz Technologies
In article <telecom16.573.17@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, ehunt@bga.com (Eric
Hunt) wrote:
> After less than two full weeks of having switched my LD service from
> AT&T to a competitor, I got a call from AT&T's telemarketing arm.
I just started working for ACC Long Distance, a reseller based here in
Rochester, New York, as a systems analyst. One of the benefits of working
for a long distance company is a good deal on your long distance. :)
A few nights ago, I got a call from an AT&T telemarketer looking for
the previous holder of my phone number. This has happened quite a
lot; the former number holder was apparently none too prompt about
paying her bills and/or notifying her friends and creditors of her
whereabouts. At first, I thought that the fellow was a collection
agent, and I told him not to call looking for what's-er-name anymore.
Well, then he says that he's calling from AT&T Long Distance, and
perhaps I'd be interested in their new rate plan?
Imagine the grin on my face. :)
No, I say, I've got a pretty good deal now.
Well, says he, we have this new dime-a-minute rate available...
"Well, I work for a competing long distance company, and my calls are free.
Can you beat that?"
I can hear him break into a smile. "Ahhhh, no sir, I don't think I can.
Thanks for your time!"
I didn't torment him ... but boy, does he have a story to tell at the water
cooler now! :)
Robert Levandowski
Internet Systems Analyst, ACC Long Distance Corp.
macwhiz@pc-5.rochester.ican.net
------------------------------
From: Terry Kennedy <terry@spcunb.spc.edu>
Subject: Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:41:23 GMT
TELECOM Digest Editor writes:
> When is the last time AOL ever apologized to anyone on the net or
> said they were going to try and mitigate or lessen some of their worst
> security holes? They have never made any effort to work along with
> the net community on anything other than providing an 'abuse' mailbox
> where you can send complaints all you like. Do they drop the offending
> customer? Maybe, maybe not. Even if they do, the very same customer
> comes back and defrauds them a second or third time and is back online
> the same day or the next day. They still send out all those diskettes
> with lots of free time, not caring who signs up or how they get used.
Have you ever sent a complaint to abuse@aol.com or any of the other
addresses that they have for reporting problems? I have, and I can
tell you that I always get a prompt, courteous, and personal
(non-boilerplate) reply. These replies generally tell me that the
account in question has been terminated, and (when appropriate) that
"the matter has been refer- red to the legal department".
AOL has made (and publicized) changes in their account setup
procedure. In particular, fake credit card numbers with valid
checksums don't work any more. There is a limit to how
obnoxious/intrusive they can be at sign-up time without losing
customers.
I think that AOL is doing a very good job compared with other
providers overall, and given their size I think they're doing and
*outstanding* job. Sure, I'd like to see a more secure and
trustworthy Internet -- but blaming AOL for the current lack of these
Internet features is placing the blame in the wrong area -- go talk to
the IETF.
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
+1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX)
------------------------------
From: Todd L. Sherman <afn09444@afn.org>
Subject: Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:01:34 -0500
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, WD Baseley wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:42:19 EDT, in comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Digest
> Editor espoused:
>> Quite a few people have written me saying I should not blame AOL.
> AOL gets heat because they are so big. Like Microsoft. Easy target.
Easy target has nothing to do with it. Irresponsible service
providing irresponsible users easy PREY as targets is more like it.
>> It is
>> as though they are so anxious to get new subscribers they could care
>> less about the rest of the net in the process. They can't even take a
>> day or two to perform some modicum of verification prior to letting
>> the new subscriber loose in email and net news.
> I've said this elsewhere, and I'll repeat it for you. I know a lot of
> people who have used the painless AOL process to discover the wonders
> of online life. These people would never get online if the only way
> to do so was through an ISP, because they wouldn't put forth that much
> effort for something they don't quite understand, or they don't have
> the technical skill. Once online, they have a "wow!" epiphany, and
> never look back. In my experience the good done by making it easy to
> get online outweighs the bad done by a few ne'er-do-wells.
Uh! How can you say that? The good done can be handled more
RESPONSIBLY still and yet not lose any customers! I've run a BBS
before and making people wait a day or two to check them out first
does NOT any business for a sysop lose. However, let someone have
full access without any security checks first, and you run the risk of
getting some people online who can do the exact same thing as was done
to Steve Barnard, only on a GRANDER SCALE if they so had the gumption!
In my opinion, this ITSELF far outweighs the GOOD. MANY persons'
lives, not just one (this prankster luckily only wanted to ruin ONE
person's life) can be *ruined* by ONE bad apple's prank(s). This, to
me, is FAR more important than allowing YOU, ONE PERSON, the "right"
to go online right away -- and "RISK" you being a Good Apple. (Gets
more attention when you put it backwards, cause people sit there and
go "huh?" and try to make sense out of it. Sticks in the brain longer
then.)
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your thoughts on that because you're
asking the rest to risk being screwed by that one Bad Apple for the
sake of giving the many more immediate access. If ONE person's life
can be ruined like this, MANY people lives have the capability of
being ruined if that one Bad Apple is anxious enough. That just
doesn't make sense.
You sure you can't wait ONE DAY for your access to be security cleared
before you can get online on the Internet at AOL?
Todd
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #578
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 30 17:48:48 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id RAA27290; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 17:48:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 17:48:48 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610302248.RAA27290@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #579
TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Oct 96 17:48:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 579
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Woman Planned Internet Murder (Mike Pollock)
US State/Territory Rate, Dialing Procedure Update (Tom Trottier)
FCC Opinion on Voice Telephony (Babu Mengelepouti)
Pacific Bell/PCS/San Diego (Mike King)
The EXchange Name Webpage (Mark J. Cuccia)
Telcos and the Net (aleph1@dfw.dfw.net)
Problems With Long Distance Directory (Mark J. Cuccia)
MCI to Refund Collect Call Charges From Florida Prisons (Marcel White)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 14:54:40 -0800
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Organization: SJS Entertainment
Subject: Woman Planned Internet Murder
Woman Planned Internet Murder
By PAUL NOWELL Associated Press Writer
LENOIR, N.C. (AP) -- When Sharon R. Lopatka left her Maryland home,
she wrote a note telling her husband she was going to visit friends in
Georgia and would not be coming back. She also asked him not to seek
vengeance.
Lopatka, though, had planned all along on going to North Carolina,
where she expected to be sexually tortured and killed by a man she had
met over the Internet, police said Tuesday.
Apparently, she got her wish.
Her body was found in a shallow grave last week behind a mobile home
in Collettsville. The home's owner, Robert Glass, was charged with
first-degree murder and is being held without bond.
``If my body is never retrieved, don't worry, know that I'm at
peace,'' she wrote her husband. She also asked him not to go after her
attacker, police said.
An autopsy showed the cause of death was strangulation, but initial
tests were inconclusive on whether she was sexually tortured before
being killed.
Glass claimed it was an accident, District Attorney David Flaherty Jr.
said Tuesday.
Investigators said computer messages from Glass, recovered from
Lopatka's home computer, indicate that she traveled to North Carolina
knowing what awaited her.
Messages found among the 870 pages of e-mail on the woman's computer
also reveal that she had previously used the Internet to approach
someone else about killing her, said Sgt. Barry Leese of the Maryland
State Police.
That individual refused to comply with Lopatka's death request, Flaherty
said.
Lopatka, 35, of Hampstead, Md., had three Social Security numbers and
operated three World Wide Web pages out of her home. One offered to
write classified advertisements for $50 and promised such success that
customers would ``literally watch the orders pour in.''
The other two pages, advertising psychic hot lines, were titled
``Psychics Know All,'' and ``Dionne Enterprises.'' She got a
percentage of the revenue from all the 1-900 calls generated by the
pages, said the company's owner, Wendell Craig of Phoenix, Ariz.
Glass, 45, a father of three who separated from his wife earlier this
year, has worked as a computer programmer for the county government
for nearly 16 years. Neighbors said he seemed to change, taking less
interest in his home, after his wife left him.
Glass and Lopatka apparently met in a sexually oriented ``talk group''
or ``chat room'' on the Internet, Leese said, and according to e-mail on
her computer, she agreed to meet him in North Carolina on Oct. 13.
She left Baltimore by train that day and met Glass in Charlotte,
investigators said. Autopsy results indicate she was killed three days
later.
Her husband reported her missing Oct. 20. Police investigating her
disappearance said they discovered the e-mail messages from Glass
despite his attempt to have her erase the files.
Messages from ``slowhand'' -- Glass' apparent Internet nickname --
``described in detail how he was going to sexually torture ... and
ultimately kill her,'' according to the search warrant application
investigators used to search Glass' property.
``There's no way to know precisely what was in her head when she came
here,'' said Capt. Danny Barlow. ``The only thing we can see is the
e-mail messages and there they discussed in detail as to what they
expected to happen when she got here. ...
``Whether she expected it to happen or not, if you kill someone you
commit murder. You have intent communicated precisely,'' Barlow said.
Investigators spent Tuesday downloading Glass' computer files. Other
items seized from his home include drug paraphernalia and a .357-Magnum
pistol.
Glass' appointed lawyer, Neil Beach, called the search warrant affidavit
misleading. ``I don't believe he's guilty of what he's charged with,''
Beach said.
A friend of Lopatka also described her as happily married and sensible.
``Until someone proves it to me, I won't believe that this could be
her,'' said Diane Safar. ``She was conservative and careful. This is
such a mystery.''
------------------------------
From: tom@act.ca
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 96 16:02:07
Subject: US State/Territory Rate, Dialing Procedure Update
Some of the infomation in this Country Code Addenda memo was incorrect.
I've annotated the corrections with *** to show the updated information
I am aware of.
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:57:13 -0700
> From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
> Subject: Re: Numbering/Dialing/Billing (was Re: NANP Needs ...)
> Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> wrote:
>>> There is already a perfectly good dialing syntax which clearly
>>> distinguishes international calls as "different" -- the 011 prefix.
>> No. That syntax is for dialing calls to locations with a different
>> ITU-T "country code". While this is *usually* the same as dialing an
>> "international" call, it isn't always. Consider Guam and Americam
>> Samoa.
> Presently, Guam (+671) and CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
> Islands (+670) are dialed *and* billed from the NANP as 'international'
> calls, but will become incorporated into the NANP effective 1-July-1997.
> There will be a year of 'permissive' dialing where they will have 'dual'
> status from everywhere in the world, as their 'non-NANP' dialing (+670/671)
> and as (+1-670/671).
***The dialing procedure for these calls will change on 1 July 1997, and
the tariff rates will change 1 Aug 1997. See next *** item below.
> From within the NANP, they have been dialed as (and can continue to be done
> so until 30-June-98) as:
> (10-xxx/101-xxxx)+011+670/671+seven-digits (station sent-paid)
> (10-xxx/101-xxxx)+01+670/671+seven-digits (operator-assisted, card, etc.)
> From within the NANP, they will be able to be dialed as NANP calls
> beginning 1-July-97) as:
> (10-xxx/101-xxxx)+1-670/671+seven-digits (station sent-paid)
> (10-xxx/101-xxxx)+0+670/671+seven-digits (operator/card/person/etc.)
> Their country codes will become their NPA codes within the NANP (+1). At
> this point, there is nothing official on American Samoa (+684). I
> understand that (+1) NANP area code 684 has been reserved for them when/if
> they decide to officially join the NANP.
>
> 'international' calls. I was told by one of the representatives of one of
> the 'US Pacific' territory locations when the monthly INC meeting was held
> here in New Orleans in March that 'by the end of the year', all three US
> Pacific Territory locations will become billed to/from the US and amongst
> themselves as 'domestic' calls, using a rate schedule similar to calls
> between the continental US and Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, US Virign Is.,
> based on distances calculated on the originating and terminating V&H
> co-ordinates from the six-digits of the NPA-NXX codes. I was told that this
> was something in the recent Telecommunications Bill/Act/Law.
***The rate changes will take effect August 1 1997 not 'by the end of
this year'. Effective 1 August 1997 Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI - including Saipan, Rota, and Tinian),
and American Samoa as US territories will be required to meet the
"Rate Integration" provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Basically what the provision requires is for communication carriers to
provide service to its subscribers in each state at rates no higher
than the rates charged to subscribers in any other state. The word
"state" is defined in the Act to include territories. In plain
English what the Act says, as an example, is a call from NY to
California will cost the same as a call from California to NY. A call
from the NY to Guam will cost the same as a call from Guam to NY.
***Also the original message indicates American Samoa does not wish to
join the NANP at this time but per the Order, we must still charge
domestic rates for calls to and from the island effective 1 Aug 97.
> I don't check the FCC's webpages that often, so I haven't seen anything
> 'official' on changing the rates from 'international' to 'domestic'. If
> they do change, this would only affect calls to/from the US Pacific and the
> fifty states of the US (and maybe PR/USVI?). Calls between the US Pacific
> and Canada could probably still be 'international' rated calls.
***This is correct, only calls between the US and its territories will
be affected by the Order. Canada is an international location.
Tom Trottier
------------------------------
From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 96 12:57:14 -0400
Subject: FCC Opinion on Voice Telephony
Hey Pat,
Just got the November issue of Boardwatch Magazine, and it includes the
text of a speech given by FCC Chairman Reed Hundt on 18 Sep 1996 at the
Wall Street Journal Business and technology conference in Washington, DC.
The following quotes are of interest to those concerned about iphone-type
applications ...
"The second part of our competition trilogy is access reform. Back in
the early 1980s, the FCC developed a set of rules to govern the way
the incumbent local phone companies could charge for the use of their
networks by long-distance companies. These 'access charges' were part
of a monopoly system that was designed to keep residential local phone
rates low. We did manage to keep residential rates low, which we know
because 95% of homes subscribe. Everyone agrees, however, that the
access charges are much higher than they should be, and that these
extra charges mean higher long-distance rates.
When we set up access charges, we wisely decided that providers of
enhanced services, like data networks, should not be subject to these
charges. As a result, companies including Internet service providers
pay end user business line rates with no usage charges for receiving
calls from their subscribers. Of course, back then there was no mass
market and commercial Internet.
Now, with Internet usage skyrocketing, some people are saying that we
should subject Internet service providers to the access charges paid by
long-distance carriers.
I disagree. You don't pour new wine in old bottles, and if we applied
these old access rules to new technologies you'd have every reason to
whine. Instead let's just break the old bottle--in fact, the bottleneck
of exchange access.
For the same reason, we shouldn't try to subject Internet telephony to
all the rules that apply to conventional circuit-switched voice
carriers. Imposing traditional divisions, like voice vs. data or
interstate vs. intrastate traffic, on Internet-based services is
wrongheaded and futile. Internet telephony may well become, in time,
a competitive alternative to traditional circuit-switched voice
telephony, especially in areas like international calls and calls over
private corporate networks. We want to encourage that kind of
competition, not limit it. I hope the FCC bars any state from
limiting the growth of Internet telephony. We want states to regulate
less, not more.
But let's agree that as competition builds the big bandwidth networks
of the future, we are going to have to confront more candidly the
limitations of today's networks.
Carriers engineered and deployed their switches based on the
characteristics of voice traffic. Internet users, however, typcically
engage in far longer calls than voice users. Several local phone
companies and Bellcore found in traffic studies that the average voice
call lasted between 2 and 5 minutes, while the average Internet call
lasted between 17 and 21 minutes. The average end user circuit in a
central office was in use 5 to 7 minutes in the busiest hour, but the
average circuit connected to an Internet service provider was in use
between 31 and 47 minutes in the busiest hour, and some are in use
virtually nonstop.
The existing netwroks weren't built for this sort of use. And the
same switches that are being overwhelmed by Internet usage also
provide voice connections to other users. According to Bellcore's
models, if only 4% of the lines into a central office are in constant
use by Internet service providers, users, including non-Internet
users, will face a sixty-fold increase in the number of call that
don'tgo through.
The phone companies argue that the absence of usage charges means that
Internet users do not provide the revenue to cover the additional costs
they impose on the network.
How can we make sure that the economics of the telephone network do
not constrain the bandwidth demands of the Internet? The challenge
now is for the governmentally challenged Internet community to figure
out how to talk to the FCC on this subject and what to say. After
all, the FCC stands for Friendly to Computer Communications. After
all I'm the first FCC chairman ever to be on the Net--so let me
know -- mailto:rhundt@fcc.gov. What should our policies for bandwidth
growth look like?"
He goes on to say that the Internet is really neat, is going to grow,
etc. etc. but that is kind of beyond the scope of this discussion.
------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: Pacific Bell/PCS/San Diego
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:21:24 PST
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:33:06 -0800
From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com
Subject: Pacific Bell Mobile Services Brings High-Quality
Mobile Phone Service to San Diego
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
John Britton
(619) 237-2430
Pacific Bell Mobile Services Brings High-Quality Mobile Phone Service to
San Diego
PCS Network Features Technology for Landline Voice Quality; Company
Offers Simple Contract-Free Calling Plans
SAN DIEGO -- San Diego residents are joining the future of mobile
telecommunications.
The new technology is called Personal Communications System -- or PCS,
and its debut represents the most sophisticated innovation in mobile
technology since the introduction of cellular service in 1984.
Unlike existing cellular or digital cellular hybrids, Pacific Bell's PCS
is a 100 percent pure digital system. Being pure digital, PCS offers
superior sound quality, fewer dropped calls, greater affordability.
"PCS is what cellular should have been," said Lyndon R. Daniels,
president and chief executive officer, Pacific Bell Mobile Services. "It
solves the issues of quality, security and affordability that have kept
thousands of San Diegans and others from enjoying the benefits of
wireless communications."
World's First PCS Network to Offer Landline Voice Quality
The company's new PCS network and San Diego are also distinguished as
the first in the world to have landline voice quality on wireless.
Pacific Bell Mobile Services has invested in network equipment
containing the enhanced full-rate vocoder. The technology supplied by
Ericsson samples a caller's voice and converts it to digital signals for
transmission across the PCS network.
Pacific Bell's network has the enhanced full-rate vocoder, which samples
the voice more frequently at 13 kbps, making it capable of offering
wireless sound quality the equivalent of landline telephone service.
"We have brought San Diego the world's best wireless service. It will
become the envy of other American cities preparing for a wireless
future," Daniels said.
Three Simple Calling Plans, No Contracts
Choosing a PCS calling plan is as simple as "one, two or three. The
calling plans are:
* "Digital 10" -- for $19.95 a month. It includes 10 minutes of free
airtime anytime. Additional airtime is priced at 40 cents a minute
anytime.
* "Digital 30" -- for $24.95 a month. It includes 30 minutes of free
airtime anytime.
Additional airtime is priced at 35 cents a minute anytime.
* "Digital 120" -- for $59.95 a month. It includes 120 minutes of
free airtime anytime.
* Additional airtime is priced at 25 cents a minute anytime.
With each plan, the first minute of all incoming calls will be free.
Long distance calls cost 15 cents a minute plus airtime to anywhere in
the United States, any time of the day. No charge for receiving pages.
Standard rate plans apply when retrieving voice mail.
Each plan includes valuable features at no extra charge. These features
include Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, Call Hold and Conference Calling.
The phone's built-in answering feature and paging capabilities lets
callers leave voice messages and numeric pages. The phone notifies the
subscriber when a message is received.
Unlike its cellular competitors, Pacific Bell Mobile Services will not
force customers to sign long-term contracts.
"Our calling plans offer simplicity, value and unprecedented
flexibility," Daniels said. "there are no hidden charges, no fine print,
no off-peak and on-peak rates, and, best of all, no long-term
contracts."
Ericsson "Flip" Phone to Sell for $149
Pacific Bell Mobile Services will sell PCS as an off-the-shelf product
in more than 100 retail stores across San Diego County. Retailers
include Circuit City, Computer City, K-Mart, Longs Drugs, Office Depot,
Sears and Staples.
The retail package will include an Ericsson "Flip" phone that features a
protective cover that flips down to reveal the keypad. The Ericsson
"Flip" phone also offers access to airtime information. Customers can
check the length of a current call, the last call or total call time for
greater control over costs.
The phone, including a travel charger, battery and antenna, will sell at
a suggested retail price of $149.
Over-the-Air Service Activation
Through an innovation known as "over-the-air" activation, customers can
start their PCS service from home or office. Customers simply connect
their travel charger to the phone and plug it into an electrical outlet.
Next, they turn on the phone and dial "*1" and "YES" to be connected
with Pacific Bell Mobile Services customer care representatives. The
entire activation process takes approximately 10 minutes.
Pacific Bell Mobile Services will expand coverage area throughout
California and Nevada during 1997.
Pacific Bell Mobile Services is the wireless communications subsidiary
of Pacific Bell. Pacific Telesis Group, the parent company of Pacific
Bell and Pacific Bell Mobile Services, is a diversified
telecommunications company headquartered in San Francisco.
---------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:15:54 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: The EXchange Name Webpage
I've come across a relatively new webpage which is an attempt to
compile all of the US and Canadian dialable telephone "EXchange" names
over the years!
It can be reached at:
http://www.scruznet.com/~rcrowe/TENproject.html
and is maintained by Robert Crowe (rcrowe@scruznet.com).
A second page at this site is a compilation of "historical
contributions", which is samples of email he has received regarding
individual localities' exchange names/history:
http://www.scruznet.com/~rcrowe/Historical.html.
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: Aleph One <aleph1@dfw.dfw.net>
Subject: Telcos and the Net
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:15:20 -0600
Organization: DFW Internet Services, Inc.
Reply-To: Aleph One <aleph1@dfw.dfw.net>
You might find this interesting.
Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:29:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Aleph One <aleph1@dfw.dfw.net>
To: dc-stuff@dis.org
Subject: Telcos & the Net
To add another log to the fire. A few days ago there was some
discussion about how the telco infrastructure was being taxed more
than what it was designed for by the Net and they they would be able
to increase prices to ISPs.
Well today I got this nice letter on the mail from PacBell telling
me that if I use the Internet a lot I should get another phoneline so
I dont have to disconnect from the Net when someone calls or needs to
use the phone. To quote from it: "For just $11.25 a month, our flat
rate residencial line offers you unlimited local calling. With this
option, your local service is only 37 c a day." They are not even
pusing measured rate! Not only that but if you sign up for another
line you get five months of free _UNLIMITED_ access to the Internet
from Pacific Bell Internet Services.
As as you can see not only they are pushing people to connect to
the net, the are telling them they can stay connected as long as they
want for nothing. And they want to blame the ISPs? How was the one
feeling sorry for them?
Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:38:23 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Problems With Long Distance Directory
It has been reported recently that many long distance companies are
routing calls to interstate or inter-NPA long-distance directory
assistance (information) dialed as (NPA)-555-1212 to a 'centralized
boiler room', which may or may not have the most up-to-date
listings. Sometimes, these non-local-telco-provided directory
assistance centers have compiled their listings from sources which
might include numbers which are officially NON-published with the
actual local telco!
I recently called information in the San Francisco area, via my
primary carrier, AT&T. I didn't dial a 10-288/101-288, as it would
have been redundant, but simply dialed 1-415-KLondike-5-1212. I did
ask the information operator if she were Pac*Bell or AT&T. She said
that she was an AT&T employee, and not even in California. BTW, I
called from home, and I did first receive the prompt for "AT&T
Directory Link", which for 50-cents will automatically place the call
for you, press-1 to accept, press-2 to reject. Obviously, I 'just said
NO', by pressing-2. This was *before* the directory operator came on
the line. (I only wish that I could have this so-called 'feature'
turned off from my home telephone and from AT&T/Bell calling card
numbers I use).
Anyhow, she couldn't find the listing I was looking for. Last night, I
called up Information in the San Jose area, 1-408-KLondike-5-1212, and
again I received an AT&T employee (not physically located in
California) who did the lookup. I carefully spelled the name I was
looking for, and she herself quoted out the number, not a machine.
However, when I called up the number, I had someone who had a
different but similar spelling. It turns out that the party I did
reach had similar computer interests as I did, and we talked for about
a half-hour, so I couldn't call AT&T for credit on reaching the wrong
party. I probably couldn't honestly get credit for getting the wrong
number from Information.
I'd read in the Digest last year that MCI was using some 'third-party
boiler-rooms' for long-distance Information. But I tried reaching 408
Information via MCI, anyhow, by dialing 101-0222-1-408-KLondike-5-1212. I
received a 'different sounding' ring than I did when I called via AT&T.
This 'ringing' sound seemed more like what I've heard from 'genuine
Bell/LEC' directory operators before they answer a line. I received a live
human operator, not the automated prompt "directory-what-city;
what-listing". Right away, I asked her if she were Pacific Bell or 'some
other company'. She said that she was Pac*Bell. I explained to her what had
happened earlier and she couldn't exactly find the person I really *was*
looking for, however, she was more familiar with the local territory in
408, and looked up a few extra cities' listings. She did find the name I
was looking for, and the number was 'published'. When I called up the
number given, it turned out to be the party I was trying to reach.
Maybe I'll now place all of my Information calls to KLondike-5-1212 in
area codes outside of Louisiana but within the continental USA via
MCI! Via AT&T, calls to Directory in Canadian area codes are still
routed to the "Stentor" LEC's inward directory operators. Of course,
from the US, calls to 809-555-1212 still go to an AT&T Caribbean
'intercept' operator (most likely located in Florida) who connects to
the inward directory operator of the requested island. I've been told
that an AT&T 'intercept' operator is brough into the call, regardless
of who is the chosen primary chosen carrier (unless such carrier
'blocks' or doesn't recognize 809-555). With the new Caribbean NPA's
coming into effect, I understand that such calls to Directory *using
the new NPA codes* in many cases are now being *routed directly* to
the particular inward information operator in that Caribbean island.
Personally, I'd like to see the FCC *require* that all long-distance
companies route calls to 555-1212 to the genuine LEC's inward
directory. They have the proper listings (most up-to-date), and
*usually* those information operators are more familiar with the
localities and geography of the called area codes.
Why can't AT&T route directly to the called LEC, like they used to, and
like they continue to do for Canadian NPA's and for the newer Caribbean
NPA's?
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: Marcel White <marc.white@telops.gte.com>
Subject: MCI to Refund Collect Call Charges From Florida Prisons
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:12:21 -0800
Organization: GTEDS CSTI/CBSS BI&I
Tampa Tribune, Wednesday, October 30, 1996 Florida/Metro Section
In Tallahassee, the Florida Public Service Commission on Teusday voted
to require MCI Telecommunications Corp., to refund money to customers
who were overcharged for accepting collect calls from pay telephones
in prison facilities. The commissions vote covers prison calls from
Feb. 29 to July 10. The overcharges resulted from a $3 surcharge on
such calls that was greater than the rate established by the commission.
MCI said they needed a higher rate to pay for additional security
measures to protect witnesses from harassing calls from prisons. No
date has been set for establishing a refund process. MCI may appeal
the decision.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #579
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 30 19:47:26 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id TAA10904; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 19:47:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 19:47:26 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610310047.TAA10904@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #580
TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Oct 96 19:47:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 580
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
3rd COST 237 Workshop Preliminary Program (Joan Vila Sallent)
Telco's Political Contributions (Tad Cook)
UK to Canada Modem Problems (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Job Opportunity: ATM/Communication Networks (B. Ravichandran)
Internet via Cable (Ken Levitt)
Phone Access/Internet Saturation? (Gary Valmain)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joanv@ac.upc.es (Joan Vila Sallent)
Subject: 3rd COST 237 Workshop Preliminary Program
Date: 30 Oct 1996 08:02:04 GMT
Organization: UPC, Departament d'Arquitectura de Computadors
Third COST 237 Workshop
MULTIMEDIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS
Barcelona, November 25-27, 1996
A workshop organized with the collaboration of:
CEC COST 237 Action on Multimedia Telecommunications Services
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Telefonica de Espana
Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca (Generalitat de Catalunya)
P R E L I M I N A R Y P R O G R A M
Issues related to the provision of advanced multimedia services are
increasingly of interest to the research community. In parallel, the
need for a rapid definition of standards for new technologies in this
area is encouraging the creation of consortia where manufacturers,
telecommunication operators and researchers can exchange ideas and
experiences to allow new products and services to be rapidly
developed.
The 1996 COST 237 workshop will be the third of a series of symposia
focused on the integration of advanced networking services and
multimedia applications. The previous workshops in Vienna (1994) and
Copenhagen (1995) hosted sessions on topics including teleservices
support, Quality of Service semantics, multipeer communication, and
broadband communication transport issues. Protocols and mechanisms
for cooperative multimedia applications are currently a prime focus
for many standardization and institutional bodies. Among these are the
ATM Forum, the IETF, DAVIC, TINA, ITU, and ISO. A major goal of this
third workshop is to present the latest research developments that may
be of interest to these various bodies and to encourage an exchange of
experiences.
COST 237 is concerned with the broad range of multimedia applications
imposing various characteristics on multimedia communication services
(interactive services involving stored media, real-time communication,
asynchronous and synchronous communication, etc. ). The project
participants consider that progress in all these areas requires the
development of an architectural model of multimedia teleservices based
on generic building blocks. In addition, to support large scale
distributed multimedia applications with acceptable Quality of Service,
the transport service must be extended to support multicast/multipeer
connectivity and to integrate high-speed communication support -
specially ATM.
Thus, the theme of the 1996 workshop will focus on teleservices and
communications support for distributed multimedia applications. In
this third workshop, particular emphasis will be placed on
architectural and implementation aspects of these key services and
support areas.
The proceedings of the workshop will be published by Springer in the
"Lecture Notes in Computer Science" series (LNCS 1185).
In collaboration with the ACTS project NICE, the sessions of the
workshop will be distributed to several sites in Western and Eastern
Europe. Some of them will allow for interactive participation.
This is not the final program. Updated versions of the workshop
program will be made available in the workshop web site at the
address:
http://www-fib.upc.es/~cost237/
The Workshop Secretary may be contacted at:
Mrs Raffaella Calabretta,
Third COST 237 Workshop Secretariat,
Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica,
Universita' di Napoli Federico II,
Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy
Phone: +39 81 7683647
Fax: +39 81 7683186
E-mail: cost237-conf@ds.unina.it
For local information please contact:
Third COST 237 Workshop
U. Politecnica de Catalunya,
Departament d'Arquitectura de Computadors
Campus Nord. Modul D6. Gran Capita sn.
08071 BARCELONA, Spain
Fax + 34 3 401 7113
mail: cost237-MMTELSA96@fib.upc.es
http://www-fib.upc.es/~cost237/
T E C H N I C A L P R O G R A M
MONDAY 25
9:00 - 9:30 Registration
9:30 - 13:00 Invited Presentation (to be confirmed)
13:00 - 14:00 Lunch
14:30 - 19:00 Invited Presentation (to be confirmed)
TUESDAY 26
8:30 - 9:00 Registration
9:00 - 9:30 Opening Session
9:30 - 11:00
Session A: Multipeer and Group Communication
Chair: Serge Fdida, Laboratoire MASI, France.
A Group and Session Management System for Distributed
Multimedia Applications.
E. Wilde, P. Freiburghaus, D. Koller, B. Plattner,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland.
Low-cost ATM Multicast Routing with Constrained Delays.
A. G. Waters, J. S. Crawford,
University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Adding Scalability to Transport Level Multicast.
M. Hofmann, University of Karlsruhe, Germany.
11:00 - 11:30 Coffee Break
11:30 - 13:00 Invited Speakers (to be confirmed)
13:00 - 14:00 Lunch
14:00 - 15:30
Session B: Quality of Service
Chair: Andre Danthine, University of Liege, Belgium.
On Realizing a Broadband Kernel for Multimedia Networks.
M. C. Chan, J.-F. Huard, A. Lazar, K.-S. Lim,
Columbia University, USA.
Specifying QoS for Multimedia Communications within Distributed
Programming Environments.
G. G. Waddington, G. Coulson, D. Hutchison,
Lancaster University, UK.
Generic Conversion of Communication Media for Supporting
Personal Mobility.
T. Pfeifer, R. Popescu-Zeletin,
Technical University of Berlin, Germany.
15:30 - 16:00 Coffee Break
16:00 - 17:30
Session C: Applications and Teleservices
Chair: Geoff Coulson, Lancaster University, UK.
A Framework for the Deployment of New Services Using Hypermedia
Distributed Systems.
A. Almeida, INESC, Portugal.
ISABEL: A CSCW Application for the Distribution of Events.
J. Quemada, T. de Miguel, A. Azcorra, S. Pavon, J. Salvachua,
M. Petit, D. Larrabeiti, T. Robles, G. Huecas,
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain.
The Bookshop Project: An Austrian Interactive Multimedia
Application Case Study.
H. Leopold, R. Hirn, Alcatel Austria AG, Austria.
20:30 Banquet
WEDNESDAY 27
9:00 - 10:30
Session D: Multimedia Protocols and Platforms
Chair: Helmut Leopold, Alcatel Austria AG, Austria.
Issues in the Design of a New Network Protocol.
M. Degermark, Lulea University,
S. Pink, Lulea University and Swedish Institute of Computer
Science,
Sweden.
Source and Channel Coding for Mobile Multimedia Communications.
A. H. Sadka, F. Eryirtlu, A. M. Kondoz,
University of Surrey, UK.
Developing a Conference Application on Top of an Advanced
Signalling Infrastructure.
R. J. Huis in't Veld, Philips Multimedia Bussines Networks,
A.-N. Ladhani, B. van der Waaij, I. A. Widya,
University of Twente,
F. Moelaert El-Hadidy, J. P. C. Verhoosel,
Telematics Research Centre,
The Netherlands.
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee Break
11:00 - 12:30
Session E: Performance Studies
Chair: Christophe Diot, INRIA, France.
New Network and ATM Adaptation Layers for Real-Time Multimedia
Applications: A Performance Study Based on Psychophysics.
X. Garcia Adanez, O. Verscheure, J.-P. Hubaux,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland.
Multimedia Applications on a Unix SVR4 Kernel: Performance
Study.
D. Bourges Waldegg, N. Lagha, J.-P. Le Narzul,
Telecom Bretagne, France.
Perceptual Video Quality and Activity Metrics: Optimization of
Video Services Based on MPEG-2 Encoding.
O. Verscheure, J.-P. Hubaux,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland.
12:30 - 13:00 Closing Session
13:00 - 14:00 Lunch
STEERING COMMITTEE
Andre Danthine U. of Liege, Belgium (Chair)
Theodoros Bozios Intracom, Greece
Christophe Diot INRIA, France
Jordi Domingo-Pascual U. Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Wolfgang Effelsberg U. of Mannheim, Germany
Serge Fdida MASI, France
Domenico Ferrari U. Cattolica at Piacenza, Italy
Jose Guimaraes ADETTI, Portugal
David Hutchison Lancaster University, UK
Villy Iversen Technical U. of Denmark, DK
Borka Jerman-Blazic Institute Jozef Stefan, Slovenia
Helmut Leopold Alcatel, Austria
Vassili Loumos NTUA, Greece
Radu Popescu-Zeletin GMD-Fokus, Germany
Sandor Stefler PKI, Hungary
Giorgio Ventre U. of Napoli, Italy
PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Giorgio Ventre U. of Napoli Federico II, Italy (Chair)
Patrick Baker HP Labs, UK
Torsten Braun IBM ENC, Germany
Augusto Casaca INESC, Portugal
Geoff Coulson Lancaster U., UK
Jon Crowcroft UCL, UK
Andre Danthine U. of Liege, Belgium
Michel Diaz LAAS/CNRS, France
Christophe Diot INRIA, France
Wolfgang Effelsberg U. of Mannheim, Germany
Serge Fdida MASI, France
Domenico Ferrari U. Cattolica at Piacenza, Italy
David Hutchison Lancaster U., UK
Villy B. Iversen Technical University, Denmark
Marjory Johnson RIACS, USA
Helmut Leopold Alcatel, Austria
Benoit Macq U. Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Jordi Domingo-Pascual U. Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Ramon Puigjaner U. de les Illes Balears, Spain
Radu Popescu-Zeletin GMD-Fokus, Germany
Aruna Seneviratne UTS, Australia
Otto Spaniol T.U. Aachen, Germany
Jean-Bernard Stefani CNET, Paris, France
Ralf Steinmetz Technical U. of Darmstadt, Germany
Harmen van As Vienna Institute of Technology, Austria
Martina Zitterbart T.U. Braunschweig, Germany
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Jordi Domingo-Pascual U. Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Josep Sole-Pareta U. Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Xavier Martinez-Alvarez U. Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Joan Vila-Sallent U. Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Ciaran O'Colmain Norcontel, Ireland
Third COST 237 Workshop
Multimedia Telecommunications and Applications
Barcelona, November 25-27, 1996
REGISTRATION FORM
Please type or print in Capitals.
Last name (surname) Title
First name (forename) Initials
Company/Organisation
Department Address
City State
Zip/Postal Code Country
Telephone number
Fax number
E-mail address
Registration fees:
Registration fee applies for the participation in the Workshop, and
includes access to all sessions, proceedings book edited by Springer,
lunch for the three days, refreshment during breaks, and invitation to
the banquet. The registration fee includes VAT.
Reduced fees* Normal fees
- Early Registration: 45000 ptas. 50000 ptas.
(before November 15th, 1996)
- Standard Registration: 52000 ptas. 58000 ptas.
(after November 15th, 1996)
- Extra banquet ticket: 5000 ptas.
(*) Reduced fee: Authors of papers, Program and Steering Committee
Members, and reviewers. Grants for UPC students and University
undergraduate students are available in a "first come first served"
basis. Identification as a University student is required when
registering. Reservations may be made by electronic mail.
Payment:
Please, write down the total amount to be paid:
.................................ptas.
Select the payment method you prefer. If credit card, fill in the
required information in capital letters.
* Bank transfer. Please send by fax the copy of the bank order form.
Name: UPC-CTT Multimedia Telecommunications and Applications
Bank name: LA CAIXA
Address: Alfambra 10, 08034 Barcelona
Account number: 2100 0655 71 0200213466
* Credit Card. O VISA O MASTERCARD O AMERICAN EXPRESS
Cardholder's name:
Card number: Expiration date:
Signature:
Send this form preferably by fax to:
Mrs. Montse Bernat
Universitat Polit`ecnica de Catalunya. Facultat d'Inform`atica.
Campus Nord. M`odul B6. E 08034 Barcelona (Catalunya). Spain.
Fax number: + 34 3 401 7113
Electronic mail: cost237-MMTELSA96@fib.upc.es
Further information may be found at: http://www-fib.upc.es/~cost237/
Third COST 237 Workshop
MULTIMEDIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS
Barcelona, November 25th-27th, 1996
HOTEL RESERVATION FORM
Name and Surname _____________________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________
Z. C. _________ City _____________________ Country____________________
Institution __________________________________________________________
Phone ________________________ Fax ___________________________________
OFFICIAL HOTELS
(Price per room and night. Bed and breakfast and VAT included)
Double room Single use room
O Arenas 4* (1) 13,050 Pts 11,556 Pts
O Cristal 4* (2) 12,100 Pts 8,935 Pts
O Pedralbes 3* (1) 10,165 Pts 8,345 Pts
O Cristal 3* (2) 12,095 Pts 9,845 Pts
(1) Near the workshop location
(2) In Barcelona city center
Please reserve _____ Rooms O Double/s O Single/s
Arrival date ___________________ Departure date _____________________
Please note that we cannot guarantee reservations made after
November 15th, 1996
HOTEL RESERVATION DEPOSIT
In order to confirm the hotel reservation, the payment of the
following deposit is necessary:
4* Hotel: 15,000 Pts 3* Hotel: 10,000 Pts.
METHODS OF PAYMENT
O By bank draft in Pesetas payable to: ULTRAMAR EXPRESS, against a
Spanish bank
O By bank transfer to BANCO DE SANTANDER (c/o ULTRAMAR EXPRESS),
Rambles 74-76, 08002 Barcelona.
Account number 0085-0202-5-0000011210.
Transfer fees must be paid by you. Please attach copy of transfer
to this form.
O By credit card (Visa only)
Visa credit card number ____________________ Expiry date ___________
SENDING THE HOTEL RESERVATION FORM
Please send this form, together with the draft or copy of your bank
transfer (if applicable) to:
ULTRAMAR EXPRESS - Congress Organizers
Diputacio, 238, 3rd floor - E-08007 Barcelona.
Ph: +34 3 4827140/50 - Fax: +34 3 4817158
Date: ______________________ Signature ______________________________
(Authorized signature of cardholder)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Vila Sallent
Department of Computer Architecture. Phone: +34 3 4017187
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya. Fax: +34 3 4017055
Campus Nord, Modul D6 (116) E-mail: joanv@ac.upc.es
08071 Barcelona, Catalonia (Europe). WWW: http://www.ac.upc.es/~joanv/
------------------------------
Subject: Telco's Political Contributions
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 15:10:02 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Economy: Telecom Companies' Political Donations Surge Via AP
By BRYAN GRULY
The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON (Wall Street Journal) -- Telecommunications companies are
contributing a lot more than a dime a minute to political parties and
candidates in this election cycle.
With three months of donations still uncounted, contributions by
telephone, cable, broadcast, entertainment and media companies have
reached $24 million, up 33 percent from the 1992 election, according
to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group in
Washington that tracks political contributions.
The new generosity shows up most obviously in "soft money"
contributions to political parties. AT&T Corp.'s donations have soared
more than tenfold to $831,500. Walt Disney Co.'s have quadrupled to
$718,200, and MCI Communications Corp.'s more than tripled to
$767,100. BellSouth Corp., which gave a paltry $12,131 in soft money
in the 1992 elections, has forked over $311,000 this time.
For the industry as a whole, the giving of soft money -- funds
contributed to political parties rather than to individual candidates
-- has doubled to $14.5 million. Telephone companies, worried about
new laws affecting their business, are chiefly responsible.
So far, Republicans have collected 55 percent of total
telecommunications-industry donations, though that is less than the 63
percent they claim from business overall. This reflects payback time
both for the Republican Congress, which passed a law to deregulate the
industry, and for the Clinton administration, which is writing rules
to implement the law.
"The members, the leadership and others involved would be expected to
concentrate a lot of their interest in the affected companies because
we had such proximity to them," says Gerald Lowrie, chief Washington
lobbyist for AT&T. "You can't be ignorant (of the fact) they're
running for re-election."
Especially when lawmakers themselves do the tapping. A lobbyist for a
regional Bell telephone company says his company's boss recently was
called by a congressman who said, "To whom much is given, much is
expected, and you are expected to give $250,000." The company
reluctantly coughed up $50,000.
"The activity is extraordinary," says Nicholas Allard, a lobbyist with
the Washington law firm of Latham & Watkins. One recent day he
received 18 messages from people asking him to fund-raisers. "If you
do make a contribution, it just encourages them to ask for more," he
says.
Demands for money have intensified in recent weeks. For example,
Democrats stepped up appeals on behalf of the Presidential Unity Fund,
a catch-all for contributions to the Democratic National Committee and
other fund-raising efforts. The tone was set early last year when
House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia convened a private meeting of
GOP lawmakers and top communications executives to discuss industry
deregulation. As the congressional debate escalated, a bill that had
focused on opening phone and cable-television businesses to
competition expanded to include provisions affecting broadcasters,
electric utilities and others.
"There was incentive to make (the bill) as big as possible so you
could collect as much money as possible," contends Brian Moir, a
former congressional staffer who now lobbies for large corporate users
of telephone service.
The biggest fights -- and biggest donations -- centered on the
telephone business. The Baby Bells gave heavily to Republicans who
backed provisions allowing them into the $70 billion long-distance
telephone market. Of the Bells' $2.2 million in soft money, 66 percent
has gone to the GOP.
Long-distance behemoths AT&T, MCI and Sprint Corp. favored Democrats
who made sure the Justice Department would help decide when the Bells
can provide long-distance service, a business the regional companies
had been barred from entering since the 1984 breakup of the Bell
System. The three also have fared better than the regional companies
in rules written by the Federal Communications Commission chaired by
Democrat Reed Hundt, a close friend of Vice President Al Gore. They
have given about 54 percent of their $1.8 million of soft money to
Democrats.
As usual, Hollywood has showered Democrats with money. An August
fund-raiser with performances by Barbra Streisand and the Eagles and
appearances by actors Sharon Stone and Tom Hanks raked in $4 million.
Right behind Disney among entertainment givers is DreamWorks SKG, the
film and television production company run by director Steven
Spielberg, entertainment mogul David Geffen and ex-Disney executive
Jeffrey Katzenberg. Messrs. Spielberg and Geffen have given $200,000
each and Mr. Katzenberg $100,000 to Democratic committees. Meanwhile,
DreamWorks officials have been lobbying the FCC for favorable
treatment in a decision about digital-TV standards.
------------------------------
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Subject: UK to Canada Modem Problems
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:49:14 +0000
Organization: Vaxination Informatique
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca
For the past 2.5 weeks, a user in Coventry England has been unable to
negotiate proper connections with a modem here in Montreal (Canada).
The Calling modem is a UK built USR Sporster 14.4
The called modem is a USA built Multitech ZDX2834 (28.8)
The actual call is established, but the 2 modems negotiate only 14.4
raw connections without any error correction or compression (making
call worthless and full of junk data).
This has worked without problesm for about 8 months prior to this
beginning.
I was able to measure a round trip delay of 135ms (data given by my
modem).
I would appreciate any hints from people who have had similar
problems, especially if they have been telephone system related. (I
have been in touch with my modem manufacturer, but so far, no
success).
------------------------------
From: B. Ravichandran <ravi@ssci.com>
Subject: Job Opportunity: ATM/Communication Networks
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:34:38 -0500
Organization: Scientific Systems Company Inc.
SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS is a small growing Boston area company active in
applied research and development of emerging technologies in the areas
of advanced guidance controls systems, system identification, image
and signal processing, pattern recognition, and communication
networks. SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS has many customers in government,
industrial and commercial sectors, and collaborates with recognized
academic/research institutions and large businesses to develop and
apply new solution methods. SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS has a strong emphasis
on becoming product oriented and has a focus on specific vertical
markets in the areas of ATM and telecommunications, vibration
analysis, and radar signal processing.
Please direct all correspondence, questions, etc. to
Ms. Patricia Kelly, Human Resources Coordinator
Scientific Systems Company
500 West Cummings Park, Suite 3000
Woburn, MA 01801
Tel: (617) 933-5355
Fax: (617) 938-4752
Email: info@ssci.com
Level: PhD in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science
Duties: Applied Research, Development and Implementation of
Communication Network Applications.
The successful applicant will contribute to one or more projects
in the area of Communication Networks (Network Management,
Call Admission Control, Routing, Traffic Shaping, Scheduling,
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)).
Req'd Experience: * Communications, Networks, Controls, Learning
* Statistical Modeling and Inference
* ATM
Desirable: * Working knowledge of any of the following topics:
Modern Control Theory, Artificial Intelligence,
Reinforcement Learning, Neural Networks
* Strong algorithm and software development skills (Matlab,
C, C++, etc.)
* Experience with Opnet
* Excellent written and oral communication skills ( technical
proposals for contracts, progress reports, and
presentations.)
* Interest in finding business opportunities and
developing commercial products.
Job Code: SSC-9625
B. Ravichandran PhD
Scientific Systems Company, Inc. ravi@ssci.com
500 West Cummings Park, Suite 3000 t:617.933.5355
Woburn, MA 01801 f:617.938.4752
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 96 12:59:31 EST
From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Internet via Cable
Continental Cablevision is now offering two way high speed Internet
access in the Massachusetts towns of Watertown, Wayland, and Weston.
They are using fiber optic links to each neighborhood with standard
coax running to individual homes.
They claim "data travels more than 100 times faster than through
a standard modem connection".
Their service is called Highway1 with costs as follows:
Unlimited access:
Existing cable customers: $49.95/mo
Non-cable customers: $59.95/mo
Installation: $99.00
User must have a 10 Base-T network card in their computer which may
be purchased from Continental or provided by the subscriber.
I tried to get more information from the web address they sent me,
(www.highway1.com) but it was non-functional. This does not bode well
for Continental's ability to provide quality service.
Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org
------------------------------
From: gary valmain <dessoft@main.com>
Subject: Phone Access/Internet Saturation?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:10:50 -0500
Organization: designed software, inc
I happened to see the CEO of Sun Microsystems (don't remember his
name) on the Charlie Rose talk show on PBS last night. During the few
minutes I caught at the end, he (the CEO) made the statement that 2/3
of the world's population LIVE AND DIE WITHOUT EVER MAKING OR
RECEIVING _ONE_ TELEPHONE CALL ... 2/3!
Will there ever be world-wide readily available telephone access?
Another tidbit ...
From some source I don't remember, there are about 70 million people
with internet access. With the world population being something just
under 5 billion, that means that between 1 and 1.5 percent (don't
check the math too close) of the total population in wired. And, most
of that is in the U.S.
Given the current population growth rate and the current expansion rate
of the internet, when will the total population be wired?
Any ideas on the computer/population ratio and saturation date?
So much to do. So little time ...
gary valmain
designed software, inc_
voice_____713.367.8765_
fax_______713.367.4316_
dessoft@main.com_______
72203,2372@compuserve.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is interesting you mention
this. Most Digest readers know my principle patron is ITU -- the
International Telecommunication Union -- a technical agency of the
United Nations. Not long ago I got some detailed notes prepared by
someone there on this very topic and a few other things having to do
with their Telecom Interactive '97. There are some huge disparities in
the world. For that matter, there are some huge disparities in the USA
between the wired and the unwired portions of the population. But the
most striking contrasts are seen between the USA and many 'third-world'
countries who still have extremely antiquated phone networks, to say
nothing of any Internet connectivity.
Indeed, there is so much to be done. There are many times I feel very
oppressed by how little I am able to do. And I don't care, people;
if you don't feel I am that qualified as a steward of your money and
resources then find someone you think is better qualified, but for
goodness sakes take up the challenge which confronts us as we end
one millenium and begin the next. Begin to dedicate yourselves to the
concept of network access for everyone. That means the kid who lives
next door and the kids who live halfway around the world. Some of the
biggies in our net community are already heavily involved but that is
no excuse for you to not be involved. Do something to make the net a
better place today. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #580
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 31 12:37:09 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id MAA20723; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:37:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:37:09 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610311737.MAA20723@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #581
TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Oct 96 12:37:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 581
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "Java Programming Basics" by Au/Makower (Rob Slade)
Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Tad Cook)
AT&T Arbitration Agreement (Monty Solomon)
FCC Appeals To Supreme Court On Telecom Freeze (Monty Solomon)
Tele-Go, How Does it Work? (mreiney@hevanet.com)
Exploiting Object Technology for Telecom Applications (Paul A. Panepinto)
TAPI Support for TDK DataVoice 3400 PCMCIA Modem? (Chris Sells)
Voice Modems and Echo Cancellation (Chris Rosebrugh)
SAT MX400M 2-34 Muldex - Need Assistance (jojones@aol.com)
New Executive Takes Over Fridays Free at Sprint (Dave J. Stott)
Re: *70-PAUSE Update; Question For Northern Telecom (Iain Bennett
Re: *70-PAUSE Update; Question For Northern Telecom (William Gray)
Re: Maximum Theoretical Bandwidth of Voice Line? (Giles D. Malet)
Re: Pacific Bell/Universal Service Fund (Michael Wengler)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:39:47 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Java Programming Basics" by Au/Makower
BKJVPRBS.RVW 960718
"Java Programming Basics", Edith Au/Dave Makower, 1996, 1-55828-469-9,
U$34.95/C$48.95
%A Edith Au
%A Dave Makower
%C 115 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011-4195
%D 1996
%G 1-55828-469-9
%I MIS Press
%O U$34.95/C$48.95 +1-212-886-9378 fax: +1-212-633-0748, +1-212-807-6654
%O 76712.2644@compuserve.com http://www.mispress.com fburke@fsb.superlink.net
%P 458
%T "Java Programming Basics"
This is the Java book for the field dependent. This is, in fact, the
Java book for those who do *not* want to do Java programming.
Yes, that might sound a little odd, especially in regard to a book
that comes with the JDK (Java Developer's Kit) on CD-ROM. However,
the primary emphasis in this text is on explanation of the concepts.
"Down and dirty" programmers may be frustrated at the lack of real
world examples. Even such sample code as there is seems to be a type
of pseudocode, with comments where many of the functions or modules
belong.
For those who want to understand Java, however, the exegesis is
excellent. There is no requirement for a background in C or C++, or,
indeed, in programming at all. The chapter on object-orientation is
trite to start with, but does provide valuable insights. The coverage
is thorough and the assessments (as, for example, of Java's security
features) realistic.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKJVPRBS.RVW 960718. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
Laughter is the joy of learning, squared.
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
Subject: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 23:32:58 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
04:52 PM ET 10/29/96
Internet threatens gridlock for U.S. phone system
NEW YORK (Reuter) - Soaring Internet usage is bringing the United
States phone system perilously close to gridlock by tying up millions
of local phone lines every evening, say industry experts and analysts.
"It is like gridlock on a highway: If you are close to capacity,
traffic still moves slowly, but just add a few more vehicles and you
get gridlock," said Amir Atai, director of network and traffic
performance at BellCore.
With Internet use rising at 42 percent a year, according to industry
studies, phone capacity simply cannot keep pace.
"This type of (Internet) usage on our network is growing at 10 percent
a month and we are watching it closely," said NYNEX Corp. spokeswoman
Susan Butta.
For phone networks, gridlock means fewer calls going through on the
first try, more busy signals and even blocked calls, where perplexed
callers hear nothing at all after dialing.
The bottleneck is essentially confined to local networks, and does not
affect long distance carriers, experts say.
Industry studies suggest that if U.S. Internet penetration reaches 15
percent, it would force a $22 billion network investment by the
regional Bells to support it. California currently has the highest
penetration at eight percent.
"We think action is required within two years," when the 15 percent
figure is expected to be reached, said Atai.
Short-cut solutions exist, such as using filters to sort Internet
calls from others based on their destination number.
If that idea catches on, it could open a huge market for firms like
Lucent Technologies Incand Northern Telecom Ltd., which make the
filters.
But regional Bells, indignant that Internet service providers do not
have to pay access charges to reach Bell customers as long distance
companies do, are reluctant to pay to sort out the problem.
"Bell switch ports are being tied up and they're not even being
compensated for it," said David Goodtree, an industry analyst with
consultancy Forrester Research.
The problem has swept like a tide from California, where Pacific
Telesis Group (PacTel) already has major problems, to major cities and
even some suburban areas.
"We found the problem is very severe in California and east coast
metropolitan areas. It is beginning to appear in some other areas,"
Atai told Reuters.
The congestion could be a boon to cable TV operators in the fight for
internet market share, analysts say. Cable modems running on upgraded
coaxial cable -- designed for the high data rate of video pictures --
are expected to avoid congestion problems and should be available in
volume late next year, analysts say.
The problem is fundamental to the nature of phone systems.
"The local network was designed for short calls which you make and
then hang up, but Internet calls often occupy a line for hours," said
Goodtree. Those lines may not even be carrying much data, but are lost
to the system in that time.
PacTel studied some of its telephone switches in detail and found that
an average Internet surf was 20.8 minutes long, compared with 3.8
minutes for an average phone call. Ten percent of Internet calls were
six hours or longer.
To make matters worse, the peak hour for phone systems has now
switched to 10 p.m. because of evening Internet use, throwing out the
logistics of networks designed around pre- and post-lunch weekday
calling peaks.
PacTel said a study of one Silicon Valley telephone switch showed 16
percent of call attempts failed during peak evening hours because of
Internet traffic, and 2.5 percent of lines used by Internet service
companies absorbed 20 to 36 percent of the switch's capacity.
Ultimately, analysts say Internet traffic will migrate to packet data
networks, the most efficient way of routing it.
Packet networks act like traffic policemen, routing data on the next
free highway away from jams, even if it means splitting up a convoy -
- the words of a phone conversation for example -- travelling to the
same destination.
"There are real compelling economies behind it," said Jim Diestel, a
director of advanced services at Pactel.
The advent of high speed protocols like Asymmetric Digital Subscriber
Link, T1 phone lines and fast modems like those planned by U.S.
Robotics will all tend to move Internet traffic away from the switched
phone system.
While this is good news in the long-term, it discourages Bells from
pursuing expensive fixes now, because they would become obsolete in
just a few years.
"You need a number of years to make investments like new circuits pay.
Unfortunately we don't have a number of years," said Diestel.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:41:49 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: AT&T Arbitration Agreement
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Excerpt from Full Closing Bell @ 10/30/96
* Late Tuesday, AT&T said an arbitration panel of the Michigan
Public Service Commission has approved a preliminary arbitration
agreement outlining prices and terms under which AT&T will
provide local phone service by connecting with AMERITECH CORP's
network in Michigan. AT&T asked the commission on August 1 to
arbitrate the unresolved issues in AT&T's negotiations with
Ameritech. A final arbitration decision is expected by the end of
November. (Reuters 07:35 PM ET 10/29/96)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:05:27 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: FCC Appeals To Supreme Court On Telecom Freeze
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Excerpt from Edupage, 27 October 1996
FCC APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT ON TELECOM FREEZE
The Federal Communications Commission has asked the Supreme Court to
lift a freeze imposed last week on the agency's local phone
competition rules, saying it "draws into question not just the timing
of competition in the local market, but also the timing of full entry
by the (regional Baby Bell phone companies) into the long-distance
telephone market." State regulators, who oppose FCC's handling of the
new telecommunications rules, have said that by taking the matter to
the Supreme Court, the FCC itself is delaying competition. State
regulators and local phone companies have argued that the new rules
usurp states' authority and are unfair to local phone companies.
(Investor's Business Daily 25 Oct 96 A30)
------------------------------
From: mreiney@hevanet.com
Subject: Tele-Go, How Does it Work?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 02:09:46 -0800
Organization: Hevanet Communications
I picked up a GTE Tele-Go phone at a garage sale. I got the base unit
at another swap meet. I don't need the cellphone, but would like a
900MHz. cordless phone. The cellphone part seems to be working. I
can get RF out of the base unit when I push the red button, but can't
make the system work together. Can the local cordless phone function
work without enabling the cellphone service? I'm guessing that the
base and cellphone must be programmed as a set. Is there any way to
reprogram the Eprom in the base unit without paying thru the nose?
Thanks,
miker
------------------------------
From: ppinto@ix.netcom.com (Paul Angelo Panepinto)
Subject: Exploiting Object Technology for Telecom Applications
Date: 31 Oct 1996 16:46:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Throughout the month of November, Versant Object Technology, Hewlett
Packard and ILOG will be hosting a technical seminar on the use of
object technology for competitive advantage in the converging
industries.
This exciting event will cover the most demanding telecom applications
represented by service activation, service assurance, customer care
and billing. Find out how leading equipment and service providers are
beating their competition by creating flexible and adaptable solutions
once and reusing them across service, feature and transmission lines.
Please contact Paul Pinto at paulp@versant.com or 970-593-9871 for more
details.
Best regards,
Paul Pinto
Versant Object Technology
------------------------------
From: csells@teleport.com (Chris Sells)
Subject: TAPI Support for TDK DataVoice 3400 PCMCIA Modem?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 96 18:24:39 GMT
Organization: Sells Brothers
Does anyone if the TDK DataVoice 3400 supports TAPI? I know it does
VoiceView, but does it come w/ a TSP? Does Unimodem/V have an .inf for
this card?
Thanks,
Chris Sells
------------------------------
From: Chris Rosebrugh <chris@pobox.com>
Subject: Voice Modems and Echo Cancellation
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:47:35 -0800
Organization: Actus Corporation
Reply-To: chris@pobox.com
I'm struggling with some technical thoughts, hoping to pick your
brains in my search for clarity ...
Hypothetically, if I had a voice mail system that is voice driven
instead of button/tone driven, will there be a problem with echo?
Here's the deal. Currently voice-capable modems operate in half
duplex mode -- they're either in voice receive (#VRX) or voice
transmit (#VTX) mode when voice is active (#CLS=8). If they
were able to operate in full duplex, then I could write voice mail
software that could use voice recognition to drive the system.
My concern is that when the user speaks into the phone, the message
currently being played will be echoed back into the system due to
the way phones are wired. Will this really happen? If so, won't the
modem need echo cancellation inorder for the sw to get a clean voice
print for recognition? Am I missing something here?
Thanks for any hints.
------------------------------
From: jojones@aol.com (Jojones)
Subject: SAT MX400M 2-34 Muldex - Need Assistance
Date: 30 Oct 1996 14:44:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: jojones@aol.com (Jojones)
Need an assist, please:
I am attempting to find a replacement multiplexer/demultiplexer card
or be able to repair this existing card identified as the "2-34
Muldex" card from the SAT MX400M family. Unfortunately I am not
familiar with this particular brand/manufacturer/vendor multiplexer,
or where to order a replacement/repair (the existing card is
'tote' ... as in dead, for those unfamiliar with German). My
impression/perception is the system is of european manufacture (??).
Other identification items on the 2-34 Muldex card are:
- mux/demux unit is a single shelf mounted card;
- 120 ohm balanced interface on E1 ports;
- 16 E1 to 1 E3 mux/demux;
- 75 ohm unbalanced interface on E3 ports;
- mux/demux performed according to CCITT G.742 & G.751;
- shelf this mux/demux card plugs into includes an internal
power converter to feed the 2-34 Skip Muldex Unit and
SV INT card.
I would rather be able to replace or repair the defective 2-34
Muldex card than buy a complete new multiplexer shelf. Any help
with contact info is greatly appreciated. If you have a 2-34
Muldex card -new/used - that you would be willing to sell please
pass me the information re price/delivery.
I can be reached at jojones@westeccomm.com by email or by phone at
602-948-4484 in Arizona.
Appreciate any help with this search.
Thanks!
JJ
------------------------------
Subject: New Executive Takes Over Fridays Free at Sprint
From: dstott@juno.com (Dave J Stott)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 16:51:32 EST
Maybe he can get Robin Loyed to answer his phone ...
DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 30, 1996--Sprint Business Services Group
Wednesday announced the promotions of Greg Banks to senior director,
brand image and small business marketing, and Suzanne R. Broussard to
senior director, large business marketing.
Both Banks and Broussard will report directly to the vice president of
business marketing.
As the senior director of brand image and small business marketing,
Banks will manage all aspects of small business marketing, including
market planning, advertising, brand image and local marketing
strategies for small business.
He will also oversee the Fridays Free program, Sprint's most
successful small business program, which has continued to exceed
Sprint's projected expectations -- sign up of new customers to date is
40 percent more than projected.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:43:50 +0000
From: iain bennett <coopd590@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: *70-PAUSE Update; Question For Northern Telecom
Organization: Nortel - GSP&P - Multimedia Networks
> The feature I am referring to is that, when dialing *70, I must pause
> and wait for the end of the stutter tone (which is different from dial
> tone not only in that it is stuttered) before proceeding to dial the
> rest of the number. The pause required is large enough that a single
> "pause" in my telephone autodialer isn't enough; I have to program in
> a "wait for dial tone" pause.
I stand corrected. :) I tried the *70 last night at home and I found
that yes indeed I had to wait for the dial tone to start again in order
to dial.
However if I am correct, we've always had to wait in Canada, or at least
I've always had to wait.
In terms of the pause, a single pause on my phone is long enough, even on
my modem.
> My question for Northern Telecom is quite simple: why did you spend money
> to deliberately break a feature that worked perfectly well?
Now in terms of this question, I hardly believe that Nortel, or a
programmer/ engineer at Nortel would purposely 'break' a feature. The
software between a Lucent switch and DMS is quite different I would
assume -- i.e. not comaptible.
Now I do note that using *67 (block call display information) does do
the stutter dialtone and I can in fact dial while it stutters.
> the customer to continue dialing without pausing. Someone at Northern
> Telecom made a conscious decision to expend time, money, and engineering
> resources to deliberately make this feature LESS useful.
As I said in the past, I hardly believe someone out of spite did this.
The opinions expressed are those of myself and not those of anyone else,
including the company I work for.
Iain Bennett Global Support Processes - Magellan Portfolio - Nortel
http://omega.scs.carleton.ca/~ug940014/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 16:33:53 +0000
From: william gray <wgray@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: *70-PAUSE Update; Question For Northern Telecom
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
In article <telecom16.576.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Linc Madison
<Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com> wrote:
> The feature I am referring to is that, when dialing *70, I must pause
> and wait for the end of the stutter tone (which is different from dial
> tone not only in that it is stuttered) before proceeding to dial the
> rest of the number. The pause required is large enough that a single
> "pause" in my telephone autodialer isn't enough; I have to program in
> a "wait for dial tone" pause.
> Previous switches had the imminently useful feature that, upon dialing
> *70, the customer was presented with stutter DIAL TONE, which permitted
> the customer to continue dialing without pausing. Someone at Northern
> Telecom made a conscious decision to expend time, money, and engineering
> resources to deliberately make this feature LESS useful.
Actually, the feature is more flexible. The telco can set the amount
of delay after stutter tone before continuous tone is applied. If you
feel it is too long, you should call Pac Bell and ask them why they
have it set that way.
Billy Gray
Member of Scientific Staff
Nortel Technologies
------------------------------
From: gdm@shrdlu.kw.net (Giles D Malet)
Subject: Re: Maximum Theoretical Bandwidth of Voice Line?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 17:33:05 EST
paul@shire.btg.com (Paul Fischer) asked:
> how to caluculate the theorretical maximum throughput (in bits per
> second) of a phone line.
A quick look in Andrew S. Tannenbaum's "Computer Networks" (2nd ed.,
ISBN 0-13-162959-X) reveals something of interest on page 56, in the
section "The Maximum Data Rate of a Channel".
He describes results originally derived by H. Nyquist in 1924, and
extended in 1948 by Claude Shannon.
To quote, loosely, for a channel suffering thermal noise:
max bits per second = H log2 (1+S/N)
where H = bandwidth in Hz,
S/N is the signal to noise ratio,
and log2 means log to the base 2.
S/N is normally actually given in dB (decibels), which is 10*log10 S/N.
As an example, if a phone line has a 3000 Hz bandwidth with a 30 db
thermal noise ratio, this gives a theoretical limit of 30000 bps.
BTW, Tannenbaum ends this section with the comment:
Shannon's result was derived from information-theory arguments
and has very general validity. Counterexamples should be treated
in the same category as perpetual motion machines.
Giles D /\/\alet
+1 519 725 5726
gdm@shrdlu.kw.net
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
------------------------------
From: Michael Wengler <mwengler@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell/Universal Service Fund
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:45:11 -0800
Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA
Mike King wrote:
> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:58:34 -0700
> Subject: Pacific Bell Calls for a Fair & Equitable Universal
> Service Fund for All Californians
> Pacific Bell Calls for a Fair & Equitable Universal Service Fund for All
> Californians
> SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Bell told the California Public Utilities
> Commission late Friday that the Commission's recent proposed decision on
> universal service still falls short of what's needed to keep basic
> telephone service affordable for all Californians.
.... snip ....
> "The ALJ's proposal ignores 72 percent of our customers," said Rex
> Mitchell, Pacific Bell vice president for regulatory. "Their cost of
> service is not covered by the price they pay nor by the fund. Moreover,
> the very source of today's $1.4 billion in subsidies will disappear with
> competition."
It occurs to me and seems worth pointing out that eliminating a
Universal Service requirement would actually stimulate business and
technology.
At the same time, it would hardly eliminate universal service, in lower
case letters. In upper case letters, Universal Service really means
Flat Rate Wherever You Are service. So the city dweller sharing cable
with 10,000 neighbors in 2 square blocks pays the same for access as the
guy on the mountain top with his own microwave relay serving one.
But in lower case, universal service means you can get a phone wherever
you are. But maybe the city dweller pays less than the mountain hermit.
The satellite cellular system, Globalstar, on which I am working will
sell "fixed phones" as well as portable, with the intention of serving
customers who are too remote to be served by landline or cellular. With
the way CDMA, Globalstar's comm. system, works, fixed phones are a
significantly lower load on the system than portable phones, and so
should be servable at pretty reasonable prices.
So abandoning Universal (Flat Rate) Service in favor of letting
appropriate technology be developed to serve boonie dwellers would
actually be good for our business, and would not result in anybody being
denied phone service.
It is the usual thing, isn't it, that the government co-opts some term,
and then through the magic of words, many people think that eliminating
the government mandate is the same as eliminating the thing itself.
Well it isn't!
Let me emphasize that these are not the opinions of my employer, who is
much smarter and more careful than I. They are merely the musings of an
engineer with net access.
Mike Wengler
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #581
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 31 16:41:17 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id QAA12966; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:41:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:41:17 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610312141.QAA12966@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #582
TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Oct 96 16:41:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 582
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
X.25 Protocol Identifiers (Jim Cobban)
Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials (Marj Minnigh)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Ken Jongsma)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Christian Lange)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Fred Farzanegan)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (geneb@ma.ultranet.com)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Hillary Gorman)
Re: America Online's Preferredmail Combats Junk E-Mail (Georg Schwarz)
Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (Bill Newkirk)
Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (W.D. Baseley)
Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (Todd L. Sherman)
What Ever Happened to FCC Mandated National Caller ID? (Dustin Goodwin)
Last Laugh! 666 Exchange and Disgruntled Subscribers (Tad Cook)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:52:58 +0000
From: jim cobban <jcobban@nortel.ca>
Subject: X.25 Protocol Identifiers
Reply-To: Jim Cobban <jcobban@bnr.ca>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada
I am trying to make the following document as complete as possible.
If anyone has information on other protocol identifier assignments,
please let me know.
Protocol Identification in X.25
Protocol identifiers in the X'00' to X'3F' range are assigned by CCITT. The
following assignments have been made (reference ISO TR 9577):
X'00' ISO 8473 inactive network layer subset
X'01' for X.3/X.29 asynchronous terminal support.
X'02' for teletext CCITT T.70 transport layer protocol.
In a move of blinding intelligence the ISO specification for carrying the
transport protocol over X.25 specifies that there is no special protocol
identifier in the call user data. Rather the call user data field may be
used to contain the Use of Network Connection (UN) request TPDU. In that
case the first byte of call user data contains the length field of the
UN-TPDU. The minimum value of this is 3 and the maximum is restricted to
32 to avoid overlapping other assignments. Reference ISO 8073 Addendum 1
clauses 6.1 and 8.3. That is:
X'03' - X'1F' reserved for ISO 8073 (and ISO 8062) OSI transport
protocol.
What I don't understand is that this method of carrying the OSI transport
protocol over X.25 conflicts with the definition in ISO 8878 of how to
provide the connection oriented network service over X.25.
Protocol identifiers in the X'40' to X'7F' range are available for
national assignment. That is they are at the disgression of the operator
of the network. The major operators work to avoid conflict in
assignments in this area.
In the early days the CCITT specification of X.3/X.29/X.28 was
inadequate for a useful system. The protocol identifier X'41' was used
to represent a national variant of the CCITT protocol. That is rarely
done today, although most PADs will accept it.
X'41' national X.29 variant
Northern Telecom Packet Assembler/Disassembler (PAD) equipment will send
the following protocol identifiers:
BSC 3270 Version 1 (Display Station Interface or DSI). This protocol
is found only in the Canadian public network Datapac.
X'46' call from DSI HPAD
X'47' call from DSI TPAD
BSC 2770/2780/3780/3740 contention protocol (Binary Synchronous
Interface, BSI, or BPAD). This protocol is available from Datapac
(Canada), Telenet (US), and KDD (Japan) among others. The protocol
identifier remains a national specification even though it is
established by an international (intercarrier) agreement, because it
is not a CCITT or ISO standard.
X'4B' BPAD
NCR polled asynchronous terminals. There is a PAD to PAD protocol,
proprietary to Datapac, but deployed in many other locations (Portugal
and Turkey that I can recall), used primarily for multi-drop point of
sale terminals, to avoid passing polls across the packet network.
Known as the Asynchronous Polled Interface (API).
X'52' call from aynchronous polled interface host pad
X'53' call from aynchronous polled interface terminal pad
BSC 3270 Version 2 (Display Station Protocol or DSP). This protocol is
found in Datapac (Canada), Telenet (US), KDD (Japan) and a number of
other networks.
X'56' call from DSP HPAD
X'57' call from DSP TPAD
I am also aware of BSC 3270 support from Sitintel in France. This
protocol is supported by NCR Comten and uses a protocol ID in this
range assigned by Transpac.
The range X'80' through X'BF' is reserved for ISO.
X'80' IEEE SNAP protocol identification
X'81' ISO 8473 Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP)
X'82' ISO 9542 CLNS ES-IS protocol
X'83' ISO 10589 CLNS IS-IS intra-domain routing protocol
X'84' ISO 8878 Annex A provision of CONS by X.25\
X'85' ISO 10747 Inter-Domain Routing Protocol (IDRP)
X'86' ISO 11577 CONS IS-IS routing protocol
X'8A' ISO 10030 CONS ES-IS routing exchange protocol
X'A1' CCITT X.39!
The range X'C0' through X'FE' is reserved for private use. However
any private company which defines a protocol must do so in this range,
unless they can convince their national standards body to make it a
national standard or to propose it to ISO or CCITT. However there is one
protocol ID in this range which is actually an international standard.
X'CC' Internet Protocol
Since IBM is a private organization, not a standards body, it uses
the range of protocol identifiers reserved for other organizations.
That is the two high order bits of the protocol identifier are always
on. There is no guarantee that there will not be a conflict with other
private protocols, but most companies would avoid unnecessary conflicts
with IBM.
IBM is known to use the following protocol identifiers:
C0 NPSI type 0 Virtual Circuit. A simple protocol in which the data
portion of data packets is directly transported in the data portion
of SNA request units.
C2 NPSI type 2 Virtual Circuit. Packet Services Header (PSH) protocol
used to transport SNA with a 5973-L02 Network Interface Adapter
(NIA).
C3 NPSI type 3 Virtual Circuit. Qualified Logical Link Control
(QLLC) transport of SNA protocol using X.25 (1980) for Boundary
Network Node (BNN) nodes.
C4 NPSI type 4 Virtual Circuit. Explicit selection of original
Generalized Access to X.25 Transport Extension (GATE) Communication
and Transmission Control Program (CTCP) by call user data, when the
new Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) CTCP is also present.
C6 Enhanced Logical Link Control (ELLC) transport of SNA protocol;
using X.25 (1980). Used where the packet network does not
provide a reliable data transport.
CB NPSI type 3 Virtual Circuit. Qualified Logical Link Control
(QLLC) transport of SNA protocol using X.25 (1984) for Boundary
Network Node (BNN) nodes.
E3 NPSI type 3 Virtual Circuit. Qualified Logical Link Control
(QLLC) transport of SNA protocol using X.25 (1980) for Intermediate
Network Node (INN, PU 4) nodes.
EB NPSI type 3 Virtual Circuit. Qualified Logical Link Control
(QLLC) transport of SNA protocol using X.25 (1984) for Intermediate
Network Node (INN, PU 4) nodes.
This corresponds to the following bit mapping of the first byte of
call user data:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 | 1 | X | 0 | X | X | X | X |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | +-- specific protocol (e.g. QLLC)
| | | | | | +------ 1 = carries SNA path control
| | | | | +---------- specific protocol (e.g. ELLC, LLC4)
| | | | +-------------- 1 = X.25 (1984)
| | | +------------------ unused
| | +---------------------- 1 = Intermediate Network Node (PU 4)
| +-------------------------- reserved by CCITT must be 1
+------------------------------ reserved by CCITT must be 1
If anyone has information on other uses of the protocol identifier
field in call user data, please let me know.
Mainly: What mappened to the unused protocols in the range 40-7F?
X'41' national variant of X.3
X'42' older version of API host pad?
X'43' older version of API terminal pad?
X'44' CCITT G.764?
X'45' ?
X'46' call from DSI HPAD
X'47' call from DSI TPAD
X'48' ?
X'49' ?
X'4A' ?
X'4B' BPAD
X'4C' ?
X'4D' ?
X'4E' ?
X'4F' ?
X'50' ?
X'51' ?
X'52' call from aynchronous polled interface host pad
X'53' call from aynchronous polled interface terminal pad
X'54' ?
X'55' ?
X'56' call from DSP HPAD
X'57' call from DSP TPAD
X'58'... ?
Jim Cobban | jcobban@nortel.ca Phone: (613) 763-8013
Nortel (MCS) | FAX: (613) 763-5199
------------------------------
From: mminnigh@infonet.tufts.edu (Marj Minnigh)
Subject: Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:13:40 -0500
Organization: Tufts University
Looking for some good, solid, reasonably priced training materials, any
medium, for support staff in our Telecom Dept. Want to familiarize them
with jargon, some basic telephony, some basic LEC concepts, etc.
Anyone know of videos, audio tape training, etc., that you would recommend?
------------------------------
From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 16:29:02 GMT
Organization: Honeywell, Inc. - DAS
levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) wrote:
> Note that this is not the first time they have done this. They will
> sign up for an account under a bogus name and, as soon as their
> account is activated, send as much spam as they can until their
> account is shut off. Of course, they don't pay either. It is
> difficult, if not impossible, for an ISP to protect itself from this
> kind of abuse.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. It would be very easy for any ISP
to control this type of abuse. All they need to do is ask and verify a
credit card number before allowing access to posting or mailing. The
ISP needs to make it very clear that a charge of $XXX will be made as
soon as a bulk posting is detected.
Allowing people full access to the net on a demo account is not a good
thing.
Ken Jongsma kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com
Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems, Albuquerque, NM
------------------------------
From: Christian Lange <clan@berlin.snafu.de>
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 06:41:21 +0100
Organization: Unlimited Surprise Systems, Berlin
Reply-To: clan@berlin.snafu.de
Ken,
> As of noon on Monday, I have received no response from AOL.
If you sent your mail to AOL from your business address it may have
been filtered before reaching AOL ...
Christian
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is precisely what was reported to
me by three other correspondents yesterday and today. If you get on the
AOL hit list, then your mail goes to their bit bucket unseen. Don't
keep wasting your time writing to them. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:58:51 +0000
From: fred farzanegan <fredf@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
"cyberCOM blocked"
As an AOL user, I'm furious at the firms who spam my email there.
They've rendered my email box useless.
Cyber Promotions has been the culprit for most of them; maybe it was a
mistake in naming?
If you haven't gotten a response, try "SteveCase@aol.com",
he's the president. I've written twice and gotten personalized
responses from his designates.
If ISPs want to protect themselves, it wouldn't be too hard
to put a filter on outgoing mail to halt it after ~200 messages
per day per user.
Good luck!
fred farzanegan
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For that matter, a limit of fifty to
one hundred outgoing messages per day would easily encompass most
users and the ISP could always maintain a 'trusted' file for users
allowed to go past that limit without any audit; i.e. mailing lists
operating at the site, etc. The only problem with writing to Steve
Case or anyone.else@aol.com is that if your site has been arbitrarily
placed on their filter, he is not going to see your mail either. It
is very discouraging trying to work with those people. PAT]
------------------------------
From: geneb@ma.ultranet.com
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Date: 30 Oct 1996 03:20:52 GMT
Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc.
Reply-To: geneb@ma.ultranet.com
In <telecom16.574.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org
(Ken Levitt) writes:
> I was alerted at about 11pm Friday night by a friend of mine that AOL
> has installed spam blocking for all of its users. They have a list of
> about 50 domain names that will be blocked without any notice to
> either the sender or receiver. Users may elect to turn off junk mail
> blocking, but the default is to block all mail from the designated
> sites.
> I was in full agreement with this policy under the assumption that AOL
> would do through research before placing an ISP on their list. I also
> assumed that they would attempt to resolve the problem with an ISP
> prior to placing them on the list. This appears NOT to be the case.
> When I was told that my ISP (CYBERCOM.NET) was on their list, I found
> it extremely hard to believe. Cybercom has a very detailed written and
> enforced policy against any of their users sending unsolicited mail.
> (see usage policy at www.cybercom.net.
> =================== Response From Cybercom =========================
> This action on their part probably stems from an incident which
> occurred about one month ago. Cyber Access had a "customer" sign up
> who, as soon as their account was activated, immediately proceeded to
> send unsolicited email to hundreds, if not thousands, of people, many
> of them AOL customers. This email advertised an adult, i.e
> pornographic, bulletin board on the south shore. This action was in
> direct violation of Cyber Access' usage policies.
<another snip>
> Note that this is not the first time they have done this. They will
> sign up for an account under a bogus name and, as soon as their
> account is activated, send as much spam as they can until their
> account is shut off. Of course, they don't pay either. It is
> difficult, if not impossible, for an ISP to protect itself from this
> kind of abuse.
Not if the ISP is willing to do about three minutes worth of verification
BEFORE granting service.
Such steps as:
1. Requiring a credit card to establish an account, THEN VERIFYING IT
with the issuing bank.
2. Requiring a phone number, then CHECKING it, either by
a: calling them back
b: checking it through an online or CD-ROM directory
3. Maintaining a blacklist of troublemakers with other ISPs.
(obviously, this could be abused, but for non-payment, it's certainly
a valid consideration).
ISPs are NOT without blame in this situation (and AOL, with their
disk-litter and ten free hours, is certainly included).
Gene
------------------------------
From: hillary@netaxs.com (Hillary Gorman)
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 20:14:39 -0500
Organization: the bottom of the bit bucket
You might want to point out to your site admins that the list of AOL's
banned domains has been WIDELY distributed on various ISP mailing
lists, and many small ISPs have in fact upgraded to the newest version
of sendmail, installed anti-spam features, and banned all of the
domains on that list. One of the providers (izzy.com) I consult for
just this minute removed cybercom.net when advised of your posting,
however, there are likely many other ISPs banning your domain. Sendmail,
however, does generate an error message ... usually a simple "this
domain has been banned" type of thing, formatted within a standard
MAILER-DAEMON autoresponse.
hillary gorman http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net
------------------------------
From: schwarz@physik.tu-berlin.de (Georg Schwarz)
Subject: Re: America Online's Preferredmail Combats Junk E-Mail
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:45:21 +0100
Organization: Microsoft Free Zone
Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com> wrote:
> DULLES, Va., Oct. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- AMERICA ONLINE today introduced
> PreferredMail, a new tool that allows members to avoid unwanted junk
> e-mail, a major source of complaints from online users.
When does AOL finally do something about junk mail sent by their
customers (it's totally misleading to speak of "members") to people
outside of AOL?! I often receive such unwanted advertizing stuff sent
from an AOL address (some even in German!).
Georg Schwarz schwarz@physik.tu-berlin.de, kuroi@cs.tu-berlin.de
Institut f=FCr Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254, FAX -21130
Technische Universit=E4t Berlin PGP key available, IRC kuroi
Germany http://itp1.physik.tu-berlin.de/~schwarz/
------------------------------
From: Bill Newkirk <wenewkirk@rodes.cca.rockwell.com>
Subject: Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:05:24 -0500
Organization: Rockwell Avionics/Collins
Reply-To: wenewkirk@rodes.cca.rockwell.com
Terry Kennedy wrote:
> Have you ever sent a complaint to abuse@aol.com or any of the other
> addresses that they have for reporting problems? I have, and I can
> tell you that I always get a prompt, courteous, and personal
> (non-boilerplate) reply. These replies generally tell me that the
> account in question has been terminated, and (when appropriate) that
> "the matter has been referred to the legal department".
Terry, that IS the boilerplate response. I've seen some variation,
maybe it changes depending on who reads the mail but they all pretty
much have the same words and similar phrasing in all of them. i'd
think abuse would have to have a pretty standard response just to deal
with the traffic.
> AOL has made (and publicized) changes in their account setup
> procedure. In particular, fake credit card numbers with valid
> checksums don't work any more. There is a limit to how
> obnoxious/intrusive they can be at sign-up time without losing
> customers.
That bogus credit card numbers worked at all indicates that they weren't
ready for the surge -- I've got one card that's got a stripe problem and
when the box asks for a reswipe or for manual entry of the numbers, most
store clerks get a whole new attitude.
> I think that AOL is doing a very good job compared with other
> providers overall, and given their size I think they're doing and
In terms of marketing and acquiring a large user base, yes. I like the
free disks I get as well. I think I'm close to being set for life on
microfloppies due to AOL marketing.
> *outstanding* job. Sure, I'd like to see a more secure and
> trustworthy Internet -- but blaming AOL for the current lack of these
> Internet features is placing the blame in the wrong area -- go talk to
> the IETF.
Well, I dunno if you can absolve AOL of the blame either. Forging mail
is one thing, but the number of posts from AOL hosts can't all be bogus
either.
bill n.
------------------------------
From: wbaseley_removethistoemailme_@ptd.net (WD Baseley)
Subject: Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:58:33 GMT
Reply-To: wbaseley_removethistoemailme_@ptd.net
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:01:34 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom, Todd L.
Sherman <afn09444@afn.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, WD Baseley wrote:
>> In my experience the good done by making it easy to
>> get online outweighs the bad done by a few ne'er-do-wells.
> Uh! How can you say that? The good done can be handled more
> RESPONSIBLY still and yet not lose any customers! I've run a BBS
> before and making people wait a day or two to check them out first
> does NOT any business for a sysop lose.
Certainly waiting a day, especially while perhaps having access to a
subset of services, would not have discouraged any of the folks I'm
referring to. They would still have the instant gratification of
being online, and AOL would have the time to check for bogus
information. The first day could even be used by AOL to walk folks
through a Netiquette lesson! I certainly hope, however, that you hold
*all* ISPs to this standard if you expect it from one.
> I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your thoughts on that because you're
> asking the rest to risk being screwed by that one Bad Apple for the
> sake of giving the many more immediate access. If ONE person's life
> can be ruined like this, MANY people lives have the capability of
> being ruined if that one Bad Apple is anxious enough. That just
> doesn't make sense.
If you believe the Information Age is forward motion for humanity,
then you must also believe that it must be inclusive. That means
baddies. I'm willing to take the risk - I'm already a member of the
Mailbomb Survivors' Support Group ;-) What we must learn to do is
minimize the impact of the perps. Waiting periods would help, though
one wonders why, with instant networked access to information, so much
time would be necessary. Also, limits on the number of pieces of mail
that can be sent per account appear to be an easy and unobtrusive
means of reducing the risk. But the risk is part and parcel with the
rewards.
Cheers,
WD Baseley
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Try telling Steve Barnard that the risk
is part and parcel with the rewards. I am sure he will be glad to
have you correct the error in his thinking which is that AOL at this
point at least owes him the simple courtesy of an apology and some
reparations, however slight, neither of which appear to be forthcoming
on any voluntary basis.
AOL has also been stonewalling on revealing the true source of the
spam. There is some indication it may have been internal; that is,
done by one of their many 'hacker-in-the-closet' tech employees. We
are aware that several months ago, management at AOL decided to 'raid'
a chat room used for discussion and transfer of 'warez' and at that
time found a number of their own employees in the room. We are also
aware that there has been an ongoing feud at AOL between a group of
hackers who claim that America OnLine is always cracking down on them
and hassling them 'while allowing the pedophiles to run all over the
place and pretty much do as they please ...' This would seem to ignore
the fact that AOL gives every impression of being in a very close
relationship with the FBI and other federal agencies, given their very
sleazy cooperation with the government in setting up accounts for
'Confused Teen' and similar used to deliberatly provoke their members
into engaging in correspondence which will entrap them. None the less,
apparently some hackers at AOL feel they are the ones being picked on
and singled out and have shown great disdain for 'all the pedophiles
around here who get to do whatever they want.'
So AOL is not saying what the true story is and I doubt we will ever
know for sure. Even if the FBI has located the culprit(s) involved
or knows the extent to which an AOL employee was involved (if that is
what happened) don't look for any authoritative answers anytime soon.
The FBI owes too many favors to Steve Case right now, and they will no
doubt need his fine services when they plan future stings. They can't
betray him at this point over this little affair. They'll burn him at
some future point when they don't need him any longer, but that is a
different matter entirely.
One thing I can say with assurance though is that their house needs a
good cleaning out, and secondly that Steve Barnard has something more
coming to him than just dead silence from AOL. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Todd L. Sherman <afn09444@afn.org>
Subject: Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 23:52:01 -0500
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Terry Kennedy wrote:
> TELECOM Digest Editor writes:
>> When is the last time AOL ever apologized to anyone on the net or
>> said they were going to try and mitigate or lessen some of their worst
> Have you ever sent a complaint to abuse@aol.com or any of the other
> addresses that they have for reporting problems? I have, and I can
> tell you that I always get a prompt, courteous, and personal
> (non-boilerplate) reply. These replies generally tell me that the
> account in question has been terminated, and (when appropriate) that
> "the matter has been refer- red to the legal department".
You and the AOL abuse postmaster must be good friends. Every
response I've ever got from them denies responsibility and then goes
on to vindicate itself. Short and sweet? a complete denial of
anything wrong going on. A "WHAT problem? You're seeing things."
kind of answer.
> AOL has made (and publicized) changes in their account setup
> procedure. In particular, fake credit card numbers with valid
> checksums don't work any more. There is a limit to how
> obnoxious/intrusive they can be at sign-up time without losing
> customers.
You mean that short posting of two or three account names deleted
that appears every day in the other companion newsgroup to this one?
Hmm. Just three a day? with as many users as they have? Seems a bit
short to me. And how many of those names come back the next day under
another assumed account name? But that's the point. It's too easy
for people to do that at this moment with AOL.
> I think that AOL is doing a very good job compared with other
> providers overall, and given their size I think they're doing and
> *outstanding* job. Sure, I'd like to see a more secure and
> trustworthy Internet -- but blaming AOL for the current lack of these
> Internet features is placing the blame in the wrong area -- go talk to
> the IETF.
Well, so far, their's is the only service which allowed a user to go
online and publicly ruin someone else's life, gather thousands of
calls from upset people around the world to swamp a few NY police
departments with disgruntled user calls, and to have an investigation
unwarrantedly begun into someone's personal and private life where it
was not necessary, and where that innocent person suddenly find
himself now unnecessarily cowering under the angered looks of
thousands, no, now millions, of people all around the world, from the
publicity it has now recieved in the news.
Yes. Congratulations, AOL, on the great job you are doing.
Todd
------------------------------
From: dustin@notes.mic.gmeds.com (Dustin Goodwin)
Subject: Whatever Happened to FCC Mandated National Caller ID?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:34:51 GMT
Organization: Akula Communications Corp.
Reply-To: dustin@notes.mic.gmeds.com
What ever happened to FCC mandated national caller ID?
Dustin
------------------------------
Subject: Last Laugh! 666 Exchange and Disgruntled Subcribers
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:05:52 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have covered this topic a few times
before in the Digest, but this being Halloween, the Hallowed Eve of
All Saints Day, I thought it would make a good item to close this
issue of the Digest. I have to wonder if numbers which end in the
form -0666, -1666 also annoy these folks. PAT]
----------------
PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) -- The number of the beast proved unbearable for a
for some people.
So when Oakland County's new 248 area code takes effect in September,
Ameritech Corp. will offer customers with the 666 exchange the option
of a new number.
The option comes after the pastor at the Shepherd Fellowship Church asked
Ameritech for the switch.
For fundamentalist Christians, "666" is the number that designates the
beast. Walker said the church has put up with the exchange since
1990.
"I have to admit it does bother me a bit. Some pastors would be aghast
at this," he said.
The church won't be alone in switching from the 666 exchange.
Mike Cassity, owner of the Shocker tattoo parlor, said he'd rather not
deal with responses he gets to the 666 exchange.
"Personally, every time I tell someone the exchange they're like `Oh,
my God,"' Cassity said.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #582
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 31 17:42:14 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id RAA19202; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:42:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:42:14 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199610312242.RAA19202@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #583
TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Oct 96 17:42:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 583
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
High Capacity Broadcast Fax Software Needed (Ben Lovless)
Canada Data Market (Herman Ho)
Guam/CNMI's Central Office Codes (Mark J. Cuccia)
Dialogic / VVoice Wierdness (Jeff Wigdor)
Caribbean Phone Sleaze: Another Angle (Richard Cox)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Bob Lombard)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (starline@worf.netins.net)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Brand Hilton)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Tom Trottier)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Wes Leatherock)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Mark Crispin)
Telemarketers and the New Law (Jamie Ginson)
Telemarketer Hell (Eric Florack)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Danny Burstein)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: benlovless@aol.com (Ben Lovless)
Subject: High Capacity Broadcast Fax Software Needed
Date: 31 Oct 1996 16:45:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: benlovless@aol.com (Ben Lovless)
We are looking for an industrial strength fax program. We are
currently using Visi Fax, which is Unix based. It works on SCO Unix,
which is installed on a 486 PC containing a 2.5 gig hard drive and 64
meg of ram. We are using a 486 as opposed to a Pentium, in that we
have found that a Pentium is simply too fast for the Visi Fax program
(go figure). The 486 has two Digi boards, each of which has 24 serial
ports. We currently have 36, 19.2Kbs Multi Tech modems connected to
the computer. 32 of the modems fax out, 4 receive faxes.
We are having numerous crashing and other problems, and have been
struggling with the Visi Fax program for some time. We have come to
discover that, although the program we are using is "supposed" to
handle up to 48 modems, we are in the unhappy position of being the
sole company which has pushed the program to its limit, and we did not
intend to be beta testers. Therefore, we are searching for a program
to take the place of Visi Fax. We are prepared to move immediately.
If you feel you have a product we can use, please consider the
following:
1. Your program must be PC based, and be capable of using one PC and
the Digi boards we currently use for fax output/input on 48 modems,
and to utilize the modems we currently use. While we would be
delighted to have a Windows program, if your program uses SCO Unix, no
problem as we are using Unix now. We are not interested in any
program which requires us to buy one board for each phone line used
(we use T1 lines).
2. Your program must be turn key and ready to use when loaded on the
computer. Visi Fax is essentially a set of programming tools to
implement a fax program, a route we never wish to travel again.
3. Your program must be able to handle a daily fax load of up to
30,000+ faxes. Your program must be able to send out faxes on all
modems while phonebooks are loading into the queue. Fax output must
not slow as phone books are loading.
4. Your program must be able to simultaneously handle multiple phone
books connecting to different documents; i.e., phone book one sends
out document one, phone book two sends out document two, etc.
5. We must be able to load multiple phone books at a time and/or load
new phone books and documents on the fly as other jobs are in
progress.
6. We must be able to pull logs on each phone book send, which
contain at least the following information: which faxes were
successful, and which were not. the log will have to contain the
company name and fax number of each successful/unsuccessful fax. Our
hope is to be able to pull logs on the fly; that is, as the computer
is sending out faxes, we would like to be able to pull the logs on
phone books which have been completed. Currently we have to wait
until all phone books have been sent to pull logs. While we don't
like this, we can live with it if we have to.
7. Your program must be able to accept documents created from Ami
Pro, Word Perfect, and Cardiff, and must be able to accept graphics,
logos, ads, etc. We ARE NOT interested in any program where cover
documents have to be created in that program, such as is the case with
Winfax. Your program must be able to merge individual information
onto at least a cover page. A substantial portion of the information
we fax has a personalized cover page/letter (name, company name,
address, etc.) with a number of document pages attached. You'll
really have a leg up if you can merge names, etc. into a multi page
document. We can't do that now, and we can live with it if all your
program can do is personalize a cover page/letter and allow us to
attach standardized pages to that cover page. Your program must allow
us to send a one page, personalized cover page as a stand alone, as
well as a personalized cover page and attachments.
To summarize, we must have the above requirements, and we must have a
turn key, ready to use, user friendly program. We will want to
negotiate with you a set up/very short test period for your program to
run side by side with our kludged, bailing wire, spit and gum covered
Visi Fax program. Exasperating though it is, our Visi Fax program is
sending out 15,000 to 20,000 faxes a day, and we cannot go dark while
we bring a new program on line. Before we change over, we must be
confident that your program will do the job; we've just gone through 8
months of fiddling with our most critical program while we use it, and
we cannot go through that with any new program. We are prepared to
move immediately. Please email your information and/or question to
us. We will respond right away, and move forward with great dispatch
if your program fills the bill. We are expanding rapidly, and can
become an ongoing, solid customer for you.
Wayne D. McFarland
Chief Executive Officer
Please e-mail reply to BenLovless@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:36:14 -0800
From: herman ho <hermanho@aicom.com>
Subject: Canada Data Market
I am now working in Vancouver for TMI Tele Media Int'l (we have a
different name in Canada - Telecom Media International Italy-Canada
inc.) It is a long name.
Before that I was working in HK for the same company for the sales and
marketing.
After months research and study. I find the Canadian telecom market is
mainly domestic and US related business. Most of the Canadian large
corporation are based in eastern provinences, espically in Ontario,
and Quebec.
The business market are LAN /WAN traffic between branches within the
countries. For some US owned companies, they will have the data
connection, (digital bandwidth or frame relay links down to the
nearest office across the border , Seattle, L.A. Chicago. etc.. All the
international traffic will then go through the mother company's
worldwide backbone network and send to different overseas branches.
As the internet is getting more popular, a lot of companies who are
not so care about the security will use the e-mail for their daily
text, garphic communciations. This will also subsituite some of the
data service, which customer will order. This not the only thing in
Canada, this internet will take up a certain percentage of busienss
from international value added services providers.
I am not sure my study is right. I hope to have some comment and input
to the my view point of the market. Canadian economy seems rely on
U.S. a lot, and U.S. companies also take the advantage off strong US
dollar exchange and the multi-language population of Canadian
multi-culture society. There is a lot of call centre service in Canada
to serve the U.S. companies.
Best regards.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:36:43 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Guam/CNMI's Central Office Codes
The following are the Central Office Codes and assignments presently
in effect for both Guam (+671, to be +1-671) and CNMI, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (+670, to be +1-670). I
don't have anything (yet) on American Samoa (presently still Country
Code +684).
Incidently, 'standard NANP' numbering and dialing procedures have been
effect in both Guam and CNMI for years, but they are only next year
going to become part of "Country Code +1". I understand that American
Samoa also uses the NANP standards in numbering and dialing, although
there is nothing yet known when/if they intend to join into "Country
Code +1".
By 'standard NANP numbering and dialing', I am referring to:
o seven-digit local numbering, of the NXX-XXXX format
o N11 three-digit local service codes
(such as 411 Directory, 611 Repair, 811 Business Office, 911 Emergencies)
o intra-NPA/island toll station-sent-paid prefix as '1+'
(soon to be used for reaching all of the NANP)
o intra-NPA/island special billing prefix as '0+'
(soon to be used for reaching all of the NANP)
o international calls 011+ (station-sent-paid) and 01+ (special billing)
o '0' for the local operator
o etc.
GUAM (671) GTA = Guam Telephone Authority
(The location assignments for "POTS" are for the 'host' switching office;
many of these assignments could actually be for 'remotes')
333 Dept. of Defense
339 Dept. of Defense
343 Dept. of Defense
344 Dept. of Defense
349 Dept. of Defense
355 Dept. of Defense
362 Dept. of Defense
366 Dept. of Defense
472 Agana
474 Agana
475 Agana
476 Agana
477 Agana
478 Agana
479 Agana
482 GTA Cellular
486 GTA Voicemail Service
564 Agana
565 Agana
632 Dededo
633 Dededo
634 Dededo
635 Dededo
637 Dededo
638 Dededo
642 Tumon
644 Tumon
645 Tumon
646 Tumon
647 Tumon
648 Tumon
649 Tumon
653 Dededo
654 Dededo
687 "Guam Cellular"
688 "Guam Cellular"
734 Agana
735 Agana
789 Agana
828 Agana
864 "TNI Cellular"
888 Agana
Mariana Islands = CNMI (670) MTC = Micronesia Telephone Company
(the *particular island* of the CNMI is indicated in ALL CAPS)
233 Gualo Rai SAIPAN (remote off of Susupe)
234 Susupe SAIPAN (host office)
235 Susupe SAIPAN (host office)
236 (paging services) SAIPAN
256 Kagman SAIPAN (remote off of Susupe)
287 MTC Cellular (B-side) (MTC = Micronesia Telephone Company)
288 Airport SAIPAN (remote off of Susupe)
321 Capital Hill SAIPAN (remote off of Susupe)
322 Capital Hill SAIPAN (remote off of Susupe)
323 Capital Hill SAIPAN (remote off of Susupe)
433 Song Song & Sinapalu ROTA
483 PacifiCom Cellular (A-side)
532 San Jose TINIAN
682 MTC's Centranet (based in Susupe SAIPAN)
664 CNMI's Government Centranet (based in Susupe SAIPAN)
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: Jeff Wigdor <jeffro@bway.net>
Subject: Dialogic / VVoice Wierdness
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:55:12 -0500
Organization: TransMetropolitan
Has anyone ever had problems getting Visual Voice to go off hook or
issuing a wink? I can't seem to get it to work. A call to the DID
lines generates A and B bits high, and FlushDigitBuffer returns the
DID number, so I know the Dialogic card is talking to Nynex OK.
Likewise, I can register, allocate and route any DOD channel, and the
PickUp method executes 'OK', but line status still reads 'O' (on
hook), and both Dial and Call methods fail (timeout or 'No Ring').
Voice1.Wink returns 'OK' but the Stylus Trace window reports:
Wink
[T5] VV_Wink (0x4425D8)
[T5] VVDT132: Driver error 183 -- dt_xmitwink
[T5] Driver error: 183 dt_xmitwink
Specs: Dialogic D/240SC-T1 with 4.25SC drivers, VVPro 3.01 OCX in
Visual Basic 4.0, Nynex Flexpath D4/SF framing, lines 1-4 DID, 5-24 DOD.
Any help GREATLY appreciated!
TIA,
Jeff Wigdor
jeffro@bway.net
------------------------------
From: richard@mandarin.com
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:40:37 EST
Subject: Caribbean Phone Sleaze: Another Angle
In TELECOM Digest Volume 16 : Issue 576, Linc Madison said:
> the U.S. would argue that the settlements rate should clearly be cut to
> $0.30/minute, since that appears, by the island telco's own bookkeeping,
> to be a more accurate reflection of their costs in completing the call.
Settlement rates - also knows as "accounting rates" - are unavoidably
a partnership arrangement: two countries Telcos will typically agree
with each other to keep their accounting rates high **in both
directions**. So just as Caribbean Telcos get a high-than-cost
kickback for delivering the sleaze calls, so their US partners will
get paid a higher-than-cost accounting rate for calls inbound to the
USA. Cutting the accounting rates paid to Caribbean telcos will
immediately impact on the revenue and profitability of all the US
"correspondent" phone companies.
> The settlements payments are intended to compensate the foreign telcos
> for their actual costs of completing inbound international calls, not
> for providing kickbacks to third parties.
The Telcos would say that by keeping the accounting rates high, they
can provide greater subsidies for local dialtone; that keeps more
people able to have a phone in the first place. In some instances
that view may well be justified - but I suspect in some instances it
won't be !
In some (smaller) countries the revenue from incoming accounting rates
is sufficient to have a significant impact on that country's balance
of trade payments - any suggestion of reducing those payments will
bring an outcry from the national exchequer !
But Mr. Madison's idea still seems pretty sensible to me ... !
Richard D G Cox
Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG UK
Telephone: [+44] 97 3311 1111; Facsimile: [+44] 97 3311 1100
------------------------------
From: Bob Lombard <blombard@nosc.mil>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Organization: NRaD RDT&E Code 872
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 17:38:23 GMT
Mickey Ferguson wrote:
> First, I am not a telemarketer, nor will I ever be one. I don't like
> the calls, either.
> Given that statement, it's all about civility. No one is invading
> your home. They are merely calling you.
I'm sorry. Anyway you look at it, an unsolicited or unwelcome call,
whoever it might be, *is* an invasion of some degree. Maybe I just
want to read a book, play with my daughter, or sleep. Its bad enough
that I can't escape incessant advertising on radio or television, let
alone in a newspaper.
A telemarketing call is akin to someone forcefully shoving an
advertisement under your nose and attempting to make you read it.
> If you tell them very quickly that you are not interested, that's it ...
I've *NEVER* had a telemarketer give up that easily.
> And if you really don't like the call, demand
> that they put you on their "do not call" list, and then if they call
> again, you can take legal action if you must. Remember, YOU chose to
> answer the phone. If you really don't want the call, don't answer it.
> Get caller ID if you must, and then you can use an answering machine
> to screen the "out of area" type of calls (or whatever they are).
While resisting the urge to scream in response I'd like to point out
that I pay for the phone and service. I do so in the reasonable
expectation that it will be used for communication with friends,
family, businesses (of my choice), and possible emergencies. Why
should *I* pay for equipment to screen calls, or id calls? Why should
*I* have to screen my calls to preserve my privacy? Why should *I*
have to take legal action, or threaten the same?
Classic example: At one time, I subscribed to the LA Times. One
month, I got an average of two calls a week from a telemarketer who
wanted me to subscribe to the LA Times. The first time I was polite,
and told them I already did. The second, explained again that I did,
and asked not to be called again. Only after having an friend who's
an attorney write a letter to the circulation dept, did the calls
stop. All of the calls came from the same outfit.
The ultimate insult of a telemarketing call is that I pay for part of
their ability to call me. (Monthly service, instrument, etc)
So ... be polite? Not a chance.
------------------------------
From: Starline <starline@worf.netins.net>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:59:21 -0600
Organization: netINS, Inc.
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Rob Levandowski wrote:
> Well, then he says that he's calling from AT&T Long Distance, and
> perhaps I'd be interested in their new rate plan?
> "Well, I work for a competing long distance company, and my calls are free.
Well, I have to ask: does your employer give you free LD? (Just curious,
not being critical.)
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:59:43 -0600
From: brand hilton <brand@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
In article <telecom16.568.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Larry Schwarcz
<lrs@hpisrhw.cup.hp.com> wrote:
> When I get those calls, I quickly interrupt their sales pitch and just
> say, "No thanks, and please remove this number from your list." By
> law, if you ask, the can't call again (if they care about the law).
> Seems to work.
Ditto. When I get a call, I just ask, as nicely as possible, "Excuse
me, but could you please put me on your 'don't call' list?" They
usually say, "Sure," and it ends fairly painlessly for everyone. As
far as the law is concerned, I remember hearing that they were
required to keep you on the "don't call" list for only six months, but I
don't remember where I heard it. At any rate, I think we probably
have Bob Bullmash to thank, at least in part, for that law.
I also agree with Pat's original response regarding treating the caller
with civility. I think it's fair to say that NOBODY wants or likes
those jobs. My sister-in-law did it for a little while during college,
and she sure didn't like it. Of course, she was selling hearing aids,
so my guess is that even when she got a potential client, the call was
no picnic :-)
> Does anyone have any real data about how the numbers are obtained for
> generating unsolicited calls? I would bet it is NOT via phone books.
> It is usually via computer-generated lists, and sometimes, even
> psuedo-random dialing.
I know from experience that a newspaper here in town used to just run
up the exchange. In the lab, we used to have several PSTN lines on
our patch panel for test calls. The numbers happened to be in
sequence. One evening, a coworker was working late and happened to
have one of the phones patched to the first of these lines. The phone
rang, he answered it, and it was a telemarketer for the newspaper
asking him if he wanted to participate in their "survey". He made up
a name, made up answers to the questions and, when they got around to
asking him if he wanted a subscription, he declined.
They said goodbye, he hung up, and patched the phone into the next
line. It rang, he answered ... same person, same questions. He made
up a different name and a different set of answers, declined a
subscription again, hung up the phone, re-patched it, etc. He said
when he answered the fourth time, the caller sounded really suspicious :-)
Brand
------------------------------
From: Tom Trottier <tom@act.ca>
Date: 30 Oct 96 17:44:51 MST
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Just say, "Wait a minute," and put the phone down for ten minute or until it
starts wop-woping.
Tom - tom@act.ca
------------------------------
From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:55:29 GMT
Eric <trumanjs@primenet.com> wrote:
> I have Caller ID and our telephone provider, US West, lets us block
> "Anonymous" calls. I know this isn't perfect because I still get "Out
> of Area" or "Unavailable" calls, but it seems to cut down the number
> of calls I got from local companies trying to sell me on Auto repairs
> or Lawn Service.
About 90 per cent of the telemarketing calls I get are from "out of
area." I wouldn't answer any "out of area" call except pay phones in
Oklahoma City come up as "out of area" and it could be a relative or
friend calling me from a pay phone.
> ... That may be a
> factor but maybe some of these people are convicted felons and can't
> get another job? I don't know for sure but some of the people I worked
> with then were definately scary individuals. Some years later when I
> had my own business, the building I rented office space in leased some
> space to telemarketers. I noticed the same thing then too. In fairness
> though there were some nice housewives or college coed's at both
> businesses.
That reminds me of the time a number of years ago when I called Howard
Johnson's reservation service from Islamorada, Florida, to make or
change a reservation. When the reservation agent asked for my
telephone number, the agent said "oh, you live not very far from
here."
At that time the Howard Johnson's reservation center was in Oklahoma
City and staffed by felons (literally) in a work release program under
an agreement with the state. I knew where their reservation center
was located and it was indeed within a couple of miles from my house.
I was somewhat worried until I got home several days later about when
I might find there. But there was nothing amiss and no sign of
felonious activity.
It was certainly unsettling, though, and inhibited my making
reservations at Howard Johnson's in the future.
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com
wes.leatherock@origins.bbs.uoknor.edu
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, the prisoners who work
in those programs are *very well behaved* almost always. The last
thing they want to do is lose that job and the money that comes with
it and wind up back in the 'real prison'. I'd say you can be
pretty casual about dealing with those situations, even to the
extent of giving out credit card numbers, etc. There is not likely
to be a problem. Those guys get a *huge* amount of scrutiny from
their supervisors. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:11:20 -0800
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing
We have a data line that's only used for outgoing calls. One of my
favorite things to do is when someone (and it's always a telemarketer)
calls that line, to pick it up and respond with a bright:
"Binky's Taxidermy! You bop 'em, we stuff 'em!"
Every so often, the telemarketer is an animal rights kook and she (it's
invariably female) gets *very* upset.
-- Mark -- Read http://www.imap.org for the "best kept secret in email"
DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045 ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 07:44:00 -0500
From: jamie gibson <jsgibson@nortel.ca>
Subject: Telemarketers and the New Law
Pat,
So far I have not seen any discussion related to the new Section 227
(47 USC 227) of the Communications Act of 1934 as ammended by the
Telecom Act of 1996. This section, "Restrictions on the Use of
Telephone Equipment," establishes limitations on the use of automated
telephone equipment for solicitation. The law also provides recourse
(damages) in the amount of $500/call.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps Bob Bulmash will respond. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:56:40 PST
From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Eric Florack)
Subject: Telemarketer Hell
In #577, Pat responds to a post of mine:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are making the same error many
> people do in taking this as a Freedom of Speech issue ... the courts
> have ruled many times that there is a distinct difference between
> what they have termed 'political speech' and 'commercial speech'.
> The former is granted a broad array of freedom and latitude as it
> should be. 'Commercial speech' however is subject to more limitations.
> Newspapers and television stations are given a great deal of leeway
> in how they want to handle commercial speech. The distinctions between
> the two should be remembered when talking about censorship, etc. PAT]
With respect, Pat, I disagree. Such distinctions should be ignored,
and it was a fit of double-standard that had the court recognizing
such nonsense in the first place.
Consider the following carefully; Ignore the idea that what we're
dealing with is telemarketing for a moment.If I accept your argument,
here, what I'm really accepting is the idea that our freedom of speech
is totally dependant on someone's opinion of what said speech
contains. Once that line in the sand is crossed ...
While I have an idea that the founders would not have approved of
telemarketers, for all the reasons suggested in this thread and
perhaps a few more nobody's thought of. I have a feeling that someone
deciding what does and does not merit free speech protection was not
what the founders had in mind, either, when they wrote the concept
into the Bill Of Rights.
Regards to you!
/E
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not a question of deciding what
does and does not merit free speech protection. It is a question of
deciding if the speech is intended to sell something or not. No court
has ever said the speeches made by Republicans will be evaluated to
the speeches made by Democrats or the speeches made by Christians and
the speeches made by Jews, etc. The courts have said that speeches
made with a commercial purpose in mind do not receive in all aspects
the same protection nor are they required to be afforded the same
hospitality as speeches which are non-commercial in nature. Even a
commercial speech receives protection, certainly. It is just that if
a newspaper allows one politician to speak in their newspaper, they
are generally expected to allow other opposing viewpoints. On the
other hand if they run your classified advertisment for a fee, they
have no legal obligation to accept my advertisement. PAT]
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 31 Oct 1996 16:39:17 -0500
(Snipped out big article about Pac Bell making the usual claims that
long duration internet phone calls tie up the network and unfairly
cost them money, etc.)
Funny how we never heard the telcos complain in the last decade as
facsimilie traffic zoomed from nothing to <mumble> percentage of
calls, mostly of short duration but still charged for, thus making
them oodles and oodles of extra money.
Oh, and to add to the gravy, since (most) fax machines easily do
auto-redial on busy lines, the telcos could even allow network
congestion to increase (i.e. they didn't have to expensively expand
their network).
Lots of pure profit to them and nary a word of complaint. Wonder why ...???
dannyb@panix.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #583
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 31 20:42:02 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id UAA04371; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:42:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:42:02 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611010142.UAA04371@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #584
TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Oct 96 20:42:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 584
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: FCC Opinion on Voice Telephony (Brent Beach)
Re: Caribbean Phone Sleaze: Another Angle (Georg Schwarz)
Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Not Necessarily) (M. Wengler)
Re: AT&T Getting Into the Callback Racket - oops! - Scheme (Eric Elder)
Re: ISDN is Expensive!! (Kevin Kadow)
Re: Screenphones (Paul Long)
Re: Toronto's New Area Code 416/??? (John Cropper)
Information Request: Telecom Regulations in Latin-America (Mario Castano)
I Need Help With PBX (German G. Vanegas)
Information Wanted on Internet Security Review (TELECOM Digest Editor)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ae723@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brent Beach)
Subject: Re: FCC Opinion on Voice Telephony
Date: 31 Oct 1996 22:00:37 GMT
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Sent to Reed Hundt directly in response to a message from
<dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>:
Reed Hundt:
Read a transcript of part of your speech on telephony and the
internet. I have some comments.
> The phone companies argue that the absence of usage charges means that
> Internet users do not provide the revenue to cover the additional costs
> they impose on the network.
> How can we make sure that the economics of the telephone network do
> not constrain the bandwidth demands of the Internet? The challenge
> now is for the governmentally challenged Internet community to figure
> out how to talk to the FCC on this subject and what to say. After
> all, the FCC stands for Friendly to Computer Communications. After
> all I'm the first FCC chairman ever to be on the Net--so let me
> know -- mailto:rhundt@fcc.gov. What should our policies for bandwidth
> growth look like?"
I would like to present two completely different takes on this
question, both of which argue against the telephone company
positions.
First, the problem arises because the telephone switch is
designed to block. This design is obsolete and should not be
permitted to be the basis for any rate increase.
Second, the problem arises because they are using a voice switch
to switch data. Some rate encouragement may be required to
persuade someone, given unbundling of the customer lines, to
properly implement internet access.
SWITCH DESIGN
Ironic, isn't it. For years we have been told that the outside
plant is responsible for all the costs in the telephone system.
Now they turn around and say that the big problem is the
switching equipment. When I was in the business, the switching
matrices used in Northern Telecom equipment took up floor to
ceiling racks of essentially descrete electronic component (ICs)
hardware. Mitel built a chip that did the equivalent: they
replaced boards by chips. That was in the early 80s. What has
the progress been since then? Perhaps it is time to modernize
their equipment, to the benefit of voice and data subscribers.
There is no longer any excuse for having or building telephone
switches that do not permit all subscribers to be active all the
time. If telephone companies build Personal Computers, they
would all still have just 16 KB of ram.
Change the rules. Reduce the tariff on blocking switches rather
than permit higher rates on non-blocking switches.
These guys just need a little incentive to get them going. This
is not a tough problem.
DATA AND VOICE
That internet use interfers with the voice network at all
identifies a failure on the part of telephone companies to build
for the internet.
It is ridiculous that the internet user is limited to the
bandwidth available on a single voice circuit, when actively
transferring data. It is equally ridiculous that the internet
user is holding up a voice circuit during the long periods on
complete (data transfer) inactivity.
The internet is a data medium, not a voice medium. It requires
data switching, not voice switching. It requires modem banks and
terminal servers in the telephone office, connecting to ISPs and
the network over message passing mediums. It requires smart
protocols like PPP to reduce message traffic and increase
message size.
The phone company should be able to charge a little more to
install hardware in the telephone switch to divert a line, not
through the voice switch, but through copper, to a modem on a
terminal server connected directly to a data network.
Because they own the switch, telephone companies always try to
solve any problem using the voice switch. The solution does not
involve the voice switch at all, other than at setup and
takedown.
Rather they should add a second connection for another copper
circuit to the line card and a relay in the line card. When the
customer dials the internet number, the switch operates the
relay and then forgets about the call (the call stops using
telephone switch resources).
The second copper circuit connects to a dedicated modem in a
large terminal server that is the data interface to the
internet. The user gets to select the type of modem used here,
to match the one in their home or office. Since these two modems
are matched, and since they do not have to work around any
AD/DA conversion, they should be able to operate at very high
speeds. We are still only talking max a couple of hundred
dollars worth of equipment, that the user should be able to
either purchase or lease.
The terminal server must have a message connection to the
telephone switch to permit it to tell the telephone switch to
release the relay when the data call ends.
Now, we have the potential for VERY high speed access to the
internet, limited not by the 64Kb bandwidth of voice switches,
but by the ability of Rockwell and others to build a super-fast
modems, by Cisco and other to build super-fast routers, by DEC
and others to build super-fast servers. ADSL modems work in this
mode, so this type of speed is possible.
There will be no need to force internet users off the voice
switch. Given the speed gains, they will jump to the alternative
as fast as telephone companies, or anyone else who wants to
deploy the modems, terminal servers, and other data messaging
equipment in the telephone office can deploy it.
As an added advantage, since there is absolutely no use of voice
capabilities during this type of data call, this solution will
reduce blocking and improve voice system accessibility.
SUMMARY
These telephone company guys are nuts. They have their heads
stuck in the past. The guys in the regulatory departments are
bent on preserving the past.
I suggest you give them a couple of swift kicks and get them
moving on this.
And Reed, don't be shy about sending me some email if you need
any further explanation of this.
Brent Beach, Victoria, BC
------------------------------
From: schwarz@physik.tu-berlin.de (Georg Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Caribbean Phone Sleaze: Another Angle
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 22:48:35 +0100
Organization: Microsoft Free Zone
Linc Madison <Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com> wrote:
> I think that the best approach is for the U.S. State Department to
> argue quite vigorously that a change in the settlements rate is
> clearly warranted if the island telco has enough leeway in that amount
> to allow it to pay a substantial amount to a third party.
Well, I think this argument does not really work. The telco is not
simply giving away money to some local enterprise. Rather it has made a
deal with them hoping to increase its own revenues and profits that
way. I think it is save to say that nowadays between most
destinations there is a surplus of phone capacity (you rarely get a
busy signal ...). This means that telcos have a legitimate interest in
attracting more customers to their partly idle lines. And why sould
they not seek cooperation with other enterprises in order to sell some
extra phone time?
As far as arguing that the rates are too high since there is oviously
still some margin left for some third party goes, one should realize
that this practice does not apply to all calls to that destnation, but
only to a certain percentage of calls, namely those "extra" calls
generated by that sex etc. lines, calls (and thus revenues for the
telco) which otherwise would not exist. So if you blame the telcos for
selling their "excess" phone capacity at a lower margin (for them,
because they have to give a certain percentage to the third party
"service" provider) then you should as well blame any business that
sells goods (eg. excess stock) to redistributors at prices way below
what they normally charge their customers.
I'm sure those sex phone services etc. are totally legal in the
country they operate in. Whether their advertizing methods abroad
(e.g. in the US) always are is another matter ... let's face it: no one
is forced to call those destinations. If someone immediately calls any
number that appears on his pager or believes that +1 809 is right next
door, well, I should say it's his fault ...
Georg Schwarz schwarz@physik.tu-berlin.de, kuroi@cs.tu-berlin.de
Institut f=FCr Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254, FAX -21130
Technische Universit=E4t Berlin PGP key available, IRC kuroi
Germany http://itp1.physik.tu-berlin.de/~schwarz/
------------------------------
From: Michael Wengler <mwengler@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Not Necessarily)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:31:29 -0800
Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA
Tom Beckman <hrtmath@netcom.com> wrote in article <telecom16.555.15@
massis.lcs.mit.edu>:
> I have an offer from a long distance carrier that offers .108 per
> minute with the 10th, 16th and 25th month free, based on the average
> calls in the previous two months. This comes to .095 per minute, with
> the free months included. Six second increments, etc. I'm paying .12 per
> minute now.
> The rates cannot go up. Seems like a very good deal for a call volume
> around $6K per month. My only concern is what is going to happen in
> the long distance industry in the next two years -- a long time for
> that business.
You can get 10 cents/minute, 6-sec billing, no fees from ATCALL. See
them on the web at <http://www.atcall.com> or call their toll-free
numbers 888-FLAT-OUT or 800-709-4445
I am neither a customer or agent of theirs. But I did receive e=mail
from a satisfied customer using the service.
W/ 6,000 month, another option is T-1, but their are often reasons not
to go with T-1. Remember when reading the T-1 offerings, their will
be about $700/month of fees, and then you will be paying your low per
minute rates. Even so, $3,000/month is about where you break even, so
you should probably look to T-1 for savings. The only real reasons
you wouldn't be able to use one is 1) you're so far in the boonies it
costs a fortune to bring you a line 2) you're bill is spread out over
a number of phones in a few different locations, so a single T-1 won't
aggregate all the calls you are making.
Ciao,
Mike Wengler
http://www.he.net/~wengler/VoiceNet
------------------------------
From: Eric Elder <eelder@mailhost.is.paradyne.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T Getting Into the Callback Racket - oops! - Scheme
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:58:33 -0800
Organization: Lucent Technologies
Reply-To: eelder@mailhost.is.paradyne.com
danny burstein wrote:
> The Associated Press reported today (Monday 28-Oct-1996) that AT&T has
> announced its intention to establish "callback" dialtone to Japan from
> the US and undercut international pricing of its rivals.
I think it is great when the US can save international customers
money. I don't see this as a scheme or racket -- just smart business.
Also, callback is not a new idea. Many modems have had this capability
for years.
------------------------------
From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: ISDN is Expensive!!
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS Chicago
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:46:12 GMT
In article <telecom16.575.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Carter Fields
<cfields@nwu.edu> wrote:
> In article <DzyH9n.BLD@rci.ripco.com>, sysop@ripco.com (Ripco sysop) wrote:
>> plus a TA can't keep up with 128Kbps.
> Can you explain that comment? I don't understand.
I'm also (one of) the Ripco sysop(s), and maintain an ISDN TA/router
review web site at:
http://www.msg.net/ISDN/
There are a number of reasons that an internal card or 'ISDN router'
will give better results than an ISDN 'terminal adapter' product. The
biggest drawback is that the standard RS-232 interface is
asynchronous, while ISDN routers work in synchronous mode. Async is
cheaper, but wastes a start/stop bit for every byte sent.
The other drawback has to do with how a PC (or Mac) handles the
incoming PPP stream. With an ISDN router, the PPP packets are decoded,
uncompressed and turned into an ethernet packet in a dedicated box,
then transmitted at ethernet speeds (10Mbs) to the computer. The
computer then takes in the entire packet at once.
With an ISDN TA, the PPP stack, decompression and ethernet
translations are all done in software on a CPU that's busy doing many
other things (drawing your Netscape window, running the hard drives,
etc). It's brought in from a serial port a few bytes at a time.
Yes, you can set the TA to 'sync' mode, buy an expensive sync-capable
serial card for your PC, and dedicate one machine to just running your
ISDN internet link, but in doing so you've only duplicated what a
dedicated ISDN router does better.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:30:49 -0800
From: Paul Long <plong@perf.com>
Organization: Smith Micro Video Products
Subject: Re: Screenphones
(This started out as a private correspondence, but the other person
suggested that I post my response to the newsgroup.)
Johan van der Stoel wrote:
> However, I do not see a big market for videoconferencing over the
> analog telephone line, because of it's limited bandwith, bad quality
> and high price. But perhaps you think different about this matter. If
> so, please let me (and/or the newsgroup) know.
Haven't you heard about the H.32x ITU-T recommendations? In
particular, H.324 is for videoconferencing over the GSTN. Maybe a
couple dozen vendors around the world have an H.324 terminal in the
works, in the channel, or on the shelves, including Smith Micro (my
company), Intel, Sony (built into TVs), and Lucent Technologies, and
the finishing touches are being applied to a mobile version, for now
called H.324M. Mobile-phone vendors will be embedding a screen and
camera into the handset.
I'm guessing that the H.324M mobile phones will be available in late
1997. One or two PC-based H.324 products are already available.
Several others will be out in the next month or two. All hardware even
remotely related to communications, e.g., modems, cameras, and PCs,
will be bundled with an H.324 product, such as ours. As Intel's Andy
Grove said, videoconferencing will be virtually free.
If you don't get it for free, for example, with the next modem you
buy, retail software-only H.324 will probably cost no more than US$200
for the typical "multimedia computer" with speakers and a sound
card. (Due to the bandwidth bottleneck, there are plenty of MIPS on a
P120 for a software-only terminal. IMO, hardware codecs don't make a
lot of sense -- our albeit highly optimized software spends most of its
time waiting for the modem.) With that, you have a receive-only H.324
terminal. Add a parallel-port camera that has integrated capture
electronics for another US$200 or less, and you have a
fully-functional videophone that will do bi-directional color QCIF
frames (176 x 144) of relatively high spatial quality at about 15fps
with great audio over the GSTN. With simple post-processing of the
image like bit-doubling and interpolation, you can have full-screen
video with a tolerable size, granularity, and frame rate. With no
motion, the frame rate can zoom up to around 30fps, but then that's
cheating, isn't it. :-)
BTW, I don't know audio codecs well enough to know whether this is
supposed to be true, but the audio quality sounds better using the
G.723.1 codec in an H.324 terminal than the audio on a regular
phone. I guess G.723.1 samples a greater bandwidth then compresses it
to fit within the narrow bandwidth of a voice-grade line, still
leaving enough room for half-way-decent video.
Paul Long_______________________http://www.computek.net/public/plong
Smith Micro Video Products______http://www.smithmicro.com
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code 416/???
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:51:54 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
cmm@hookup.net wrote:
> Not really sure what you are wanting here. The 905 area code is in
> place and has been for months now. It splits the 416 area into 416 and
> 095, but I don't know where the dividing line is.
Err, John ... the 905 area code was assigned back in October of 1993
(mandatory in early 1994) ...
> jsmith@netcom.ca (Jack Smith) wrote:
>> Does Any one know what Toronto's new area code will be?
>> IS this going to be an east west split divided via Yonge Street
>> or an inner outer split ie (Toronto, York, Borough of East York) keep
>> 416 and Etobicoke, North York, and Scarbough goto the new code??
>> In any case I bet you "Bay Street" (financial district) will get to
>> keep 416. It is west of Yonge and downtown.
>> People have said that this could be a 416/905 overlay. This would be
>> too confusing for this area. At most this will only be an overlay
>> of the 416 area code. All numbers in "416" have the same local calling
>> areas. To keep this consistant only a 416 overlay should be introduced.
>> or better yet a split!
Bell Canada has proposed three plans for relief of the 416 area code.
Plan #1 is an east-west split of 416, roughly along (or near) Yonge St,
with minor exceptions here and there. The western half would retain 416,
while the eastern half gets a new NPA.
Plan #2 is a distributed overlay of 416, meaning that certain
municipalities would phase in the new code immediately, and others
would follow only after 416 is exhausted.
Plan #3 is a wireless overlay over both 416 & 905, and all existing
wireless services in 416 and 905 would move to the new NPA as well.
The plan is still under review by regulators, with a decision expected
by the beginning of next year ...
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
From: Mario A. Castano <m.a.castano@ieee.org>
Subject: Information Request: Telecom Regulations in Latin-America
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:33:58 -0500
Hello all:
The dynamic behavior of most Latin-American countries, including the
the clear trend to de-regulation of the telecommunications business,
make us to be easily outdated about how each country develops its
telecommunications sector.
I believe that if professionals in each country (or with knowledge
about the situation in that country) contribute through the Digest
with a summary on the current status of the regulation for the
different telecommunications services in every Latin-American country,
at the end all of us -- the big audience of the Digest -- will deepen
the knowledge of these markets. I personally would contribute with a
short presentation about Colombia's telecommunications sector.
I think interesting regulatory issues would include:
- local and long distance voice services
- data (value added) services
- satellite
- PCS and cellular
- CATV
Interesting questions are:
- What is the regulatory framework? Which are the governmental agencies?
- Which services are under a monopoly? Oligopoly?
- Is private investment allowed in services? If not now, when?
- Pointers to on-line and written sources of information
I hope that these ideas get enthusiastic support from all the Digest's
colleagues.
Best regards,
Mario A. Castano
m.a.castano@ieee.org
BTW, I am interested in knowing the total number of ISDN BRIs and PRIs
in the USA. Any clue?
------------------------------
From: German G. Vanegas <gvanegas@positron.qc.ca>
Subject: I Need Help With PBX
Date: 31 Oct 1996 16:07:32 GMT
Organization: Positron inc.
Help!
I have an application where analog telephone lines are used. Not
being very familirar with telephony, I don't know what is the best PBX
solution for somenone having these lines terminating at their
site. Could I use a digital PBX and simply add in an anlog card? Or
are there better solutions?
Thanks in advance,
German
------------------------------
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Information Wanted on Internet Security Review
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:00:00 EST
In issue 501 of this Digest, a message was posted by pluto@nso.org
telling about the Internet Security Review, aka 'www.isr.net'.
I went to that web page and was sufficiently impressed with their
offerings that I gave them my Visa number and authorized a charge of
fifteen dollars, which they made to my account on October 3.
I have heard nothing from them since. When I went to their web page
at 6:15 pm EST on Thursday, it was unavailable/unreachable. Does
anyone know anything about this service? I sent letters off today
to pluto@nso.org (poster of the original message) and root@isr.net
to inquire, but thought other readers here may have information as
well.
Thanks,
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #584
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 31 22:15:11 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id WAA11746; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:15:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:15:11 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611010315.WAA11746@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #585
TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Oct 96 22:15:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 585
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
IETF-Fax Charter Proposal (Richard Shockey)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Robert Bulmash)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Jeremy S. Nichols)
Re: Telemarketer Hell (Robert Bulmash)
Investigating the 809 Scam (Avi Hyman)
Re: UK to Canada Modem Problems (Jock Mackirdy)
How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Mike Van Pelt)
Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory (James E. Bellaire)
Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For? (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Re: Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie (Joe Sulmar)
Re: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70 (Dennis Wong)
Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (Jean-Francois Mezei)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
--- additionally ---
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** *
* Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for *
* contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you *
* are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to *
* 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us *
* at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. *
* NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and *
* IT professionals to the Telecom Industry *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey)
Subject: IETF-Fax Charter Proposal
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 01:45:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom
For those of you who might be interested there is a pretty strong
movement to bring some standards to the concept of Internet Fax.
There is a movement to go to the IETF for a charter to form a working
group on the subject.
The following is a draft charter.
For more information see the Internet Mail Conssrtium at
http://www.imc.org for the threads on this subject.
INTERNET FAX (FAX)
CHARTER
MAILING LISTS:
General Discussion: ietf-fax@imc.org
To Subscribe: ietf-fax-request@imc.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax/
DESCRIPTION OF WORKING GROUP:
Facsimile (fax) serves as a reliable, inexpensive global
communications service. As the Internet becomes pervasive,
integrating fax and Internet services is appealing in terms of cost-
savings and functional enhancements. This working group shall pursue
an initial round of review and specification for enabling standardized
fax over the Internet.
Efforts in the working group will divide among development of
standardized terminology, standardized data representation, and
standardized data transport methods. The first is to ensure a common
framework for participants from the Internet and the facsimile worlds.
The second will review existing facimile-related Internet data
specifications and accept, modify, replace or augment them, with
particular attention to their encapsulation, such as via MIME.
he third will consider store-and-forward (email), interactive
(human tolerances) and real-time (transparent to existing fax
machines) mechanisms over the Internet, seeking to specify standard
methods for each. Methods will cover the sending and receiving
Internet participants, addressing details, and requirements for
performance (latency) and reliability.
The dominant use of fax today is during a real-time connection over
the telephone network; hence an Internet-based direct replacement
service would save significant long- distance telephone charges.
However it is believed that this service is the most difficult task
to produce over the Internet, technically, whereas an email-based
service is likely to be the simplest. In the interest of making
progress quickly, an email-based service will be the first transport
mechanism pursued. Interactive services will be pursed after that.
The working group shall coordinate its activities with other
facsimile-related standards bodies.
GOALS AND MILESTONES:
Feb, 97 Submit terminology document and new or modified data
specifications onto standards track
Mar, 97 Submit email specification onto standards track
Jul, 97 Submit interactive-time fax-over-Internet specification
onto standards track
Richard Shockey Developers of Fax on Demand Solutions
President For Business, Media, Industry and
Nuntius Corporation Government.
8045 Big Bend Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63119 For a Demonstration Call our
Voice 314.968.1009 CommandFax Demonstration Line
FAX 314.968.3163 at 314.968.3461
Internet: rshockey@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Robert Bulmash)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 31 Oct 1996 19:40:39 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.583.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, brand hilton
<brand@nortel.ca> writes:
> >When I get those calls, I ... say "No thanks, and please remove
> >this number from your list." By law, if you ask, the can't call
> >again (if they care about the law).
>> Seems to work.
> Ditto. When I get a call, I just ask, as nicely as possible, "Excuse
> me, but could you please put me on your 'don't call' list?" They
> usually say, "Sure," and it ends fairly painlessly for everyone. As
> far as the law is concerned, I remember hearing that they were
> required to keep you on the "don't call" list for only six months, but I
> don't remember where I heard it.
The TCPA was amended in July ' 95. It's now a 10 year do-not-call statute
> At any rate, I think we probably have Bob Bulmash to thank, at least
> in part, for that law.
Oh it was nothing ... er well, the damn law turned out to be next to
nothing as far as its teeth in stopping repeat callers. But that's a
long story.
> I also agree with Pat's original response regarding treating the caller
> with civility. I think it's fair to say that NOBODY wants or likes
> those jobs. My sister-in-law did it for a little while during college,
> and she sure didn't like it. Of course, she was selling hearing aids,
> so my guess is that even when she got a potential client, the call was
> no picnic :-)
>> Does anyone have any real data about how the numbers are obtained for
>> generating unsolicited calls? I would bet it is NOT via phone books.
>> It is usually via computer-generated lists, and sometimes, even
>> psuedo-random dialing.
DMV records, County records, Magazine Subscription lists, Credit Card
lists, Sweepstakes lists, Reverse directories listing people by address
rather than name (and sold by telco and others, Voter Registration forms
(stop me before I cite again)
Bob Bulmash
Private Citizen Inc.
http://izzy.net/~vnestico/pci/html
1-800 CUT JUNK
http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only objection I have to the way it
was amended is the length of time involved. There are not a lot of
people who have the same phone number for ten years, and theoretically
at least, the new subscribers assigned to the number may have no
objection to telemarketing calls or in fact welcome such calls. Having
the telemarketers denied the right to dial a given number for that
period of time based on the actions of an earlier third person who no
longer has any interest in the matter seems to be unfair. I would have
limited it to a shorter period of time and/or given the telemarketer
the right to make a *single* call perhaps once every two years for the
sole purpose of confirming the continued desires of the persons now
using the numbers listed.
Something to the effect perhaps of a call at specified intervals
(every two years?) saying, "Hello, this is <telemarketer-name>; from
time to time we have commercial offers we present by making telephone
calls. May we have your permission to call you from time to time with
these offers?" If the person says yes then the number is removed from
the 'do not call' list. If the person says no then the telemarketer
thanks them for reconfirming their wishes and hangs up, to not bother
them again. Their activities, while distasteful to many people, are
lawful. Ten years is an unfair burden on them. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jsn@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Jeremy S. Nichols)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:53:26 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota
thomas@menno.com (Thomas Lapp) wrote:
> I didn't see my method of handling those calls: screen everything! My
> outgoing message on an answering machine says basically, "You've
> reached xxx-xxxx. All calls to this number are screened. Please
> leave your message."
I do this too. It costs practically nothing (I need the machine
anyway, and I got it for $5 at a garage sale).
I had the "I screen all calls" on the outgoing message for a while,
too, but I took it off when my wife thought it a bit blunt. I was
getting a lot of telemarketing calls (5-10 per evening!), but also an
equal number of wrong numbers (mostly daytime).
Jeremy S. Nichols, P.E. jsn1@rsvl.unisys.com
Minneapolis, MN jsn@maroon.tc.umn.edu
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know someone who was brassy enough
to put an outgoing message on his machine which said, "For your
convenience, this phone is answered 24 hours per day by this tape-
recording machine. This enables you to leave a message without any
delay and enables me to quickly respond to calls of importance." Then
in a somewhat sterner tone of voice it concludes, "There is NEVER a
live answer at this number, you MUST leave a message if you wish to
communicate with someone here." <beep> PAT]
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Robert Bulmash)
Subject: Re: Telemarketer Hell
Date: 31 Oct 1996 19:40:07 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.583.13@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.
com (Eric Florack) writes:
> While I have an idea that the founders would not have approved of
> telemarketers, for all the reasons suggested in this thread and
> perhaps a few more nobody's thought of. I have a feeling that someone
> deciding what does and does not merit free speech protection was not
> what the founders had in mind, either, when they wrote the concept
> into the Bill Of Rights.
It's just a wild and hairy assumtion on my part ... but weren't the
Framers thinking of political speech at the time? I don't think
Patrick Henry offered his life for liberty in defense of speech
concerning Abdomizer advertisements.
It kinda flowed from the basic concepts of a maliable Constitution;
from Nat Turner, to Plessey v. Fergeson, to Brown v Board of
Education. But I really have no doubt that, if telemarketing was
contemporay to the Framers, that the Constitution's First Article
would have set down an opt-in procedure to allow people who wanted to
get telenuisance calls, to receive them. Thus protecting the other
97% of us.
Bob Bulmash
Private Citizen, Inc.
http://www.izzy.net/~vnestico/pci.html
1/800 CUT JUNK
http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You get into kind of rough and choppy
waters when you try to play the game I call 'What the Founder Fathers
Intended' ... for all the documentation you find leaning in one direc-
tion, others will share the same amount leaning the other in so many
aspects of our modern life today. Would they approve of action X? Well
then what about action Y? How would they respond when situation Z
became a problem? And on it goes. And even if we *knew for a fact*
what the Founders wanted in all cases, are we necessarily obliged to
honor all those wishes today? Would the Founders agree that 'new
ocassions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth' as James
Russell Lowell phrased it or would they suggest the Old Time (Civil)
Religion was good enough for them and it should be good enough for you
as well ... and the way they wrote it is the way you should be living
it now?
I do agree with you Bob, I don't think they had in mind thousands of
advertisements for Preparation-H on the sides of busses and commercials
on television for Gas-X, "... to relieve the discomfort and embarassment
of 'gas' which escapes from your body when your stomach has become
bloated ...". The commercial shows a man who is smiling with pleasure
when he realizes that Gas-X has made it possible once again for him to
sit in a crowded theatre without violating the prohibition Oliver W.
Holmes described which would likely cause panic and massive evacuations
once the other theatre patrons 'got wind' of it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Avi Hyman <ahyman@oise.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Investigating the 809 Scam
Organization: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:58:33 GMT
In my systems administration capacity here at the University, I have
been trying to break the 809 scam ring, in cooperation with the
police, telephone security people and media. We are now hot on the
trail of a particular cellular company in the 809 region and a ISP in
Britain. However, we need some additional help.
If you have been a victim of this scam, or know someone that has been
a victim of this scam, please have them call Sheila Mandell,
investigative researcher at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE!
Her phone number is: 416-205-2879
Please distribute this note widely so that it will reach as many victims
as possible. Thank you.
Avi Hyman, Education Commons, ahyman@oise.utoronto.ca
Human Factors Specialist, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ahyman
OISE / University of Toronto ph: 416-923-6641 ext.2770
252 Bloor St.W., Toronto, Ont. M5S 1V6 fax: 416-926-4737
------------------------------
From: Jock Mackirdy <jockm@basluton.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: UK to Canada Modem Problems
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:27:18 +0000
Reply-To: jockm@basluton.demon.co.uk
In article <telecom16.580.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu> on Wed, 30 Oct 1996
01:49:14 +0000, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca> wrote:
> For the past 2.5 weeks, a user in Coventry England has been unable to
> negotiate proper connections with a modem here in Montreal (Canada).
> I would appreciate any hints from people who have had similar
> problems, especially if they have been telephone system related. (I
> have been in touch with my modem manufacturer, but so far, no
> success).
This could be due to using a satellite or transatlantic cable circuit
with limited bandwidth or with echo suppression enabled. For data
calls, your caller should use the International prefix "000", not
"00".
I believe the rate per minute is greater but he is guaranteed a more
reliable connection.
Jock Mackirdy Business Advisory Services
Independent Telecomms and Business Advice
Luton UK
------------------------------
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:46:50 GMT
In article <telecom16.574.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Ken Levitt
<levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org> quoted Cybercom:
> sign up for an account under a bogus name and, as soon as their
> account is activated, send as much spam as they can until their
> account is shut off. Of course, they don't pay either. It is
> difficult, if not impossible, for an ISP to protect itself from this
> kind of abuse.
Perhaps this would be a solution:
1) No emailing until the credit card is validated.
2) The first 10 (20? 30?) email messages sent per day are free.
After that, they're $1.00 each. Above 100, they're $10.00 each.
3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
4) For people who want to run legitimate mailing lists, provide a
waiver for the email limits. This is a tiny fraction of your
users, probably small enough you can keep a close eye on them,
at least long enough to be sure they're legit.
Mike Van Pelt
mvp@netcom.com
KE6BVH
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 00:42 EST
From: James E Bellaire <bellaire@tk.com>
Subject: Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory
In Telecom Digest 579, Mark Cuccia wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see the FCC *require* that all long-distance
> companies route calls to 555-1212 to the genuine LEC's inward
> directory. They have the proper listings (most up-to-date), and
> *usually* those information operators are more familiar with the
> localities and geography of the called area codes.
It would be nice to set aside a customer code so that the inward
operator could be reached. Could be as simple as 0-npa-555-1212 for
an inward operator or 1-npa-555-1212 for your telco's choice of service.
Knowing our government they would probably make us choose a default
directory assistance provider, along with our default inter-LATA LD,
intra-LATA LD, inter-national LD, local service, data service, dial
tone, and end user loop providers that unbundling will one day bring.
Back to the present ...
Ameritech is offering directory assistance for the entire country now.
I have not tried it, but they say that you do not need the city, just
the general area. As long as the 'boiler room' providers do as good a
job as the LEC inward operators once did, I have no complaints.
Once upon a time you could get a phone number for another NPA in the
same state as the one you dialed with 1-npa-555-1212. And you didn't
need the exact suburb name if you wanted someone in a metro area.
I have had operators tell me I had the wrong NPA and they couldn't help.
At least a regional or country coverage system wouldn't charge me twice,
once for the NPA correction and once for the number.
Of course now I read TELECOM Digest, I don't have to worry about getting
the wrong NPA anymore. :)
Somewhere in an Indiana cornfield watching NPA 765 grow.
James E. Bellaire bellaire@tk.com
Webpage Available 23.5 Hrs a Day!!! http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is apparently working out pretty
well so far. I am told Ameritech does get a clue as to the place where
the inquiry is originating in order for them to search for the number
requested in a reasonable context. That is, an inquiry coming from
Springfield, Illinois asking for a number in 'Springfield' would be first
(and most likely successfully) searched in that caller's immediate
area. An inquiry coming from Springfield, Ohio/Missouri (although
Ameritech does not directly serve the latter) would be first searched
in the respective communities 'Springfield' so that the operator does
not have to further inquire 'Springfield WHERE?'. Realizing that a
very large percentage of calls for directory assistance relate to the
local community, Ameritech gets a 'head start' on locating the number
by observing the inquiring party's location. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:26:39 +0000
Organization: Vaxination Informatique
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca
> But, who is using them and how, and what do users perceive as the
> > major benefits they derive as telecommunications consumers?
I have a Nortel VISTA 350 telephone with Bell Canada services.
I have called Nortel's help line a few times to ask questions.
I was once unable to make a 3-way conference call once because the LINK
key was disabled by Bell Canada's programming and the modal programming
was not allowing me to do what I needed to do. You cannot use the
"REDIAL" button once the handset has been lifted, again because of Bell
Canada's programming. If you want to forward your calls, better be
careful about your timing when you redial the second time otherwise the
phone will not allow you to complete the call forwarding.
This week, I called Nortel again to ask them how to deprogram the phone
to make it "factory setting". I also called Bell Canada to complain
about the very bad user interface of their programming. There are many
instances wihere Bell's programming is not "ready for prime time". Bell
is supposed to have a new program next week (Called Operac).
In short, a standard phone is easier to use than the VISTA 350 with its
current programming. The VISTA 350 is easier to use when not loaded with
Bell Canada's own additions. The buttons near the screen are too small.
Unfortunatly Nortel will not release a programming manual for us who
would like to make a decent user interface on those phones and program
our own stuff to fit our own needs.
In short, I am very disappointed.
It does have the advantage of showing who is calling during "call
waiting" and a hands-free feature. It has less ring types than other
phones.
------------------------------
From: Joe Sulmar <jsulmar@shore.net>
Subject: Re: Toolkit Wanted For I.V.R. Newbie
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:34:41 -0500
Organization: Sulmar Systems Engineering
Scott Moffet wrote:
> Help Please!
> Can anyone provide counsel for a programming student and telephony
> newbie?
Scott--
I develop and integrate voice and fax systems for a living, so I have
some opinions and suggestions on many of your questions ...
> Would the Dialogic programming toolkits in C be a good place to start?
Yes, depending on what you want to learn. You'll learn lots of
nittyGritties working with C and using the vendor's API. On the
otherHand, you'll learn more about the human factors and caller
friendliness issues if you stay clear of the low level details. In
this case, you might want to consider one of the higher level
development packages available from third parties that allow you to
program or flowchart at a much higher level of abstraction.
There are about half a dozen viable US companies that make high
density voice boards for PC's, and Dialogic(800-755-4444) is the
market share leader. Rhetorex (408-370-0881) and Natural
Microsystems(508-650-1300) are probably the next two largest and each
of them offers a development kit similar to the one you mentioned from
Dialogic. All three vendors support various operating systems-- DOS,
UNIX, OS/2, NT, and WIN95.
> And does anyone have experience/recommendation regarding Dialogic's
> 'Voice Starter Kit' that has a D/41D card, a pricey little
> 'Prompt-Master telephone', and 'MS-DOS Software Development Package'?
I'm not exactly sure what is in the 'Voice Starter Kit', but I believe
that it includes one of their 4-channel boards along with the MS-DOS
Development Package. The Prompt-master system is for recording, editing
and tuning the pre-recorded messages and voice segments that you'll play
for callers during program execution. You can probably get started
without it if you write into your application a basic play/record/delete
voice editing facility.
> Is there even an alternative to this Dialogic stuff? Rhetorex??
Rhetorex and NMS (see above) both offer similar development packages.
> I'm wondering what tools/compilers/languages the big guns are using.
> Is the P.C. (running Win NT) even accepted as a serious platform in
> this arena?
Most casual users (i.e. end user organizations that deploy voice/fax
applications as an ancillary service rather than as a core competence)
tend to use third party development packages in order to shorten the
learning curve and reduce software maintenance costs. These
development packages fall into about three categoreis: Graphic
flowcharting tools, "forms" based templates with data fields
describing the characteristics and performance of each programming
step, and extended programming languages -- i.e. basic language with
special commands added to manipulate the voice hardware.
Service bureaus and companies that perform high volume call processing
as a core competence tend to need more control over their systems, so
they often develop their own development tools in-house using the
hardware vendor's API. C is by far the most popular environment for
this type of work. In terms of operating systems, Unix is widely
regarded as the most stable environment and all of the board makers
support it. There is definite market pressure toward NT right now, but
only Rhetorex has been on the market for more than 6 months with an NT
driver. Believe it or not, many of the high volume service bureaus
still use DOS based systems because of the very low overhead associated
with task management.
> I have looked at the 'Visual Basic' toolkits, but I find it hard to
> believe multiport commercial-grade apps are written in VB.
You can build 12-16 port applications on a fast pentium using these
toolkits, but for systems larger that that, you need something with less
run-time overhead. For higher-end flowcharting tools, check out
Brooktrout's "Show-N'Tel" (617-449-4100) which runs under OS/2 and
supports Dialogic and Rhetorex hardware. Also, you might consider Apex
(818-379-8400)OmniVox flowcharting tool which runs under Unix and
supports Dialogic hardware. Both Brooktrout and Apex now offer NT
versions of their product, but if you're looking for stability and a
full set of features you should stick with their respective traditional
operating systems.
For more info from third parties that make development tools for
Dialogic, see http://www.dialogic.com/ctx/toolkits/TOOLKITS.HTM
To get quotes on used equipment and software, call Alliance Systems
(800-977-1010).
For a good overview of the industry, subscribe to Computer Telephony
Magazine (800-677-3435)
Hope this helps. Good luck, and if you want more opinions feel free to
ask.
Joseph J. Sulmar -- Lexington, MA USA -- jsulmar@shore.net
------------------------------
From: Dennis Wong <a15283@mindlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:32:36 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Reply-To: a15283@mindlink.net
Steve Forrette wrote:
> In article <telecom16.555.11@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Telecom@Eureka.vip.
> best.com says:
>> I just made a curious discovery. Up until very recently, when I dialed
>> *70 for cancel call waiting, I got stutter dialtone but could dial right
>> through it without any problems. Just this week, though, I noticed that
>> when I dial *70, I get two short bursts of what sounds like stutter BUSY
>> tone, then return to steady dialtone. Furthermore, if I don't pause and
>> wait for the regular dialtone, my call is not completed correctly.
>> I don't know what
>> central office or model of switch serves this line (shameful to admit, I
>> know ;->). Does this reflect some recent "upgrade" on the telco switch?
> The symptoms you describe (stuttering after *70 sounding like a busy
> signal and the inability to dial while the switch is stuttering) are
> indicative of a Northern Telecom DMS-100 switch. My guess would be
Well, up here in Burnaby BC Canada. I am on a GTD 5 switch and it does
the same thing.
1. Dial cancel call waiting;
2. Hear Two busy tones, then dial tone (must pause before dialing
number);
3. dial number.
------------------------------
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud via Email)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:45:20 +0000
Organization: Vaxination Informatique
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca
You have to be careful about assuming anything about dialing methods.
I have a friend from New Zealand who used her NZ calling card to dial
to me. (I cannot remember exactly where she was at the time, but I
believe she was in North America).
When she got her bill in NZ, it said that she had dialed:
She dialed country code 1, area code 514 followed by seven digits.
(Montreal.)
On her bill, NZ Telecom thought she had dialed:
2514nnnnnnn
And NZ Telecom then interpreted this as country 251 followed by an 8
digit telephone number beginning with 4.
She was therefore billed for a call to Ethiopia instead of Canada :-(
(251 is Ethiopia) She did manage to get charges fixed when it was
realised that 8 digit phone numbers do not exist in Ethiopia!
However, this has made me think that Canada really has a country code
of "2" instead of the common "1".
Can anyone comment on the use of "2" as a country code for Canada?
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #585
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Nov 1 11:18:16 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id LAA00724; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:18:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:18:16 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611011618.LAA00724@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #586
TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Nov 96 11:18:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 586
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Telecom Regulations in Latin-America - Argentina (Mariana Sanchez)
Errors in Numbering/Dialing/Billing (Mark J. Cuccia)
Ridiculous Telecom Issues (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Continental Cablevision's Highway 1 (Christopher Herot)
Risks of Deferred ISDN Charges (Monty Solomon)
Information Needed on Telcoms in NYC (Bryan VanDussen)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Bill Sohl)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Robert Casey)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (David Clayton)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sancmari@telefonica.com.ar
Subject: Re: Telecom Regulations in Latin-America
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 96 11:42:00 PST
Hello!
I pick the offer that Mario Castano did in his article inviting to write
about the regulations in Latin-America. In this case, I will write about
Argentina.
Since 1990, local and long distance services are private. The country was
divided in two areas (north and south) and assigned to two different
companies by auction (Telecom Argentina kept the north area while Telefonica
de Argentina took the south). This division includes Buenos Aires which is
also divided in two (Buenos Aires has half of the total population of the
country). In this act, telecommunications services were divided in basic
services (local and long distance voice services), international services and
value added services (including data). A company that provides one of these
services is not allowed to provide any of the others. For this statement, we
are now discussing what would happen with ISDN (nobody can provide it for the
moment, except the international carrier for international links). The
companies that provide the different services are:
- Telefonica de Argentina (merge of Telefonica de Espana, Citibank and a
local company, Techint): voice services.
- Telecom Argentina (Stet, France Telecom and a local company Perez Companc):
voice services.
- Telintar (Telefonica/Telecom): international services
Telefonica and Telecom will provide service monopolically until 1997. If the
Regulatory Office (CNT: Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones) verifies at
the end of this period that the companies fullfill all the obligations
settled in the tender, these companies can ask automatically for three
additional years of monopoly (of course during this period they will keep
being allowed to offer only basic service, so there is a chance that these
companies do not ask for this extension, depending on the evolution of the
local market). Nowadays, there are 7.000.000 users (total) with a total
population of 33.000.000. You can visit their pages in the web:
http://www.telefonica.com.ar and http://www.telecom.com.ar (I think that both
are in spanish and english)
When it comes to data the list is very large and includes Startel
(Telefonica/Telecom), Comsat (very well known), Impsat (local company with
the support of Stet and great presence in Latin-America) and many others.
Related to pagers and trunking, all these services are provided by private
companies that have accessed to there licenses by auction too. There are some
international companies with global coverage and some small local ones too.
There is a wide variety too.
Cellular service was first provided in Buenos Aires in 1988 by Movicom (Bell
South, Motorola, BGH and SOCMA, a local company). This license was assigned
without an economical process (there was a lack of service, goverment could
not affort the investment and that's it). Only in 1993, there was an
agreement to settle another license (always in Buenos Aires) for the fixed
services providers: Miniphone (Telefonica/Telecom). By that time, there was
an auction to provide cellular service in the rest of the country, once again
with the same geographical division. This time the winner is only one: CTI
(you can provide cellular service in up to two different areas and there are
three: north, south and Buenos Aires). This company (GTE, Lucent Technologies
and Grupo Clarin, one of the stronger local corporations of newspapers,
radio, TV and CATV) now has competence with the cellular companies of
Telefonica (Unifon) and Telecom (Telecom Personal) that arose in the market
at the begining of 1996. All of these companies also have periods of
protection related to the service but they differ one from the other. Buenos
Aires has 400.000 cellular users while all the rest of the country has 60.000
clients or so.
Now it seemes that PCS is coming to this place. There is a great discussion.
Apparentely, the goverment wants to assign three licences in Buenos Aires by
the end of this year (at this pace, this will not happen until march/april
1997). Cellular companies are crying out for there rights related to existant
regulations and those that are to be stablished (the first steps show that
there is no intention of allowing any of the companies actually providing
fixed/cellular nor broadcasing services to participate in the auction).
Besides, the big question for the interested parties is: are we enough for
five mobile companies (15.000.000 inhabitants)? The second big question is
what has to do CNT related to the technical options? Must they say
CDMA/TDMA/PHS yes, the others no to provide users the security of full
coverage and possibility of changing of company? (remember we are a small
market and that increases prices and costs). An interesting position is to
arrive to an agreement with other countries (Mercosur: Uruguay, Brasil,
Paraguay and now, Chile). But this can take time as all this countries are in
different situations when it comes to telecommunications.
CATV: there is something where we are the first! We are the country with the
highest penetration of service in Latin America. There are more CATV clients
than fixed telephone service clients! The bigger companies are VCC (US West
and Fintelco), CV (TCI and Multimedios America, the other big corporation of
newspaper/radio/TV and CATV, now it seemes that TCI will buy 80% of
Multimedios America but for the moment they deny it) and Multicanal
(Citibank, Grupo Clarin and Telefonica de Argentina). They are pressing over
the CNT to be allowed to provide telephony but for the moment that is all:
pressure. They are starting to offer Internet (cable modems) but still using
a telephone line for upstream communication).
As you see, all the eyes are on 1997, looking for the complete deregulation
or the extension until 2000. Of course, all CATV and other international
companies that are actually pressing for the deregulation will look carefully
for the fullfillment of the terms of the tender (curious, AT&T is announcing
on TV that they are the meeting point for the world comparing their symbol
with many well known places like The Red Square in Moscow or Copacabana in
Rio de Janeiro, when they are not providers of any service in Argentina).
Well, I hope this has been interesting enough and useful. If any of you have
more questions about local regulations, just contact me.
(Like always, there words are just mine and do not necessarily agree with my
company position).
Regards,
Mariana Sanchez
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 08:53:31 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Errors in Numbering/Dialing/Billing
Jean-Francois Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) wrote:
> I have a friend from New Zealand who used her NZ calling card to dial to
> me. (I cannot remember exactly where she was at the time, but I believe
> she was in North America).
> When she got her bill in NZ, it said that she had dialed:
> She dialed country code 1, area code 514 (Montreal) followed by seven
> digits.
> On her bill, NZ Telecom thought she had dialed:
> 2514nnnnnnn
> And NZ Telecom then interpreted this as country 251 followed by an eight
> digit telephone number beginning with 4.
> She was therefore billed for a call to Ethiopia instead of Canada :-(
> (251 is Ethiopia) She did manage to get charges fixed when it was
> realised that 8 digit phone numbers do not exist in Ethiopia!
> However, this has made me think that Canada really has a country code
> of "2" instead of the common "1".
> Can anyone comment on the use of "2" as a country code for Canada?
It was obviously a translation error in the telco/carrier's routing and
billing equipment.
I remember that about five years ago, I was using MCI (via 950-1022)
to call a number in New York City, NPA 212. When I got the MCI
'dialtone' from their 950 number, I entered 0+212+seven-digits. I
'might' have accidently entered 01+212+etc., but I don't think so.
Now, New York City is a *polyglot* of cultures, ethnicities,
languages, immigrants (both legal and not), etc. But, I noticed that
'call setup time' was much longer than what I expected via MCI using
their 950 number to NYC should have been. There was a also a
*noticeable* loss of transmission quality, such as increased 'hiss' in
the connection. This was before fiber optics and digital transmission
became as widespread as it is today, particularly to international
points.
The connection eventually began to ring, but *not* using anything I am
used to for "North American" calls. It sounded like "French"
ringing. The line was answered by someone with a heavy foreign accent
and language which sounded Arabic. It also sounded 'a zillion miles
away!".
Country Code +212 is Algeria. NANP (+1) *area* code 212 is New York
City (now exclusively Manhattan). I have the strange feeling that my
call went to Algeria in northern Africa rather than to NYC. I hung up
(by hitting the "#" button) *right away*, and redialed. My subsequent
call went to the party I was trying to reach in New York City.
After the correct call, I called up MCI Customer Service *right away* and
explained what had happened. She said that she would 'flag' my account, so
that if such a call to Algeria would show up on my account, it could be
automatically credited before the bill would be prepared for mailing.
I *carefully* combed through my MCI bills for the next several months,
and there was *NO* call to Algeria indicated on my bill. Of course, my
five minute call to New York City was properly billed.
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Subject: Ridiculous Telecom Issues
Date: 31 Oct 1996 22:51:41 -0500
Organization: Ideamation, Inc.
Just a couple of quick observations. I was listening to WBUR the other
night and heard the business report. They claim that in one state
sixteen percent of their customers have had trouble completing their
calls because of people with nailed-up or extended term internet
connections.
I'm sorry but the LEC's are completely responsible for this mess. Most
of them never grew beyond the old AT&T manuals. The 4:1 ratio just
doesn't cut it anymore and it hasn't cut it since the mid 80's and
every single LEC knew it. What they need is a good healthy dose of
competition and I don't care what Pat says but having been a former
monopoly does not entitle you to hold up progress and deny consumers
choice.
The other issue that I'm miffed about proves that most LEC's are out
to shaft their customers. A few vendors have developed ISDN hardware
that spoofs digital data to look like a voice call on the ISDN side
thereby avoiding charges of (in my area) .94 for the setup and .16 per
minute. The two companies named were Nynex and Ameritech - two
shining examples of how badly communications companies can screw up. I
never was and shall never be a Nynex fan having witnessed too many of
their dimwitted screwups.
Tony
------------------------------
From: Christopher Herot/CAM/Lotus
Date: 31 Oct 96 22:21:27 EST
Subject: Continental Cablevision's Highway 1
levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) discussed Internet via Cable:
> Continental Cablevision is now offering two way high speed Internet
> access in the Massachusetts towns of Watertown, Wayland, and Weston.
I've been using Continental's internet access in Newton, MA since they
started the trial this summer. It's been pretty reliable and
blindingly fast. When they installed it, they said it ran at 4
mbits/sec in each direction, although now that the service is past the
trial period they've cut it down to 1.5 mbps downstream and 300 kbps
upstream. A columnist in the Boston Globe complained today that
$49.95 was pricey, but he obviously hasn't priced a T1 line (or even
ISDN).
The only problem I have with Continental is that they are slow to move
beyond the old cable tv mentality that all good things flow from the
head end to a passive consumer. Their contract specifically prohibits
subscribers from "provision of email, FTP, and Telnet access." They
also try to discourage servers by supporting only Windows 95 and Mac
7.x and by requiring use of DHCP. I've been unable to get them to let
me have more than one IP address - they seem uncomfortable right now
with anyone who wants to do more than just surf the Web.
It's not the same as having your own T1 to the net, but it is a lot of
bits for the money, and it's the right model for how to be connected
to the net -- constantly.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:15:18 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Risks of Deferred ISDN Charges
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 18.51
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 15:13 -0400
From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Subject: Risks of deferred ISDN charges
This is in response to a query about why I received a year's worth of Long
Distance charges all at once. The name of the carrier has been omitted to
protect the very large long-distance carrier (or the remaining third). The
original was sent all upper case, this is an OCRed version.
DEAR ***
WHEN ISDN LINES APE ESTABLISHED, A CARRIER FOR THE LONG DISTANCE PORTION OF
THIS SERVICE IS CHOSEN EITHER BY CHOICE OR BY CHANCE. AT THIS TIME, THE
LONG DISTANCE CARRIER IS SUPPOSE TO BE NOTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CHOSEN
TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE BY THE CUSTOMER. OFTEN, NEITHER THE CUSTOMER NOR
THE LOCAL TELEPHONE COMPANY INFORM THE LONG DISTANCE CARRIER THAT THEY HAVE
BEEN PICKED. THIS RESULTS IN UNIDENTIFIED AND UNBILLED USAGE TO ACCUMULATE
UNTIL THE USER CAN BE LOCATED AND DETERMINED BY THE LONG DISTANCE CARRIER.
THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE A RECEIVED A BILL FROM *** FOR USAGE THAT IS ALMOST A
YEAR OLD. SINCE THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE IS UNDER TARRIF (TARRIF F.C.C.
NO.4), WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BACK BILL WHEN IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED WHO
USED OUR SERVICE,
I HOPE THAT THIS EXPLANATION ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS REGUARDING THE BILL THAT
YOU HAVE RECEIVED. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE GIVE US A CALL
AT .1-800-***-****
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 96 09:09:08 -0800
From: bryanvd@yankeegroup.com (Bryan VanDussen)
Organization: the Yankee Group
Subject: Information Wanted on Telcoms in NYC
Hi guys,
Love the Archives web site. Do you have any ideas as to where I might
find information on the New York City telcoms market. I am looking
for historical stuff that would help me to model the evolution of
switched access competition.
ANYTHING would help. I think I have visited every telcom-related web
site on the Net and am starting to grow frustrated.
bryan van dussen
director telecommunications research
the Yankee Group
617 956 5006 ext 249
------------------------------
From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 13:22:02 GMT
Organization: BL Enterprises
tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote:
> Internet threatens gridlock for U.S. phone system
> NEW YORK (Reuter) - Soaring Internet usage is bringing the United
> States phone system perilously close to gridlock by tying up millions
> of local phone lines every evening, say industry experts and analysts.
> "It is like gridlock on a highway: If you are close to capacity,
> traffic still moves slowly, but just add a few more vehicles and you
> get gridlock," said Amir Atai, director of network and traffic
> performance at BellCore.
> For phone networks, gridlock means fewer calls going through on the
> first try, more busy signals and even blocked calls, where perplexed
> callers hear nothing at all after dialing.
Of the above three examples, only one is related to any capacity
or volume situation.
Fewer calls going through on the first try is not capacity related
if it is because the dialed number is busy.
More busy signals is no different than if a teenager is on the phone
for six hours straight.
Blocked calls is the only true volume/capacity related issue. Such
blocked calls can be do to a lack of intra-switch connections (not
likly) or an all circuits (interoffice trunks) busy condition (more
likely).
Since many home internet users today have added a second or even third
line, the switch should be grown to reflect the total number of
terminations and the intra-switch switching paths should have been
increased. If it is a busy local (inter-switch) trunk group that is
busy, then you do have a local gridlock situation.
> The bottleneck is essentially confined to local networks, and does not
> affect long distance carriers, experts say.
Common sense would tell anyone that. LD calls are billed on minutes
of use.
> Industry studies suggest that if U.S. Internet penetration reaches 15
> percent, it would force a $22 billion network investment by the
> regional Bells to support it. California currently has the highest
> penetration at eight percent.
> "We think action is required within two years," when the 15 percent
> figure is expected to be reached, said Atai.
> Short-cut solutions exist, such as using filters to sort Internet
> calls from others based on their destination number.
Translation: deliberately blocking calls to an ISP even if that ISP
has non-busy incoming lines.
> If that idea catches on, it could open a huge market for firms like
> Lucent Technologies Incand Northern Telecom Ltd., which make the
> filters.
> But regional Bells, indignant that Internet service providers do not
> have to pay access charges to reach Bell customers as long distance
> companies do, are reluctant to pay to sort out the problem.
See recent comments on access charges in general as per one of the
FCCs commissioners speech on internet telephony, etc.
> "Bell switch ports are being tied up and they're not even being
> compensated for it," said David Goodtree, an industry analyst with
> consultancy Forrester Research.
I pay a monthly service charge for which I have a dedicated switch
port (i.e. my telephone number, line card). So does an ISP for each
and every dial in line they have. The only usage variable is
intra-office switching paths if my ISP is served from the same CO as I
am. If my ISP is in another switching office, then the statement has
validity as it would refer to the intra-office trunk group termination
and the interoffice trunk path ... BUT, the usage is no different for
any type of call, be it a business call, teenager talking for long
times, or an internet ISP call.
> The problem has swept like a tide from California, where Pacific
> Telesis Group (PacTel) already has major problems, to major cities and
> even some suburban areas.
> "We found the problem is very severe in California and east coast
> metropolitan areas. It is beginning to appear in some other areas,"
> Atai told Reuters.
Perhaps if some call and traffic analysis data was included I'd be
more convinced, but until that's provided, these articles take on more
of a sky is faling perspective than any solid information to
substantiate such claims.
> The problem is fundamental to the nature of phone systems.
> "The local network was designed for short calls which you make and
> then hang up, but Internet calls often occupy a line for hours," said
> Goodtree. Those lines may not even be carrying much data, but are lost
> to the system in that time.
> PacTel studied some of its telephone switches in detail and found that
> an average Internet surf was 20.8 minutes long, compared with 3.8
> minutes for an average phone call. Ten percent of Internet calls were
> six hours or longer.
But unless such traffic usage actual results in blocked intra-switch
calling or blocked trunk groups it is a so what.
> To make matters worse, the peak hour for phone systems has now
> switched to 10 p.m. because of evening Internet use, throwing out the
> logistics of networks designed around pre- and post-lunch weekday
> calling peaks.
Why would this change things? Analysis can simply be done which
focuses on the daytime calling periods and ignor the evening
residential peaks.
> PacTel said a study of one Silicon Valley telephone switch showed 16
> percent of call attempts failed during peak evening hours because of
> Internet traffic,
If any part of that statistic is due to busy dialed numbers, so what.
Without a breakdown of reasons for this percentage, it offers
no real insite as to where, what real traffic problems may exist.
> and 2.5 percent of lines used by Internet service
> companies absorbed 20 to 36 percent of the switch's capacity.
> Ultimately, analysts say Internet traffic will migrate to packet data
> networks, the most efficient way of routing it.
> Packet networks act like traffic policemen, routing data on the next
> free highway away from jams, even if it means splitting up a convoy -
> - the words of a phone conversation for example -- travelling to the
> same destination.
So the problem will go away. Then what's the problem?
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net
Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor
Budd Lake, New Jersey
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bill, I wonder if the problem really is
that all these folks are going around the established ways of passing
communications (i.e. the newspapers) and spreading news, etc on their
own. You think the newspapers might like printing this sort of scare
story from time to time? It is a change of pace; after all, you can't
just print stories about women getting murdered by someone they met in
chat and people sending child porn spam everywhere. People get bored
after awhile. Why not a story about how Internet use is screwing up
the public telephone network for something different? PAT]
------------------------------
From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 07:30:34 GMT
Maybe I mis-understand something about the upcomming "local" phone
service competition, but when cable companies and whoever else
installs their lines (virtual or real wire), won't this new extra
bandwidth relieve the supposed congestion off the existing local phone
company (Pac Bell)? And I would guess the local C.O. phone switches
are probably paid for by now? So Pac Bell can just ride it out,
knowing that there's no point in spending more money to add capacity
for local calls, as other local competitors will create capacity and
suck off customers anyway.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Local 'competitors' will not be creating
extra capacity. They will be using the existing telco structure for the
most part. PAT]
------------------------------
From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 04:50:10 GMT
Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) contributed the following:
> Internet threatens gridlock for U.S. phone system
I'm sorry, but how valid is the description of "gridlock" for this
situation?
AFAIK "gridlock" means everything stops - if the network is full of
calls then the existing calls will not be affected by extra call
attempts - only those new calls will be affected - I believe that is
called "congestion" and is caused by a network that is not "non
blocking".
I know that people like to communicate in ways that other people can
relate to, but at least they should try to get close with the analogy.
Unless, of course, they are trying a little scare mongering and adding
some misinformation ...
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like I said before David, the Holier-Than-
Thou print media has been in a snit for years now about the way the
Internet users have moved in on their territory. Their bottom line in
the past few years has been bad enough anyway without having millions
of people just printing messages saying whatever they want to say
without getting approval via the publisher from the corporate giants
who keep the newspapers in business. Once you accept that basic premise
then so much of what you see in the papers becomes very clear. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #586
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Nov 1 12:32:02 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id MAA08680; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:32:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 12:32:02 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611011732.MAA08680@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #587
TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Nov 96 12:32:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 587
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
BellSouth PCS/DCS Experience (Stan Schwartz)
Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For? (Iain Bennett)
Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For? (Dave J. Stott)
Re: UK to Canada Modem Problems (Lars Poulsen)
Re: Information Wanted About Satellite System Design (Lars Poulsen)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Stephen Balbach)
Re: I Need Help With PBX (Edward Shuck)
Re: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Internet Provider? (Jeff Rhodes)
Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey (Mark Smith)
Re: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Help With Vintage Test Equipment (no@wizvax.net)
For Sale - GTE Omni PBX Telephone System (Jeff Dobkin)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Schwartz <stan@vnet.net>
Subject: BellSouth PCS/DCS Experience
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:04:39 -0500
I've seen posts in TD with press releases about the new PCS/DCS networks,
but I haven't seen any actual experiences. I thought I'd share my recent
experience.
BellSouth Mobility is currently running a promotion in Charlotte where
a Motorola Flare or Ericsson flip-style phone are available at a $50
rebate off retail price (effectively making the prices $99 and $119,
respectively). For some reason, all stores offering the phones
(including Radio Shack, Office Max and Depot, Best Buy, and even BSM's
own stores) sell them for the same price.
BSM offers "over the air" activation, by dialing 'DCS' once the phone
is powered up. Actually, any call attempt before the phone is
activated (I didn't try 911 for obvious reasons) is routed to Bell
South's activation line.
The signup process was quite painless. I was looking for the lowest
cost plan (to try the service out), and since there's no contract I
can always change. The lowest advertised plan is $26.95 with 45
included minutes and $.35 after that. The 'unadvertised' lowest
priced plan is $14.95/month, with no included minutes, $.45 per minute
Monday at 7am through Friday at 8pm. Weekends are $.05 per minute.
The first incoming minute of every call is free, as well as voice
mail, numeric paging, and all of your favorite calling features
including CID. There's also a $25 activation fee.
The first rep I spoke with told me that a 'vanity' number would be
$1.00 per month extra, but a second rep just asked me what number I
wanted and she would check its availability for me and assign it at no
charge. I don't know how vain I could be, considering in the
Charlotte market I was restricted to asking for a number in the
704-451 exchange. I wonder if this means that they haven't signed up
10,000 people since August or they only assign one exchange at a time.
Sound quality is a bit better than TDMA, but signal strength isn't
quite as good where I am. I guess that will improve with time. The
Motorola Flare uses the standard flip-phone style batteries (even
though it's not a flip), so I can share batteries and my desktop
charger with my flip phone. The Flare is quite a bit more efficient
about power use, also.
On a customer service note, I sent BSM an e-mail question via their
web page late last Friday night. I received a personal response (not
a form letter), via e-mail on Sunday morning. Not bad!
At $14.95 a month, I'd certainly recommend the service over similarly
priced local paging. I'm still using my SkyPage service, but their
telephone customer service has left quite a bit to be desired lately.
Stan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:53:51 +0000
From: iain bennett <coopd590@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For?
Organization: Nortel - GSP&P - Multimedia Networks
> I was once unable to make a 3-way conference call once because the LINK
> key was disabled by Bell Canada's programming and the modal programming
> was not allowing me to do what I needed to do. You cannot use the
Was there an explanation why the link button was disabled? I always
wondered about that. Part of the problem with the programming is they
are trying to turn the Vista 350 in to sort of an Apple Macintosh - a
brainless telephone for people to use so they don't have to remember
the * codes. Good in principle, but lousy if you want to be able to
do things yourself.
> This week, I called Nortel again to ask them how to deprogram the phone
> to make it "factory setting". I also called Bell Canada to complain
> about the very bad user interface of their programming. There are many
> instances wihere Bell's programming is not "ready for prime time". Bell
> is supposed to have a new program next week (Called Operac).
So how do you de-program the phone? I know with the Vista 2000/Nomad
6X00 series you can hold down the intercom button to do this while
plugging it in.
> Bell Canada's own additions. The buttons near the screen are too small.
I found almost no problem with the buttons. Mind you I have pressed
agent instead of OK when using TeleScotia from the Bank of Nova Scotia
up here.
There is a Vista 360 module coming out I think next year. This could fix
some of these problems. :)
> Unfortunatly Nortel will not release a programming manual for us who
> would like to make a decent user interface on those phones and program
> our own stuff to fit our own needs.
How would you program it though? Unless you had access to the system to
program the phone, I don't think you could do it - mind you there is that
serial interface on the back of the phone. *grin*
> In short, I am very disappointed.
Keep in mind that the Vista/PowerTouch 350 is the first phone of it's
kind. I think with any kind of new product, it is hard to get to 100%
right the first time. You have to admit it is a pretty cool terminal.
I'm actually quite impressed with it.
> It does have the advantage of showing who is calling during "call
> waiting" and a hands-free feature. It has less ring types than other
> phones.
It has four types of rings -- three you can choose yourself, and a
fourth distinct ring for long distance calls and unknown callers.
Compared to the other Nortel phones, it has the same number -- except
for one being reserved for special purposes.
Iain Bennett Global Support Processes - Magellan Portfolio - Nortel
http://omega.scs.carleton.ca/~ug940014/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For?
From: dstott@juno.com (Dave J Stott)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 10:53:15 EST
In the thread of "Re: Screenphones: What Are They Good For?"
someone wrote:
> But, who is using them and how, and what do users perceive as the
> major benefits they derive as telecommunications consumers?
To find out some information, check U S WEST's web site:
www.uswest.com/homereceptionist
It gives an overview of the features and you can draw your own
conclusions about the utility of the product.
stott
------------------------------
From: lars@anchor.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: UK to Canada Modem Problems
Date: 31 Oct 1996 21:53:39 -0800
Organization: RNS / Meret Communications
In article <telecom16.580.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu> jfmezei@videotron.ca
writes:
> For the past 2.5 weeks, a user in Coventry England has been unable to
> negotiate proper connections with a modem here in Montreal (Canada).
> The Calling modem is a UK built USR Sporster 14.4
> The called modem is a USA built Multitech ZDX2834 (28.8)
> The actual call is established, but the 2 modems negotiate only 14.4
> raw connections without any error correction or compression (making
> call worthless and full of junk data).
First of all, be sure to tell the modems that you want error correction,
and if they can't get error correction, drop the call. On Rockwell
modems, you do this with S36=4; I don't know the USR command set in
this area.
Secondly, ask the transatlantic carrier (ask the local telco who that
would be) if they are using ADPCM compression on their links; this
is quite common on transatlantic links, and cuts the bandwidth in half.
While you are at it, ask the local carrier if there's a way to dial the
call (at a higher cost) so that it doesn't get compressed.
Has Canadian equal access gottento the point yet, where several of the
long-distance carriers have their own transatlantic links? If so, BT
will probably apply statistical allocation of the return traffic
proportionally in order to even out settlements. (I've been told that
this procedure has been used for years for calls from Europe to the
USA). Such allocations would be likely to change from time to time,
and could result in what you have described.
Good luck; your complaint is clearly valid, and it is exactly the kind
of problem that is likely to get the runaround when calling carriers
for trouble-shooting.
Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM
RNS / Meret Communications Phone: +1-805-562-3158
7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256
Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Internets: designed and built while you wait
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:34:51 -0800
From: lars@anchor.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Information Wanted About Satellite System Design
Organization: RNS / Meret Communications
In article <telecom16.576.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu> is written:
> 'You are a consultant in the area of designing satellite
> communication systems.
This is (like most univerity assignments) wonderfully imprecise. What
does it mean to design a "communication system"? Does that mean to
design a set of satellites? Or to figure out how to use a
commercially available service based on the satellites that are
already installed?
> You have been asked to evaluate possible designs
> for a communication system that will support two expeditions in
> Antartica to the South Pole. One will start at McMurdo and the other
> will start at O'Higgins.
The budget for a polar expedition is quite a bit smaller than the budget
for launching a (set of) satellite(s), so in the real world, the
assignment would be "how to make use of existing satellites".
First problem: The major civilian satellite communication services
are geostationary, parked in a high equatorial orbit. They are too
low on the horizon to reach the south pole. (The INMARSAT system.)
For polar service, you probably need to use satellites in polar orbits.
Most of these are military systems; to use them, you would need support
from their military owners. A US expedition would probably not have too
much difficulty getting cooperation from the US Department of Defense,
but a Swedish expedition would probably have much less success in that
arena. And I can't imagine the Russians giving away such service.
Within a couple of years, the new LEO (low earth orbit) systems will
come online, such as the Motorola Iridium system, but as far as I know,
this is still a couple of years away.
> The requirement is to have voice channels
> through very small terminals so that the two expeditions can have
> contact with each other as well as the rest of the world more than 99,9%
> of the time.
This is a very tough spec to meet. I suspect that you will discover
that you need 77 satellites to meet this requirement; i.e. this is a
setup to make you discover that Motorola Iridium is truly the minimal
system capable of performing this mission.
Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@OSICOM.COM
OSICOM Technologies (Internet Business Unit, formerly RNS)
7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256
Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Telephone: +1-805-562-3158
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 31 Oct 1996 23:49:20 -0500
Organization: Panix
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom16.585.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mike Van Pelt
<mvp@netcom.com> wrote:
> Perhaps this would be a solution:
> 1) No emailing until the credit card is validated.
It's not clear to me what good this will do. It is *trivial* to
acquire stolen credit card numbers which will work for a few days;
besides, a spammer could just give his real credit card number, unless
he's afraid the ISP will take legal action against him; and besides
once more, it's not difficult to obtain a credit card under a false
name.
Also, this means that it is impossible to pay the ISP except by credit
card. Do you really intend this to be the case? That would driuve
away a lot of users.
> 2) The first 10 (20? 30?) email messages sent per day are free.
> After that, they're $1.00 each. Above 100, they're $10.00 each.
I am not a spammer, and I send at least 20 email messages on some
days. This is a poor suggestion as well -- wherever you draw the
line, you just need messages/line different accounts.
Besides, it's not possible to tell how many messages a user has sent,
really. See below.
> 3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
This is not possible. Just where, exactly, are you going to "trap" these
"telnet sessions", and how are you going to tell them apart from use of an
SMTP mail client?
You could possibly force all outbound mail to go through an SMTP
gateway, and enforce policy there, but most popular client software
isn't easily configured to do that -- or at least, it's not the
cookie-cutter example most users can find in "Internet for Dummies" --
and the performance of that gateway would be a severe bottleneck. In
any event, you'd have to filter port 25 outbound at your router, and
that's likely to annoy quite a few of your legitimate customers.
> 4) For people who want to run legitimate mailing lists, provide a
> waiver for the email limits. This is a tiny fraction of your
> users, probably small enough you can keep a close eye on them,
> at least long enough to be sure they're legit.
Most Internet providers already have separate pricing policies for mailing
lists.
I have the strong suspicion that most of the people making these
suggestions have never run an Internet provider, and that some of them
have never even used one. Certainly, many of the suggestions made in
the quoted message and in others display a significant lack of
comprehension of both the technical and economic aspects of running an
ISP. Things are being suggested which _just aren't possible_, and
some of the other suggestions while technically feasible would annoy
so many customers that any ISP who put them in place would quickly
start losing money. A remarkable amount of naievete is also being
displayed by many of the people who are proposing instant solutions --
if a credit card were a strong form of authentication, credit-card
fraud wouldn't exist, and passports, for example, would be useless.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If outgoing mail cannot be counted, how
do services like AOL and Compuserve bill their members for the amount
of mail they send? I agree that many of the solutions proposed are
bound to create extra work for an ISP, if indeed as you point out,
some of them could be easily implemented at all. And while getting a
stolen credit card number may be trivial as you suggest, the fact is
the use of validation will screen out quite a bit of the trouble. I
myself would never suggest that there will not be times an ISP is
the victim of fraud in the same way the net community itself has been.
There can be however, minor obstacle courses the ISP places in the
path of a spammer/scammer to make it that much more difficult and
discouraging -- less profitable if you will -- to perpetrate fraud
and nuisances on the net.
If I ask Amex or Visa for a credit card they don't rush right out and
hand it to me that minute because they are afraid I might become
discouraged and take my business elsewhere. Certainly they make
attempts to promptly process new customers and encourage the use of
their service, but they balance customer good will with the security
of the system overall.
No one single step an ISP takes will in and of itself be totally
foolproof. That is not a reason for ISPs to wring their hands and say
there is nothing they can do. They can save that stuff for interviews
with the newspapers; it does not go over very well here on the net
because we know a little different. We went through all this years ago
with the original BBS operations. Itzy-pooh users who would get all in
a big huff about 'why should I have to identify myself?', etc. Sysops
who would wimper and complain that they had no control over the stuff
on their boards. Users who would get all bent out of shape when you
insisted on a phone number to call them so you could validate the
phone number and actually recite the password to a live person to
whom you had some recourse.
Save those tearjerkers for the know-nothing newspaper reporters who
publishers have told them to put down the Internet any way they can.
Of course you can straighten out the mess. And you would be wise to
rehabilitate yourselves before the government gets after you. PAT]
------------------------------
From: stephen@clark.net (Stephen Balbach)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 1 Nov 1996 02:11:11 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Balt/DC, mail all-info@clark.net
The RBOC argument of ISP's cloging the network has an easy response:
Give the ISP's access to the CO and let the ISP off-load the traffic
at the source. In fact, given the dire state of emergency with 911
calls not going through, this should be put into law ASAP! ;)
I would love to buy a few ISDN switches and sell ISDN service to my
customers at flat-rate for $40/month - our traffic would never touch the
PSTN, the customer gets cheap access, we make money, RBOC gets a cut.
I doubt you'll hear the RBOC ever mention this solution.
Stephen Balbach "Driving the Internet To Work"
VP, ClarkNet due to the high volume of mail I receive please quote
info@clark.net the full original message in your reply.
------------------------------
From: edshuck@best.com (Edward Shuck)
Subject: Re: I Need Help With PBX
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 00:24:06 GMT
Organization: Visual Traffic
Reply-To: edshuck@visual-traffic.com
The initial answer to your question is yes. But it is not the only
answer and may not be the best solution for the customer.
To find the best solution for the customer, start with customer
service, then (or coincidentally) go for state of the art. Service is
the bear to find.
Best to you.
Edward Shuck edshuck@visual-traffic.com
Visual Traffic http://www.visual-traffic.com
Telephone Traffic Analysis/Phreaker & Telabuse Abatement
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phreaker abatement? Is that anything
like Mosquito Abatement, where the truck comes down the street in
the summer time, spraying that chemical in the air? :) PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Interner Service Provider?
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:44:39 -0800
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
R. Van Valkenburgh wrote:
> jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) wrote:
>> I do wish that all phone companies (not just GTE) had better
>> procedures for handling "unusual" complaints. If you call about
>> something that turns out to be a programming error in the switch, you
>> almost stand a better chance of getting an audience with the President
>> than getting to talk to someone who actually understands the problem
>> and can do something about it (especially if you call Repair Service).
>> But that is not just a GTE problem, I've had similar problems with
>> Ameritech in the past and I'm sure it happens at the other "baby
>> Bells" as well.
> I agree (that it may be easier to get an audience with the President
> rather than talk to someone at the local telco who understands the
> switch) ...
> Here in BellSouth land our company began having problems soon after
> another large company in the area got a number of new lines from
> BellSouth. Don't know under what circumstances it was caused, but
> many of the DID calls to our company were being dispatched to their
> company. I complained and complained and complained, but all they
> would ever do is ask what number was being called and what number was
> being reached and then report that they could find nothing wrong.
> Eventually after my incessant complaining the problem that couldn't be
> found disappeared.
I would like to report that GTE-NW ISDN service reps are also able to
handle the "unusal" problem report, too. As long as GTE is reading this
newsgroup, I would like to report that Ann Jones at 1-800-555-6635 in
California is the kind of person who won't stop until she gets a
reasonable answer. Access to the switch seems to be beyond the trouble
shooters reach, or at least the kind of acces that is needed to
resolve certain problems.
GTE is not perfect, but the people here in GTE-NW handling ISDN are
very, very knowledgeable and resourceful. By far, I'm sure GTE exceeds
all other LECs when it comes to ISDN customer service.
Of course, GTE-NW serves not only AT&T Wireless Services in Kirkland,
WA but also, Microsoft in Redmond. No doubt we users have asked some
pretty perplexing questions in the past and GTE-NW ISDN support works
hard for the right answers.
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com and
jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
From: Mark Smith <msmith@pluto.njcc.com>
Subject: Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 14:59:55 EDT
Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ
In Article<telecom16.568.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, <Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com>
write:
> I was also struck by how poorly worded the descriptions in the news
> report were of where the new area code boundaries would lie.
> Something simple like "201 would retain xxx, yyy, and zzz counties,
> plus most of aaa and a portion of bbb; the new area code in 201 would
> include ..." and similarly for 908 and its new sibling.
According to what I saw in a newspaper, 201 would keep most of Bergen
County, a little of Passaic and most of Hudson County. The rest of
201 would get the new code.
In the 908 area, the eastern half of 908 would change and the western
half would stay the same. I think that means that mostly shore towns
would be changing.
When 609 splits, the new code is expected to go to the Philly suburbs
from the Delaware Memorial Bridge up to most of Burlington County,
with Mercer County and points east keeping 609.
Mark
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:18:10 -0800
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Linc Madison wrote:
> So, pretty much, if you're a cellular user, you get to keep 214, but
> if you're a landline user, you have to switch. Hrumph.
Competition for the local loop and cellular will eventually iron out
various billing imbalances. Billing systems are very complex, usually
written in COBOL, and things won't change overnight. It will be nice
when only one monthly invoice is sent to the consumer for all the
telecom services they incur during a month. I know competition is
driving towards that even today.
I worked on AT&T Wireless Services (AWS) Equal Access design and I'd
like to try to make clearer why some otherwise perhaps "imbalanced"
call ratings for cellular vs. landline and landline vs. cellular
exist.
The Dallas market is half-owned between Bell South and AWS, like the
LA market. When the 1994 Consent Decree with the Justice Department
was signed in order to merge McCaw-Lin-AT&T, a concept of Local
Calling Service Area (LCSA) was formed to provide Equal Access calling
that is NOT always related to inter-LATA call processing, like it is
in these exempt markets, and like it is in most B-side operated
800/850 carrier markets.
Since LA, Kansas City and Dallas already had some version of Equal
Access in place at merger time, DOJ let those markets remain as
is. Depending on the location and RF direction of a cellsite's sector
compared to the geographic landline numbers sold at a similar
geography, AWS is permitted to use its own inter-LATA facilities for
an intra-LCSA call that starts at a cellsite in one LATA but concludes
to a landline in another LATA, or vice-versa, or mobile to mobile,
etc. (or words to that effect).
The 1996 Telecom Act has relieved AWS and AT&T from obligations in the
1984 and 1994 Consent Decrees. I believe, I do not know the AWS policy
on this matter, that AWS will continue to offer Equal Access as
implemented, perhaps even in the emerging AWS 1900 Digital PCS
markets, but "bundled" service may be ready by that time, so don't
count on it.
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com
and jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
From: no@wizvax.net
Subject: Help With Vintage Test Equipment
Date: 31 Oct 1996 20:00:21 GMT
Organization: Wizvax Communications
Hi!
I'm the proud new owner of a old pice of telco test equipment. It
took a lot of bargaining, but thats not the point :> It's a Northeast
Electronics Corp Model TTs 59B MF sender. I know it's function, and I
have figured out most of the controls and connectors, but I'd like a
little more information before I try to actually use it. I'd really
appreciate ANY information on the unit (Photocopies of old trade mags'
advertisements for the unit, anything!), but if someone has the user's
or tech manual for it I would be more than happy to pay for any costs
incurred.
If you've ever used or currently use the unit, please drop me some
email. Please email all responses to : no@wizvax.net Thanks!!
------------------------------
From: Dobkin@spaceapps.com (Jeff Dobkin)
Subject: For Sale - GTE Omni PBX Telephone System
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 01:17:37 GMT
Organization: Space Applications Corporation
Reply-To: Dobkin@spaceapps.com
For Sale: GTE Omni PBX Telephone System
Features include call waiting, camp-on, paging, toll restriction,
conference calling, power failure transfer, remote maintenance
least cost routing, and many others. Unit is installed in a
roll-around cabinet.
Includes:
Attendant console with extended display
50 3-button telephone sets
14 8-button telephone sets
7 16-button telephone sets with speaker
Documentation including administrator manuals, user guides, and
attendant console guide.
Price: $1000 or best offer
Contact: Jeff Dobkin
Space Applications Corporation
(408) 744-3140
E-mail Dobkin@spaceapps.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #587
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Nov 4 12:09:48 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id MAA23343; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:09:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:09:48 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611041709.MAA23343@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #588
TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Nov 96 12:08:08 EST Volume 16 : Issue 588
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Three Plans for New NPA in Tennessee (Tad Cook)
MCI and British Telecom in Talks (John Cropper)
Tariff Information - Sources/Access (Jim Warner)
Book Review: "Getting Connected: The Internet at 56K and Up" (Rob Slade)
Employment Opportunity: DSP and Telecom Engineers Wanted (gao@io.org)
Looking For a Med-Tech Solution (Bill Farrell)
Where Does 611 go in Bell Atlantic Country? (Paul Robinson)
Book Review: "Agents Unleashed" by Wayner (Rob Slade)
Advance Program, MOBICOM'96 (Pradeep Sudame)
Percentage of Rotary / Pulse-Dial Phones? (Terri Paik)
Help Wanted On Calculating Audioconferencing Minutes? (Mark Pearson)
Oracle SNS and Routers (John Fenner)
Re: Information Wanted on Internet Security Review (Eric Smith)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Three Plans for New NPA in Tennessee
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:37:29 GMT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Phone Executives Discuss Three Plans to Split Middle Tennessee Area Code
By Cree Lawson, Nashville Banner, Tenn.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Nov. 1--Three proposals for splitting Middle Tennessee phones between
the new area code and the old 615 prefix are being discussed by
industry leaders today, the Nashville Banner has learned.
The new area code -- which industry insiders have termed "a sure
thing" -- will start surfacing in the fourth quarter of 1997,
Tennessee Regulatory Authority officials said Thursday.
Analysts and industry insiders rank the proposals in the following
order of feasibility:
One proposal would draw a circle around the Davidson County/Nashville
exchange (which includes small parts of Williamson and Rutherford
County).
It would give businesses and residences outside the circle one area
code while others would receive the second.
This plan was implemented recently in Atlanta with the downtown
district keeping the old area code and the suburbs receiving the new
one. Telephone users say this option makes the most sense because
fewer business have to change numbers, stationery, business cards and
in-house switches.
Another proposal would draw a line down Interstate 65, separating one
area code from another.
Insiders say this is less likely, but it has been implemented
successfully in other cities.
The final proposal would mix the new area codes together, giving the
new area code to new residential and commercial listings.
Though this option comes closer to maintaining the status quo,
insiders say this can divide a business' lines between old and new,
requiring co-workers to dial ten digits to talk to one another in the
worst-case scenario.
The final proposal from today's closed meeting of industry officials
will be passed onto the TRA where Chairman Lynn Greer has proposed to
hear the plan publicly on Nov. 13.
The industry officials -- meeting as a subgroup of the Tennessee
Telecommunications Association -- say that the numbers in the 615
exchange will run out by the second quarter of 1999.
That's not atypical, analysts say.
"The increase (in phone lines) last year was more than in the last 30
years altogether," says Telecommunications analyst Jeff Kagan.
"Start thinking about phones as a matter of ten-digit numbers rather
than seven-digit numbers. That's the fact of it."
The new number was requested by telephone service providers that
gathered as a subcommittee of the Tennessee Telecommunications
Association.
The association's meetings are hosted at BellSouth's Nashville office
building. The local telephone provider also oversees the distribution
of all numbers.
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: MCI and British Telecom in Talks
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 06:03:09 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
Title says it all
MCI and British Telecom are currently in negotiations, discussing merger
options. If both sides agree, and approval is granted, BT would increase
its stake from its current 20%.
The deal is reported to be worth as much as 20 billion dollars, and is
expected to move forward. Announcements are expected Monday or Tuesday.
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: New reports on CNN Monday morning are
that British Telecom did in fact purchase MCI, or is doing so today.
Verrrrrry interesting! PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:37:34 GMT
From: jwarner@phillips.com (Jim Warner)
Subject: Tariff Information - Sources/Access
I use tariff information daily.
With the FCC"s announcement that no tariffs will be required for
interstate IXCs, but requiring that their rates be available to settle
disputes, the vendors, consumers, and those who use the information
have to have some resource that allows access to the terms, conditions
and rates for IXC services.
That which is good for the FCC may not be so hot for the ICC or
whoever ends up "regulating interstate commerce".
I would like to start a thread on the subject to see what other
telecomregers think (and perhaps the FCC and state utility
commissions). What could be positive for the FCC could also be a great
deal for the states.
To get the ball rolling, here is what I think, based on my ideas and
information gleaned from others in the industry.
1. The FCC should provide a server large enough to accommodate the
vendors it formerly tracked with paper tariffs.
2. The vendors would be responsible for initially loading the base
information and maintaining it over time. (The FCC could/would charge
a fee to defray the server and access costs)
3. Anyone with a need for the information would access the server,
look it up and use it as they would any "tariff" information in the
past. (only better because it would be in text format and searchable -
try that with a paper tariff!)
4. If the FCC needed the information, to settle complaints or
disputes, it would be available on the web.
5. If deregulation should fall apart and the FCC had to reassert
regulatory control, the information would be available and on file.
6. By facilitating full public access, you would eliminate the current
industry of "tariff service companies" that procure the paper, image
it, and make it available for a fee.
The state commissions could do the same thing with little effort,
easing their workload. I recently spoke to someone at the New Jersey
Commission about text conversion of all filed tariffs and hit a stone
wall. "Staff reductions don't allow the manpower to convert", but they
don't need to convert anything. If all companies maintaining tariffs
with state commissions are told,"... oh, by the way, the next time you
file an update (or within the next year), give us your tariff on disk
in (format of choice)", you would have your conversion. The same
access and use advantages apply.
All of the BOCs, the top 10 IXCs, and most of the CAPs have web sites,
so the technical knowhow is in-house. This is one of those things that
should be a "no brainer".
Thanks for the forum.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:42:34 GMT
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Getting Connected: The Internet at 56K and Up" by Dowd
BKGETCON.RVW 960717
"Getting Connected: The Internet at 56K and Up", Kevin Dowd, 1996,
1-56592-154-2, U$29.95/C$42.95
%A Kevin Dowd
%C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472
%D 1996
%G 1-56592-154-2
%I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O U$29.95/C$42.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com
%P 424
%T "Getting Connected: The Internet at 56K and Up"
The title is ever so slightly misleading: it should probably read
"Getting *Others* Connected". There is much more here than anyone
would need to get a connection to the Internet for one account. The
purpose is to get a business or organization onto the net, and to
establish that nebulous entity which has become known as an Internet
"presence".
That minor quibble out of the way, this is a very serviceable and
complete guide for those charged with linking an institution to the
electronic global village. The concepts and overall requirements are
covered, and backed up by just enough technical details to make the
job possible. The tone of the text is practical and realistic.
Dowd's (rather bizarre) sense of humour is used to good effect,
keeping the material entertaining without getting in the way of the
important content. Appendices on the more common Internet
applications help you to assess how much Internet you will need and
what you might use it for.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKGETCON.RVW 960717. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | "La mathematica e l'alfabeto
Institute for rslade@vcn.bc.ca | nel quale Dio ha scritto
Research into rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | l'universo."
User Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca |
Security Canada V7K 2G6 | - Galileo
------------------------------
From: gao@io.org
Subject: Employment Opportunity: DSP and Telecom Engineers Wanted
Date: 3 Nov 1996 18:37:29 -0500
Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dear Netters,
GAO Research & Consulting Ltd. is the world's leading supplier of
software modem technology. GAO is now offering complete modem, fax,
and telephony software including V.34 modem in C and DSP assembly.
The company has R & D, programmer, and hardware positions
available. Duties include research and development of digital signal
processing algorithms and programming software in C and assembly for
modem, fax, and telephony applications.
Following qualifications are desired for R & D and programmer positions:
[1] Ph.D., M.Sc., or B.Sc. in communications
Work exprience in communications
Programming experiences in C or assembly
[2] B.Sc. in computer
Programming experiences in C or assembly
Following qualifications are desired for hardware positions:
B.Sc. in EE
Design experience with PCB and CAD tools
The company is growing fast and is looking for HIGHLY talented individuals
with forward thinking who are willing to grow with the company.
You are cordially invited to read our home page.
Please contact:
Alan or Chase
GAO Research & Consulting Ltd. - DSP for Communications
55 Nugget Avenue, Unit 204
Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1S 3L1
Fax: (416) 292-2364
Tel: (416) 292-0038
Email: gao@io.org
WWW: http://www.io.org/~gao
[1] North American experiences are desirable, but not necessary.
[2] If you send us by email, please follow by fax or postal mail.
Please remember to send us your transcripts.
------------------------------
From: wfarre <felter@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Looking For a Med-Tech Solution
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 17:39:42 -0500
Organization: Morgan Stanley
I work with a small investment group and four times a year we listen
to about 80 company conference calls within a two week period of
time. On any given night we might have four to ten calls. Calls last
between 30 minutes to 1.5 hours. Normally we tape these calls, but the
logistics have become somewhat unbearable as the number of calls has
grown.
Ideally, we would want to compress the voice files and archive them in a
database so we could dial-in and retrieve a call when on the road. But
this option is probably too expensive. A bit lower-tech and less
expensive would be to simply add lines from the pbx that server our
office building, setup separate phones, connect a tape recorder to each
phone, and then manually tape the calls. But is there something in
between?
I'm looking for some medium technology solution, in the $3,000 to
$7,000 that would eliminate some of labor involved with taping all
these calls. Your help is much appreciated. I would be willing to
work with anyone who wanted to make a business around developing an
inexpensive high-tech solution because I know of 20,000 other
investment professionals who are dying for a similar solution.
Please send replies to farrellw@ms.com.
Thanks again,
Bill Farrell
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:16:11 EST
From: Paul Robinson <CAS8@EROLS.COM>
Organization: Evergreen Software
Subject: Where Does 611 go in Bell Atlantic Country? 954-2222; it Does More
In DC/MD/VA and possibly WV and some other areas, (i.e. 202/301/410/703/804
area codes) there is only one party using the 954 exchange.
That party is Bell Atlantic.
One use of the exchange is to assign the business office for each
region a "toll-free" number from anywhere in Bell Atlantic territory.
For example, if I were in Richmond,VA (Area Code 804) and dial the
954-xxxx number for the local office, office, I can, from Baltimore,
MD (Area Code 410) dial the SAME 954-xxxx number AS A LOCAL CALL and
be connected to the Richmond office. Or vice versa.
Bell Atlantic, like many telephone companies across the U.S., does
list a number to number to convert 611 for non-local callers. That
number, (for the DC/MD/VA area, at least) is in Bell Atlantic's 954
exchange. According to the telephone directory, the number is:
(410) 954-2222
However, within the DC/MD/VA area, one simply dials any 954 number
directly, without the area code. It operates the same as an 800
number -- one may dial it from a (Bell Atlantic) pay telephone without
depositing coins, etc. -- (but I can't can't be sure that applies to
callers on cellular phones). :)
But, Bell Atlantic has changed 611/954-2222 in an additional manner:
Callers are given options on a voice mail system for either requesting
repair service, or for inquiries regarding phone service in the
202/301/410/703 area codes.
So, for now, as a result, one can simply dial 611 for ALL telephone
inquiries, (at least in those area codes).
Paul Robinson - Formerly <PAUL@TDR.COM>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 15:26:56 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Agents Unleashed" by Wayner
BKAGNUNL.RVW 960716
"Agents Unleashed: A Public Domain Look at Agent Technology", Peter Wayner,
1995, 0-12-738765-X
%A Peter Wayner pcw@access.digex.com
%C 1300 Boylston Street, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167
%D 1995
%G 0-12-738765-X
%I Academic Press Professional
%O +1-617-232-0500 +1-800-3131277 app@acad.com
%P 358
%T "Agents Unleashed: A Public Domain Look at Agent Technology"
Network agents got cheated. Just as agency was beginning to grab some
interest, along came Java and hogged everybody's attention. Oh, well,
Java applets owe a lot to agent ideas themselves.
Wayner has provided a good overview of the ideas and concepts that
were being examined under the agent banner. These had to be culled
from a wide variety of sources: one of the possible reasons that
agency didn't absorb curiosity was that it took notions from such
disparate fields as distributed computing, artificial intelligence,
and even computer virus research.
This is not, however, a book to convince one of the need for agents.
The examples of possible application leave one objecting that this is
already being done without agent technology. In addition, the use of
LISP and TCL, while academically interesting, put the work somewhat
outside the mainstream of software development.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKAGNUNL.RVW 960716. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: sudame@paul.rutgers.edu (Pradeep Sudame)
Subject: Advance Program, MOBICOM'96
Date: 4 Nov 1996 10:26:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University LCSR
ACM/IEEE PRESENT
M O B I C O M ' 96
RYE, NEW YORK, November 10-12, 1996
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
MOBICOM is the annual international conference, established to serve as the
premier forum for addressing research issues on all aspects of the
multi-disciplinary field of mobile wireless computing.
TECHNICAL TRACKS: NOVEMBER 11-12
Two days of single track sessions, including
Mobile and Wireless TCP Issues in Mobile Computing
Mobility Management Mobile Applications
Resource Allocation and Sharing LAN, MAC and ATM
SPECIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Tutorials (November 10): Mobile networking within IETF, WWW and Mobile
Computing, Air interface standards, and Secure mobile communications,
Keynote Talk by
Dr. Victor Lawrence, Bell Labs of Lucent Technologies
Panels on
Software architecture for mobile networks and multimedia
mobile networks
Luncheon Talk by
Prof. M. Satyanarayanan, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Exhibits: Opportunity to showcase your prototypes, demos
Contact Exhibit chair: Peter Honeyman (honey@citi.umich.edu)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Complete program and registration information can be obtained from
WEB page: http://www.acm.org/sigmobile/conf/mobicom96
if you need more information on mobicom96 contact
B. R. Badrinath (badri@cs.rutgers.edu, +1 908-445-2082, Fax +1 908-445-0537)
------------------------------
From: dn26@csc.umd.edu (Terri Paik)
Subject: Percentage of Rotary / Pulse-Dial Phones?
Date: 3 Nov 1996 18:54:46 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Hi. Does someone know what percent of U.S. phones are rotary and/or
pulse-dial? Or what percent of U.S. households use rotary or
pulse-dial phones? I have a 1991 estimate and a 1993 estimate but I
would like something at least 1995. If anyone knows a number or knows
where I could look to get this, please let me know. Thanks in
advance!
Terri Paik
------------------------------
From: Mark Pearson <mpearson@tpsltd.co.uk>
Subject: Help Wanted On Calculating Audioconferencing Minutes?
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:20:40 -0000
I am conducting some research into audio teleconferencing. Does anyone
have any idea how many audioconferences the average North American
business person is involved in per year? A couple of other points,
firstly, I only want to include "real" audioconferences i.e. those
with three or more locations and secondly I want to capture
conferences supported by both service providers and CPE.
Any other data that would help me establish the total number of
audioconferencing minutes in the US, such as average conference
length, would be greatly appreciated.
I am actually attempting to calculate figures for the UK but due to
the paucity of information I am having to start with the US and use
that figure to somehow calculate the UK. Any ideas on how I would
achieve this?
Thanks,
Mark
------------------------------
From: John Fenner <jfenner@erols.com>
Subject: Oracle SNS and Routers
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 10:49:38 -0500
Organization: Erol's Internet Services
Reply-To: jfenner@erols.com
I am building a distributed database system using Oracle 7.x server and
Oracle web server 2.x. All user interaction with the database will be
via http requests (web access). However, the database replication and
synchronization must use Oracle's Secure Network Services (SNS) or the
follow-on, called Advanced Network Option (ANO).
I intend to place a screening router, such as a Cisco 2500 or
4000, in front of each server to screen traffic to and from each
server. I know I can screen TCP/IP port 80 for the http traffic;
however, what port do I use for either SNS or ANO? I may be able to
screen based on IP address, but some of the servers are located behind
a firewall which may mask IP addresses.
Any ideas?
Please post replies or email direct to:
jfenner@erols.com
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:20:47 EST
From: Eric Smith <eric@goonsquad.spies.com>
Subject: Information Wanted on Internet Security Review
PAT wrote:
> In issue 501 of this Digest, a message was posted by pluto@nso.org
> telling about the Internet Security Review, aka 'www.isr.net'.
Whois queries for both isr.net and nso.org list the same contact:
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact:
Fortrie, Dr F. Bertil (DFF3) dsi@NSO.ORG
(941)775-1533
DNS queries give a contact address of dave@isr.net.
Their mail exchanger is ra.nso.org, which is 207.30.58.3. As of about
6:15 PM PST on 1 Nov 96, that address doesn't seem to be reachable. The
router at datanet.utelfla.com (207.30.14.90) claims to have no host route.
> I sent letters off today to pluto@nso.org (poster of the original message)
> and root@isr.net to inquire, but thought other readers here may have
> information as well.
I'd generally recommend sending email to postmaster rather than root. If
they don't have a Unix system they might not have a root account, but if
they are RFC compliant they must have a postmaster account.
However, since their machine is down, I don't think you'll get a response
from postmaster either.
Cheers,
Eric
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your research into this. I
left a message at the phone number you gave, and also wrote to the
person named, however as of this morning (Monday) I have not yet
received any responses to the email sent to info@isr.net and root
last week. Perhaps they will respond soon. I hope I did not throw
away my fifteen dollars. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #588
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Nov 4 13:52:14 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id NAA04217; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:52:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:52:14 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611041852.NAA04217@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #589
TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Nov 96 13:52:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 589
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Reactions to MCI/British Tel Merger (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Book Review: "Web Weaving" by Tilton/Steadman/Jones (Rob Slade)
Re: Tele-Go, How Does it Work? (Mike Fox)
Re: Tele-Go, How Does it Work? (Gerry Wheeler)
Re: Pac Bell Repair Service Deteriorating? (Bradley Ward Allen)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Clayton E. Cramer)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Scott Miller)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: UK to Canada Modem Problems (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Re: Toronto's New Area Code 416/??? (Linc Madison)
Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum (Dave Hughes)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:12:57 EST
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Reactions to MCI/British Tel Merger
Already the telecom managers and executives are beginning to speculate
and the MCI/BT deal which promises to be an historic milestone in the
industry as we close out this century.
David Appell is working on a story and has a deadline of 4:30 pm EST
today, Monday. He wants as many telecom executives as possible to get
in touch with him over the next few hours to discuss the merger, and
he hopes to quote some of you in his article.
If you gave something to contribute, please call him before 4:30 pm EST
at the number 505-293-3687 or in email at appelld@aol.com.
I'll grant you thats just a couple hours; but hopefully some of you
who see this will have some thoughts 'fit for print' to share with him.
Thanks very much.
PAT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 10:37:01 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Web Weaving" by Tilton/Steadman/Jones
BKWEBWEV.RVW 960715
"Web Weaving", Eric Tilton/Carl Steadman/Tyler Jones, 1996, 0-201-48959-7,
U$24.95/C$34.00
%A Eric Tilton
%A Carl Steadman
%A Tyler Jones
%C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984
%D 1996
%G 0-201-48959-7
%I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O U$24.95/C$34.00 800-822-6339 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com
%P 545
%T "Web Weaving"
This is a serviceable and fairly complete guide to building World Wide Web
pages and sites. As well as HTML (HyperText Markup Language), the book looks
at servers, tools, CGI (Common Gateway Interface), publicity, Java, and VRML
(Virtual Reality Markup Language).
Having the stuff all in one place may be handy. It's good, but it's not great.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKWEBWEV.RVW 960715 Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca
Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
Research into Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca
User rslade@vcn.bc.ca
Security Canada V7K 2G6
------------------------------
From: mikefox@ibm.net
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 96 08:47:46 +0500
Reply-To: mikefox@ibm.net
Subject: Re: Tele-Go, How Does it Work?
mreiney@hevanet.com wrote:
> I picked up a GTE Tele-Go phone at a garage sale. I got the base unit
> at another swap meet. I don't need the cellphone, but would like a
> 900MHz. cordless phone. The cellphone part seems to be working. I
> can get RF out of the base unit when I push the red button, but can't
> make the system work together. Can the local cordless phone function
> work without enabling the cellphone service? I'm guessing that the
> base and cellphone must be programmed as a set. Is there any way to
> reprogram the Eprom in the base unit without paying thru the nose?
Most likely, your phone is stolen. Tele-Go does not sell its phones,
it only rents them. The service contract specifically forbids selling
the phones, or attempting the reverse-engineer the ECB unit, or
permitting anyone else to attempt to reverse-engineer it.
There is a function called "ECB authorization" that must be performed for
the two to work together. This function is performed when the unit is
set up in your house for the first time. I don't think I'll be violating
my user contract against reverse-engineering by quoting what's in the
directions that came with my unit:
(begin quote)
Before the Tele-Go(tm) phone can work with the ECB(tm), the phone must be
'authorized' for use with the ECB(tm). Both the telephone and the ECB(tm)
must be within five feet of each other during the authorization process.
1. Turn on your Tele-Go(tm) phone.
2. The phone displays "TELE-GO EXTENDED" message. [note: here I think you
may be screwed, if you haven't activated the phone on the Tele-Go service,
will you still get this message? I doubt it.]
3. Press MENU + 3 + STO buttons in sequence on the phone. Within 30 seconds
of pressing the STO button, you must press the red ECB button once and
release.
4. When the phone displays "ECB AUTH" (approx 20 seconds after you press red
button), your handset is authorized for use with the ECB(tm) and you are
ready to use your Tele-Go(tm) phone."
Good luck.
Mike
"It makes you want to be President, to see all your friends get
indicted." (Michael Feldman)
------------------------------
From: gwheeler@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler)
Subject: Re: Tele-Go, How Does it Work?
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 19:04:18 GMT
Organization: SpectraFAX Corp.
Reply-To: gwheeler@gate.net
mreiney@hevanet.com wrote:
> I picked up a GTE Tele-Go phone at a garage sale. I got the base unit
> at another swap meet. I don't need the cellphone, but would like a
> 900MHz. cordless phone. The cellphone part seems to be working. I
> can get RF out of the base unit when I push the red button, but can't
> make the system work together. Can the local cordless phone function
> work without enabling the cellphone service? I'm guessing that the
> base and cellphone must be programmed as a set. Is there any way to
> reprogram the Eprom in the base unit without paying thru the nose?
From the Tele-Go Enhanced Cordless Basestation (ECB) Installation
manual:
1) Plug the ECB into a power outlet and a phone jack. The LED should
be steady green.
2) Turn on the Tele-Go phone. Display should say "Tele-Go Extended",
because it doesn't recognize its base unit.
3) On the phone, press Menu + 3 + Sto. (It doesn't say whether that
should be done simultaneously or sequentially. I think it would be
sequentially.)
4) Within 30 seconds, press the red button on the ECB once.
5) Approximately 20 seconds later the phone should display "ECB Auth".
When the phone recognizes its base unit, it will say "Tele-Go Home".
Gerry Wheeler gwheeler@gate.net
SpectraFAX Corp. Phone: 941-643-8739
Naples, FL Fax: 941-643-5070
------------------------------
From: Bradley Ward Allen <ulmo@Q.Net>
Subject: Re: Pac Bell Repair Service Deteriorating?
Date: 04 Nov 1996 15:32:46 GMT
> I sure would like to know what's happened to Pacific Bell's "priority
> business repair" service.
Just a question since I don't live in California any more: has
normal-priority repair service been so bad that one must designate
oneself an upperclassperson and then use priority repair service? In
that case, I'd be happy they do away with such priority service, as
much as it's always a part of most businesses unfortunately. Or is
this just some silly marketing name for a normal service (that I call
simply "611" (the number I have to dial in every place I've ever lived
or traveled to for repair))?
[Three typical NYNEX-like events that happened in Pac Bell territory
deleted for lack of uniqueness and for brevity]
Sounds like some NYNEX workers (including line people, administrators
and policy makers) decided to move to San Diego. All the better in my
opinion (less of them here in NYC!)
Definitely these high-volume lines which affect lots of people do need
higher priority. Aha, now I see the meaning for priority.
[Typical PR scenereo deleted]
> The service rep I spoke to put me on hold whilst she transferred me to
> "the bureau that handles that service". 15 minutes later I hung up
> whilst still on hold. I'll guess I'll have to try again after they've
> had their morning coffee.
15 minutes? What's wrong, did your mom *and* your grandmother have a
heart attack at the same time, in the middle of your service call or
something? Tell them to have their health problems when you have
time! Please. In the beginning of a long session of other work you
have to do in one sitting, get five speaker phones with really good
autodial and keep each one going with its own self-consistent sequence
of representatives, repeating the sequence for each phone whenever you
lose connection, until one of them finally does something right, and
then tell the rest off in just such a way that they don't erase the
progress of the first good one, and then repeat as many dozen times as
necessary until you make enough progress that you feel like you've
netted some progress and you can allow yourself to relax on that front
for the day. Repeat whenever you have another such sitting. Keep the
phones clean (you'll be using them a lot; their keypads need regular
maintenance and visual appeal). Keep a highly sophisticated
quick-to-use database which deals with issues you interact with them
about. Don't confuse the various telephones, or issues: knowing what
you want is highly important.
Or have I become used to the Soviet-communist-era like behavior of
NYC's main loop provider and its resellers (um, I meant competitors)?
One idea I've always considered is taking the 611 people out to lunch
every so often so that you have a more personable relationship with
them. That way, you won't hit as many brick walls. Plus, all your
local competitors (hmm, what would that be, private universities?
drug cartels?) will be worse off since the 611 people aren't getting
any lunches from them, good in the medium term for the health of your
business.
This message inspired by real life events and in no way is supposed to
represent a broader spectrum of potential experiences; suggestions may
work for me but not you, MMV.
------------------------------
From: Clayton E. Cramer <cramer@dlcc.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 15:31:02 -0800
Organization: Diamond Lane Communications
Reply-To: cramer@dlcc.com
Stephen Balbach wrote:
> I would love to buy a few ISDN switches and sell ISDN service to my
> customers at flat-rate for $40/month - our traffic would never touch the
> PSTN, the customer gets cheap access, we make money, RBOC gets a cut.
> I doubt you'll hear the RBOC ever mention this solution.
Take a look at our web page http://www.dlcc.com/products.htm. We
have a solution to the gridlock problem, but Internet customers will
have to put with cheap 6MB downstream/640KB upstream voice-over-data
to solve the gridlock problem.
Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane Communications
email: cramer@dlcc.com web page: http://www.cs.sonoma.edu/~cramerc
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:57:47 +0000
From: scott miller <smiller@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Reply-To: smiller@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
I've been watching this topic with interest on c.d.t for some time,
and I feel I have to comment.
Telephone systems pride themselves, first and foremost, on their
reliability. The Telcos, and the general public, will not take kindly
to anything that threatens the ability of everyone to pick up the phone
whenever they want, make a call, and talk to whoever they want.
It has been known for years that the long-held assumptions about call
patterns didn't apply to data calls, and fights have been going on between
modem users and Ma Bell as long as I can remember. Back then, all Ma Bell
could do was force single-line basement BBSs to get business rate lines.
Mostly, Ma just looked the other way, like letting a few hobos hitch a
free ride on a westbound train.
But now, with the meteoric rise of the internet, things are getting serious.
When real live people start seeing calls blocked because intra-switch
trunks are full of long data calls, something has to give. The few hobos
have turned into an army of vagrants, and the railroad cops are coming.
Dial-up data traffic has been getting a free ride on the Telco voice
network for years. That is coming to an end. The question is, who is going
to pay?
The indignant squeals of protest I see from other c.d.t. readers tells me
they know their free ride is coming to an end. Nobody wants to have to pay
money tomorrow they don't have to pay today, but users of a utility should
expect to have to pay their share of the bill.
The real solution is metered local access, but this would might require
major investments in billing systems by Telcos, and might upset the public.
If they were smart, they would set the rates so that 90% of consumers saw a
rate decrease, and hit the heavy-using 10% for the balance. (making the usual
required exemptions for various 'vulnerable' groups) If the current attempt
to bill ISPs directly fails, I would bet it would be followed by a general
rate rebalancing exercise.
Flat-rate pricing probably doesn't have a future, especially in the ISP
world. If Iphone or Internet videoconferencing were to take off, ISPs would
find themselves chronically short of bandwidth. What will they do? Charge
everybody more, target the bandwidth users, or just eat the cost? (ha!)
I saw a piece here recently where an ISP operator, protesting against
Telco proposals for metering, trumpeted 'flat-rate access' with a mere
$0.50/hr charge for heavy users. That sort of tells it all ...
Scott Miller, in the bowels of Bell-Northern Research (or Nortel or something)
smiller@nortel.ca aa438@freenet.carleton.ca
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <mds@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 04:27:04 -0800
Organization: Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn
Reply-To: mds@access.digex.net
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Local 'competitors' will not be creating
> extra capacity. They will be using the existing telco structure for the
> most part. PAT]
True.
Bob Casey adds:
> And I would guess the local C.O. phone switches are probably paid for
> by now? So Pac Bell can just ride it out,
The telcos have not "paid for" their existing networks and switches by
now. System upgrades have been ongoing for years and will continue, and
the costs are amortized over many years. If you bought a house five
years ago, have you "paid for" it, even though you have another 25 years
of mortgage payments? Would you be troubled if you were required to
rent out a bedroom to a 100-person commune for $25/mo, because it was
paid for?
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
mds@access.digex.net / avogadro@well.com / 74160.1134@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: UK to Canada Modem Problems
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:53:52 GMT
Organization: Vaxination Informatique
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca
Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> For the past 2.5 weeks, a user in Coventry England has been unable to
>> negotiate proper connections with a modem here in Montreal (Canada).
> Secondly, ask the transatlantic carrier (ask the local telco who that
> would be) if they are using ADPCM compression on their links;
Dial 0 -> "Operator, may I help you"
Me -> "Yes mam, do you know if calls coming in from England
are using ADPCM compression by any chance ????"
Operator-> AD what ??????????
Seriously though, since this is an incoming call, it is hard to find out
exactly who handles the trans atlantic loop. The user is in a large bank
and they may have trunks to the USA and dial into Canada from there or
dial directly.
Furthermore, if they dial overseas to Canada, they may first stumble
into Teleglobe Canada which, I beleive, still has monopoly (but not
forever)
I do know that *AT TIMES* voice calls from my contact show up as a local
(514-Montreal) telephone number on Caller ID which indicates the use of
a non-Bell long distance carrier. At other times, the call is a long
distance one with no identification.
I remember a couple years ago, access to an X.25 hunt group on Bell's
DATAPAC network stopped working for users in the UK. I also knew from a
friend who worked at Teleglobe that there had been software changes on
their switch at Teleglobe during the weekend. Since I was a customer of
the service which used Datapac (and not a customer of Datapac directly),
it was just about impossible for me to report the problem to begin with.
The standard answer was "Get your user in the UK to complain to his PTT
and they will complain to Teleglobe, we can't do that for you".
Bell was blaming BT, BT was blaming Bell, but the culprit was Teleglobe.
The fix: I gave the user in the UK a few adresses that I knew were part
of that hunt group. So, I do not look forward to having to deal with a
similar issue again.
> Has Canadian equal access gottento the point yet, where several of the
> long-distance carriers have their own transatlantic links?
It is called: route your calls through your parent company's US network.
Until Teleglobe looses its official monopoly (has it lost it already?),
Carriers in Canada have to go through Teleglobe to get out. However, I
suspect that the new carriers such as AT&T (Unitel) and Sprint probably
route the calls through their USA networks onwards to overseas
destinations, unless Teleglobe offers them competitive rates.
I believe that Teleglobe just got "long distance carrier" status in the
USA. Not sure as to how this will impact us in Canada though.
> Good luck; your complaint is clearly valid, and it is exactly the kind
> of problem that is likely to get the runaround when calling carriers
> for trouble-shooting.
I just called 611 and explained my dilemma. The lady was nice, asked her
supervisor and told me a technician would call back on Monday. Will be
interesting to see how this develops.
Meanwhile, I will ask the use to try "000" instead of "00" to dial to
Canada. I was told by a user here that it would request a better line.
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code 416/???
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:21:46 GMT
Organization: Best Internet Communications
In article <telecom16.584.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, psyber@mindspring.com
wrote:
> Bell Canada has proposed three plans for relief of the 416 area code.
> Plan #3 is a wireless overlay over both 416 & 905, and all existing
> wireless services in 416 and 905 would move to the new NPA as well.
WHY? WHY? WHY?? are people still talking about overlay area codes going
on top of more than one existing geographic area code?
This is the ultimate BAD IDEA in area code relief.
I believe that overlay area codes are a very good idea in dense
metropolitan areas like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Manhattan. Trying
to draw lines for a new split is insane, as the recent 312/773 split
clearly demonstrates. There is some confusion inherent in explaining
to "ordinary people" (by which I exclude any of us ;-> ) that this
geographic area is covered by area codes XXX and YYY, but it can be
dealt with.
HOWEVER, the confusion that is caused by an area code split is nothing
compared with the confusion created by overlaying a new area code onto more
than one existing area code. Just try explaining to someone who is not a
telecom expert that this area here is area codes XXX and YYY, but this
adjacent area is XXX and ZZZ.
The multi-overlay is a bad attempt to undo the previous split (proposing
to overlay 630 onto 312 and 708, or 917 onto 212 and 718, or 562 onto
310 and 213 (and 818?), or ??? onto 416 and 905). The people in the area
have already absorbed the cost of the negative aspects of the previous
split, so now the multi-overlay proposes to take away the benefits they
gained from the split.
It is INSANITY. If Toronto does an overlay, wireless or otherwise, it
should be an overlay ONLY on 416, especially since 905 is not currently
anywhere close to a jeopardy condition, and expanding the overlay would
only accelerate the need for more overlays for inner metro Toronto.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: dave@oldcolo.com
Subject: Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum
Date: 3 Nov 1996 18:12:38 GMT
Organization: occ
Reply-To: dave@oldcolo.com
In <telecom16.570.14@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, hbaker@netcom.com (Henry
Baker) writes:
> In article <telecom16.563.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, hbaker@netcom.com (Henry
> Baker) wrote:
>> Spread spectrum techniques were invented around the time of World War
>> II, by the actress Hedy Lamarr, among others, who obtained a U.S.
>> patent for a frequency agile torpedo control system.
> Altavista search turned up the following information:
> U.S. Patent #2,292,387 (1942 ??)
> Hedy K. Markey and George Antheil. "Secret Communications System".
> "Markey" was Lamarr's real name, and Antheil was a symphony composer, hence
> the suggestion to use 88 different frequencies (get it? 88 keys on the
> piano...) for 'frequency hopping'.
Ah yes. And spread spectrum is used in a whole bunch (50-60 company's
products) for no-licence, quite high-speed (2,3Mbps), secure data
communications. If you check through our NSF Wireless Field Test
Project web site http://wireless.oldcolo.com and go into the
Regulatory section, you will find, as the last item, a link to a site
which tracks all the companies.
It sure works. Our NSF Team has just connected up 8 sites (university,
educational, research, mainly) in Ulaanbataar, Mongolia, at 115Kbps,
spread spectrum from 1 to 10km across town where the PTT can't provide
*any* data lines, (just poor POTS). Linking them to the
satellite-sprintlink fed ground station web site http://www.magic.mn
so they can traverse the net, and share the very stiff cost of the
satellite feed (only 128kbs for about $6,000 a month)
A model a lot of Third World countries are beginning to look at.
As for Hedy Lamarr - the question mark after 1942 is not necessary.
Depending on versions of the story, Hedy was an Austrian actress, her
then husband hob nobbed with German military types, and the concept of
spreading the signal over many frequencies was discussed. As a
solution to their battlefield communications problem - unjammable,
uninterceptable, clandestine communications. Even without encryptian.
She left Austria before WWII and, in Hollywood, pursued the matter
with the musician. Some would claim she was so bright she could have
been a physicist. But she was so beautiful, she was quite an actress.
So when I build my first *really* advanced spread spectrum radio I'm
going to put a sticker-logo on the sides of it, with a sketch of Hedy,
in the style of the art on WWII bombers, and the notice 'Hedy Lamarr
Inside.'
BTW, this posting is coming to you by spread spectrum. You can
http://192.160.122.3 and get a little look. Last miles from my office
to my home-office is wireless, SS. Not blindingly fast because it is
slowed down by the frame relay wired connection to the net from our
office - which we expect to replace by a 3Mbps 3 mile direct ss
connection to an ISP server, bypassing totally the local US West loop
(and its T-1 costs).
Dave Hughes
dave@oldcolo.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #589
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Nov 4 15:46:33 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id PAA16121; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:46:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:46:33 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611042046.PAA16121@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #590
TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Nov 96 15:46:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 590
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (John R Levine)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (K. M. Peterson)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Colin Rafferty)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Art Walker)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Nevin Liber)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (John David Galt)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Henry Baker)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 4 Nov 1996 15:56:06 GMT
Organization: Panix
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom16.587.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Thor Lancelot Simon
<tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
> In article <telecom16.585.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mike Van Pelt
> <mvp@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps this would be a solution:
>> 1) No emailing until the credit card is validated.
> It's not clear to me what good this will do. It is *trivial* to
> acquire stolen credit card numbers which will work for a few days;
> besides, a spammer could just give his real credit card number, unless
> he's afraid the ISP will take legal action against him; and besides
> once more, it's not difficult to obtain a credit card under a false
> name.
> Also, this means that it is impossible to pay the ISP except by credit
> card. Do you really intend this to be the case? That would driuve
> away a lot of users.
>> 2) The first 10 (20? 30?) email messages sent per day are free.
>> After that, they're $1.00 each. Above 100, they're $10.00 each.
> I am not a spammer, and I send at least 20 email messages on some
> days. This is a poor suggestion as well -- wherever you draw the
> line, you just need messages/line different accounts.
> Besides, it's not possible to tell how many messages a user has sent,
> really. See below.
>> 3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
> This is not possible. Just where, exactly, are you going to "trap" these
> "telnet sessions", and how are you going to tell them apart from use of an
> SMTP mail client?
> You could possibly force all outbound mail to go through an SMTP
> gateway, and enforce policy there, but most popular client software
> isn't easily configured to do that -- or at least, it's not the
> cookie-cutter example most users can find in "Internet for Dummies" --
> and the performance of that gateway would be a severe bottleneck. In
> any event, you'd have to filter port 25 outbound at your router, and
> that's likely to annoy quite a few of your legitimate customers.
>> 4) For people who want to run legitimate mailing lists, provide a
>> waiver for the email limits. This is a tiny fraction of your
>> users, probably small enough you can keep a close eye on them,
>> at least long enough to be sure they're legit.
> Most Internet providers already have separate pricing policies for mailing
> lists.
> I have the strong suspicion that most of the people making these
> suggestions have never run an Internet provider, and that some of them
> have never even used one. Certainly, many of the suggestions made in
> the quoted message and in others display a significant lack of
> comprehension of both the technical and economic aspects of running an
> ISP. Things are being suggested which _just aren't possible_, and
> some of the other suggestions while technically feasible would annoy
> so many customers that any ISP who put them in place would quickly
> start losing money. A remarkable amount of naievete is also being
> displayed by many of the people who are proposing instant solutions --
> if a credit card were a strong form of authentication, credit-card
> fraud wouldn't exist, and passports, for example, would be useless.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If outgoing mail cannot be counted, how
> do services like AOL and Compuserve bill their members for the amount
> of mail they send? I agree that many of the solutions proposed are
> bound to create extra work for an ISP, if indeed as you point out,
> some of them could be easily implemented at all. And while getting a
Services like AOL and Compuserve bill for outgoing email by forcing it
all to go through a mail gateway. They can do this because their
customers are willing to use proprietary client software instead of
SMTP client software that delivers the messages directly to the other
endpoint.
It also takes *hours* for some messages to worm their way out of AOL
and reach me, when messages sent from users of real Internet
providers, directly using SMTP mailers, reach me in seconds or
minutes. This is an example of gateway-as-bottleneck.
In case you hadn't noticed, AOL and Compuserve are losing users to
small ISPs precisely because people don't like being forced to use
proprietary software.
What is being lost in the shuffle here is that the Internet is not a
client/server network, it's a peer-to-peer network. The reason it's
so hard to filter outbound email is that there's no single point at
which you can do it.
> stolen credit card number may be trivial as you suggest, the fact is
> the use of validation will screen out quite a bit of the trouble. I
> myself would never suggest that there will not be times an ISP is
> the victim of fraud in the same way the net community itself has been.
> There can be however, minor obstacle courses the ISP places in the
> path of a spammer/scammer to make it that much more difficult and
> discouraging -- less profitable if you will -- to perpetrate fraud
> and nuisances on the net.
Having been responsible for security at a large ISP, I strongly
disagree with you. Unless one wished to prohibit any means of payment
except credit card, it is relatively easy to appear to be "anyone" for
the purposes of as much validation as an ISP can effectively perform;
after all, if you take checks you pretty much have to take money
orders -- think about it. We had this problem with crackers and
people who sniffed passwords, and the spammers are just taking pages
out of their book. Believe me, if this were an easy problem to solve
at the sign-up point, it would have been, at least where I worked.
Crackers cost us tens of thousands of dollars several times.
Even eliminating all forms of payment except credit cards just makes
the problem a tiny, tiny, tiny bit harder, and as I mentioned
previously it's not really an option, for business reasons. Customers
expect certain conveniences of a local ISP which they do not expect
of, say, AOL, and one of those is the ability to pay by check.
> If I ask Amex or Visa for a credit card they don't rush right out and
> hand it to me that minute because they are afraid I might become
> discouraged and take my business elsewhere. Certainly they make
> attempts to promptly process new customers and encourage the use of
> their service, but they balance customer good will with the security
> of the system overall.
That's a ridiculous and blatantly false analogy. How many major
credit-card companies are there? How many small ISPs are there?
Remember that spammers usually don't even restrict themselves to ISPs
in their own area. If, as a small ISP, I enact draconian policies
such as "you may not use an SMTP mail client" or "you may no longer
pay by check", my users will simply go to another small ISP which does
not do so.
> No one single step an ISP takes will in and of itself be totally
> foolproof. That is not a reason for ISPs to wring their hands and say
> there is nothing they can do. They can save that stuff for interviews
> with the newspapers; it does not go over very well here on the net
> because we know a little different. We went through all this years ago
> with the original BBS operations. Itzy-pooh users who would get all in
"BBS operations" are not a reasonable model for ISPs; most traditional
ISPs are built either deliberately or accidentally in emulation of
academic computing environments. And frankly, I think it's a bit
absurd for you to say that "we know a little different" -- you
obviously don't. I've done all of this stuff, much of it several
times, in both the older academic environment of the net and at a
number of ISPs either as an employee or consultant. Some of these
problems are genuinely difficult to solve, and I don't see you out
there in the trenches solving them.
> a big huff about 'why should I have to identify myself?', etc. Sysops
> who would wimper and complain that they had no control over the stuff
> on their boards. Users who would get all bent out of shape when you
> insisted on a phone number to call them so you could validate the
> phone number and actually recite the password to a live person to
> whom you had some recourse.
Almost all reputable Internet providers perform exactly the validation
you appear to be proposing here. It quite simply is not good enough.
I will agree that there are certain fly-by-night Internet providers
out there who may not validate users properly, but I count those guys
right on a level with the spammers themselves; some of them are in
fact not ISPs at all, but just businesses who impersonate ISPs for the
convenience of spammers.
> Save those tearjerkers for the know-nothing newspaper reporters who
> publishers have told them to put down the Internet any way they can.
> Of course you can straighten out the mess. And you would be wise to
> rehabilitate yourselves before the government gets after you. PAT]
I'm flattered, PAT, but actually I spent years trying, and _I_
certainly couldn't completely straighten out the mess. At Panix,
where I started out in the business, they've pretty much got a handle
on it -- but through vigilance and quick reaction, and a policy of
being very obviously prepared to chase spammers around in court if
there is a necessity of doing so. If Panix were growing as fast as it
once was, however, I would be surprised if even these measures would
be enough to prevent spam from ever originating from a Panix user at
all, and I have no idea what they'd come up with.
It would not, however, be one of the just-add-hot-water-and-serve solutions
proposed earlier in this thread or just now by yourself -- they quite
demonstrably do not work.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 96 16:20:00 GMT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
>> 1) No emailing until the credit card is validated.
> It's not clear to me what good this will do. It is *trivial* to
> acquire stolen credit card numbers which will work for a few days;
But it's a lot harder than making up 15 random digits and a check
digit, which worked on AOL until a few weeks ago. Besides, using a
stolen credit card is clearly illegal and so removes any possible
basis on which people could complain about having an account yanked.
> Also, this means that it is impossible to pay the ISP except by credit
> card. Do you really intend this to be the case? That would driuve
> away a lot of users.
This is in practice pretty much the case now. Some ISPs will let you
mail in a check, so they could add "or the check clears."
> Besides, it's not possible to tell how many messages a user has sent,
> really. See below.
Yes it is, truly.
> > 3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
> ...
> You could possibly force all outbound mail to go through an SMTP
> gateway, and enforce policy there, but most popular client software
> isn't easily configured to do that -- or at least, it's not the
> cookie-cutter example most users can find in "Internet for Dummies" --
Wanna bet? (See my signature before reaching for your wallet.)
In fact, the ONLY reasonable way to configure user mail clients is to
send mail to the ISP's mail hub, since you need a full time connection
to handle retries and multiple MX mail forwarders. All of the
packages I've seen that auto-configure clients like Eudora and
Netscape send outgoing mail to the local ISP. That makes it easy and
practical to block outgoing port 25 connections from client systems
and force all mail through the hub.
Setting mail limits (maybe more than 20 messages per day, but certainly
less than 100) is easy to do at the mail hub, and as we all seem to
agree, there are few enough people running mailing lists that the
exceptions can be handled manually.
> ... Things are being suggested which _just aren't possible_, and
> some of the other suggestions while technically feasible would annoy
> so many customers that any ISP who put them in place would quickly
> start losing money.
This is all quite workable. In any event, I suspect the only
customers who'll get annoyed are ones that ISPs would be just as happy
not to have around in the first place.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof
------------------------------
From: kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 1 Nov 1996 19:45:21 GMT
Organization: KMPeterson/Boston
In article <telecom16.587.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu> tls@panix.com (Thor
Lancelot Simon) writes:
> In article <telecom16.585.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mike Van Pelt
> <mvp@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps this would be a solution:
>> 1) No emailing until the credit card is validated.
> It's not clear to me what good this will do. It is *trivial* to
> acquire stolen credit card numbers which will work for a few days;
> besides, a spammer could just give his real credit card number, unless
> he's afraid the ISP will take legal action against him; and besides
> once more, it's not difficult to obtain a credit card under a false
> name.
It may be trivial, but in using a stolen credit card number to commit
spam, you are taking what is only arguably illegal (spam) and making it
unmistakably illegal. If someone is going to go to the trouble and
risk of using a stolen credit card number for spam, they are not
trolling for "make money fast" but are certainly involved in some more
serious criminal enterprise, by definition.
> Also, this means that it is impossible to pay the ISP except by credit
> card. Do you really intend this to be the case? That would driuve
> away a lot of users.
Based on the "economic model" of ISPs that you cited, it is very much
in the ISPs interest to bill by credit card. Think about how much it
costs to invoice people monthly for $20-$30, follow up on collections,
etc., versus taking the standard discount by the banks on credit cards.
I know that my ISP strongly encourages customers to pay by credit card
for this reason.
>> 3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
> This is not possible. Just where, exactly, are you going to "trap" these
> "telnet sessions", and how are you going to tell them apart from use of an
> SMTP mail client?
> You could possibly force all outbound mail to go through an SMTP
> gateway, and enforce policy there, but most popular client software
> isn't easily configured to do that -- or at least, it's not the
> cookie-cutter example most users can find in "Internet for Dummies" --
> and the performance of that gateway would be a severe bottleneck. In
> any event, you'd have to filter port 25 outbound at your router, and
> that's likely to annoy quite a few of your legitimate customers.
Why do you say that this is "not possible"? Lots of organizations
filter outgoing sessions to port 25, except for known/trusted hosts ...
who wants to make it easy for people to spoof email? As you said, you
can't tell them apart from SMTP sessions, which is the whole point.
I have very rarely run into email clients on PC/Intel TCP/IP stacks
with full resolvers. For dialup access, the most logical thing to do
is send to a mailhost who takes care of queueing, DNS name resolution,
etc. After all, without a fulltime connection, who is going to have
their system want to redial their net connection every "n" minutes to
retry a destination host or MX host that's busy, hung or dead?
I believe that the most popular email client in the Mac/Wintel world is
Eudora ... which can _only_ be configured to send outgoing email to a
single mail host. Same with Netscape. I don't claim specific
knowledge of "most popular client software" as you do, but I don't see
why you'd _want_ to do all that work on an (intermittently connected)
client.
> I have the strong suspicion that most of the people making these
> suggestions have never run an Internet provider, and that some of them
> have never even used one. Certainly, many of the suggestions made in
> the quoted message and in others display a significant lack of
> comprehension of both the technical and economic aspects of running an
> ISP. Things are being suggested which _just aren't possible_, and
> some of the other suggestions while technically feasible would annoy
> so many customers that any ISP who put them in place would quickly
> start losing money. A remarkable amount of naievete is also being
> displayed by many of the people who are proposing instant solutions --
> if a credit card were a strong form of authentication, credit-card
> fraud wouldn't exist, and passports, for example, would be useless.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even if it is a
bit_ad_hominem_ for my taste. However, the neat thing about the
Internet is that you can learn quite a bit about the network by simply
asking questions, which includes making what you refer to as "naive"
suggestions. I understand that education is a mission of PAT's, and
suggest that if people don't hash these things out by asking questions,
no one is going to learn anything.
I also think that it's important to take what steps can be taken, that
are reasonable and produce reasonable benefits given their cost. I
think that it would indeed be reasonable to fully verify a credit card
before allowing more than limited access via an ISP. I think that it
will happen when the costs of allowing people utterly free (in scope)
access to unidentified users comes back to haunt the industry. Will
this solve all our problems? No. Will anything solve all our
problems? No. Does this then mean we should do nothing? No.
K. M. Peterson
<mailto:KMP@TIAC.NET> <http://www.tiac.net/users/peterson>
Phone: +1 617 731 6177 voice
+1 617 730 5969 fax
------------------------------
From: Colin Rafferty <craffert@spssunp.spspme.ml.com>
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 04 Nov 1996 13:41:45 -0500
Organization: Merrill Lynch
"TLS" == Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@panix.com> writes:
"MVP" == Mike Van Pelt <mvp@netcom.com> writes:
TLS> Besides, it's not possible to tell how many messages a user has sent,
TLS> really. See below.
MVP> 3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
TLS> This is not possible. Just where, exactly, are you going to "trap" these
TLS> "telnet sessions", and how are you going to tell them apart from use of an
TLS> SMTP mail client?
TLS> You could possibly force all outbound mail to go through an SMTP
TLS> gateway, and enforce policy there, but most popular client software
TLS> isn't easily configured to do that -- or at least, it's not the
TLS> cookie-cutter example most users can find in "Internet for Dummies" --
TLS> and the performance of that gateway would be a severe bottleneck. In
TLS> any event, you'd have to filter port 25 outbound at your router, and
TLS> that's likely to annoy quite a few of your legitimate customers.
"TDE" == TELECOM Digest Editor writes:
TDE> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If outgoing mail cannot be counted, how
TDE> do services like AOL and Compuserve bill their members for the amount
TDE> of mail they send?
Because they are neither letting their users run a Unix shell nor are
they giving them PPP. AOL and Compuserve users are unable to do
anything that is not in the menu.
All other ISPs give either a shell or PPP or both. The reason that they
only charge for connect time is because this is the only thing that they
can feasibly measure. Everything else (including bytes transferred) is
just a good guess.
Colin Rafferty
------------------------------
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 08:16:29 GMT
Organization: Vaxination Informatique
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If outgoing mail cannot be counted, how
> do services like AOL and Compuserve bill their members for the amount
> of mail they send?
When you send mail to the internet from Compuserve (GO MAIL), remember
that you are using Compuserve's proprietary software as user agent
before it reaches the SMTP/INTERNET. And it is in that proprietary layer
that Compuserve has all its billing software hooks. I suspect that AOL
has a similar proprietary layer. I do not think that when Compuserve is
used as an ISP (GO PPP) that Compuserve knows what you are doing at the
TCP/IP level (sending mail, sending news, accessing the web etc).
Furthermore, some ISPs (used to) count the characters sent/received on
your account and when you went/go above a certain limit, you would be
charged extra. This may not be the case anymore because of competition
with "unlimited usage for a fixed fee" providers. But this does indicate
that there are hooks in the ISP's systems to measure traffic levels (and
connect time) for each user.
Unfortunatly, spammers may not be generating that much traffic if they
send a single message to many users at the same time.
And there are legitimate uses of mass mailings. For instance, a company
may be sending out statements/bills to their customers. This would be
considered a SPAM from the technical point of view, but recipients would
not be complaining because this was a legitimate use of mail messages.
My gut feeling is that each ISP should instruct its customers on how to
deal with incoming spams. (eg: extract full headers and send a message
back to abuse@xxx.yyy.zzz etc etc).
After a while companies will know better than to use this technique as a
marketing tool and will instruct their own staff NEVER to SPAM.
In my replies to spam messages, I always indicate that because of that
spam, I will never do business with that company. If everyone did that,
companies would learn that this is an inefficient tool and stop
spamming.
I think that ISPs who have a customer who sends out spams will get
enough complaints about that user that they will know for sure that such
users is misusing the facilities (as opposed to sending many legit
messages).
{Readers Digest} sends out tons of "junk mail" and they get an
acceptable response rate, so this technique works even considering the
relatively high paper postage costs. On the Internet, we just have to
ensure that the response rate is low enough to make SPAMs not cost
effective. And if SPAMs can actually be negative (making recipients
stop dealing with the company, which is worse than not responding to
an advertising), the practice will stop sooner.
For as long as there is money to be made, spams will continue. So the
only way to really deal with the issue is good education on the user
side to make sure that users respond negatively to spams and that
companies who use such techniques actually get negative results (as
opposed to neutral or positive ones).
------------------------------
From: walker@beeble.mnscorp.com (Art Walker)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 4 Nov 1996 00:39:00 GMT
Organization: Midwest Network Solutions - Omaha, NE
Reply-To: Art.Walker@mnscorp.com
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:46:50 GMT, Mike Van Pelt <mvp@netcom.com> wrote:
> Perhaps this would be a solution:
> 1) No emailing until the credit card is validated.
Better yet, require a valid VeriSign class two or higher DigitalID (or
equivalent). Once a valid standard for signing E-Mail messages comes into
place (such as S/MIME), require that all outgoing messages have a valid
signature (checked by the mail server).
> 2) The first 10 (20? 30?) email messages sent per day are free.
> After that, they're $1.00 each. Above 100, they're $10.00 each.
Also consider limiting message size, with steep charges on messages above
64K.
>3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
Done at the outgoing router - allow outgoing SMTP traffic only from *one*
mail server that users can't directly log in to.
> 4) For people who want to run legitimate mailing lists, provide a
> waiver for the email limits. This is a tiny fraction of your
> users, probably small enough you can keep a close eye on them,
> at least long enough to be sure they're legit.
And charge them steeply for the privledge.
Art
------------------------------
From: nevin@cs.arizona.edu (Nevin ":-]" Liber)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 18:13:10 -0700
Organization: University of Arizona CS Department, Tucson Arizona
In article <telecom16.587.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tls@rek.tjls.com wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If outgoing mail cannot be counted, how
> do services like AOL and Compuserve bill their members for the amount
> of mail they send?
AOL doesn't charge based on the amount of mail sent out. The reason it is
possible for them and Compuserve to do so is that they own both the client
and the server software. If you allow a general connection to the
Internet, it becomes very difficult to regulate this. This costs money (in
terms of more complex software, constantly watching what people are doing,
etc.), and unless all the ISPs implement this, those that do will be at a
severe disadvantage.
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> (520) 293-2799
<http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/nevin/>
------------------------------
From: John David Galt <jdg@rahul.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:48:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Organization: Bay Area Cynics
Has anyone considered simply requiring ISPs to be served by choke
exchanges? It seems to me that choke exchanges were invented to solve
this very problem (the overloading of trunks from residential prefix
switches with calls to one or a few high-traffic numbers).
John David Galt
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:48:49 GMT
In article <telecom16.583.14@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, dannyb@panix.com (danny
burstein) wrote:
> (Snipped out big article about Pac Bell making the usual claims that
> long duration internet phone calls tie up the network and unfairly
> cost them money, etc.)
> Funny how we never heard the telcos complain in the last decade as
> facsimilie traffic zoomed from nothing to <mumble> percentage of
> calls, mostly of short duration but still charged for, thus making
> them oodles and oodles of extra money.
> Oh, and to add to the gravy, since (most) fax machines easily do
> auto-redial on busy lines, the telcos could even allow network
> congestion to increase (i.e. they didn't have to expensively expand
> their network).
> Lots of pure profit to them and nary a word of complaint. Wonder why ...???
How many 20-minute faxes do most people send and/or receive ? I don't
think that my fax machine has that much paper capacity, unless I'm
connected to a slow fax machine at the other end.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #590
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Nov 4 16:56:02 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id QAA24639; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 16:56:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 16:56:02 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611042156.QAA24639@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #591
TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Nov 96 16:56:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 591
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Brian Elfert)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Bill Sohl)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Craig Nordin)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Linc Madison)
Re: America Online's Preferredmail Combats Junk E-Mail (david@llondel.uk)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Michael D. Adams)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Rick Ellis)
Re: Errors in Numbering/Dialing/Billing (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" (Linc Madison)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tclbbs@winternet.com (Brian Elfert)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 3 Nov 96 23:26:02 GMT
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Local 'competitors' will not be creating
> extra capacity. They will be using the existing telco structure for the
> most part. PAT]
Here in downtown Minneapolis, MCI has it's own switch for local service,
and MFS is installing a switch. Both MCI and MFS will deliver dialtone
over fiber they already have in place. MCI will buy T1s from US West and
deliver service to buildings without fiber that way. One T1 will save 22
pairs of copper.
There are a number of ISPs in downtown Minneapolis, several of whom
are considering using MCI for local services. This would certainly
free up the switches US West maintains for Downtown Minneapolis.
Brian
------------------------------
From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 3 Nov 1996 20:11:18 -0500
Organization: Ideamation, Inc.
In article <telecom16.586.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Robert Casey
<wa2ise@netcom.com> wrote:
> Maybe I mis-understand something about the upcomming "local" phone
> service competition, but when cable companies and whoever else
> installs their lines (virtual or real wire), won't this new extra
> bandwidth relieve the supposed congestion off the existing local phone
> company (Pac Bell)? And I would guess the local C.O. phone switches
> are probably paid for by now? So Pac Bell can just ride it out,
> knowing that there's no point in spending more money to add capacity
> for local calls, as other local competitors will create capacity and
> suck off customers anyway.
I believe you're correct and our Esteemed Moderator is slightly off
center. Here in Rhode Island it seems that Cox Communications has
rather ambitious plans to roll out their OWN service and only
interconnect with Nynex and other potential carriers in order to pass
calls and nothing else. Additionally they're rolling out the cable
modems and this will allow those ISP's who'd be getting whacked with
access charges by the crybaby LEC's to bypass said LEC. I suppose
we're fortunate that Rhode Island is small enough that an undertaking
such as this can be assumed.
My feelings on this whole bruhaha are positive ones. Only now is
Theodore Vail spinning in his grave. And AT&T is in for a rough ride
now that BT is attempting to BUY MCI. Let's face it, in the business
world nobody is granted a perpetual monopoly. We've paid for the LEC
facilities over and over again so their cries of foul fall on deaf
ears in this part of the country. We've been raped over and over again
by a telephone company that has yet to break away from the old AT&T
Bible.
In article <telecom16.586.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Bill Sohl
<billsohl@planet.net> wrote:
> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote:
>> Industry studies suggest that if U.S. Internet penetration reaches 15
>> percent, it would force a $22 billion network investment by the
>> regional Bells to support it. California currently has the highest
>> penetration at eight percent.
>> "We think action is required within two years," when the 15 percent
>> figure is expected to be reached, said Atai.
If ISP's installed their own switches -- which some are -- and just
buy trunks from the LEC do you think for one minute the LEC would
complain? Not bloody likely. I'm sorry but data is becoming as much a
public utility as voice telephony and here we have the Bell's (They
ARE still Bell's after all - most have never gotten past the AT&T
mold.) trying to rape the consumers once again.
Tony
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One last rape for the books, huh? :)
You mention BT 'attempting to purchase MCI' and the way I am hearing
it Monday on Cable News Network is that it is a done deal. I guess
the stock market went sort of crazy Monday morning with MCI stock
trading. Some executives from BT and MCI are going to be on CNN Monday
night to discuss their plans. Things are really going to get hot
around here now! PAT]
------------------------------
From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 10:20:37 GMT
Organization: BL Enterprises
In response to my commentary response on internet congestion:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bill, I wonder if the problem really is
> that all these folks are going around the established ways of passing
> communications (i.e. the newspapers) and spreading news, etc on their
> own. You think the newspapers might like printing this sort of scare
> story from time to time? It is a change of pace; after all, you can't
> just print stories about women getting murdered by someone they met in
> chat and people sending child porn spam everywhere. People get bored
> after awhile. Why not a story about how Internet use is screwing up
> the public telephone network for something different? PAT]
I've had dealings with the media as a local elected official and I
think Pat's analysis is pretty accurate. If the sky isn't falling,
it's not a newsworthy story. Additionally, newspapers have an anoying
habit of exaggeration and playing it fast and loose with statistics.
To see that, just look at the numbers that were provided in last
week's (10/31/96) {USA Today} article on internet access. The article
makes the following claims:
Percentage of internet users, by access method:
50% Standard modem over phone lines
25% ISDN Phone lines
5% ADSL phone lines
15% Cable modems
5% Satellite
Now is there anyone that reads this newsgroup that seriously belives
ISDN constitutes as much as 25% of internet access? 5% via satellite?
or 15% via cable modems?
At this point, I don't even think ISDN penetration has reached one
million lines yet. There are various numbers that say internet access
is well over 20/30 million users. If that's even half that, there's
no way ISDN can account for 25% of internet access. Additionally, do
any of the major ISPs such as AOL and Compuserve even offer ISDN
internet access yet?
As to cable modem penetration, most are still in the trial stage from
what I've read. If cable modem access was even 10%, that'd mean
upwards of 1-2 million cable modem users or more. Talk about somebody
cooking numbers :-)
By the way, the only source reference in the article's graphics that
contained these stats was Pacific Telesis.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net
Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor
Budd Lake, New Jersey
------------------------------
From: cnordin@vni.net (Craig Nordin)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 4 Nov 1996 10:51:56 -0500
Organization: Virtual Networks
These are some of the most impressive numbers so far but what we have
are a few spurious quotes and some general industry stats that have no
source reference. Just the type of article a hack is capable of
placing for the sake of a campaign to start charging ISPs more.
Note that the whole focus was on sticking it to the ISP. One could
have gone against the group that dials, the traditional group to bill
-- but that would be very unpopular.
So, the Bells become ISPs and become indignant at the ISPs at the same
time. How does one become indignant with oneself?
Funny that the reporter didn't quote any ISPs nor any consumers who
actually get their computers to dial, eh? Doesn't that show that the
story was really manufactured and handed over to the reporter? Well,
let's not call this investigative journalism.
I'm interested in learning more about this problem the Bells talk
about. But the Bell Atlantic figures I saw earlier were much weaker.
I'd like to find the anchor point for "10 percent per month" because
that is very good growth and it should be shown by computer sales as
well, right?
I think that this is really more like a press release than a report.
Just My Biased Opinion ...
Jobs - Graphic Arts - Commercial Production -> http://studio.vni.net/jobs/
Virtual Networks Premier Internet Services cnordin@vnii.net
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:50:31 GMT
Organization: Best Internet Communications
In article <telecom16.587.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tls@rek.tjls.com wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If outgoing mail cannot be counted, how
> do services like AOL and Compuserve bill their members for the amount
> of mail they send?
I know for a fact that AOL *does not* bill their members for the amount of
mail they send, and I don't believe that CompuServe does, either.
In any event, the way that they can count mail messages is quite simply
by using a proprietary interface, rather than standard Internet software.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: noone@llondel.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: America Online's Preferredmail Combats Junk E-Mail
Reply-To: dave@llondel.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 96 21:22:19 GMT
In article <telecom16.582.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu> it was written:
> Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> DULLES, Va., Oct. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- AMERICA ONLINE today introduced
>> PreferredMail, a new tool that allows members to avoid unwanted junk
>> e-mail, a major source of complaints from online users.
> When does AOL finally do something about junk mail sent by their
> customers (it's totally misleading to speak of "members") to people
> outside of AOL?! I often receive such unwanted advertizing stuff sent
> from an AOL address (some even in German!).
Perhaps the answer is for AOL to change the terms of their '10 hours
free' accounts to either prohibit email outside of AOL on such an
account or to restrict such accounts to a maximum of 25 or 100 emails.
Those wanting more can pay for a full account.
It might get rid of some of the idiots, although there are still those
to whom the cost of a full account is still small enough that they will
pay for a new account per junk spam.
Dave
dave@llondel.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
From: mda-961101b@triskele.com (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 01:05:51 GMT
Organization: Triskele Consulting
Reply-To: mda-961101b@triskele.com
On 30 Oct 1996 03:20:52 GMT, geneb@ma.ultranet.com wrote:
> Not if the ISP is willing to do about three minutes worth of verification
> BEFORE granting service.
> Such steps as:
> 2. Requiring a phone number, then CHECKING it, either by
> a: calling them back
> b: checking it through an online or CD-ROM directory
Um ... Those online and CD-ROM directories are not always accurate
enough to be "fair" in checking out users. For example, I moved to
this part of the country a total of 12 hours before I signed up for my
new account up here.
Somehow, I doubt that any online or CD-ROM directory would've had my
new phone number that quickly. To be technical, I don't believe any
online or CD-ROM directory *has* my current phone number yet.
Michael D. Adams
Triskele Consulting
Baltimore, Maryland
ma@triskele.com
------------------------------
From: ellis@ftel.net (Rick Ellis)
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Date: 4 Nov 1996 08:28:34 GMT
Organization: Franklin interNet, Westlake Village, CA [http://www.ftel.net]
In article <telecom16.582.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>,
> 1. Requiring a credit card to establish an account, THEN VERIFYING IT
> with the issuing bank.
I very much resent the need of a credit card to do business with so
many companies. It leaves those without a credit card as less than
human or something.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 14:21:38 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: Errors in Numbering/Dialing/Billing
In my earlier post on this subject, regarding country codes vs. NANP
area codes, which both are using the same numericals, I was referring
to country code +212 as Algeria. This was an error, as +212 is
Morocco, while Algeria is country code +213. I frequently keep saying
Algeria as 212 when I think about the situation a few years back, when
I was really calling NYCity, area code 212 within the NANP (+1).
However, when discussing the earlier Digest posting of Jean-Francois
Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) with another telephone enthusiast, I had
overlooked another possibility why there was this error in billing.
In the original post, Jean-Francois Mezei metions:
> I have a friend from New Zealand who used her NZ calling card to dial to
> me. (I cannot remember exactly where she was at the time, but I believe
> she was in North America).
> She dialed country code 1, area code 514 (Montreal) followed by seven
> digits.
> On her bill, NZ Telecom thought she had dialed:
> 2514nnnnnnn
> And NZ Telecom then interpreted this as country 251 followed by an eight
> digit telephone number beginning with 4.
> She was therefore billed for a call to Ethiopia instead of Canada :-(
> (251 is Ethiopia) She did manage to get charges fixed when it was
> realised that 8 digit phone numbers do not exist in Ethiopia!
> However, this has made me think that Canada really has a country code
> of "2" instead of the common "1".
> Can anyone comment on the use of "2" as a country code for Canada?
I mentioned that it was obviously a translation error in the carriers'
routing and billing equipment, and then went on to describe a call I
placed over MCI (using their 950-1022 access number) intended for
NYCity (NANP area code 212), but which I think went astray to country
code 212 (Morocco, not Algeria).
Well, another explanation for why a call intended for Montreal PQ
(+1-514) billed to a New Zealand calling card might have been billed
as a call to Ethiopia (+251 - 4xxxxxxx) could be a problem in
translating the *language digit*.
The ITU standards of automated international traffic, which date back
to the 1960's mention dialed/automated traffic placed by a customer,
and traffic originated/dialed by an operator. For traffic which might
happen to need the assistance of an operator in the distant country or
a 'transit' country, a 'language digit' is inserted *after the country
code* and just *before* the beginning of the *national number*.
The language digit is not inserted by a customer, nor even an originating
operator. It is inserted by the switching equipment in the gateway office
of the calling/originating country.
For customer dialed non-coin station-sent-paid (i.e. no 'special' billing
requests) international traffic, there is no need to connect an operator in
a transit or distant country. A 'default' language digit of '0' is inserted
between the country code and the national number by the outward country's
international gateway office.
In the situation described by Jean-Francois Mezei, a call was placed to
Montreal and billed to a NZ Telecom credit card. It is mentioned that the
call might have even originated from North America.
*IF* the call were dialed originating over a 'major' North American carrier
(AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or one of Canada's Stentor companies), depending on the
carrier's billing and honoring contracts with New Zealand, it could have
been placed as "0+514+nxx-xxxx", as it was intra-NANP. At the 'bong' tone,
the *international* format of the NZ Telecom Card would have been entered:
89 + 64 + "IIN" + the NZ national number + PIN/auth.code
o "89" is the "international card" indentifier code.
o "64" is New Zealand's country code.
o The IIN is the Issuer Identifier Number, a two or three digit code
assigned by the ITU, to identify the card-issuing entity or carrier or
particular country within a country code.
[Side note: at one time, 'foreign' country/telco issued cards were
accepted by the 'host' country/telco *only* for international calls
placed back to the issuing country/telco. You wouldn't have even been
able to place a local call in the US using a UK-issued telephone
card. This has been changing, according to bilateral and multilateral
business arrangements between telcos and carriers of various
countries, and the ITU's "89" international calling card 'standard'.
Today, it is possible, if the bilateral/multilateral arrangements are in
effect, to place a call from the UK to Australia, and bill it to a North
American telco/carrier issued card. This can be handled in two ways:
o It could be 'tracked' by the UK telco/carrier as the 'originating' telco
and using the "international/89" card number,
o or it could be placed via "country direct" to call the card-issuing
telco/carrier in North America, and then an international call over to
Australia, using the North American "domestic" card number.]
If the North American carrier honors/accepts NZ Telecom cards for calls
within the NANP, the call would have progressed just as any intra-NANP call
normally would have. The calling and called numbers would have been
(1)-NPA-NXX- to (1)-514-nxx-. *No* 'language digits' would have been
involved. Billing would have been recorded to be passed back to New Zealand
for further processing.
However, if the call originated *from* New Zealand, or if the call
originated from another country (including from the NANP) but was *placed
via 'country direct' back to New Zealand*, it would have definately been
more of an 'international' call, eligable for a language digit to be
inserted.
*The language digit for originating countries which use English* is
'2'. It would seem that the call originated in New Zealand, or it
'appeared' to originate from New Zealand (via New Zealand Direct), and
the NZ outward international gateway switch inserted '2' between
country code +1 and NANP area code 514. However, the *billing*
equipment should *not* have been 'picking up' on the language digit,
and only on +1 and 514.
IMO, the use of language digits have no purposes anymore. It didn't
indicate the (primary) language of the *person* placing the call,
receiving the call (if it were collect), nor the person being *billed*
for the call (i.e. bill-to-third-party). It only indicates the
'primary' language of the country where the call originates. With such
features as automated calling card entry by customers, even if a card
from a different country code (i.e. use and honoring of other
countries' "89" cards) and 'bypassing' by using "country direct", I
feel that language digits have become obsolete.
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service"
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:59:48 -0800
Organization: Best Internet Communications
In article <telecom16.587.11@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Jeffrey Rhodes
<jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Linc Madison wrote:
>> So, pretty much, if you're a cellular user, you get to keep 214, but
>> if you're a landline user, you have to switch. Hrumph.
> Competition for the local loop and cellular will eventually iron out
> various billing imbalances. Billing systems are very complex, ...
> [other stuff that has absolutely NOTHING to do with why cellphones
> got to keep 214 while landlines moved to 972, deleted]
Simple fact: the 214/972 split was officially supposed to leave only
DALLAS exchanges in 214; all exchanges with a suburban name, including
GRANDPRARI (Grand Prairie), were to move to 972.
However, cellphone users with GRANDPRARI numbers seem to have been
exempted, and the only explanation I can see is discrimination in favor
of one class of users (cellphones) over another (landlines).
I'm not talking about any sort of billing imbalance or equal access or
anything else that Jeffrey mentioned; I'm talking about an inequity in
the way that an area code was split.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #591
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Nov 5 06:04:21 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id GAA26094; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:04:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:04:21 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611051104.GAA26094@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #592
TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 96 06:04:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 592
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (W.D. Baseley)
Integretel Again (Martin McCormick)
"Voice Mail Waiting" Indicator? (Ross Oliver)
Re: Percentage of Rotary / Pulse-Dial Phones? (Lisa Hancock)
Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service? (Lisa Hancock)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Todd L. Sherman)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Information Wanted About Satellite System Design (John Lydic)
New Area Codes For New Jersey Announced (John Cropper)
Re: I Need Help With PBX (Eric Elder)
Re: Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials (Eric Elder)
International Telecom Mailing Lists Wanted (Pat Noziska)
Help With a AT&T 7506 ISDN Voice / Data Set (Joe Plescia)
An Interesting Use of ANI (Today Only) (Paul Robinson)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wbaseley@prolog.net (WD Baseley)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 22:09:02 GMT
Reply-To: wbaseley@prolog.net
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:57:47 +0000, in <telecom16.589.7@massis.lcs.mit.
edu>, scott miller <smiller@nortel.ca> espoused:
> Mostly, Ma just looked the other way, like letting a few hobos hitch a
> free ride on a westbound train.
Hobos? Ma had her head up her a** while users screamed for ISDN, more
lines, and greater bandwidth. Folks have been buying second lines in
their homes for years and using them for their PCs. My local telco is
sending me ads to do it -- specifically for data use! Hobos indeed.
Paying the freight to the future is more like it.
> The real solution is metered local access, but this would might require
> major investments in billing systems by Telcos, and might upset the public.
> If they were smart, they would set the rates so that 90% of consumers saw a
> rate decrease, and hit the heavy-using 10% for the balance. (making the usual
> required exemptions for various 'vulnerable' groups) If the current attempt
> to bill ISPs directly fails, I would bet it would be followed by a general
> rate rebalancing exercise.
> Flat-rate pricing probably doesn't have a future, especially in the ISP
> world. If Iphone or Internet videoconferencing were to take off, ISPs would
> find themselves chronically short of bandwidth. What will they do? Charge
> everybody more, target the bandwidth users, or just eat the cost? (ha!)
You appear to speak from the viewpoint of a monopolistic past. It's
the telcos free ride that is over. All the dinosau--- er, telcos have
to do is add bandwidth to meet demand. It's obvious that if they
don't, someone else -- cable, satellite, someone -- will. Flat rate is
very attractive to home users. Someone will find a way to profitably
provide it. Can the dinosaur dance, or will the home users find
another partner?
Regards,
WD Baseley
------------------------------
From: Martin McCormick <martin@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>
Subject: Integretel Again
Date: 4 Nov 1996 23:05:09 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK
Last August, my wife and I visited various places in Texas,
one of which was Arlington. We wanted to test our cell phone to make
sure the roaming feature was working so my wife innocently enough
dialed the number in the 405 area that should ring the cell phone. It
rang once and she hung up. Test complete. We didn't think much about
it again until the first of September when a $4.19 charge via
Integretel showed up on our bill. I told my wife that we were
probably going to have trouble with this one because I remembered a
string of messages about that very company a year or two ago and all
the unhappy experiences people had had with them.
We did, in fact, make the call, but it never supervised and the
$4.19 charge for one minute should never have shown up.
My wife called the number indicated on the bill for correcting
such errors and the representative said that the charge would be
removed. We paid all of our bill but the $4.19 charge and waited. In
October, the charge was still there. We did the same thing and waited
until November. It is still there and I am going to call the folks at
Integretel and have a little chat with them, myself. Has anybody got
any suggestions of how to urge them along the path of actually
correcting this charge?
My wife later said that she saw the Integretel sticker on the
phone and thought that by using our AT&T calling card she would bypass
any unusual charges. Now she knows that all that happens in such a case
is that your calling card number gets billed at the rip-off rate rather
than a normal one.
Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group
------------------------------
From: reo@crl.com (Ross Oliver)
Subject: "Voice Mail Waiting" Indicator?
Date: 4 Nov 1996 16:13:29 -0800
Organization: The Air Affair: http://www.airaffair.com/
I just ordered Pac Bell's Message Center(tm) voice mail service for my
home phone. Overall, vm will be better than my current tape-based
answering machine, but the one thing I will miss is the blinking
"messages are waiting" light. Is there any sort of gadget available
that can detect the stutter dial tone and provide a visual indicator
of messages waiting? My phone here in the office supposedly has such
an indicator, but the telcom guys have never been able to get it to
work. Any leads would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ross Oliver
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is an old, and oft-repeated
question here. Perhaps some of you readers will send Mr. Oliver the
schematics and other details on this. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock)
Subject: Re: Percentage of Rotary / Pulse-Dial Phones?
Date: 5 Nov 1996 00:34:11 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net
I've read varying percentages, from 20-35% still rotary service.
But taking a national percentage is tricky. Undoubtedly some areas
have a very low percentage while others a very high percentage. I've
heard rumors that some exchanges, upon re-equipping to ESS, won't even
provide pulse service (don't know if that's true.)
Another key issue is that people can now have a combo phone -- that
is, it looks like touch-tone, but actually emits pulses to make the
connection. The user can switch the phone to tone to use computer
services.
Some localities are converting pay phones BACK to rotary to discourage
drug dealers/prostitutes from using them as beeper points.
Lastly, some people (like me) have mixed service in the house and
work. My computer modem and one phone in my home are touch-tone, the
rest are rotary (including the hard wired kitchen phone.) My office
phones are similar.
The {Wall Street Journal} did an article on this about a year ago.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock)
Subject: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service?
Date: 5 Nov 1996 00:39:52 GMT
Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net
Per the question on rotary service, I was wondering if there are any
cord switchboards still in service, either PBX or central office Toll
and Assistance or Overseas.
I think overseas operators kept cord switchboards the longest as they
were best for the oddball calls that couldn't be dialed automatically
and automation wouldn't help much. Anyone know anything more about this?
I used to operate a PBX 555 in high school as a student aide. Fun job!
I suspect cord switchboards are long gone from business and industry
as consoles are so much more efficient -- on a console, the operator
does not have to take down the cords at the end of a call, freeing up
50% of the work.
BTW, I remember reading in the 1970s in the Bell Laboratories Record
that they developed a _manual_ cordLESS PBX to replace the 555 for
small applications. I'm not sure how it worked.
------------------------------
From: Todd L. Sherman <afn09444@afn.org>
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:02:47 -0500
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Michael D. Adams wrote:
> On 30 Oct 1996 03:20:52 GMT, geneb@ma.ultranet.com wrote:
>> Not if the ISP is willing to do about three minutes worth of verification
>> BEFORE granting service.
>> Such steps as:
>> 2. Requiring a phone number, then CHECKING it, either by
>> a: calling them back
>> b: checking it through an online or CD-ROM directory
> Um ... Those online and CD-ROM directories are not always accurate
> enough to be "fair" in checking out users. For example, I moved to
> this part of the country a total of 12 hours before I signed up for my
> new account up here.
> Somehow, I doubt that any online or CD-ROM directory would've had my
> new phone number that quickly. To be technical, I don't believe any
> online or CD-ROM directory *has* my current phone number yet.
And to back that up, I just the other day used one online telephone
directory and looked up myself. It came back with "Todd & Lisa Sherman."
Now, Lisa was my wife ... back in 1985!
So, some are out-of-date by about 12 years!
Todd
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 4 Nov 1996 17:54:48 -0500
Organization: Panix
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom16.591.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Craig Nordin
<cnordin@vni.net> wrote:
> These are some of the most impressive numbers so far but what we have
> are a few spurious quotes and some general industry stats that have no
> source reference. Just the type of article a hack is capable of
> placing for the sake of a campaign to start charging ISPs more.
> Note that the whole focus was on sticking it to the ISP. One could
> have gone against the group that dials, the traditional group to bill
> -- but that would be very unpopular.
> So, the Bells become ISPs and become indignant at the ISPs at the same
> time. How does one become indignant with oneself?
Heck, probably just about the same way as when NYNEX was first
considering entering the ISP business large ISPs in the NYC metro area
suddenly found that orders for POTS lines started to miss their
commitment dates by *years*.
I know of one ISP owner in New York who has certainly convinced *me*
that every time he complains to the PSC about how NYNEX is shafting
his business on the one side while making noise about entering it on
the other, his *home* phone service mysteriously fails within a few
days, always quickly repaired as soon as he calls 611.
Carl Oppedahl, who has been a fly in NYNEX's ointment at the PSC for
years, can tell some amazing stories about strange problems with his
home phone service.
NYNEX is a really, really bad company. Some telcos aren't, but if you
want proof that everything isn't pristine and shiny, you need look no
further.
My opinions on this matter do *not* reflect those of my employer or
anyone but myself. I'm not usually obliged to say that, but perhaps I
should here.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
------------------------------
From: John Lydic <lydic@idt.ch.etn.com>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted About Satellite System Design
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 16:31:30 -0500
Organization: Cuttler-Hammer IDT
Lars Poulsen wrote:
> In article <telecom16.576.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu> is written:
>> 'You are a consultant in the area of designing satellite
>> communication systems.
<snip>
> This is a very tough spec to meet. I suspect that you will discover
> that you need 77 satellites to meet this requirement; i.e. this is a
> setup to make you discover that Motorola Iridium is truly the minimal
> system capable of performing this mission.
Perhaps, except Iridium switched to a 66 bird constellation a couple
of years ago. Something about higher power and better beam width
available. An NO, they're not changing the name to dysprosium.
John Lydic
lydic@idt.ch.etn.com
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: New Area Codes For New Jersey Announced
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 16:37:16 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
Bell Atlantic Announces New Area Codes in New Jersey
973 in the Western Part of 201; 732 in the Southeastern Part of 908
NEWARK, N.J. - Bell Atlantic today announced the state's two new area
codes: 973 in North Jersey and 732 in Central Jersey.
On Oct. 23, the Board of Public Utilities selected a plan that would
carve two new area codes out of the existing 201 and 908 area codes,
which are set to run out of telephone numbers next year.
The creation of the new area codes will not affect telephone rates.
Calls that are local today will remain local after the two new area
codes are instituted.
The new area codes are being created to generate more telephone
numbers, which are being used up at an unprecedented pace by a huge
demand for telecommunications services. Thousands of customers are now
linked to the outside world through fax machines, pagers, cellular
telephones and modems.
Moreover, New Jersey is opening its local telephone market to
competition. Other telecommunications companies that plan to enter New
Jersey's local market have been assigned nearly one million numbers to
serve prospective customers.
Bell Atlantic did not favor the board's chosen method of area-code
relief, in part because it would split 21 New Jersey municipalities. In
addition, customers holding more than four million telephone numbers
would be forced to change their area codes.
Bell Atlantic is, however, moving forward on the board's recommendation.
Callers who want to reach customers in western North Jersey and eastern
Central Jersey may begin dialing the new area codes on May 1, 1997.
During a six-month grace period scheduled to run until Nov. 1997,
callers may use the old and the new area codes to reach customers in
the 973 and 732 areas.
After November, callers will need to dial the two new area codes to
reach customers in the 973 and 732 areas.
The new codes were assigned by Bellcore, administrator of the North
American Numbering Plan.
Bell Atlantic Corporation (NYSE: BEL) is at the forefront of the new
communications, entertainment and information industry. In the
mid-Atlantic region, the company is the premier provider of local
telecommunications and advanced services. Globally, it is one of the
largest investors in the high-growth wireless communication
marketplace. Bell Atlantic also owns a substantial interest in Telecom
Corporation of New Zealand and is actively developing high-growth
national and international business opportunities in all phases of the
industry.
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
From: Eric Elder <eelder@mailhost.paradyne.com>
Subject: Re: I Need Help With PBX
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 16:48:35 -0800
Organization: Lucent Technologies
Reply-To: eelder@paqradyne.com
German G. Vanegas wrote:
> I have an application where analog telephone lines are used. Not
> being very familirar with telephony, I don't know what is the best PBX
> solution for somenone having these lines terminating at their
> site.
Modern PBX's are digital. You can purchase special cards for the PBX
that will provide 4, 8 or 16 analogue lines. If you only need a single
line, you may be better off purchasing a single dedicated analogue
line for fax and modem use. Call Lucent Business works at 800-451-2100
if you need additional help.
------------------------------
From: Eric Elder <eelder@mailhost.paradyne.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 16:52:09 -0800
Organization: Lucent Technologies
Reply-To: eelder@paqradyne.com
Marj Minnigh wrote:
> Looking for some good, solid, reasonably priced training materials,
> any medium, for support staff in our Telecom Dept. Want to
> familiarize them with jargon, some basic telephony, some basic LEC
> concepts, etc.
> Anyone know of videos, audio tape training, etc., that you would recommend?
Take a look at www.teletutor.com. Teletutor and Saratoga Group make some
excellent products.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 96 14:03:56 PDT
From: pat noziska <pat_noziska@gatekeeper.atlas.com>
Subject: International Telecom Mailing Lists?
Does anyone know of a mailing list of Web page which deals with
telecom news and issues happening OUTSIDE the UNITED STATES?
Thanks,
Pat
------------------------------
From: Joe Plescia <jplescia@plescia.com>
Subject: Help With a AT&T 7506 ISDN Voice / Data Set
Date: 4 Nov 1996 17:11:04 GMT
Organization: The Plescia Companies
Reply-To: jplescia@plescia.com
Hi,
I have some questions on the 7506 ISDN set; any help will be
appreciated. I have found some programming codes but have no idea
what they do. The codes I understand I left out. Thanks in advance.
select mute => 221 returns a positive response ... what did I change?
select mute => 220 returns a positive response ... what did I change?
select mute => 32 returns options auto1, 1, 2, 3 ... what does this do?
select mute => 74 returns options ring# 0, 1, C ... what does this do?
select mute => 77 returns speaker phone enable, spokesman enable...what is
a spokesman?
Also what is the "subadd" when adding a dn?
What is MLHG when adding a dn and what does it do?
When setting the data cs/ps dn's in the review function I get a prompt of
"cssa" ... what is this?
Select speakerphone gives me a option of delayed or immediate call
progress. What does this do?
=== NOTICE ===
return Personal EMAIL TO jplescia@plescia.com
=== NOTICE ===
Return Business EMAIL To plescia@plescia.com
Visit our WWW SITE http://www.plescia.com
Joseph P Plescia-Plescia Photo
201.868.0065 201.868.0475fax
Photofinishing, Studio, Imaging
Paging, Beepers, Cellular Phones
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:26:08 EST
From: Paul Robinson <cats8@erols.com>
Subject: An Interesting Use of ANI (Today Only)
Today, (being the day before Election Day), the FX Cable Network is
holding a "vote for your favorite show" using a toll-free number to
call in to vote for one of their shows. They are announcing the
results tonight, so it will only work {today}. If you want to try it,
the number being used is:
1-888-4-FX-Vote (439-8683)
If, however, you attempt to "stuff the ballot box" and vote again
(from the same phone number, that is), you are instead informed that
"only one vote per household" is allowed. (That's actually one vote
per telephone, so I was able to do so twice!) Obviously, they are
using the ANI (calling party's telephone number) to determine if
someone has called before. Now, the next question is, do they check
anything other than the telephone number? I.e. do they check to see
if the phone is a commercial or residential class, etc.
I haven't checked to see if they distinguish between pay telephones,
business lines, and other places. Yet ... It's another means to "test
the system" and, of course, vote more than once!
Like they used to say in Chicago, "Vote early, vote often!" :)
Paul Robinson (Was PAUL@TDR.COM>
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most readers will see this on Tuesday,
which is Election Day in the USA. I am sorry to say I find it very
difficult, in fact almost impossible, to make any recommendations at
all this time around. I certainly cannot recommend Clinton, and I am
very reluctant to recommend Dole or Perot. Vote for whoever you want
I guess, or just stay home and do not vote at all. Somehow I do not
think your vote will really be missed either way. :( PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #592
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Nov 5 06:53:02 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id GAA27937; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:53:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:53:02 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611051153.GAA27937@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #593
TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 96 06:53:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 593
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
MCI plus BT equals CONCERT (James E. Bellaire)
BT/MCI Merger (Monty Solomon)
Spam King Running Into Trouble (Tad Cook)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Thomas A. Horsley)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Linc Madison)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Robert J. Niland)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Reverend Tweek)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (James E. Bellaire)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Rob Levandowski)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 96 04:13 EST
From: James E Bellaire <bellaire@tk.com>
Subject: MCI plus BT equals CONCERT
For those who like to browse the web ...
MCI and BT already have a joint website up with information about
the merger. It is http://www.concert.com/
"Concert - a strategic partnership between BT and MCI - develops global
communications products for the worldwide marketplace. Learn more about
Concert - who we are and what we do. View a list of our distributors,
and discover career opportunities available within Concert. "
The site contains the following press release:
MCI and BT Announce Largest International Merger in History
Move Creates First Global Communications Company For the 21st Century
CONTACT: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MCI News Bureau
1-800-644-NEWS
WASHINGTON, DC, November 3, 1996 - British Telecommunications plc (BT),
the U.K.-based telecom giant, and MCI, the second largest U.S.
telecommunications company and the world's third largest international
carrier, today announced that they have signed a definitive merger
agreement.
The merger combines the substantial financial resources and global position
of BT with the growth momentum and competitive market expertise of MCI.
The combined company will be headquartered in London and Washington, D.C.,
and will be called Concert.
Under the terms of the agreement, at closing, each MCI share will be
converted into .54 of a Concert American Depository Share (ADS), equivalent
to .54 of a BT ADS, plus $6.00 in cash. The stock portion of the consideration
will be tax free to MCI shareholders. The merger agreement has been
approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies.
As part of the BT shareholder vote approving the merger, Concert will be
authorized to purchase up to 10 percent of its outstanding shares after the
closing.
The Board of Directors of Concert will comprise fifteen members, eight from
BT and seven from MCI. The Board will be jointly chaired by Sir Iain Vallance,
the current chairman of BT, and Bert C. Roberts, the current chairman and chief
executive officer of MCI. Sir Peter Bonfield will be Concert's chief executive
officer. Gerald H. Taylor will be president and chief operating officer of
Concert. Messrs. Bonfield and Taylor will comprise the Office of the Chief
Executive Officer.
Six members of the Concert Board of Directors will be from management --
three from BT (Sir Iain Vallance, Sir Peter Bonfield and Robert Brace), and
three from MCI (Bert C. Roberts, Gerald H. Taylor and Douglas L. Maine).
This merger creates the world's first global communications company,
with trans-global customers, a multinational management team, dual
transatlantic headquarters and shares traded on three stock exchanges
globally.
This communications powerhouse will have revenues of over $42 billion,
cash flow of $12 billion and 183,000 employees who support 43 million
business and residential customers in 72 countries. Based on the most
recent fiscal net income of both companies, the combined company would
be the sixth most profitable in the world.
The decision to merge MCI and BT follows the investment by BT in 20
percent of MCI in 1993 and the creation of the Concert Communications
Services joint venture between the two companies. The joint venture
has been touted by industry analysts as having a one-year lead over
its competitors in providing global services and solutions to the
world's multinational companies. Concert Communications Services has
sold more than $1.5 billion in contract revenue, and recently
announced that it would break even one full year ahead of original
forecasts.
The new merged company will provide an integrated set of local, long
distance, and international services including voice, data, wireless,
Internet and intranet, information technologies and outsourcing. Under
the terms of the agreement, MCI and BT will continue to sell and
service customers under their own names in their respective home
countries. MCI will continue to aggressively support the opening of
the U.S. local telecommunications market.
Sir Iain Vallance, Chairman of BT said: "Concert will be exceptionally
well placed to play a leading role in the major growth areas of the
changing global communications marketplace. The complementary
strengths and skills of BT and MCI will enable Concert to take full
advantage of the tremendous opportunities provided by the forthcoming
liberalization of telecommunications markets in the U.S. and
Europe. We believe this merger will provide major benefits for the
shareholders, customers and employees of both BT and MCI."
Bert Roberts, Chairman and CEO of MCI, said: "This merger creates the
first telecommunications company of the new century. Financial muscle,
global customers and brands, and customer-driven innovation will trump
the competition as we open up communications markets both domestically
and around the world. Concert's scale will allow it to pursue major
opportunities in new markets while maintaining the financial stability
that comes from strong core businesses in the developed markets of the
U.S. and U.K."
--- end quoted material
Note that 'concert.com' was created in April of this year. InterNIC has
them as:
Concert Management Services, Inc. (CONCERT4-DOM)
Two Paces West, 2727 Paces Ferry Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30339 US
Domain Name: CONCERT.COM
More information on Concert is available at http://www.concert.com/
James E. Bellaire bellaire@tk.com
Webpage Available 23.5 Hrs a Day!!! http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:44:20 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: BT/MCI Merger
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Excerpt from NEWSpot Morning Edition @ 11/4/96
*** British Telecom, MCI announce merger
British Telecom and MCI Communications announced a $20 billion merger
Sunday, making it the largest cross-border takeover deal in history.
The merged company, named Concert Plc, creates the world's second
largest telecommunications group, based on market capitalization,
behind Japan's NTT Corp. Valued at $54 billion based on Friday's
closing stock prices, Concert is neck-and-neck with AT&T Corp., MCI's
arch-rival in the competitive U.S. market. The deal promises better
service and lower international calling charges for customers.
For the full text story, see
http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=439328-148
------------------------------
Subject: Spam King Running Into Trouble
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 23:46:31 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Judge Rejects 'Right' to Inundate Online Service with Junk E-Mail
By Reid Kanaley, The Philadelphia Inquirer
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
PHILADELPHIA--Nov. 4--The "Spam King" just got canned.
In a decision that highlights the evolving nature of cyberspace, a
federal judge in Philadelphia Monday said there is no constitutional
right to send what detractors call "spam" or "junk" e-mail.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Weiner, ruling in a case brought
against the seven-million-subscriber America Online by a Philadelphia-
based bulk e-mailer, Cyber Promotions Inc., said private online
services have a right to block "unsolicited e-mail solicitations."
"That is not free speech on the Internet," declared Sanford Wallace,
the owner of Cyber Promotions, whom critics have dubbed the "Spam
King."
Weiner, however, wrote in his 28-page decision that there is no
constitutional free-speech issue involved in the case, because America
Online is a private company and its e-mail computers "are not public
fora in which Cyber has a right to speak."
The decision may come as a relief to many Internet subscribers who
have grown annoyed at logging on to find their e-mail boxes crammed
with promotions for 900-number phone services and get-rich-quick
schemes.
Even free-speech advocates had good words for the ruling, but some
said it also raises concerns about who owns cyberspace, and what
people can do there.
"You get into metaphors," said Andrew Schwartzman, executive director
of the public interest law firm, Media Access Project. "Are we talking
about a public square, or a private concert hall?"
"I'm not terribly worried about this, yet," said James Wheaton,
president of the First Amendment Project. But, he added, "The one
thing we do want to be cautious about is that to the extent e-mail is
becoming "the" means of communication for everyone, protecting access
to it is going to be important."
Wallace's company sends out daily advertising mailings to hundreds of
thousands of e-mail addresses. He insists that recipients have the
option to be removed from his mailing list. But recipients of Cyber
Promotions junk mail say the company refuses to remove them from its
mailing lists.
Critics of bulk e-mailing say spamming violates the unwritten rules of
the information superhighway. "Spam" is Internet slang for high-volume
commercial or harassing e-mail.
"If we had a Miss Manners of cyberspace, she'd be wagging her finger
at these guys," said Wheaton.
Cyber Promotions filed suit against America Online of Sterling, Va.,
in March saying AOL, in part, had tried to drive the company out of
business by gathering Cyber Promotions' incorrectly addressed mail and
shipping it back, in bulk, to disrupt Cyber Promotions.
Subsequently, AOL, said it was responding to subscriber complaints and
blocked all e-mail with a Cyber Promotions return address. Just last
week, the company installed software that lets subscribers decide on
their own if they want to filter incoming e-mail. Unless the AOL
subscriber decides otherwise, the software excludes Cyber Promotions.
Attorney Ralph Jacobs of Philadelphia, who represents Cyber Promotions and
Wallace, said his client was considering an appeal.
"We're certainly going to pursue Cyber's very strong belief that the
Internet ought to be open for free speech by all of its users,
particularly since software exists to allow the individual recipients
to decide what to receive and what not to receive," said Jacobs.
Jacobs maintained Monday that the Internet "should not be the domain
of a few large media companies." He said, "We think it would be
unfortunate if the AOLs of the world became the police of the
Internet."
He said that AOL officials had "appointed themselves the Big Brother
of Internet e-mail," and that AOL, by recently deciding to change its
pricing so that subscribers have unlimited access to the service at a
fixed monthly rate, will, itself, be much more dependent on
advertising revenues.
He said the online service, "doesn't think (its own on-screen ads) are
worthy of censorship but anyone who competes with it for Internet
advertising is." Those screen-filling ads appear as soon as an AOL
subscriber logs onto the service.
David Phillips, AOL's associate general counsel, applauded Weiner's
ruling, saying in an interview that it "reaffirms fundamental First
Amendment principles" by asserting that a private company "can't be
compelled to carry another's viewpoint."
In a written statement, Phillips said, the court "has clearly stated
that Cyber Promotions and companies like it don't have a First
Amendment right to use a privately-owned network to inundate AOL
members with junk e-mail."
A federal judge in Columbus, Ohio, has set a Dec. 5 hearing in a
similar case involving Cyber Promotions. The CompuServe online service
is seeking an injunction to limit Cyber Promotions' use of its
network.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Netters who have been around a couple
years or more will recall when the title 'Spam King' belonged to
Jeff Slaton, who had pretty much taken that name for himself in the
early days of his business. I guess the title has been passed on.
Speaking of Jeff, I wonder what he is doing these days. Has anyone
heard from him lately? I've not seen a bit of his mail in a very
long time. Is he still in business? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 04 Nov 1996 20:36:07 -0500
Organization: Society for Performance Based Government
Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net
> Because they are neither letting their users run a Unix shell nor are
> they giving them PPP. AOL and Compuserve users are unable to do
> anything that is not in the menu.
That's odd. *I* can use Compuserve to setup a PPP connection (though I
mostly don't), I can even send mail via SMTP (what I couldn't do the
last time I looked was read my mail via POP3, but I haven't checked in
a few months to see if that is possible).
See <URL:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley> for
information on Government by Performance.
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 23:25:10 -0800
Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail!
In article <telecom16.590.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Art.Walker@mnscorp.
com wrote:
> Also consider limiting message size, with steep charges on messages above
> 64K.
Why? The size of the message has NOTHING to do with whether or not
it's a spam. Most e-mail spams are a relatively brief message
(certainly less than 27K, since they want it to appear as a single
message, even on AOL). I, on the other hand, send some very large
mail messages, but usually to a single recipient (e-mailing an
attached file). My ISP has a 2MB limit on outgoing mail messages,
which is occasionally a serious nuisance. If my ISP cut its limit to
64K, I would switch immediately.
This proposal thus has nothing to do with stopping spam, but only
surcharging legitimate users for a perfectly ordinary activity, or
else requiring them to undertake that activity in a woefully
inefficient manner (splitting the message into multiple parts under
the 64K limit). If I have to send that attached file in 53 pieces
instead of 2 pieces, I use far more system resources.
>> 4) For people who want to run legitimate mailing lists, provide a
>> waiver for the email limits. This is a tiny fraction of your
>> users, probably small enough you can keep a close eye on them,
>> at least long enough to be sure they're legit.
> And charge them steeply for the privledge.
Why charge them steeply? They aren't doing anyone any harm, nor are
they using an inordinate proportion of system resources. Your
proposal is completely senseless, and again, utterly unrelated to
stopping spam.
The key point that makes spam a problem is that it is an UNWANTED
message sent to thousands of people. You are attacking things that
are unrelated to the problem.
------------------------------
From: rjn@csn.net (Robert J. Niland)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 5 Nov 1996 03:18:44 GMT
Organization: SuperNet Inc. +1.303.296.8202 Denver Colorado
K. M. Peterson (kmp@tiac.net) wrote:
>> It's not clear to me what good this will do. It is *trivial* to
>> acquire stolen credit card numbers which will work for a few days;
>> besides, a spammer could just give his real credit card number, unless
>> he's afraid the ISP will take legal action against him; and besides
>> once more, it's not difficult to obtain a credit card under a false
>> name.
> It may be trivial, but in using a stolen credit card number to commit
> spam, you are taking what is only arguably illegal (spam) and making it
> unmistakably illegal. If someone is going to go to the trouble and
> risk of using a stolen credit card number for spam, they are not
> trolling for "make money fast" but are certainly involved in some more
> serious criminal enterprise, by definition.
There may be a lot more stolen CC use going on than first appears,
particularly if the spammer wants to use the card with several ISPs
without the legit card owner seeing anything suspicious on the monthly
bill.
If the spammer uses a TenFreeHour account, sends the spam, and closes
the account before the ten free hours is up, presumably the CC is never
charged (although the card holder might get some odd phone calls).
Does this mean such spam goes back to being only "arguably illegal" ?
Some simple temporary restrictions on TFH accounts would do a LOT in
reducing AOL spam.
Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland Suite 503
Internet: rjn@sni.net Fort Collins
Colorado 80525 USA
------------------------------
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom
X-URL: http://www.ccnet.com/~tweek/olpf.htm
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 03:46:38 GMT
K. M. Peterson <kmp@tiac.net> wrote:
> (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
>> Mike Van Pelt <mvp@netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps this would be a solution:
>>> 3) Trap telnet sessions going out to port 25.
>> This is not possible. Just where, exactly, are you going to "trap" these
>> "telnet sessions", and how are you going to tell them apart from use of an
>> SMTP mail client?
> I have very rarely run into email clients on PC/Intel TCP/IP stacks
> with full resolvers. For dialup access, the most logical thing to do
> is send to a mailhost who takes care of queueing, DNS name resolution,
> etc. After all, without a fulltime connection, who is going to have
> their system want to redial their net connection every "n" minutes to
> retry a destination host or MX host that's busy, hung or dead?
You haven't run into folks using Linux boxes then. It is trivial. No,
it is the default setup for many Linux installs, to do mail server
lookups and connect directly with the MX host for the intended
receipient of an e-mail.
That I run Linux through an emulated SLIP (Slirp) connection on a Netcom
shell account, allows any TCP wrapper on the other end to get my full
user info from Netcom, but I know of many Netcruiser (Netcom's PPP service)
as well as PPP/Slip users of other services which run Linux as well.
It is more efficient to conduct a direct SMTP connection to a receipients
system if at all possible. Adding an extra hop in the path can only slow
things down ... down to the point where it can reject connections on a
near capacity SMTP server.
> I believe that the most popular email client in the Mac/Wintel world is
> Eudora ... which can _only_ be configured to send outgoing email to a
> single mail host. Same with Netscape.
Same with Linux, but why? I personally don't feel that I want my ISP
to have a record of every e-mail I send ... especially not when my ISP
has cancelled messages at the suggestion of a cult ... a message which
contained nothing more than a federal court opinion which the cult didn't
like ... do I want to take the chance that some wacko cult might use
trickery to obtain my e-mail records? No F'n way.
> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even if it is a
> bit_ad_hominem_ for my taste. However, the neat thing about the
> Internet is that you can learn quite a bit about the network by simply
> asking questions, which includes making what you refer to as "naive"
> suggestions. I understand that education is a mission of PAT's, and
> suggest that if people don't hash these things out by asking questions,
> no one is going to learn anything.
Sorry about blowing my cool up above, but I do see such a forced
routing to an unnecesary third party, an invasion of privacy. Yes,
you are quite correct in that asking questions and making mistakes is
a great way to learn. It is the only way I've learned about the net
... and after seven years, I still don't know squat.
> I also think that it's important to take what steps can be taken, that
> are reasonable and produce reasonable benefits given their cost. I
> think that it would indeed be reasonable to fully verify a credit card
> before allowing more than limited access via an ISP.
Verification of a credit card, while it will prevent the OnLine scam
signups, will only stop the "kids". It will not stop the scam artists
who consider $75 (signup and service) for one days worth of spamming,
nothing more than the cost of doing business ... and are you going to
force everyone to convert to plastic? There are lots of people who
either don't want a credit card, or can't obtain one. Are you going
to deny the net to these folks because of that decision or mistake?
What might work, an industry-wide Blacklist of spammers, the requirement
of positive ID to sign up for an account, and a legally binding terms of
service contract with heavy spam penalties.
Right now, there is a team of spammers running around LA and hitting
providers for crash-and-burn accounts. Earlier today they were spamming
from Interline.net, and when shut off from there, the took up on
Internetconnect.net. (BTW: I must have sent 20 emails today related
strictly to the spam team ... don't put limits on my e-mail ... what's
normal for you might be a single sitting for others.)
In the case of the aforementioned spam team, positive ID just might
work in shutting them down ... there has been an FAQ on this specific
group of spammers for a couple of months now:
http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/WIS_Spam_Team_FAQ.shmtl
and it has been sent to most every LA ISP around, and yet, while
the FAQ mentions the modus operandi of the team, and warns the ISP's
to be on the lookout, one ISP today was hit for a second time by the
team. The team has used valid credit cards in the past, as well as
cash. If a team of spammers with a know method of operation can't be
stopped, how are you going to stop the sex and telephone spammers when
credit cards literally grow on trees, with a new solicitation in the
snail-mail box weekly?
Michael Maxfield - Rabbit Hunter
tweek@[netcom.com|io.com|ccnet.com]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 96 22:53 EST
From: James E. Bellaire <bellaire@tk.com>
Organization: Twin Kings
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
tclbbs@winternet.com (Brian Elfert) wrote:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Local 'competitors' will not be creating
>> extra capacity. They will be using the existing telco structure for the
>> most part. PAT]
> Here in downtown Minneapolis, MCI has it's own switch for local service,
> and MFS is installing a switch. Both MCI and MFS will deliver dialtone
> over fiber they already have in place. MCI will buy T1s from US West and
> deliver service to buildings without fiber that way. One T1 will save 22
> pairs of copper.
> There are a number of ISPs in downtown Minneapolis, several of whom
> are considering using MCI for local services. This would certainly
> free up the switches US West maintains for Downtown Minneapolis.
But then US West will have to deal with inter-switch traffic exchanges
between their customers on the 'US West' local network and the ISPs on
the 'MCI' local network. Interswitch paths will still be used and the
only extra capacity will be in the downtown area.
That is, if the downtown businesses calling the ISP also switch to MCI.
Otherwise there will be intercompany traffic downtown which could have
been done on the same switch.
And in part of the plan you mention, they are still US West wires going
to the buildings as T1s. US West could do this kind of service themselves.
Sounds like MFS and MCI are just taking the customer service and half the
blame ...
James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com
WebPage available 23.5 hrs a day http://user.holli.com/~bellaire
------------------------------
From: macwhiz@phoebe.rochester.ican.net (Rob Levandowski)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 22:29:19 -0500
Organization: MacWhiz Technologies
In article <telecom16.589.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, smiller@bnr.ca wrote:
> The real solution is metered local access, but this would might require
> major investments in billing systems by Telcos, and might upset the public.
> If they were smart, they would set the rates so that 90% of consumers saw a
> rate decrease, and hit the heavy-using 10% for the balance. (making the usual
> required exemptions for various 'vulnerable' groups) If the current attempt
> to bill ISPs directly fails, I would bet it would be followed by a general
> rate rebalancing exercise.
Actually, the REAL solution is moving Internet traffic off of a switched
network paradigm entirely. If you get rid of the switch, the problem of
switch congestion ceases to become a problem.
I think that the future will find telephone companies laying fiber and coax
to serve Internet customers. Although ISDN and ADSL are interesting
technologies, they too require switched access. With a physical topology
similar to the cable television plant, a data provider could create a true
WAN that would be immune to switch congestion. (It could run out of
bandwidth, but that's another problem.)
If things keep going as they are, I can't see a way that the Internet will
not require its own access medium to keep customers happy within the next
decade or so. The PSTN just won't do it, no matter how you push it,
because the entire paradigm is a poor match for the Internet.
Robert Levandowski
Internet Systems Analyst, ACC Long Distance Corp.
macwhiz@phoebe.rochester.ican.net
[Opinions expressed are solely my own, and not those of ACC Corp.]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #593
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Nov 5 08:22:07 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA02967; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 08:22:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 08:22:07 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611051322.IAA02967@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #594
TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 96 08:22:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 594
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Minimum Rate Pricing Inc. - Quite a Scam (Stan Brown)
Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service (N. Andersson)
Re: Pacific Bell/PCS/San Diego (Nils Andersson)
Re: AOL Screws Small ISP (Ken Levitt)
Re: Tele-Go, How Does it Work? (Gerry Wheeler)
Re: Ridiculous Telecom Issues (Ian Angus)
Re: Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials (Robert Wolf)
Re: Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials (Bryan K. Douglas)
Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts (Jeff Stehman)
Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory (Ken Jongsma)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Brian Elfert)
Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan (Jeff Shaver)
Beardsley Group Replies; Smart and Sassy Answer (Todd L. Sherman)
Re: Last Laugh! 666 Exchange and Disgruntled Subcribers (Peter Strangman)
ADSI Text-to-Audio File Utility? (Damon Erick Fleury)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Minimum Rate Pricing Inc. - Quite a Scam
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 02:23:58 EST
From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown)
Be on the lookout for this company. It seems particularly slimy, and
I'm hoping the resources of the Digest readers can make a difference.
On 25 October at around noon EDT I got a call on my business line from
someone who said "This is AT&T, MCI, Sprint," and a few other company
names. Naturally this piqued my interest. I said, "you're not really
AT&T, are you?" and she said, "Yes, this is Minimum Rate Pricing
Incorporated." Then she started off on the spiel about saving me
money, and I cut her off with "No, I do not want to change my long
distance." She started arguing; I asked for her supervisor; she said
"I ain't gonna let your h-nky -ss talk to my supervisor" and hung up.
I did what I should have done long ago, and called Ameritech to make
sure that LD companies can't switch my service.
A few minutes later, I got _another_ call on the same business line
with the same spiel. This person also gave the company name,
eventually, as Minimum Rate Pricing Inc. This person, when asked, gave
a name, Lateesha Jackson, and a POTS number, 770-384-9667, and
connected me to someone who said she was a supervisor. Here's where it
gets interesting.
The supervisor (who did not give her name) swore adamantly that her
company was part of AT&T, and even offered to get an AT&T
representative on the line. She said I should call or write to her
company if I wanted to make any complaints. This was the perfect
opportunity to ask for the company's address and phone number, which I
did; and it's also where the mendacity started getting deeper.
She gave the address as "1339 Michigan Ohio". I asked if that was the
street address, and she then came up with "1339 Swissward Lane". She
said the city was "Michigan, Ohio" with zip code 30369 -- later I
found that 30369 is an Atlanta zip code. The US Postal Service's ZIP+4
server can't find "1339 Swissward Lane" in 30369. She also gave me her
800 number as 1-800-966-21. When I pointed out that wasn't enough
digits, she gave me 1-800-508-793-2122. When I pointed out that this
was too _many_ digits, she hung up. However, if you disregard the 800
part that looks like a valid POTS. It's a Massachusetts NPA.
What bothers me particularly about this outfit is (1) the racial
epithets, (2) the refusal to take no for an answer, and (3) the
misrepresentation that "this is AT&T calling", which is sure to take
in a lot of people who are not as sophisticated as Digest readers.
I called AT&T (1-800-CALL-ATT and then press 0) and eventually got
connected to "Executive Inquiries". The woman there took all the
information and thanked me, but said AT&T is obligated to resell long
distance through anyone who wants to, no matter how sleazy (my word,
not hers). She said that a pettern of complaints about marketing
practices could result in action against the company; hence this note.
If any other Digset readers get a call from this outfit, please calle
AT&T and report it to Executive Inquiries. That will help in building
up a pattern.
But I'm hoping the Digset readers may be able to provide more
information or even suggest an action.
Here's a summary of what I know, though some of it is absurd or
contradictory:
name: Minimum rate Pricing Inc.
POTS: 770-384-9667 (in Smyrna GA) or maybe 508-793-2122 (in MA)
address: 1339 Swissward Lane
city: Michigan, Ohio (most likely false)
ZIP: 30369 (Atlanta)
In my quixotic way, I'm hoping some Digest readers can help do
something about this company, hopefully get it out of business or at
least make it clean up its act.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA
email: stbrown@nacs.net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/
------------------------------
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nilsphone)
Subject: Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service
Date: 5 Nov 1996 19:56:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.570.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa
Hancock) writes:
> This change to a seven digit number seems foolish to me. What's wrong
> with 611 being the universal repair service number?
> Further, with the shortage of numbers, why waste one on it?
One thing which is _very_ wrong with 611-numbers is that you have to
be right there to make the call. For example, if my wife has a telco
problem, she calls me about it, since I am more telco-adept than she
is. Then I call the telco. I might be in another service area/state/
country. How do I dial GTE Southern California 611 from Singapore?
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nilsphone)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell/PCS/San Diego
Date: 5 Nov 1996 22:32:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.579.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mike King <mk@wco.com>
writes:
> Ericsson "Flip" Phone to Sell for $149
> Pacific Bell Mobile Services will sell PCS as an off-the-shelf product
> in more than 100 retail stores across San Diego County. Retailers
> include Circuit City, Computer City, K-Mart, Longs Drugs, Office Depot,
> Sears and Staples.
Can we get it with the Nokia you showed in San Diego at the RNC? They have
a four-line display, I believe Ericsson only has a two-line display?
What is the buildup plan for the rest of California (I live in Ventura
County)?
How are the roaming negotiations going (full roaming in the US for GSM,
SIM roaming in the rest of the world?)
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 96 02:59:09 EST
From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Re: AOL Screws Small ISP
Here is a follow-up report on my dealings with AOL.
To anwser another reader's question, I did send all of my messages
to AOL from another account to insure they did not get blocked.
I received one automated response and one meaningless response
from AOL (see below).
Today I sent the following letter to Steve Chase per Fred Farzanggan's
suggestion. It summarizes what has taken place so far.
========== Letter to Steve Chase =================
Dear Mr. Case:
I am writing to you having spent a week in a failed attempt to get a
meaningful response from anyone else at AOL.
On 10/26/96 and 10/28/96 I wrote to abuse@aol.com. I received no
response from either message.
On 10/28/96 I wrote to postmaster@aol.com and received an automated
reply with no further correspondence.
On 10/28/96 I wrote to David Jackson (djackson@aol.net) and received
a reply which had nothing to do with the problem I wrote about. I
followed up on this with another message to David Jackson on 10/28/96
explaining my situation in more detail and have since received no
additional correspondence from Mr. Jackson.
The following is the information that was sent to all of the above
addresses and Mr. Jackson's non-response.
All of the messages have been sent from my Fidonet account due to your
blocking of my vetspet.com address which goes through cybercom.net.
In a message YOU sent to AOL users, you wrote:
> The sites on the PreferredMail list have consistently sent large
> volumes of unsolicited junk e-mail...
I see nothing to indicate that either my company or CYBERCOM.NET fits
your stated "consistently" provision of "consistently sending
unsolicited junk e-mail".
AOL has been a past source of unsolicited junk mail. Does this mean
that all mail from AOL should be trashed without notice?
======== Response I Received from David Jackson at AOL ========
From: djackson@aol.net (David Jackson)
To: Ken Levitt <levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 15:41:58
I am not aware that we are intentionally blocking your mail. It could be
a routing problem. I will have it investigated further.
David Jackson
======== End of David Jackson's Response ================
Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org
------------------------------
From: gwheeler@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler)
Subject: Re: Tele-Go, How Does it Work?
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:45:46 GMT
Organization: SpectraFAX Corp.
Reply-To: gwheeler@gate.net
mreiney@hevanet.com wrote:
> I picked up a GTE Tele-Go phone at a garage sale. I got the base unit
> at another swap meet.
That's interesting. Our Tele-Go phone belongs to GTE, and I don't
think they'd take kindly to my selling it! :-) I wonder how that one
got into circulation.
> I don't need the cellphone, but would like a
> 900MHz. cordless phone. The cellphone part seems to be working. I
> can get RF out of the base unit when I push the red button, but can't
> make the system work together.
There's a sequence you need to go through to mate the phone to the
base unit. Naturally, I can't recall what it is. I'll try to remember
to look up my manual.
> Can the local cordless phone function
> work without enabling the cellphone service? I'm guessing that the
> base and cellphone must be programmed as a set. Is there any way to
> reprogram the Eprom in the base unit without paying thru the nose?
I watched when the phone was programmed, and there were a couple of
entries related to the base unit. (In fact, the phone can be set for
two base units. You could have one at home, and one at the office.
You'd be cordless at home, cellular driving to work, and cordless at
the office. However, I've never seen one set up that way.) I don't
know the programming details; I do remember there was a bunch of stuff
to enter.
Gerry Wheeler gwheeler@gate.net
SpectraFAX Corp. Phone: 941-643-8739
Naples, FL Fax: 941-643-5070
------------------------------
From: Ian Angus <ianangus@angustel.ca>
Subject: Re: Ridiculous Telecom Issues
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:14:16 -0500
Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group
Anthony S. Pelliccio wrote:
> I'm sorry but the LEC's are completely responsible for this mess. Most
> of them never grew beyond the old AT&T manuals. The 4:1 ratio just
> doesn't cut it anymore and it hasn't cut it since the mid 80's and
> every single LEC knew it.
Okay -- now can we expect you to support local rate increases large
enough to pay for expansion of the PSTN to handle 36 ccs/line (60
minutes/line/hour) of traffic from every telephone?
The Internet seems to foster a belief in free lunches -- and there
ain't no such thing.
IAN ANGUS
ianangus@angustel.ca
Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca
8 Old Kingston Road tel: 905-686-5050 ext 222
Ajax ON L1T 2Z7 Canada fax: 905-686-2655
------------------------------
From: Robert Wolf <rwolf@millenniumtel.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials
Date: 4 Nov 1996 17:56:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
mminnigh@infonet.tufts.edu (Marj Minnigh) wrote:
> Looking for some good, solid, reasonably priced training materials, any
> medium, for support staff in our Telecom Dept. Want to familiarize them
> with jargon, some basic telephony, some basic LEC concepts, etc.
> Anyone know of videos, audio tape training, etc., that you would recommend?
I have two suggestions. First, Harry Newton's Telecom Dictionary
(although not a training document) is a very thorough glossary of
telecommunication-related terms. Often the definitions are a good
explanation of the underlying technology.
The dictionary is available from Harry's publishing company, Telecom
Library at 1-800-LIBRARY
Second, you could go to the source. Contact one of the major makers
of telecom equipment. For example, Mitel has a good manual on phone
systems and PictureTel has a series of handbooks on video conferencing.
The Millennium Telecom web site, www.millenniumtel.com has a page on
telecommunication resources that contains links to the web sites of
many telecom companies.
Hope that helps.
Robert Wolf rwolf@millenniumtel.com
Millennium Telecom Voice: 818-790-7339
Consulting in Voice, Video, Data Fax: 818-790-7309
URL: http://www.millenniumtel.com
A member of The Society of Telecommunication Consultants
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 96 00:22:53 CST
From: bkdougla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Bryan K. Douglas)
Subject: Re: Looking for Basic Telecom Training Materials
On 31-Oct, mminnigh@infonet.tufts.edu (Marj Minnigh) wrote:
> Looking for some good, solid, reasonably priced training materials, any
> medium, for support staff in our Telecom Dept. Want to familiarize them
> with jargon, some basic telephony, some basic LEC concepts, etc.
> Anyone know of videos, audio tape training, etc., that you would
> recommend?
The TELECOM Digest archives offers a great start. Read the articles
by G. Gilder and use the glossaries from the archive.
Bellcore has a series of training videos and books. Contact them at:
http://www.bellcore.com
Also try the new revision (August 1996) of Federal Standard 1037C,
"Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunications Terms".
A fancy online version is available at: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov:80/fs-1037/
For printed material, check out {The Irwin Handbook of Telecommunications}.
ISBN 0-7863-0479-0
The 3rd edition is now out, copyright 1997 (how'd they do that?) This
is a good resource, but it will set you back about $100 US. It
includes sections about voice, data, modulation, outside plant,
switching systems, transmission, CPE, and networking concepts. Each
chapter concludes with a shourt list of manufacturers that address the
product type described in the chapter. (Some of these are inaccurate
however. For example, the chapter about microwave transission lists
Rockwell International NTSD *and* Rockwell Collins Radio, but not
Alcatel, who acquired these divisions in 1991.)
Bryan Douglas
Alcatel Telecom
Richardson, TX
------------------------------
From: stehman@jade.southwind.net (Jeff Stehman)
Subject: Re: Jewell and Barnard: Some Thoughts
Date: 5 Nov 1996 12:39:23 GMT
Organization: SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
Terry Kennedy (terry@spcunb.spc.edu) wrote:
> Have you ever sent a complaint to abuse@aol.com or any of the other
> addresses that they have for reporting problems? I have, and I can
> tell you that I always get a prompt, courteous, and personal
> (non-boilerplate) reply. These replies generally tell me that the
> account in question has been terminated, and (when appropriate) that
> "the matter has been referred to the legal department".
Several times. If I'm reporting a problem account, they're very quick
to respond. If I'm pointing out that one of the mail servers does not
put the originating IP address in the header and I'm being overwhelmed
by forgeries that I cannot trace without their help, all I ever see is
an automated response and more forgeries. (And I always explained to
them how to fix the problem and pointed them to a mailing list where
they can find out just how wide spread the problem was.) If they took
care of the latter, abuse@aol.com would see less e-mail.
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
stehman@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
URL for Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce: http://www.southwind.net/ict/
------------------------------
From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 20:05:04 GMT
Organization: Honeywell, Inc. - DAS
Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> wrote:
[Long discussion on how various IXCs are routing directory assistance
calls to non LEC directory assistance boilerrooms.]
I've noticed that this is an especially big problem with cellular
carriers. I have US West (Airtouch) as my carrier and one might think
that they more than anyone would use their own directory operators.
However, on a recent trip to Phoenix (where Airtouch is the B carrier
also), no matter how I attempted to dial directory (411, 1-602-555-1212),
I was connected to a non-LEC directory service. Of course there was an
airtime charge as well as a directory charge.
It would seem that there is a business opportunity here: The LECs
should be marketing their "genuine" directory services.
Ken Jongsma kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com
Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems, Albuquerque, NM
------------------------------
From: tclbbs@winternet.com (Brian Elfert)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 5 Nov 96 12:06:26 GMT
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
James E. Bellaire <bellaire@tk.com> writes:
> And in part of the plan you mention, they are still US West wires going
> to the buildings as T1s. US West could do this kind of service themselves.
> Sounds like MFS and MCI are just taking the customer service and half the
> blame ...
MCI is only using US West T1s for buildings where they don't have fiber
installed. I think MCI plans to put fiber in any building where it can
get commitments for 200 or so lines. I haven't talked to MFS extensively,
but it looks like they will do services only in buildings where they have
fiber.
MCI will deliver calls to the US West COs over an OC-48 connection.
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 17:32:53 -0600
From: Jeff Shaver <js20737@navix.net>
Subject: Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan
Telcorp Ltd. <Telcorp@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Monty Solomon wrote:
>> AT&T is now running an unadvertised promotion for a rate of $0.10/min
>> 24 hours per day for six months. After six months the rate changes to
>> $0.15/min 24 hours per day. There are no monthly charges.
>> You can optionally request a calling card - $0.30/min with a $0.30
>> surcharge.
> Can someone who IS currently an AT&T customer get this rate?
I don't think so, and they seem rather hesitant even if you *aren't* an AT&T
customer.
Conveniently, the rep took all my information, and at the very last
minute, that rate became 'unavailable' due to 'software incompatibility'
with my local phone company. This is interesting, since Frontier's 10
cents/min. rate (out-of- state, after 5pm and on weekends) seems to work
just fine, as does Sprint's 9 cents/minute 'Moonlight Madness' college
student rate (in/out-of-state, any day, 9pm-9am).
I declined all sorts of other 'True' offers, but they've got my
number, certainly I'll have another chance. Guess it was just too
good to be 'True'!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You should have requested that they
bill you directly rather than through the LEC and found out what they
had to say about that. In quite a few areas, AT&T has pulled their
billing away from the local telco. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:54:19 EST
From: Todd L. Sherman <afn09444@afn.org>
Reply-To: Todd L. Sherman <afn09444@afn.org>
Subject: Beardsley Group Replies; Smart and Sassy Answer
Hi Vernon,
Here's the reply that they sent me. Not as harsh as the one they sent you
but, just as defiant nonetheless I guess.
Todd
---BEGIN CAPTURE---
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:05:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Adele Hoffman <adeleh@snet.net>
To: "Todd L. Sherman" <afn09444@afn.org>
Subject: Re: Job Opportunities
Sorry toddy boy, 75% of the people mailed want more info. Could you
please put our address in CAPS when you send yours to them? Thanks
ever so much!
---END CAPTURE---
"Toddy Boy???" 8-) Cute.
I then sent them this in reply ...
---BEGIN CAPTURE---
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:21:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "Todd L. Sherman" <afn09444@afn.org>
To: Adele Hoffman <adeleh@snet.net>
Cc: afn admin <admin@afn.org>, postmaster@snet.net
Subject: Re: Job Opportunities
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Adele Hoffman wrote:
> Sorry toddy boy, 75% of the people mailed want more info. Could you please
"Sorry" as in you REFUSE to remove me from your list?
REMOVE me from your list...NOW.
Todd
---END CAPTURE---
Hmm. So, let me get this straight ...
Because 75% of the people want more info, this is reason enough to
ignore requests to remove people from their list, and to most-likely
continue this practice with yet more people in the future who may not
want it?
What she was referring to, most smartly, about putting their address
in "CAPS" was the fact that I'd mailed my reply to everyone in her CC
list. :( I wasn't thinking when I did it but, it made me realize that
I'd JUST done the same thing SHE had, and I fell for it hook, line,
and sinker.. Kinda felt bad after that. :( But yes, that I did. Was
debating whether I should've jumped in front of a truck or jumped off
a bridge. :) Would have hit me just the same.
Sigh.
Todd
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe Adele will get the hint this time
and refrain from further mailings, at least to this group. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Peter@adelheid.demon.co.uk (Peter G. Strangman)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 666 Exchange and Disgruntled Subcribers
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 12:19:41 GMT
Organization: Weinkeller
Reply-To: Peter@adelheid.demon.co.uk
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:05:52 PST, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have covered this topic a few times
> before in the Digest, but this being Halloween, the Hallowed Eve of
> All Saints Day, I thought it would make a good item to close this
> issue of the Digest. I have to wonder if numbers which end in the
> form -0666, -1666 also annoy these folks. PAT]
You may like to know that the major UK ISP is called "Demon" and all
its main numbers end in "666".
That firm has grown *rapidly* from a few dedicated people, just a few
years ago, to being the biggest ISP in Europe.
Peter G. Strangman | Wer weiss was die wohl glauben,
Peter@adelheid.demon.co.uk | Die uns zum Glauben schrauben?
http://www.adelheid.demon.co.uk | (Friedrich von Logau)
XLIV-DCCCII-CCXII-DCCCXXXI |
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I got letters from people who
pointed out that in one city, '666' is the exchange for the Internal
Revenue Service -- speaking of the Devil -- <grin> -- and in one
province in Canada it is the phone exchange used by the federal
government. PAT]
------------------------------
From: fleury@cs.utexas.edu (Damon Erick Fleury)
Subject: ADSI Text-to-Audio File Utility?
Date: 04 Nov 1996 18:47:38 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Further to the discussion of screen phones:
Many/most of them use ADSI, the Analog Display Services Interface. As
I understand it, an ADSI-compliant phone has an LCD screen; when the
phone receives an "ADSI-alert" tone, it knows that the following voice
data will contain text encoded in some modem standard (Bell 202?).
What I'd like to know is this: Is there any DOS, Unix or Windows
utility in existence that takes a string of text and builds a sound
file suitable to be played to an ADSI-compliant telephone? The idea is
that a PC with a voice modem or a Dialogic card could dial an ADSI
device and leave a message on its screen, by simply playing the encoded
sound file.
Does anyone know of (or sell) such a program?
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #594
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Nov 5 12:59:18 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id MAA27742; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:59:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:59:18 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611051759.MAA27742@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #595
TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 96 12:58:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 595
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Guaging Backbone and Intranet Provider's Knowledge (Phil Schuman)
AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe (Mark Becker)
AT&T Digital Receives No Calls in Orlando But Can Call Out! (P. Streicher)
GTE Helps St. Petersburg, FL Busineese Hurt by Disturbance (Marcel White)
Election Day Funnies (John Mayson)
Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan (David Levine)
Re: "Voice Mail Waiting" Indicator? (David Levine)
Re: "Voice Mail Waiting" Indicator? (Michael Stanford)
Re: Last Laugh! 666 Exchange and Disgruntled Subscribers (Clive Feather)
Virus Alert (Clifford D. McGlamry)
Re: I Need Help With PBX (Jock Mackirdy)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Nils Andersson)
Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Linc Madison)
Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept (Carl Knoblock)
Employment Opportunity: RF Engineers - Portland, East Bay (D. Ray)
Bill Clinton Re-Elected; Wins Another Term (TELECOM Digest Editor)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pschuman@interserv.com (Phil Schuman)
Subject: Guaging Backbone and Intranet Provider's Knowledge
Date: 5 Nov 1996 14:00:02 GMT
Organization: phil's org
Hi all you smart folks -
We are attempting to put together a knowledge based survey of the support
folks from the backbone and intranet outsourcing companies such as:
MCI, Sprint, AT&T, MFS, TCG, BBN, UUnet, etc.
We would like to address those areas that are unique to local providers
and intranet managers. The areas would probably revolve around these
items of interest:
Frame Relay - issues that come up compared to leased lines.
calc of delay such as Insertion, Queuing, delay across cloud,
LMI vs Annex D and routers - other CPE issues or ????
Migration to ATM services - is anyone following this path ??
we see ATM around the local LAN backbone,
what about Internet access ??
TCP/IP - what is different here, compared to normal user knowledge -
BGP routing, etc ... what's would set apart an expert here ??
Internet and Intranets - firewall, proxy, changing entire address space
what are the major hurdles or concerns that must be known ???
So - there ya go -
Either discussion, or direct Email are welcome -
Phil
------------------------------
From: mbecker@caehbl.uml.edu (Mark Becker)
Subject: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe
Date: 5 Nov 1996 14:07:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Engineering Design Center
Hello Patrick -
The following notice is in the Tuesday, November 5 issue of the Boston
Globe, at the bottom of page B3. It's in a small box near the fold of
the page.
NOTICE TO AT&T CUSTOMERS
On October 31, 1996, AT&T filed with the Federal Communications
Commission a Transfer Service Fee of $0.55 per call. The Transfer
Service Fee applies to all completed interstate calls and calls to
interstate and international Directory Assistance when the customer
transfers to the AT&T network from a Local Exchange Company network.
This tariff revision became effective November 1, 1996.
The Transfer Service Fee is applied in addition to any other applicable
service charges or surcharges.
The Transfer Service Fee does not apply to: international calls; calls
to 800 numbers; calls to 900 numbers; calls to SelectCall numbers;
calls to Directory Assistance in Canada, Bermuda and the international
portion of the 809 NPA.
------
Comments:
(a) So much for the recent spate of AT&T radio and television
advertisements touting their long distance discount plans; they
may have just lost my business. Fifty-five cents a call.
(b) AT&T recently distributed cradle/handset stickers, blaring "first
dial 10-288". The adhesive used is near permanent; anyone have a
suggestion for a solvent that won't mess up handset plastic?
(c) The notice exempts 800 and 900 numbers but says nothing about 888
numbers. Is 888 exempt as well?
Regards,
Mark
[TELECOM Digest Editor's note: I am sure 888 is included and the
failure to mention it was just an oversight. But I have to agree
that adding 55 cents to each call (and after all, who does not
reach AT&T except by being transferred into them from a local
exchange carrier) is very outrageous. So now they want 55 cents
to do business with you, in addition of course to the cost of
the call itself and 'other surcharges which may apply'. I thought
the surcharge on collect calls and other operator-handled calls
was supposed to cover whatever expense they had on those. What
exactly is the new charge of 55 cents supposed to cover? PAT]
------------------------------
From: pstreicher@aol.com
Subject: AT&T Digital Receives no Calls in Orlando But Can Call Out!
Date: 5 Nov 1996 14:12:48 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Can anyone tell me what is wrong in Orlando? The problem was that I
was in Disney World for what I thought would be a pleasant convention/
mini-vacation weekend with some friends. Well, it turned out that
somewhere along the way from Tampa, all of a sudden I could not
receive calls but I could call out on my digital Ericson phone.
AT&T states that the digital service has all of Florida as 'home' and
roaming isn't needed. I don't understand if I needed roaming set up
for a different carrier or cell exchange to forward my calls or not
but when calling my cell phone all one got was a recording or a click
and nothing.
I was on the phone to AT&T two different times and all they could say
is, 'the network is jammed this weekend.' One tech that I did manage to
get to talk to after being on hold for 35 minutes, told me something about
a 'rare' occurence of my incoming calls being blocked by the local switch
in Orlando and if I'd go on-hook for ten minutes or so, the 'registration'
would take affect and everything would work fine. Well, it didn't and I
missed a lot of calls from friends that were to get ahold of me so we
could meet up. I got some angry people calling later on back in Tampa.
I'm curious if anyone else has had any problem like this in Orlando
using AT&T's service. Can anyone explain to me how I can avoid this in
the future? Thanks in advance.
Frustrated in Tampa
------------------------------
From: Marcel White <marc.white@telops.gte.com>
Subject: GTE Helps St. Petersburg, FL Businesses Hurt by Disturbance
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 08:49:22 -0800
Organization: GTEDS CSTI/CBSS BI&I
GTE has joined a local community effort to assist businesses that were
damaged by fire during last week's community unrest in south St.
Petersburg, Fla.
Recognizing the importance of telecommunications to all businesses,
GTE took immediate steps to help affected businesses keep their
telephone doors open. Businesses identified by the City of
St. Petersburg were offered expedited service restoration, including
re-establishing service at temporary locations and voice messaging
mail boxes. In addition, non-recurring service charges were waived,
including those for establishing temporary arrangements and subsequent
re-installation of service at their primary business location.
GTE took these steps under a special emergency tariff which allows
certain charges to be waived following hurricanes or other disasters.
In addition, GTE representatives are working on a St. Petersburg
business committee to recommend possible solutions for the underlying
community problems that led to the unrest.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 08:49:13 -0500
From: jmayson@tng.net (John Mayson)
Subject: Election Day Funnies
The Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen was puzzled when a
high school newspaper editor failed to call her in her South Carolina office
for an interview. Finally the student called. It seemed the outdated
telephone system in the government run school didn't recognize 864 as a
valid area code.
John Mayson | Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida USA | jmayson@tng.net
http://www.spacecoast.net/users/jmayson
------------------------------
From: David Levine <david_levine@mail.sel.sony.com>
Subject: Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 08:46:02 -0500
Organization: Sony
Monty Solomon wrote:
> AT&T is now running an unadvertised promotion for a rate of $0.10/min
> 24 hours per day for six months. After six months the rate changes to
> $0.15/min 24 hours per day. There are no monthly charges.
> You can optionally request a calling card - $0.30/min with a $0.30
> surcharge.
> Can someone who IS currently an AT&T customer get this rate?
I called and got the $0.10/min 24 hrs/day rate. I am an existing
customer and they had no problem doing it. It lasts for six months, and
then changes to a higher rate (before 7:00pm). I'm sure there will be
a new promotion out when it's time to switch.
I also told two other people and they called and got the $0.10/min too.
Regards,
David
------------------------------
From: David Levine <david_levine@mail.sel.sony.com>
Subject: Re: "Voice Mail Waiting" Indicator?
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 08:41:55 -0500
Organization: Sony
Ross Oliver wrote:
> I just ordered Pac Bell's Message Center(tm) voice mail service for my
> home phone. Is there any sort of gadget available
> that can detect the stutter dial tone and provide a visual indicator
> of messages waiting?
I saw a device in a Hello Direct catalog I just received that might be
the answer. It is called VisuAlert and "is compatible with most
single-line analog phones. It automatically detects the type of signal
sent from the phone company, and switches itself to function appropiately.
Delete the message ... the light shuts off". Hello Direct has it for
$39.95 and it includes mounting adhesive, phone line cord and AC
adapter.
They can be located at http://www.hello-direct.com or 1-800-444-3556.
Good Luck,
David Levine
[TELECOM Digest Editor's note: That phone number coincidentally
spells 1-800-HI-HELLO if it is easier to remember that way. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Michael Stanford <stanford@algocomm.com>
Subject: Re: "Voice Mail Waiting" Indicator?
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 09:28:51 -0500
Ross Oliver writes:
> I just ordered Pac Bell's Message Center(tm) voice mail service for my
> home phone. Overall, vm will be better than my current tape-based
> answering machine, but the one thing I will miss is the blinking
> "messages are waiting" light. Is there any sort of gadget available
> that can detect the stutter dial tone and provide a visual indicator
> of messages waiting? My phone here in the office supposedly has such
> an indicator, but the telcom guys have never been able to get it to
> work. Any leads would be appreciated
There is another way, called VMWI (Visual Message Waiting Indicator)
it sends a message waiting notification down the line while the phone
is on hook. The technology is very similar to Caller ID. I don't
know if it is available in Pac Bell territory, but I believe Bell
South already has it deployed. You need a phone or Caller ID box that
supports it.
On the stutter dialtone detection, I do not know of any available
hardware that does this, but we are working on various projects that
will incorporate it. If you are interested, keep an eye on
www.algocomm.com.
Michael Stanford
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:21:45 +0000
From: Clive D.W. Feather <Clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: clive@demon.net
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 666 Exchange and Disgruntled Subcribers
Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.)
In article <telecom16.582.13@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Tad Cook <tad@ssc.com>
writes:
> PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) -- The number of the beast proved unbearable for a
> for some people.
You might be interested to know that all 62 of Demon Internet's access
numbers (plus the 50-odd that were recently replaced by a single number)
end in -666. Deliberately.
Clive D.W. Feather | Associate Director | Director
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | CityScape Internet Services Ltd.
Fax: +44 181 371 1150 | <clive@demon.net> | <cdwf@cityscape.co.uk>
Written on my laptop - please reply to the Reply-To address <clive@demon.net>
------------------------------
From: Clifford D. McGlamry <102073.1425@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: New Virus Warning
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:00:24 -0500
Subject: !!!VIRUS WARNING!!!
DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANY FILE NAMED PKZIP300 REGARDLESS OF EXTENSION
A new Trojan Horse Virus has emerged on the internet with the name
PKZIP300.ZIP, so named as to give the impression that this file is a
new version of the PKZIP software used to "Zip" or compress files.
DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS FILE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!
If you install or expand the file, the virus will wipe your hard disk
clean and affect modems 14.4 or higher. This is an extremely
destructive virus and there is not yet a way of cleaning this one up.
PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO ANYONE YOU KNOW.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message has been floating around
the net for awhile. I am not at all sure how authentic it is. It seems
to me I heard someone say it is completely bogus, but far be it from
me to say that authoritatively. Caution would be urged in examining it
I suppose. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jock Mackirdy <jockm@basluton.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: I Need Help With PBX
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 23:43:37 +0000
Reply-To: jockm@basluton.demon.co.uk
In article <telecom16.584.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu> on 31 Oct 1996 16:07:32
GMT, German G. Vanegas <gvanegas@positron.qc.ca> wrote:
> I have an application where analog telephone lines are used. Not
> being very familirar with telephony, I don't know what is the best PBX
> solution for somenone having these lines terminating at their
> site. Could I use a digital PBX and simply add in an anlog card? Or
> are there better solutions?
One of the key factors to know before proposing a solution is the
expected telephone traffic to be carried by each line (each individual
PBX extension and the aggregate traffic on the lines to the Central
Office).
A second factor is what type of traffic is to be carried (voice/fax or
data).
If you define the customer requirements in more detail (I want it to do
this, this and this) then hopefully a technical solution will emerge.
Jock Mackirdy
Business Advisory Services
Independent Telecomms and Business Advice
Luton UK
------------------------------
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nilsphone)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: 4 Nov 1996 20:21:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.569.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, hollings@cs.umd.edu (Jeff
Hollingsworth) writes:
> I use a simpler approach. When a caller asks for me by name (and I
> don't recognize the voice), I simply ask who is calling and what they
> are calling about. I then ask them to hold and tell them I will check
> if he is free. I then finish whatever I was doing that they
> interrupted (eating dinner, taking out the trash - whatever). If they
> are still on the line after I finish what I was doing, I am happy to
> hear what they have to say. Most of the time they have hung up. If
> they are not willing to wait 5-10 min. to talk to me, I don't wish to
> talk to them. If it helps to make telemarketing less profitable, that
> is a great side benefit.
I think there is a great opportunity here! Somebody could try out a combo
of voice recoginition software and speech synthezier, combined with a
made-to-order version of "DOCTOR", the electronic shrink that whenever it
has run out of clues about where the conversation is going says "how does
that make you feel" and "lets talk about your parents" or "lets talk some
more about xxxxx", where it has extracted xxxxx from the incoming stream.
With some suitable modifications, (suggestions: "What are the benefits",
"How do I order this" and a bunch of others. The callee simply says "you
need to talk to my father" and turns on the dialog. Should keep the caller
on for 15 minutes, and could log results as a base for research.
In article <telecom16.585.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, the Editor added his
thoughts to comments by Jeremy S. Nichols:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know someone who was brassy enough
> to put an outgoing message on his machine which said, "For your
> convenience, this phone is answered 24 hours per day by this tape-
> recording machine. This enables you to leave a message without any
> delay and enables me to quickly respond to calls of importance." Then
> in a somewhat sterner tone of voice it concludes, "There is NEVER a
> live answer at this number, you MUST leave a message if you wish to
> communicate with someone here." <beep> PAT]
I love answering machines, even talking to them. When I get somebody's
machine, I can expound in great and tedious detail about my
wants/desires/problems/suggestions/lurid_threats without interruption.
Beats talking to a live person, that will invariably interrupt or hang
up.
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers!
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 12:37:35 GMT
Organization: Best Internet Communications
In article <telecom16.585.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, prvtctzn@aol.com (Robert
Bulmash) wrote:
> DMV records, County records, Magazine Subscription lists, Credit Card
> lists, Sweepstakes lists, Reverse directories listing people by address
> rather than name (and sold by telco and others, Voter Registration forms
> (stop me before I cite again)
As we come up to Election Day in the U.S., I think this a good time to
remind folks that in most (all?) states it is OPTIONAL to include your
phone number on your voter registration form. There are VERY FEW cases
where the registrar would need to telephone you about your registration,
so essentially the ONLY use for this data is to allow the various
campaigns (candidates and propositions) to call you to try to get you
to vote for their side.
The only "telemarketing" I have ever done myself was on behalf of
various political candidates. I worked on both the primary and the
general election campaign for a Presidential candidate in 1988, and
one of my jobs as a volunteer was "phone banking," which involved
calling everyone who was registered in our party several times. We
called about three weeks before the primary to ask people to vote for
our candidate, and made a notation as to their response (yes, no,
maybe, click, [obscenity], etc.). We then called back the "yes" and
"maybe" (and some of the other) respondents about a week before the
primary. Then we called them the day before the primary. Then we
called them the day of the primary, to remind them to get out and
vote. Then the whole cycle repeated in November.
I had a number of people tell me quite bluntly, "Look, if you don't
STOP CALLING ME, I'm going to vote for the other guy!" I honestly
think that the "phone banks" I participated in did at least as much
harm as good for our candidate.
I finally mutinied, and started telling anyone who gave me a hostile
response, to just re-register and leave the phone number box BLANK.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 05:24:10 CST
From: Carl Knoblock <cknoblo@oasis.novia.net>
Subject: Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept
Organization: Novia Internetworking <> 28.8kbps dialup; 402/390-2NET
In article <telecom16.559.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
wrote:
> The *82 function temporarily turns off per-line blocking, which you
> (in Texas) have to write a letter to the PUC to get turned on and off.
> The -not available- on your CID unit means they are using a cheapo LD
> carrier that doesn't transmit their name and number to your phone
> company. This also happens if someone has just moved in to a house
> and has just gotten their phone set up.
In the just-moved-in case, the number should be displayed, only the
name will show as -not available-. This is also the case with long
distance calls where the number is delivered, but your phone company
does not have a contract with the originating phone company to access
their name data base. If you get neither name or number, then it's
El-cheapo long distance company, or cellular, or Uncle ned, from
backwoods Arkensas, calling through his old step office.
Carl G. Knoblock Metro Apple Computer Hobbyists
cknoblo@oasis.novia.net Member: The Dead Computer Society
c.knoblock@genie.com KFest 97 July 30 - August 3, 1997
------------------------------
From: advantag@ix.netcom.com (D. Ray)
Subject: Employment Opportunity: RF Engineers - Portland, East Bay
Date: 04 Nov 1996 00:07:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom
A leading wireless communications company is looking for a RF engineer
for Portland office. Same position is also available in the East Bay.
Required qualifications and experience are:
5 years cellular or radio system design;
BSEE degree or equivalent;
superior communication, organization and planning skills;
solid computer skills using spreadsheets and RF propagation modeling.
Training in: AMPS, IS 54 or GSM system design;
cellular system optimization;
antenna and propagation theory.
Basic Job functions: design cellular system of cell sites; optimize
cellular system; work as a team with site acquisition and construction
to select cell sites; analyze trouble areas and develop solutions
reporting responsibility; and supervision of a four person work group.
Although the final remuneration package may vary between candidates, we
are looking at a base of 60k, a bonus of 7k and a company car.
Interested? Contact:
John Peto, Advantage Technical Services
6000 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 400
Pleasanton, CA 94588
T: 510 463-9300 or T: 1-800-244-0477
F: 510 463-9388
E-mail: johnp@accustaff.com
URL: http://www.advantagets.com
------------------------------
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Bill Clinton Re-Elected; Wins Another Term as President
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 12:40:00 EST
Well, here we are once again on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November (Election Day varies; it can occur as early as
November 2 and as late as November 8, but there always needs to be
a Monday occurring in November prior to the election -- in other
words the Tuesday in the first *complete* week of November), and
time to announce the winner of the presidential election.
Bill Clinton wins re-election for another four year term.
In the olden days it was was necessary for CBS/NBC/ABC to wait until
5:59 pm EST to announce the winner but through the miracle of modern
computers the results don't take nearly as long to calculate as in
the past. Previously, only the voters in California and other spots
in the western time zone were discouraged from voting; now we are
able to discourage everyone in MST/PST from voting as well as in
Alaska, Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, and those east cost/midwest
people who are just waking up for the day.
It was a close race until the Democratic politicians in Chicago rented
a few school busses and went out to the cemeteries and brought in all
the residents there they could find, but now that the computer has
detirmined the winner the rest of you need not bother with voting.
Not even my competitor the {New York Times} was able to provide the
results as quickly as was done here in TELECOM Digest Election Head-
quarters. Remember, you read the election results first here.
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #595
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Nov 5 19:20:46 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id TAA09253; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 19:20:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 19:20:46 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611060020.TAA09253@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #596
TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 96 19:20:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 596
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
UCLA Short Course on "HBT IC Technology for Communications" (Bill Goodin)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Lars Poulsen)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Brian Kantor)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Kelly Ann Hodge)
Re: Problems With the 604/250 Split in BC (Leonard Erickson)
Re: Information Wanted About Satellite System Design (Tom Trottier)
Re: New Virus Warning (John Cropper)
Re: Minimum Rate Pricing Inc. - Quite a Scam (John Meissen)
Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service? (Mike G. Zaiontz)
Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service? (Jeff Colbert)
Help! Need Multi-Fax Receive Software (Lawrence Rachman)
Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory (Stanley Cline)
Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe (Ralph Becker)
Re: Bill Clinton Re-Elected; Wins Another Term as President (Max Buten)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Goodwin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course on "HBT IC Technology for Communications"
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:51:00 -0800
On February 12-14, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"HBT IC Technology for Communications Applications", on the UCLA
campus in Los Angeles.
The instructors are Bahram Jalali, PhD, Associate Professor, Electrical
Engineering Department, UCLA, and Madjid Hafizi, PhD, Senior Research
Staff, Hughes Research Laboratories.
This course presents an in-depth treatment of GaAs, InP, and
GeSi-based Heterojunction Bipolar Transistor (HBT) technologies and
their application in today's growing communication markets. HBT has
emerged as a key enabling technology for wireless communications, data
conversion, mixed-signal/mixed-mode applications, and high data rate
fiber-optic communications.
The course begins with a concise review of the physics of HBT devices
and a comparison with MESFET and HEMT technologies. This comparison
provides a foundation for selecting the right technology for a
particular application. Technology performance characteristics such
as DC, RF, noise, power amplification, linearity, intermodulation
distortion, manufacturability, reliability, yield and cost issues are
compared. Modeling of HBT devices for circuit simulation is presented
including linear and nonlinear models and thermal modeling. Material
issues are covered including epitaxial crystal growth, MBE and MOCVD
materials, followed by a look at commercial vendors of epitaxial
material and material qualification. Fundamentals of HBT processing
including device and IC fabrication, passive components,
planarization, heat sink approaches (particularly for power devices),
lithography, dry etching, and yield limitations are explored, as are
state-of-the-art HBT device performance and reliability issues.
The important role of HBT in meeting the requirements of current
wireless systems is discussed. Power amplifiers are covered in-depth
including such relevant issues as efficiency, linearity,
intermodulation distortion, and thermal stability. The course reviews
commercially available HBT IC's for wireless markets, and covers
Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADC) ranging from ultra-fast flash-type
converters to high-resolution delta-sigma modulators and the
architectures in between. This involves a review of ADC
characteristics such as SNR, SFDR, NPR, differential and integral
nonlinearity, effective number of bit, and aperture jitter, in
relation to HBT device characteristics. Mixed-mode/mixed-signal
applications of the technology such as multiple device integration
including HBT/HEMT, HBT/RTD, HBT/PIN-PD, and HBT/MESFET mixed-device
techniques are examined. The course shows how these new technologies
are applied to mixed/mode systems such as digital receivers (including
HEMT or MESFET low-noise amplifier, HBT downconverter and HBT ADC) or
to integrated optical receivers (including PIN photodetector,
transimpedance and AGC amplifiers).
Finally, the course presents ultra-high speed applications of the
technology in the emerging market of 40 Gbit/s optical communications,
including high-speed digital circuits such as dividers, MUX/DEMUX, and
clock/data recovery circuits.
The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials.
These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For a more information and a complete course description, please contact
Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
From: lars@anchor.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 5 Nov 1996 11:32:10 -0800
Organization: RNS / Meret Communications
In article <telecom16.590.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu> John David Galt
<jdg@rahul.net> writes:
> Has anyone considered simply requiring ISPs to be served by choke
> exchanges? It seems to me that choke exchanges were invented to solve
> this very problem (the overloading of trunks from residential prefix
> switches with calls to one or a few high-traffic numbers).
Choke exchanges were designed to deal with the opposite problem:
100,000's of call attempts, very few of which will succeed, while the
rest hit busy and are then abandoned. The code for choke exchanges
discovers the condition in the originating switch and block most of
the call attempts from reserving inter-exchange trunking ... they just
return busy from the originating switch. This has no bearing on
high-call-time Internet calls.
Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@OSICOM.COM
OSICOM Technologies (Internet Business Unit, formerly RNS)
7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256
Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Telephone: +1-805-562-3158
------------------------------
From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 5 Nov 1996 17:57:26 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
I run a campus ISP that currently has more than 4500 customers dialing
in for our services. To accomodate the peak load and the various
dedicated services we provide, wee have about 500 POTS/Centrex lines
and 22 T-1 circuits coming from the two CO machines in the local
PacBell office. And more are on order.
Almost all of our clients are residential users, calling from home,
and most of them call in between 5 pm and 10 pm. We've logged days
with 15,000 or more calls.
Our 24-hour call-length distribution shows peaks at <= 5 minutes,
2 hours, and 7/24. In other words, a goodly number of people call in
very briefly several times a day to read their mail. Many call in and
stay online for an hour or three, and some who are connecting home
networks stay on continuously.
We've investigated alternate dial-tone providers. So far, when we get to
discussing circuit utilization, most of them have begged off because of
the long hold times.
You see, the main problem with alternate LEC service is that they're not
well-enough connected with the other carriers. The A-LEC is primarily
interested in business service, since that's where the money is, and so
they're romancing us. But our clients are at home, and their phones and
modems are PacBell residential lines. So around dinnertime, when they
all dial in to read Usenet or do homework or surf the Web or whatever,
there won't be enough circuits from the PacBell switches to the A-LEC
and thus to us.
There was even concern that we might have an on-campus problem: the
dorms (err, make that Residence Halls) are mostly served out of one of
the switches in the local PacBell office - and our primary dialin group
is on the OTHER switch in that office. I certainly hope they have
enough circuits between the two switches that we don't wind up getting
congestion busies calling across campus. (The solution here is
obviously to put networking into the dorms, and we're doing that,
but it's expensive and takes a lot of time.)
So there is valid concern here. There are problems with using MCI, MFS,
or any of the other dialtone people because of the sheer number of
calls that will always originate on PacBell's network.
There are, of course, various band-aid(tm) solutions which can relieve
the stress for a time. But the real answer won't be with us until there
are packet-switched data services available AT THE SUBSCRIBER PREMISES.
Until it's possible to get your home internet connection WITHOUT
nailing up a switched circuit the whole time, switch and trunk
congestion is simply going to be a fact of life.
And I keep getting 'now is the time to install a second line to surf the
internet' advertisements from Pac Bell. If you're not part of the
solution ...
Brian
------------------------------
From: hodgek@randd.pprd.abbott.com (KellyAnn)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: 5 Nov 96 09:56:22 CST
Organization: Abbott Laboratories, PPD R&D
>> Also, this means that it is impossible to pay the ISP except by credit
>> card. Do you really intend this to be the case? That would driuve
>> away a lot of users.
> This is in practice pretty much the case now. Some ISPs will let you
> mail in a check, so they could add "or the check clears."
Actually, I pay for CompuServe and AOL by having them do an electronic
withdrawl from my checking account. In three years, I have never had
a problem with this method of payment. I have never mailed CompuServe
or AOL a check for anything. Everything is handled by electronic
debiting of my checking account. I do not have credit cards, so the
checking account debit is perfect for me.
KellyAnn
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I generally like electronic debiting
systems. I've used the First National Bank of Chicago for several
years and although I do have paper checks which I can write if I
need to. I am down to about three or four a month. They have a debit
card which has the VISA logo on the front. It is tied into both your
checking account and line of credit at the bank if you have one. I
have mine set up that way so it draws first from my checking account
and then my LOC as needed. It is accepted wherever VISA is accepted
which is almost everywhere, and it works in ATM machines also. PAT]
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Problems With the 604/250 Split in BC
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:21:27 PST
Organization: Shadownet
dov@accessone.com (Joseph Singer) writes:
> Sunday I attempted to call someone in Victoria, BC using the new NPA
> 250, but I got a recording that "it is not necessary to dial one on
> local calls." I called MCI and they claim that there is no problem
> and that this is a local problem. Which is it a local problem or a
> problem with the carrier not programming in the new code?
Whenever you get the "it is not necessary to dial 1" type recording,
it's from the LEC, and the call never got anywhere *near* your IXC.
I had the same thing happen, called repair, and 40 minutes later,
someone from repair called me to let me know it was fixed. I suspect
that it helped a *lot* that I was able to get across to the person
writing the trouble ticket that the problem had to be failure to
program the new AC into my local switch. :-)
> And while we're at it why is it that these codes which are publicized
> well in advance of their implementation *have* to be initiated on the
> certain date that the new code is supposed to work? Why can't they
> just do the work and allow the new code to work as soon as it's ready?
Simple, using the 604/250 cutover as an example, it can't be made to
work before things are ready in BC.
> If there is a permissive period for dialing either way it seems to me
> that this would assure that when the new code is supposed to work that
> it indeed will.
The permissive period is to enable the customers to make changes in how
thier autodialers are programmed, and also for us to jump up and down
on LECs and IXCs who got it wrong.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: Tom Trottier <tom@act.ca>
Date: 5 Nov 96 10:06:31 MST
Subject: Re: Information Wanted About Satellite System Design
Lars Poulsen wrote:
> In article <telecom16.576.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu> is written:
>> 'You are a consultant in the area of designing satellite
>> communication systems.
<snip>
> This is a very tough spec to meet. I suspect that you will discover
> that you need 77 satellites to meet this requirement; i.e. this is a
> setup to make you discover that Motorola Iridium is truly the minimal
> system capable of performing this mission.
Nonsense. At the south pole , TWO satellites in elliptical orbits
around the poles, slightly bigger at the South end, would suffice.
In fact, ONE satellite in a highly elliptical orbit could give the
99.9% availability required -- but you might need a bigger ground
station for when it's wa-a-ay out.
Perhaps, except Iridium switched to a 66 bird constellation a couple
of years ago. Something about higher power and better beam width
available. An NO, they're not changing the name to dysprosium.
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Ciao,
Tom Trottier -- tom@act.ca
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <psyber@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: New Virus Warning
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 13:33:29 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com
Clifford D. McGlamry wrote:
> DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANY FILE NAMED PKZIP300 REGARDLESS OF EXTENSION
> A new Trojan Horse Virus has emerged on the internet with the name
> PKZIP300.ZIP, so named as to give the impression that this file is a
> new version of the PKZIP software used to "Zip" or compress files.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message has been floating around
> the net for awhile. I am not at all sure how authentic it is. It seems
> to me I heard someone say it is completely bogus, but far be it from
> me to say that authoritatively. Caution would be urged in examining it
> I suppose. PAT]
PKZIP300 as a trojan has been around for about 24 months, but still
manages to nail a person here and there every so often...
John Cropper, NexComm
PO Box 277
Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277
Voice : 888.672.6362
Fax : 609.637.9430
mailto:psyber@mindspring.com
URL : coming soon!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:54:17 GMT
From: jmeissen@pyramid.com (John Meissen)
Reply-To: jmeissen@pyramid.com
Subject: Re: Minimum Rate Pricing Inc. - Quite a Scam
In article <telecom16.594.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu> stbrown@nacs.net writes:
> Be on the lookout for this company. It seems particularly slimy, and
> I'm hoping the resources of the Digest readers can make a difference.
> On 25 October at around noon EDT I got a call on my business line from
> someone who said "This is AT&T, MCI, Sprint," and a few other company
> names. Naturally this piqued my interest. I said, "you're not really
> AT&T, are you?" and she said, "Yes, this is Minimum Rate Pricing
> Incorporated." Then she started off on the spiel about saving me
> money, and I cut her off with "No, I do not want to change my long
> distance." She started arguing; I asked for her supervisor; she said
> "I ain't gonna let your h-nky -ss talk to my supervisor" and hung up.
> Here's a summary of what I know, though some of it is absurd or
> contradictory:
> name: Minimum rate Pricing Inc.
> POTS: 770-384-9667 (in Smyrna GA) or maybe 508-793-2122 (in MA)
> address: 1339 Swissward Lane
> city: Michigan, Ohio (most likely false)
> ZIP: 30369 (Atlanta)
A quick search at AltaVista yields a single hit ...
From http://www.washington.edu:1180/wutc/telecom/telcos.txt:
Minimum Rate Pricing, Inc. Mr. Tom Salzan, President
ID 108454 300 Broadagres
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
(212) 338-1200
John Meissen Pyramid Technologies
jmeissen@pyramid.com 15400 NW Greenbrier Parkway
jmeissen@teleport.com Beaverton, OR 97006
http://www.teleport.com/~jmeissen (503) 690-6286
------------------------------
From: Mike G. Zaiontz <mgzaiont@nol.mobil.com>
Subject: Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service?
Date: 5 Nov 1996 17:06:53 GMT
Organization: MEPTEC - Mobil Oil Corporation
I don't know of any 555 pbx boards in service, but there are several
557 answer boards being used by answering services around the
country. Just last year I purchased a 557 board from a service in
Chicago that was taken out of service the day it was shipped to
me. The owner of the firm had purchased it new in 1955 when she went
into the answering service business.
I collect WECO switchboards and step-by-step switching equipment and
have quite a bit of techinical info, so e-mail or call me if you need
any info.
Mike Zaiontz
(504) 566-6090
------------------------------
From: Jeff Colbert <jcolbert@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service?
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 10:48:21 -0600
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
Reply-To: jcolbert@earthlink.net
I was stationed at Lajes Field, in the Azores with the USAF. The base
used all rotary/manual equipment until going digital in '94. One of
the switching guys said we had the same equipment the Smithsonion had
on display as antique.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: 05 Nov 96 08:23:25 EST
From: Lawrence Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Help! Need Multi-Fax Receive Software
Does anyone out there know of an off-the-shelf application for a PC
that will collect incoming faxes from several modems (2-16) and print
them to one or more laser printers as they arrive. I've got a client
dependant upon a now-obsolete product called 'jetfax' that turned an
HP laserjet into a fax machine. Now, he needs more, can't get them,
and does't want to replace his two laserjets with a room full of fax
machines.
Thoughts, suggestions, etc. requested. We really don't want to roll
our own on this one unless we absolutely have to.
Larry Rachman, WA2BUX 74066.2004@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 01:39:51 GMT
Organization: Catoosa Computing Services
Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com
On Thu, 31 Oct 96 00:42 EST, James Bellaire wrote:
> Once upon a time you could get a phone number for another NPA in the
> same state as the one you dialed with 1-npa-555-1212. And you didn't
With BellSouth (and BellSouth Mobility and the other B-side cellular
carriers) in Tennessee, you can dial *1-411* (the 1 is required in
former South Central Bell LATAs) and get numbers anywhere in
Tennessee. They do not seem to know if you dialed 1-411 or
1-NPA-555-1212 (that is, did the call come in via the LEC or via an
IXC? They MAY be able to tell [calls to 411 supervise like calls to
the LEC operator; you can't just "hang up" on a DA rep.] but I've had
no problems calling 1-411 from Chattanooga and getting numbers in
Knoxville or Nashville.)
(NOTE: In this context, "Tennessee" includes the areas of Georgia in
NPA 706 in the Chattanooga LATA. Calls to 706-555-1212 for numbers in
these areas -- whether the requested city is served by BellSouth or an
independent -- are handled by "Georgia" BellSouth; they no longer
transfer "outside" callers to "Tennessee" BellSouth as they used to.)
This has caused some DA reps giving wrong numbers (asking for a number
and getting a number in a NXX that isn't local, etc.) but is generally
useful (in TN BellSouth, there is STILL NO charge WHATSOEVER for "local"
DA from home or payphones!)
> I have had operators tell me I had the wrong NPA and they couldn't help.
If this were the case for Atlanta (or Chicago or Dallas or any city
with several local NPAs) the public uproar would be unbelieveable!
(In the Atlanta case, one can dial 404-, 770-, or 706-555-1212 [or 411
in the local calling area, which now includes numbers in NPA 706] and
get numbers in NPA 404, 770, or 706.)
With the 423/615 split, one can *still* dial 615-555-1212 and get
listings in NPA 423 (or the few 706 or 704 prefixes in the Chattanooga
LATA) -- the NPA is tacked on the number ("the number is area code 423
[or 704 or 706] ...")
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/
CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1
------------------------------
From: ralphb@zipnet.net (Ralph Becker)
Subject: Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe
Date: 5 Nov 1996 15:00:11 -0500
Organization: ZipLink -- America's Hottest ISP
Mark Becker (mbecker@caehbl.uml.edu) [no relation] wrote:
> On October 31, 1996, AT&T filed with the Federal Communications
> Commission a Transfer Service Fee of $0.55 per call. The Transfer
> Service Fee applies to all completed interstate calls and calls to
> interstate and international Directory Assistance when the customer
> transfers to the AT&T network from a Local Exchange Company network.
> This tariff revision became effective November 1, 1996.
> Comments:
> (a) So much for the recent spate of AT&T radio and television
> advertisements touting their long distance discount plans; they
> may have just lost my business. Fifty-five cents a call.
I called 800-CALL ATT to find out about this. I am on their One Rate
($.15 per minute any time) plan, and I would obviously be unhappy with a
$.55 charge per call in addition. It turns out that this Fee applies only
to calls dialed with 10288+, not 1+ calls.
> (c) The notice exempts 800 and 900 numbers but says nothing about 888
> numbers. Is 888 exempt as well?
According to the rep I spoke to, 888 calls are also exempt.
PAT wrote:
> What exactly is the new charge of 55 cents supposed to cover? PAT]
The rep said that he was not sure, but thought that this was to level
the playing field with the local carriers and COCOTs who are providing
the access to the phone network. When presssed, he could not say if
any of this fee is being returned to the carriers.
Probably not, I expect.
Ralph Becker <ralphb@ziplink.net> http://www.ziplink.net/~ralphb
------------------------------
From: maxbuten@op.net (M Buten)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton Re-Elected; Wins Another Term as President
Organization: Consultant - Powerhouse programming
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 96 18:44:09 GMT
> Not even my competitor the {New York Times} was able to provide the
> results as quickly as was done here in TELECOM Digest Election Head-
> quarters. Remember, you read the election results first here.
Not true.
From this morning's crossword puzzle in the Times:
Clue for 39 and 43 across: Lead story in tomorrow's newspaper(!)
Answer: CLINTON ELECTED
(Of course, since it's the Times, there's another clue which solves to
PROGNOSTICATION.)
Max Buten - Contract Programmer in Powerhouse - maxbuten@op.net
See my picture! Hire my son!
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/USR/sbuten/olympics.htm
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #596
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Nov 5 20:16:17 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id UAA15496; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 20:16:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 20:16:17 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611060116.UAA15496@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #597
TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Nov 96 20:16:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 597
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
BellSouth Buys North Georgia Wireless Cable Rights (Mike King)
UCLA Short Course on "Internet Multicast and Multimedia Tech" (B. Goodin)
KU Satellites Are Lighting up Tonight! (Election Night) (Keith Knipschild)
They Call it PennTrex :) (Hillary Gorman)
Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers (Hillary Gorman)
Re: An Interesting Use of ANI (Today Only) (Tim Russell)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Bill Sohl)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Eric Florack)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Nils Andersson)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Christopher Herot)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Clayton E. Cramer)
Re: I Need Help With PBX (Dan Margolis)
Telecom Jobs Online (Karen Murphy)
Banks Bullying Credit Unions (John J. Butz)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: BellSouth Buys North Georgia Wireless Cable Rights
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:08:04 PST
----- Forwarded Message -----
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:21:31 -0500 (EST)
From: BellSouth <press@www.bellsouthcorp.com>
Subject: BELLSOUTH BUYS NORTH GEORGIA WIRLESS CABLE RIGHTS
BELLSOUTH BUYS NORTH GEORGIA WIRELESS CABLE RIGHTS
FROM CS WIRELESS SYSTEMS, CAI WIRELESS SYSTEMS
BellSouth to expand wireless calbe reach outside Atlanta
ATLANTA-Nov. 5, 1996--BellSouth Corporation (NYSE: BLS) has agreed to
buy the rights to licenses that will allow it to eventually provide
wireless cable television services to much of North Central Georgia
from wireless cable companies CS Wireless Systems, Inc. and CAI
Wireless Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAWS) for approximately $13.3 million
in cash.
Under the terms of a definitive agreement signed by the companies,
BellSouth will pay CS Wireless approximately $7.3 million for the
rights to licenses that would permit BellSouth to serve all or
portions of more than two dozen Georgia counties immediately outside
the metropolitan Atlanta market. The extended service areas generally
lie northwest, southwest and southeast of the Atlanta market.
In addition, BellSouth will also buy the Atlanta basic trading area
(BTA) license from CAI Wireless Systems, one of two publicly traded
corporate owners of CS Wireless, for approximately $6 million.
Ownership of the Atlanta BTA license will give BellSouth the right to
apply to the Federal Communications Commission for additional wireless
cable licenses in a 34-county area of North Georgia, including
metropolitan Atlanta.
"Getting the rights to these licenses will mean that even more
customers in Georgia will one day have access to BellSouth's new
wireless cable service along with the high service standards that our
customers expect from the premier communications company in the
Southeast," said William F. Reddersen, group president of long
distance and video for BellSouth.
"This transaction is part of CS's strategy of rationalizing its
markets on a regional basis," said Alan Sonnenberg, vice chairman of
CS Wireless.
The purchase extends BellSouth's potential future wireless cable reach
in Georgia to an additional estimated 336,157 line-of-sight
households-the wireless cable industry term for potential households
served-at an estimated average cost of $31 per line-of-sight
household. The estimated line-of-sight cost includes a pro-rated
share of the purchase price of the Atlanta BTA license.
Together with BellSouth's previously announced plans to purchase
Wireless Cable of Atlanta, Inc., which holds the rights to licenses
serving the Atlanta metropolitan area, BellSouth's acquisition
of the CS Wireless and CAI Wireless rights would give BellSouth
combined access to a total of 1.2 million line-of-sight households
in and around Atlanta.
BellSouth would provide service using multichannel multipoint
distribution system (MMDS) technology. That technology allows
operators to broadcast a combination of satellite-delivered and local
programming from a central transmitter site. Subscribers receive the
service using antennas about the size of a laptop personal computer.
Sale of the CS Wireless and CAI Wireless properties to BellSouth is
expected to close in the first quarter of 1997, subject to regulatory
review and certain other conditions.
CS Wireless Systems, Inc. is one of the largest wireless cable
television companies in the United States. The company's 17 markets,
adjusted on a pro forma basis for announced transactions, encompass
approximately 7.2 million television households and have approximately
77,500 subscribers. CS is primarily owned by CAI Wireless Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ: CAWS) and Heartland Wireless Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HART).
BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications company. It provides
telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and
information services to more than 25 million customers in 17
countries. For more information on BellSouth, visit the BellSouth Web
page at http://www.bellsouth.com. Fax copies of BellSouth news
releases dating back one year are available by calling 1-800-758-5804,
Ext. 095650.
For Information Contact:
Kevin Doyle, BellSouth, (404) 249-2793
Jim Ashman, CAI Wireless, (518) 462-2632
Scott Letier, CS Wireless, (972) 509-2634
----------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technologies"
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 15:36:00 -0800
On February 12-14, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technologies: The MBone, Multicast
Routing, RTP, and RSVP", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles.
The instructors are Lixia Zhang, PhD, Associate Professor, Computer
Science Department, UCLA; Steve Deering, PhD, Member of Research
Staff, Xerox PARC; Deborah Estrin, PhD, Associate Professor, Computer
Science Department, University of Southern California.
IP multicast delivery has been the key enabler for the flurry of
multimedia applications on the Internet over the past few years. This
course describes the creation and operation of the MBone, the
Multicast Backbone of the Internet, and demonstrates such applications
as vat (packet voice), vic (packet video), wb (distributed
whiteboard), and sdr (conference session directory), for interactive
remote participation in realtime. The course also presents underlying
protocol technologies, including the IP multicast service model,
DistanceVector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP), and Realtime
Transport Protocol (RTP).
The rapid growth of the MBone has driven further evolution of existing
protocol technologies. The second half of the course focuses on
enhancement of Internet architecture and protocols, including a
detailed description of the forthcoming resource reservation protocol,
RSVP, the proposed next generation of multicast routing protocol, PIM,
and a design framework for scalable, reliable multicast, SRM.
The course is intended for Internet protocol implementors, Internet
service providers, managers and planners of enterprise networks, and
anyone wishing to learn how MBone works, and how IP multicast
protocols and applications are evolving.
The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials.
These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For a more information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
From: Keith Knipschild <Keith@unix.asb.com>
Subject: KU Satellites Are Lighting Up Tonight! (Election Night)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 18:45:40 -0500
I can't believe all the activity on KU ...
I am seeing Gstar 2, SBS 5, Anik C1, Anik C2, Gstar 4, GE-1, Spacenet
4, Galaxy4, T401, Galaxy7, T402, Spacenet 3, SBS 6, Spacenet 2 ...
(And if I had a dish to get inclined sats, I would see SBS 4.)
But there is a MTV Signal on Spacenet 4 ch 24 lower or 6 lower (
12.1200 Ghz ) that seems very weak ...
Please Post any Activity !! So we can all Tune our dishes for KU !!
Keith
Keith@unix.asb.com LIP-PPP Internet Address
Keith@asb.com BBS Internet Address
Http://www.asb.com/usr/keith WWW Page URL Address
2NJS@KC2FD.NY.USA.NA Ham Radio AX25 Packet Address
0302,2701 CompuServe Address
Knipper@worldnet.att.net ATT WorldNet Internet Address
Fknipsch@suffolk.lib.ny.us My Free Internet Shell Account
------------------------------
From: hillary@netaxs.com (Hillary Gorman)
Subject: They call it PennTrex :)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 19:02:51 -0500
Well, I thought this tidbit might promote some discussion or at least
provide some amusement ...
I am a veterinary student at the University of Pennsylvania. As you
might imagine, it being a big place, they have an internal phone
system in addition to a smattering of payphones. The "house phones"
mostly call only to other university extensions, while a few select
"house phones" do have the capability to grab "outside lines" and make
off-campus calls. There is one such phone in the veterinary student
lounge.
I've been noticing lately that when I pick up the house phone and
start dialing 9 (to get off campus) and any number XXX-XXXX I get a
fast busy after the fourth digit. The first time it happened I thought
nothing of it ... temporary system overload, or a problem with the
Centrex, or what have you, right? But then today, I got really
frustrated because I had an important call to make, and I called the
university operator -- from a pay phone, mind you -- and I asked if
maybe there was a problem with the phone, or the centrex. Our
conversation follows:
<ring ring>
Penn Operator: universityofpennsylvaniaoperatorhowmayihelpyou?
Me: hi! I've been trying to use extension (whatever it was) in the vet
student lounge, and I keep getting a fast busy.
PO: That means all the circuits are busy, hon.
Me: yeah, well, I know. But it's always like that, and I was wondering is
there a problem with this line? Or is there a problem with the whole phone
system?
PO: no, hon, there's no problem. it's just all circuits are busy.
Me: yes, I understand the concept of all circuits being busy, but this
happens EVERY TIME I try to use the phone. Are you sure there's no
problem?
PO: yes, it's just all circuits are busy, and that means you can't make
any calls till a circuit frees up.
Me: well, ok, thanks.
<click>
So, here's this humongous university, that has a major phone system
problem, and nobody seems to care. I don't understand it. My tuition
is >$20,000 a year, and if I have to call a patient's owner, for
UNIVERSITY BUSINESS, I have to use a PAY PHONE because the Penn phone
system is overloaded? WTF?
hillary gorman http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Granted the operator should have taken
a little more concern in the problem you were describing, but you
would be better off relaying the problem to a supervisor in the
Telecommunications Department or someone there specifically involved
with the technical aspects of the system. The operator would really
not know about that stuff and as a best case scenario would have had
to just report it in any event. I'd also suggest trying other phones
you know that in the past have allowed outside calls and seeing if
the results are the same or the problem is isolated to that one phone.
I know, it should not be your problem but the better equipped you are
to discuss it with someone in a position to fix it or explain why it
is happening, the better off you will be. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hillary@netaxs.com (Hillary Gorman)
Subject: Re: How ISPs Can Protect Themselves From Spammers
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 19:10:54 -0500
In article <telecom16.590.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, johnl@iecc.com (John R
Levine) wrote:
>>> 1) No emailing until the credit card is validated.
>> It's not clear to me what good this will do. It is *trivial* to
>> acquire stolen credit card numbers which will work for a few days;
> But it's a lot harder than making up 15 random digits and a check
> digit, which worked on AOL until a few weeks ago.
Odd you should say that. About eight or ten months ago I consulted on
a TV segment here at Philadelphia's local NBC affiliate (it was a Herb
Denenberg piece, if anyone cares.) One of the things Herb had one of
the interns do was attempt to get an AOL account using "borrowed"
credit cards, totally random numeric strings with a check digit, and
"doctored" credit card numbers. IT was ABSOLUTELY impossible to
activate an account without using a valid credit card number which had
a MATCHING name, address, and phone number. In fact, the phone number
thing caught us more than once...we wanted to use a work number but
AOL would only accept the entry if the area code and prefix matched
the zip code entry.
I was impressed with the level of security.
hillary gorman http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net
------------------------------
From: russell@probe.net (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: An Interesting Use of ANI (Today Only)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 23:13:12 GMT
Organization: Probe Technology Internet Services
Paul Robinson <cats8@erols.com> writes:
> If, however, you attempt to "stuff the ballot box" and vote again
> (from the same phone number, that is), you are instead informed that
> "only one vote per household" is allowed. (That's actually one vote
> per telephone, so I was able to do so twice!) Obviously, they are
> using the ANI (calling party's telephone number) to determine if
> someone has called before. Now, the next question is, do they check
> anything other than the telephone number? I.e. do they check to see
> if the phone is a commercial or residential class, etc.
Having once been a programmer for the company that has at least a
50-50 chance of being the service bureau handling these calls, I can
say with almost certainty that the answer is a big "no".
All of my programs, in fact all programs designed on that system,
do nothing but store a simple "phone number->number of times called"
entry in an online database.
Only within the past two years or so has the capability to check
LIDB lookups in realtime been added, and that's only for the specific
purpose of checking that the calling number isn't a payphone or a line
which has refused collect charges. And yes, I used to program those
pay-per-call 800 programs, and hated every minute of it.
If you want to "stuff the ballot", just run down a row of payphones
at the local airport, and that'll do the trick. Or call from a phone
served by a local "mom and pop" type LEC, say anywhere in Arkansas
(just kidding!) which still can't provide ANI signaling.
Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell@probe.net
"Apache is our biggest competitor. It's gaining share faster than Netscape."
- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 23:29:00 GMT
Organization: BL Enterprises
macwhiz@phoebe.rochester.ican.net (Rob Levandowski) wrote:
> In article <telecom16.589.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, smiller@bnr.ca wrote:
>> The real solution is metered local access, but this would might require
>> major investments in billing systems by Telcos, and might upset the public.
>> If they were smart, they would set the rates so that 90% of consumers saw a
>> rate decrease, and hit the heavy-using 10% for the balance. (making usual
>> required exemptions for various 'vulnerable' groups) If the current attempt
>> to bill ISPs directly fails, I would bet it would be followed by a general
>> rate rebalancing exercise.
> Actually, the REAL solution is moving Internet traffic off of a switched
> network paradigm entirely. If you get rid of the switch, the problem of
> switch congestion ceases to become a problem.
More specifically, its getting off a CIRCUIT switched network
paradigm. Internet access is very bursty with long idle times between
downloads that are simply wasting bandwidth when not used. That's he
problem.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net
Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor
Budd Lake, New Jersey
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:20:53 PST
From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Florack,Eric)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) says, in #591:
> Additionally, newspapers have an anoying habit of exaggeration and
> playing it fast and loose with statistics. To see that, just look at
> the numbers that were provided in last week's (10/31/96) {USA Today}
> article on internet access. The article makes the following claims:
> Percentage of internet users, by access method:
> 50% Standard modem over phone lines
> 25% ISDN Phone lines
> 5% ADSL phone lines
> 15% Cable modems
> 5% Satellite
> Now is there anyone that reads this newsgroup that seriously belives
> ISDN constitutes as much as 25% of internet access? 5% via satellite?
> or 15% via cable modems?
Hello, Bill:
Well, I don't know about the other figures, but I can tell you that
the ISDN figures seem to be fairly well accurate. Mind you, I'm hardly
the one to defend the so-called mainstream press int his country ...
particularly USELESS TOADY. (You may recall an article I posted in
here about a month back ... search in Pat's archives against my name
and the text: "The Press Doesn't Like Us")
I will tell you unofficially, that here at Xerox, they're making some
rather ... uh ... interesting use of the ISDN lines available. AT&T
ISDN7506 sets are plentiful, but no data hookups are employed at the
desk level since theother channels are being used for the internal
data networking. Most of the workstations here have both Novell and
TCP/IP access to the bone, (through firewalls). I don't know offhand
the number of workstations employed, but I will tell you the last I
saw, there are around 2700 Novell servers on the backbone, mostly 3.12
and 4.01 250 user servers. That might give you a clue as to the
population on net 13.
(Imagine the Novell SAP traffic alone!)
We have TCP running on the same pipe, of course. As such, one could
say that all our internet access from within the Xerox network is, in
fact, conducted from ISDN connections ... even if they don't have ISDN
phones on the desk. (I happen to have one, myself)
73!
/E
------------------------------
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: 5 Nov 1996 19:39:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
In article <telecom16.589.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, scott miller
<smiller@nortel.ca> writes:
> Dial-up data traffic has been getting a free ride on the Telco voice
> network for years. That is coming to an end. The question is, who is
> going to pay?
Nonsense! While the statistics are different, a data link pays the same
per-minute charge (at least) as a voice call. If there was a per-call
charge, this claim might have had some validity, but the local RBOCs
charge per minute, in most cases.
------------------------------
From: Christopher_Herot/CAM/Lotus.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com
Date: 5 Nov 96 19:53:49 EST
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
macwhiz@phoebe.rochester.ican.net (Rob Levandowski) wrote:
> Actually, the REAL solution is moving Internet traffic off of a switched
> network paradigm entirely. If you get rid of the switch, the problem of
> switch congestion ceases to become a problem.
> I think that the future will find telephone companies laying fiber and coax
> to serve Internet customers. Although ISDN and ADSL are interesting
> technologies, they too require switched access. With a physical topology
> similar to the cable television plant, a data provider could create a true
> WAN that would be immune to switch congestion. (It could run out of
> bandwidth, but that's another problem.)
Actually most of the ADSL solutions split the line at the CO end into
POTS and packet-switched data. The packet data does not go into the
switch at all but goes straight into a router and then on to the
Internet or whatever.
If the telcos don't get their act together and start implementing
ADSL, I predict that some enterprising ISP's will rent space at the CO
and (FCC and the Supreme Court willing) connect directly to the
subscriber loop to do it themselves.
If the telcos were run like conventional, unregulated businesses, they
would see the current flat rate, POTS era as an opportunity to build
market share and customer loyalty while they were building out their
IP network. Instead, many of them seem to be trying to drive
customers into the arms of their future competitors.
------------------------------
From: Clayton E. Cramer <cramer@dlcc.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 17:09:00 -0800
Organization: Diamond Lane Communications
Reply-To: cramer@dlcc.com
Rob Levandowski wrote:
> I think that the future will find telephone companies laying fiber and coax
> to serve Internet customers. Although ISDN and ADSL are interesting
> technologies, they too require switched access. With a physical topology
Uh, no, ADSL does NOT require switched access. See our web page for a
description of our ADSL product that solves this problem.
http://www.dlcc.com/products.htm
Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane Communications
email: cramer@dlcc.com web page: http://www.cs.sonoma.edu/~cramerc
------------------------------
From: danmargoli@aol.com (Dan Margolis)
Subject: Re: I Need Help With PBX
Date: 5 Nov 1996 18:28:32 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
The best source of analog lines depends on your application. If your
application will be making a lot of expensive calls, you may want to
get an analog line card for your PBX and take advantage of the PBXs
routing capabilities, or if your application is for local use within
your business (or corporate network) the PBX may be the best option.
Using a PBX, you may be able to get lower 800 rates from your carrier.
If all you need is a line for occasional access, you would be better
off just getting plain old lines from your local telephone company.
You'll save on equipment costs and have better reliability.
Dan Margolis
Danmargoli@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Karen Murphy <blues@interaccess.com>
Subject: Telecom Jobs Online
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:05:14 -0600
Organization: Telephony Magazine
{Telephony Magazine} will begin posting job listings online Friday,
November 8 at 5pm. Jobs will be updated weekly.
Check out the site at www.internettelephony.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:53:16 +0000
From: jbutz@attmail.com (John J Butz)
Subject: Banks Bullying Credit Unions
Pat,
The United Teletech Federal Credit Union can no longer accept new
members who are not employed by AT&T, Lucent or Bellcore. This due to
an injunction the banks got against all federally chartered credit
unions. What nerve!
Banks fear that credit unions, who receive exemption from some federal
banking regulations, are siphoning off customers, threatening revenue
and profits. My last bank statement listed a paltry 1.98% APR on
savings, compared to their 8.5% mortgage rate. A typical mortgage pays
the bank tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the loan. My
interest totaled..wow!..$100 last year.
Ironically, banks complain they lose money servicing the same
customers which credit unions are supposedly draining, and claim they
are forced to institute high minimum balances to avoid picayune fees.
Their plans must be working. On CNBC last night, a Merrill Lynch
analyst commented that bank and financial company stocks are good
investments since the trend is for their revenues to increase. Oh
goody.
J Butz jbutz@attmail.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #597
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Nov 6 21:07:14 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id VAA15376; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:07:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:07:14 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611070207.VAA15376@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #598
TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 96 21:07:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 598
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "NetLaw: Your Rights in the Online World" by Rose (Rob Slade)
LD Users Win Contract Law Protection! (Keith Jarett)
FCC Decision: Cable TV Entry Into Telephony (Neal McLain)
Tennessee Split (Tad Cook)
Plan May Divide Spring Hill, TN (Tad Cook)
Company-Specific Area Codes in the UK? (Bob Goudreau)
New Central Office Code for Inuvik NWT Canada (Mark J. Cuccia)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 14:00:37 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "NetLaw: Your Rights in the Online World" by Rose
BKNETLAW.RVW 950406
"NetLaw: Your Rights in the Online World", Lance Rose, 1995, 0-07-882077-4,
U$19.95
%A Lance Rose
%C 2600 Tenth St., Berkeley, CA 94710
%D 1995
%G 0-07-882077-4
%I McGraw-Hill
%O U$19.95 510-548-2805 800-227-0900 lkissing@osborne.mhs.compuserve.com
%O pmon@osborne.mhs.compuserve.com
%P 372
%T "NetLaw: Your Rights in the Online World"
Very similar to his earlier "Syslaw" (cf. BKSYSLAW.RVW), this is a
general guide to various legal aspects of life online. The major
changes are the broadening of the scope from BBS level systems to
include online services and the Internet, and very handy (and
interesting) sidebars, which give a thumbnail sketch version of the
topic under discussion. These usually include a reference to some
specific case.
Chapters address the issues of censorship, contracts, commerce, and
copyright. Chapter four, which deals with the responsibility of the
system operator in light of online dangers, does touch on the topic of
malicious software. I was disappointed that this is limited to a not
terribly accurate defining of terms, and almost no discussion of the
admittedly confused legal situation. Further chapters cover privacy,
crime, search and seizure, and a rather disappointing chapter on
obscenity. Appendices include some very useful sample contracts, and
various US laws.
Given recent developments which have strongly indicated the
international nature of the net and international legal ramifications,
it is discouraging to see that Rose still presents only a limited and
US-centric view. However, the general principles he describes are
held in common law, and this book should at least provide guidance for
the broader online world.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKNETLAW.RVW 950406 Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications.
Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca
Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca
Research into rslade@cyberstore.ca
User rslade@sfu.ca
Security Canada V7K 2G6
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 09:57:07 -0800
From: Keith Jarett <keith@tcsi.com>
Subject: LD Users Win Contract Law Protection!
Bracketed below are some excerpts from an article on page 4 of the
November 4 issue of {Communications Week}. My comments are marked
with ASCII arrows.
{FCC Decision Eliminates Long Distance Tariffing
By John Rendleman}
{In an effort to speed competition and encourage lower rates, the FCC
last week ended its long-standing requirement that long distance
companies file tariffs containing the rates, terms and conditions for
their domestic, interstate voice and data services.}
{The rules, which the FCC adopted last week at its October open
meeting, become official policy 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register, which is expected within a week or two. As soon as
the new policy is in place, long distance companies will have the
option to stop tariffing their services immediately, the FCC said.}
After the nine month {..transition period, long distance companies
will be prohibited from tariffing interstate, domestic long distance
services, and the companies' rates and terms for their services will
be governed by customer contracts, according to the commission.}
-> This apparently still leaves open the possibility that carriers
-> could unilaterally modify their contracts for international service.
{"We represented a coalition of large corporate users in the
proceeding and we supported the commission's proposal," said Ellen
Block, a partner with Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, a Washington
law firm that represents large corporate telecommunications users.}
The {...tariffing process historically allowed providers to change
their rates by filing a new tariff. "The death of [tariffs] is
something that users are celebrating."}
-> Earlier this year, Sprint reneged on its Free Fridays promises by
-> filing a new tariff with the FCC which eliminated free calling to
-> nine countries. Those countries included India, Pakistan, Israel,
-> Iran, and China, where American engineers apparently had too many
-> friends and family. Does anybody know whether Block's firm sued
-> Sprint over the Fridays are Free fiasco?
{Under the new regime, companies buying long distance service under
contract with a specific provider will be protected by the terms and
conditions of the contract, Block said.}
-> It's about time!
The full article is Copyright * 1996 CMP Media Inc., and can be found at
http://192.216.191.76/
This location has a search engine for CMP Media where you can enter this data:
Search for: Tariffing
Content: Communications Week
>From Month: Nov
Year: 1996
and press Submit Query
------------------------------
Date: 06 Nov 96 07:02:37 EST
From: Neal McLain <103210.3011@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: FCC Decision: Cable TV Entry Into Telephony
The Federal Communications Commission has issued a preliminary
decision in a case in which a city refused to permit a cable
television company to offer telephone service. The case involves two
Kansas cities which had refused to issue telecommunications franchises
to the local cable television operator. The FCC remanded the case to
the cities for reconsideration.
This is the first case of its kind to come before the FCC since the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act encourages
competition in the telecommunications marketplace, and directs the FCC
to remove barriers which bar the entry of new competitors. The Act
gives the FCC the authority to preempt state or local regulations
which conflict with this goal.
In the case at hand, two small cities in northwestern Kansas, Hill
City and Bogue, had refused to issue a telecommunications franchise to
Classic Telephone, a company affiliated with the local cable
television operator Classic Cable. The reasons for the refusals are
somewhat muddled (Bogue didn't even put its initial decision in
writing); however, both decisions seem to be rooted in the
"antagonistic relationships" which existed between Classic Cable and
the cities.
The FCC's decision was firm and broad: it asserted that, antagonistic
relationships notwithstanding, the goal of the Telecommunications Act
is to allow the marketplace -- not government regulators -- to
determine who will provide telecommunications services. As noted in a
memorandum issued by the law firm of Cole, Raywid, & Bravermn, L.L.P.,
Washington, DC (which represented Classic),
"This decision stands as a message to municipal authorities
that telecommunications franchising can neither protect local
telephone monopolies nor limit the number of service
providers. The limited authority for municipalities to manage
rights-of-way within their jurisdiction does not allow for the
creation of barriers to entry, nor can any delegated authority
to protect consumers stand as the basis for an outright denial
of a franchise."
As it happens, this wasn't a particularly good test case for the cable
industry because of the rather unusual provision of Kansas law which
permits cities to issue telecommunications franchises in the first
place. In most states, telecommunications franchises are issued at
the state level.
A more relevant case is still pending before the FCC: the City of
Troy, Michigan has refused to issue certain construction permits to
the local cable television operator, TCI. TCI needs the permits in
order to construct a fiber optic network which, it claims, is part of
an upgrade to its video distribution network. The city claims that,
since the fiber network also can be used to support telecommunications
(telephone and internet access) services, TCI must first obtain a
"telecommunications franchise." TCI claims that, under Michigan law,
it does not need a telecommunications franchise, and that, in any
case, the city doesn't have the right to require such a franchise in
the first place. TCI has appealed the issue to the FCC; the FCC has
not yet issued a decision.
------------------------------
Subject: Tennessee Split
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:15:20 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
More Area-Code Splitting Likely in Tennessee, Analysts Say
By Cree Lawson, Nashville Banner, Tenn.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Nov. 5--Residents of Davidson and surrounding counties may think
they're lucky for keeping the 615 area code while the rest of the
Midstate has to change to 931.
They can think again.
The proposed new 615 area code would have to split again in just five
years if phone numbers continue to proliferate at their current rate,
according to Richard Blair, executive director of the Tennessee
Telecommunications Association.
The thirst for new area codes is a nationwide concern, industry
observers say. They cite two key forces that are driving demand:
Telephone companies are acquiring numbers in bulk in order to start up
local service in new areas.
Consumers are using more numbers for telephones, pagers, cell phones, fax
machines and computers.
Blair's association is proposing that Cannon, Cheatham, Davidson,
DeKalb, Dickson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson
counties keep the 615 area code and that the rest of the Midstate
convert to the 931 code.
"The plan selected provides the most long-term relief possible for the
Midstate area while minimizing impact on the greatest number of
customers," Blair says, in a faxed correspondence with the Nashville
Banner. The plan uses "easily understood geographic boundaries that
conform to county lines," he says.
The 931 code for the rural Tennessee counties would not have to split
again until 2008, according to the association's projections.
The group selected the 615 zone by taking the counties in the current
Metro Area Calling sector (all those that border Davidson County) and
adding Dickson, DeKalb and Cannon counties because they have telephone
cooperatives, says Lynn Greer, chairman of the Tennessee Regulatory
Authority.
The TRA, which regulates the telecommunications industry, will hear
the association's proposal on Nov. 13. The TRA's three commissioners
will vote on whether to hear public comment at that time, but Greer
says the authority doesn't have the power to veto or alter the plan.
Industry insiders say that exploding growth in phone numbers will
result in still more new area codes for Tennessee in the next
decade. They predict that the 423 area code in East Tennessee and the
901 prefix in West Tennessee will reach their usage limits in the next
few years.
New area codes such as 423 are being gobbled up almost as quickly as
they're created. California has nearly exhausted its 501 and 301
exchanges, both of which were introduced only a few years ago.
Nationwide, nine new area codes were added between 1987 and 1991,
according to Bellcore, the Washington, D.C.,-based administrator of
the area code register, or the North American Numbering Plan. That
number jumped to 76 during the 1992-96 period.
Who dunnit?
Industry analysts such as Steven Messer at Columbia University say
that the recent spike in phone numbers can be blamed on Joe Consumer.
"It's happening all over the place. You've got a phone line for the
Internet or for faxes or whatever. You've got a cell phone
number. Your wife has a pager and your children have their own line,"
Messer says. "There are only so many numbers."
Not so, says a recent article in Telephony, an industry publication.
The article, titled "Area Code Red," says that up to 50 percent of the
possible numbers in the North American Numbering Plan are not in use
by customers.
A bigger culprit, according to the report, is the advent of
competition in the local phone industry. In Chicago, the entry of of
eight new companies into the telecommunications playing field soaked
up 11 percent of an area code, it states. The companies have to claim
several seven-digit domains (123-4567, for example) before they can
begin operations.
Local competition is swelling in Tennessee as well. In the last year,
at least five providers have taken the initial steps toward competing
with BellSouth, absorbing numbers in the process.
California representatives report that 60 percent of the new numbers
they have added have come from new local phone companies.
Over time, technological advances may free up some of the unused
numbers, the report says. But unless they do so soon, Tennessee could
be tapping out a lot more telephone numbers.
------------------------------
Subject: Plan May Divide Spring Hill, TN
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:14:07 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Area-Code Plan Would Divide Tennessee Town
By Cree Lawson, Nashville Banner, Tenn.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Nov. 5--Life in Spring Hill -- already complicated because the town
straddles Williamson and Maury counties -- will get even more complex
if a new area code splits the community.
A plan released by the Tennessee Telecommunications Association would
give Maury and much of the rest of the Midstate a new 931 area
code. Ten counties -- Williamson, Cannon, Cheatham, Davidson, DeKalb,
Dickson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner and Wilson -- would keep the
615 area code.
That means that by 1999, Spring Hill residents would have to dial 10
digits and pay long-distance charges just to call across town.
"Hopefully, they can work something out because that would just be
ridiculous," says Spring Hill Mayor Ron Hankins.
Hankins says he already pays long distance to call his Williamson
County home from his office just a few miles away.
But there doesn't seem to be anyone to work out the problem.
The proposal only requires a hearing by the Tennessee Regulatory
Authority and approval by Bellcore -- which assigns area code numbers
-- before it's a done deal.
Bellcore's spokesman says the Washington, D.C.,-based agency approves
such plans "90 percent of the time." The TRA doesn't really have any
say, according to TRA Chairman Lynn Greer.
"We're in a position where we will not be put in a position to approve
or disapprove," Greer adds.
He says the authority will be briefed on the telecommunication
association's proposal Nov. 13. The TRA will decide then whether to
hear comment from the public on the matter.
If a hearing is held, the comments from the public would be passed on
to the telecommunications association's committee.
In the meantime, Greer is encouraging people with comments to contact
him at the TRA office at 460 James Robertson Parkway, Nashville,
Tenn. 37243.
Greer says the counties surrounding Davidson were selected to maintain
the 615 code because they are in what's known as a Metro Area Calling
zone.
Originally an economic and community development initiative, the zone
extends local call rates from counties surrounding Davidson into
Nashville.
Business leaders in Maury County are concerned about the area code
change, but they aren't sure that it will be much of an inconvenience.
"If we had our way, we'd prefer to leave it 615 rather than have to
change to the new one," says Maury County County Executive Ed
Harlan. "If it has to be, then we'll accept it and move ahead."
Harlan will hear the opinions of county commissioners before making
any type of statement regarding the new code, he says.
"There's just a lot of questions that we don't know about," says Mike
Chance, president of the Williamson County Chamber of Commerce.
Chance is curious about how Maury was left out of the counties that
are retaining the 615 area code, but he says he will cooperate with
the final decision.
Industry leaders say there's no question that a line must be
drawn. Inevitably, that line will crimp someone's dialing style.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:45:42 -0500
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Company-Specific Area Codes in the UK?
The latest (July/August 1996) Numbering Bulletin from Oftel (the UK's
Office of Telecommunications) contains a rather interesting proposal
for a new set of British non-geographic area codes that could be given
out *to individual companies*, each of whom could then control the
numbering space within its own code to suit its own own corporate
needs. I've excerpted the relevant section here for review, but you
can find the whole bulletin at http://www.open.gov.uk/oftel/bul26.htm.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out; we should hear more
by next March.
<<< Begin Numbering Bulletin Excerpt >>>
Business Numbering Proposals
OFTEL is proposing the introduction of a business numbering range
using 05 numbers. Use of the range would be voluntary but OFTEL
believes that it could be attractive for large national or regional
businesses by providing greater "ownership" of their numbers, a
business identifier, increased stability away from the geographic
range and an opportunity to integrate their internal corporate
numbering plan with the public numbering plan. If the range proved
attractive, it could remove significant amounts of demand from
01/02. OFTEL's demand study estimates that over a 15 year period this
could delay or avoid a change in 10 to 15 places which otherwise may
need a code change.
Under OFTEL's proposals, a company or public body who wished to
use the range would have a single code, for example 05432, followed
by the direct dial extension of employees which they would use
regardless of the geographic locations of their offices. Employees
could keep their number if they moved to other offices in the
company. The range would not be subject to the code changes which
take place to meet demand for geographic numbers. It is likely that
the range would be used mainly by large corporate users who have
multiple sites and a substantial private network with multiple points
of ingress. Calls would enter via the closest access point to the caller
and once in the network would be routed according to the rules agreed
for that network. Just as large private networks optimise their
outgoing calls by routing them over their private network before
breaking out onto the public network, so the proposed scheme would
allow a company to decide how, and from which telephone company,
to accept its incoming traffic.
Because the introduction of a new business range would be a
significant new development, OFTEL intends to carry out further
study on its implications and possible introduction. One of the
important element of the study could be to ensure clarity of tariffing
for callers. OFTEL's initial preference is for fixed tariffing for the
range: either a single per minute charge, possibly local-rate, for the
entire 05 range or two charges within distinct bands based on standard
tariffs- say 050 to 054 for tariff up to geographic local-rate and 055
to 059 for up to geographic national-rate. This study would also need
to look at the rules for the minimum and maximum allocation sizes
and the allocation of golden numbers that might apply. If the response
to the principle of a corporate numbering range is positive, then
OFTEL intends to establish a joint industry/user Study Team to
review options and make detailed proposals by March 1997.
<<< End Numbering Bulletin Excerpt >>>
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 15:02:36 -0800
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: New Central Office Code for Inuvik NWT Canada
It has been reported that northern Canada (Yukon and the Northwest
Territories) will begin using their own new *single* area code, 867
(TOP), effective 21 October 1997 (permissive), with mandatory dialing
beginning on 26 April 1998.
Alberta's 403 NPA code also presently serves Yukon and the
western/southern portion of the NWT (i.e. the old CN Telegraph region
of northern Canada), since 1972 when customer DDD both inward and
outward to Whitehorse Yukon began, although the use of 403 for CN
Telegraph's area in Yukon and (part of) the NWT might actually date
back as early as 1960 on a *numbering plan* basis only.
The 819 NPA code (one of Quebec's three area codes) presently serves
the eastern and Arctic portions of the NWT (i.e. the old Bell Canada
region of the NWT), since around 1975 (or maybe earlier?).
With the new 867 Area Code for Yukon and *all* of the NWT, all 403-NXX
codes in Yukon/NWT and all 819-NNX codes in NWT will be moving into
the new 867 NPA on an exact 'mapping' basis (there were no code
conflicts), *except* for one, namely 979 has been used in northern
Canada for *two* different locations, Inuvik NWT as 403-979 and
Iqaluit NWT as 819-979.
As Iqaluit in the eastern part of the NWT will become the territorial
capital of the forthcoming territorial political boundary split (new
territory in the east to be named "Nunavut"), NorthwesTel will keep
979 for Iqaluit, under the new 867 NPA. It was decided to change the
central office code of 979 in Inuvik (western part of the NWT), but it
hadn't been announced at the time the new NPA code was announced in
July. BTW, I don't think there is anything official on the new
territorial name for the western territory formed by the political
split of the NWT.
I was just informed on Wednesday that Inuvik will change its central
office NXX code to '777'.
Presently:
403-979-xxxx Inuvik NWT
819-979-xxxx Iqaluit NWT
During Permissive Dialing of 867, and *either* 403 or 819 (from 21
October 1997 until 26 April 1998):
403-979-xxxx and 867-777-xxxx will reach Inuvik NWT 819-979-xxxx and
867-979-xxxx will reach Iqaluit NWT
Effective with Mandatory Dialing of 867, beginning 26 April 1998:
867-777-xxxx (ONLY) will reach Inuvik NWT
867-979-xxxx (ONLY) will reach Iqaluit NWT
There will be *NO* permissive use of 403-777 to reach Inuvik, as
403-777 is presently assigned for numbers in Calgary ALBERTA. BTW,
prior to 1989 or so, 403-777 was assigned to the town of Tungsten in
the NWT.
Also, page two of the Bellcore NANPA Planning Letter for the
introduction of 867 as the new single NPA code for YT/NWT (PL-NANP-13,
dated 30 Sept. 1996, and only four pages, for US$ 10.00) makes
absolutely *no* mention that there will need to be a central office
code change for Inuvik NWT -- nothing -- nada -- zilch! And according
to the "PL", there aren't going to be any real changes in 'generic'
dialing procedures:
Local and EAS calls will be dialed as seven digits and NOT as ten-
digits.
'Station-sent-paid' toll calls will both be dialed as 1+ten-digits
including "Home" NPA toll calls (as 1+867+seven-digits).
Intra-NANP 'special billing' calls (whether local or toll, HNPA or FNPA)
will continue to be dialed as 0+ten-digits (HNPA 'special billing' calls
will be dialed as 0+867+seven-digits).
Other pages also included with the four-page NANP "PL" (at a cost of US$
10.00) include a map of northern Canada, showing the boundaries of the new
867 area code, as well as "dots" with names of towns/ratecenters. A final
page is a list of the YT/NWT's 403-NXX codes and the NWT's 819-NNX codes
which will be moving into the new 867 NPA code, but it can be misleading in
that 403-979 is shown in the 403 list, with absolutely *NO* indication of a
'needed central office code change', which could lead to the misconception
that 403-979 (Inuvik) would be changing to 867-979, an error, as 867-979
will be Iqaluit (formerly 819-979).
I wish to thank my contacts at NorthwesTel who have informed me of the
central office code change for Inuvik NWT, from 403-979 to 867-777.
MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497
WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #598
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Nov 6 21:49:25 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id VAA19718; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:49:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:49:25 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611070249.VAA19718@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #599
TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 96 21:49:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 599
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Lou Coles)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Clayton E. Cramer)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Scott Miller)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Bob Goudreau)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (John R. Levine)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (John Stahl)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (John Nagle)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Bill Newkirk)
Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network? (Linc Madison)
Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept (Dave Perrussel)
Re: AT&T Digital Receives no Calls in Orlando But Can Call Out! (J Rhodes)
Re: Problems With Long Di (Wes Leatherock)
Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory (Dave Levenson)
Users Charged For Number of HITS on Their Web Pages? (Todd L. Sherman)
Need Busy Filter / Eliminator (Carl Akin)
Clocking for T1 Circuits (Bob Izenberg)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lou Coles <loujon69@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 13:08:59 -0800
Organization: ANA
Michael D. Sullivan wrote:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Local 'competitors' will not be creating
>> extra capacity. They will be using the existing telco structure for the
>> most part. PAT]
> True.
> Bob Casey adds:
>> And I would guess the local C.O. phone switches are probably paid
>> for by now? So Pac Bell can just ride it out,
> The telcos have not "paid for" their existing networks and switches by
> now. System upgrades have been ongoing for years and will continue, and
> the costs are amortized over many years. If you bought a house five
> years ago, have you "paid for" it, even though you have another 25 years
> of mortgage payments? Would you be troubled if you were required to
> rent out a bedroom to a 100-person commune for $25/mo, because it was
> paid for?
That a companies costs are amortized over the years has nothing to do
with anyone's mortgage. If I buy a house at $100,000 and thirty years
later finally finish paying the $875,000 off that's one thing. If a
company amortizes a cost for 30 years of $100,000 they deduct $3,000 a
year as a cost to make their accountants happy, and shareholders
smile, it costs them nothing.
------------------------------
From: Clayton E. Cramer <cramer@dlcc.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 12:23:14 -0800
Organization: Diamond Lane Communications
Reply-To: cramer@dlcc.com
Christopher_Herot/CAM/Lotus.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com wrote:
> If the telcos don't get their act together and start implementing
> ADSL, I predict that some enterprising ISP's will rent space at the CO
> and (FCC and the Supreme Court willing) connect directly to the
> subscriber loop to do it themselves.
The telcos are doing their best to implement ADSL, but genuine
commercial products are still a few months away from deployment. My
colleagues in our Engineering Department would tell you all about
this, but they are too busy getting the products put together.
If you read the ADSL RFPs from the telcos (as I do), you can tell
that they are very serious about this.
Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane Communications
email: cramer@dlcc.com web page: http://www.cs.sonoma.edu/~cramerc
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:02:05 +0000
From: scott miller <smiller@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Reply-To: smiller@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
In article <telecom16.597.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, nilsphone@aol.com
(Nils Andersson) writes:
>> Nonsense! While the statistics are different, a data link pays the same
>> per-minute charge (at least) as a voice call. If there was a per-call
>> charge, this claim might have had some validity, but the local RBOCs
>> charge per minute, in most cases.
I was under the impression that most local phone access was still
flat-rate. (e.g. free local calls) Does anyone know the ratios of
metered vs. flat-rate phones? Is flat-rate a thing of the past in the
US?
If most Internet users access their ISPs on metered lines, then there
shouldn't be much difficulty in fairly recovering the costs for
network upgrades.
Scott Miller, in the bowels of Bell-Northern Research (or Nortel or something)
smiller@nortel.ca aa438@freenet.carleton.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:06:56 -0500
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) writes:
>> Dial-up data traffic has been getting a free ride on the Telco voice
>> network for years. That is coming to an end. The question is, who is
>> going to pay?
> Nonsense! While the statistics are different, a data link pays the same
> per-minute charge (at least) as a voice call. If there was a per-call
> charge, this claim might have had some validity, but the local RBOCs
> charge per minute, in most cases.
Nils, in *most* cases in the US, the local RBOCs don't charge *at all*
for local calls from residential accounts; they have a marginal cost
of zero to the customer. (And in many places, this also applies to
business customers.) Yes, there are places where local measured
service (per-call or per-minute charges) is the only option. But they
are the exception, not the rule.
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 09:42 EST
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> The real solution is metered local access, but this would might require
> major investments in billing systems by Telcos, and might upset the public.
Not to mention that every metered system I've ever seen overprices
calls by about a factor of 100.
The real real solution is of course to get those data calls off the
POTS network and onto CATV or ADSL or something with more than a
piddly 56K bandwidth and not run through those expensive switches the
telcos never tire of telling us about.
Does anyone have any numbers for how many ISP users have a second line
that they use mostly or entirely for data? They'd be the obvious
first candidates for non-POTS access.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof
------------------------------
From: John Stahl <aljon@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:11:07 +0000
tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote:
> Internet threatens gridlock for U.S. phone system
> NEW YORK (Reuter) - Soaring Internet usage....
> To make matters worse, the peak hour for phone systems has now
> switched to 10 p.m. because of evening Internet use, throwing out the
> logistics of networks designed around pre- and post-lunch weekday
> calling peaks.
If I remember correctly, years ago (in pre-divestiture days) when the
"Bell System" initiated the proliferation of electronic switches
throughout their vast domain, they were very concerned with the
projected pay-back on this equipment because of the (much) lower usage
in non-peak times of the day and on week-ends.
Along comes the tremendous interest in the Internet and it's
subsequent usage by large numbers of people who use the telephone
system, through ISP's, mostly during the non-peak hours the telcos
originally complained about. The telcos should be happy, right?
Wrong. Now they have something to keep the switches 'humming' during
the non-business usage times BUT they still complain.
The real bottom line may be that the telcos realize they have missed
their boat by not charging 'extra' for internet service and now want
to be able to get extra revenue for this use. According to the news
media, the telcos are presently spending millions in advertising
dollars to try to convince the FCC (through the public) that they
should be able to charge for this extra usage. I wish they would make
up their minds as to the truth of anything.
Could it be that they really want to is charge for every call based
upon distance and time. Perhaps if given their own way, they would opt
to eliminate Flat Rate Service!
John Stahl
Aljon Enterprises
Telecom/Data Verifiers - CAT 5 Testing for Telecommunications/data Systems
email: aljon@worldnet.att.net Tel: 607.786.9914
------------------------------
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 02:36:34 +0000
Organization: Vaxination Informatique
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca
If the telcos do not deal with the internet in a positive way, customers
will try to find alternate sources such as cable or perhaps even
wireless.
Right now, telcos provide voice switching. We "misuse" voice to carry
modulated data with modems. It is cheaper.
What telcos might have to do is to connect the twisted pair to a TCP
router and rent a router on the customer's premise. The telco would then
run a single TCP backbone between its exchanges to which ISP's would
connect.
The ISP's would no longer need huge numbers of phone numbers (and
modems) (thus freing numbers and delaying area code splits :-)
The phone company would only provide TCP transport to an ISP. The ISP
would still handle POP and email services, billing etc, and the packets
would still travel through the ISP onto the internet.
This is a big shift from the twisted pair connected to a DMS switch.
But in the end, service would be better, it would not affect the voice
network, and inter-exchange traffic would be streamlined since idle
lines would not take up bandwidth.
I guess the problem is that such lines would require actual copper all
the way betwen customer of CO with no concentrators in between.
------------------------------
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 02:55:27 GMT
In article <telecom16.589.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, scott miller
<smiller@nortel.ca> writes:
> Dial-up data traffic has been getting a free ride on the Telco voice
> network for years. That is coming to an end. The question is, who is
> going to pay?
This whole thing seems a sort of bogus issue. First, unless
you're out behind some switching concentrator in outside plant, which
is rare, you have a dedicated path to the CO, so contention there
isn't an issue. Within the end office, you can run out of switch
capacity on some older switches, although I think this is more of a
problem with 5ESS than Northern Telecom switches. Can someone speak
to this? Long connections don't stress the call setup resources at
all, of course, so running out of those isn't an issue. Interoffice
trunk capacity is a lot cheaper than it used to be, (which is why
telcos push area-wide flat-rate Centrex) so that shouldn't be a major
bottleneck.
So the only problem should be congestion at the first stage of
the end office switch fabric. Is that a real problem?
Of course, if it is, it's time to push for the return of the old
leased-line solid copper connection, or what used to be called a "fire
alarm circuit", so you can have a hard link to your ISP that totally
bypasses the switch. You might even be able to pump ADSL or something
comparable over it.
John Nagle
------------------------------
From: Bill Newkirk <wenewkirk@rodes.cca.rockwell.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 16:38:07 -0500
Organization: Rockwell Avionics/Collins
Reply-To: wenewkirk@rodes.cca.rockwell.com
scott miller wrote:
> Dial-up data traffic has been getting a free ride on the Telco voice
> network for years. That is coming to an end. The question is, who is going
> to pay?
I guess you could say that 50 cents/hour would be flat rate as well.
But then I get hit with at least five ads from Bellsouth in the last
month for me to sign up for bellsouth<dot>net and to get additional
phone lines installed at a discount over "normal" so I can dial up the
ISP and leave the line nailed up as much as possible .. and there's
been heavy tv, radio, and print advertising for such services.
It can't be both ways.
If the cable tv folks were to offer a box with a 10-base-T connector
on it and give me a stable e-mail address, news, etc. for a price, I
would have to consider moving to it. They already know how to get a
lot of data to me, just that the z-tac box we have doesn't have a
network connector on the back ...
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Internet Gridlocks Phone Network?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 14:46:53 -0800
Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail!
In article <telecom16.596.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, lars@anchor.RNS.COM
(Lars Poulsen) wrote:
>> Has anyone considered simply requiring ISPs to be served by choke
>> exchanges? It seems to me that choke exchanges were invented to solve
>> this very problem (the overloading of trunks from residential prefix
>> switches with calls to one or a few high-traffic numbers).
> Choke exchanges were designed to deal with the opposite problem:
> 100,000's of call attempts, very few of which will succeed, while the
> rest hit busy and are then abandoned. The code for choke exchanges
> discovers the condition in the originating switch and block most of
> the call attempts from reserving inter-exchange trunking ... they just
> return busy from the originating switch. This has no bearing on
> high-call-time Internet calls.
Sure it does. You would have to have different choke exchanges with a
different trip mechanism, but it could be done. You simply set the
switch to return busy on the ISP-choke exchange if more than a certain
percentage of inter-exchange trunks are currently in use. You
provision the switch on the ISP-choke exchange to be weighted almost
exclusively towards inbound calls, with a large average hold time, and
tariff the service accordingly.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, CA * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com
------------------------------
From: diamond@interserf.net (Diamond Dave)
Subject: Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 16:59:37 GMT
Organization: BBS Corner
In article <telecom16.559.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
wrote:
> The *82 function temporarily turns off per-line blocking, which you
> (in Texas) have to write a letter to the PUC to get turned on and off.
> The -not available- on your CID unit means they are using a cheapo LD
> carrier that doesn't transmit their name and number to your phone
> company. This also happens if someone has just moved in to a house
> and has just gotten their phone set up.
Not necessarily. I get LD calls from people who use MCI and Sprint and
their name/number comes up on my CID box - but calls from AT&T show up
as an "out-of-area" call.
I assume that AT&T has either not set up their system to transport the
names and numbers or they have chosen not to set it up at all (though
I thought I heard that all companies must do so by a certain time?)
Dave Perrussel
Webmaster - The BBS corner
www.vni.net/thedirectory
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Rhodes <jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: AT&T Digital Receives no Calls in Orlando But Can Call Out!
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 11:05:28 -0800
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
pstreicher@aol.com wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what is wrong in Orlando? The problem was that I
> was in Disney World for what I thought would be a pleasant convention/
> mini-vacation weekend with some friends. Well, it turned out that
> somewhere along the way from Tampa, all of a sudden I could not
> receive calls but I could call out on my digital Ericson phone.
> AT&T states that the digital service has all of Florida as 'home' and
> roaming isn't needed. I don't understand if I needed roaming set up
> for a different carrier or cell exchange to forward my calls or not
> but when calling my cell phone all one got was a recording or a click
> and nothing.
> I was on the phone to AT&T two different times and all they could say
> is, 'the network is jammed this weekend.' One tech that I did manage to
> get to talk to after being on hold for 35 minutes, told me something about
> a 'rare' occurence of my incoming calls being blocked by the local switch
> in Orlando and if I'd go on-hook for ten minutes or so, the 'registration'
> would take affect and everything would work fine. Well, it didn't and I
> missed a lot of calls from friends that were to get ahold of me so we
> could meet up. I got some angry people calling later on back in Tampa.
> I'm curious if anyone else has had any problem like this in Orlando
> using AT&T's service. Can anyone explain to me how I can avoid this in
> the future? Thanks in advance.
Same thing happened to me the other day here in Seattle. I suspect you
were "cloned" and the clone "stole" your incoming calls. I suggest you
request "Fraud Prevention Feature" to frustrate your cloner or buy a
new Digital PCS cellphone that is not clonable.
FPF works while roaming and requires you to unlock your phone when you
move to a new system. The unlock is *560+pin and *56 to lock feature code
requests. Most systems lock automatically within 15-20 minutes after
you turn off power to the cellphone. The cloner can only make and receive
your phone calls when your cellphone is unlocked.
Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com
------------------------------
From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock)
Subject: Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 17:03:23 GMT
roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) wrote:
[ ... much text deleted ... ]
> [On Thu, 31 Oct 96 00:42 EST, James Bellaire wrote:]
>> I have had operators tell me I had the wrong NPA and they couldn't help.
> If this were the case for Atlanta (or Chicago or Dallas or any city
> with several local NPAs) the public uproar would be unbelieveable!
> (In the Atlanta case, one can dial 404-, 770-, or 706-555-1212 [or 411
> in the local calling area, which now includes numbers in NPA 706] and
> get numbers in NPA 404, 770, or 706.)
It is indeed the case for the Dallas-Fort Worth area, or was a
few years ago (before the 972 split, but 214 and 817 were very much in
existence).
I was at a pay phone in Arlington (in area 817) and dialed 1-411
to get the number for a business a couple of miles down the road. The
DA operator found it but told me it was in 214 and I would have to call
1-214-555-1212.
I objected rather violently and she finally gave me the number.
At this time -- I don't know if it is true now -- there was no
charge for DA calls from pay phones (and Dallas-Fort Worth was, and
is, a single LATA, so no IXC is involved). The place I was calling
was a local call from the telephone I was using, even though it was
across the area code boundary.
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com
wes.leatherock@origins.bbs.uoknor.edu
------------------------------
From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Problems With Long Distance Directory
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:02:13 GMT
Mark J. Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) writes:
> It has been reported recently that many long distance companies are
> routing calls to interstate or inter-NPA long-distance directory
> assistance (information) dialed as (NPA)-555-1212 to a 'centralized
> boiler room', which may or may not have the most up-to-date
> listings.
While the LEC's, at present, have the most up-to-date directory
assistance database, there are some very strong reasons why
aggregators such as cellular carriers, interexchange carriers, and
others would choose to route their queries elsewhere.
Bell Atlantic now charges their business customers 35 cents per call
for 411 calls (maximum of three lookup-requests per call, even if all
three result in a not-found or non-published reply). They impose this
charge on aggregators such as radio common carriers, cocot operators,
and others. I don't know what they charge IXC's, but it's probably
more than it used to be.
In the very near future, Bell Atlantic and their fellows RBOCs will no
longer be the sole providers of local telephone service, and will
therefore no longer be guaranteed to have the most up-to-date listings
for a given subscriber.
With Directory Assistance charges going up and the quality of service
likely to go down, I can see a market for competitive providers of the
service.
(If anybody out there in Netland wants to offer 411 service to the
COCOT community in New Jersey, please contact the undersigned!)
Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are lucky to get three inquiries
per call. Ameritech says two inquiries are all they will give. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Todd L. Sherman <afn09444@afn.org>
Subject: Users Charged For Number of HITS on Their Web Pages?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:18:14 -0500
I was shocked to view the South Fla. Scanning and DX'ing web page,
only to see a NOTICE by the web page author advising its users that
the author's page would be shut DOWN after every 5000 hits, because of
a "pay-per-hit" fee his ISP is suddenly hitting them with! Can you
believe this? An ISP is actually charging its users for the number of
HITS to their own pages? Do many OTHER ISP's do this, too? I've
never heard of this before!
See www.shadow.net for the culprit service.
Todd Sherman
afn09444@afn.org
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are some ISPs who count the hits
and say that after a given number of hits in a certain period of time
you will be considered a commercial customer rather than just an
individual user (with the additional costs which applies to company
accounts, etc). I do not know of any that charge per actual hit. PAT]
------------------------------
From: cakin@sprynet.com (Carl Akin)
Subject: Need Busy Filter / Eliminator
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 18:20:42 GMT
Organization: Sprynet News Service
Reply-To: cakin@sprynet.com
I am looking for a busy filter / busy eliminator / band pass filter
that would sit inline on a T-1 and prevent busy signals from being
passed in ONE direction.
Please email me if you have heard of such a beast.
TIA,
carl cakin@sprynet.com
------------------------------
Subject: Clocking For T1 Circuits
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:11:28 CST
From: Bob Izenberg <bei@austin.aus.sig.net>
Reply-To: bei@sig.net
Our regional telco isn't providing clocking on local area T1s.
The Ascend Pipeline 130s that we use on some of our circuits need a
stable clocking source and can't provide it themselves. One of our
options, which some will no doubt advocate, is forgetting all about
the P130s in favor of another vendor ... we're doing that. In the
meantime, I'd like to hear from anyone who's providing a clock source
for devices that need it but cannot derive it from the data line to
which they are connected, or from an internal source.
bob izenberg phone: +1 (512) 306-0700
sig.net network operations bei@sig.net
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #599
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Nov 6 22:33:30 1996
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id WAA24457; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:33:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:33:30 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199611070333.WAA24457@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #600
TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Nov 96 22:33:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 600
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service? (Larry Svardal)
Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service? (James J. Pomykalski)
Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service? (Steve Schlink)
Re: Ridiculous Telecom Issues (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Re: Phone Access/Internet Saturation? (Victor Shvetsky)
Re: Courier 56k Upgrade (Justin Hamilton)
Re: Integretel Again (Martin McCormick)
Re: Ottawa-Hull (Canada) History of Exchanges (John R. Levine)
Re: Ottawa-Hull (Canada) History of Exchanges (Dave Leibold)
Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service (D. Perrussel)
Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe (Dan Pearl)
Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe (Robert Casey)
Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe (Rich Greenberg)
SBC Communications/Pacific Telesis Group Statement (Mike King)
Survey of Computational Electromagnetics Tools Users (isgsurvey@aol.com)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-329-0571
Fax: 847-329-0572
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is:
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send
a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help
file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of
the help file for the Telecom Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Svardal <hagar@mail2.quiknet.com>
Subject: Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 08:11:01 -0800
Organization: Quiknet Information Services http://www.quiknet.com
Mike G. Zaiontz wrote:
> I don't know of any 555 pbx boards in service, but there are several
> 557 answer boards being used by answering services around the
> country. Just last year I purchased a 557 board from a service in
> Chicago that was taken out of service the day it was shipped to
> me. The owner of the firm had purchased it new in 1955 when she went
> into the answering service business.
> I collect WECO switchboards and step-by-step switching equipment and
> have quite a bit of techinical info, so e-mail or call me if you need
> any info.
You bet there's some in service !!
I've got seven (557A's) still up and running in our answering service
here in Sacramento.
A bit antiquated, but extremely reliable ... as long as you know how to
repair them when they do break down. Got a retired ATT guy to fix the
things I can't. Have taught myself to repair the cord pairs, etc.
Also have seven or eight more sitting in my barn when we closed one of
our other offices several years ago.
Later,
Larry
Ever-Rite Answering Service
------------------------------
From: James J. Pomykalski, Ph.D. <pomykajj@jmu.edu>
Subject: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:33:26 -0500
In answer to the question on cord boards:
> Per the question on rotary service, I was wondering if there are any
> cord switchboards still in service, either PBX or central office Toll
> and Assistance or Overseas.
> I think overseas operators kept cord switchboards the longest as
> they were best for the oddball calls that couldn't be dialed
> automatically and automation wouldn't help much. Anyone know anything
> more about this?
Back in a prior life, I work in management at AT&T Communications.
When the operators went out on strike in 1986 (June 1) I was sent to
Springfield, MA to man (my wife I guess womaned) an international
operators station with cord boards. This was an interesting
experience, but not because of the cord boards. LONG STORY!!! Bottom
Line, I got smart and got out of that life into academics (for better
or worse).
I do not know if they are still in use there nearly ten years later.
Hope this helps.
James J. Pomykalski, Ph.D.
Integrated Science and Technology and
Computer Science Programs
ISTA 132, James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
Phone: (540) 568-2729 FAX: (540) 568-2761
pomykajj@jmu.edu
------------------------------
From: schlink@atl.mindspring.com (Steve Schlink)
Subject: Re: Any Cord Switchboards Left in Service?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 05:34:44 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
Reply-To: schlink@atl.mindspring.com
hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote:
> Per the question on rotary service, I was wondering if there are any
> cord switchboards still in service, either PBX
(snip)
Sometime last year the last known cordboard in Atlanta was removed
from service. It was a 552, originally installed in the hotel in the
early '50's. Previous to that, (three or four years ago) I removed a
555 from a business downtown on Peachtree St. for the purchaser, a
collector.
If you are interested, check out our collectors group:
http://www.cybercomm.net/~chuck/atca.html
Steve
------------------------------
From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Ridiculous Telecom Issues
Date: 5 Nov 1996 23:26:27 -0500
Organization: Ideamation, Inc.
In article <telecom16.594.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Ian Angus
<ianangus@angustel.ca> wrote:
> Anthony S. Pelliccio wrote:
>> I'm sorry but the LEC's are completely responsible for this mess. Most
>> of them never grew beyond the old AT&T manuals. The 4:1 ratio just
>> doesn't cut it anymore and it hasn't cut it since the mid 80's and
>> every single LEC knew it.
> Okay -- now can we expect you to support local rate increases large
> enough to pay for expansion of the PSTN to handle 36 ccs/line (60
> minutes/line/hour) of traffic from every telephone?
You've got it. I'm willing to pay for my service -- if I want constant
dialtone and services I'd pay a premium for that service. Otherwise if
I have no need for it I'll settle for POTS. >
Of course ISDN is a joke here in Nynex-land. Nothing like pricing a
service right out of the ballpark to kill a new introdution. I can
just imagine that it'd be cheaper to get a T1 than getting any type of
*DSL services from Nynex.
> The Internet seems to foster a belief in free lunches -- and there
> ain't no such thing.
No -- not a free lunch. But one free from the bs that most LEC's
put forth in order to boost their own ISP offerings.
------------------------------
From: Victor Shvetsky <victor@ablecom.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Phone Access/Internet Saturation?
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 14:22:55 +0900
Organization: Able Communications, Japan
gary valmain wrote:
> I happened to see the CEO of Sun Microsystems (don't remember his
> name) on the Charlie Rose talk show on PBS last night. During the few
> minutes I caught at the end, he (the CEO) made the statement that 2/3
> of the world's population LIVE AND DIE WITHOUT EVER MAKING OR
> RECEIVING _ONE_ TELEPHONE CALL ... 2/3!
Question is, do they really need the phone? I mean, we sure try to
make this ATM-over-Satellite business that would allow us multi-gadget
"multimedia", but if any of you have travelled in areas of "most
population" -- why would they need it when there are more simple
things that will not be there for at least hundreds of years? It is
one thing to provide mobile service to current users, but it is
totally different providing it to people who really have no need for
it YET.
Now, I know it sounds a bit prejudice, it isn't -- like a government-
sponsored billboard in India in front of the McDonald's says - "Say no
to Potato Chips and Yes to Computer Chips". What this global phone for
the masses is like is potato chips -- you can eat them, but is it good
to?
> Given the current population growth rate and the current expansion rate
> of the internet, when will the total population be wired?
Once again, WHY? A fear of losing another Balsac? Why "wiring" the
whoel population? Providing an ability -- maybe, a right -- definitely
not.
Here in Japan, they got this thing, called PHS -- cellular phone only
cheaper. It was such a hit that almost eveyrone is Tokyo uses them
now. The problem is, it REALLY interrupts your lifestyle! How many
of you, eating at the table having a conversation, would suddenly
stop, ignore the person you just asked a question, and turn to someone
else? Sure, on a date maybe! But, with cell phone, it is definitely
TOO much. We flip the phone, cut the current conversation, making
our partner pretend like he/she is not listening (I guess, he/she
might as well be counting the oxygen molecules trying to fill up the
time whle you talk) and start the new one on the phone.
The point is, we take this hype about technology WAY too much.
Technology is great, it should definitely enhance our lives, but
interrupt it?
So, once again -- why WIRE all the masses?
------------------------------
From: JHamilton@Mindspring.Com (Justin Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Courier 56k upgrade
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 18:11:51 GMT
Organization: BellSouth ATG lab
Reply-To: JHamilton@Mindspring.Com
bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) wrote:
> In article <32753241.1379386@news.bst.bls.com> JHamilton@Mindspring.Com
> (Justin Hamilton) writes:
>> weaman@jerseycape.com (Wayne Roop) wrote:
>>> I spoke to U.S.R. Thursday and was told the upgrade would be
>>> available in January and would probably be under $100, although nothing
>>> definite has been set as to the price.
>> They ought to allow the ISP's to resell the upgrade to their customers
>> as they upgrade their comms kit.
> Not a bad plan actually, but the ISP will need to have a way to
> 'qualify' the customer's local loop as being 56k capable.
I'm not so sure. USR and all the other modem manufacturers came out
with and sell V.34 & revised V.34 modems to people without first
checking their local loop to confirm they can support these bigger and
better data rates.
I am still interested in how much the X2 technology is going to give
me. I'm on the end of an SLC96, I've checked with various people
here are the office, and have determined that it is not upgradable
with the magic card that allows 28.8Kbps+ data rates.
I almost always get 26.4Kbps connects with both my Courier, and my
SupraExpress to my ISP (http://www.mindspring.com) who uses USR total
connect modem banks that have been upgraded to 33.6Kbps capability.
If I set them to negotiate more agressively, I may get a 28.8Kbps
connect, but the transfer rate is still baout 2600-2700 cps -- the
modems realize they over estimated and drop back.
However, when I dial in to the office network, I usually get 28.8Kbps
connects. Now I am fairly sure that this modem pool is not 33.6Kbps
capable, but it just shows how much depends on the 'stuff' the other
side of my local loop.
I may go back and try an earlier FLASH! of my Courier's firmware and
see if I get better results.
Justin Hamilton
http://www.mindspring.com/~tmenet - Now with Baby Photo's & DISH Network Info
JHamilton@MindSpring.Com - Rated #1 National ISP by C/NET
JHamilton@Bridge.BellSouth.Com
Member of B.U.G. Birmingham's Premier User Group
http://www.bfc.net/bug
------------------------------
From: Martin McCormick <martin@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Integretel Again
Date: 6 Nov 1996 17:44:11 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK
Here is a little update on the Integretel saga. One person
suggested that I could call AT&T and they could help us with the
charge since it was to our calling card. They were nice enough, but
suggested we call Integretel or Southwestern Bell. We called
Southwestern Bell, more to be able to say that we did than with any
belief that they could help us. They were also very nice about it but
told us to call Integretel. There was also some confusion as to
whether we had been billed a second time for the call, but I think
that might have been on the part of the SWBT rep.
My wife ended up calling Integretel's 800 number again and I
knew things weren't going very well when I heard her say "You know,
you've got a really snotty attitude." She just doesn't talk like that
on the telephone when doing business. She was getting madder by the
second and one of the things that truly set things off was when the
Integretel representative told her that our account had been credited on
September 10 and that it sometimes took one to two billing cycles for
the charge to go away. To that she asked, "Why is it that I can call
AT&T or Southwestern Bell and our whole billing record is immediately
right there to look at?"
I thought of those AT&T commercials of a couple of years ago in
which the no-name long distance carrier rep says "You're not dealing
with AT&T."
Things went downhill very fast after that. The Integretel
person was trying to hang up, probably having had this same conversation
with the umpteenth angry person out there in the world and my wife was
forcefully saying, "Don't you dare hang up on me! I hear you are a real
rip-off company and if this isn't off the bill by next month, the next
call you will get will be from the FCC and not from us."
I am sure they hear that about as often as they hear their own
breathing. It is hard to know what to think. Maybe the rep was telling
the truth, but it is a heck of a way to run a business.
We are both aware of cocots and the games that get played if one
uses the default long-distance carriers of many motels, but this is a
good example of how one can get stuck even when you think nothing much
will happen.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 09:34 EST
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Ottawa-Hull (Canada) History of Exchanges
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> June 1886
> - calls to Hull - 10c for subscribers, 15c non-subscribers (5 min rate?).
Any idea how you called a non-subscriber? Did they deliver a message?
Go fetch him to the telephone office? Something else? Or was this the
rate for a non-subscriber making a call from the telephone office?
> August 1930
> - Service to Great Britain and Europe available
> Rates to London UK (presumably 5 min) $30.00 - during all hours
> Paris France - $33.75
> (no mention of whether radiotelephone or undersea cable was used)
SSB radio. The first trans-Atlantic telephone cable wasn't laid until
1956, even though there'd been telegraph cables since the 1850s.
> January 1939
>
> - Overseas: India $33.00, Brazil $21.00, Bermuda $15.00
Wow! Sure must have been nice to have a large customer who could print
their own money.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:17:32 EST
From: Dave Leibold <dleibold@else.net>
Subject: Re: Ottawa-Hull (Canada) History of Exchanges
On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, John R Levine wrote:
>>June 1886
>>- calls to Hull - 10c for subscribers, 15c non-subscribers (5 min rate?).
> Any idea how you called a non-subscriber? Did they deliver a message?
> Go fetch him to the telephone office? Something else? Or was this the
> rate for a non-subscriber making a call from the telephone office?
This would be referring to the rates to place a call ... non-subscribers
presumably meant things like coin stations or public phone offices. As
for calling up a non-subscriber, I don't have the formal details on
that, though one would guess this was a case of messaging, fetching,
etc.
>> January 1939
>>- Overseas: India $33.00, Brazil $21.00, Bermuda $15.00
> Wow! Sure must have been nice to have a large customer who could print
> their own money.
Since these tariffs were the Ottawa-Hull book (i.e. for the Canadian
capital), the Dominion Government would no doubt be eager to make use of
this facility for its embassies, consulates, other heads of state, etc.
I don't know when the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corp. was
formed, but it was a government entity that became Teleglobe and
subsequently a privatised carrier.
Of course, most folks would not want to find out how that would be
represented in today's money, adjusted for inflation. Those controversial
Sprint Fridays rates of recent months would have been unthinkable in 1939.
David Leibold -+- dleibold@else.net ++ aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca
------------------------------
From: Dave Perrussel <diamond@interserf.net>
Subject: Re: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 16:53:37 GMT
Organization: BBS Corner
nilsphone@aol.com (Nilsphone) wrote:
> In article <telecom16.570.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa
> Hancock) writes:
>> This change to a seven digit number seems foolish to me. What's wrong
>> with 611 being the universal repair service number?
>> Further, with the shortage of numbers, why waste one on it?
> One thing which is _very_ wrong with 611-numbers is that you have to
> be right there to make the call. For example, if my wife has a telco
> problem, she calls me about it, since I am more telco-adept than she
> is. Then I call the telco. I might be in another service area/state/
> country. How do I dial GTE Southern California 611 from Singapore?
Many places that have 611 for the number for repair service also have
a seven-digit number (local to those in that particular telco) or an
1-800 or 1-888 number for those outside the telco.
Dave Perrussel
Webmaster - The BBS corner
www.vni.net/thedirectory
------------------------------
From: pearl@alta.sw.stratus.com (Dan Pearl)
Subject: Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe
Date: 5 Nov 1996 21:06:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro MA
I called AT&T and they claim that the surcharge only applies to calls
like directory assistance, that the local company cannot handle, and
therefore send off to AT&T. It does NOT apply to garden variety
direct dialed calls.
Dan Pearl ** Stratus Computer, Inc. ** pearl@sw.stratus.com
------------------------------
From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:53:01 GMT
In article <telecom16.595.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu> mbecker@caehbl.uml.edu
(Mark Becker) writes:
> (a) So much for the recent spate of AT&T radio and television
> advertisements touting their long distance discount plans; they
> may have just lost my business. Fifty-five cents a call.
Is this just when you dial 10288-1-xxx-xxx-xxxx, or even if AT&T is
your chosen default carriwe?
> (b) AT&T recently distributed cradle/handset stickers, blaring "first
> dial 10-288". The adhesive used is near permanent; anyone have a
> suggestion for a solvent that won't mess up handset plastic?
On the plastic "Ma Bell" used, I found that butane (cigarette lighter
fluid) would get the sticky gunk off and not hurt *Ma Bell* plastic (I
don't know about plastic from other phone manufacturers, or the newer
consumer grade crap AT&T sells nowdays). Try it on the inside surface
of the plastic shell first as a test. Exercise the usual cautions
when handling flammable stuff.
"Ma Bell" means the stuff Western Electric made that would last forever.
The phone company's got your number! :-)
------------------------------
From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: AT&T Announces New Tariff in Boston Globe
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 22:01:44 GMT
In article <telecom16.595.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mark Becker
<mbecker@caehbl.uml.edu> wrote:
[lotsa good stuff]
> (b) AT&T recently distributed cradle/handset stickers, blaring "first
> dial 10-288". The adhesive used is near permanent; anyone have a
> suggestion for a solvent that won't mess up handset plastic?
I have found that the only thing that will remove these permanent labels
without destroying the underlying plastic is lighter fluid.
I use Ronsonol brand. I have no idea if a store brand would or would
not work as well.
Also good for removing labels from my floppies and backup tape carts.
Rich Greenberg
N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310-649-0238
Pacific time. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines: Val(Chinook,CGC), Red(Husky,(RIP)), Shasta(Husky) Owner:Chinook-L
------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: SBC Communications/Pacific Telesis Group Statement
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 16:54:42 PST
----- Forwarded Message -----
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:48:05 -0800
From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com
Subject: SBC Communications/Pacific Telesis Group Statement
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Larry Solomon
SBC Communications
(210) 351-3990
Michael Runzler
Pacific Telesis
(415) 394-3643
SBC Communications/Pacific Telesis Group Statement
(SBC Communications Inc. and Pacific Telesis Group released the
following statement in response to the U.S. Department of Justice
announcing it will not initiate action on the merger under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust laws.)
"Today's announcement is a positive and important step forward in
completing our merger. The DOJ found no reason to act under the
antitrust laws because the combination of our companies will not harm
competition in the telecommunications market. We believe the merger is
pro-competitive and the new combined company will substantially
strengthen competition in California and Nevada.
"The DOJ's decision will provide the California Public Utilities
Commission and the Nevada Public Service Commission with confirmation of
the pro-competitive nature of this merger. It also should have a
positive effect on the Federal Communication Commission's review of our
license transfer request.
"The DOJ's action, together with the support of more than 100 community
groups in California and many key public officials signals that the
merger is on track. We look forward to completing it soon after the
first of the year."
--------------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
From: isgsurvey@aol.com (ISGsurvey)
Subject: Survey of Computational Electromagnetics Tools Users
Date: 5 Nov 1996 21:26:41 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: isgsurvey@aol.com (ISGsurvey)
The ICEMES (Intelligent Computational ElectroMagnetics Expert System)
Development Team is sponsoring a technical survey to establish the
state-of-the-art in the application of advanced Computational
Electromagnetics (CEM) tools by commercial industry. ICEMES is a
sophisticated software pre-processor that is being designed to speed
up and simplify many tasks associated with doing advanced
electromagnetics analysis and testing.
The survey is being conducted in conjunction with research funded by
the US Air Force. ACES and IEEE/EMC are helping to distribute the
survey by including links to this site on their web pages. By
exploring the needs and wants of potential users of advanced CEM
analysis tools, we intend to compile information about:
The rate of adoption of advanced CEM analysis tools by different
segments of commercial industry;
External trends and influences that will accelerate/retard the adoption
of CEM analysis;
Suitability of currently available CEM software to the needs of
commercial industry;
Directions of improvement in CEM tools.
Note: When the survey is complete, both ACES and IEEE/EMC will receive
a summary of the results. However, ACES and IEEE/EMC are not
sponsoring or endorsing either this survey or ICEMES.
By taking 10-15 minutes to complete our survey, you will benefit in
two ways. First, we will report a summary of the survey results back
to you, giving you important information about industry trends in the
use of advanced CEM tools. Second, your feedback will help to create
better CEM tools, which will help you to do your work better, faster,
and more easily.
All survey responses will be kept entirely confidential. Your
individual response will be merged into an anonymous responses
database. We will not attribute any published responses to you, or to
your company. We also will keep your identity strictly confidential,
will NOT provide any information to be used for telemarketing, or sold
or rented to junk-mail list compilers.
You can find the survey at the ICEMES home page,
http://www.auragen.com/icemes. Also posted is a technical paper
describing ICEMES in more detail. If you have any difficulties with
the survey, comments you d like to make that don t fit in the survey
format, or other questions about any of this, please e-mail them to
ISGSurvey@AOL.com.
Many thanks for your help and input. See you on the web!
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V16 #600
******************************