From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jan 7 08:21:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA12290; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:21:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:21:33 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701071321.IAA12290@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #1 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Jan 97 08:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Starting Out Another Year (TELECOM Digest Editor) CFP IJCAI'97 WS: Programming in Temporal and Non Classical Logics (M Orgun) Book Review: "Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 Front Runner" (Rob Slade) "True" Cost of Local Telephone Service? (Shawn Barnhart) BellSouth Long Distance Plans Move Ahead (Mike King) LDDS Worldcom Service Charges - Fraud? (Prakash P. Thatte) ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (oldbear@arctos.com) This Day in History - the Telegraph (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 lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.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, 7 Jan 1997 07:37:33 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Starting Out Another Year This issue marks the start of Volume 17. Over the past few days I have been doing maintainence work on the mailing list and the archives exclusively. Earlier today for example, I purged the mailing list of several hundred names and email addreses which were no longer in service. I added nearly a hundred new subscribers who indicated over the holiday that they wished to subscribe. Anyone who did not receive the 1997 Table of Contents for the Telecom Archives -- this would be primarily the new names added in the past two or three days -- who wants to have a copy should write to the Digest and request a copy. The mailing list is larger than ever, even following the pruning of several hundred addresses no longer in service. I also had to purge about 800 messages from the queue of pending articles which will go unused. Starting this year, let's make better use of the 'chat' feature in the archives for the posting of questions and simple responses on such topics as 'where can I find ...', etc. Indications are that beginning this year, postings in the Digest itself are going to have to be severely limited in proportion to the total amount of mail coming in, so the more you can use the 'chat' area for the sort of repetitive questions/comments I receive here, the more likely those things will be to get posted at all. Also, where the chat area is concerned, the established time for group sessions there is 9-11 pm Eastern time nightly. Any of you who can converge on the web page about that time will likely find others there to provide quick responses. I have given that area the informal name 'Quick Connections' for just that reason. The URL is http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/chat Anyway, a day or two later than I planned to get started, let's get underway with another year of TELECOM Digest. Happy New Year! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:49:23 +1100 From: Mehmet ORGUN Subject: CFP IJCAI'97 WS on Programming in Temporal and Non Classical Logics Reply-To: Mehmet ORGUN CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION Workshop on PROGRAMMING IN TEMPORAL AND NON CLASSICAL LOGICS to be held as part of 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97) Nagoya, Japan, 23th, 24th, or 25 August 1997 Temporal logics originating in philosophy and formal linguistics have been intensively investigated within both AI and traditional Computer Science. A variety of different approaches and formalisms have been developed, some of them admitting and supporting automated reasoning techniques and having strong similarities to those which have evolved in the context of classical logic. Executable fragments of these logics have been proposed in order to provide more appropriate logical techniques for dealing with change in time. Basically, two different approaches to execution of the temporal logic formalism have evolved. The first, which is compatible with the classical logic programming paradigm, is aimed towards a logical basis for temporal databases and knowledge based systems for reasoning about time and, to be more general, a robust basis for the development of advanced AI systems. Its execution is based on deduction in tractable fragments of suitable temporal logics. The second approach is more motivated by a classical computer science problem, namely to define and develop a uniform framework for programming and verification of computer programs, especially those relying on imperative and reactive behavior. Execution within this second approach corresponds to model construction of the formulae in question and is based on the so called imperative future approach. A renewed interest on programming paradigms based on non classical logics has also been stimulated recently by new issues in the context of concurrent constraint logic programming, (temporal) deductive databases, programming of reactive systems, embedded AI systems and multi-agent systems. WORKSHOPS AIMS -------------- The aim of this workshop is to provide a forum both for the exchange of ideas and for the identification of the potential roles and nature of the emerging paradigm of Executable Temporal and Non Classical Logics. Our intention is to bring together researchers in this area, to identify common ground, relevant experiences, applications, open problems and possible future developments. In particular, we wish to encourage cross-fertilization between different approaches and to improve the understanding of (tractable) execution of temporal logics. Special emphasis will be given to the study of computation models in the context of Artificial Intelligence, and to new approaches to programming in the context of programming of reactive and embedded AI systems. AREAS OF INTEREST ----------------- This workshop will build upon the 1993 Workshop on Executable Modal and Temporal Logics that was organized as part of IJCAI-93, and the 1995 Workshop on Executable Temporal Logics organized as part of IJCAI-95. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, * theoretical issues in executable temporal logics * relationship between execution and temporal theorem-proving * relationship of executable temporal logics to (temporal) databases * design of executable temporal logics * operational models and implementation techniques * programming support and environments * comparative studies of languages * applications and case studies WORKSHOP PARTICIPATION ---------------------- To encourage informal interaction and the exchange of ideas, attendance will be limited to approximately 30 invited participants. Those wishing to attend are encouraged to submit either (a) an extended abstract (of no more than 5000 words) describing relevant preliminary or completed work to be presented at the workshop by March 1st, 1997, or, (b) a statement of interest consisting of a single page description of research interests and current work, to be used to demonstrate the ability of the non-presenting participants to contribute to the discussions by April 25th 1997. Selected participants will be asked to provide complete papers to be distributed as preprints to the workshop participants. SUBMISSION DETAILS ------------------ All submissions should include: author's name(s), affiliation, (complete) mailing address, phone and fax number, and e-mail address. Preferably, the submission should be sent in Postscript format (uuencoded, gzipped/compressed) by email to either of the programme chairs below. The deadline for receipt of submissions is March 1st 1997. Christoph Brzoska Email: brzoska@ira.uka.de Department of Computer Science Tel: (+49) 721 608 35 64 University of Karlsruhe Fax: (+49) 721 60 77 21 P.O. Box 69 80 D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany Michael Fisher Email: M.Fisher@doc.mmu.ac.uk Department of Computing Tel: (+44) 161 247 1488 Manchester Metropolitan University Fax: (+44) 161 247 1483 Chester Street Manchester M1 5GD, United Kingdom Alternatively, five (5) paper copies of all submitted materials may be sent to either of the programme chairs. WORKSHOP PROGRAMME COMMITTE --------------------------- Marianne Baudinet (Free University of Brussels, Belgium) Christoph Brzoska [co-chair] (Karlsruhe University, Germany) Thom Fruehwirth (Ludwig Maximilians University, Germany) Michael Fisher [co-chair] (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK) Rajeev Gore (Australian National University, Australia) Vineet Gupta (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, USA) Shinji Kono (University of the Ryukyus, Japan) Stephan Merz (Ludwig Maximilians University, Germany) Ben Moszkowski (Newcastle University, UK) Vijay Saraswat (AT & T Research Labs, USA) Karl Sch\"afer (Karlsruhe University, Germany) Mehmet Orgun (Macquarie University, Australia) Papers will be refereed and notification of acceptance will be given by March 21th 1997. Authors of accepted papers will then be given the opportunity to revise their papers prior to the final submission (due April 15th, 1997). IMPORTANT DATES -------------- Deadline for paper Submissions: March 1st, 1997 Author notification by: March 21st, 1997 Camera ready version of the paper due: April 15th, 1997 Deadline for statements of interest: April 25th, 1997 Workshop: during August 23-25, 1997 Copies of accepted papers will be provided as a pre-proceedings by the IJCAI organizers at the workshop itself. PUBLICATION ----------- The proceedings of the 1993 IJCAI workshop on Executable Modal and Temporal Logics were published by Springer-Verlag as a volume in the Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence series, while revised contributions from the 1995 IJCAI workshop on Executable Temporal Logics are appearing in a special issue of the Journal of Symbolic Computation. Our intention is again to publish polished versions of the papers from the workshop proceedings. Selected contributions of the 1997 workshop may be considered for publication by Springer-Verlag as a special volume in the LNAI series. COSTS ----- All workshop participants will be required to be registered to the main IJCAI'97 conference. An additional fee of $US 50 will be charged to cover costs of the workshop. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ---------------------- Information about IJCAI'97 can be accessed via the IJCAI home page: http://www.ijcai.org/ijcai-97/ Information about the workshop will be available via http://iseran.ira.uka.de/~brzoska/ijcai97tlp.html. Christoph Brzoska Institute for logic, complexity, and deductive systems University of Karlsruhe Phone: + 49 721 608 35 64 P.O.Box 69 80 Fax: + 49 721 60 77 21 D - 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany E-mail: brzoska@ira.uka.de URL: iseran.ira.uka.de/~brzoska ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 03:18:59 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 Front Runner" BKMSIEFR.RVW 960925 "Micrsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 Front Runner", Mary Millhollon/Luanne O'Loughlin/Toni Zuccarini, 1996, 1-57610-006-5, U$29.99/C$41.99 %A Mary Millhollon %A Luanne O'Loughlin %A Toni Zuccarini %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1996 %G 1-57610-006-5 %I Coriolis %O U$29.99/C$41.99 800-410-0192 fax: +1-602-483-0193 anne_tull@coriolis.com %P 448 %T "Micrsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 Front Runner" In a not very well identified piece at the front of the book, someone states that the objective of this book series "is to provide [the reader] with the best possible information on new technology products the day they're released to the public. Not `soft stuff' or hot air, either--just real, useful, practical information ..." Well, quick off the mark I can give them, but this book certainly is mostly soft stuff and hot air. There is decent documentation for Internet Explorer here, and given that third party documentation is the only documentation that you'll find, that is a plus. But the book certainly is not an unbiased look at the product. There are repeated cries that "Internet Explorer 3.0 will dramatically shift how the world views the Internet." The content, however, does not support that statement. IE does Web browsing, IE does downloads, IE does email (well, not yet), IE does news (well, not yet), but then so do other browsers. There is mention of additional and advanced functions, but that is all there is: mention. The book states that "MSIE is the first browser to support the safe downloading of code and controls by offering code signing". This may be technically true, but without a definition and explanation of "code signing" it is meaningless. Good enough docs if you need docs for IE. Watch out for details of functions that don't exist yet. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKMSIEFR.RVW 960925 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com (Shawn Barnhart) Subject: "True" cost of local telephone service? Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 07:17:02 -0600 Organization: Chaos I've often heard cited by Telcos and others citing Telco billing practices that flat-rate local calling plans are either too low (for heavy users) or too high (for infrequent users) and are the cause of other dubious economics in telephone costs (LD termination fees, etc). Does anyone know what the actual cost per minute of local telephone service is? I'm sure it varies by region, but what are some close estimates? And are the residential costs calculated based on residential infrastructure and operations costs? Or do they include costs from operations which have nothing to do with residential phone service (business data and infrastructure, long-distance infrastructure, etc). Although I realize that access that the residential service has to pay for it's "share" of the network outside of the local loop. My phone bill lists "RESIDENCE LINE $14.71" as the basic charge for phone service. Assuming 15 hours of use per month, it's about $.016 per minute which seems pretty cheap. Dropping my modem use would about double the cost to $.032, which I would assume is about average for most non-computing households served by US West in Minnesota. How close or far is this from what it actually should cost? Shawn Barnhart swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Long Distance Plans Move Ahead Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:22:07 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:12:19 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: BELLSOUTH LONG DISTANCE PLANS MOVE AHEAD BELLSOUTH LONG DISTANCE PLANS MOVE AHEAD Georgia Customers Will Benefit From New Long Distance Services ATLANTA -- BellSouth (NYSE: BLS) today took its first major regulatory step toward becoming a true single source supplier of both local and long distance services by demonstrating in a filing with the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) that the local telecommunications market in Georgia is now fully open to competition. Testimony filed with the PSC also stated that there is clear public interest support for BellSouth entry into the long distance market. The Company's filing comes at the request of the Commission as it opens proceedings on related local and long distance issues. BellSouth intends to file with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow it to offer long distance services to cust omers in Georgia immediately following the Georgia proceeding. Approval by the FCC would open the long distance market in Georgia to full-fledged competition, new market choices, and bring with it the promise of increased economic development in the state. "As a result of both state legislation and recent industry leading action by the Georgia PSC, the local Georgia telecommunications market is now fully open to competition. Our response to the PSC requests is the next step toward BellSouth's entry into long distance," stated Carl Swearingen, President of BellSouth's Georgia operations. "Today, because of artificial boundaries, BellSouth cannot fully compete in the long distance market. While BellSouth can provide toll services between locations like Columbus to Athens, it cannot offer services from Columbus to Augusta or interstate and international calling out of Georgia. Federal legislation passed in February set a checklist of terms for BellSouth's entry into long-distance. According to Swearingen, "This filing clearly demonstrates that BellSouth has fully met all federal checklist requirements and is in full compliance with the PSC arbitrated rules for local telephone interconnection which are the only prerequisites to ope ning up the long distance market. "BellSouth has been the most aggressive of all local companies in promoting competition. We have worked closely with all parties and the Georgia PSC and have signed 28 interconnection agreements with competitors in Georgia. It is clearly time now to open the long distance market in a parallel manner," stated Swearingen. BellSouth's filing also included both testimony and other evidence clearly supporting the public interest value to be gained from its entry into long distance. "Our filing provides dramatic customer and economic value to be gained by the State of Georgi a from our entry into long distance," said Bill Reddersen, BellSouth Group President, Long Distance and Video Services. A comprehensive economic evaluation conducted by The WEFA Group, a nationally respected econometric forecasting concern concluded that BellSouth's entry into the long distance market will clearly provide real competition to the major carriers, generate over 35,000 new jobs and boost Georgia's economy by $3.3 billion over next the next ten years. Donald Ratajczak, Ph. D., nationally renowned Georgia State University economist, after reviewing the WEFA study said, "I have little doubt that the public interest will be served by immediate competition in long distance services in Georgia." "BellSouth's goal has been to provide our local customers with a full range of quality long distance and local services tailored to their unique calling needs as quickly as the law would permit. This filing begins the process which will allow us to be that convenient full service provider for our customers," Reddersen said. Full and open competition in both the long distance and local markets at the same time was the intent of the telecommunications act, according to Mr. Reddersen. "BellSouth will move forward in its other eight states as aggressively as possible, because all of our customers deserve the competitive value BellSouth can provide once we achieve the regulatory freedom to compete," he added. This filing by BellSouth is being made in light of the national telecom legislation signed into law February 8, 1996 by President Clinton. The law requires that local companies open their markets to competition through negotiated agreements with competitors, through a set of generally available terms and conditions or a combination of both. In 1995, the Georgia General Assembly passed landmark legislation that opened up the local telephone market to competition. BellSouth's filing today complies with t he 14-point checklist defined by the federal legislation and meets all requirements of the Georgia law as well. BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications services company. It provide 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 21 million telephone lines in a nine-state region that includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North C arolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. ### Internet users: For more information on BellSouth go to For information, contact: Lynn Bress BellSouth Telecommunications (Ga.) 391-2484 Joe Chandler BellSouth Telecommunications (HQ) (404) 927-7420 Bill McCloskey BellSouth Corporation 202-463-4129 ---------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: Prakash P. Thatte Subject: LDDS Worldcom Service Charges - Fraud? Date: 6 Jan 1997 04:31:24 GMT Organization: Prime Performance Technologies On four occassions over the past 14 months, I have found late payment service charges on my LDDS Worldcom bills. In each case LDDS Worldcom had received and deposited my check at their bank well before the due date on the bill. On two of the four cases, the check had cleared my bank as well. When I called customer service, I found the reps to be either ignorant or arrogant or blamed accounts receivable. None of this is either proper behaviour or a valid excuse. Is this the kind of stuff that should be reported to the FCC and to the state public utilities commission? I believe that this is fraud. Your advise and the address where I could forward my complaint and documentation (copies of bills and cancelled checks) will be appreciated. My business is located in Virginia. If I have found this to occur this frequently, I could not be alone. Thank you for your assistance! Regards, Prakash Thatte ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 12:21:35 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Forwarded from the com-priv list which discusses issues related to the commercial and privatized use and development of the internet ... -----------begin included text----------- Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 02:31:00 -0500 From: nelson@crynwr.com Subject: Resources to counter RBOC network usage studies? Mike O'Connor writes: > I'm heading into a public meeting with US West in a few days in > which US West folks will be talking to an assembled crowd of ISP's > about their version of the "ESP's, and especially ISP's, have unique > usage patterns that impact our local network" rant. They are > proposing rate changes aimed at "reducing Internet demand" and the > Minnesota Internet Services Trade Association is sponsoring the > public meeting on the topic. > I know that this has seen extensive discussion in this list, and > don't want to impose by rekindling the dialog. But I was wondering > if somebody has a good resources page that I could go study up at. Become a telephone company. Co-locate, buy Ascend's Max 4002 box; put in IDSL (ISDN DSL -- works with existing TAs by pretending to be a telco switch), and compete with them. Problem is, of course, that the regulations will kill you. So ... some legal types (are you listening??) need to come up with a "Here's how to become a telco in your state" package. If they *really* are trying to give you an incentive to become a telephone company and compete with them, *let them*. If they do this, the telco boards and their hired help need to have their heads examined. If you want to see a list of what the telcos need to, but aren't going to, do, go read Graham Finnie's Worldview piece once the January issue of tele.com online at < http://www.teledotcom.com/ >. Or read it in print if you must. :) russ http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 10:15:45 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph I heard on the radio this morning, that on this date (today) January 6, in 1838, Samuel B. Morse publically demonstrated the electrical telegraph machine, in Morristown NJ! (and Bellcore has had offices in that town as well!) - just a bit of this date in telecom history! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE: 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 V17 #1 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jan 7 08:58:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA14806; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:58:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:58:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701071358.IAA14806@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #2 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Jan 97 08:58:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Response From Cyber Promotions (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Pacific Bell Offers Free Services To North State Flood Victims (Mike King) Book Review: "Electronic Mail" by Radicati (Rob Slade) Japanese Signal Modulation Problem? (J. Rehman) 805 on Growing Split List (Tad Cook) Re: Internet by Satellite (Ken Gleason) Re: Internet by Satellite (Dave Hughes) Re: Internet by Satellite (scottp@mindspring.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 lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.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: Response From Cyber Promotions Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:46:21 PST From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org Cyber Promotions says it was not responsible for the threatening spam, and has terminated the account of thoose who were: Forwarded message: [...] Version 1-4-97: Cyber Promotions has recently terminated several accounts for abuse of our policies. (Updated TOS at end of message). Cyber Promotions will not tolerate irresponsible commercial email activities. The following email accounts have been *recently TERMINATED... *noci@cyberpromo.com 1-4-97: Spamming with THREATS! jrtkjs@savetrees.com 10-9-96: Forgery and spamming INTERNET jrtkjs@answerme.com "" "" "" "" "" "" dollars@savetrees.com Non-existant account. The account was forged by the people who opened the accounts above. info1@cyberpromo.com 10-8-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses changes@answerme.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses changes@cyberpromo.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses changes@savetrees.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses catalog@savetrees.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses catalog@cyberpromo.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses catalog@answerme.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses eleven@answerme.com 9-28-96: Forgeries eleven@savetrees.com 9-28-96: Forgeries eleven@answerme.com 9-28-96: Forgeries tsahk@cyberpromo.com 9-27-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses tsahk@answerme.com 9-27-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses icssender@omni.cyberpromo.com 9-19-96: FORGED unsolicited email, making it appear that Cyberpromo's auto-sender was responsible. If you are in receipt of the message, please look through the headers and complain to the appropriate postmasters. networkes@answerme.com 9-17-96: Ignored remove requests networkes@cyberpromo.com 9-17-96: Ignored remove requests networkes@savetrees.com 9-17-96: Ignored remove requests reminders@answerme.com 9-17-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses reminders@savetrees.com 9-17-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses reminders@cyberpromo.com 9-17-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses salespromo@answerme.com 9-16-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses salespromo@savetrees.com "" "" "" "" salespromo@cyberpromo.com "" "" "" "" promo@answerme.com "" "" "" "" promo@savetrees.com "" "" "" "" promo@cyberpromo.com "" "" "" "" info4free@answerme.com "" "" "" "" info4free@savetrees.com "" "" "" "" info4free@cyberpromo.com "" "" "" "" manda@cyberpromo.com 8-28: Massive abuse to INTERNET addresses / FORGERY manda@answerme.com 8-28: Massive abuse to INTERNET addresses / FORGERY website@cyberpromo.com 8-27: excessive abuse to AOL / removals ignored sevenmil@cyberpromo.com 8-27: excessive abuse / all removals ignored sevenmil@answerme.com 8-27: "" "" "" "" "" "" vera@cyberpromo.com vera@answerme.com zol@answerme.com website@answerme.com allied@cyberpromo.com allied@answerme.com lists@cyberpromo.com lists@answerme.com -------------------- Cyber Promotions is *not* in business to annoy people. We are in the business of sending (and assisting in sending) commercial (and noncommercial) email to people who are *not* offended by the receipt of these messages. Unfortunately, due to many experiences (many of which were out of our control) we have had some problems accomplishing our goals without upsetting some people. We are truly sorry about that fact, and we plan to "clean up the streets" as best as we can. Some people have been under the impression that all email that appears to come from cyberpromo.com, is from Cyber Promotions. That is not true. Most of the complaints that we have recently received have been in reaction to people who have "autoresponders" and "virtual email addresses" on our system. In that case, their mail would have referenced an account on our system, but originated from a different site. Unfortunately, software like Pegasus enables their mail to appear as if it came from us, directly. But, their true origination is still evident in the headers. You can determine where it originated if you know how to decode headers. But when doing so, remember that Pegasus, for example, actually logs into *our* sendmail. At this time, the only messages that originate from Cyber Promotions, use our proprietary Cyber Sender 5.0+ protocol which will always be indicated in the organization: header. Due to these "look alikes," it could appear that recipients' remove request were being ignored. WE DO NOT IGNORE REMOVE REQUESTS. Please note: we have no control over mail that originates from other sites, that travel through our SMTP (relay-host) servers. We will simply terminate any accounts that we maintain, that is referred to in their abusive mail. ATTENTION PRODIGY MEMBERS: It has come to Cyber Promotions' attention, that some of you are having a major problem removing yourselves from our lists. This can be attributed to the "alias" that your outgoing mail may contain. If you are having problems, please send an email to manremove@cyberpromo.com and type both of your email addresses in the body of the message, each on its own line, without any comments. The subject line is ignored. You probably have one address like xazd35r@prodigy.com and another address like sanford@prodigy.com. ATTENTION PIPELINE MEMBERS: It has come to Cyber Promotions' attention, that some of you are having a major problem removing yourselves from our lists. This can be attributed to the "alias" that your outgoing mail may contain. If you are having problems, please send an email to manremove@cyberpromo.com and type your email addresses in the body of the message, each on its own line, without any comments. The subject line is ignored. You should type your email id followed by the following THREE domains. @usa.pipeline.com, @pipeline.com, @nyc.pipeline.com. Even if you feel that your address is definately only one of the three possibilities, you should still remove all three addresses (each on its own line). ATTENTION INTERNET USERS: It has come to Cyber Promotions' attention, that some of you are having a major problem removing yourselves from our lists. This can be attributed to the "alias" that your outgoing mail may contain. If you are having problems, please send an email to manremove@cyberpromo.com and type your email addresses in the body of the message, each on its own line, without any comments. The subject line is ignored. If your email address could contain an alias like mail.domain.com or if you may have more that one email address that points to another email address, you should remove them all. If you wish to remove *every* email address in your domain, please contact us, and we will "grep" out every possibility. REVISED TERMS OF SERVICE: 1. We do not allow postings to inappropriate newsgroups with reference to your account because such postings result in *MUCH* more negative response than positive. 2. We prohibit the advertising of offensive material (ie. pornography, weapons, etc). 3. You may not use the account to participate in illegal activities. 4. Our TOS strictly prohibits the sending of mass commercial emails to INTERNET addresses, unless expressed permission has been granted to you by the recipient. In addition, you *must* honor all requests for removal from your mailing list in a diligent manner. Our service can be used in conjunction with advertisements that you place with a bulk email company other than your own or us, as long as they follow the same guidelines. 5. Cyber Promotions reserves the right to terminate any account for any reason at any time, without notice. ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Pacific Bell Offers Free Services To North State Flood Victims Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:05:48 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 16:16:03 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: Pacific Bell Offers Free Services To North State Flood Victims FOR MORE INFORMATION: Dave Miller (916) 972-2811 dnmille@legal.pactel.com Pacific Bell Offers Free Services To North State Flood Victims Call Forwarding, Voice Mail And Installation Charges To Be Waived For Customers SACRAMENTO -- Pacific Bell is offering free Voice Mail and Call Forwarding to flood victims in northern and central California who have lost telephone service at their homes and businesses. In an announcement at its Northern California Emergency Operations Center today, the company said it is also offering free installation of phone service at a temporary location for customers who have been displaced and is waiving the installation charges for its voice mail and call forwarding products for impacted residents and companies. Pacific Bell acknowledged the cooperation and support of key staff at the California Public Utilities Commission, who gave verbal approval on Friday for the free service offer to flood victims. The Message Center*, Pacific Bell Voice Mail* and Call Forwarding are being offered free of charge for up to two months to all Pacific Bell customers who have been displaced from their homes and businesses or who have lost telephone service. Flood Victims Have 30 Days To Order Free Voice Mail, Call Forward Services Starting today, impacted customers in flood-stricken areas will have 30 days to call and order their free services from the company. The offer ends on February 7, 1997, according to Chuck Smith, vice president of Network Operations for Pacific Bell. Smith is directing the company's response to the flooding disaster. "Phone service is vital during normal times, but it is especially important in times of emergencies and crisis," Smith said. "We want to do our best to help people stay connected with their families and friends, their communities and support groups as they recover from these devastating floods." No estimates are available on how many flood victims might take advantage of the offer, but Rick Dasch, regional vice president of Consumer Marketing for Pacific Bell, noted that more than 100,000 people in Northern California had been either evacuated or forced out of their homes and businesses by rising flood waters. To help spread the word about the offer, Dasch said Pacific Bell representatives plan to visit key American Red Cross evacuation shelters and provide impacted residents and businesses with information and details on how they can take advantage of the offer by calling a toll-free 800 number. The company is continuing to work with the Red Cross to provide free public pay phones for local calls by flood victims at key evacuation shelters in the hardest hit counties, including centers in Sebastapol, Woodland, Beale Air Force Base and Bear River Junior High School. On Friday, U.S. Sprint also agreed to provide free domestic long distance service from pay phones at the centers. California already has 37 counties that have been declared a state of emergency by Governor Pete Wilson, the first step toward gaining state and federal disaster relief assistance for flooding victims. Most of the problems have been caused by widespread flooding from a progression of unusually warm storms that slammed into the state earlier this week, melting several feet of snow and creating a downstream deluge on several major Northern California rivers, streams and creeks. Flood Damage Could Hit 10s Of Millions; Services To Help Ease Concerns So far, there are no official damage estimates from the Great Flood of 1997, but experts believe there has been tens of millions of dollars of damage to thousands of homes and businesses in hard-hit counties. "As Californians, we know first-hand how flooding of this magnitude can devastate lives," Smith said. "We feel we can offer the most meaningful and timely assistance by providing some relief directly to the people who have suffered losses." One of the telephone services being offered to customers is Voice Mail, which automatically answers the phone when a person is away and can't get to the phone or is already on the line. Private messages are left on Pacific Bell's system and are accessible by the customer who has a personal password. Smith said that with voice mail for residents and businesses, those affected by the floods can leave a personal message for family and friends, telling them where they are, how they're doing and what help they may need. "Friends and family members can leave messages for those affected by calling their regular phone numbers," he said. "Flood victims can check incoming messages and change their outgoing message anytime they want to from any touch-tone telephone." A second alternative to help those who have lost telephone service is Call Forwarding. Flood victims can designate a telephone number and Pacific Bell will program its equipment to forward all calls to that number. To qualify for the company's free offer, customers must call one of the Pacific Bell business offices and order the services between now and February 7. Smith said the company also will provide one working phone jack free to customers who are on its inside wire plan. For more information or to order the free services, eligible customers need to call toll free 1-800-310-BELL. Affected residents and businesses should be prepared to provide their home or business phone number to expedite the review process. In a related development, Smith said the company will provide a report at the news conference on the latest status of telephone service for Northern California residents and businesses, the health of the telecommunications network and an update on service restoration efforts for the small mountain community of Kyburz in El Dorado County. The town and its residents have been cut off from the outside world for the last two days by raging flood waters from the south fork of the American River and several rock and mud slides, which have closed portions of Highway 50. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a San Francisco-based diversified telecommunications corporation. *Limited availability in some areas. Toll charges may apply in some areas. ------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 00:06:57 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Electronic Mail" by Radicati BKELMAIL.RVW 960927 "Electronic Mail: An Introduction to the X.400 Message Handling Standards", Sara Radicati, 1992, 0-07-051104-7 %A Sara Radicati %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1992 %G 0-07-051104-7 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O 905-430-5000 +1-800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 213 %T "Electronic Mail: An Introduction to the X.400 Message Handling Standards" Two computer professionals meet at a conference. They exchange information, including email addresses. If they both have Internet email, then one will send email and the other will reply. If one has Internet email and the other has X.400 email, then the one with Internet email will send a message and the other with X.400 will reply. If they both have X.400 email, then they will phone each other. Or, at least, so goes the standard email joke. The book jacket promises that X.400 will be big soon, but I've heard that for over a decade. If anything, I am seeing fewer X.400 addresses on the net these days than I was a few years ago. Nevertheless, the X.400 standard is still something to contend with. This book does provide a good basic introduction to both the 1984 and 1988 versions of the standard. There is also some coverage of the related X.500 (directory services) and X.509 (security) standards, which have started to come into greater prominence recently, separate from X.400. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKELMAIL.RVW 960927 roberts@decus.ca Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1.fidonet.org rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Crossbows don't kill people, quarrels kill people Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: J Rehman Subject: Japanese Signal Modulation Problem? Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 13:28:25 -0800 Organization: UC Irvine, Physics. Greetings, I have a problem. A friend of mine in Fukushima Japan has been having trouble connecting to the local internet provider (niftyserve) in her neigboring town (Koriyama). The modem dials, connects, and then nothing. All settings for the session are correct N-8-1 for this instance and ANSI or VT100 terminal. But we get no prompt. Is it possible that Japan uses a different modulation technique and that the modem only *thinks* it has connected? I have verfied that the modem works in the US. English speaking help is hard to come by, so I thank you for yours. It is incredible what crap internet access is in Japan. Niftyserve charges 300yen (approx US$30) per month for 2400 baud shell accounts, e-mail only. And that is a *good* deal. If anyone knows of another (better) provider, let me know. Josh ------------------------------ Subject: 805 on Growing Split List Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:43:27 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 805 Zone Put on Growing Split List VENTURA, Calif. (AP) -- The area code cleavers are at it again, this time in the 805 zone including the Ventura and Santa Barbara coast, a northern slice of Los Angeles County, and much of inland San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. The split will occur by 1999, probably along an east-west line. Details will be addressed at hearings, which previously have been spirited. Burbank and Glendale, for example, went all out to stay in the 818 zone rather than the new 626 area northeast of Los Angeles. "Who keeps 805 is still up in the air," Pacific Bell spokesman David A. Dickstein said Thursday. Like a slew of other recent changes, the latest to be announced is due to demand for second lines, modems, fax machines, cell phones and pagers. California's 13 area codes will double within four years. Splits include 310, 818, 714 and 213 in greater Los Angeles; San Diego's 619; Sacramento's 916; the San Francisco Bay area's 415 and 510; 408 in Silicon Valley and the Central Coast; and 209 in the Fresno and Stockton areas. Most city officials and business owners in the 805 area code accept the fact that a split is unavoidable. "The 805 area code goes all the way to Santa Barbara and beyond. ... It seems kind of weird to me that we all have the same area code, so I guess it makes sense to split it," said Mary Price, owner of Best Books in Lancaster, in the high desert north of Los Angeles. Ventura-based Kinko's Inc. expects minor disruptions but also hopes to benefit from new stationery orders, spokeswoman Laura McCormick said. Fred Holmes, director of marketing for a Ventura-based Internet service provider, said he expects troubles as his customers dial the old number without realizing it has changed. "It's going to make our tech-support guys go crazy," Holmes said. ------------------------------ From: Ken.Gleason@valley.net (Ken Gleason) Subject: Re: Internet by Satellite Date: 7 Jan 1997 05:18:03 GMT Organization: Valley Net Here is one person interested in this technology. I live in the rural US and do not expect to ever have cable installed. I know little about it and don't have much to offer, except to mention Spread Spectrum technology, which I also know little about, but it may be related. http://wireless.oldcolo.com is a ss related website. ------------------------------ From: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes) Subject: Re: Internet by Satellite Date: 5 Jan 1997 15:26:50 GMT Organization: occ Reply-To: dave@oldcolo.com In , robgordon@usa.net (Rob Gordon) writes: > INTERNET BY SATELLITE (Repost from Technology Transfer in > International Development) > I have developed an interest in the technology of establishing > Internet connections by satellite and I would like to identify others > with similar business interests. > I made the trip to Comdex and was shocked that, at this showcase of > advanced American technology, I could find almost no one who even > understood what I was trying to accomplish. Technology firms > apparently are not oriented to doing business in countries where there > is no technology infrastructure... > ...the world do not. I think that satellite technology will be the only > way to deliver the information revolution to millions of people in the > developing world where there is a poor telecommunications infrastructure. > I would be very interested in learning if there are other companies or > individuals who are considering working with this technology. If > possible, I would like to share information on potential customers, > technical approaches, regulatory issues, investment strategies and any > other issues involving establishing new ISPs in the developing world. Yes, others indeed are working with ways and means to connect up third world countries, and are doing it sucessfully. (Use of satellites is only one approach; fiber is reaching even more world cities.) If you visit our 'NSF Wireless Field Tests' web site (http://wireless.oldcolo.com) you will see, besides our work in the US rural '3d world' (as far as technology and infrastructure is concerned) using spread spectrum no-licence digital radios to solve that 'last mile' problem, the initial reports on our project just completed in Mongolia. Linking 8 sites in Ulaanbataar, Mongolia, to the Internet, via a combination of 128Kbs PamSat, Sprintlink satellite feed , and 115kbs spread spectrum Free Wave radios from 1 to 10km. Mongolian herdsmen can now ride their Manchurian ponies up to their National Library, go in, and 'surf the net' - reaching the first several kilometers to the ground station by wireless, and the rest of the net via satellite. (You can access their web site www.magic.mn, and make reservations to stay in a 'ger' - traditional mobile Mongolian tent - as a hotel room. Sorry, we haven't got one of the 12 volt, battery powered, solar rechargable spread spectrum radios with RS232 port rigged yet, so you can access the net from the tent with a laptop. But everything in its time. :-) Right now some of our work is for the National Science Foundation with some very interested other parties in our findings and experience, both in the US and in 3d world countries. Which findings, of course, address lots more than just the 'technology' required to do this. Your comments seem to imply suprise at these 'other factors, which are often the biggest and costliest, problems. And which also deters some large US companies from trying to get into the third world telecom business, regardless of the size of the potential 'market.' We are dealing with the whole range of planning, permissions (US and foreign), initial and continuing economics, training, maintainance, support, and infrastructure 'development.' And of course, always aware of, and never suprised by, the 'politics' of PTTs, foreign governments, and even of international corporations which have reasons to resist, and fear such practical solutions to bringing the net to the 3d world. Some US companies seem to think its almost Un-American to show other countries how to connect up to the Internet cheaply and well. Even in the US there is much fear & loathing by large communications companies - especially telcos - in the successful use of no-licence digital radios in rural areas - with no corresponding local 'communications costs' - where they have been convinced that only they will be retained to connect - at whatever T-1 long line recurring costs - communities to the Internet. US West, here in Colorado, forbids their 'teachers' of communities in Internet telecom to use the term 'wireless' in their presentations to rural folk, while we merrily are linking schools from half a mile to 30 miles by no-licence wireless. (in one urban case we report on, the wireless bid was $900,000 cheaper than wired telco, up front, and $144,000 a year cheaper (in fact 'no annual cost') to operate. Between 22 sites, with minimum speed 2Mbps. Both reliable and secure. And the latest radios can do 10Mbps over 25 miles, no-licence where the radio cost can be amortized in less than a year. At the moment I am reaching you from my 'home office' to and through our Old Colorado City Communications 'office-office' at 1Mbps, no comm cost using Israeli-built Breezecom radios we are testing - which we will presently hook up to 7 miles at 3Mbps, for capital costs of less than $1,500 per radio. And drop our telco local loop lines. So its the combination of satellite (or fiber terminating in a city), the digital wireless, AND very careful attention to what they are connected to and through in-country, and who is going to operate it after installation, as well as end-to-end economics that requires expertise you won't find on display shelves at Comdex. We have it, its growing, and we know we are right. Ask any decendent of Ghengis Khan. Dave Hughes dave@oldcolo.com ------------------------------ From: scottp@mindspring.com (scottp) Subject: Re: Internet by Satellite Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 00:32:10 GMT Organization: ABSI Telecom Atlanta Reply-To: scottp@mindspring.com This is nothing new; people set up satellites all the time to by-pass the local phone company. With voice, there is a short delay but the saving out weight the quality, data is as fast as you can afford. So what's the major problem with this is set up, is not legal with the local government and if they find out, your packing your bags. I have set up a few call centers in the West Indies and South America. Satellites are the best, up to 8 T1 on just one dish. Just a Thought, Posi ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #2 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jan 8 23:27:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA00853; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:27:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:27:24 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701090427.XAA00853@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #3 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Jan 97 23:27:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Understanding ATM" by Schatt (Rob Slade) SBC Offers Landline Service in New York State (John Cropper) Petition Filed For Relief in 212, 917 (John Cropper) Montgomery County, MD: "In Emergency, Dial 711" (Paul Robinson) US-TX-DFW Radio Network Distribution Project Manager (Greg Monti) Nynex Response to MCI Complaint (Jeff Gluck, Nynex via Mike Pollack) This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture (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: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 14:14:18 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Understanding ATM" by Schatt BKUNDATM.RVW 961012 "Understanding ATM", Stan Schatt, 1996, 0-07-057679-3, C$65.95 %A Stan Schatt %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1996 %G 0-07-057679-3 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O C$65.95 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 239 %T "Understanding ATM" Recently I was dealing with a small company that was bringing Internet service inhouse for the first time. To my certain knowledge, the person in charge of the project had not done enough research on the matter of service providers. When I asked him about his certainty that his choice of ISP was the one to go with, he replied, with the air of one who knows his argument is unbeatable, that the chosen ISP was the only one that used ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode). ATM has very decided advantages, but primarily for those managing very large, diverse networks, with mixed data, voice, and even video traffic. A company in a single office, with no interest in amalgamating its existing low traffic Ethernet and simple PBX, and merely wanting to add email and a Web site to its operations, is a poor candidate for ATM. All of which is by way of saying that while ATM is currently a powerful buzzword, it is one that is exceedingly poorly understood. Therefore, Schatt's book is very welcome, as the first explanation I've found that deals with the realities of the technology at a level that doesn't require an engineering background. The author first deals with the basics of networks, and the collapse of backbone cables into hubs and switches. He then gives a thorough background overview of the concepts and functions of ATM and related technologies, without needing to show off a bit level knowledge of framing and packets. There is also very good coverage of ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network), which is closely related to ATM use in WANs (Wide Area Networks) and sometimes gets confused with ATM itself. The second half of the book is equally practical, containing an overview of product lines and strategies from major ATM vendors. Each section ends with a very useful "Should [this company] Be Your ATM Vendor?" piece, which analyses the strengths and weaknesses in respect to your existing equipment and requirements. Schatt could have included some introduction on who is *not* likely to need ATM service. Nevertheless, this is my current recommendation for those who are not already telephone engineers but need to know what the hoopla is about. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKUNDATM.RVW 961012 DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca BCVAXLUG Envoy http://www.decus.ca/www/lugs/bcvaxlug.html ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: SBC Offers Landline Service in New York State Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 16:42:51 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com SBC Communications Becomes First Former RBOC to Offer Local Landline Service Outside Traditional Service Region SBC's Cellular One Affiliate Brings Rochester, NY, Consumers, Businesses 'One-Stop Shopping' for Entire Range of Telecommunications Services. San Antonio, TX, January 6, 1997 -- SBC Communications Inc. today announced its Cellular One property in Rochester, NY, is marketing local landline telephone service, making the company a full-service telecommunications provider in the city and marking the first time a former Regional Bell Operating Company through an affiliate has offered local landline service outside of its traditional multi-state region since the 1984 divestiture. Rochester residents now can look to Cellular One for local and long-distance wireless service, paging, Internet access, as well as local and long-distance landline service. Cellular One is the brand name under which SBC Communications Inc., through its affiliates, operates outside its traditional five-state service area. Rochester is the first city in which Cellular One has offered local landline phone service and it also is the company's first complete "one-stop shopping" location. Residents and businesses in Rochester will be able to choose services that meet their needs either individually or as part of value-added incentive packages. Cellular One customers will deal with a single point of contact and, if they choose, receive a single bill each month. "We're the first former RBOC to offer local service outside of our traditional service area and to build a 'one-stop shopping' center for telecommunications services," said Stan Sigman, president and CEO of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, who has responsibility for Cellular One. "According to our research, 70 percent of consumers say they want the convenience and value of dealing with a single source for telecomm- unications," Sigman said. Rochester has become a leading market for new providers, and Cellular One expects to add local service in other New York cities including Buffalo, Syracuse and Albany during 1997. The company's Cellular One affiliate in Illinois also has received approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission to offer local service in Chicago, but must still file local service tariffs and finalize marketing plans before offering the service. "Cellular One is ready to provide Rochester with the high-quality, high-value service our customers expect," said Sigman. "We will have a real presence in the market with our own service technicians and trucks." The company will offer local service at competitive rates and customers will be able to make the switch to Cellular One for free, Sigman said. Consumers will be able to sign-up for the new local service at Cellular One retail stores or by calling 1-800-CELLONE. The company will rely on face-to-face contact to educate customers about Cellular One. SBC expects that eventually it will offer "one-stop shopping" throughout its traditional five state service area of Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma and through its operating subsidiaries to consumers in all of their markets. The company recently added Internet access in several cities and is offering long-distance service for its wireless customers. "We expect to offer landline long-distance for customers in our traditional service areas by the third quarter of 1997, pending regulatory approval," Sigman said. Cellular One, together with its Southwestern Bell Wireless affiliate, is the nation's second-largest wireless company, with an industry-leading 10.1 percent market penetration rate. Cellular One is the brand under which SBC Communications Inc., one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies, markets its services outside its traditional service area. SBC's businesses include Southwestern Bell Telephone; wireless services and equipment in the U.S. and interests in Europe, Latin America, South Africa and Asia; business and consumer telecommunications equipment; messaging; cable TV in domestic and international markets; and directory advertising and publishing. John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://206.112.101.209/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Petition Filed For Relief in 212, 917 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 17:18:04 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com >From the NYPSC: STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of Albany on December 18, 1996 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John F. O'Mara, Chairman Eugene W. Zeltmann Thomas J. Dunleavy CASE 96-C-1158- Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Investigate the Options for Making Additional Central Office Codes Available in the 212 and 917 Area Codes in New York City. ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDING (Issued and Effective December 31, 1996) BY THE COMMISSION: The attached memorandum advises that New York Telephone Company (NYT) may run out of available central office codes in the 212 area code sometime in 1998 and in the 917 area code sometime in 1999. The 212 area code currently serves the New York City Borough of Manhattan and the 917 area code serves primarily wireless (cellular and paging) customers in all five of New York City's Boroughs. Prompt and timely action must be taken to ensure the continued availability of new telephone numbers in New York City. To address this problem, we will institute a proceeding, pursuant to Section 97(2) of the Public Service Law, to determine the best way to provide additional central office and area codes in New York City. New York Telephone will be required to provide, within 60 days, its written analysis of: alternative methods of relief and its proposals for solving the central office code shortage. NYT should address the relative merits (pros, cons, and required timetables) of various alternatives, including geographic split and overlay, and provide its own proposals and timetables for avoiding central office code exhaust, with consideration to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act") and the FCC's Second Report and Order Addressing Area Code Relief ("FCC Order"). In addressing the pros and cons of each alternative, NYT should also address the need to impose telephone number changes on subscribers and the measures it has taken, or is taking, to conserve available telephone numbers and central office codes to forestall code exhaust. The general public and other interested parties should also have an opportunity to present their views and recommendations. NYT should consult with staff of our Consumer Services Division to design and implement a plan to inform all potentially-affected customers of this proceeding so that consumer input can be factored into the development and evaluation of alternative proposals and timetables. In addition, pursuant to the schedule to be set subsequently, parties will be given an opportunity to address the company's proposals as well as Commission's obligations, if any, under the 1996 Act, and the impact, if any, of the FCC Order. In order to provide adequate time for the implementation of any required changes we expect this proceeding to be completed by the end of the third quarter of 1997. The Commission Orders: 1. A proceeding is hereby instituted to evaluate the options available to address the potential exhaustion of central office codes in the 212 and 917 area codes in New York City. 2. This matter is referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to preside over the proceeding. 3. Within 60 days of the issuance of this order, New York Telephone Company is directed to file a written report, as described in the body of this Order, addressing its proposals to resolve this problem. The company shall file 15 copies of said report with the Secretary to the Commission, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12223-1350. 4. Persons interested in receiving copies of New York Telephone's filing should notify the Secretary, in writing, of their request by January 15, 1997. Subsequently, a list of interested parties will be prepared. 5. This proceeding is continued. By the Commission, (SIGNED) JOHN C. CRARY Secretary --------------------------------------------------- John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://206.112.101.209/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: Montgomery County, MD: "In Emergency, Dial 711" Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 04:55:36 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software Some weeks ago I mentioned that I discovered that Bell Atlantic has 811 set up as the DTAC number (that reads back the telephone number you are calling from). Well, someone noted that some of the other X11 numbers are being used for other purposes, such as access to TDD relay service, so I decided to see if 711 was being used for anything. I dialed 711 and waited a moment. Then I got a ringing sound, and I wanted to see what happened. I figured I'd get a {SIT} three-tone and a recording to tell me to dial again. What I got was a woman answering: "Montgomery County 911, do you need police, fire or ambulance?" So, I told her that I had dialed it by mistake, that I had dialed 711 instead, then I hung up; I knew better than not to. Not here, anyway. About two years ago in upper Montgomery County, {someone} at a house called 911 but either didn't say anything or didn't give much information, so County Police went out there but didn't find anything unusual or out of the ordinary. Later, a neighbor discovered the whole family had been murdered, and several months later a man who was visiting them would plead guilty to the crime. The police department took a lot of heat over this, even though there was probably very little the officers could have done which might have changed things. As a result of this, in this county, if you call 911 by mistake, you had better stay on the line and tell them, because any call to 911, if it is disconnected by the caller at any time prior to the call going through and speaking to the operator, even if it was 1/2 of one ring, such as misdialing 911 instead of 611, the 911 operator will call back. Paul Robinson (formerly PAUL@TDR.COM) ------------------------------ From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: US-TX-DFW Radio Network Distribution Project Manager Date: 8 Jan 1997 04:48:22 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises There is a job opening at ABC Radio Networks in which you may be interested. Description: Project Manager/Engineer: Responsible for the development of new computer based distribution facilities for the radio network. Candidate must have working knowledge of broadcast audio satellite headend and receiver systems including high speed multiplexers. Candidate will work with telecommunications hardware and software vendors in designing, constructing and maintaining ABC Radio Networks' satellite and fiber optic systems. Excellent communications skills are required. Ability to negotiate vendor contracts must be demonstrated. Candidate must be fully trained in Microsoft Office suite including Project. Five years experience in broadcast audio telecommunications, audio compression technology, including MPEG2, APTX, and Dolby AC2 algorithms, is also required. This position will be based in Dallas, Texas, and will involve travel. Please send a resume and references to: Greg Monti, General Manager, Project Engineering ABC Radio Networks, Inc. 125 West End Avenue New York, NY 10023 voice 212 456-5603 fax 212 456-5622 text pager 800 229-4218 e-mail gmonti@abc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:43:20 -0800 From: Mike Pollock Subject: Nynex Response to MCI Complaint <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> From: Jeff_Gluck@SMTP.NYNEX.COM To: pheel@sprynet.com Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:30:40 -0400 Subject: MCI Complaint Jeff Gluck 01-08-97 01:30 PM Mike - I was poking around newsgroups and came across your posting of an MCI release criticizing us. Thought you might like the NYNEX side of the story. Jeff Gluck NYNEX Media Relations 212-395-2353 Jeff_Gluck@SMTP.nynex.com December 30, 1996 CONTACT: Bob Varettoni on 212-395-0500 MCI Makes Inaccurate Claims About NYNEX Re-sale Systems NEW YORK -- NYNEX today called recent MCI claims about the company's industry leading re-sale ordering systems "irresponsible and inaccurate." In early October, NYNEX was first to open a Resale Services Center to allow other telecommunications carriers to electronically interface with NYNEX systems to re-sell local services to business and residence customers throughout New York State. Carriers can access NYNEX systems using either "app-to-app" (application-to-application) or "GUI" (graphical user interface) systems. In a recent press release, MCI addressed only the GUI method and exhibited either a deliberate intent to mislead or a gross misunderstanding of the available interface, input, storage and retrieval options. Jack Goldberg, NYNEX vice president for Wholesale Markets, issued the following statement: "MCI's assertions are irresponsible and inaccurate. Its claims are not based on any experience it has in working with our order-entry systems since MCI has made no serious effort to understand or use them. "For the past three months, a dozen companies have been using our industry-leading systems to generate thousands of lines of new business a week. Meanwhile, MCI has chosen to stand on the sidelines and issue press releases instead of customer orders. "Either MCI hasn't done its homework, or it has some other agenda. What they'd really like is to disparage our pro-competitive initiatives and delay our entry into the less-than-competitive long distance market." Fact Sheet on Resale At NYNEX On Oct. 8, 1996 -- with the grand opening of the NYNEX Resale Center in New York City -- NYNEX began offering to resellers virtually all its retail products and services at a discount. Since then, resellers in New York have been able to buy basic local phone service and repackage and sell that service to residence and business customers. We expect to begin accepting resale orders in New England states in the first quarter of 1997. Resale of local services is mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state regulators. In New York, the Public Service Commission has set discount rates of 19.1% on both business and residential lines. If the reseller provides its own operator services (once that capability is available) the discount rate can increase to 21.7%. Preparation for NYNEX's entry into the resale business began in July 1995 when we formed our Resale Services organization. That group now has more than 130 employees. Qualified resellers include former resale customers as well as such new entrants as long-distance carriers. In New York, we currently serve 12 resellers and have resold more than 8,000 lines in the Resale Center's first three months of operation. We expect to be serving 30-50 qualified resellers within six months, and to have hundreds of thousands of resold lines by the end of 1997. NYNEX's resale efforts are expected to satisfy one of the 14 points in the FCC's competitive checklist that would allow NYNEX's entry into long-distance markets. The electronic interfaces available to resellers -- via the Internet (through a unique graphical user interface developed by NYNEX), EDI (an industry-standard interface) or an easy-to-use NYNEX-proprietary interface -- are designed to fulfill checklist requirements. Our electronic interfaces allow resellers easy access to NYNEX systems for purposes of pre-ordering and ordering products and services. It also provides easy on-line access to maintenance, trouble-reporting and billing systems. NYNEX's Position NYNEX is leading the way in resale and other pro-competitive efforts. We've been working on resale processes for more than a year to make this a success. We see this as a great business opportunity. Competition will grow the market and we want other companies to partner with us for the future. One of our key resale objectives is to be easy to do business with. We want to develop a robust wholesale business. This is also an important step toward opening NYNEX's network -- one that moves us closer to providing long-distance service within our region. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 10:52:50 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture It was on this date (8-January) fifteen years ago in 1982, that the 'old' AT&T (as head of the "one Bell System") announced to the U.S. Dept. of (in)Justice, that it would divest itself of its (twenty-two) wholly-owned local Bell Operating (telephone) Companies. This consent decree was supposed end the federal antitrust lawsuit that DOJ filed against the Bell System in the mid-70's. Back in the mid-70's, DOJ wanted AT&T to divest itself of Western Electric and possibly Bell Labs. However, in the divestiture announced on 8-January-1982 (which took effect 1-January-1984), AT&T kept Western Electric and Bell Labs, but spun-off the twenty-two local BOC's into seven new regional Bell holding companies. More recently, AT&T spun-off Bell Labs and what used to be known as Western Electric, into Lucent. The count of twenty-two BOC's doesn't include Southern New England Telephone nor Cincinnati Bell, of which AT&T only held a minority share back in the old Bell System days. And at the time of divestiture, both 'went their own ways' as 'independent' telcos and were *not* placed under NYNEX nor Ameritech. However, the total of twenty-two BOC's *does* count C&P (Chesapeake and Potomac) *four* times, as: C & P - Maryland C & P - D.C. C & P - Virginia C & P - West Virginia BTW, Bell Canada is *not* counted in this total of twenty-two BOC's. Since the 1956 consent-decree, Bell Canada with Northern Electric became more and more separated from AT&T and Western Electric. By the early 1970's, AT&T only held about two percent of holdings of Bell Canada. Also in the early 1970's, Bell Northern Research was created by Bell Canada and Northern Electric as a uniquely Canadian R&D version similar to AT&T/WECo's Bell Labs. In 1975, AT&T/WECo and NECo/Bell-Canada officially terminated what remained of their license and service agreements. Northern Electric had become Northern Telecom; BNR and NT are presently referred to as Nortel. As for divestiture and competition ... it never seems to end. There are more entities out there than ever, involved as carriers, resellers, manufacturers, promoters, etc. of all forms of telecommunications. Also, there is the "Telecommunications Bill" of 1996, signed into law last year. But fifteen years ago, who would have thought that the "one Bell System" would have agreed to split itself up at all! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE: 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 V17 #3 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jan 9 08:45:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA27920; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:45:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:45:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701091345.IAA27920@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #4 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Jan 97 08:45:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CIDCO Demonstrates iPhone With Graphical Web Access (Mike Pollock) Call For Papers on High Speed Networking (Mehdi Vaez) Apple Debuts "VideoPhone Kit" For Use On The Net (info@cris.com) Re: 805 on Growing Split List (Nils Andersson) Call For Votes: comp.dcom.xdsl (Jim Davis) Seeking Information About Destiny Telecomm International (Joko Suharyono) Pac Bell Gone Whacko (Roy) Telecomic Summary - Finishing Off 1996 (David Leibold) 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, 08 Jan 1997 20:50:02 -0800 From: Mike Pollock Organization: SJS Entertainment Subject: CIDCO Demonstrates iPhone With Graphical Web Access LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Consumer Electronics Show--Jan. 8, 1997--The first telephone to provide graphical access to the Internet together with advanced telephony services, the iPhone, is being demonstrated to the general trade Jan. 9 for the first time at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) by Cidco Inc, the market leader in Caller ID and smart screen phone devices. The iPhone will sell for under $500 and offers direct, simple access to Internet services, bringing e-mail and the wealth of information on the Web to both nontechnical and more computer-savvy consumers. The telephone is the most common appliance in the home. The Electronic Industries Association reports there is a phone in approximately 95 percent of all U.S. residences, and an average of 2.4 phones per household. The iPhone combines this familiarity in a high-end speaker phone with e-mail, graphical access to the World Wide Web and advanced telephony features, according to Robert L. Diamond, CIDCO chairman of the board. The Internet connection is made through a PC-quality 7.4-inch grayscale touch screen embedded on the face of the iPhone that allows users to access Internet services simply by touching the softkeys. With a full VGA screen, a complete Web page can be viewed at one time without scrolling, as is commonly required with some text-based phones. iPhone users touch the icons and buttons displayed on the screen in place of using a mouse to navigate through the Web. A QWERTY keyboard slides from under the console for ease in composing, sending and receiving e-mail. The iPhone is plug and play. There is no setup required, no software to load or any programs to execute in initiating operation. Since it is constantly powered up, the iPhone offers an immediate connection to the Internet without waiting for the system to boot or load software. "The iPhone is the first appliance that unleashes the power of the Internet for the general consumer who might not be computer savvy and for small business entrepreneurs not currently using the Web" Diamond said. "Whether or not they are familiar with PCs, iPhone users can send and receive e-mail, research data or bank on-line with ease. At home, consumers will have inexpensive access to e-mail, can look up information on local stores, find a good restaurant in the neighborhood or search for a favorite recipe on the Internet, just by touching the iPhone screen" he said. Available Second Quarter of 1997 Approximately the size of a standard business phone console, 11.5 inches wide by 8 inches long, the iPhone will be sold through telephone companies and selected retail outlets. Field tests are scheduled for early 1997, with general availability mid-1997. The iPhone was co-developed by CIDCO and InfoGear Technologies, a Redwood City, Calif., high-technology company. CIDCO is contributing its advanced telephony technology to the product development and is manufacturing and marketing the iPhone. InfoGear is providing the client/server software, the browser and other elements of the user interface. CIDCO holds an equity share in InfoGear. Similar to the way PC users access the Internet, telephone companies and on-line providers will supply the Internet connection service for the iPhone. Some phone companies may bundle access at a reduced rate with other telephone services, according to Diamond. "Telephones are the primary instrument of communication in our society, the gateway that keeps the flow of information moving in our world" Diamond said. "So it's only natural that a telephone, the iPhone, would bring e-mail and the richness of the Internet to consumers." Supports Class and Advanced Telephone Network Services Telephone network services such as Caller ID, Caller ID on Call Waiting, and Caller ID Deluxe with name and phone number display will be supported in the first consumer release. One-touch access will be provided for Call Forwarding, Call Blocking and Last Call Return, among other custom calling features. The iPhone also has a programmable speed dial, a 500-name directory, speed dial from the directory, and visual message notification for Caller ID, e-mail and voice mail. With its 16-level grayscale display and software preprocessing of some data, the 14.4 BPS modem in the iPhone functions at speeds comparable with a 28.8 BPS modem. The 640 X 480 backlit touch screen supports full Web page graphics. The iPhone also includes a serial port for a printer. CIDCO, with headquarters in Morgan Hill, Calif., is the world's leading producer of subscriber terminal equipment that supports intelligent network services being offered by telephone operating companies. Its products, of which over 12 million have been sold, include network feature telephones and Caller ID display units, in addition to advanced cordless telephone and smart screen phones utilizing ADSI technology. These products are provided to telephone subscribers through a variety of channels, including distribution arrangements with more than 100 telephone companies worldwide and through retail sales at more than 20,000 store fronts located throughout North America. CONTACT: Linda Marcus Creamer Dickson Basford 714/260-4768 lmarcus.cdb@mcimail.com or Peter Van Rossum Creamer Dickson Basford 714/260-4765 URL: http://www.cidco.com ------------------------------ From: mehdiv@alice.ece.gatech.edu (Mehdi Vaez) Subject: Call For Papers on High Speed Networking Date: 9 Jan 1997 11:36:15 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Dear Professor/ Networking Professional, I would appreciate your consideration and distribution to your colleagues of the following announcement for a special session on high speed networking issues in the upcoming 1997 International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA'97). Sincerely, Mehdi Vaez --------------------------------------- CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE SESSION ON High Speed Networking; Switching, Routing and Multiplexing International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA'97) June 30-July 2, 1997 Las Vegas, Nevada, USA SPECIAL SESSION ON: HIGH SPEED NETWORKING; SWITCHING, ROUTING AND MULTIPLEXING: This special session will cover the latest research activities on high speed electrical and optical networking with emphasis on switching, routing and multiplexing. With the advent of optical fibers and the tremendous amount of bandwidth they offer, a new era of information technology has begun. Deploy- ment of B-ISDN requires efficient switching, routing, and multiplexing techniques at different levels and with different time scales. With the invention of new switching technologies, new problems at the system level may be introduced. A correct system architecture can sometimes overcome the device-level limitations of such technologies. As an example, the crosstalk problem in many relational type photonic switching devices can be solved using dilated switch architectures. Novel switching, routing, and multiplex- ing techniques and architectures are critical to the successful deployment of future high speed communication networks. The selected papers and presentations in this special session will address the new research on the enhancement of high speed electrical and optical networking including switching, routing and multiplexing. We are especially interested in system concepts that can circumvent the limitations of new switching devices. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: - ATM Networks - All Optical Networks - Routing (static, dynamic, ...) - High Speed (circuit, Packet, ...) Switching - Photonic Switching - Statistical Multiplexing, TDM, TDMA, CDMA, WDM, WDMA, FDMA, ... - Queuing Strategies - Network Complexity - Crosstalk Reduction - Fault Diagnosis - Performance evaluation B-ISDN: Broadband Integrated Services Digital Network ATM: Asynchronous Transfer Mode SUBMISSION OF PAPERS: Prospective authors are invited to submit three copies of their draft paper (about 5 pages) to the session chair by the due date. Fax submissions are also acceptable; however, electronic submissions are highly recommended. They must be in the form of a readable postscript file. Please send the electronic version to mehdiv@ece.gatech.edu. The length of the Camera-Ready papers (if accepted) will be limited to 10 pages. Papers must not have been previously published or currently submitted for publication elsewhere. The first page of the draft paper should include: title of the paper, name, affiliation, postal address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers for each author. The first page should also include the name of the corresponding author, the name of the author who will be presenting the paper (if accepted) and a maximum of five keywords. EVALUATION PROCESS: Papers will be evaluated for originality, significance, clarity, and soundness. Each paper will be refereed by at least two researchers in the topical area. The Camera-Ready version of the paper will be reviewed by one person. PUBLICATION: The conference proceedings will be a multivolume set published by CSREA Press. The proceedings will be available at the conference. Papers that report significant results will be considered for publication in relevant journals. IMPORTANT DATES: February 12, 1997 (Wednesday): Draft papers (5-page) due April 8, 1997 (Tuesday) : Notification of acceptance May 19, 1997 (Monday) : Camera-Ready papers & Preregistration due SESSION CHAIR ADDRESS: Mehdi Vaez School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332 USA Phone: (404) 894-7468 Fax: (404) 894-9959 Email: mehdiv@ece.gatech.edu MORE INFORMATION: For information on the last two PDPTA conferences (PDPTA'95 and PDPTA'96), as well as the general "CALL FOR PAPERS" announcement and guidelines for the PDPTA'97 conference, please refer to: http://www.cps.udayton.edu/~pan/pdpta. ( __ )=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=( __ ) | | Mehdi Vaez mehdiv@ece.gatech.edu | | | |School of ECE, Georgia Institute of Technology | | |__| Atlanta, Georgia 30332 |__| (____)=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=(____) ------------------------------ From: info@cris.com Subject: Apple Debuts "VideoPhone Kit" For Use On The Net - Netday Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:26:01 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Apple Debuts "VideoPhone Kit" For Use On The Net - Netday Find this article at: NewsLinx Daily Web News (1/8/97) http://www.newslinx.com/ ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: 805 on Growing Split List Date: 8 Jan 1997 17:27:16 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes: > The split will occur by 1999, probably along an east-west > line. Details will be addressed at hearings ... It is not clear to me what is meant by East-West. One issue that confuses a lot of local residents is that the Ventura (and Santa Barbara) County coastline faces South, not West. Thus some people think of the coast as facing South, and going inland as going North (including me, it is correct). However, about half the population think of the coast as a West Coast, and have their personal coordinate system rotated 90 degrees. This is reflected in road signs, you can see "101 North" and "101 West" within yards of each other, pointing to the same onramp. To the point: Nasty rumour has it that the split would split Ventura County. This is clearly stupid. The only thing that makes sense is to have one part be Ventura and the sliver of LA county that uses 805 as one area, and split off Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo - both are wholly or mostly in 805 - and possibly Kern, which is at least partly in 805. There are many reasons why this makes sense, one is that Santa Barbara and SLO Counties are in another LATA, in effect already split off from the LA/Ventura/Orange/Kern/Riverside/SanBernadino/etc LATA. (Personal bias: I would of course love it if the normal precedent holds, and the more "metropolitan" end - i.e. LA/Ventura - gets to keep the old code and the "outlying" area gets re-coded, I _live_ in Ventura County.) If it turns out that there are "too many" phones in Ventura and LA(805) Counties, forcing a new area code again in a few years, that is not a concern at all. If we can just hold out till 2001, the PUC decision against overlays will expire, and we can then go to overlays, putting an end to this crazy divide-like-a-cancer-cell mess. In general, my advice to all is: 1) HOLD OUT AGAINST SPLITS UNTIL WE GET THE PUCS TURNED AROUND AND CAN GO TO OVERLAYS!!! 2) If there are several ways to split, and one makes logical sense, while another gives a more even divide, go for the logical split. Before the more populous end needs a new code, use the breathing room to beat some sense into your state PUC about overlays. 3) What would it take to make the feds back down on the ridiculous notion that cellphones and pagers cannot have their own area codes? Clearly, this makes a lot of sense (it is another form of overlay, sortof). They do not really have a location anyway. (Yes, I realize that the incoming call goes to an MTSO, PBX or whatever, but nobody should have to know or care what the actual location is!) Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:55:28 EST From: jjd@primenet.com (Jim Davis) Reply-To: jjd@primenet.com Subject: Call For Votes: comp.dcom.xdsl Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Expires: 30 Jan 1997 00:00:00 GMT FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) unmoderated group comp.dcom.xdsl Newsgroup line: comp.dcom.xdsl Discussion area for different DSL technologies. Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 29 Jan 1997. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Direct questions about the proposed group to the proponent. Proponent: Will Kim Votetaker: Jim Davis RATIONALE: comp.dcom.xdsl This newsgroup is to accommodate the growing interest and discussions regarding various ((adsl, hdsl, sdsl (hence the 'x')) Digital Subscriber Loop (xDSL) technology. comp.dcom.xdsl will provide a centralized location where thoughts and ideas may be shared amongst those interested. xDSL enables a normal copper twisted pair (which is being used to carry voice-grade telephone calls) to carry digital information at much higher rates compared to normal analog modems or ISDN. Though some DSL services are currently available, most are still in testing and development stages. Providing a discussion area will help bridge the gap between xDSL developers world-wide. In the last two to three months, there has been increasing evidence, of discussions regarding DSL (ADSL in particular), across various newsgroups and web sites. CHARTER: comp.dcom.xdsl Comp.dcom.xdsl is intended as a group for DSL discussion. This newsgroup is designed to allow discussion of all facts, features, and capabilities concerning DSL technology, from physical layers to applications. Topics that may be addressed are: * General questions about xDSL. * Functionality of xDSL. * Platform support for xDSL. * xDSL network architecture Any other topics of interest which are not listed above but deserve to be may be added during the discussion period. This group will be unmoderated, so anyone can post in this area. Binary files, in any form, are discouraged. However a posting may include a reference to an URL or FTP pointing to such binary files. END CHARTER. HOW TO VOTE: Send email to: jjd@primenet.com Your email message should contain one and only one of the following statements: I vote YES on comp.dcom.xdsl I vote NO on comp.dcom.xdsl You may also vote ABSTAIN or CANCEL. ABSTAIN does not affect the final vote count in any way but is listed in the final voting results. CANCEL removes any earlier vote and is not listed in the final voting results. VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES: Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One account per person and one vote per person. Votes must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous, forwarded or proxy votes are not valid; this includes votes generated by WWW/HTML/CGI forms. Vote counting is automated: If you don't follow these directions then your vote may not get counted. If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within several days, contact the votetaker about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure that your vote is registered correctly. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of the most recent valid vote. Addresses and votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results post. The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest in people who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from disinterested people defeats this purpose. Please do not redistribute this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted to news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise edited copies of this CFV will result in those votes being cancelled. When in doubt, ask the votetaker. DISTRIBUTION: This CFV has been crossposted to can.infohighway comp.dcom.cabling comp.dcom.isdn comp.dcom.modems comp.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.telecom.tech comp.dsp It will also appear on the DSL-TECH mailing list ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 22:16:22 CST From: Joko Suharyono Subject: Seeking Information About Destiny Telecomm International Dear readers, I have some questions regarding Destiny Telecomm International, Inc. (DTI) selling prepaid phonecards. First, let me summarize what I got. I got some emails from a friend regarding info to participate in a MLM-like business with DTI selling prepaid phonecards. The income based on commission of the sale from one and the persons in the levels below him/her. Some of the experience from some other persons involved in the business were also included. Some of them saying that he/she makes $3000 per week or more. One person is also mentioned to get $24,000 in her second month. The information is too good to be true, in my opinion. This makes me write this letter to this comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup and hope to hear whether there are some readers who actually know better. So far, only the positive things that come up in the info (well, that is the purposed of advertisement, isn't it?). I hope to find the real informations. That is, if there is any negative things, or other opinions/experiences/etc, I would like to know that. BTW, the product, a five-hour prepaid phonecard for $100 (that is, around $.33 per minute). One should buy at least one phonecard to start. Thanks a lot for your help. joko suhar001@gold.tc.umn.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I find it very hard to believe that someone is making three thousand per month selling these or that someone else made $24,000 in the second month, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Roy Subject: Pac Bell Gone Whacko Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 19:12:05 -0800 Organization: South_Valley_Internet I need ISDN service in the town (local phone number) where I am but the switch doesn't have the feature. PacBell has made ISDN available with a local number using an FX ISDN PRI to other companies. I placed my order but they say I can't get it because my premises is in the local area. The other companies can get the service because they are NOT local. What's wrong with this picture? They sell the service to non-locals but won't sell it to a local? The guy that thought this up must be whacko! Roy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1997 09:53:32 GMT From: David Leibold Subject: Telecomic Summary - Finishing Off 1996 Welcome to 1996's last collection of phone-related phunnies as found in the newspaper over the past months ... note this is incomplete as some comic strips out there weren't examined. Some comic-related net addresses appear at the end of the comic dates and descriptions. In no particular order then ... ...... PC and Pixel (2 Dec 1996): E-mail is touted as eliminating those wrong number calls ... trouble is, those calls are the only kind PC used to get. Chip (21 Nov 1996): "WWF takes on the WWW". Need more be said? Charlie (20 Nov 1996): Mailboxes on a street: one for snail-mail, one for e-mail. Broom Hilda (18 Aug 1996): Broom Hilda gets put on hold ... but fortunately her pals help her out during the wait ... so much that she can't be bothered with the call once it came off the queue. Walnut Cove (10 Dec 1996): Andrew and his buddies get ready to net-surf with millions of others ... Andrew gets keyboard fright tho ... PC and Pixel (11 Dec 1996): Pixel (cat) talks to Digit (mouse) about how animal instincts can be replaced by friendship. Digit talks to Pixel about the value of an "e-mail-only relationship". PC and Pixel (16 Nov 1996): Beware of fax paper installed in reverse. For Better or For Worse (16 Nov 1996): Michael sends a break-up note to Rhetta via e-mail. Hi & Lois (14 June 1996): Chip shows the on-line difference between "interface" and "inyerface". Animal Crackers (sometime in 1996): Bird mail-orders the wrong sort of "surfboard"... Dilbert (8 Dec 1996): Fun with business speakerphone conference ... just don't insult the boss without making sure the mute is in effect. Walnut Cove (10 Mar 1996): Fax war ... wait until the videophone. Adam (some time in 1996): Adam may have a publisher for his writing; chat room delays prove his parenting dealings ... Hi & Lois (5 Sept 1996): Phone is tied up, so an alternate, loud and low-tech "yo-mail" is needed. Family Circus (16 Sept 1996): Billy's missing his homework ... so he asks his mother to fax it when its found. Reality Check (22 Aug 1996): Spiders on the web ... Charlie (26 Aug 1996): Down and out guy on the street with homepage. Horrorscope (20 Aug 1996): A boy shows his communications skills ... placing a call to a far-off land. On The Fastrack (24 May 1996): On hold ... a tech support service seems to be going through an "evolution" during that time. Adam (from 24 Sep 1996): Adam gets to be the "advice columnist" for his ISP ... Peanuts (24 Sep 1996): Charlie Brown was out when a call came in ... Sally didn't get too many of the details. (Was it from the Little Red Haired Girl?) Horrorscope (26 Aug 1996): Web site found on the computer ... again, of the spider type, and literally "on" the computer, that is. Non Sequitur (approx 8 Sept 1996): How to terminate a relationship: make sure the speed dial entry is wiped out. Sherman's Lagoon (23 Sept 1996): T.S. Eliot's profound statements on wisdom and knowledge among information are no match for surfing about beans and lentils. PC and Pixel (23 Sept 1996): Office is where the cellphone is ... even at a bar. Mother Goose and Grimm (10 Sept 1996): Grimmy talks of his luxury pad ... door, windows, and private phone. Actually, public payphone as it turns out ... Adam (9 Sept 1996 and on): Laura gets suspicious as to whether Adam is surfing for a cyber-affair ... so she goes into impersonation mode to see what fun can be had. PC and Pixel (9 Sept 1996): At the end of the meeting, it's left for the calls to be exchanged ... between time management computer programs. Adam (for weekend of 1 Sept 1996 - but a 1994 year was listed): What is the name of the rule that says that pandemonium happens when you're on the phone? I Need Help (15 Aug 1996): Neighbourhood Watch calls go too far ... The Better Half (1 Sept 1996): Stanley takes a telemarketer's call. Beetle Bailey (19 May 1996): With fax, e-mail, etc., the paperless society is farther away than ever ... except for the washroom. For Better or for Worse (9 Dec 1996): Michael gets e-mail reports of all the family fun back home ... and gets homesick in the process. PC and Pixel (9 Dec 1996): PC is interested in a home page; but as the home is a mess, so likely would be the home page. The Better Half (27 Apr 1996): Stanley's brother shows off via website. Sherman's Lagoon (10 May 1996): Bear leaves the lagoon for his home; and invites Filmore to check his web site. Adam (1 Dec 1996): Clayton is on Santa's bad list for his e-mailed wish list ... one that wipes out trees worth of paper when printed. The Better Half (30 Nov 1996): Stanley sets up a chat forum ... of Harriet's old boyfriends. Doonesbury (26-28 Nov 1996): Joanie gets shown the Church of Walden; worship is at the website ... Wizard of Id (6 Nov 1996): The fortune teller has "ball waiting". Family Circus (15 Oct 1996): Billy takes a phone message ... but takes lessons in how to print letters during the call. PC and Pixel (9 Nov 1996): Java sight gag? Cyber coffeemaker invented. I Need Help (15 Oct 1996): For losers, a 900 number where you can be told excuses for not receiving a date. Animal Crackers (15 Sept 1996): TV survey calls ... Horrorscope (14 Sept 1996): Switchboard operator ... illustrating how one might get long distance calls for advice that day ... Walnut Cove (some time in 1996): Girl brushes off Joey by saying she's on the other line ... but this isn't even on the telephone. On the Fastrack (11 May 1996): Baby wants faster modem for calls via the baby monitor. Adam (29 Nov 1996): Adams brother e-mails ... the future of family communications, newer than the telephone ... but full-circle to letter writing? Between Friends (11 Oct 1996): Susan gets plenty of calls a day from her father ... and now he wants her mate Harv. PC and Pixel (27 Aug 1996): PC finds the graphics downloads are slow... so slow that a spider web site forms on PC and his computer. PC and Pixel (26 Dec 1996): Can the Internet replace the daily paper? Can dogs be trained to fetch with modem cards instead? Family Circus (26 Dec 1996): Kids lose a game's directions; father is requested to find them on the 'Net. e-mails and other comix net addresses: Adam adamathome@aol.com Dave http://www.davetoon.com/dave, davetoon@aol.com Dilbert scottadams@aol.com, http://www.unitedmedia.com Doonesbury http://www.doonesbury.com/ Ernie piranhaclub@aol.com Farcus 74777.3301@compuserve.com For Better or for Worse http://www.uexpress.com/ Frank and Ernest FandEBobT@aol.com Ghost Story Club http://www.comicspage.com/ghostclub/ I Need Help friknfrak1@aol.com Mary Worth TellMary@aol.com Mother Goose and Grimm http://www.grimmy.com Non Sequitur sequitoon@aol.com On the Fastrack 76711.2174@compuserve.com PC and Pixel artattak@astral.magic.ca Sherman's Lagoon http://www.slagoon.com/lagoon Shoe http://macnelly.com/ The Better Half http://www.borg.com/~rjgtoons/bh.html Walnut Cove walnutcov@aol.com ... and no doubt more are available using the search sites like Yahoo, Open Text or Alta Vista. David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And which one was it a couple weeks ago has the woman suspicious of what her husband is doing at the computer (she thinks he is using hot chat) so she recruits a co-worker to go into chat and try to lure her husband into a conversation ... it turns out her teenage son is using the father's account and handle. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #4 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jan 10 06:48:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id GAA13387; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:48:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:48:09 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701101148.GAA13387@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #5 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Jan 97 06:48:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Internet Call Tracing For Suicide Attempts (Michael Dillon) Re: ISP's Will Get *NO* Refunds (Bob Schwartz) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (John Cropper) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Jim Cornelius) Re: "True" Cost of Local Telephone Service? (Lisa Hancock) Re: "True" Cost of Local Telephone Service? (Jeremy Parsons) Bell Atlantic ISDN Maryland Rate Meetings (John Cropper) Re: Japanese Signal Modulation Problem? (David Clayton) Cell Phone Hell (Tad Cook) Cellular Billing For Business/Personal Use (jeffq@ix.netcom.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: Michael Dillon Subject: Internet Call Tracing For Suicide Attempts Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:36:06 -0800 Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting There was a recent incident in which Internet operators were called on to help trace an Internet user who had made the Internet equivalent of a suicide call in a chat system. Any comments? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:27:11 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" To: Jon Zeeff Subject: Followup--lessons learned in a NANOG Context Let me, now that things have calmed down, try to relate some lessons learned to the general operations environment. In a separate message, I will also forward some traffic- and spam-related information, which actually is relevant but has me laughing so hard I find it hard to even write, much less talk. Poor victimized cyberpromo ... their AUP was violated ... the evil spammers are out to get them ... The pace of events in the emergency did not allow for an explanation of how the individual was located. Jon's comment below is a reasonable one, and, with some further details of how the individual was located, I can: 1) Give at least a starting point for reasonable policies of disclosure when a possible medical emergency exists, 2) Suggest that such situations might be reasonable things to have thought about before an emergency, such that they can be put into a carrier's internal operational procedures. At 9:58 AM -0500 1/7/97, Jon Zeeff wrote: > I'd like to point out that such things can be an invasion of privacy. > While person A might claim that person B threatened to commit suicide, > it is possible that person A wants to locate person B for other, > not so good reasons. > This will happen if all one has to say is "suicide" and everyone will > ignore their normal privacy policies. >> Thanks to everyone who responded. I was eventually able to reach one of >> the providers, who was able to identify the callers through logs, and >> passed the information to the local emergency people. The patient >> is now under treatment, and did not take a lethal dose. >>> I'd just like to point out the similarity between this event and the use >>> of the phone company to track down suicide callers. This reminds me of Ehud Gavron also commented: > Can we just change the NANOG charter to "Let's do nothing useful for > real problems that bother providers, but if someone on IRC says they > took an overdose, or threatens to kill themselves, let's fall all over > ourselves revealing private info"? I personally consider both situations -- the provider and the individual -- within scope. I would like us to consider the general case in both situations,with an eye to reasonable provider policies, as opposed to being stuck in speeific cases. 1. Operational Details of the Case ----------------------------------- In the specific case, the suicide message appeared primarily in a monitored chat room, and secondarily in a private email. I did not myself see the message in real time, but was called in shortly afterwards. Part of the problem involved time zone differences -- both the person attempting suicide and most of the providers were in Pacific time, and neither the person's ISP nor the chat room had 24x7 coverage. The event was at approximately 7:40 Eastern US time, four to five hours before the providers involved opened their offices. While my specific efforts focused on tracking back an email address to a physical one, for lack of a better way to handle the situation, the actual resolution came when the chat room operator was contacted, and given specific text strings in the suicide message. Luckily, this operator has a well-controlled, audited system, and was able to do a text search through logged messages, and independenly verify that the threat was issued. In other words, the chat operator did not depend on an unverified third party statement that a threat had been issued. The operator also records IP addresses associated with messages, so the operator now had a verified message from a specific address. The provider for this address was verified with inverse lookup. Again luckily, this was an at least partially subscription-based chat room, and the provider had a database of names (verified by credit card) and email addresses for subscribers. The provider revealed by inverse lookup above matched the provider on the subscriber's email address. Obviously, a reasonably adept hacker could have worked around many of these verifications. Obviously, in many other cases, there would not have been subscription information that could be verified. In many respects,this was an optimum case. Based on what was considered verified information, the chat room operator contacted local police in the subscriber's area, who sent an officer to the home. A family member found the attempted suicide at approximately the same time, and medical treatment initiated. 2. Potential Operational Considerations (see? NANOG tie-in) ------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a start on an internal provider policy for dealing with requests to deal with potential disclosure of privacy in a claimed emergency. Content and transit providers may be contacted by individuals or organizations seeking normally private information in the case of a life-threatening emergency. The need here is to balance privacy against other human values. Basic principles of when to disclose information might include: -- the person requesting the information must have a known and verified identity. -- in claimed medical emergencies, the person requesting information should be asked if emergency services in the location of the person endangered have been notified. Operations staff should request information by which this notification can be verified. -- in the case of content providers that might be able to retrieve the actual message traffic of concern, the caller should be asked for specific identifying information. This might extend to access providers that could identify that a call was made to a given dialup server port at a specific time, but obviously is impractical for transit providers. Comments and questions welcome. Obviously, local legal considerations will apply. I don't have a telco trace authorization procedure, which could be a good guideline. Howard Berkowitz PSC International (703)998-5819 ------------------------------ From: Bob@BCI.NBN.com (Bob Schwartz) Subject: Re: ISP's Will Get *NO* Refunds Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 10:22:03 +1200 Organization: BCI Monty, What you say is true however don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I review bills for "Refundable Events" and Cost Reduction opportunities. We have recently completed a job for one of the larger nationwide internet companies and successfully recovered over $ 400,000.00 (four hundred thousand dollars) in refunds for our client! Most of this amount was "access" charges. Some was from sundry other "Refundable Events". In one instance the refunding company offered $ 93,000. and we declined the offer. A year later they issued a refund of over $250,000. This represents an excellent example of why companies should use outside auditors. This was an "access" charge. (Sorry, I won't be more specific.) There are many types of circuits and several types of "access" charges. I've never heard of IDEA. Bob Schwartz Consulting, Auditing, Optimization Bill Correctors, Inc. Contract Negotiations, Research, & More. P.O. Box 316 Quality Services and Solutions Since 1983. Woodacre, CA 94973-0316 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1997 16:17:37 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > I heard on the radio this morning, that on this date (today) January > 6, in 1838, Samuel B. Morse publically demonstrated the electrical > telegraph machine, in Morristown NJ! (and Bellcore has had offices in > that town as well!) - just a bit of this date in telecom history! Morse's first message: "What hath God wrought?" John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://206.112.101.209/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ From: Jim Cornelius Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 18:32:35 -0700 Organization: Desert Data Reply-To: jimcor@desertdata.com There is a nice telegraph museum near Morristown that is worth a visit. Jim Cornelius ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: "True" Cost of Local Telephone Service? Date: 8 Jan 1997 03:30:48 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Calculating utility costs, especially telephone costs, is tough. I know this doesn't answer the question, but let's look at the issues involved ... The telephone industry, more so than electric, gas, or water, has a very low marginal cost per call. That is, the actual DIRECT cost of making a phone call is extremely low -- a trifling amount of electricity to carry the call. The cost of the call is virtually the amortization of the central office machines, inter office trunks, and local loop to your home (plus something for administrative overhead, engineering, etc.) Determining that "amortization" is highly debatable. First is the issue of the length of time the cost should be spread -- the phone company wants it as short as possible to maximize revenues, while the public wants it as long as possible to minimize cost. The second issue is how and where the cost should be assigned, which is not simple. For example, a basic party-line rotary dial customer making very few calls a month doesn't use as much of the switch as say a phone used by a teenager with Call Waiting, Caller ID, Call Forward, 3-way Calling and other features. How much more should those premium services cost? Another issue is time of day when plant is used. One reason business customers pay more is that they generally use the plant during the busiest 9-5 hours while residential users use the plant more evenings nad weekends. Obviously a lot of costs are averaged out over all the customers. For instance, a customer next door to the central office has less of a loop than the customer furthest away. Some customer have complex "drops", others are simple. A crackpot residential customer could call the business office to go over his $7.00 bill, while a business with a $1,000 bill might not call for months. Who's paying for the service rep and who's receiving the services? Another issue is load on the central office. If the phone company over estimates need, it will have built unnecessary excess capacity. Who is to eat those costs, the customers or the stockholders? Or, a company could underestimate, requiring emergency construction to catch up, that is expensive. Again, who should pay? Commercial electricity billings are complex. Commercial meters have time plots -- power used during peak times is billed at a sharply higher rate than off peak times, and your rate is largely based on your "demand" -- the maximum PEAK power you used during the month, on the grounds that the power company had to have that capacity to serve you, even if you used it only briefly. People interested in analyzing telephone charges should also study billing of other utilities to compare methods. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Jeremy.Parsons@iname.com From: Jeremy Parsons Subject: Re: "True" Cost of Local Telephone Service? Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:15:05 -0500 > I've often heard cited by Telcos and others citing Telco billing > practices that flat-rate local calling plans are either too low (for > heavy users) or too high (for infrequent users) and are the cause of > other dubious economics in telephone costs (LD termination fees, etc). > Does anyone know what the actual cost per minute of local telephone > service is? I'm sure it varies by region, but what are some close > estimates? And are the residential costs calculated based on > residential infrastructure and operations costs? Or do they include > costs from operations which have nothing to do with residential phone > service (business data and infrastructure, long-distance infrastructure, > etc). Although I realize that access that the residential service has > to pay for it's "share" of the network outside of the local loop. > My phone bill lists "RESIDENCE LINE $14.71" as the basic charge for > phone service. Assuming 15 hours of use per month, it's about $.016 per > minute which seems pretty cheap. Dropping my modem use would about > double the cost to $.032, which I would assume is about average for most > non-computing households served by US West in Minnesota. How close or > far is this from what it actually should cost? As with most such questions, the answer (if it exists) depends on a whole chunk of definitions! It's fairly obvious that it's possible to say 'zero incremental cost, to a good approximation' (forget 'local', by the way!). The main triumvirate of technology cost-contributing factors are clearly demand density, peak demand magnitude and quality requirement (one idea I toy with is - why not bump free local calls off the network on an 'oldest in, first ejected' basis when there's severe congestion ;-) ?). However, billing and collections costs are usually a significant proportion of costs for relatively low-using customers - and how will you assign those per minute?? Still, there are lots of sources for cost models, historic cost data and the like to which I have no doubt you will be pointed - good luck! Jeremy Parsons ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Bell Atlantic ISDN Maryland Rate Meetings Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 16:54:16 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com The following are dates and times to discuss ISDN rates with Bell Atlantic before Maryland PSC examiner McGowan. Wednesday 1/8/97 7:30:00 PM - Case No. 8730 - BELL ATLANTIC-MARYLAND, INC. - ISDN Rates. - 16th Floor Hearing Room, 6 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, MD. Before Examiner McGowan. Thursday 1/9/97 7:30:00 PM - Case No. 8730 - BELL ATLANTIC-MARYLAND, INC. - ISDN Rates - Third Floor Council Hearing Room, Montgomery County Office Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Before Examiner McGowan. John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://206.112.101.209/jcbt2n/lincs/ ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Japanese Signal Modulation Problem? Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:16:53 GMT Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia J Rehman contributed the following: > A friend of mine in Fukushima Japan has been having trouble > connecting to the local internet provider (niftyserve) in her > neigboring town (Koriyama). The modem dials, connects, and then > nothing. All settings for the session are correct N-8-1 for this > instance and ANSI or VT100 terminal. But we get no prompt. Post the modem(s) involved and other technical details - in another newsgroup, probably comp.dcom.telecom.tech - and you will probably get a lot of assistance. But anyway, if you get connect ok but no data transfer, login prompt etc., it is possible that the modems are not negiotating flow control properly. Try "AT&K0" in your initialisation string, (just before the number is dialled), and see how you go. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. ------------------------------ Subject: Cell Phone Hell Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:35:43 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) From the "Denver Post" Online: Cell phone hell coming By Stephen Keating Denver Post Business Writer Jan. 9 - The enduring mid-century movie image of courthouse reporting is an out-of-shape scribe scrambling to the nearest phone and dialing up an editor with the hot news. With today's saturation coverage of murder trials and other media events, the preferred tool of the trade is a portable phone. And that promises to create an airborne tangle this spring and summer as hundreds of reporters and other cellular-phone-toting citizens descend on downtown Denver, straining the area's transmission capacity. The high-profile events in question are one of the Oklahoma City bombing trials, scheduled to begin March 31 and last several months; the Colorado Rockies, whose home opener is April 7; and the G-7 meeting of world leaders and an 8,000-person entourage here June 20-22. Print, TV and radio journalists covering preliminary hearings in the Oklahoma City case have already had cell calls jammed outside the courthouse at 19th and Stout streets. "Any time there's a hearing, the phones get fired up and the cell sites go into tilt," said Wayne Wicks, media coordinator for the Oklahoma City bombing trial, who expects up to 2,000 journalists when the trial starts. "We've also eaten up every microwave and two-way radio frequency." Similar cell jamming occurred in downtown Denver last year, when Rockies games coincided with rush-hour traffic, said Mary Ireland of AT&T Wireless Services. "You can't build out your system for the three or four days a year that happens," said Ireland. "But when we heard that the trial was going to be held in Denver, we put a new sector on our existing cell site across from the courthouse." Currently, AT&T's downtown cellular system, with three sites, can handle 65 incoming and outgoing cellular calls at any time. "A typical cellular call takes one or two minutes, so people are continually dropping off and on," said Ireland. "There is also the potential to increase our capacity." US West's Air Touch Cellular, which competes with AT&T in Colorado, did not pinpoint its maximum call volume, but said it has increased capacity to handle 54,000 additional cell calls per day in downtown Denver. Capacity problems have hit cities across the country, and while marketing and sales of cell phones have hit record levels, reports of unhappy users are also on the upswing. A recent survey of 1,000 people by the Illinois Superconducter Corp. found that nearly four out of five cellular users had not experienced any improvement in service quality in the past year, or that service had declined. Wicks has a more personal reason for hoping that the crush of cell phone calls connect when the national media covers the bombing trial: "If they don't work, I'm the guy that gets yelled at.'' Stephen Keating can be reached at business@denverpost.com. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Subject: Cellular Billing for Business/Personal Use Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 05:26:30 -0500 Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc. Reply-To: jeffq@ix.netcom.com Hello all, Most companies that reimburse employees for business use of cellular phones seem to require some kind of accounting for business vs. personal use. Although it's a rather reasonable requirement, cellular billing statements make it a real pain. Does anyone know of any mechanisms used by any providers that make this easier? My thought was that the cellular system could allow you to add a prefix to your call (like the *XX prefixes for services like Call Forwarding) that would flag the call as a personal call. Your bill could then be separated into calls with and calls without the prefix. (Conceivably, you could even have multiple prefixes to allow account-based charging, etc.) Breaking down the total metered charges into percent prefixed and non-prefixed (i.e., personal and business), and possibly even prorating the non-metered costs (e.g., monthly rates, taxes, etc.) would make it a breeze to expense business costs. Is anything like this in place anywhere? Or is any alternative in the works? (I know one way would be to have two cell phones, but that seems like a needless expense. Two numbers for one phone might not be bad.) Comments, anyone? Regards, Jeff ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #5 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jan 10 07:51:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA16464; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:51:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:51:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701101251.HAA16464@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #6 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Jan 97 07:51:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson RSA DES Challenge (Fred Schimmel) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Torsten Lif) 53rd UCLA Engineering and Management Program (Bill Goodin) Divide Counties Into Two Area Codes? (Tad Cook) AOL Cuts Russian Access (Tad Cook) Ameritech Now Too Impatient For Dialing (Gail M. Hall) JPEG File Formats Question (Stewart Fist) TDD Carriers (was Canadian Use of N11 Codes) (Paul Robinson) Ericsson Discussion Groups (Eric De Sedas PCC) Re: Telecom Related Comics (Dale Farmer) 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: schimmel@hobbit.gandalf.ca (Fred Schimmel) Subject: RSA DES Challenge Date: 9 Jan 1997 13:32:58 -0500 Organization: Gandalf Technologies Inc. The following was seen on the cryptography mailing list. It is announcing a contest to try and crack DES through a network of personal computers. Attached also is a pretty clever note from Ron Rivest (of RSA Labs) which shows the magnitude of the effort required by brute force methods. If you want to follow along with the progress of this or are otherwise interested, and would like to subscribe to the cryptography mailing list send a message to: majordomo@panix.com with a message body containing the line: subscribe crypto-news ------>8 clipped from cryptography mailing list 8<------ From trei@process.com Thu Jan 9 11:21:12 1997 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:07:07 -6 From: Peter Trei Reply-To: ptrei@acm.org Subject: (Fwd) RSA Announces New "DES Challenge" I suggested this to Jim Bidzos several months ago. My software for participating should be available (to US citizens) shortly. Peter Trei ptrei@acm.org ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: Bob Baldwin To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com'" Cc: Bob Baldwin , Kurt Stammberger Subject: RSA Announces New "DES Challenge" Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:10:29 -0800 RSA Announces New "DES Challenge" Tens of thousands of dollars in cash prizes offered; contest should improve overall Internet security by illustrating relative strength of different crypto algorithms and keysizes. Business Editors and Computer Writers REDWOOD CITY, Calif.-Jan 2, 1997--RSA Data Security, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Security Dynamics Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDTI), today announced an Internet-based contest with cash prizes. The contest, known as the "RSA DES Challenge", challenges mathematicians, hackers and computer experts around the world to decipher encrypted messages. The goal of the contest is to quantify the security offered by the government endorsed DES encryption standard and other secret-key ciphers at various key sizes. The challenge proper will be launched during the RSA Data Security Conference to be held in San Francisco, January 28-31, with the target ciphertexts for the different contests being simultaneously posted on the company web-site, at http://www.rsa.com/ RSA Data Security pioneered the Internet-based "cracking" contest, when it launched the original "RSA Factoring Challenge" back in 1991. Since then, the company has paid out over $100,000 in prize money to mathematicians and hackers around the world, and the data gained from that Challenge (which is ongoing) has greatly increased mathematicians' understanding of the strength of encryption techniques based on the "factoring problem", such as the RSA Public Key Cryptosystem T. Background It's widely agreed that 56-bit keys, such as those offered by the government's DES standard, offer marginal protection against the committed adversary. By inertia as much as anything else, DES is still used for many applications, and the 20-year-old algorithm is proposed to be exportable under the latest incarnation of Clipper. It is the perfect time to demonstrate to the world that better systems are both required - and available - thus improving the world's security. There have been theoretical studies done showing that a specialized computer "DES cracker" could be built for a modest sum, which could crack keys in mere hours by exhaustive search. However, no one is known to have built such a machine in the private sector - and nobody knows if one has been built in any government, either. The successes of the RSA Factoring Challenge show that for some types of problems, it's possible to recruit spare "cycles" on a large number of machines distributed around the Internet. Therefore, by offering a suitable incentive, it should be possible to recruit sufficient CPU power across the Internet to exhaustively search the DES keyspace in a matter of weeks. Computer scientists have already developed software that will allow even the novice computer user to participate in the cracking effort. By incorporating the key search software in a "screen saver", a simple PC anywhere on the Internet can devote its spare time to working on the problem - remotely and completely unattended. Even people with limited computer skills will be able to participate. In the RSA DES Challenge, the motto will definitely be "The More, The Merrier". The Contest Full details of the RSA DES Challenge will be posted on the RSA home page (http://www.rsa.com/) during the first weeks of January. Complete rules for the competition will be provided as well as example challenges and solutions against which computer scientists and hackers can test their software. In conjunction with the RSA DES Challenge, RSA will simultaneously launch a series of other contests based around the RC5 Symmetric Block Cipher (another encryption algorithm). Since RC5 is a variable key length block cipher, targets that offer increasing resistance against so-called "exhaustive search attacks" will be posted in the hope of assessing the full impact of a widely-distributed exhaustive search. There will be 12 challenges based on the use of RC5. Prizes will be awarded for the recovery of each of 12 keys which are chosen to be of lengths varying from 40 bits all the way up to 128 bits, with the length increasing in steps of eight bits. The email sender of the first correctly formatted submissions to each contest will receive a cash prize. For the RSA DES Challenge the first sender of the secret DES key will receive $10,000. For the other contests the prize money awarded will vary with the difficulty of the RC5 key attacked. For more information about the ongoing RSA Factoring Challenge send email to challenge-administrator@rsa.com and for the latest news and developments send email to challenge-news@rsa.com. About RSA Data Security, Inc. RSA Data Security, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., is the world's brand name for cryptography, with more than 75 million copies of RSA encryption and authentication technologies installed and in use worldwide. RSA technologies are part of existing and proposed standards for the Internet and World Wide Web, IT4, ISO, ANSI, IEEE, and business, financial and electronic commerce networks around the globe. The company develops and markets platform-independent developer's kits and end-user products, and provides comprehensive cryptographic consulting services. For more information on any of RSA's encryption technologies, please call RSA directly at 415/595-8782 or send electronic mail to sales@rsa.com. RSA also provides information on its Web site at http://www.rsa.com. Kurt R. Stammberger Director, Technology Marketing RSA Data Security, Inc. (A Security Dynamics Company) 415-595-8782 vox 415-595-1873 fax kurt@rsa.com www.rsa.com ----------------- Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei@process.com Ron Rivest replies: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 11:45:50 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" To: cryptography@c2.net Subject: Ron Rivest: DES key search // concrete analogy Forwarded with permission. ------- Forwarded Message From: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ron Rivest) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 97 23:07:16 EST Subject: DES key search // concrete analogy For your amusement: The number 2^56 of DES keys is quite close to the number of 3"x5" index cards that it takes to cover the surface of the earth (ocean included). A Pentium searching 200,000 keys/second is like driving a car at 70 mph and checking all the index cards in a 200-foot wide swath. At this speed, it takes two weeks just to go around the earth once. Cheers, Ron Rivest ------- End of Forwarded Message Fred Schimmel (609)461-8100 ext. 5060 | email: schimmel@gandalf.ca Gandalf Systems Corporation |------------------------------- 501 Delran Parkway | Objects in mirror are Delran NJ 08075 USA | closer than they appear! ------------------------------ From: Torsten Lif Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 16:22:06 -0500 Organization: Ericsson Messaging Systems, Woodbury, New York, USA Ron Bolin wrote: > I just recently changed from AT&T to MCI. MCI promised significantly > lower rates when they called me to switch. They had some third party > call and confirm my change and service. After a month on MCI I found > that they did not honor their rates and that the rates were actually > higher than AT&T. > I have a major problem with this kind of marketing. I call it a lack > of integrity. Needless to say I switched back to AT&T and will never > consider MCI again. > Get it in writing before you change providers. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you 'get it in writing before you > change providers' then you probably never will change providers since > all of them hate to write letters or make any written commitments. > I do not know why it is, but getting any telemarketer -- not just the > ones for phone companies -- to engage in written correspondence is > almost impossible. Telephone companies in particular never like to > write letters it would seem. PAT] Sorry for leaving in all of the quoted message, but it's all relevant to my personal experiences in the area. When my wife and I moved to the US (18 months ago), we got repeated calls from long-distance carriers wanting to sign us up. NONE provided any written info, despite all of them promising to do so. I have not had any success in getting any of them to ever send me any information in writing. We used AT&T more or less "by default" for 15 months until MCI called in with an attractive offer that the salesperson said was "for eternity", meaning that it was not a time-limited promotion. I specifically asked her to confirm this several times and she did. Fine, we accepted MCI. But when the paperwork arrived, I found that the prices were a 6-month promotional and would double after that date. Annoyed, I called and they denied any responsibilty - "the sales person was not authorized to make those promises - Sorry". Then, AT&T called to try to re-enlist us. They offered a comparable rate to MCI's (significantly lower than their original one) and claimed that it would be valid for as long as we used them as our long-distance carrier. Remembering the MCI promises, I asked the AT&T salesperson several times if this was correct, if they really would honor these rates "forever" and he said they would. Then the first bill appeared and they had not even honored the rates he promised. I called AT&T and they "fixed" it "All set, Sir. Your account has been credited and you will have the reduced rates for six months from today." I protested that their sales person had specifically said the rates came without any expiry date. "Sorry, Sir. The sales person was not authorized to make those promises." Sound familiar? I'm forced to conclude that they are both equally guilty in this. So far, Sprint is the only one of the "Big Three" that hasn't made any false promises. If nothing else happens to change my mind, I will be calling them about their rates to Sweden as soon as the "Thanks for switching" check from AT&T has cleared. Another angle: Verbal contracts are legally as binding as writing, if you can prove what was said. Do the third-party "witnesses" that are called in record the conversations in some "safe" manner? Could I insist on having the salescritter repeat the offer for the recording and then really hold the company to it? Torsten [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They get real indignant when you tell them you are going to record the conversation. You must by law inform the other party that you are going to record it. They really do not like it however. Be sure to include the question, "Are you personally authorized to make promises and commitments on behalf of ? If the telemarketer says yes, then you can later get them on fraud charges for having made such claims (about their authority to speak for their employer). If they say no, then you ask to speak to someone who *is* authorized to make promises and commitments. Also, whenever you request it from your local telco, you can have your long distance service defaulted to no carrier at all, and leave it that way until you get an offer you want to accept. Of course during that time you will need to make calls using the 10xxx method of selection. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: 53rd UCLA Engineering and Management Program Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:25:00 -0800 March 23-28, 1997, on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. For more than 40 years, UCLA Extension's Engineering and Management Program has provided "how to" answers to the challenges that technical managers face daily. The program is designed for experienced first-level technical supervisors, mid-level technical managers, technical professionals with high advancement potential, and non-technical managers in technology-based organizations. A special benefit is the opportunity for participants to personalize their own curriculum by selecting four courses, each one meeting two hours per day. Participants may choose from 24 course offerings to address these and other important management questions: o How can I develop products and services that will have a market? o How can I use technology as one of the drivers of organizational change? o How can I influence persons who do not report directly to me or to my boss? o How can I create a culture that nourishes creativity, customer service, risk taking, and accountability? o How can I successfully communicate in-house with peers, subordinates, and superiors, and with global customers and suppliers? o How can I carry out my managerial role in the face of major change in the organization? o How can I prepare myself for emerging trends and an uncertain future? o How can I better use or change aspects of my style of leadership to get desired results? o How can I identify and eliminate costly, nonvalue-added activities? Instructors are drawn from the UCLA faculty, other universities, and the business community. All combine research and theory with practice and application. The program advisory committee, which includes technical managers from Hewlett Packard, Trillium Digital Systems, TRW, Sandia National Laboratories, Beckman Instruments, Amgen, Telegenics, Rockwell, and ARCO, actively participates in the selection and evaluation of the courses. The program fee of $1,995 includes all texts and materials for courses in which the participant is enrolled, five continental breakfasts, five luncheons, social events, parking at UCLA, and use of University facilities and equipment. For further information and a complete program booklet, please contact Beverly Croswhite at: Pnone: (310) 825-3858 Fax: (310) 206-2815, e-mail: bcroswhi@unex.ucla.edu WWW: http://www.unex.ucla.edu/engineering/management ------------------------------ Subject: Divide Counties Into Two Area Codes? Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:56:36 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Tennessee Agency Opposes Proposal to Divide Counties into Two Area Codes By Cree Lawson, Nashville Banner, Tenn. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 9--Tennessee Regulatory Authority directors are asking telecommunications leaders to revise a plan to split the Midstate into two area codes. TRA Director Melvin Malone and Chairman H. Lynn Greer opted not to approve a stronger motion by Director Sara Kyle that would have drawn a resolution against splitting counties by area code. The authority has no legal power over the Tennessee Telecommunications Association or its plan, so Kyle's resolution would have gone to the Legislature. "I just think that we ought to give the industry a chance to work this mess out before we get involved," Greer said after the TRA's Tuesday meeting. The decision followed the presentation of a TRA staff report that showed many area residents are concerned about their counties being split between the old 615 area code and the proposed new 931 code. Under the plan, several counties would be divided, with parts of each remaining in the 615 area code. TRA staff members discussed the area code plan in public hearings in 17 counties last month. "Strong protest of this part of the plan surfaced, particularly in Houston and Smith counties," said TRA's utility services chief Eddie Roberson Jr. who presented the report. "In fact, the Houston County Commission passed a resolution requesting that the two counties refuse to be served by two area codes." The telecommunications association will meet privately Jan. 15 to put together a final proposal on the area code split. That decision will go to the TRA in February. (c) 1997, Nashville Banner, Tenn. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News. ------------------------------ Subject: AOL Cuts Russian Access Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:03:52 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) The Post-Crescent, Appleton, Wis., Business Briefs Column The Post-Crescent, Appleton, Wis. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 8-Russia AOL CUTS RUSSIAN SERVICE, ALLEGING FRAUD: With phone calls costing around $34 an hour in Russia, America Online became suspicious when it noticed a surge in calls among subscribers in the former communist country. "When you start seeing people online for hours at a time, you begin to think 'How can people afford this?"' said spokeswoman Susan Porter. The answer was they couldn't. In fact, AOL found so much fraud involving stolen credit card numbers, stolen account passwords and other fraudulent means to get free Internet access that on Dec. 14 it cut all direct service in Russia. (c) 1997, The Post-Crescent, Appleton, Wis. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News. ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Ameritech Now Too Impatient For Dialing Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:23:53 GMT Organization: APK Net, Ltd. This is probably going to sound dumb to some people, but it is bothering me and maybe some others who may have some physical problems. I haven't heard this mentioned before, but I wouldn't be surprised if some other people are having the same problem. A few months ago Ameritech "upgraded" our lines somehow. Ever since then if I take the least little bit of extra time dialing a number, it interrupts me and the voice tells me the call didn't go through. This is in spite of the fact that I haven't dialed more than 3 or 4 numbers yet. OK, so I'm a lamebrain. But I can't REMEMBER 7 digits all at once, much less 10. So I'll enter the first part of the number, then look at my note with the number on it, and then dial some more numbers. But now the way the phone company works, it won't wait for me to dial the numbers. Next problem is the automatic thingies that want you to punch in numbers. It wants you to punch in your account number for this service. That number is maybe 12 or 14 digits long and in small print. So I can't remember all those number. It just won't accept the idea that it takes me longer to punch those numbers than it would if I had them automated in my hands the way I can when I type on this computer. I think this is a huge disservice to anyone who might be handicapped in some way and needs extra time to enter the numbers. We may have trouble seeing the numbers on the paper or seeing the numbers on the phone pad or maybe just have trouble getting our fingers placed just right. Other than preprogrammed phones where you can preset x number of numbers into a phone, I am not familiar with any phone that lets you enter a number and then press to have the phone then enter the digits like you might be able to do on a computer. So each number is entered as you press it. They need to be more patient in that case. I had never had this problem until this past fall when they "upgraded" our line. Any comments? Is there any way to get Ameritech to reset their waiting period to give us older, slower people a break? Is there a way to have Ameritech reprogram my phone lines to let me have the time I need to enter the numbers? Thanks in advance! Gail M. Hall mailto:gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:58:32 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: JPEG File Formats Question I want to look into some .JPG files on the web and deconstruct them. Can anyone point me to a good tutorial on JPEG and the source of the file format definition? Thanks, Stewart Fist Technical writer and journalist. Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > Archives of my columns:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: TDD Carriers (was Canadian Use of N11 Codes) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 23:50:21 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 02:02:35 GMT, roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) wrote in a message titled Re: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes: > Originally, the state relay services would only complete calls that > both *originated and terminated* in the same state... Since that > time, most relay services have expanded to allow interstate calls; > only *one* point has to be in the state that sponsors the relay > service. (For example, to call a Tennessee hearing-impaired > customer from my house in Georgia, I can call either the Georgia > *or* Tennessee relay services.) > Most relay services are still tied closely to AT&T, mainly because > AT&T often provides the long distance for the relay service From research I did, I happen to know that at least Maryland and North Carolina's relay services are operated by Sprint. I think Texas is, as well. In fact, I think most of the TDD relay services are operated by Sprint or MCI; I can't remember seeing any mentioned as being operated by AT&T, except for the national 800 TDD directory service. Paul Robinson (formerly PAUL@TDR.COM) ------------------------------ From: edesedas@cais.cais.com (Eric De Sedas) Subject: Ericsson Discussion Groups Date: 9 Jan 1997 13:38:10 GMT Organization: Sent via CAIS Internet Hi. I am interested in finding discussion groups for professionals dealing with specifc vendor's equipment: Ericsson products. Better yet, people who has experience with Ericsson AXE10 (Cellular platform) and ERA minilink microwave equipment. Thank you for the info! Eric De Sedas BellSouth Panama edesedas@cais.com ------------------------------ From: dale@access5.digex.net (Dale Farmer) Subject: Re: Telecom Related Comics Date: 9 Jan 1997 18:45:38 GMT Organization: Dale's House of Turnips Another telecom related comic strip is "Kevin & Kell" by Bill Holbrook. Many, many net related gags. He is a sysop on the 'herbivore forum', and a rabbit. She is a wolf working for "Herd Thinners, Inc." Only available on the www site, and color sunday strips only available at the boardwatch magazine website. I reccommend it. Dale Farmer Dale@access.digex.net Personal opinions only. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #6 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jan 10 08:45:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA19886; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:45:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:45:18 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701101345.IAA19886@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #7 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Jan 97 08:45:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Internet-Based Personal Information Services (Paul Robinson) Re: Internet by Satellite (Paul Robinson) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (Lawrence Cipriani) Telephone Fraud in Tulsa (Tad Cook) 805 Split Report From Pac Bell (Tad Cook) Re: Calling US 800 From UK: Answer Supervision on Recorded Msg? (S. Cline) Re: Nynex Response to MCI Complaint (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Re: MCI Criticizes NYNEX Order Processing System (Steve Kass) Re: "True" Cost of Local Telephone Service? (Linc Madison) U.S. ROAs (Judith N. Oppenheimer) 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: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Internet-Based Personal Information Services Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:01:28 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software Ted Lee wrote: > The ...various directory (white pages... e-mail lists, etc) becoming > available on the net/web... be aware of...change ... expectations of > privacy... I doubt you can have much of an expectation of privacy if your name and number are listed in a published database. A "database" is anything which is a collection of information, so it includes such things as telephone directories, voter registrations, and so on. > Does anyone know how the... databases in those services > are compiled? Someone buys all 2000+ telephone directories for the U.S. - either the printed volumes or the microfiche edition from UMI of Ann Arbor, Michigan - and ships what they have to the Philipines, China or Haiti where people type in the information, or in the alternative, they scan the text of the white page listings with page scanners, then process the images with OCR software to get the original information. This used to be unlawful under the 1920s decision in {Pacific Telephone v. Leon}, but the Supreme Court overruled that in {Feist v. Rural Telephone Company} because, essentially, there is not even a minimal amount of "work" involved in having a mere list of information (all listed telephone subscribers) which is merely alphabetized -- by automated equipment -- and if there isn't even minimal work, or creativity, then the particular material is not protected by copyright, so says the Supreme Court. I note that until this decision occurred, access to the vast majority of telephone information for the U.S. was essentially unavailable, for ordinary people or small companies, mainly because telephone companies treated the raw data for telephone directories as if it were worth its weight in gold, if they would even license it at all. > I ask... surprised to find... my wife in at least one, but not all, > of them and yet she is *not* listed... in either our metropolitan > (Bell) directory or in the local (GTE or something community > directory). I thought perhaps someone here might know. Did you check all of the following: Private Sources: Criss-Cross Directory (Haines/R.L. Polk) Companies that produced these books did so by going out and canvassing neighborhoods since they could not copy the telephone book. Utility Company Records While there may be restrictions on reuse of data, with the deregulation of the electric industry - and probably natural gas too - they may start looking at their own records. Orders placed with commercial companies Many places routinely rent their mailing lists. Government Sources: Propery tax rolls (always a matter of public record) Courthouse records (being sued, filing a lien, filing a suit, filing a mortgage or trust deed, all of these are always public record) Voter Registration (in some places, all it takes is a small fee) Drivers License Registration (ditto) With state governments feeling the pinch of reduced Federal funding, {and} unfunded federal mandates (such as the check of purchasers of guns under the Brady Bill), some of them are looking at the databases they have generated as possible cash cows. My sister, who lives more than ten miles away in another state, received a letter here - of advertising - addressed to her, and yet, we are trying to figure out how come she got one. Then we remembered: one time, she ordered a gift subscription for my mother to TV Guide, and ordered it in her own name. So don't be surprised where stuff comes from. Paul Robinson (formerly PAUL@TDR.COM) ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Internet by Satellite Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:45:59 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software Rob Gordon wrote: > About a year ago...a small computer company in West Africa.. > wanted to establish itself as an ISP... their country's > telecommunications industry was being deregulated and > privatized... I came to the conclusion that a satellite link > would probably be the only way to establish a new independent > ISP in this developing country. Good luck getting a license to operate a satelite receiver, or a transmitter, or both. Knowing which officials you have to bribe and which merely can be reasoned with, is probably a full-time research project. Also, it's illegal under U.S. law for U.S. Citizens or American Corporations to pay bribes or kickbacks to foreign officials anyway - but that law, the {Foreign Corrupt Practices act} - is routinely ignored, although nobody admits it. > Just two days before I was to leave for Las Vegas, the military > dictatorship in this country executed a famous and respected author. That's all you had to say, it's enough. Nigeria has had a really bad reputaion, ever since it nationalized the oil industry in the 1960s. Without payment, of course. Generally, my preference is to stay out of counries that are still operating as dictatorships of any kind. They still have the nasty habit of nationalizing companies that they think are valuable but don't want to pay for their value. > Finally, just a few hours before I had to leave, I met a manager > from Hughes Network Systems who was able to provide a conceptually > detailed sketch of how to link a VSAT station with customer sites > using web servers, comm servers, routers, modems, etc. It is possible to do a lot of things. The problem is almost always money and political considerations. The local telecommunications monopoly in those countries is almost always part of the post office and thus any threat to it is a threat to government jobs and government power. Or if the telecommunications monopoly is a private company, it's a threat to the amount of bribes and kickbacks they'd be paying, not to mention the actual "taxes" that are the listed amounts. > the deal never happened... became more difficult... and the political > situation in the country seemed to be disintegrating. Countries with healthy political situations do not execute dissidents. Or put them in jail on trumped-up charges. Those type countries usually do not have much respect for private property or the rights of owners of same. Enough said. > I learned alot from this experience and I would still like to work > with this technology. If you are reading this message, you obviously > have access to the Internet, but as we all know, many remote areas of > the world do not. There are some places where phone service is so bad that Telex is still the preferred form of communication, especially since it's usually cheap in comparison to faxes, i.e. an order for something from an international source might use 20 words and cost about 50c U.S., whereas a single page of a fax might cost upwards of $3. > I think that satellite technology will be the only > way to deliver the information revolution to millions of people > in the developing world where there is a poor telecommunications > infrastructure. Wireless is the wave of the future considering the cost of running hundreds or thousands of miles of wire through remote areas. Hell, most of those countries don't even have enough roads to move produce to market before it rots, let alone telephone lines. When a village is 100 miles from the next town, wired costs are prohibitive. The most likely answer, if it can be done, is to use some form of cellular or wired connection with cellular or microwave relay. But cellular in the current concept - metering by the minute, both ways - is far too expensive to work except in the wealthiest areas of the most populated cities. There are many issues to consider in trying such a venture. Unless you have very deep pockets, a few politicians bought, and the patience of Job, you will have a difficult time. But if you can find a way to develop connections, there is potentially a lot of money to be made. The problem is getting in where it is to the advantage of some people to keep you (and others not lining their pockets) out. ------------------------------ From: lvc@lucent.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Date: 7 Jan 1997 16:12:08 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio Reply-To: lvc@lucent.com I'm not going to be very popular with my reply. Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls [a few minutes] on average. However, being public utilities, you could argue they should respond to the changing needs of the public. And as usual, they are going to want of money to upgrade their systems to handle this traffic pattern. However, the FCC and public utilities commissions should ask themselves, and you [very pointedly] why people who don't even own computers [like my parents] should bear the cost of upgrading the phone system with higher rates for someone elses [dubious] benefit? In my opinion, if you want to tie up the phone system with long duration phone calls to BBSs or ISPs then you should pay for it. This doesn't mean I think the telcos should have a license to rip you off and charge a lot more money than necessary to accomplish this. They can park a box between their switches and subscriber lines that listens to incoming touch tones. If the call is going to a known ISP/BBS then the call can be routed through a separate data network to that ISP/BBS and there is no need to even go through the central office switch. This is already a product, and described in the 1/97 issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, I believe it's made by Rockwell. Personally, I'm in favor of eliminating all telephone monopolies and letting the marketplace, not bureaucrats in companies or government, decide how to price access to telephone networks. In a free market pricing would probably be strictly usage sensitive, but then a lot of people would still be complaining they can't get the Internet for $19.95/month not matter how much time they are on the phone. Gee, too bad. ------------------------------ Subject: Telephone Fraud in Tulsa Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:57:09 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Tulsa, Okla., Sees Rise in Incidence Telephone Fraud By Becky Tiernan, Tulsa World, Okla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 3--That January phone bill may indicate company productivity, and it may not. Two popular telephone scams have made their way to Tulsa. Answer Phone, a Tulsa answering service located at 4200 E. Skelly Drive, was the unwilling recipient of more than $1,000 in long distance charges as a result of one telephone fraud scheme. According to Ann Garrett, incoming president of Answer Phone, a con artist dials a company's 800 number and poses as an telephone operator or a company employee. The con artist asks the company operator for an outside operator, and from there, makes a slew of long distance calls at the company's expense. "We got hit early in November," said Garrett, whose company handles a number of Tulsa area 800 numbers. "Normally, our operators handle the same numbers over and over, so they can pick up on patterns. But during this four-day period, he got lucky and kept getting a different operator. Finally, one of our supervisors picked up on it and we notified AT&T." Answer Phone had heard customer reports of long distance problems. When a con artist, posing as an AT&T supervisor, called and explained that he was checking the long distance lines, operators accommodated his request for an outside line. "Because we have a close working relationship with AT&T and our operators know that, they trusted him," Garrett said. "Tulsa's a pretty trusting place," she continued. "This is one of those scams that infuriates people and makes the cost of business go up. AT&T has been wonderful in forgiving the charges, but they're actively looking for the guy." In a scam that hits people on a personal basis, con artists send urgent messages to people via fax, e-mail and pager. The message includes a phone number. That phone number, in reality, is a 900 number somewhere in the Caribbean. "The real problem with this scam is the cost of the call -- about $25," said Garrett. "Unless you recognize the number on your bill, you may never know they got you." Beware of these area codes: 242, 246, 268, 345, 441, 664, 670, 758, 767, 787, 868, 869 or 876. "If you see a number that you don't recognize, on your pager or that comes over your fax, ignore it," said Garrett. In 1985, telephone fraud was a $500 million industry. In 1996, it is a $1.2 billion industry. Most of the 900 area code groups are based overseas. According to Michelle Cochran of the Better Business Bureau, the scam doesn't seem to be widespread in the Tulsa area. "We haven't been getting a lot of people calling us, but we've gotten a lot of warnings over the wire," she said. "It does happen and companies need to be aware." That happy news could change with the next billing, when companies find that they've been duped. To report a scam to AT&T, contact Lee Ann Kuster, with the Telephone Fraud and Scams department at (602)482-0108 or via e-mail at lkusteratATTmail.com. ------------------------------ Subject: 805 Split Report From Pac Bell Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 02:27:32 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (This is a Pac Bell press release) Different Area Code to Be Introduced in 805; New Three-Digit Number Will Ease Demand for Phone Numbers SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 2, 1997--Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, another area code will be introduced in portions of Central and Southern California that now use the 805 area code. The new area code is expected to be in use by early 1999. A telecommunications industry group representing more than 30 companies is currently developing and evaluating various options for splitting the 805 into two area codes, known as a geographic split. Geographic splits have been the traditional means of providing area code relief in California. Another option, known as an overlay, cannot be considered until the year 2001 -- with the possible exception of the 310 area code -- under a recent ruling by the California Public Utilities Commission. In a geographic split, the existing area code is divided with part of the area keeping the existing area code and part receiving a new area code. For consumers and businesses, this means people who live or work in the new area code will need to change the area code portion of their phone number. Under California law, public participation and comment is obtained before the industry submits a proposed area code relief plan to the California Public Utilities Commission and administrators at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), the organization that administers the North American Numbering Plan. Doug Hescox, California area code relief coordinator, said a series of meetings will be held before the end of June 1997 to seek public comment and input on potential area code options for splitting the 805 area code. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced at a later time, he added. Boundaries for the new area code, as well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced later in 1997. The 805 area code currently serves all of Santa Barbara County, the majority of Kern, Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties, the northern tip of Los Angeles County, including the cities of Newhall, Palmdale and Lancaster, and small portions of Monterey, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties. The 805 area is the latest in a series of regions in California requiring area code relief. Today, California has 13 area codes, more than any other state. Plans call for doubling that number from 13 to 26 by the year 2001 to keep up with the state's record telephone number consumption. That consumption is being spurred by several factors, the two primary being the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone lines. The other factor is the onset of local competition in California's telephone market, with each new provider requiring a separate supply of telephone numbers. At least ten of the 13 new area codes will be introduced by the end of 1998. California areas which have already announced the need for new area codes are: 310, 818 and 213 in the Los Angeles area, 619 in the San Diego area, 415 in the San Francisco Bay area, 916 in Northern California, 510 in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, 714 in Orange County, 408 covering the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas, and 209 in the Fresno and Stockton areas. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Calling US 800 From UK: Answer Supervision on Recorded Msg? Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:20:20 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:17:24 GMT was written: >> +1 800 342 8385 - Tennessee Only > Trouble with this one - first 2 tries a UK "equipment engaged" tone,=20 > 3rd try the standard announcement about being charged at=20 > international rates, interrupted half way through with a US fast busy=20 > tone. 4th try gets the same announcement followed by 2 rings, then=20 > "The number you have dialled cannot be reached from your calling area. >> +1 800 282 5813 - Georgia Only > "You have dialed a number that is not available from your calling > area. 909 1T". It appears that: 1) the calls are going to the LD carrier that services the toll-free number (Resporg lookups correct) -- state of TN number uses MCI, the recording is in fact from MCI. The other recordings are from AT&T, correct for those numbers. 2) they're entering the US LD network in California. (The recordings ending in 909-1T are from AT&T, in area code 909 -- in California.) =20 It's possible that other calls go into a switch in the NYC area. I have no idea about MCI (342-8385), or Sprint, or WorldCom, etc... So that leaves -- what happens with (California | New York)-only toll-free numbers? Anyone have any numbers for that? I still wonder what shows up for *ANI* for these calls! (Hint: AT&T's customer service number -- 1-800-222-0300 -- will usually read back the calling number.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Nynex Response to MCI Complaint Date: 9 Jan 1997 22:33:43 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Mike Pollock wrote: > Mike - I was poking around newsgroups and came across your posting of > an MCI release criticizing us. Thought you might like the NYNEX side > of the story. > Jeff Gluck > NYNEX Media Relations > 212-395-2353 > Jeff_Gluck@SMTP.nynex.com Of course we ALL know that most of Nynex doesn't know what the other half is up to. This should not be confused with the propensity of Nynex to lie through their collective teeth. This is the same Nynex that largely disregards most of New England like an orphan child. Here in Rhode Island I've seen them bungle more rollout and implementation than you could shake a stick at. One of the things I'm very happy about is that here in Providence we now have a choice of who our local carrier is and it's only going to get more interesting once Cox Communications jumps into the fray. I wonder if Nynex is going to adapt or still plod along like the dinosaur it is; somehow I'm almost willing to bet on the latter. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ From: steve@all-trades.com (Steve Kass) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1997 14:07:10 EST Subject: Re: MCI Criticizes NYNEX Order Processing System Reply-To: steve@all-trades.com Organization: All Trades Computing In Volume 16, Issue 686, Mike Pollock wrote: > A recent report appearing on Yahoo: > WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- A seriously flawed NYNEX order > processing system is delaying the ability of New Yorkers and New > Englanders to switch their local telephone service to another company, > MCI said today. > [details about Nynex's GUI limitations ...] Forgive what might look like an advertisement, but I hope this will be of use to Digest readers. All Trades Computing, Inc., provides custom software to solve many of these problems. We can provide a Windows GUI for entering transactions and submitting files in Nynex's Electronic Interface Format (EIF) directly to the Direct Customer Access System (DCAS), Nynex's back end to the transaction processing system. Among the features are these: - The reseller's database is integrated into the system. This verifies account information, enters many fields automatically, e.g., sales rep name and number, provides a list of phone numbers associated with a BTN entered, etc. - All transaction requests are posted to the reseller's database in real time when the transaction is submitted to Nynex. Nynex's responses are transferred, processed and posted to the reseller's database automatically by scheduled ftp requests to Nynex. - Transactions cannot be sent to Nynex until all required information is entered, reducing the number of requests bounced back by Nynex. - Various ways of viewing requests are available: purchase orders by sales rep, all purchase orders written but not completed, all purchase orders sent to Nynex but not acknowledged, etc. We cannot address limitations to Nynex's DCAS, such as the length of time before acknowledgement of transactions. We are currently testing our product with a subset of the transactions that can be requested in the EIF format, including Convert with Final Bill, Centrex requests, Administrative and Remarks transactions and several others. Responses currently implemented include ACK, NAC, CSA, SEM and SOC. All 39 EIF transactions will be implemented after this testing period. We can customize our product for any reseller who provides us details about their customer database, and anyone interested in custom software for the telecommunications industry is welcome to contact us. Steve Kass VP, Systems Development All Trades Computing, Inc. steve@all-trades.com (212) 532-8038 ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: "True" Cost of Local Telephone Service? Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1997 17:51:40 -0800 In article , swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com (Shawn Barnhart) wrote: > I've often heard cited by Telcos and others citing Telco billing > practices that flat-rate local calling plans are either too low (for > heavy users) or too high (for infrequent users) and are the cause of > other dubious economics in telephone costs (LD termination fees, etc). > Does anyone know what the actual cost per minute of local telephone > service is? Well, as with many things, it depends on how you do the accounting. The *marginal* costs of providing you a local telephone call are almost nil. The key question is how you divide up the fixed costs (the cost of the wires from your house to the central office, the cost of the switching equipment, interoffice trunks, maintenance, etc.). How much of those fixed costs do you put into the basic monthly rate, how much into the cost of local calls, and how much into long-distance termination fees? There are also issues involved in rural/urban divisions -- over what user base do you average the costs? The other issue is, what additional costs will the telco have to bear under a given pricing scheme? The telcos are claiming that unmetered local calling is encouraging patterns of use (especially with dial-up Internet usage) that will cause them to incur large capital costs for additional equipment to handle the load. Of course, others dispute this claim. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best. com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:35:16 -0500 From: Judith N. Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free Consultancy Subject: U.S. ROAs Does anyone have a list of U.S. ROAs who are authorized to submit applications for universal freephone to the ITU? As usual, every carrier has a different story to tell, and the ITU registrar says he has no such list. TIA, Judith Oppenheimer ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #7 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Jan 11 08:51:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA05711; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:51:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:51:40 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701111351.IAA05711@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #8 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Jan 97 08:52:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Run For Your Lives! Beepers Go Berserk, Refuse to be Silent (G Beuselinck) New 562 Area Code (Tad Cook) Book Review: "The FAQ Manual of Style" by Shaw (Rob Slade) N.Y. Phone Deregulation Hits Snag (Mike Pollock) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (John R. Levine) Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture (Lisa Hancock) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Robert Weller) Last Laff: Latest Goodtimes Virus! (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. * ************************************************************************* 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: George Beuselinck Subject: Run For Your Lives! Beepers Go Berserk, Refuse to be Silent Date: 10 Jan 1997 17:35:04 GMT Organization: GB Enterprises 'A technical problem on the Skytel paging network led to a nationwide bout of beeper madness, as a digital deluge of erroneous call-me-back messages swept over more than 100,000 unwitting pager customers' o Skytel: "one frequency of our one-way nationwide network experienced an anomaly in the database that caused" erroneous pages". - the 'technoid' explanation for what happened to 100K+ customers: - a number was displayed on their beeper that looked like a phone number; - 'thousands obligingly tried to return the call' at 8 AM EST. o 'it got worse ... three dozen especially diligent customers' recognized the number as an identification (PIN) number. - they dialed Skytel, entered that code and their own phone numbers. - 'unbeknownst to them, the Skytel system then efficiently zapped those real phone numbers out: to the same 100,000 pager customers. Ever eager, thousands of them then returned calls to the diligent 36'. - they got 300 calls an hour or more, still 40 an hour in the afternoon o 'The result was an embarrassing communication chasm in the Wireless Age'. o the real explanation behind what happened: - a SKytel customer was trying to reactivate her service; - somehow she was assigned 'a terribly wrong PIN:' one linked to a secret code Skytel uses to broadcast news to 100K users. - the networks computer saw the PIN was wrongly linked and rejected it; - 'but the Skytel staff successfully overcame the computers recalcitrance'. - Scott Hamilton, Mtel (Skytels parent company) spokesman: "With any kind of computer system, from time to time, numbers have to be jiggled, and they were attempting to jiggle. It was just a mistake." o 'Then the Skytel staffer, ever helpful, tested the new customers PIN by zapping the 7-digit number -- which looks suspiciously like a phone number -- over the network so it would show up on the display'. ------------------------------ Subject: New 562 Area Code Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 00:25:30 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 562 to become California's 14th area code LOS ANGELES -- Jan. 9, 1997 The new 562 area code will begin serving sout 562 to become California's 14th area code Business Wire LOS ANGELES -- Jan. 9, 1997 -- The new 562 area code will begin serving southeastern Los Angeles County on January 25. The 562 area code is being created through a geographic split of the 310 area code approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in 1995. The new 562 area code will become California's 14th area code and will serve about one-third of the phone numbers currently served by the 310 area code. The details are as follows: New Area Code Boundaries -- Existing 310 area code customers in the southeastern part of Los Angeles County and small portions of Orange County will receive the new 562 area code. Some of the cities in this area are: Paramount, Downey, Pico Rivera, Whittier, Norwalk, Lakewood, most of Long Beach, Los Alamitos and La Habra and part of Bell Gardens, Brea, La Mirada and La Palma. -- Existing 310 area code customers in the southwestern portion of Los Angeles County will keep the 310 area code. Some of the communities in this area are: San Pedro, Wilmington, Compton, Torrance, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Santa Monica and Malibu and most of Gardena, Culver City, West Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. Price of Calls Will Not Be Affected California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett, who oversees area code relief efforts on behalf of the telecommunications industry, said the introduction of the 562 area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. `Call distance determines call price. What is a local call now will remain a local call regardless of the area code change.` He also said the area code's introduction will not affect customer's seven-digit phone numbers. `Only the area code portion of their phone number will change.` Bennett said the new area code is needed to meet the seemingly insatiable demand for new phone numbers being seen not only in Los Angeles, but across the state. `Californians are continuing to use telephone numbers at record rates,` he said. `California already has 13 area codes and will need to double that number in the next four years to keep pace with customer demand.` Permissive Dialing Period A six-month get acquainted or `permissive` dialing period will begin January 25 when the new 562 area code is introduced. During this period, people can dial either the old 310 or new 562 area code to reach most telephone numbers in the new 562 area code. Also, during this six month period, customers in the 562 and 310 area codes can call between the two area codes using seven-digit dialing on most calls, Bennett said. Exceptions to Permissive Dialing Begin on February 1. Many of the new phone numbers issued in the new 562 area code after February 1 will not have the six-month `permissive` dialing period and must be dialed with the correct area code, Bennett said. `This is because we're assigning the same seven-digit phone numbers in both the 310 and 562 area codes in 53 new prefixes. This is needed because we're running out of phone numbers faster than expected,` Bennett said. `People dialing these new numbers will need to dial the correct area code to avoid getting a wrong number. This is true both for residents calling between the 562 and 310 area codes as well as people calling in from other area codes,` he said. The six-month permissive dialing period ends on July 26, 1997, and is followed by a three-month `mandatory` dialing period during which a recording will inform callers to the old area code to dial the new area code. Things to Remember Change stationery, notify friends and associates. Bennett said these get acquainted dialing periods not only allow residence and business customers time to get used to the new area code, but also to make other important changes including: -- Change stationery, business cards and advertising to reflect the new area code; -- Notify friends, relatives, clients and customers of the change; -- Reprogram fax machines and auto-dialers; -- Customers with cellular phones and pagers should check with their service provider to see if reprogramming is required. Make Sure Equipment Can Accommodate The New Area Code The 562 area code is part of a series of new-style area codes introduced in North America beginning in 1995 that can be any three digits. This has special implications for certain types of telecommunications equipment, which must be reprogrammed to recognize the new-style area codes, Bennett said. `Historically, area codes always had either a `1` or `0` as the middle digit for identification purposes, but all of those codes are gone. The new number combinations allow area codes to be any three digits from 220 to 999, creating an additional 5 billion telephone numbers. `Because of this, it's important for customers to know that PBX (private phone) systems, auto-dialers, alarms and other telecommunications equipment will have to be re-programmed to recognize these new-style area codes,` said Bennett, adding that people should check with their equipment vendors to see if their equipment needs to be reprogrammed. The new 562 area code is expected to accommodate the need for new phone numbers through the year 2007, while the reconfigured 310 area code is expected to have enough telephone numbers to last until 2002. The need for area code relief in the 310 area code was originally announced in March 1994. In August, 1995, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered a geographic split of the 310 area code to meet the need for more phone numbers. A group of city and county government officials from the affected areas proposed the area code boundaries, which were later approved by the Commission. More Area Codes To Come Statewide Southeastern Los Angeles County is the latest in a series of regions in California requiring area code relief. Today, California has 13 area codes, more than any other state. Plans call for doubling that number from 13 to 26 by the year 2001 to keep up with the state's record telephone number consumption. That consumption is being spurred by several factors, the two primary being the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access, and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone lines. The other factor is the onset of competition in California's local telephone service market, with each new provider requiring a separate supply of telephone numbers. At least 10 of the 13 new area codes will be introduced by the end of 1998. In addition to 310, California areas which have already been designated as requiring new area codes are: 818 and 213 in the Los Angeles area, 619 in the San Diego, Palm Springs and Inland County areas, 415 in the San Francisco Bay area, 916 in Northern California, 510 in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, 714 in Orange County, 408 covering the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas and 209 in the Fresno and Stockton areas. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:53:31 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The FAQ Manual of Style" by Shaw BKFAQMOS.RVW 961017 "The FAQ Manual of Style", Russell Shaw, 1996, 1-55828-498-2, U$24.94/C$34.95 %A Russell Shaw %C 115 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011-4195 %D 1996 %G 1-55828-498-2 %I MIS Press %O U$24.94/C$34.95 +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 287 %T "The FAQ Manual of Style" The net is doubling in population every year. That means every second person on the net has been there less than a year. Some newcomers aren't too thrilled with the net, but most are enthralled with the ability to find, and interact with, groups of people discussing a common interest, however arcane your interests may be. Given the wealth of "newbies" entering the Internet all the time, existing discussion groups get flooded with questions. The *same* questions. Time after time after time. Questions, in other words, that get asked frequently. Hence FAQs, or lists of Frequently Asked Questions, with the attendant answers. The original FAQs were spawned in an attempt to reduce the bandwidth consumed (and annoyance generated) by these endless questions. FAQs quickly became reference materials in and of themselves, as well as fulfilling their initial role of educating novices. The writing and maintenance of a FAQ can be a significant chore. I participate in one FAQ maintained by committee, contribute to a few others, and maintain one of my own. Recently, however, the FAQ format has been used to produce different types of documents. These newer FAQs tend to be more commercially oriented, being used to introduce a company or product, or to serve in place of technical documentation. It is these pseudo-FAQs that Shaw is primarily interested in. The book does provide some common sense advice that those not long familiar with the net could easily miss. There are suggestions on advertising, marketing, and the restriction of documents to a "user-friendly" size. Shaw does touch on the more traditional documents (which he refers to as "Newsgroup" FAQs). His advice there, however, is quite limited. As an example, the biggest problem facing a FAQ maintainer is deciding what to include. Shaw's answer? This is "a judgement call based almost entirely on instinct and experience." copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKFAQMOS.RVW 961017 ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use - Galileo Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:58:03 -0800 From: Mike Pollock Organization: SJS Entertainment Subject: N.Y. Phone Deregulation Hits Snag By MICHAEL HILL Associated Press Writer ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- A key detail of how New York will open local phone service to competition is up in the air. Literally. On top of telephone poles. The creosoted roadside poles might be a mundane bit of Americana, but they're also hot real estate. Power, phone and cable companies all need them to provide service to customers. But since power and phone companies raised the poles over the course of this century, they own them. Johnny-come-lately cable companies rent pole space up top so they can hang wires. It has worked like that since the 1970s, when cable TV first appeared. But now that cable companies are planning to provide local phone serv- ice -- in direct competition with their pole-top landlords -- a question has emerged: How much rent should utilities be able to charge cable phone subsidia- ries for the use of their poles? With untallied millions at stake, it's a touchy question. Some utilities believe it's time to raise what they call subsidized rental fees, which average about $10 per pole, per year. Cable companies disagree. After a year of fruitless talks, opposing sides this summer asked the state to intervene. The state Public Service Commission is holding hearings on the issue. At stake is what it will cost to compete with established local phone companies, said Philip Shapiro, an attorney with the Cable Television an d Telecommunications Association of New York. Higher rental fees could chase smaller start-up phone companies from the market, he said. "We are dependent upon those poles. They've got a monopoly there," he said. "If we're assuming that lower phone rates are just around the corner ... you're only going to get that with meaningful choice." The irony is New York is moving into an era of wide open telecommunic- ations with an infrastructure dating to the rotary phone era. The endless wire web strung from poles and buried beneath suburban lawns and urban concrete would be impossible for cable companies to recreate. Such a far-flung system requires plenty of maintenance. And some util- ities say cable phone subsidiaries should pay more -- as high as $30 per year, per pole -- to cover costs. "They're not paying their fair share," said Cliff Lee of Nynex Corp.,= which has yet to offer its own dollar figure. "Every time somebody expands a road or it gets hit by a car, we have to go in and replace those poles." It costs Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. about $130 a year to maintain a utility pole, according to spokesman Nicholas Lyman, and cable companies pay about 8 percent of the tab. He said that's why the utility wants to triple its collections from cable companies, to about $9 million a year. "If you're on a pole, you ought to be paying for the privilege," he said. The cable industry counters that New York's pole attachment rates are already well above the national average of about $4.73, and should be lowered. Shapiro said maintenance costs are already built into utility rates. Richard Aurelio, president of the Time Warner New York City Cable Group up, said he believes the push for higher rates by telephone companies could freeze his company out of the market. Time Warner, which has about five million cable subscribers in New York state, has plans to offer phone service in the New York City area, he said. "At a minimum, this would slow down any plans of ours to go into resi- dential telephony, and it could very well imperil our whole investment in New York," he said. Cable companies are also worried about the fees because they are facing ng strong challenges from wireless cable and satellite dish outfits, which don't rely on telephone poles. In another sign of the scope of the debate, electric utilities like Niagara Mohawk will be affected because not only do they own so many poles, but they too are venturing into the telecoms market. Gary Miller of Aragon Consulting Group in St. Louis said utilities and cable companies in other states have gone through similar battles, with competitive forces usually driving a settlement. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 09:10 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. In article was written: > Mark J. Cuccia wrote: >> I heard on the radio this morning, that on this date (today) January >> 6, in 1838, Samuel B. Morse publically demonstrated the electrical >> telegraph machine, in Morristown NJ! (and Bellcore has had offices in >> that town as well!) - just a bit of this date in telecom history! > Morse's first message: "What hath God wrought?" But not in Morristown. That was the demo message on his first commercial telegraph line, built somewhat later by Ezra Cornell (now you know where he got the money to start the university) between Baltimore and Washington. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture Date: 10 Jan 1997 14:34:24 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS I seriously question whether consumers are better off as a result of divesture. They talk about competition ... well, why is it that pay phone competitors charge MORE than the Bell System does? A lot of significant changes in the Bell System happened regardless of competition. For instance, owning your own sets was a separate decision, as was long distance competition. As to long distance competition, AT&T's long distance rates were on a steady decline for years and were pretty reasonable. I question whether "competition" really made a difference. I think it was technology that did it. I also think companies like MCI got an unfair start by skimming the cream -- serving high volume profitable corridors leaving AT&T to serve the low end and provide emergency capacity for outages. (For years, whenever you had trouble on MCI their operator would tell you to dial 10288+ to make your call. I wonder how MCI would have grown if it did not have the backup capability.) As to owning your own equipment, everybody knows the old Western Electric 500 and 2500 sets were sturdy enough to take a direct nuclear hit. Today's sets, even those made by AT&T are cheap and fragile. You can't buy the good sets, except through the second hand market. Are consumers really better off? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not at all; but that was never the point of it. Well yes, that is what the anti-AT&T people in the Justice Department and Judge Greene told everyone, but don't you believe it for a minute. Smashing up the Bell System was a terrible thing to do; none of the later entrants on the scene wanted any competition; they just wanted to rip off what they could from the network and they convinced the government to help them do it. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 10:05:11 PDT From: rweller@h-e.com Organization: Hammett & Edison, Inc. Does the second 'T' in AT&T still have meaning in this age? Bob Weller [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do either of the letters 'T' in ITT mean anything these days for the company which bakes bread among other things? How long has it been since International Telephone and Telegraph had any involvement with either? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Last Laff: Latest Goodtimes Virus! Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:54:02 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) *** The Goodtimes Email Virus *** Goodtimes will re-write your hard drive. Not only that, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer. It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you try to play. It will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your beer and leave its socks out on the coffee table when there's company coming over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work. Goodtimes will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating your current girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Visa card. It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she is dead. Such is the power of Goodtimes; it reaches out beyond the grave to sully those things we hold most dear. It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve. Goodtimes will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the toilet seat up. It will make a batch of Methamphetamine in your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove while it goes out to chase gradeschoolers with your new snowblower. That is all, you've been warned. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com (I stole this!) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #8 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jan 13 08:28:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA09725; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:28:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:28:59 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701131328.IAA09725@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #9 TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Jan 97 08:29:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech, the ISP (Tad Cook) Controversy Over Telephone Privatization in El Salvador (Nigel Allen) Book Review: "Cultural Treasures of the Internet" by Clark (Rob Slade) Tennesee CellOne Introduces "USA Local" (Stanley Cline) Codec in 96 port SLIC (Dave Harrison) Re: Cellular Billing for Business/Personal Use (Juha Veijalainen) Re: Cellular Billing for Business/Personal Use (Jay R. Ashworth) 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: Ameritech, the ISP Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:40:24 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Chicago Tribune Binary Beat Column By James Coates, Chicago Tribune Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 12--AMERITECH AIMS TO EASE SURFERS' ACCESS TO NET: My son was in a bit of a testy mood the other night when I told him that this week's column would focus on Ameritech's new scheme to use its huge resources to become an Internet service provider for home and small-business customers. That Ameritech this week will start selling flat-rate, untimed Internet access at $20 per month is big news on the binary beat, even though we've known it was only a matter of time before it happened, I told my second-born. He said that he was tired of thinking about computers, tired of talking about computers and above all, tired of messing around with computers that don't work as promised. He said he had been trying to sign on to America Online for several hours and mostly he got busy signals. Even when he got on, he said, the service kept hanging up on him. I replied that my news about Ameritech deciding to go up against AOL as a seller of on-line connectivity should be of particular interest to legions of other people getting a bellyful of America Online "busies." That's what Steve Case, AOL's chief executive, calls them, "busies." Ameritech is, after all, The Phone Company, since it provides local service to Illinois and four other Midwestern sates. That means it has a huge leg up on competitors because it owns the bulk of the equipment that others supplying Internet connectivity must acquire before they can start signing up customers. In tests with pre-release Windows 95 versions of the Ameritech software, I was impressed by its ease of use and by the phone company's efforts to make the package both friendly to families with small children and yet a powerful tool for adults. The service includes the highly effective CyberPatrol software designed to shield children from offensive material on Internet newsgroups and on the World Wide Web. Adults, however, get full access to all newsgroups and all Web sites, company spokesmen assured me. The Ameritech software comes with the Netscape 2.02 Web browser, but I found that it worked extremely well with Microsoft Internet Explorer, Eudora Pro 3.0 and other 32-bit connectivity software as well. A Mac version will come later this year, the company said. The software is available at www.ameritech.net or 800-638-8775. Ameritech officials say they have carefully crafted a business plan: Ameritech will use its local telephone equipment to let people dial into modems and computers maintained by Ameritech. Those computers will provide storage for e-mail and postings for newsgroups as well as the content of personal World Wide Web home pages each customer will be able to create and post using templates supplied by Ameritech. I found it a snap to set up the limited Web pages the service offers. Keep in mind that all Ameritech is offering is a window on the Internet and e-mail. You don't get any of the massive content of an on-line service such as CompuServe, Prodigy, the Microsoft Network or America Online. Ameritech merely sells you a line into the Internet and browser software that lets you find your own way to content like that without much of a road map. The main thing the company is selling is a claim that it can put you onto the Net more efficiently and painlessly than can the competition. Ameritech, I told my son, promises that a new era of cheap, reliable, fast and easy-to-use Internet access is about to sweep the megalopolis that comprises area codes 312, 773, 847, 708, 630 and 815. "Yeah," said the potential scion of the Coates estates, "like America (expletive deleted) Online." The lad is old enough to vote, so there was little point in correcting his usage. Besides, he has a point in being skeptical about promises for mass- marketed Internet schemes in light of the situation one encounters trying to get America Online to work during prime time. Between 8 p.m. and midnight, which is how AOL defines its own rush period, "busies" and sudden disconnects remain rampant, company officials acknowledge. They say, of course, that they'll soon have things fixed good as new, but meanwhile, we're all in for a bit of a rough patch. "Let's see if I've got this straight," my son said to me. "I used to spend about $20 per month when AOL cost $10 for the first five hours and then $3 per hour above that. So AOL got my money and I got on-line, used up my 10 bucks and then ran up about 10 more dollars worth of time at $3 per hour. "Now they set a flat rate of $20 and that made so many other people sign up that I can't get on-line anymore. So I'm still paying AOL $20 a month, but now I'm not getting on-line." "In other words," he added, "I get much less and AOL gets much more. Phooey." Actually, he didn't say phooey. That's far too weak a word not only for him but for a fairly large number of readers I continue to hear from with angry complaints about AOL's perpetual gridlock problems. Case, the founder of AOL as well as its CEO, has been promising that things will get better soon, but, quite frankly, those promises by Case are getting pretty old. For several years now, people have been complaining about AOL being hard to reach and about the service's software having a dismaying tendency to hang up on customers during times when the service is swamped. And each time one of these gluts hits, Case issues one of his "Letters from Steve Case" promising that AOL is in the process of adding capacity. He has kept his word every time, too. Each time AOL's technical side fixes the problem by adding still more hardware. Then, the company's slick marketing operation kicks in to bring it still more customers, creating the same old gridlock problems again. Case explained in his latest letter to subscribers, "We are certainly pleased to be offering you unlimited-use pricing, but we're working around the clock to keep up with the demand it is creating.... This is not a problem that can be solved overnight, as there are lead times to install telephone circuits and to build the necessary hardware." Valeri Marks, Ameritech's director of Internet marketing, focused on the AOL gridlock problem from the get-go when she dropped by last week to discuss the plan to turn the Midwest's preeminent Baby Bell into an Internet service provider. She said the Internet subsidiary will go head to head with America Online Inc., Microsoft Corp., CompuServe Inc., Prodigy Services Inc., AT&T, MCI and a raft of other companies that offer Internet connectivity. I need to add that I tested the Ameritech package under optimal conditions when only a handful of beta testers were signed up. It remains to be seen what will happen if Ameritech starts luring large numbers of customers -- as has America Online. Because of regulatory requirements, Ameritech has retained the huge Internet provider UUNET Inc. to serve as its hook from local Ameritech networks to high-speed long-distance lines. UUNET does this same service for the Microsoft Network and other Ameritech competitors here. Marks pledged that Ameritech will make certain that its customers are spared gridlock by adding equipment as needed, no matter how much it takes. She declined, however, to discuss such key details as how many modems are available right now and how many can be added. That is proprietary information, she said. But hey, if you can't trust The Phone Company, who can you trust? And, if Ameritech doesn't deliver, there's always America Online. Binary Beat readers can participate in the column at www.chicago.tribune.com/tech or e-mail jcoates(at)ameritech.net. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:39:28 EST Subject: Controversy Over Telephone Privatization in El Salvador From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Organization: Allen Telecom, 8 Silver Ave., Toronto ON M6R 1X8, Canada (forwarded from the labr.global conference on PeaceNet) ** Topic: DEFEND SALVADORAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNION ** CISPES ACTION ALERT Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador January 8, 1997 SAVE UNIONS AND RIGHTS AS PHONE COMPANY PRIVATIZES On November 28, 1996, El Salvador's Legislative Assembly passed a law to privatize ANTEL, the national telecommunications company, ANTEL. The law was passed with a minimum of debate and votes, in the face of massive public opposition. All of the opposition political parties voted against the privatization. In protest, the ANTEL unions called a nationwide work stoppage, and held a march and vigil in the capital. Further protests are being planned, and lawsuits are challenging the constitutionality of the privatization. The new privatization law will hurt workers and consumers alike. Workers risk losing their unions and their jobs in one of the few decent-paid sectors of the economy. Consumers, especially peasants, risk losing the limited public phone access they have, while rates could increase nationwide, further limiting who is able to use the phone system. A few rich families will benefit as this public property is sold at bargain-basement prices. Pressure is needed to start negotiations between the unions and the government. The government has been offering workers wonderful presents in the media, but there is no firm agreement to make sure that ANTEL's workers actually get anything. Specific demands of the workers are: + five years' job security + the right to keep and form unions + financing for workers to buy 10% of the shares of the company, at realistic prices (discounted from market defined rates) + severance pay for those workers laid off in the privatization process. International support and pressure are necessary in order to guarantee justice for the workers. A key international player in the privatization of the Salvadoran telecommunications company has been the Inter-American Development Bank, which has provided 2 loans, one in 1992 and another in 1994 to finance this privatization. (See additional sheet with Background information). (see next page) REQUESTED ACTION: Fax the people listed below, and urge: 1 - that the Salvadoran government name a high-level commission to discuss the above points, and 2 - that the workers' proposals and their rights be taken into account, instead of simply imposing the government's proposal. The government should sit down with the unions and negotiate the terms of privatization. Messages in English should be sent to: Ronald Scheman, US Executive Director to the Inter-American Development Bank, fax: 202-623-3612; phone: 202-623-1031 John Dawson, Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in El Salvador 011-503-278-6011 Messages in Spanish (note draft text in Spanish below) should be sent to: Sr. Alfredo Mena Lagos, Presidential Modernization Commissioner fax #: 011-503-271-4461 If you hold a title in a union, religious or community organization, or an elected office, please use your title and letterhead. *** SAMPLE MESSAGE IN SPANISH *** Estimado Sr. Mena Lagos: Estoy muy preocupado(a) por la situacion de los trabajadores de ANTEL dentro del proceso actual de privatizacion de dicha institucion. Por el hecho de que la privatizacion va a afectar negativamente a la poblacion rural, y tambien a la estabilidad laboral de los trabajadores de ANTEL, fuertemente sugero que se nombre una Comision de alto nivel para discutir los siguientes puntos: G Estabilidad Laboral y Prestaciones Sociales G Indemnizacion G Financiamiento para la adquisicion de acciones para los trabajadores G Fijacion del valor de adquisicion de las acciones. Ademas quiero destacar la importancia de la inclusion y participacion de los trabajadores afectados en todos aspectos de este proceso de privatizacion. La existencia y participacion completa de sindicatos independientes en procesos como esto es un buen ejemplo del proceso democratico en El Salvador. Voy a seguir pendiente sobre esta situacion. Gracias por su atencion. Sinceramente, BACKGROUND: ANTEL's unions have been fighting privatization for years. They have reached out to farmers, community residents, and others, and succeeded in turning public opinion against the sale of the Salvadoran phone company. 57% opposed it in a Gallup poll this summer. Even though the ruling ARENA Party just pushed a privatization law through the legislature, it may be possible to win what the ANTEL unions are demanding -- because ARENA is in a bind. They are trying to carry off a complicated and very unpopular privatization in the next few months while the election campaign is at its height. ANTEL management has already published newspaper ads which show they want to soften the political cost of privatizing. They are vulnerable to bad publicity. The timing of this privatization also shows ARENA's vulnerability. They are rushing to finish the privatization before May 1, when the new Legislative Assembly takes office. ARENA could lose seats in the upcoming March 16 elections, and does not want to take chances with privatization, which is expected to enrich ARENA Party leaders enormously. On the other hand, they don't want to privatize before the March 19 elections. So the actual privatization is supposed to occur on April 4 -- after the elections end, but before the new Assembly can take office (and, with a potentially larger FMLN delegation, amend the privatization law). What all this means is that pressure now should win results. The ANTEL unions report that most of their members are ready for strikes and demonstrations, if necessary. ASTTEL and the FMLN are also challenging the constitutionality of the privatization law, but don't hold your breath; that legal strategy was tried last December, and succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to annul the layoff of 14,000 state workers, but the Assembly promptly passed a new "constitutional" law which laid off the workers anyway. This privatization is a test case. Several important privatizations will probably follow this year. In its last session of 1996, at 2 a.m., the Legislative Assembly passed laws privatizing social security and electricity. Presidential privatization commissioner Alfredo Mena Lagos called 1997 "the year of privatization." And 26 Salvadoran unions have formed a new coalition to fight structural adjustment, especially privatization. A larger struggle is shaping up. The terms which ANTEL's workers win will have important consequences for the Salvadoran labor movement and the general public. Funding of the Privatization Process: The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) has financed the privatization of ANTEL through two loans granted to the Salvadoran government in 1992 and 1994. But a 1994 U.S. law, known as the Frank Amendment, states that the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank must guarantee: 1) that workers' rights are respected in the projects that they are financing, and 2) that when workers are to be affected (as in cases of privatization) they must be involved in the development and execution of the project. Thus, the IDB can and should be held accountable for guaranteeing respect for workers' rights in the privatization of ANTEL. CISPES National Office: P.O. Box 1801, New York, NY 10159; 212-229-1290 Regional Offices: New York, NY 212-229-1290 - Minneapolis, MN 612-872-0944 - San Francisco, CA 415-648-6520 ** End of text from cdp:labr.global ** *************************************************************************** This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking service. For more information, send a message to peacenet-info@igc.apc.org *************************************************************************** forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:50:02 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Cultural Treasures of the Internet" by Clark BKCLTINT.RVW 961016 "Cultural Treasures of the Internet", Michael Clark, 1995, 0-13-209669-2, U$22.95/C$29.95 %A Michael Clark clark@cs.widener.edu %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1995 %G 0-13-209669-2 %I Prentice Hall %O U$22.95/C$29.95 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 313 %T "Cultural Treasures of the Internet" Clark has provided a good "yellow pages" of Web, gopher, archive, and telnet sites of interest to researchers and students of the humanities. (Oddly, but like so many others, he compiles mailing lists in a separate section.) More than that, however, he has provided a very serviceable and useful guide to Internet applications for those just getting started. (It may be a bit presumptuous to consider that anyone in the humanities automatically needs an introduction to the net, but it's understandable.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKCLTINT.RVW 961016 ============= Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | "Kill all: God will know his own." Institute for rslade@vcn.bc.ca | - originally spoken by Papal Research into rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | Legate Bishop Arnald-Amalric User slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca | of Citeaux, at the siege of Security Canada V7K 2G6 | Beziers, 1209 AD ============= for back issues: AV contacts : telnet://guest@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (command "go virus") list, reviews : ftp://cs.ucr.edu/pub/virus-l/docs/reviews and review FAQ: http://csrc.ncsl.nist.gov/virus/virrevws/ http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/avrevfaq.html http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/quickrev.html Viral Morality: http://www.bethel.edu/Ideas/virethic.html Book reviews: telnet://guest@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (command "go tbooks") http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/review.html http://www.webwaves.com/books/slade ftp://x2ftp.oulu.fi/pub/books/slade http://mag.mechnet.com/mne/books/reviews/slade/ gopher://gopher.technical.powells.portland.or.us:70 http://www.utexas.edu/computer/vcl/bkreviews.html RobertS Rules of Internet Order: http://www.techbabes.com/zine/rules.html http://www.brandonu.ca/~ennsnr/Resources/order.html ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Tennesee CellOne Introduces "USA Local" Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:06:40 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com Tennessee CellularOne (GTE) has introduced what it calls "USA Local" calling: For just $5/mo, calls to *anywhere in the US* from virtually anywhere in Tennessee* are billed only at LOCAL rates, withOUT any long distance charges! Roaming is still the same as before (roaming rates + long distance); I'm not sure if NACN-forwarded calls (which do originate from Tennessee) are subject to LD charges. *The six counties of Tennessee *not* licensed to GTE are treated as roaming. Other carriers have introduced *discounted* long distance (AirTouch in Atlanta, for example, offers long distance to anywhere in the US for 10c/min above local rates), but I don't know of *any* carrier that bundles LD in with the local rates! This is in sharp contrast to BellSouth Mobility, who CONTINUES to charge long distance on calls that are 100% LOCAL, routes intRALATA calls as intERLATA, and has *very* high long distance rates (ex: Chattanooga -> Atlanta 28c/min!) United States Cellular is somewhat better, but not much (considering their record with coverage inside its licensed area.) Clearly, the BellSouth/US Cellular/360/rural carrier group of Tennessee carriers is about to lose even more customers. Once Powertel PCS, Sprint Spectrum, and AT&T Wireless enter the Tennessee market, the "B side" will probably die. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ ------------------------------ From: Davew@cris.com (Dave Harrison) Subject: Codec in 96 port SLIC Date: 12 Jan 1997 21:46:53 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services A friend of mine in Grand Junction, CO., (under)served by USWest, just moved to a building served by fiber and 96 port (?) SLIC's. I think I once read a dicussion in this group dealing with the limitation of the Codec in the SLIC line cards that limit data transmission, which may explain why he can't get connect rates higher than about 21.6k. The solution was to have the telco replace the line cards with ones sporting a different codec. Of course, USWest just says "duh" and has no clue. Any help or advice or perhaps even an incantation or two would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, Dave ------------------------------ From: Juha Veijalainen Subject: Re: Cellular Billing for Business/Personal Use Date: 10 Jan 1997 21:20:57 GMT Organization: Jkarhuritarit Jeff writes in : > Most companies that reimburse employees for business use of cellular > phones seem to require some kind of accounting for business > vs. personal use. > Does anyone know of any mechanisms used by any providers that make > this easier? My thought was that the cellular system could allow you > to add a prefix to your call [Snip, cut...] > Is anything like this in place anywhere? Or is any alternative in the > works? (I know one way would be to have two cell phones, but that > seems like a needless expense. Two numbers for one phone might not be > bad.) Comments, anyone? Both GSM providers in Finland allow you to use a prefix for your personal/business calls. In my case my network/service provider is Telecom Finland, I use my own phone and connection for both business and pleasure ... sorry, personal phone calls. Tele offers a service, where you can dial prefix "151" to separate business/private calls for billing. This also works if you have a company phone. When I get my bill, my business calls are already summed up. Unfortunately this prefix system does not work when roaming - so when I go abroad, I need to find out my business calls from the call detail listing. So the real question is does your service/network provider have the sort of soft/hardware that can collect the prefix information? It is all in the Call Detail Records ... Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland http://www.sci.fi/~juhave/ ** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect ** ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Cellular Billing for Business/Personal Use Date: 12 Jan 1997 22:42:20 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Jeff (jeffq@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > Does anyone know of any mechanisms used by any providers that make > this easier? My thought was that the cellular system could allow you > to add a prefix to your call (like the *XX prefixes for services like > Call Forwarding) that would flag the call as a personal call. Your > bill could then be separated into calls with and calls without the > prefix. (Conceivably, you could even have multiple prefixes to allow > account-based charging, etc.) Breaking down the total metered charges > into percent prefixed and non-prefixed (i.e., personal and business), > and possibly even prorating the non-metered costs (e.g., monthly > rates, taxes, etc.) would make it a breeze to expense business costs. Account coding. This would be trivial, so of course, since it's _useful_, no cellco will ever implement it anywhere. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet Pedantry: It's not just a job, it's an adventure. Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #9 **************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jan 13 09:05:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA12223; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:05:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:05:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701131405.JAA12223@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #10 TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 Jan 97 09:05:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Incredible Cultural Demand For More Phone Lines (Tad Cook) New Area Code Plans For 817 (Billy Newsom) New Monopoly Bottleneck (Unbundled Ports and AIN Triggers) (Marty Tennant) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (Shawn Barnhart) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (John R. Levine) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Dave Keeny) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Chris Mathews) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (R. Van Valkenburgh) Re: MCI Bait-and-Switch Beware (Guy J. Sherr) Re: Telephone Fraud in Tulsa (Linc Madison) Re: JPEG File Formats Question (Stan Brown) 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: Incredible Cultural Demand For More Phone Lines Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:27:21 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Demand for Lines Spurs Pacific Bell Hiring By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 11--Pacific Bell disclosed Friday it plans to hire 2,500 new employees this year as it attempts to meet a startling expansion in demand for new telephone lines, Internet connections and storm repairs. Pac Bell conceded it has suffered service problems in line installations and repairs. The company blamed the service deterioration on the unprecedented demand for phone lines, combined with repairs required by recent storms and floods. The company's move to add thousands of employees comes on the heels of Pac Bell's hiring of 4,500 workers in 1996, the most in 20 years. Currently, the phone company is looking for service representatives, technicians, support staff to handle orders and people to install phone lines. "There is an incredible cultural demand that has developed for additional phone lines," said John Britton, a Pacific Bell spokesman, referring to society's growing need to be in touch. During the first nine months of 1996, Pacific Bell installed 553,000 new phone lines, a record amount. Among people who want an additional phone line in their home, nearly half want the connections to set up home offices. The backup has been so great that Pac Bell has been forced to set up a triage to prioritize which orders will be filled first: - The top priority is customers who have no service. - The second priority is customers with line static or other related problems, but who still have phone service. - The third priority is those who currently have service but want additional phone lines. "If it's an additional line, those people have to go lower in the pecking order," Britton said. Until it can hire new employees, Pac Bell has been forced to import employees from other states and countries. Pac Bell has begun to borrow workers from telecommunications companies in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Canada. The company expects to have to borrow 250 to 300 employees in the next few months. About 80 workers have already arrived and are installing lines, making repairs and undertaking construction work in the Bay Area. "I've heard we may borrow people for three months or longer," Britton said. The East Bay is adding phone numbers and prefixes at such a rapid rate that Pacific Bell has decided to add a new area code to the region in 1998. The phone company apparently doesn't expect the demand to ease any time soon. "While storms are seasonal, the skyrocketing demand for new telecommunications has become a more permanent trend," Pac Bell said in a statement. ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: New Area Code Plans For 817 Date: 12 Jan 1997 16:49:21 GMT Organization: The Why? Network You didn't here it from me, but a certain Southwestern Bell bird told me that 817 will split in June 1997. This area code contains Fort Worth, Denton, Waco, and a good portion of North Texas. Sorry, Waco, but Fort Worth will keep 817, everyone else will change. This comes after 214/972 split the Dallas area only last September. There are still no final plans yet. First off, the Texas PUC rejected the initial 214/972 idea, and it had to be redone at the last minute. So the PUC may be picky again. But hopefully, SWBT has learned their lesson for 817. Second, there's still a debate as to how many area codes to make. There's rumors that there may be two new area codes, since the resultant area (minus Fort Worth) would end up doughnut- or horseshoe- shaped and would probably need another split in a few years, anyway. My guess is that the southern region will get one, and the northern/ western region will get another. Who knows? All I know is that the 214/972 split was a huge fiasco, given many people didn't know about it until two weeks before -- and that my PBX can't take much more of this. When I know more, I'll pass it along. Billy Newsom :^p uruiamme@why.net My site: Motherboard HomeWorld (a.k.a. **DANGER**) http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ nO nEED tO yELL! The only site on the Internet devoted exclusively to motherboards ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:21:03 -0800 From: Marty Tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: Low Tech Designs, Inc. Subject: New Monopoly Bottleneck (Unbundled Ports and AIN Triggers) Beware of a new monopoly being created unless the FCC gets their 91-346 Intelligent Network docket right. Unbundled central office switching ports have recently been ruled, by the FCC and State Commissions, as having all the features and functions available on the switch included. This includes all custom calling features such as three way calling, automatic call return, call waiting, etc. The Bells hate this interpretation, but it appears to have stuck. In several State decisions, I have seen this extended to Advanced Intelligent Network triggers. In other word, if you provide dialtone via an unbundled port, you get ALL AIN triggers to use, and only you get to provide future services on those triggers. The FCC, in their 91-346 Intelligent Network Docket, said that they wanted the Advanced Intelligent Network to represent the "telephony equivalent of an open IBM PC programming platform", for the creation of new call processing capabilities. If this is the case, then the platform access point relies upon the AIN triggers that are contained in the central office software. If MCI, or AT&T or NYNEX own the triggers, then you will buy your AIN applications only from them. Is this the "telephony equivalent of an open IBM PC programming platform"? I don't believe that enough people are aware of the possibility, unless the FCC rules otherwise in their upcoming closeout of the 91-346 docket, that a new monopoly bottleneck is in danger of being created. This time, as we crack the monopoly on telephony hardware, we will be creating a new software monopoly. Where is the EFF and the Consumer Federation of America and others on this issue? Are you guys asleep at the wheel on this or what? If the impact of this isn't alarming to you, maybe I haven't explained it enough, or people don't understand AIN. Both are possible. Please ask questions if you don't get the critical message I am relaying here. I am sending this to several list and individuals, and encourage cross posting to others. marty tennant low tech designs, inc. ------------------------------ From: swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com (Shawn Barnhart) Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:55:21 -0600 Organization: Chaos Lawrence V. Cipriani wrote: > I'm not going to be very popular with my reply. > Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the > telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls > [a few minutes] on average. Sure, there's no disputing that. But will they be opening their offices up for independent data collection? Opening their engineering and planning records to revue capacity planning and investment for the last twenty years? Those are the facts that need examining. > However, being public utilities, you could argue they should respond > to the changing needs of the public. And as usual, they are going to > want of money to upgrade their systems to handle this traffic pattern. > However, the FCC and public utilities commissions should ask > themselves, and you [very pointedly] why people who don't even own > computers [like my parents] should bear the cost of upgrading the > phone system with higher rates for someone elses [dubious] benefit? The question I have is, where have the RBOCs BEEN? It's not like the modem was invented last week and that people just *all of the sudden* started calling BBSs, ISPs, etc destroying their precious switch and trunk capacity. Modems and BBSs have been around for more than ten years, and I don't think that the usage patterns have changed that much -- I can remember swapping software over the modem (120k @ 30 cps ~ 68 mins), staying online with a BBS for an hour and then going to another BBS for another hour, or staying online for hours (sometimes all weekend!) with a timesharing system. I know I wasn't the only one with these habits then, and I'm sure it wasn't a local phenomenon. I have a suspicion that management at RBOCs have been asleep at the wheel and have not been doing much proactive planning in their core business. They've all been real interested in cable TV (and content for it) and other things NOT part of providing telephone service. Suddenly they may have a capacity problem and they want someone else to pay the price. I don't think that I should have to pay the price -- I think the stockholders should. They're responsible for RBOC management, and RBOC management is the source of this problem. Shawn Barnhart swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 06:21:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the > telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls > [a few minutes] on average. > However, being public utilities, you could argue they should respond > to the changing needs of the public. And as usual, they are going to > want of money to upgrade their systems to handle this traffic pattern. > However, the FCC and public utilities commissions should ask > themselves, and you [very pointedly] why people who don't even own > computers [like my parents] should bear the cost of upgrading the > phone system with higher rates for someone elses [dubious] benefit? Who says they should? Remember price caps? The theory was that the PUC set prices, the telco got to keep the difference if they could cut their costs. But wait, what if the telcos guessed wrong and the costs don't go down? Well, in that case the telcos go back whining to the PUCs with stories ranging from numerically implausible to outright lies*, while at the same time running advertising campaigns to encourage people to sign up for second lines for modems. If the telcos ever presented numbers for modem use that were on the same planet as financial reality, they'd get a lot more sympathy here. As it is, they're only accelerating the day when everyone other than the little old lady POTS customers will run away to bypass and CAPs who act like they actually want the business. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, Trumansburg NY Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be * - Viz the PacTel press release about "calls that didn't complete" implying switch meltdown but which in fact was people calling Netcom and getting busy signals. ------------------------------ From: Dave Keeny Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:11:25 +0500 Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation Reply-To: keenyd@ttc.com Torsten Lif wrote: [big snip] > Another angle: Verbal contracts are legally as binding as writing, if > you can prove what was said. Do the third-party "witnesses" that are [snip] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They get real indignant when you tell > them you are going to record the conversation. You must by law inform > the other party that you are going to record it. They really do not [snip] Pat, Federal law allows telephone conversations to be taped as long as at least one of the participants agrees to it -- this allows you to record your own conversations; however, state laws may differ and the legality is not always clearcut ... >From http://www.cpsr.org/dox/factshts/wiretapping.html : > California law does not allow tape recording of telephone calls > unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal > Code section 632), or they are notified of the recording > by a distinct "beep tone" warning (California Public Utilities > Commission General Order 107-B). Federal law, however, is less > restrictive. It requires only one party to a conversation to > agree to tape record a call for the recording to be legal (18 USC > section 2511(d)). It is not always clear which law, state or federal, > applies to specific situations. This determination depends on where > the call originates, why the recording is being made and who places > the call. To stay within the law, you may wish to refrain from taping > calls you make, but be aware that in certain situations others may > be recording your conversations with them. The referenced page deals specifically with California, but the same issues might apply in other states. If a person didn't know the state laws, I suppose he could go ahead and record the conversation clandestinely, and then look into the legality of it later, if it were needed in court. Not that I'm recommending that, but it's an option. Those interested in the laws of their own state regarding taped phone conversations may want to visit the following: http://www.rcfp.org/1stamend/1a_c1p1.html Addresses first amendment issues, and lists states that require all parties to be notified of the recording ("two-party" states). http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html State-by-state listing of one party vs. two party notification requirements and footnotes for many states discussing details of those states' laws. Dave ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 1997 12:34:00 +0100 From: rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Organization: RSE Moss-Jusefowytsch OEG > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They get real indignant when you tell > them you are going to record the conversation. You must by law inform > the other party that you are going to record it.... I'm not a lawyer, blah, blah, blah, but in the state of Arizona it is legal to record a phone conversation as long as just one of the two parties is aware. Therefore in AZ it is OK to record your phone conversations without informing the other person. Chris Mathews ------------------------------ From: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh) Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:02:43 GMT Organization: auburn.campus.MCI.net Reply-To: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net Torsten Lif wrote: > Fine, we accepted MCI. But when the paperwork arrived, I found that > the prices were a 6-month promotional and would double after that > date. Annoyed, I called and they denied any responsibilty - "the sales > person was not authorized to make those promises - Sorry". > Then, AT&T called [clip] > " I protested that their sales person had specifically said the > rates came without any expiry date. "Sorry, Sir. The sales person was > not authorized to make those promises." Sound familiar? > Another angle: Verbal contracts are legally as binding as writing, if > you can prove what was said. Do the third-party "witnesses" that are > called in record the conversations in some "safe" manner? Could I > insist on having the salescritter repeat the offer for the recording > and then really hold the company to it? As Pat mentions, there can be problems with recording telephone conversations without the other party being informed. But one other are where the telco's have us beat is with regards to tariffs. If a telco rep promises you a great rate that happens to exceed legal tariffs, the telco MUST ignore the rep's "mistake" and charge the legal (tariffed) rates. There would be nohting you could do, unless you could prove it to be intentional (fraud). If you believe you can prove fraud, then by a means do it! But keep in mind that it will cost you a fortune in court (money and/or time) to litigate. Best of luck. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is quite true. The tariff always prevails. Regardless of what anyone says at telco which happens to be in error, the rules to follow are the ones written into the tariff. Maybe you can prove the employee deliberatly misinformed you in order to get you to sign up, but that will be hard to do. MCI/AT&T/Sprint will just tell you their employees are ignorant and do not know any better than what they chatter about on the phone. You prove otherwise. Good luck if you can. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:24:15 -0600 From: Guy J. Sherr Organization: Engineering Subject: Re: MCI Bait-and-Switch Beware I must differ with you here. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ...{of a solicitation call} You must by > law inform the other party that you are going to record it. I am not an attorney or a lawyer, but I love a good argument; so bearing in mind that I am quite probably wrong, now do I plunge headlong into the fray. You can record anything you hear on the phone provided you either placed that call, or were among the receivers of that call. All of the people on a phone call have the same rights to privacy from eavesdropping, but they no rights to privacy beyond their conversation with ONE ANOTHER. Even when a person says "don't tell anybody, but ...," you are not bound by rule of law to keep that confidence (unless you are within the limits of a handful of special relationships that have the protection of Legal Confidence). These rights stem from your ability to literally transcribe the content of any conversation without any other party's knowledge or permission. Even if you don't use a phone, go home, and wait until dark, you can still legally write down everything I said to you and even testify to that effect later. Further, the phone company cannot interfere with your transciption unless they want to be AS RESPONSIBLE for the contents as any other party to the conversation. Regards, guy ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Telephone Fraud in Tulsa Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:35:25 -0800 In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote: > Tulsa, Okla., Sees Rise in Incidence Telephone Fraud > By Becky Tiernan, Tulsa World, Okla. > Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News > Jan. 3--Two popular telephone scams have made their way to Tulsa. > [ ... ] > In a scam that hits people on a personal basis, con artists send > urgent messages to people via fax, e-mail and pager. The message > includes a phone number. That phone number, in reality, is a 900 > number somewhere in the Caribbean. > "The real problem with this scam is the cost of the call -- about > $25," said Garrett. "Unless you recognize the number on your bill, you > may never know they got you." > Beware of these area codes: 242, 246, 268, 345, 441, 664, 670, 758, > 767, 787, 868, 869 or 876. "If you see a number that you don't > recognize, on your pager or that comes over your fax, ignore it," said > Garrett. More horrendously sloppy reportage. These are not "900" numbers in the Caribbean. They are ordinary numbers in the Caribbean area codes shown. In order to get the charge to $25, they'd need to hold you on the line for about 20 minutes. Reports of Caribbean numbers with surcharges over and above the normal charges for calls to that country, are nothing more than URBAN LEGEND. If you believe you know of a case that is real, please supply the SPECIFIC DETAILS, not just "Oh, I know someone whose cousin's company got hit." At the very least, we need to know the area code and prefix of the supposedly surcharged number. If you dial an ordinary number that is call-forwarded to a 900 number, you will pay only the ordinary toll charge to the number that YOU dialed. The cost of the 900 number will be borne by the person who ordered the forwarding. However, the advice about ignoring (or at least checking on) any unfamiliar numbers on your pager, or that you are solicited to call by some other means, is right on target. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best. com ------------------------------ From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Subject: Re: JPEG File Formats Question Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:50:55 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net Thus spake fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) in : > I want to look into some .JPG files on the web and deconstruct them. > Can anyone point me to a good tutorial on JPEG and the source of the > file format definition? This may be of some help. According to the help file for LView Pro, try ftp://ftp.uu.net, directory /graphics jpeg. Here's the quote: "Free, portable C code for JPEG compression is available from the Independent JPEG Group, ... A package containing our source code, documentation, and some small test files is available from ftp.uu.net (192.48.96.9) in directory /graphics/jpeg. The current release is v4, file jpegsrc.v4.tar.Z. (This is a compressed TAR file; don't forget to retrieve in binary mode.) You can retrieve this file by FTP or UUCP. Copies can also be found at many other Internet sites. If you are on a PC and don't know how to cope with .tar.Z format, you may prefer ZIP format, which you can find at Simtel20 and mirror sites (see NOTE above), file msdos/graphics/jpegsrc4.zip. This file is also available on CompuServe, in the GRAPHSUPPORT forum (GO PICS), library 15, as jpsrc4.zip. If you have no FTP access, you can retrieve the source from your nearest comp.sources.misc archive; version 4 appeared as issues 55- 72 of volume 34." Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA email: stbrown@nacs.net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #10 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jan 14 08:50:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA04955; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:50:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:50:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701141350.IAA04955@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #11 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Jan 97 08:50:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (John Higdon) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Marty Tennant) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (John R. Levine) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Torsten Lif) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Brand Hilton) Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture (Nils Andersson) Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture (Stewart Fist) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (John R. Levine) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Nils Andersson) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 23:48:49 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Dave Keeny wrote: > Federal law allows telephone conversations to be taped as long as at > least one of the participants agrees to it -- this allows you to record > your own conversations; however, state laws may differ and the legality > is not always clearcut ... >> From http://www.cpsr.org/dox/factshts/wiretapping.html : >> California law does not allow tape recording of telephone calls >> unless all parties to the conversation consent... Yet another case of California's parochial myopia. What on earth would stop someone in CA from calling anyone (including someone in the state), then three-waying someone else into the conversation who happened to be located in a state that allows recording without both parties' consent? The person making the recording is indeed one of the parties to the conversation, so he is satisfying the Federal and his state's law. California law would not apply to someone living in another jurisdiction. And being in compliance with Federal law, California could expect no cooperation from any other agency in dealing with this recordist. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to prove that such a recording was NOT made in the above-described manner. In other words, I could call a downtown business, record the conversation clandestinely, and then later produce the recording as evidence claiming that it was made by someone in, say Arizona, who happened to be on the line. Who could prove otherwise? John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati/ | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 21:27:14 -0800 From: Marty Tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: low tech designs, inc. Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware > But one other area where the telco's have us beat is with regards to > tariffs. If a telco rep promises you a great rate that happens to > exceed legal tariffs, the telco MUST ignore the rep's "mistake" and > charge the legal (tariffed) rates. There would be nohting you could > do, unless you could prove it to be intentional (fraud). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is quite true. The tariff always > prevails. Regardless of what anyone says at telco which happens to be > in error, the rules to follow are the ones written into the tariff. Tariffs, as we know them, are going away, at least for interstate long distance. Exercising "regulatory forebearance" given them by the 1996 Act, the FCC has ordered long distance companies to STOP filing tariffs with them. Image the welcome drop in paper going to DC. Companies will only have to keep one copy of their rates in one location of their choosing. Some carriers are actually opposed to this, as it puts them in a situation that might require individual contracts with their customers. This might stop the lying sales reps that don't care if they tell the truth over the phone. marty tennant low tech designs, inc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 09:20 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > But one other are where the telco's have us beat is with regards to > tariffs. Hey, I thought that long distance companies don't file tariffs any more, since AT&T became "non-dominant" and the new communications act kicked in. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ From: Torsten Lif Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:31:46 -0500 Organization: Ericsson Messaging Systems, Woodbury, New York, USA I wrote: > Another angle: Verbal contracts are legally as binding as writing, if > you can prove what was said. Do the third-party "witnesses" that are > called in record the conversations in some "safe" manner? Could I > insist on having the salescritter repeat the offer for the recording > and then really hold the company to it? To which Pat added: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They get real indignant when you tell > them you are going to record the conversation. You must by law inform > the other party that you are going to record it. They really do not > like it however. Be sure to include the question, "Are you personally > authorized to make promises and commitments on behalf of ? I don't know how well a tape from my answering machine would stand up in court, considering the near-state-of-the-art audio editing equipment in any PC these days. But the Telco has to call in a witness to have verification that I actually agreed to this. Do these witnesses keep recordings or do they make written notes? Are they impartial enough that I could call upon them to testify against the Telco if I feel the promises haven't been met, or would they be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them? Torsten ------------------------------ From: Brand Hilton Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: 13 Jan 1997 18:10:50 GMT Organization: Nortel, Inc. After reading all this about AT&T and MCI, I just wanted to throw in a plug for a company I've recently started using for long distance: VarTech(sp?). Their rate plan is fairly simple. $5.00 a month and 10 cents a minute in the US, INCLUDING IN-STATE, any time, day or night. You don't have to sign up for anything. The first time in a calendar month you use 10811, you get charged the $5.00 monthly fee. So, if you go a month without making any long-distance calls, you're not out any money. 10811 + 1 + Area Code + Number I've been thoroughly satisfied so far. Brand [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The main problem with companies which charge a monthly service fee (as per your example of five dollars) is that one needs to make enough calls in a month's time to amortize or 'even out' that initial service charge. If someone made only two or three long distance calls in a month's time (fairly typical for many Americans) and each call was just a few minutes in duration, those calls are going to be quite expensive when you pay ten cents per minute plus five dollars. I do not think most people who use plans of this sort realize that you need an hour or more of long distance calling per month before that five dollar monthly fee has been absorbed into the cost of each call sufficiently that the rates 'per minute' come into a really competitive range with 'more expensive' carriers, and maybe two hours of calling per month before it gets to the point you are at the ten cent per minute rate advertised by the company making the offer. In other words, if someone offered you a plan of fifteen cents per minute flat rate, you would have just as good a deal until you (as a moderatly heavy *residential* user of long distance) got to the point of two or three hours of traffic month. That is why we often say that for all intents and purposes where *residential users* are concerned, all the various companies charge the same amount. None are cheaper; none are more expensive. For resiodential users then, the thing to look for is customer service and quality of connection rather than price. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture Date: 13 Jan 1997 18:52:41 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) writes: > As to long distance competition, AT&T's long distance rates were on a > steady decline for years and were pretty reasonable. I question > whether "competition" really made a difference. I think it was > technology that did it. I do not doubt that it was both. Now I can call anywhere in the US 7/24 at 10cents and most international locations at 25 cents a minute. I do not believe that would have happened without the breakup. The proof is that other countries that had access to the same technology have not have nearly the same price drops yet, although with global deregulation I expect it to happen. > I also think companies like MCI got an unfair start by skimming the > cream -- serving high volume profitable corridors What is wrong with that? > leaving AT&T to serve the low end and provide emergency > capacity for outages. (For years, whenever you had trouble on MCI > their operator would tell you to dial 10288+ to make your call. I > wonder how MCI would have grown if it did not have the backup > capability.) What is the problem? I pay one price (10cents/min) for normal bulk comm, and a higher price, as much as 45c/min for fallback/emergeny/ oddball communications. Seems fair to me. > As to owning your own equipment, everybody knows the old Western > Electric 500 and 2500 sets were sturdy enough to take a direct nuclear > hit. Today's sets, even those made by AT&T are cheap and fragile. > You can't buy the good sets, except through the second hand market. If extreme realiabilty is your formost criterion, then the old AT&T clunkers were of course winners. (And AT&T had a strong incentive to do this, as they would have to go out on a service call if one broke.) There are, however, other valid criteria, such as lightness, built in speed dial, lighted dials, dial-in-handset, etc. A lot of people even care about color and design (I do not, but lots of people do). As I own several sets, the risk that one might fail does not bother me, I will simply replace it when convenient. > Are consumers really better off? I would argue that most customers actually are better off, but of course this does not apply to all. The ending of cross-subsidies where long-distance subsidies went to local and network hookup has by definition forced those whose use was almost exclusively local to now pay their own way. OTOH, expanding technology has brought down costs overall, and I doubt that the total phone bill has truly become significantly higher in real terms (after inflation) for very many people, for the same usage, that is! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > None of the later entrants on the scene wanted any > competition; they just wanted to rip off what they could from the > network and they convinced the government to help them do it. PAT] Actually, that is not what happened. As in any partially regulated market, the typical plea to the government from any given company was to open up for more competion in the areas to which it did not have good access, but to disallow more competion in the areas where they already did. (The most laughable example was when at roughly the same time, the LD operatore argued FOR opening the local markets - intra-LATA - to competion, but AGAINST opening the long-distance market to local telcos, while the RBOCs took the opposite view, on both items.) This is self-serving and in many cases disingeneous, but also very predictable. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:35:46 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture Lisa Hancock (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com) writes: > A lot of significant changes in the Bell System happened regardless of > competition. For instance, owning your own sets was a separate decision, > as was long distance competition. I've been collecting estimates from around the world for some time, as to how much telecommunications costs have been dropping over the years. These vary widely, of course, but in general they suggest that the "real costs" of maintaining, improving and introducing telephone networks and the supporting plant and equipment (ignoring management and marketing, etc.) has been dropping since 1983 (the year when digital ICs and optical fibre began to make an impact) by a compound rate of between 5% and 7.5%. Thus if the core networks had remained monopolies and efficient (difficult to do with monopolies, I admit) the prices would now be much much lower than they are under competitive regimes. What non-US economists and politicians are constantly doing with telecommunications, is comparing the government-monopoly-rip-off regimes with lower US long-distance prices and believing that this comes about just from competition. However in most countries governments (like successive Australian governments), take out profits, taxes, and discount/subsidies. The Australian government now gets about $2.5 billion a year [Revenues are $15 b] as direct profits which are virtually hidden taxes. Then, they take out taxes (effectively they tax themselves), and there are huge hidden subsidies and discounts to government enterprises -- both for services and for R&D -- probably amounting to at least another $1 billion. The Defence Department for instance, gets Telstra to build its over-the-horizon radar system, and little outback towns nearby, suddenly acquire 12-fibre optical cable connections, 500 miles from the nearest major residential city. These all artificially inflate the prices charged to the paying customer -- and make monopolies look to be expensive. On top of this, the competitive regimes (such as in Australia now with the private Optus offering long distance) results in duplication, thousands of new marketing staff (16,000 in Telstra from one account), and enormous advertising and promotional budgets. Telephone services have taken over in Australia the role once played by cigarette companies: you can't watch live Aussie TV for two minutes without seeing a Telstra logo. Enormous over-engineering also results from companies preparing for competition -- since this is the way to defend yourself against price cutting wars. With Optus and Telstra, Australia now has 100 fibre pair between Sydney and Melbourne, while only six are ever used. This overengineering is duplicated around the country. Such escallation in costs is especially evident with duopolies in small countries, but it is also true of more open competition in larger markets. Also economists forget that with competitive regimes in telecomm- unications, the competitors must also be collaborators -- they need to interconnect for starters, and they also need to maintain goodwill in various departments (mainly with the dominant carrier) both to share resources and to utilise each other's plant. But governments publically demand "competition"; so the companies often put on a public face of furious fighting. I suspect that both Optus and Telstra probably have subsections of their PR departments specifically charged with publically bad-mouthing each other, for purely political reasons. This "proves" to the politicians and economists that their economic rationalism is successful! The members of a duopoly may not fix prices formally, but they do informally at capacity planning meetings: "We are not planning on increasing the cable capacity to Queensland. Are you planning any discounts which would increase our requirements?" "No, not this year." "Nor are we." And they also each know that their best interests lie in a facade of public pricing discounts (Family and Friends plans, etc.) which have very little effect on revenues, while jointly maintaining prices at a high level. Most dominant carriers have increased revenues after the duopoly was introduced -- not through greater efficiencies (often staff/line ratios have increased due to the new marketing staff) -- but because price caps are raised to allow the new competitor to recover its (duplicated) capital outlay. > I also think companies like MCI got an unfair start by skimming the cream > -- serving high volume profitable corridors leaving AT&T to serve the low > end and provide emergency capacity for outages. Here I disagree. MCI (and Optus) can only skim the cream if there is cream to be skimmed. While I agree with maintaining government-owned dominant carriers (on the core network, anyway) where they still exist, I don't see why anyone should be prohibiting from competing with them in niche markets, if anyone can find a creamy niche. It is the carrier's responsibility not to leave any cream. The problem here is one of tariff rebalancing, so that prices reflect costs. USOs should be openly paid from taxation revenues (or from equal imposition on all carriers) -- not through hidden cross-subsidies and discounts which result in cream and non-cream areas of operations. USOs can be then auctioned to the best/cheapest provider. Without this form of market discipline, the carriers can never be held responsible for bad practices and inefficiencies. > As to owning your own equipment, everybody knows the old Western > Electric 500 and 2500 sets were sturdy enough to take a direct > nuclear hit. Again, I disagree. I think the Carterfone decision of the FCC (levered through by the famous FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson), is probably the most useful and significant piece of regulation-change in the history of telecommunications. The carrier has no more right to own or control your equipment (other than to insist it meets standards) than the electricity provider has to own your refrigerator. The Carterfone decision set the demarcation point (between them and us) at the home boundary. I would take it back even further. I suggest that, when I rent a local-loop along suburban streets back to the exchange, then I have the right to control what travels across it, and to which service/s (plural with small multiplexers) it connects at the exchange. The exchange building should always be a legislated "peer point" where licensed service providers have access and rack-space, to make their own competitive connections. (It is not in most countries.) Then you have peripheral competition in the provision of services -- which is what everyone wants -- not duplication of national networks. For this to happen, all it requires is for legislation to shift the demarc back to the other end of the local loop. Instead of it being at my end, it is set at their end -- where the cable enters the exchange. Line rental is then paid by me (to the owner - probably a telephone company, but not necessarily) for my use of the local loop twisted-pair -- for whatever reasons I want, with whatever technology (provided, as always, it conforms to standards and doesn't effect other users). The access link needs to be separated and legislatively distinguished from the telephone network. This then brings it into line with everything else I rent. If I rent a car, I can drive it on anyone's roads (not just toll-roads owned by Hertz), and I can carry in it anyone I want. The rental company does not control the contents, or the direction, provided I stay within reasonable standards. So shifting the demarc back to the exchange is just the Carterfone decision taken logically to its limit. It takes the demarc to the point where it separates the "exclusive use" components of the telephone network (CPE and local loop) from the "share use" (core network and swiches). That, then allow competition to work at the periphery. The core can take care of itself. Stewart Fist Technical writer and journalist. Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > Archives of my columns:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 06:48:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Does the second 'T' in AT&T still have meaning in this age? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do either of the letters 'T' in > ITT mean anything these days for the company which bakes bread > among other things? How long has it been since International > Telephone and Telegraph had any involvement with either? PAT] Sure. The second T in AT&T before 1919, when they controlled Western Union, and perhaps later on when they started the TWX business which, after a lot of buying and selling, they still have. Telegraphy is, after all, data rather than voice communications, and AT&T sure does a lot of that. Today's ITT (the company's official name, the letters don't stand for anything any more) is a far cry from the company of Sosthenes Behn and Harold Geneen. Not only do they not make Twinkies any more, they're completely out of the phone business. They own the Sheraton hotel chain, three Caesar's casinos, the Madison Square Garden group in New York, and some other hospitality industry businesses. The only vaguely phone related business they're still in is ITT World Directories which publishes phone books. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Date: 13 Jan 1997 18:52:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do either of the letters 'T' in > ITT mean anything these days for the company which bakes bread > among other things? How long has it been since International > Telephone and Telegraph had any involvement with either? PAT] At some point in the early eighties, ITT started an effort to develop digital switches. They hired away a bunch of talent from AT&T at a substantial premium, set up the lab with tight security and developed away. I am not sure how technically successful they were, but the marketing effort that was carried out in parallel flopped, the Norwegian Govt Telco was the only significant customer. One day the access cards would no longer open the doors to the lab; that is how the engineers found out that they had been laid off. As the one sale did not justify finishing the effort, ITT satisfied the customer contract by subbing out the bid and they bought I believe Ericsson switches. Sic transit gloria mundi!!! Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #11 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jan 15 02:50:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA09756; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:50:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:50:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701150750.CAA09756@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #12 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Jan 97 02:50:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" (Lauren Weinstein) Book Review: "Data and Computer Communications" by Stallings (Rob Slade) US West Offers Inet Access (Roy A. McCrory) Tele-Card Pyramid Scheme? (Tad Cook) When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens (Connie Curts) 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? (Lloyd Matthews) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Michael D. Adams) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (J.P. White) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Moshe Braner) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Philip G. Rissler) Re: Controversy Over Telephone Privatization in El Salvador (N. Andersson) 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: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 20:11:25 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Greetings. Early last Saturday morning, AT&T's Telstar 401 satellite, with a full complement of C and Ku band transponders, apparently suffered catastrophic failure. All contact was lost by ground stations, and according to all available reports at this time it has not been regained. This satellite mainly carried television programming, including feeds for the major U.S. networks and loads of syndicated shows. The networks, as "platinum" customers, were quickly switched to backup transponders on other satellites. Most other customers started a scramble for alternate space, made all the more difficult by people being hard to reach during the weekend and by the fact that many industry folk were attending a trade show. It's reported that when the outage was initially announced at the show, many attendees thought it was a practical joke. The sudden and complete loss of a modern, fully functioning commercial geosync communications satellite in this manner is reported to be essentially unprecedented. --Lauren-- www.vortex.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:04:25 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Data and Computer Communications" by Stallings BKDTCMCM.RVW 961015 "Data and Computer Communications, 5th ed.", William Stallings, 1997, 0-02-415425-3 %A William Stallings ws@shore.net %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-02-415425-3 %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 798 %T "Data and Computer Communications, 5th ed." That the latest edition of one of the classic data communications texts is the most up to date is not altogether surprising. What is outstanding is just how up to date it is, and how detailed. The price of cramming this amount of current knowledge into these pages is a fairly demanding text. The writing is never unclear, but it doesn't make concessions to the reader either, and requires some application. As a course text the material is well laid out. Each chapter ends with recommended readings for further study, a set of problems of suitable difficulty, and possibly appendices. Pedagogical aids are available online and separately. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKDTCMCM.RVW 961015 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: Roy A. McCrory Subject: US West Offers Inet Access Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:00:33 -0700 Organization: High Latency Networks, High Bluster, NM Although US West is not known for pricing its services without a generous profit margin and amortization of capital investment over a very short time, they are offering unlimited internet access to Denver Public School families at a net price of $10.95 per month (plus $2.00 per month to be given to the school for computer equipment). This is the guaranteed price for five years. Check the details on this at http://www.denverpost.com/enduser/feat7.htm in the {Denver Post}. This seems incongruous besides AOL's whining that it cannot make a profit on unlimited access at $19.95/month, but perhaps that has more to do with the fact that AOL is apparently giving its services to hundreds of thousands of 'hackers' for free! Check the first two stories in the current issue of Computer Underground Digest at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/CUDS9/cud903 ... The first story mentioned is attached below. Regards, Roy A. McCrory (505) 846-6937 "La tierra es del que la trabaja!" mccrory@erebus.fc.dna.mil [The Denver Post Online] Internet offer to connect DPS with community By Alan Gottlieb [End User] Denver Post Education Writer The best Internet deal in town is finally coming on-line for Denver Public Schools families and employees. Brochures being sent home with students this week advise parents that they can hook up to the Internet through US West's new !nteract service for $12.95 a month with unlimited on-line time. And $2 of that monthly fee goes back to DPS for updated computer technology for classrooms. People can begin signing up when they receive the notice, but the service won't become available until Jan. 15. !nteract will be a full-service Internet provider, offering access to the World Wide Web through free Netscape software, as well as email and newsgroups. Most Internet providers charge $19.95 a month for unlimited usage. But the $12.95 cost for DPS families and employees is guaranteed for five years, said US West account manager Brenda Hubert. Users will have to pay a onetime hook-up charge of $15 and must provide US West with a credit card number. The monthly fee will be billed to the credit card. Hubert said the phone company hopes most DPS teachers sign up "in the first wave." US West anticipates about 2,000 accounts in the first couple of months, though the company's Internet "platform" can accommodate more. In fact, the US West brochure promises users that they will "virtually never" encounter the busy signals that so often plague Internet users. "We can grow the pipe very quickly if we need to," said Susan Hartley, a sales manager. As part of the new partnership between US West and DPS, all teachers will get two voice-mail boxes by next spring, to foster efficient communication with parents. Under the Parent/Teacher Exchange program, one mailbox is used to receive messages from parents, the other can be used to inform parents of homework assignments, upcoming field trips and other relevant matters. DPS Chief Operating Officer Craig Cook said administrators will strongly urge all teachers to use the mailboxes. Hubert said US West will monitor usage and report back to Cook the names of teachers who have had their mailboxes turned off for two weeks or more. Over the next few months, the school district also will be rolling out its World Wide Web site, which officials promise will offer up-to-date statistical information on individual schools and the district as a whole. Data including test scores, graduation rates, budgets, historical data on enrollment by race, suspensions, expulsions and dropouts will be posted on the Web and available to anyone with an Internet account. The "Webmaster" hired by the district will help schools build individual Web sites, which could include information such as the school paper, PTA news, lunch menus and minutes from collaborative decision-making team meetings. The cost of the new Web service will be about $42,000 a year, for one full-time salary with benefits. Alan Gottlieb is a Denver Post Education Writer and can be reached at alangot@rmii.com. Dec. 11, 1996 ------------------------------ Subject: Tele-Card Pyramid Scheme? Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 01:42:20 GMT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Escondido-Based Tele-Card Network Changes to Comply With Regulators By Mario C. Aguilera, North County Times, Escondido, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News ESCONDIDO--Jan. 11--After four states levied cease-and-desist orders against Escondido-based Tele-Card Network, the long-distance phone card business revamped its marketing approach to comply with state regulators. TCN sells prepaid telephone cards under a multilevel marketing "binary matrix" system. The company's operations raised the attention of agencies in New York, Michigan, West Virginia and North Carolina, each leveling cease-and-desist orders against the company. "We developed some information from the company and looked at their marketing practices and found they were in violation of New York state business law," said Wes Goforth, spokesman for New York State Attorney General Dennis Vacco. "Under the state's definition, we felt TCN fell under a pyramid scheme." Goforth said his office contacted the company and negotiated a settlement that lifted the order without charges being filed. A similar agreement was recently reached in Michigan, while a draft resolution has been written for West Virginia. An agreement for North Carolina is still in negotiation. "The company has been making a good faith effort to comply in all states we operate in," said TCN CEO David Pohl. "The challenge has been developing a network operating strategy to comply with every state's unique regulation laws." Pohl said TCN hired an attorney with expertise in network marketing law to advise the company on compliance. At the heart of the matter is the amount of recruiting in accordance with actual selling of the retail product. Goforth says the incentive to make a profit was solely on recruiting new members into the network. "We needed to see a product being sold," said Goforth. Apparently that's what the company did with its new sales structure released last week. The company has dispensed with a mandatory $40 membership fee, instead offering an optional sales starter pack for $45, and now retails "Timepaks" of 600 units of calling time for $150. TCN, which was founded by Jeff Rogers and Damon Westmoreland in 1995, has apparently taken the rift with state regulators in stride. The company said it is making plans to take its 120 employees into a 17,000-square-foot San Marcos building, as rapid growth has called for more space. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:46:01 CST From: Connie Curts Subject: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens Please consider sharing this with all your readers, so they can pass it along within the industry. We all know that proper written communications is vital in any technical career, but hyphenation is very tricky and often misused in advertisements, proposals, etc. Thank you. ----------------- Several professionals have asked me over the years how to properly write technical phrases, because the use of hyphens confused them. Until I started writing articles, I did not understand the rules either. Here's the scoop. When words are intended to be read together as a single adjective, those words should be hyphenated. For example: There is an on-line system. It is a PC-based T1. I have a three-year-old son. When those same words are to be read as a noun, they are not hyphenated. For example: We are on line. It is a PC based in the control room. I have a three year old. This rule is followed by most professional publications. I find it interesting that it is in several English books, but it is seldom explained or emphasized in English classes. Prof. Connie Curts Telecommunications Faculty DeVry Institute of Technology 11224 Holmes Rd Kansas City, MO 64131 phone: (816) 941-0430 ext. 467 fax: (816) 941-0896 email: ccurts@unicom.net email: ccurts@kc.devry.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the tips. If/when I get to the point once again (ever again?) that I have time to actually edit this little newsletter in detail I'll try to remember your guidelines. In the meantime, perhaps writers to the Digest will take note of your comments and incorporate those rules in their own submissions. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lloyd Matthews Subject: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:24:53 +0000 Organization: TRW-SIG Sunnyvale Reply-To: lloydm@pop.svl.trw.com Can anyone tell me which company is behind the "10321" code? They have been agressively advertising cheap rates for 20-minute or longer long-distance calls in both Northern and Southern California. I would appreciate hearing by email from anyone who has used them, and who have compared their rates to those of the Big Three. -- Thanks! Lloyd Matthews (Lloyd.Matthews@trw.com) ------------------------------ From: mda-970114a@triskele.com (Michael D Adams) Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:31:57 GMT Organization: Triskele Reply-To: mda-970114a@triskele.com On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:11:25 +0500, Dave Keeny wrote: > Federal law allows telephone conversations to be taped as long as at > least one of the participants agrees to it -- this allows you to record > your own conversations; however, state laws may differ and the legality > is not always clearcut ... IANAL, but state laws are moot as far as interstate or international commerce is concerned, according to the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court early in '95 in the Terminex (sp?) case, and other, more recent cases. Michael D. Adams mdadams@triskele.com http://www.rahul.net/starowl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:46:37 -0800 From: J.P. White Reply-To: ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Organization: FFV Aerotech Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Torsten Lif wrote: > I'm forced to conclude that they are both equally guilty in this. So > far, Sprint is the only one of the "Big Three" that hasn't made any > false promises. If nothing else happens to change my mind, I will be > calling them about their rates to Sweden as soon as the "Thanks for > switching" check from AT&T has cleared. It seems that even the smaller carriers are guilty of making such promises. I switched to NOS communications for my domestic service, they promised 35c/min to the UK which was much better than MCI at 55c/min. They did honor the rate, but six months later I got a really BIG bill. The rate had jumped to 85c/min. I complained and was informed that there had been an across the board price increase, when presured they agreed to get me back to 35c/min and refund the overcharges, which they did. I know that the 'across the board' price increase was bogus since the company I work for who was also with them did not get a similar price hike. They were just trying it on to see if I'd notice. If you're calling Sweden, then the Big Three will probably always be expensive. NOS are OK but I have recently discovered better rates elsewhere. Try LCI communications see them at http://www.lci.com/, and Telegroup see them at http://www.telegroup.com/ Both these companies seem to offer Sweden at around 23 or 24c/min with six second billing increments, no 'bong' charge. With LCI you'll need to switch, but telegroup do not require you to switch, they just get your name and address telephone number and give you an 800 number to dial to access their international service, I tried it at work for a while and it seemed to work as advertised. I'll probably sign up at home before long and keep NOS for domestic long distance only. JP White Manager Information Systems FFV Aerotech Inc., Mail to : ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Web : http://www.ffvaerotech.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original writer said Sprint was the only one he had not caught lying, but there are a lot of readers here who could tell you Sprint is as bad as the others. The program they offer called 'Friday Free' is a good example. Now they are claiming they will give you free calls on Friday through the end of 1997, but in actual practice what they do on this is sign people up, give them a couple of free Fridays, and then force them to switch to other plans if they think the person's calling patterns are not going to be profitable for the company. To heck with any contracts or promises made. They simply violated and broke the contracts of many of the customers who signed up for Free Fridays last year; I assume they are still conducting business the same way. If you don't like them breaking their contracts, well you can always call them on the phone Yeah, I would have to say Sprint is among the worst when it comes to telemarketer fraud along with Bait and Switch advertising. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:53:34 -0500 From: Moshe Braner Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware > Torsten Lif wrote: >> Fine, we accepted MCI. But when the paperwork arrived, I found that >> the prices were a 6-month promotional and would double after that >> date. Annoyed, I called and they denied any responsibilty - "the sales >> person was not authorized to make those promises - Sorry". While I was shopping for LD service (gave up on a long term loyalty to ATT) I was frustrated by the meaningless hype spouted by the salesmen. Sprint, in particular, brushed past answering any precise questions, such as "what is your basic rate?". Then I got a call from an MCI salseman. He promised 9 cents per minute (from Vermont to the West Coast, at night), and above that a deep discount for the first 6 months. When the bills arrived it was 11 cents AFTER the discount. Moreover, the bills were impossible to decipher, i.e., I could not tell how much was the nominal charge and how large was the discount. They also promised monthly promos, turned out you have to call each month and go through agonizing messages to try and figure out the promo, which is usually something like "free calls to other MCI customers on Friday the 13th only". Needless to say, I dropped them. Picked a carrier that charges me 10 cents per minute 5pm to 8am, no gimmicks. (I won't name that carrier so nobody will think I'm pushing them. :-) Moshe Braner 47 McGee Road, Essex Junction, VT 05452 USA (802) 879-0876 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sprint brushed off your question about a 'basic rate' because they have no 'basic rate'. It is what- ever the telemarketer they hired that day wants to quote. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:27:06 -0500 From: Philip G. Rissler <104707.706@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Organization: The SABRE Group, Inc. In TELECOM Digest V17 #11, brand@nortel.ca (Brand Hilton) wrote: > After reading all this about AT&T and MCI, I just wanted to throw in a > plug for a company I've recently started using for long distance: > VarTech(sp?). Their rate plan is fairly simple. $5.00 a month and 10 > cents a minute in the US, INCLUDING IN-STATE, any time, day or night. > You don't have to sign up for anything. The first time in a calendar > month you use 10811, you get charged the $5.00 monthly fee. So, if I've been using a company called either Southern Communications or Southwest Communications. I don't have my phone bill in front of me. The access code is 10005. They charge 9.9 cents intERstate and 14.9 cents intRAstate 24 hours/day. There is no monthly charge and the charges show up on my Southwestern Bell phone bill. The fine print says the minimum charge per call is two minutes but I've had calls charged 10 cents. I've used 10005 for quite some time from my home in Oklahoma, but it doesn't work in Phoenix. I don't know what states are covered. Does anyone know of a better deal for small volume calling from home? Philip Rissler ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Controversy Over Telephone Privatization in El Salvador Date: 14 Jan 1997 20:01:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > The new privatization law will hurt workers and consumers > alike. Workers risk losing their unions and their jobs in one of the > few decent-paid sectors of the economy. Consumers, especially > peasants, risk losing the limited public phone access they have, while > rates could increase nationwide, further limiting who is able to use > the phone system. A few rich families will benefit as this public > property is sold at bargain-basement prices. There are several issues here. I will do them point by point: > The new privatization law will hurt workers and consumers > alike. Workers risk losing their unions and their jobs in one of the > few decent-paid sectors of the economy. This statement presupposes many things: 1) Transfer payments are a good thing; 2) Transfer payments disguised in the form of higher than market wages are even better. 3) Current employees of government or currently-government-controlled businesses are particularly worthy recipients of this largesse. 4) Users of certain currently-government-services, telco in this case, are particularly deserving to be the milk-cows for this largesse, in effect imposing a very high but hidden sales tax on telco. One can make a good argument that this kind of thinking is a major factor holding back poor countries, i.e. one of the factors that keep them poor. A few govt/telco employees win in the short run, everybody loses in the long run (and most lose even in the short run). > Consumers, especially peasants, risk losing the limited public phone > access they have, while rates could increase nationwide, This depends on how the privatization is done. Obviously, selling of a govt monopoly to let it become an un- or loosely- regulated private monopoly is NOT a good idea, it will merely shift the "sales tax" to be received by investors; the government is in effect selling out the cash cow for a one-time payment. Selling the telco NOT as a monopoly and/or with the understanding that rates will be carefully watched and expected to come down has wide benefits, however. The other bugaboo, universal access, has often been used in the US, accusing start-ups of "skimming the cream" while not serving unaccessible locations. This is not nearly the big issue that it has been hyped up to be. There may, however, be some cases where inaccessible locations were/are in fact subsidized under the monopoly, i.e. paying the same rates as everybody else although they were expensive to serve. To the extent that the subsidy was less than the overall markup payable to the employees, this is not a problem, they would just not see as big a rate reduction as everybody else. To the extent that the rural/inaccessible rates would actually need to be higher to cover costs, the government has at least three options: 1) Specifically require that the buyer maintain rural nets at current standard and rates, regardless. 2) Add a telco tax (similar to US levies for 911, TDD, whatnot) levied on all telcos, including future competitors, and use the money to support outlying areas. 3) Require that old sold telco and new telcos serve rural areas in proportion to the amount of business they do (the bookkeeping will look different, but in essence, same as alt 2)). 4) Pay a subsidy to outlying areas out of general revenue (why should telco users in particular be taxed?). > A few rich families will benefit as this public property is sold at > bargain-basement prices. If the telco is sold competitively by bid, there will be no "bargain basement price". If the number of bidders is artificially constrained, by insider deals or by restricting purchase to domestic buyers, you could be right of course. As with many things, openness is the key, open pricing, open offer, open competition. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #12 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jan 15 05:24:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id FAA16348; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 05:24:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 05:24:53 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701151024.FAA16348@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #13 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Jan 97 05:24:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? (Chris Ziomkowski) Re: Codec in 96 Port SLIC (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (Alan Sanderson) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (Stephen Satchell) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (J.P. 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: Chris Ziomkowski Subject: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:39:08 -0800 Organization: Summit Computing/Big Bear Online I live in a rural community in the mountains of Southern California. For three years I have been after our local telco for ISDN, who has continually told me they don't offer it in this area. (They used to be Contel, however recently they merged and became GTE.) Suddenly, we were chosen as the site for the 1997 winter X Games, and ESPN requested ISDN service in the area. After speaking with a GTE engineer, I was informed that yes, they are in fact installing ISDN for ESPN, but that they had to take heroic efforts by pulling it on a T1 from an office 20 miles away, and that it wasn't available to the general public. My question is, can they do this? I've been after them for years, and my requests have fallen on deaf ears. Yet ESPN comes in and requests ISDN for only two weeks and suddenly GTE bends over backwards to supply them! Worse yet, I have a three month backlog of problems with my current telephone service, and I keep getting the cold shoulder because ALL of their engineers are committed to installing lines for ESPN! I live in this community year in and year out and get treated like dirt, yet they come in and for only two weeks worth of income GTE treats them like kings??? I admit I'm a little bit frustrated by the whole situation, but I thought the whole point of a public tariff was to make sure everyone got treated equally. Now that they have proven they can offer ISDN in this area, can they legally tell me they won't give it to me? Should I call the PUC and start an investigation, or am I getting involved in things I really don't understand? Thanks in advance, Chris Ziomkowski Software Consultant czim@summit.bigbear.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To answer your question based merely on the title of your article, the answer is NO ... telco may not be selective or biased or prejudicial in offering its services. Telco is required by law to provide its services to all qualified appli- cants. A 'qualified' applicant is one who has demonstrated his/her ability and willingness to pay for the service requested. A 'quali- fied' applicant is further an applicant who has agreed to be bound by the provisions of the tariff(s) telco has filed and to cause no harm or degradation to the network facilities, etc. So far so good. Did GTE file a tariff making ISDN available to ESPN for two weeks? Probably so, just like Ameritech filed a tariff to install and maintain service for all the Democrats when they invaded our town last summer for one week and as a result no one else could get installation or repair in any sort of timely way for a couple months before and after ... But tariffs come in various ways. If GTE filed a general purpose tariff making ISDN available, then they cannot deny the service to you, assuming you are not a deadbeat, a convicted phreak, or someone else they are allowed to deal with 'differently' than most customers. If they filed a special, one-time tariff covering the special circum- stances of the events taking place, then they can rightfully claim you are not part of the specialized group being served under the circumstances. You are not, if you please, similarly situated to ESPN. A good example would be if ESPN and CNN were both going to be there and GTE sold the service to ESPN but refused to provide it to the similarly situated CNN. Before you make a complaint, you might want to see just exactly how GTE worded things in the tariff. Is it a rotten deal when telco bends over backwards to accomodate some large, pushy corporate customer or a bunch of bigshot poli- ticians as happened here last summer? Yeah it is, but telco knows where to suck up and how to do it best. Take for instance the Democrats; in 1968 when they last 'favored' us here with their convention including riots by the police and demonstrators, fires, looting, etc, they split town after the convention leaving an unpaid bill to Illinois Bell (Ameritech's predecessor) of over a million dollars. IBT tried for about three years to collect it from the Democratic National Committee or whatever their name is/was, and finally wound up writing it off. Try that with your phone bill. See if it even gets close to a million dollars before that man with the nasal-sounding voice calls you on the phone as he does me when my bill gets a month or so overdue for a hundred dollars and tells me, "Townson? ... I will give you until five pm to get over to the payment agency and drop off the money; otherwise I am going to cut you ..." The Democrats stiff them for a million dollars yet this past summer Ameritech is busy sucking and slurping and making obscene noises in their haste to placate the politicians; to heck with the twenty dollar per month year-after-year regular customers. Yeah, life is rotten and unfair at times. Check to see exactly how GTE is handling it legally (that is, in the tariff). I'll bet they have it covered as they want it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Codec in 96 Port SLIC Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:32:16 -0500 Davew@cris.com (Dave Harrison) writes: > A friend of mine in Grand Junction, CO., (under)served by USWest, just > moved to a building served by fiber and 96 port (?) SLIC's. > I think I once read a dicussion in this group dealing with the > limitation of the Codec in the SLIC line cards that limit data > transmission, which may explain why he can't get connect rates higher > than about 21.6k. > The solution was to have the telco replace the line cards with ones > sporting a different codec. > Of course, USWest just says "duh" and has no clue. Any help or advice > or perhaps even an incantation or two would be greatly appreciated! From my archives: -------------------begin included text---------- Date: 6 Aug 1996 22:18:31 GMT From: stephen@clark.net (Stephen Balbach) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: AT&T SLC96 Cabinets and 28.8 Modems Telecom-Digest: Volume 16, Issue 385 As promised here is the information on which card works in SLC's for 28.8 or greater connections. This is from an ISP in Bell South territory who said that by using this card they are able to achieve 28.8 or greater connections on a SLC96. "What they did to our SLC to make it work is replace all AT&T cards that originally served lines with the lines, with PulseCom AUA178i cards, these are revision B1, issue 2 (According to the guy that installed them, the revision level mattered)." Good luck! We are pursuing Bell Atlantic to try a card as a test case - I would be very interested in how others fare. As a matter of alternative views, here is an email I recieved on SLC's and how the search for the right card is a search for the Holy Grail. Perhaps he did not try PulseCom AUA178i revision B1 issue 2 ------------------ Greetings, I read with interest of your account of problems with AT&T SLC equipment. The fabled magic card that solves all of the problems. I've heard THAT one before ... and I have seen three such cards produce no better results than the stock cards. There is a reason. The SLC units are not what they seem. You look at one, and you think it is a channel bank breaking out a digital signal, and providing standard channel bank functions. But that is not what it is (at least not what Southwestern Bell uses). The AT&T SLC unit is a device to take analog signals, fold them together onto a digital pathway, and fan them back out on the other side. What is the difference? Big difference ... both the in and the out are analog. So why am I telling you this? Because there is a perception that the problem is a bandwidth issue, and it isn't, exactly. The problem is what is called "PCM quantization noise". PCM q-noise is the slight distortion caused when an analog signal is digitized. Every point in a connection where there is a conversion between analog and PCM (pulse coded modulation) a slight amount of this noise is generated. This noise is most noticable as phase jitter. Phase jitter is not usually audible, but it wrecks havoc on modem signals on the higher density trelis coding methods, such as 28k modems use. The modem industry adapted a test suite that included up to 3 PCM conversions in the tests, to go slightly beyond the standard 2 PCM conversions they thought would be standard in the modern digital phone system. In their worst case enviroment with 3 PCM conversons, the 28k modems were to connect at 28k 80% of the time to pass the test. This is where the SLC gets ugly. In the /real/ world of today, your signal goes into the SLC where it is digitized (thats 1 PCM converson) then it is pulled off the SLC into a break-out where it is analog again. (two PCM conversions). Then across the room to the box that re-digitizes the signal for it's entry to the network. (3 PCM conversions, and we are only half way) The signal then comes out of the other side of the network exactly as it went in (assuming no digital path errors) where it is converted back to analog (4 PCM conversions!). The analog signal then hops onto the SLC where it is turned digital (5 PCM Conversions) then delievered to your neighborhood where it is given one final conversion before exiting onto real copper. (6 PCM conversions) The advantage of the SLC is that in the telco office, crews using ordinary analog test sets can interact with the same methods and techniques that they have used for the past 70 years of copper wire service. The SLC is a copper plant simulator designed to avoid personell re-training. It has the "feel" of copper to service people, so they need little training to debug it. The disadvantage is that a typical circuit path includes 6 PCM conversions. This exceeds the standards for "worst case" PCM q-noise by a factor of two, according to the modem industry. AT&T votes on modem standards, but they are such a big company that the modem engineers have no idea what the telephony engineers are designing. Their engineers all have their heads in the sand while they are designing tomorrows technology. AT&T invented the modem, and they are inventing new ways to make them not work. If you find this fabled card and it works, please tell me about it. If I find it, I'll tell the world. However as long as they are doing standard PCM, no bandwidth increase is going to alter the fact you have six levels of PCM conversion and the resulting noise. PCM q-noise is not caused by imperfect hardware, or poor quality conversion ... it is the slight distortion caused by the math of the conversion. Because the conversion is being done over and over, this particular noise element is greatly magnified as compared to other noise elements. There is no "new math" that can be used to reduce q-noise. It is possible to use different formulas to change the impact of q-noise, however because of the way the modem signal is modulated, it would be easier to demodulate it than to come up with enough math ot encode the analog signal. The only way to improve the PCM performance is to widen the digital pathway. The problem with this is that it steps outside of the 8-bit/24-channel/8khz standard, which is something you might find AT&T reluctant to do. However since PCM q-noise is not really a problem for voice calls, there is no equipment to test for it or analyze it. It is a feature of the technology, and nothing more. I saw the head of Southwestern Bell Compliance testing for all of Texas come out with his best engineers. They had not even heard of PCM q-noise, and had no equipment to measure it. I showed them the blue CCITT standards book, and they scoffed, saying that they cannot be held to standards of the modem industry. Of course they tell me about the "card to solve all problems" fairy-tail. I remind them that they have tried three such cards, and telling me to wait for another isn't going to wash. Supposedly this month another card is coming in, and this is supposed to be /the/ solution. But I've heard that before. I have been asking them to use the fiber for real T1's, and to use real channel banks to break it out. This will reduce the PCM hops by 2, leaving me with 4 PCM conversions as a worst case. However for people not on a SLC, we will be only 2 PCM hops away, and 28k (or 33k) will be possible. An interesting note, real channel banks take up less room at the central office, and about the same amount of space in the field as the SLC equipment. The big difference is that the channel bank will cost about 1/2 of what the SLC cost ... and the techs will need to be trained to administer the equipment. Since they won't do this, the only remaining answer is to convert to ISDN and use digital modems. This skips the whole PCM saga up to the central office, making your worst case only 3 PCM hops, as the standard sets as capable of supporting 28k 80% of the time. Of course ISDN has it's own problems ... --------------------- 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. Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 10:47:54 GMT From: bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) Subject: Re: AT&T SLC96 Cabinets and 28.8 Modems Organization: Associated Technical Consultants Telecom-Digest: Volume 16, Issue 393 stephen@clark.net (Stephen Balbach) wrote: > I had posted earlier about a known problem with AT&T SLC96 fiber > cabinets and achieving full 28.8 (or 33.6) modem connections due to > bandwidth constraints in the SLC96. SLC96 cabinets are widely deployed > througout the USA in all seven RBOCS and are one of the culprits of bad > modem connections in the PSTN. Bell Atlantic told us and many other > ISP's in the Balt/DC region that the problem is unsolvable and the > only solution is ISDN. The cards that break out the OC-3 into DS0's > fall-off at about 3400Hz thus limiting the throughput at best to 26.4 > (28.8 needs about 3800Hz) -- the PSTN can theoreticlaly achive a > maximum of 4000Hz which copper can do, but the cards in SLC96's can > only do about 3400Hz. [snip] Hasn't this horse been whipped before? I've pursued this myself and determined much to my own satisfaction that "the problem" lies not within the SLC96, but rather with the method of termination at the serving office (CO Terminal end). Much to my absolute horror I discovered about a year ago that common practice is to interface the COT end to the (digital) switching machine via back-to-back channel banks with a wire frame inbetween. Argghh! In some cases this was a carryover from a switch upgrade from the analog days, where the SLC originally had its COT side terminated into a wire frame before hitting the machine. Then along comes the new digital switcher and the wire frame remains and/or worse, a D4 bank is added to bring the service into the machine digitally. Why? If the serving office is a digital machine, request, nee insist on 'full digital integration' on the CO end and quite miraculously your "28.8 modem issues" will be solved. This is also true when the CPE is one of the new "digital" modem bays such as USRobotic's upscale Enterprise Network Hub. This unit accepts up to two T1s directly, providing a direct digital interface to up to 48 modems per shelf. Alas, when the CO side has a D4 channel bank sitting ahead of the switch, the bandwidth and high-end frequency response will suffer, as will the signal:noise ratio. By removing the D4 bank and terminating directly into a digital shelf, modem performance literally springs to life. Here's what the differences look like, first w/back-to-back D4 equipment on the C.O. end, to wit: | -22 - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 | -24 - _ 2 | -26 - _ 4 | -28 6 | -30 8 | -32 - 10 | -34 12 | -36 14 | -38 _ 16 | -40 18 | -42 20 | -44 N N 22 | -46 O O 24 | -48 * MODEM RECEIVER THRESHOLD* * * * * * * * * * *N*N* 26 | -50 E E 28 | -52 30 |Level =================================================== Atten | 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 | 1 3 4 6 7 9 0 2 3 5 6 8 9 1 2 4 5 7 8 0 1 3 4 6 7 | 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Here we see fairly good levels out to 3400 hz, where the bandpass suddenly nosedives into the dirt. This circuit will provide V.34 modem performance up to maybe 26.4k bps, but surely nothing higher. By contrast, look now at the same customer's response curve after the C.O. side was given full digital integration: | -18 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | -20 _ - - _ 1 | -22 - 3 | -24 _ 5 | -26 7 | -28 _ 9 | -30 11 | -32 13 | -34 15 | -36 - 17 |Level =================================================== Atten | 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 | 1 3 4 6 7 9 0 2 3 5 6 8 9 1 2 4 5 7 8 0 1 3 4 6 7 | 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Here we still see the high end rolloff, though it's not nearly as steep and there is measurable energy well above the modem's receive threshold, all the way out to 3750 Hz. This circuit will support not only 28.8, but even modem speeds as high as 33.6k bps. Putting in ISDN may in fact be less hassle and less of a fight with "the phone company" as many of them are quick to spout the company "line" about only guaranteeing 300 - 3000 Hz and "2400 baud". ------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 1996 17:42:54 GMT From: exudpau@exu.ericsson.se (David B. Paul) Subject: Re: AT&T SLC96 Cabinets and 28.8 Modems Organization: Ericsson North America Inc. Telecom-Digest: Volume 16, Issue 395 exudpau@exu.ericsson.se (David B. Paul) writes: > But if the SLC-96 (or clone thereof) operates in an IDLC (that is, > INTEGRATED digital loop carrier) configuration, in which the DS1's > coming from the SLC-96 plug directly into the exchange, then only the > "in" is analog, and so the SLC-96 introduces only one source of > quantization noise, not two. But then Robert P. Vietzke wrote: > Newer "integrated SLC's" actually extend the "coder/decoder" that > converts analog to digital and back to the SLC itself, essentially > extending the digital fabric of the switch to the SLC site. These should > provide -improved- capability, not reduced. I've recently seen a new Yes, I was mistaken. Assuming the exchange is digital, a SLC-96 that is "integrated" does not introduce *any* additional A/D conversions. David -----------end included text----------- Hope this helps. Cheers, Will The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: Alan Sanderson 408 447-3859 Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:53:48 -0800 Organization: HP Americas Integration Center Reply-To: Alan_Sanderson@hp.com John R Levine wrote: >> Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the >> telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to >> BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to >> BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls >> [a few minutes] on average. > Remember price caps? The theory was that the PUC set prices, the > telco got to keep the difference if they could cut their costs. But > wait, what if the telcos guessed wrong and the costs don't go down? > Well, in that case the telcos go back whining to the PUCs with stories > ranging from numerically implausible to outright lies*, while at the > same time running advertising campaigns to encourage people to sign > up for second lines for modems. > If the telcos ever presented numbers for modem use that were on the > same planet as financial reality, they'd get a lot more sympathy here. > As it is, they're only accelerating the day when everyone other than > the little old lady POTS customers will run away to bypass and CAPs > who act like they actually want the business. Being a PacTel customer, I have had problems accessing ISP lines, receiving not only busy signals, but the SIT tone/"All Circuits are Busy" recordings. When I contacted PacTel repair service, they pointed the finger at Teleport. I contacted Teleport, and they reported that PacTel had some inter-switch trunking problems that they had been working on for about a week. It appears that the priority to provide working trunks to modem banks is not very high at PacTel. This approach to service tends to hype the call non-completion stats, allowing them to poor-mouth their way to the PUC and the bank. The use of modems and Fax machines in the Silicon Valley should come as no surprise to PacTel. Neither should the traffic pattern growth, or the employment growth, 99%+ housing occupancy rate, and line count growth. In most cases where more than one line is installed in a residence, it is likely that the second line is used for a FAX (similar calling pattern to voice), a computer modem, or a teenager (a similar calling pattern to computer modem usage). Alan Sanderson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:52:27 -0800 From: satchell@accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Organization: Satchell Evaluations In article , lvc@lucent.com wrote: > I'm not going to be very popular with my reply. > Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the > telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls > [a few minutes] on average. Which is why I proposed a method using existing technology to implement a shared leased-line Internet carriage service for residences. I've presented my proposal to the Nevada Public Service Commission, and need to find out where to go from here. Details are available on my web page at I'm all for getting data off the telco networks, particularly when it's Internet traffic we're talking about ... Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:47:32 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? lvc@lucent.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > I'm not going to be very popular with my reply. Yes, but you are pretty much correct and on target. > Facts are facts and there is no factual counter argument to what the > telco's are saying as far as length of computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs v. voice telephone calls. Computer telephone calls to > BBSs and ISPs are much longer [a few hours] than voice telephone calls > [a few minutes] on average. > However, being public utilities, you could argue they should respond > to the changing needs of the public. And as usual, they are going to > want of money to upgrade their systems to handle this traffic pattern. There is a little more to it than just adding capacity, as you note below. And keep in mind that those additional lines being used for "nailed up" low-speed data circuits are also producing $180-$400 per year of revenue on each end. > However, the FCC and public utilities commissions should ask > themselves, and you [very pointedly] why people who don't even own > computers [like my parents] should bear the cost of upgrading the > phone system with higher rates for someone elses [dubious] benefit? That is the classic cross-subsidization question, just restated for the nineties. One might argue that having a readily accessible low-speeed consumer data network is almost as important as having a voice network. Then again, one might not. > In my opinion, if you want to tie up the phone system with long > duration phone calls to BBSs or ISPs then you should pay for it. Sure. But how much? > This doesn't mean I think the telcos should have a license to rip you > off and charge a lot more money than necessary to accomplish this. > They can park a box between their switches and subscriber lines that > listens to incoming touch tones. If the call is going to a known > ISP/BBS then the call can be routed through a separate data network to > that ISP/BBS and there is no need to even go through the central > office switch. This is already a product, and described in the 1/97 > issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, I believe it's made by Rockwell. Absolutely! I have been arguing for a couple of years that the key is to get these "nailed-up" data paths off of the switched network. The irony is that, because the switched network is well amortized, the creation of a new network level with new hardware yields a pricing structure which is difficult to compete with unmeasured POTS. To borrow the comments of a well-known stand-up comic: Ever notice how companies have started charging for things they're *not* giving you? Why does it cost more for products without added artificial ingredients, without fat, without sugar, without calories, etc? -- One may well ask, why should it cost more for telecom services without switching? > Personally, I'm in favor of eliminating all telephone monopolies and > letting the marketplace, not bureaucrats in companies or government, > decide how to price access to telephone networks. In a free market > pricing would probably be strictly usage sensitive, but then a lot of > people would still be complaining they can't get the Internet for > $19.95/month not matter how much time they are on the phone. Gee, too > bad. Actually, as there become more alternatives to the telco's plant (notable cable TV and fiber networks being constructed by other utility companies), there is no reason not to expect prices to drop. A few years back, I thought the idea of the cable companies offering phone service was nuts -- they had no experience in switching. And, once the telcos had fiber to everyone's doorstep, the cable companies would be history. Needless to say, I have changed my mind entirely. The telcos have so badly botched the roll-out of ISDN, which might have been their bridge to the future, that I have all but given up hope for their devising any solution to their long-term problem in a world where switched voice is becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the telecommunications/telemedia industry. The telcos seem unable to get away from "usage sensitive" pricing and move toward "value added" pricing. And, unless they make this transition, I fear they will be left in the dust with the remnants of their "usage sensitive" POTS. As noted in the original posting, the telcos seem to be intent upon creating a price umbrella for new entrants rather than erecting a barrier to entry based upon service availability and price. And whenever a telco person is asked about this, the answer always boils down to "regulatory" issues -- but I have not seen a bunch of rejected telco tariff filings which were turned down by PUCs for predatory pricing -- only rejections of proposed resale rates to new entrant LECs, etc. I do not want to trivialize the situation in which the telcos find themselves. It is indeed a marketing and pricing dilemma. However, the total lack of vision and creativity exhibited is rivaled only by the final days of Western Union ... a company which dominated character-based datacom technology and completely missed the sea-change being brought about by the computer revolution. Again, thanks for your intelligent and intelligible response! Cheers, The Old Bear [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mention the final days of Western Union, and for awhile now I have wondered if the same kind of ending is in store for AT&T perhaps a decade or two decades from now? No one ever imagined WUTCO would come to such an unglorious end, just a bankrupt shell of its former self. In the 1950-60's it would have been unthinkable. And it is still pretty unthinkable about AT&T today isn't it ... yet the similarities are striking in many ways. We see AT&T going out in all sorts of directions, missing the boat completely in so many of its endeavors, bungling up things badly in other areas. They started their ISP, but then WUTCO started Easy Link .. remember that one? Time will tell. Anyone agree with me on this? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:58:12 -0800 From: J.P. White Reply-To: ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Organization: FFV Aerotech Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Shawn Barnhart wrote:- > I have a suspicion that management at RBOCs have been asleep at the > wheel and have not been doing much proactive planning in their core > business. They've all been real interested in cable TV (and content for > it) and other things NOT part of providing telephone service. Suddenly > they may have a capacity problem and they want someone else to pay the > price. I don't think that I should have to pay the price -- I think the > stockholders should. They're responsible for RBOC management, and RBOC > management is the source of this problem. Another possibility to consider is that with all the deregulation of the RBOC monopolies which has been building to climax over the last year or so, the RBOC's have probably been very nervous about the future and investing large sums of money to increase their network. At the same time as this, the internet has increased demand for lines and changed calling patterns in the suburbs. They've been caught with their pants down. Here in Nashville, Bellsouth is under fire because of an epidemic of 'all circuit busy' recordings. They have blamed the internet as the root cause to this problem. I suspect they have underestimated demand AND grown the network conservativly, and by blaming the internet they can attempt to justify the introduction of per minute charges against the ISP's to receive a call, making independant ISP's pass the cost onto consumers. The RBOC's offer internet access, and any such charge would be an internal paper money transfer to them, therefore enabling them a competitive advantage and the creation of yet another opportunity for them to monopolize. I don't see the RBOC's giving up their monopolies willingly, and will try to strengthen them at any opportunity. I very much doubt they are asleep at the wheel as you suggest. JP White Manager Information Systems FFV Aerotech Inc., Mail to : ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Web : http://www.ffvaerotech.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #13 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jan 16 07:57:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA09770; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:57:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:57:25 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701161257.HAA09770@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #14 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jan 97 07:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nomination of Hedy Lamarr (Dave Hughes) Internet Service Causing Network Overload? Hmmm (Jay R. Ashworth) 831 Announced For 408 Split (John Cropper) China Eases Internet Blocks (Tad Cook) Florida Boiler Room Scam (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. * ************************************************************************* 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: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes) Subject: Nomination of Hedy Lamarr Date: 16 Jan 1997 05:58:01 GMT Organization: occ Reply-To: dave@oldcolo.com If yoy agree with this nomination of mine for an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Pioneer Award for Hedy Lamarr, then send a simple email to pioneer@eff.org seconding it. Some *real* telecom history for you youngsters. (I remember her well) As soon as I get the Patent scanned in, including the downright aesthetic diagrams, in Spenserian Script, they will be posted to wireless.oldcolo.com Dave Hughes ------ January 15th, 1997 TITLE: Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil's 1942 Co-Invention of Secure Spread Spectrum Radio Technology ORGANIZATION: None. Hedy Lamarr is 82 years old, retired and reclusive, living in Florida. George Antheil is deceased. CONTACT: For Hedy Lamarr, Anthony Loder, son. % Phones, USA 2304 Sautelle Blvd Los Angeles, CA, 90064 Telephone 310-445-3100 office He is in contact with his mother, and will travel to accept an award on her behalf if she is unable. For George Antheil, Peter Antheil, son 1951 Nolden St Los Angeles, CA, 90041 Telephone 213-255-7097 If he is unable to attend, another son, Chris Beaumont, who lives and works in the Bay Area can do the same. Chris would like to be informed in any event, and would attend. Telephone 415-431-2986, webweaver@best.com email. REASON: I nominate actress Hedy Lamarr (named in 1940 the 'most beautiful woman in the world'), and Musical Composer George Antheil, (called in the 1930's the American 'bad boy of music') for an EFF Pioneer Award in 1997 for their co-development and original invention of the frequency hopping principles of Spread Spectrum radio in 1942, 20 years before it was put to effective use by the United States Navy in torpedo guidance systems, and 40 years before it was permitted by the FCC to be used in commercial radios, which it is now, by over 40 companies, and expanding rapidly due largely to the very great increase in power of digital signal processors over the past 25 years. In a very little known episode of radio technological history spanning several years between 1937 and 1942, this very bright young anti-Nazi Austrian born woman, known to the world only for her beauty and acting talent, and George Antheil, an accomplished American symphony composer who was as a musical innovator collaborated in 1941 to design a novel frequency hopping spread spectrum communications scheme and were awarded U.S. Patent Number 2,292,387, August 11th, 1942, under the name 'Hedy Keisler Markey' (her married name) and George Antheil, for a 'Secret Communications System.' Which patent was then available for study by the US military hotly engaged in technological invention during the early years of World War II. While it cannot be completely known, for reasons of military classification, and now receding history, to what extent this invention and public patent of 'prior art' inspired developers for the US Military which has since made spread spectrum and frequency hopping a key part of clandestine, non-jammable, non-interceptable military communications, and furthered the development of this technology, it is clear that this was the seminal description of a revolutionary form of wireless communications, which was true pioneering. Spread spectrum is THE basis for the communications security of the strategic $25 billion MILSAT Defense communications system) The US Military released some of its work into the public domain only in 1981, where, in 1985 the FCC was able to offer US Industry the legal right to manufacture radios incorporating its principles. The hard fact is that it was Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil giving it concrete form, who formally described this technology - even now considered 'new' - long before its current - and growing - use by the radio and computer industry. The only reason the invention was not used much earlier on a broad basis was that the US did not possess the cost-effective computing power to incorporate its principles that are dependent on 'processing gain' of digital signal processors. Now, of course, the spectacular rise in price performance of micro-processors over the past 25 years has made the technology of spread spectrum and frequency hopping a viable, and still revolutionary advance in digital communications. It became known by journalists who occassionally have dipped into this unusual story and confirmed to me by the inventors decendents, and the statements to me by occassional technological researchers that the ideas brought to the United States from Austria by Hedy, who picked up fragments of technological ideas from her German-military-supporter arms merchant husband in Austria, were the well-spring of the invention. She left her Austrian husband and came to America, so concerned about the coming Hitler threat, that, as a patriotic act after meeting George Antheil she determined to 'give' these ideas to the US Government to help win the war. George Antheil, had a reputation - earned in such musical productions as "Ballet Me'canique" (1927) where airplane propellers were used as percussion instruments in Carnegie Hall - for his technological inventions. Together Hedy and George, on paper on the floor in her and her then husband's (Markey) house, sketched out an 88 unit scheme (the number of keys on a piano) of radio frequency hopping that could be controlled by piano-roll strips. Which was the intellectual basis for their Patent for a 'Secret Communications System' which they applied for on June 10th, 1941, six months before Pearl Harbor. They never received any compensation for their Patent, in part because of the 17 year expiration of Patent right, nor any formal awards for their invention, although there was talk of such recognition for Hedy Lamarr, after George Antheil's death in 1959, from the Congress, and IEEE. Partly because this recognition was so belated, and she had lost her beauty and willingness to appear formally in public, she demurred from accepting, if she was required to attend a public gathering. It is important to respect her wishes in this matter, if an EFF award is given. But they do not diminsh the remarkable, and well ahead of its time, technological achievement incorporated into this patent. MY REASONS FOR THIS NOMINATION.: As the Principal Investigator for several National Science Foundation (NSF) Projects involving digital forms of wireless communications for Education, and for 3d World data communications, I am aware of just how counter-intuitive, and un-obvious are the principles, as well as methods underlying the operations, of spread spectrum radio communications. Even today, 44 years after this young woman, not operating out of a research or university center, grasped and articulated the novel technical ideas underlying spread spectrum, and which she pursued to the point of a formal US Patent the offering of these ideas to the public, very few, even technically savy American understand today how, and why, spread spectrum works, or its significance in providing a revolutionary form of high speed, quite secure, non-interfering (shared spectrum) data communications. Even the articulate and prominent George Gilder has trouble promoting these revolutionary ideas, and I know who hard it is to make people believe that it works. Yet, in the seeds of its concepts, which only now are being exploited both in the FCC Part 15 no-licence (free) communications realm, and the commercial high density cellular telephone realm (Omnipoint, who can offer 490,000 user service in Manhattan per square mile) as well as still in the classified government communications realm, we are moving toward the end of permitting millions of consumer-level data radios to operate in the same physical space. (confirmed by numerous research Theses at academic institutions, the most recent of which is by Timothy Shepard, MIT, July, 1995) This invention was individual American technological Pioneering at its best. Formal recognition is overdue on the merits of the invention alone. Also contributing to my reasons for making this nomination, is that the contrast in the public mind, of a woman, a beautiful one at that, whose native intelligence and willingness to act on her political convictions and technological insight, even though her career was as far from technological development as one could imagine, and during a period of an uncertain, international, personal future, makes this story one which can also capture the public imagination, and further the cause of technological 'pioneering' by women. If Hedy Lamarr could do it... It is documented that Hedy Lamarr also attempted to take a position under Dr. Kettering who formed the first "National Inventions Council" for the US Government, rather than act. But being a woman, with an assured career in acting, she was disuaded from following that path. Although it was Dr. Kettering who suggested that Hedy and George pursue a Patent. The story can be an inspiration and encourage other young women, apart, and even in spite of their other talents or attributes, and young men with other, unrelated, careers, to pursue and contribute technological ideas for the common weal. For those older American men who remember, (and probably were in love with, Hedy Lamarr in her Hollywood salad days), her while many of them were fiddling with their crystal radio sets during the glory years of American radio invention, not knowing what a seminal contribution she made, will reaffirm for many Americans just from how many diverse sources have come American technological 'pioneering' - one of the glories of this inventive country. SUBMITTED BY: David R Hughes 6 N 24th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904 719-636-2040 dave@oldcolo.com OTHER DOCUMENTATION: Enclosed: 1. Copy of US Patent 2,292,387 Awarded August 11th, 1942 2. Xerox of article in {Stars and Stripes} November 19th, 1945 2. Extract from IEEE online documentation (www.spectrum.ieee.org) 3. Text of Article in {Forbes Magazine}, May 14th, 1990 ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Internet Service Causing Network Overload? Hmmm Date: 15 Jan 1997 22:25:01 GMT Organization: University of South Florida In the current context, I thought you folks on the Digest might find interesting a new marketing offer I saw in the local paper, in a _full-page_ ad yesterday: GTE (Florida, the local LEC hereabouts) is offering flat-rate dialup PPP service, like so many other telcos. A quick traceroute suggests that the national backbone provider whom they are reselling is Sprint, but don't quote me on that. :-) In any event, their latest offer is interesting. Like the other carriers, they will give you a discounted flat-rate on their service is you switch to them as your LD provider. Unlike the others, they will _also_ give you the killer deal ... Ready for this? _If you put in a second line to access it with_. Kinda puts the whole "internet calls screw up our load calculations" argument in a whole new light, doesn't it? Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet Pedantry: It's not just a job, it's an adventure. Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 831 Announced For 408 Split Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:28:58 -0500 Organization: LINCS Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com And the New Number is . . . 831 Plan Filed to Split 408 Area Code SAN FRANCISCO -- An area code relief plan has been submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission that would split the 408 area code and create a new area code -- 831 -- to serve part of that area. The 408 area code currently serves the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas of California. California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett submitted the 408 area code relief plan today to the Commission for review and final approval. Bennett said the plan is supported by the telecommunications industry and reflects customer input received during four public meetings in October 1996. Introduction of the new 831 area code, which will be California's 22nd, is planned for July 11, 1998, and is needed to meet the rapidly growing demand for additional phone numbers in the 408 area code, which currently serves the majority of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties and very small portions of San Luis Obispo, Merced, Stanislaus, Alameda and San Mateo counties. Customers in New 831 Will Need to Change Area Code Portion of Phone Number Bennett said the new 831 area code's introduction will not affect customers seven-digit phone numbers. However, customers in the new 831 area code will need to change the area code portion of their phone number beginning July 11, 1998. As proposed, the plan would split off the northern portion of the current 408 area code generally along the Santa Clara County line and place the central and southern part of the existing 408 area code in the new 831 area code. The details are as follows: The 408 area code would continue to serve most of Santa Clara County and very small portions of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus and Alameda counties. Some of the communities in this area include: San Jose, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The new 831 area code would serve most of Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties and very small portions of San Mateo, San Luis Obispo and Merced counties. Some of the communities in this area include: Santa Cruz, Aptos, Watsonville and Boulder Creek in Santa Cruz County, Carmel, Monterey and Salinas in Monterey County and Hollister, Pinnacles and San Juan Bautista in San Benito County. The Commission is expected to issue a final decision on the 408 area code relief plan by March 1st. Persons who wish to comment on the plan may write to the: California Public Utilities Commission President P. Gregory Conlon 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Bennett said two 408 area code geographic splits were presented to the public for comment during meetings in October. The two plans were similar, except one kept only part of Santa Clara County in the 408, instead of most of the county as is currently the case. The Santa Clara County split would have divided San Jose into two area codes, with only the downtown, the airport and other business areas remaining in the 408. Both plans called for placing most of the rest of the existing 408 area in the new area code. "The plan that split San Jose would have allowed the newly configured 408 area code to last four years longer," Bennett said. "But people felt it would be very disruptive to the San Jose area to have two different area codes. Local officials also liked a plan that generally followed county lines because it offered an easily recognizable boundary." As proposed, the new 831 area code is estimated to last more than 20 years, while the reconfigured 408 would have enough numbers to accommodate growth through the year 2001. Price of Calls Not Affected While customers who receive the new 831 area code will have to change the area code portion of their telephone number, the new three-digit code will not affect the price of telephone calls in any of these areas, Bennett said. "Call distance determines call price and is not impacted by the creation of a new area code," he said. "What is a local call now will remain a local call regardless of the area code change." The 831 area code is part of a series of new-style area codes introduced in North America beginning in 1995 that can be any three digits. This has special implications for certain types of telecommunications equipment, which must be reprogrammed to recognize the new-style area codes, Bennett said. "Historically, area codes always had either a "1" or "0" as the middle digit for identification purposes, but all of those codes are gone. The new number combinations allow area codes to be any three digits from 220 to 999, creating an additional 5 billion phone numbers. Make Sure Equipment Can Accommodate The New Area Code "Because of this, it's important for customers to know that PBX (private phone) systems, auto-dialers, alarms and other telecommunications equipment will have to be re-programmed to recognize these new-style area codes," said Bennett, adding that people should check with their equipment vendors to see if their equipment needs to be reprogrammed. Bennett also noted that when the new 831 area code is introduced in July 1998, there will be a six-month "permissive" dialing period during which callers can dial either the old or new area code. The 408 area is the latest in a series of regions in California requiring area code relief. Today, California has 13 area codes, more than any other state. Plans call for doubling that number from 13 to 26 over the next four years to keep up with the state's record telephone number consumption. That consumption is being spurred by several factors, the two primary being the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access, and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone lines. The other factor is the onset of competition in California's local telephone service market, with each new provider requiring a separate supply of telephone numbers. At least 10 of the 13 new area codes will be introduced by mid-1998. In addition to 408, California areas which have already been designated as requiring new area codes are: 310, 818 and 213 in the Los Angeles area, 619 in the San Diego, Palm Springs and Inland County areas, 415 in the San Francisco Bay area, 916 in Northern California, 510 in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, 714 in Orange County and 209 in the Fresno and Stockton areas. Plans for the 408 area code were collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group representing more than 30 companies, including Pacific Bell, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, AirTouch, Evans Telephone, Pagenet, AT&T Wireless, MFS Communications Co., Teleport Communications Group (TCG), the California Cable Television Association and others. Running at reduced capacity due to * John Cropper, LINCS server BIOS failure. Web page will * PO Box 277 NOT be updated until January 20th. * Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 ************************************** Inside NJ: 609.637.9434 Check out our new homepage: * Toll Free: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) http://www.the-server.com/jcbt2n/ * Fax : Temporarily Offline lincs/ * email: psyber@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Subject: China Eases Internet Blocks Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:02:24 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) China eases Internet blocks, keeps careful watch BEIJING, Jan 15 (Reuter) - Beijing has loosened controls barring Chinese Internet users from accessing foreign news sources but is keeping watch for politically suspect content on the worldwide computer network, an official said on Wednesday. Blocks imposed last year on Internet Web sites operated by CNN, the Wall Street Journal and other news providers had all been removed, industry experts in the Chinese capital said. "Some newspapers, magazines, articles and publications (on the Internet) that were sensitive to the mainland were blocked ... but after checks they were reopened," said an official of the State Council, or cabinet. "Time was needed to clarify matters," said the official, who declined to be named. China is eager to be part of the technological revolution of which the Internet is part, but officials have long been concerned that the information superhighway could bypass strict communist control of the media and fuel internal dissent. One Beijing-based Internet expert said China's ultra-conservative State Security Bureau ordered the blocking of scores of news sources last year. "This whole list of news sites was downloaded all at once, so that on the same day every major newspaper web site was blocked," said the expert, who declined to be identified. The mass bans appeared to have drawn fire from the more liberal Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) and other departments, forcing officials to seek a new consensus on how to bring order to the Internet's anarchy, he said. "I get the feeling that not everybody in the MPT was happy about the State Security Bureau telling them how to run their network," the expert said, adding that the blocks had been gradually lifted as the new consensus emerged. The State Council official said China's computer mandarins were maintaining their watch on politically suspect or pornographic material in cyberspace, but were trying to take a selective approach to blocking offending sites. "For example, a university's (Internet) address has a great deal of content, but that doesn't mean that if some of the content was unwelcome then the whole unversity would be blocked," he said. Chinese telecommunications officials have said the installation of controls to curb pornography or unacceptable political material has allowed an easing of limits on the number of Internet accounts. Industry analysts say it is unclear how many Chinese regularly surf the net, with most estimates ranging from around 100,000 to 150,000, but all agree the number is growing fast. The easing of controls was an encouraging sign of Chinese enthusiasm for Internet development, said Bruce Dover of PDN Xinren Information Technology Co, a joint venture by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Ltd and China's People's Daily. "In the past we have been worried they might just pull down the shutters," Dover said at a briefing to launch a new online service supplying Chinese-language information technology news and data. China was embracing the Internet, not trying to strangle it as observers had once feared, he said. The Beijing-based Internet expert said that while it was technically relatively simple to curb access to specific sites, China was discovering the difficulties of controlling Internet content -- a lesson being learnt by governments worldwide. "If there is one specific source of information then it's easy to block that ... (but) content comes from more than one source," he said. "You can block a source but you can't block an idea." ------------------------------ Subject: Florida Boiler Room Scam Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:32:52 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Florida Man Jailed, Faces Charges in Telemarketing Scheme By Scott Burgess, The News, Boca Raton, Fla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 14--Police said they were not surprised at the type of telephone scam Bryant Crowder is charged with perpetrating. But police said they were surprised at the neighborhood phone calls were coming from that bilked hundreds of people out of thousands of dollars around the country, said John Calabro, a Broward Sheriff's Office detective who is a member of the Attorney General's Telemarketing Fraud Task Force. "In all the time I've investigated (telemarketing fraud), I've never found one in such a nice neighborhood," Calabro said, of Crowder's home at 21663 Town Place Drive in Boca Raton's Town Place Club Villas. After a yearlong investigation, the FBI handed the case over to the statewide prosecutor's office because the $250,000 law enforcement officials believe Crowder has scammed from people was not large enough to prosecute at the federal level, said Lisa Porter, the state prosecutor handling the case. Police arrested Crowder Saturday at Town Center at Boca Raton and charged him with racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and organized scheme to defraud in excess of $50,000. He was taken to Palm Beach County Jail where he remains on a $50,000 bond. Crowder was a charismatic person, who lived an expensive lifestyle, Calabro said. "One of his gimmicks was to try and pass himself off as Deion Sanders' brother when he would go hang out at these expensive clubs around Boca Raton," Calabro said. According to police the scam worked like this: Crowder would purchase mailing lists from groups called lead agencies. These lists compiled the names of people who purchased items from different companies and included home phone numbers, dates and items of purchase. With those lists and operating out his home, Crowder or the small group he recruited would call people and tell them had won a large sum of money, usually between $100,000 and $300,000. Because boiler room operation took names from real mailing lists, the scam had an air of legitimacy because the telemarketers would use real company names and even know what item the person had purchased from the company. He would then tell the victims that they needed to send a cashier's check to cover taxes on the prize. Crowder had the person then mail the check to one of many mail drops in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties as well as Atlanta. Once he received the check, Crowder would have someone else cash the check for him, making it difficult for police to track him down. Since Crowder operated the scam out of his home, it was even more difficult to prove what he was doing, Porter said. However, the statewide prosecutor's office in Fort Lauderdale gathered a number of pieces of evidence when it served a search warrant on Crowder's Boca Raton home. Police accused Crowder of operating similar scams in Tamarac and Dade County and said they expect to arrest more people in connection with the tax scam during the next few weeks. "We're not done arresting people," Calabro said. "Though nobody else lives in such a nice house." Marginalia: Don't get ripped off If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County offers this advice to people who receive unbelievable phone calls offering grand prizes. For more information, call the organization at (561) 686-2775. Legitimate sweepstakes contests and prize promotions do not require a purchase or payment. If you are asked to pay money up front, whether for "processing," "delivery," "taxes," or "duties," approach the offer with extreme caution. Only invest in offers you are familiar with and that offer complete, verifiable data. A reputable company will always mail you information if you ask. Don't respond to any offer before checking the company out with the Better Business Bureau, state and local consumer protection agencies or the Florida Attorney General's office. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A guy and his wife living in Glencoe, Illinois -- you can't do much better in life except possibly living in Winnetka (both villages are just north of me) -- was running a mail-order sex scam for years making tons of money in the form of twenty, fifty and hundred dollar bills in cash via his post office box for several years. They were mailing out quality photographs of a very pretty young lady in various obscene postures and poses to mailing lists they obtained from various adult mail order sources. A letter enclosed indicated the young lady was in financial difficulty and had resorted to selling pictures of herself. The letter hinted, with- out making any real claims, that she might go to personally visit the guys who responded. In her unsolicited first letter with the photos, she said that, "as an airline stewardess, travel around the country is easy for me ... maybe we can meet for lunch and whatever." Well these guys (I hate to call them dumb; maybe lonely and naive is a better description) from all over the USA would send in tons of cash for more pictures along with letters telling 'her' how to reach their house and the best times to show up, etc. They had a list on the computer of who gave money and how much. They would keep on sending out letters to those guys with more photos asking for more money. Quite a few of the guys respnded a second and third time with still more cash ("it is hard for me to cash checks because I am travelling so much") before they finally caught on. Then, they were too embarassed to tell anyone about what happened to them. By no means do scams all originate in poor neighborhoods. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #14 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jan 16 08:38:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA12261; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:38:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:38:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701161338.IAA12261@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #15 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jan 97 08:38:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Monopoly? (Eric Florack) Re: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? (Garrett Wollman) Re: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? (Jeffrey William Sandris) Re: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? (Fred Atkinson) Var-Tech LD -- $5.00/Month and $.10/Minute (Bill Levant) ISPs and All Circuits Busy at BellSouth (Tad Cook) Book Review: "The Internet Telephone Toolkit" by Pulver (Rob Slade) Re: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens (Stan Brown) Re: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens (Connie Curts) 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, 15 Jan 1997 06:01:05 PST From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Eric Florack) Subject: Monopoly? Stewart Fist writes to Lisa Hancock: >> A lot of significant changes in the Bell System happened regardless of >> competition. For instance, owning your own sets was a separate decision, >> as was long distance competition. > I've been collecting estimates from around the world for some time, as > to how much telecommunications costs have been dropping over the > years. > These vary widely, of course, but in general they suggest that the > "real costs" of maintaining, improving and introducing telephone > networks and the supporting plant and equipment (ignoring management > and marketing, etc.) has been dropping since 1983 (the year when > digital ICs and optical fibre began to make an impact) by a compound > rate of between 5% and 7.5%. > Thus if the core networks had remained monopolies and efficient > (difficult to do with monopolies, I admit) the prices would now be > much much lower than they are under competitive regimes. Hi Stewart; With respect, II disagree. You fail to account for all the interdependancies. Your argument assumes that the technology would improve at the same rate it has under the more competitive schemes we've had. I suggest that would not happen. Under the monopoly you propose, and necessity being the mother of invention, there would be no need to improve the technology, and so, it would not ahve improved, and so, the operating costs would not have dropped, and therefore, neither would the consumer cost. I propose an admittedly imperfect parallel: Would Computer technology have improved at the rate it has, and would the costs of computer technology go down at the rates they have, had the IBM Clone market not opened up? No. IBM would still have us running on either XT's or with dumb terminals tied to mainframes at costs many times what they are today. In contrast, look at the cost of the Apple Mac, and it's costs reletive to the Clones. True it's costs have come down somewhat, but the cost/capability ratio is nowhere near what you have in the DOS/WINDOWS world. (I'm including the cost of software, and expansion parts, here) The reason? The folks making the MAC know they have a monopoly on MAC hardware. > Enormous over-engineering also results from companies preparing for > competition -- since this is the way to defend yourself against price > cutting wars. With Optus and Telstra, Australia now has 100 fibre > pair between Sydney and Melbourne, while only six are ever used. This > overengineering is duplicated around the country. I'd MUCH rather have that, than the governmental monopoly arranging to /under-design/ as we have now, which results in the capacity arguments such as what I commented on in the last TELECOM Digest of last year. >> I also think companies like MCI got an unfair start by skimming the cream >> -- serving high volume profitable corridors leaving AT&T to serve >> the low end and provide emergency capacity for outages. > Here I disagree. MCI (and Optus) can only skim the cream if there is > cream to be skimmed. While I agree with maintaining government-owned > dominant carriers (on the core network, anyway) where they still > exist, I don't see why anyone should be prohibiting from competing > with them in niche markets, if anyone can find a creamy niche. It is > the carrier's responsibility not to leave any cream. I will agree in effect, but not in principal;, I take a different approach to get to that point; IN the case of the US ; Had AT&T actually acted like they /wanted/ the customers that you refer to as the 'cream' customers, MCI wouldn't have been able to make a dent in that market, now, would they? Fact is, those customers were lost to the first shred of competition to show up in the market, simply because the service provided by AT&T was too rigid, and in the final analysis, unsatisfactory. They had no reason to BE satisfactory, since they had no reason to assume they'd lose the business, being that they had the power and weight of the government behind them, making sure they were the only guys on the block. >> As to owning your own equipment, everybody knows the old Western >> Electric 500 and 2500 sets were sturdy enough to take a direct >> nuclear hit. > Again, I disagree. I'll make a snide/side comment on this point; You complained, above about the telco over-engineering their systems. What are the WE 500 and 2500 units if not over-designed, by a monopoly, at consumer expense? My best regards, /E ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? Date: 15 Jan 1997 11:20:37 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Lloyd Matthews wrote: > Can anyone tell me which company is behind the "10321" code? Their commercials should say that they are ``Telecom/USA'', which is of course MCI. You could have verified this for yourself by dialing 10(10)321-1-700-555-4141. MCI has about 25 10xxx codes registered and configured in this area. They are promoting quite heavily in Boston as well. I wonder if this is the same sort of scam as their `1-800-COLLECT' service, where they talk about ``savings'' compared with a rate (operator-dialed collect) that only a fool would pay to begin with ... I currently give my LD business to Frontier (via Equal Access, so if I need to make an AT&T call I don't get surcharged). Their rates are not the absolute best, but they don't make me play any games to get a good deal. (They also support New Hampshire Public Television, which gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.) Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: sandris@shore.net (Jeffrey William Sandris) Subject: Re: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? Date: 15 Jan 1997 11:20:59 -0500 Organization: Lurton Stubbs Fan Club Reply-To: sandris@shore.net In article , Lloyd Matthews wrote: > Can anyone tell me which company is behind the "10321" code? 10321-1-700-555-4141 routes to the MCI network announcement. Jeffrey William Sandris sandris@shore.net ------------------------------ From: Fred_Atkinson/SkyTel_at_SkyTelNotesPO@mtel.com (Fred Atkinson) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 97 13:16:00 CST Subject: Re: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? > Can anyone tell me which company is behind the "10321" code? They have > been agressively advertising cheap rates for 20-minute or longer > long-distance calls in both Northern and Southern California. I would > appreciate hearing by email from anyone who has used them, and who > have compared their rates to those of the Big Three. I dialed 10321-1-700-555-4141 and believe it or not I got an MCI recording. Fred ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:27:23 EST Subject: Var-Tech LD -- $5.00/Month and $.10/Minute ...in Digest #11, brand@nortel.ca wrote.... > VarTech(sp?). Their rate plan is fairly simple. $5.00 a month and 10 > cents a minute in the US, INCLUDING IN-STATE, any time, day or night. > You don't have to sign up for anything. The first time in a calendar > month you use 10811, you get charged the $5.00 monthly fee. So, if > you go a month without making any long-distance calls, you're not out > any money. ... and PAT observed ... > you need maybe two hours of calling per month before it gets > to the point you are at the ten cent per minute rate advertised > by the company making the offer. Uh, Pat ... in order to bring $5.00 a month and $.10 a minute down to an effective rate of __$.11__ a minute, you need __500__ minutes of usage...8.3 hours ! To get down to $.105 a minute you need __1,000__ minutes. Two hours' usage is 120 minutes; the effective rate would be about $.143 a minute ... definitely no bargain, particularly if you don't use that much every month, since you can get $.15 a minute from AT&T 24 hours a day with NO monthly fee. Also, by the way, in Pennsylvania, BOTH parties to a telephone conversation must consent to the recording (unless the call is made by the non-recording party to a number 'generally expected' to be recorded (e.g. radio station call-in lines; the fuzz; etc). If the recording is MADE in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law would apply to the recording party, regardless of where the other end of the call was located ... Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for doing the math on that one; something I had just guessed at in the thirty seconds or less I spent installing that message in the outgoing queue. Any long distance carrier asking for a monthly charge in addition to whatever they get for your calls per minute is never a bargain since as you point out the Big Three with their 'higher' rates come very close by the time the monthly fee is factored into the overall cost. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: ISPs and All Circuits Busy at BellSouth Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:38:23 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Online Calls Cause Telephone Service Disruption Near Nashville By Cree Lawson, Nashville Banner, Tenn. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 13--You've heard it many times before. First, there's the quick dialing. Then the beeps followed by the static. Finally you have it: The connection. Dialing your Internet service provider is often done with a click and a prayer. But those prayers may be answered increasingly with busy signals. Internet and phone-savvy insiders say that a combination of unlimited accounts, increased traffic and local telephone systems that were not designed for use as a computer network may drive up the number of busy signals. And cyber-junkies aren't the only people who will be getting the annoying tones. When a network is overloaded, voice calls suffer as well, BellSouth Regional Director David May says. "A call is a call is a call," May says. "Our networks don't know the difference." Users of America Online got a case of the "the busies" at the beginning of the year. The company's highly publicized $19.95 unlimited usage rate proved popular with users -- especially the unlimited part. With no incentive to get off the line, users stayed online far longer than usual, dooming other callers who weren't as lucky to rounds of busy signals, according to {The Wall Street Journal}. Subscribers to EdgeNet Media's Internet service also have had a wild ride for the past couple of weeks. A combination of a hardware upgrade, a router failure and a large number of missed connections -- with users trying to sign on in downtown Nashville -- had brought service to a standstill at points. Such accidents happen to Internet service providers, an analyst says. That's just part of the trade. "There are a lot of technical glitches that seem to come up occasionally and bite people in the behind," says Gordon Cook, editor and publisher of the Cook Report on the Internet. Some of EdgeNet's technical glitches were beyond the company's control. The volume of calls between Brentwood and downtown Nashville had increased to the point of straining the local telephone network. On Friday, BellSouth and fellow local phone-service provider TDS Telecom announced that they had added capacity because many calls between Brentwood and Nashville had received "fast busy signals." "We had an unfortunate sequence of events in that we were just telling customers that we had completed the upgrade when customers encountered the busy signals -- which were not our fault," says Tim Choate, president of Brentwood-based EdgeNet. "It's created some confusion as to the source of those busy signals." The problems were due to "an overload of circuits in the local telephone network created by a sudden increase in network usage, possibly related to Internet usage," BellSouth stated. While it's not certain that increased Internet usage caused the problem, there are strong indications that it did, May says. "From experience, we can tell that when computers are talking to computers, they tend to talk longer than when people talk to people," he says. "The duration of the calls is increasing." Industry experts say the trend will continue, especially if companies such as AOL offer unlimited access at low, flat rates. "They're the largest Internet provider," May says of AOL. "That's going to have an impact on us." Some local Internet service providers have backed off from the unlimited usage plan and $19.95 rate for one simple reason: profitability. At least two of Nashville's largest providers -- EdgeNet Media and Telalink Corp. -- don't dole out unlimited usage. They also haven't cut back to the $19.95-per-month rate adopted by regional and national providers, such as AT&T, MCI and BellSouth. "It's a bad business model for us," Telalink President Bill Butler says of the rate. His company's decision not to offer the rate was aimed at preventing people from abusing the system. Neither EdgeNet nor Telalink tries to compete with the $19.95 rate, choosing instead to compete by offering higher-quality service and technical support for a higher price. Both companies limit users of their largest accounts to 120 hours a month. Profitability is also an issue, Choate says. Most companies start losing money on the $19.95 plan after providing a customer six hours of access. "If we sold unlimited access for $19.95, we would be losing money," Butler says. "(Large) Internet service providers across the board have negative cash flow." The average residential phone call lasts a little more than three minutes, industry sources estimate. In comparison, a data call, such as the one you make to your Internet provider, can last 22 minutes. The difference has made it difficult for phone providers to forecast the amount of capacity needed at any given time. "The problem seems to be that they've engineered their networks for voice calls, which last two or three minutes," says Mike Miller, spokesman for AT&T's Internet service, WorldNet. WorldNet users must use a local phone provider to get through to AT&T's main computers. May contends that BellSouth's Tennessee network can handle the additional traffic. The company just needs to know where to expect it. "It's not that our network is short (of capacity), it's that it has to be re-balanced," May says. "We have a lot of latent capacity that has to be moved around or changed." BellSouth's network is constantly evolving, May says, but the recent re- balancing process should have taken care of "the busies." "The proof is in the pudding," says EdgeNet's Choate. "Just because some adjustments have been made doesn't mean that the problems have been solved. We know BellSouth is working very hard to fix these problems. "We'll have to wait and see," Choate says. While local phone companies are doing their balancing act, more and more Americans are falling into the Net. Some analysts even project that the number of households online will double each year until 2000. Telalink is counting on that. Butler calls his company's plans for 200 percent growth in gross revenue this year "conservative." He has reason. Last year, his company grew 320 percent. BellSouth can keep up with that, May says. "Our network capacity is robust and more than capable of accommodating even the growth curves that are affecting us today." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:07:33 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Telephone Toolkit" by Pulver BKINTLTK.RVW 961002 "The Internet Telephone Toolkit", Jeff Pulver, 1996, 0-471-16352-X, C$41.95 %A Jeff Pulver jeff@pulver.com %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1996 %G 0-471-16352-X %I Wiley %O C$41.95 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 %T "The Internet Telephone Toolkit" Internet telephony is still pretty much of a toy, but interest in it is growing all the time. (It is also a very intriguing demonstration of the inefficiencies of current phone systems, but we'll let that go for the moment.) Jeff Pulver, as moderator of the "Free-World-Dialup" mailing list, is in an excellent position to give an introduction to the field, and he does a great job. As well as explaining the concepts, background, functions, and limitations of Internet telephony, Pulver provides a thorough review of a number of net phone software packages. The disk included with the book provides some of these packages so you can try them for yourself. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINTLTK.RVW 961002 DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca BCVAXLUG Envoy http://www.decus.ca/www/lugs/bcvaxlug.html ------------------------------ From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Subject: Re: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:37:38 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net Thus spake ccurts@unicom.net (Connie Curts) in : > Please consider sharing this with all your readers, The relevance of this to telecom matters is not clear to me, but since Our Esteemed Moderator has allowed the subject to be broached, I'll post to clear up some misconceptions. > Several professionals have asked me over the years how to properly > write technical phrases, because the use of hyphens confused them. One way to properly write them is to not split no infinitives! (True, many eminent writers have split infinitives on occasion. But few of us can claim the stature of Shakespeare or even Upton Sinclair. For good or ill, many people believe split infinitives are incorrect. This means that a split infinitive calls attention to itself, which is a Bad Thing in technical writing because it distracts the reader from the actual subject matter.) > Until I started writing articles, I did not understand the rules > either. Here's the scoop. Alas, judging from the article Curts still don't understand them. Part of what she said is a gross oversimplification; part is flat-out wrong. I'm sorry to be harsh, but she's misleading the people who follow her advice. > When words are intended to be read together as a single adjective, > those words should be hyphenated. For example: There is an on-line > system. It is a PC-based T1. I have a three-year-old son. In general this is true, when the words _precede_ the noun that they modify. ("When a temporary compound is used as an adjective before a noun, it is often hyphenated [Note: often, not always] to avoid misleading the reader. ... not 'a free form sculpture' but 'a free-form sculpture'. Even though 'form sculpture' has no rational meaning ..., it could cause a moment's hesitation for the reader: after an adjective like 'free' we almost instinctively expect a noun, and there is indeed one there - 'form' - but it is intended to hook up with 'free' as a kind of adjective to modify 'sculpture', the real noun in the phrase. So to bypass this confusion we insert a hyphen between 'free' and 'form' and thus make its adjectival function clear. ... Note that this device is appropriate only before the noun. If the compound adjective occurs after the noun, the relationships are usually perfectly clear, and the hyphen is not needed: 'A piece of sculpture, free form, stood on the terrace.' 'Ths sculpture on the terrace was free form.'" -- _Chicago Manual of Style_, 13th Ed., para 6.31) However, there are a host of exceptions and sub-rules. ("There are, quite literarlly, scores of other rules for the spelling of compound words." -- para 6.32) The Chicago Manual spends considerable space on this issue, including a lengthy table at the end of Chapter 6. For example, "grand prix racing", not "grand-prix racing"; "highly complex issues", not "highly-compex issues" -- but "well-known man", not "well known man". (Chicago Manual 13th Ed., table 6.1. The rules are so complex that the University of Chicago Press has changed its house style. I have read a review that listed many changes of detail between the 13th and 14th editions.) Curts mentioned technical phrases. The Chicago Manual prescribes "sodium chloride solution", not "sodium-chloride solution". > When those same words are to be read as a noun, they are not > hyphenated. For example: We are on line. It is a PC based in the > control room. I have a three year old. But in the first two examples, "those same words" are not nouns. They are prepositional phrases functioning as adjectives ("on line", "in the control room"). Curts is correct that they are not customarily hyphenated in this position, but they are just as much adjectives as when they preceded their nouns. In the third example "three year old" (sic) is indeed a noun, but it is also customarily hyphenated: I have a three-year-old. Authority: _American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_, Third Edition, first noun definition of "old": "An individual of a specified age: 'a five-year-old'." (The Chicago Manual's table, though lengthy, gave no guidance on this one.) > This rule is followed by most professional publications. I find it > interesting that it is in several English books, but it is seldom > explained or emphasized in English classes. The "rule" Curts gave is not a rule, since it is based on a misstatement of the parts of speech. Perhaps she intended to say something else but did not catch this misstatement when she proofread her article? The rules for hyphenating compound words are complex and are not generally agreed upon. "Hyphenate multi-word adjectives before the noun but not after the noun" is a good starting point, but no more than that. There are many obvious exceptions, such as "two-thirds majority" contrasted with "three hundred members". And the Chicago Manual's table gives quite a number that are to be hyphenated both before and after the noun. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA email: stbrown@nacs.net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/ USD 500.00 charge for proofreading unsolicited commercial emails. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:45:47 CST From: Connie Curts Subject: Re: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens (See message above, and Stan Brown's response to Curts) ... Thank you for the comments, but to clear up your question of relevance I state this: The relevance is to make groups of technical words easier to read and comprehend, as punctuation is to the reader what voice inflection is to the speaker. Regarding my references: "The Associated Press Stylebook" and "Write Right!" by Jan Venolia, among others. It is a shame that Mr. Brown sought to denigrate a comment intended as a sincere FYI into a nit-picking finger-pointing display. Perhaps it is because of people like Mr. Brown that most English instructors do not discuss such matters. If Mr. Brown does not wish to use a rule of thumb, by all means, the complex formulas in the multitude of references await all his available time. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #15 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jan 20 08:50:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA00505; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:50:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:50:39 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701201350.IAA00505@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #16 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jan 97 08:50:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CFP: Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Teleco (M. Karsten) Net Used to Set Up Armed Robberies (Tad Cook) RFD: comp.voicemail (Phil Day) Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture (Martin Baines) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Stewart Fist) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Andy Sherman) Re: Run For Your Lives! Beepers Go Berserk, Refuse to be Silent (C Packer) US FCC Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (Ken Hayward) Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? (Thaddeus Cox) Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? (Bob Keller) 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: mkarsten@kom.e-technik.th-darmstadt.de (Martin Karsten) Subject: CFP: Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecom Date: 19 Jan 1997 15:15:56 GMT Organization: TH Darmstadt, KOM European Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services (IDMS'97) 10. - 12. September 1997 Darmstadt, Germany In Cooperation with ACM SIGMM Gesellschaft fuer Informatik GMD IEEE Computer Society VDE ITG This Fourth International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services follows the successful IDMS workshop held 1996 in Berlin. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for the presentation, exploration and discussion of technologies and their advancements in the broad field of interactive distributed multimedia systems -- from basic system technologies such as networking and operating system support to all kinds of multimedia applications. Furthermore, we are also looking for work from related areas, including digital library, mobile communication, VR, and software agents. Case studies and papers describing experimental work are especially welcome. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to * High-speed and multimedia networks * ATM networks and applications * Mobile multimedia systems * Multimedia communication protocols * Compression algorithms * Quality of service and media scaling * Resource management * Multimedia operating systems * Synchronization * Multimedia database and storage * Video-on-demand systems, components and architectures * Multimedia programming languages, abstractions & APIs * Development tools for distributed multimedia applications * Multimedia-specific intelligent agents * Multimedia/hypermedia applications and tools, production and authoring * Conferencing * Computer supported collaborative work * Digital libraries * Interactive television * Virtual reality systems IDMS'97 will consist of one day of tutorials and two days of technical presentations in an envisaged single-track. System and tool demonstrations will be possible throughout the workshop. In order to keep the flavor of a "workshop", participation will be restricted to about 100 participants. The proceedings of the workshop will be published in the Springer LNCS series and will be available during the workshop. Selected papers will be forwarded to a special issue of the "Computer Communications" Journal. Information for Authors ======================= The working language of the workshop is English. The submission process of papers will be handled electronically. Detailed description of the electronic submission procedures are available in the IDMS'97 web page http://www.th-darmstadt.de/idms97/ Authors without web access may send mail to idms97@kom.th-darmstadt.de requesting electronic submission information. Authors unable to submit electronically are invited to send 5 copies of their full paper to the program chair: Lars C. Wolf Dept. of Electrical Engineering & Information Technology Darmstadt University of Technology Merckstr. 25, D-64283 Darmstadt, Germany Manuscripts ----------- Submitted manuscripts must describe original work (not submitted or published elsewhere). The manuscripts must be no longer than 5000 words (including references, tables, etc.), be typed double-spaced, contain an abstract of approximately 300 words, and include title, authors and affiliations. The author who serves as contact person must be marked appropriately. Panels ------ Suggestions for panels which present innovative, controversial, or otherwise interesting ideas are welcome. Send a panel proposal of at most 3 pages including a biographical sketch of the panelist to the general chair. Important Dates =============== Submissions due: 01. March 1997 Notification of acceptance: 15. May 1997 Camera-ready version due: 15. June 1997 General Chair ============= Ralf Steinmetz, Darmstadt U., Germany Email: Ralf.Steinmetz@kom.th-darmstadt.de Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology Darmstadt University of Technology Merckstr. 25, D-64283 Darmstadt, Germany Fax: +49 6151 166152 Program Committee ================= B. Butscher, DeTeBerkom, Germany A. Danthine, U. Liege, Belgium L. Delgrossi, Andersen Consulting, France J. Eberspaecher, TU Munich, Germany W. Effelsberg, U. Mannheim, Germany J. Encarnacao, FhG-IGD, Germany D. Ferrari, U. Cattolica, Italy B. Furht, Florida Atlantic U., USA N. Georganas, U. Ottawa, Canada W. Hall, U. Southampton, UK R.G. Herrtwich, RWE, Germany A. Hopper, U. Cambridge / ORL, UK J.P. Hubaux, EPFL, Switzerland D. Hutchison, Lancaster U., UK Y. Ip, Siemens AG, Germany W. Kalfa, TU Chemnitz, Germany T.D.C. Little, Boston U., USA F. Mattern, Darmstadt U., Germany E. Moeller, GMD FOKUS, Germany K. Nahrstedt, U. Illinois, USA E. Neuhold, GMD IPSI, Germany S. Pink, SICS, Sweden R. Popescu-Zeletin, TU Berlin, Germany V. Rangan, U. California, USA K. Rothermel, U. Stuttgart, Germany J. Schweitzer, Siemens AG, Germany H. Tokuda, Keio U., Japan F. Williams, Ericsson, Germany L. Wolf, Darmstadt U., Germany (Chair) General Information =================== For program information contact the Program Chair. For additional information see World-Wide Web: http://www.th-darmstadt.de/idms97 Local Organization ================== For any details on transportation, accomodation, or any other local arrangements please contact Martin Karsten Email: Martin.Karsten@kom.th-darmstadt.de (same address as general chair) ------------------------------ Subject: Net Used to Set Up Armed Robberies Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:45:02 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Police believe internet used to set up robberies BY JANINE DEFAO Scripps-McClatchy Western Service SACRAMENTO -- While computer-savvy cops have seen a fair share of financial fraud and sex crimes perpetrated through the Internet, local investigators now are handling their first case in which victims were lured, online, to an armed robbery. A 17-year-old Bakersfield youth is being held in juvenile hall in San Luis Obispo County, charged with three counts of armed robbery there, and is expected to be arrested this week on suspicion of attempted robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and embezzlement in connection with a December robbery in Elk Grove. Two Elk Grove men, ages 20 and 22, met the youth through electronic mail messages he sent advertising laptop computers at "incredibly unbelievable prices," said task force member Fred Adler, a special agent with the California Department of Justice. The men first wired the suspect $1,000 and then arranged to pay $500 more in the Wal-Mart lot in exchange for a computer valued at $5,000, Landahl said. But when the suspect pulled out a semi-automatic assault pistol, the victims ran, prompting the suspect to shoot at them. No one was hurt. Sacramento investigators said they were on the suspect's trail when they learned of a youth in custody on suspicion of a similar crime in Paso Robles. On Dec. 16, three 17-year-olds were robbed at gunpoint of $327 and their driver's licenses after responding to an online advertisement for stereo equipment, said Paso Robles Police Detective Butch Cantalupo. Two suspects, impersonating FBI agents, took the teens' money and told them they would be charged with attempting to buy stolen property. With help from the real FBI, Paso Robles police were able to trace a pager number to the Bakersfield teen. They also arrested a 17-year-old female. Sacramento detectives have identified, but not caught, a second suspect in the Elk Grove crime and believe there may be other conspirators. "Due to the fact they were using the Internet, I thought (the crime) was pretty sophisticated. They know more about computers than I do," Cantalupo said. But Adler said the suspect's computer knowledge did not extend far beyond knowing how to use electronic mail, standard fare for many teens. "Any 17-year-old could have done this," he said. While the suspect did use several fictitious e-mail accounts, he showed more determination than sophistication in his willingness to drive as far as Sacramento, some five hours from his home, to commit a $500 crime, Landahl said. "I think he probably felt he was safer doing things away from the area where he lived," said Landahl, adding that a suspect's moving throughout several areas can make it more difficult to piece together a crime series. Little background was available on the teen, whose name was not released because he is a juvenile. Bakersfield police said the youth lives in a middle-class neighborhood in a modest home, and Sacramento investigators said there are indications he may have been involved in street gangs and had a fascination with guns. Adler also said an examination of the suspect's computer, seized with a search warrant, shows that he also may have engaged in mail fraud as far away as Pennsylvania. Detectives are continuing to investigate and said they may forward evidence to other jurisdictions in which crimes may have been committed. They also are convinced that there are many more victims out there, some of whom may be afraid to report the rip-offs because they had an idea that at such low prices, the goods they planned to buy must have been stolen. Landahl said investigators are seeking other victims, none of whom will face any charges. Detectives also said that consumers must protect themselves from such crimes as online advertising becomes more popular. "If a deal sounds too good to be true, it usually is. The old adage holds true, especially on the Internet," Adler said. Landahl said buyers need to "be extremely careful. "Check out as best you can who and what you're dealing with," he said. "If you're going to meet a person to exchange goods, I would do it in a very public place during normal business hours when people are around ... Make it right next to the front door." ------------------------------ From: Phil Day Subject: RFD: comp.voicemail Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:37:21 GMT RFD for unmoderated group: comp.voicemail Summary: comp.voicemail General information for voice mail and voice processing technologies. Technical and user support for voice mail systems. Technical discussion and information on voice mail hardware and software technology. Latest developments and news on voice mail and voice processing technologies will be discussed and announced. RATIONALE: Voice mail and similar systems are becoming more and more common and will continue to do so. To ensure that the technology is developed with both the end user of such systems in mind and benefits from a wider development view the proposed news group will provide a forum for this purpose. Support for end users of systems will be provided as well as support for hardware and software developers. CHARTER: comp.voicemail will be an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion and sharing of information involved in the development and manufacture of voice processing systems and provide a platform for support issues. Advertising: Short (less than 20 line) announcements of events relevant to readers are permitted; blatant off-topic or commercial advertising is not. Binaries: Binaries are permitted on this group. Moderated: This group will not be moderated. Proponent: Phil Day Phil Day - ASI - autoVOICE Phil.Day@autovoice.com http://www.autovoice.com ------------------------------ From: Martin Baines Subject: Re: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:26:00 +0000 Organization: Silicon Graphics Nils Andersson wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: >> None of the later entrants on the scene wanted any >> competition; they just wanted to rip off what they could from the >> network and they convinced the government to help them do it. PAT] > Actually, that is not what happened. As in any partially regulated > market, the typical plea to the government from any given company was > to open up for more competion in the areas to which it did not have > good access, but to disallow more competion in the areas where they > already did. (The most laughable example was when at roughly the same > time, the LD operatore argued FOR opening the local markets - > intra-LATA - to competion, but AGAINST opening the long-distance > market to local telcos, while the RBOCs took the opposite view, on > both items.) This is self-serving and in many cases disingeneous, but > also very predictable. Another example of this hypocrisy was what the RBOCs did in the UK. Whilst in the US arguing vigorously against the introduction of competition into the local loop, and trying to keep Cable Cos out of the phone business, they were buying UK cable/phone francises and getting into the business of local loop competition! Of course the regulation in the UK is a bit different from the US: the only way you can compete in the local loop is if you build your own network. There is no requirement for an established telco to unbundle to the level of leasing out local loop circuits. Similarly, AT&T was arguing against the BT/MCI merger on the grounds the UK market was not as open as the US - despite AT&T having a licence to operate in the UK, and no foreign owned telco having a licence to operate in the US. It seems the obligation for companies "to maximise shareholder value" sometimes makes them act pretty inconsistently. :-) Martin Baines - Telecommunications Market Consultant Silicon Graphics, Arlington Business Park, Reading, RG7 4SB, UK email: martinb@reading.sgi.com SGI vmail: 6-788-7842 phone: +44 118 925 7842 fax: +44 118 925 7545 URL: http://reality.sgi.com/martinb_reading/ Silicon Surf: http://www.sgi.com/International/UK/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:55:44 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Nils Andersson writes: > At some point in the early eighties, ITT started an effort to develop > digital switches. They hired away a bunch of talent from AT&T at a > substantial premium, set up the lab with tight security and developed > away. > I am not sure how technically successful they were, but the marketing > effort that was carried out in parallel flopped, the Norwegian Govt > Telco was the only significant customer. I may be mis-remembering, but I think that switch is now called the Alcatel System 12, or is it the other one they sell? Either way, it has been one of the most successful exchange switches in the world over the last few decades. Stewart Fist Technical writer and journalist. Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > Archives of my columns:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:52:03 -0500 Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc. > Does the second 'T' in AT&T still have meaning in this age? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do either of the letters 'T' in > ITT mean anything these days for the company which bakes bread > among other things? How long has it been since International > Telephone and Telegraph had any involvement with either? PAT] Actually, none of the letters in AT&T have any meaning any more. The name of the company was officially changed to 'AT&T Corporation' a few years back. I think there was some hoo-ha at around the same time about the disconnection of AT&T's last telegraph line. Anybody remember the details? Andy Sherman 101 Hudson St, Jersey City NJ, 28th flr VP, Business Continuity (201) 524-5460 Lehman Brothers Global Unix Support asherman@lehman.com ------------------------------ From: packer@cais.cais.com (Charles Packer) Subject: Re: Run For Your Lives! Beepers Go Berserk, Refuse to be Silent Date: 20 Jan 1997 03:22:01 GMT Organization: Sent via CAIS Internet In article , George Beuselinck wrote: > 'A technical problem on the Skytel paging network led to a nationwide > bout of beeper madness, as a digital deluge of erroneous call-me-back > messages swept over more than 100,000 unwitting pager customers' ... and the explanation given by Mr. Beuselinck was more coherent than that given by a Reuters story I saw, but still leaves questions. What was the initial event? I'm guessing it was the transmission of the PIN to the customers as an apparent phone number, and that this was human error. How was the positive feedback loop initiated? It would seem that it was done by the "three dozen" customers who recognized the number as a PIN. They were able to broadcast over the Skytel system by using the PIN as such, either unwittingly or through some privilege they had as subscribers to the news service. What they broadcast, if I understand Mr. Beuselinck correctly, was their own phone numbers. ========== http://www.cais.net/whatnews/whatnews.html ========= ========== Nine days of news at a glance ========= ------------------------------ From: Ken Hayward Subject: US FCC Network Reliability & Interoperability Council Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:31:50 -0500 Organization: Nortel The Network Reliability and Interoperability Council of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States government is currently asking for user and industry input into, inter alia, the question of public network to user reliability and interoperability. One topic included in that is High Speed to Users, which includes ATM, for which I am a co-author. Our focus is _engineering/technical_ issues and recommendations for processes to avoid them, _not_ public policy or regulatory. I'd like to give this opportunity for all interested readers to comment on this topic, whether you are resident in the U.S. or not. A web site is available to obtain more information, and responses can be emailed to me as indicated below. The email addresses of additional participants on other user-network interface issues is also available through the web sites. We are not regular readers of this news group. Responses on technical issues directed to this group are not likely to influence our report. However, I do plan to monitor the group for one week from 97/1/16 in case clarification of this message is required. Please note that we are currently in very early investigation, and that the opinions on the site do not yet reflect any consensus. Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/nric/ gives the charter, and links to: Focus Group 1: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/orgs/nric/fg1/ Issues Database: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/orgs/nric/fg1/database/ User Interop: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/orgs/nric/fg1/database/taskgrp4/ Ken.Hayward@nortel.ca fax +1 613 795 6719 Northern Telecom, MS 85 P. O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4H7 Ken.Hayward@Nortel.ca +1 613 723 4912 fax +1 613 723 4120 P. O. Box 5080, Station F, Nepean, ON, K2C 3T1, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:04:59 PST From: Thaddeus Cox Subject: Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Chris Ziomkowski wrote: > I live in a rural community in the mountains of Southern California. > For three years I have been after our local telco for ISDN, who has > continually told me they don't offer it in this area. (They used to > be Contel, however recently they merged and became GTE.) Suddenly, > we were chosen as the site for the 1997 winter X Games, and ESPN > requested ISDN service in the area. > After speaking with a GTE engineer, I was informed that yes, they are > in fact installing ISDN for ESPN, but that they had to take heroic > efforts by pulling it on a T1 from an office 20 miles away, and that > it wasn't available to the general public. I'm a student at the Oregon Institute of Technology, and our school is located in Klamath Falls, a rural community in the mountains of Southern Oregon. The LEC is USWest, and the switch here is a (non-ISDN capable) 1AESS. Our school uses ISDN for videoconferencing and such. The way USWest accomodated our needs was to 'backhaul' our connection for around 180 miles over leased circuits from the nearest ISDN-capable switch (in Eugene). Our school pays quite a bit for those leased lines, and I'm sure that ESPN is shelling out for it's ISDN too. If you volunteered to lease a circuit to that CO 20 miles away, GTE might be more interested in talking to you. :) The point is, they *can* offer ISDN in that area, but but not for the tariffed rate, since giving someone in your area ISDN necessitates providing a full-time leased circuit from that customer to the nearest 5ESS or DMS100. That would be the equivalent of buying a foreign exchange line from that ISDN-capable town. Then again, if GTE actually pulled new fiber just for ESPN (as opposed to leasing them existing circuits), after the games they might have some surplus capacity to sell you. :) Thaddeus Cox coxt@mail.oit.osshe.edu tadc@europa.com Oregon Institute of (no, it's not a 2 year program) Technology ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:43:22 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service? In issue 13, Chris Ziomkowski asked: "Can a Telco Selectively Refuse Service?" to which the TELECOM Digest Editor responded: > To answer your question based merely > on the title of your article, the answer is NO ... I would say the answer is an unequivocal IT DEPENDS. Most state utility codes have a provision similar to Section 202 of the Federal Communications Act which provides, in part: "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination ... in connection with like communication service ..." So before the discrimination may be deemed unlawful it must be (a) unreasonable, and (b) with respect to *like* services. I'd be willing to bet GTE shouldered a good chunk (if not all) of cost of those > heroic efforts by pulling it on a T1 from an office 20 miles away and on that basis alone the discrimination might not be deemed unreasonable. As an example, if Bill Gates pays $2,500 for a ticket on the Concord, I really can't call it "unreasonable" discrimination if they refuse to sell me a ticket for $250. They are discriminating in favor of those who can afford the service, which is the way life works (except in the imaginations of socialists). If it can be demonstrated that GTE paid no more for this service than would be charged for residential service, that might raise a serious question as to reasonableness. But I seriously doubt that is the case. But there is also the question of whether the services are "like". There is quite a big difference between (a) pulling in a T1 from an office 20 miles away to be used for a single event of limited duration, and (b) tooling up for residential ISDN service on a regular, continuing basis. As Pat also points out later in his comment, GTE probably filed a special tariff to cover this unique situation. > Telco is required by law to provide its services to all qualified > applicants. True, but this actually goes beyond discrimination. This goes to the question of whether I can make the telco provide me with a service whether or not they are providing it to anyone else. Again, most state utility laws have something similar to another Communications Act provision, Section 201, which states, in part: "It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor ..." A telco could violate that provision even without discriminating. But this raises an interesting question. If I was certified to provide POTS, does that perforce mean I must start providing ISDN when technology changes? And if that is what it means, where are we going to draw the line? Will the telco (subject to technical capability and my ability and willingness to pay) be obligated to provide any type of service I can dream up? Section 214(d) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to, "after full opportunity for hearing, ... order any carrier ... to provide itself with adequate facilities for the expeditious and efficient performance of its service as a common carrier and to extend its line or to establish a public office; but no such authorization or order shall be made unless the Commission finds, as to such provision of facilities, as to such establishment of public offices, or as to such extension, that it is reasonably required in the interest of public convenience and necessity, or as to such extension or facilities that the expense involved therein will not impair the ability of the carrier to perform its duty to the public." Again, I think there is a good chance that California's utility code has a similar provision. IMO, these provisions only make sense to the extent the carrier is a monopoly provider, which is getting to be more difficult determination to make these days. Carriers may retain monopoly power as to some services and/or some service areas, while facing bona fide competition as to others. I'm not sure the Telecom Act of 96 has done all the surgery on Title II that might be prudent if competition in local exchange service truly takes hold and becomes as commonplace and widespread as it is today in long distance. There are problems of both service type and service geography; i.e., are we going to require the existing LEC's to continue to provide services or to serve areas, while allowing new entrant's to be selective? Some of the problems in this regard will hopefully be adequately addressed in the Universal Service proceedings -- but this *is* the government, after all, so I'm not going to hold my breath until they get it right. Bob Keller (KY3R) mailto:rjk@telcomlaw.com http://www.his.com/~rjk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #16 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jan 21 08:41:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA24736; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:41:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:41:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701211341.IAA24736@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #17 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 97 08:41:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A Nice, Solid Telephone - Like the Ones Mother Used to Make (Paul Robinson) Spring '97 VON Conference (Jeff Pulver) Tunable Filters for the PCS-1900 Band? (Mark Ford) Caller ID Data via Long Distance (Chris Ferraro) Nevada Drafts Anti-Spam Law (Stephen Satchell) Nevada Bill to Outlaw E-Mail Spamming (Bruce Pennypacker) AOL Puts America 'On Hold,' Claimed in Class-Action Lawsuit (Mike Pollock) Bellcore Finally Announces NPA 340 For USVI (Bob Goudreau) SS#7 <-> ISDN Conversion (Keith Parr) 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: Paul Robinson Subject: A Nice, Solid Telephone - Like the Ones Mother Used to Make Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:27:27 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software One day a couple of years ago, I happened to stop in a Staples (Stationery store chain) and noticed the selection of telephones they were selling. The usual overpriced junk of cheap-weight, piezo-electric buzzer phones. Except one. They had the Bellsouth Model 439 single-line telephone. The size and shape reminded me of the old princess phone, and the price was considerably less than some of the others, about $14.95. The features of this phone include: - Switchable tone/pulse - Desk or wall mount - Flash key - redial button - when a tone button is held, it keeps making a sound, unlike some that cut off after a short period - hang-up switch on handset AND in cradle I thought it was okay and the price was in-line with all the other cheapo "throw away" phones, but I decided to see what it looked like. I happened to pick up the box, and almost dropped it, it weighed a lot more than I expected. The reason was that it did not have a cheap buzzer in it for a ringer, it has a solid *metal* bell, just like a 2500 set. The feel of this unit reminds me of the Western Electric/Bell System units of the 1950s and 1960s. That's what convinced me to buy one. And at least a couple of times I've dropped it. It never even noticed. The Bellsouth 439. A really solid phone, just like the ones Mother used to make. :) Paul Robinson (Formerly PAUL@TDR.COM / TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM / TDARCOS@CLARK.NET / TDARCOS@DIGEX.NET ) Evergreen Software ------------------------------ From: Jeff Pulver Subject: Spring '97 VON Conference Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:57:41 -0500 Organization: Pulver.com, Inc. I'm producing a conference at the Ritz-Carlton in San Francisco on April 1-3, 1997. The name of the conference is "Spring '97 VON Conference" - which will have as it's major theme - 'Telecommunications and Streaming Media on the Net'. This conference has three major tracks: * Internet Telephony * Net Broadcasting * Regulatory There are 12 general session / keynotes and 15 breakout sessions currently scheduled. Some of the general session / keynote speakers include: Dave Farber, Alfred Filter Moore Professor of Telecommunications Systems; Director, Center for Communications & Information Science and Policy, University of Pennsylvania; Ed Kozel, Chief Technology Officer, Cisco Systems; Dr. Vint Cerf, Senior Vice President, MCI Telecommuncations; Pat Gelsinger, Vice President / General Manger, Internet and Communications Product Development, Intel; John Ludwig, Vice President, Internet Platforms and Tools Division, Microsoft; Mike Po, Director, LiveMedia, Netscape Communications; Dennis Aoll, Vice President, Lucent Technologiesl; Joe Mele, President, elemedia George Favoloro, Director of Strategy and Business Development, Internet Solutions Division, Compaq; Ronald J. Vidal, Vice President - New Ventures, MFS Worldcom Other general sessions include:The effect of VON Technologies to the traditional Telco Model - with speakers confirmed from: Sprint, AT&T, MCI and Bell Atlantic. NTIA Panel Discussion: "Taking Care of Business: Can Self-Regulation Work?" with Larry Irving and Kathy Brown of the NTIA. On the lighter side of things - I've been able to sign up Scott Adams -- the cartoonist of Dilbert and Author of "Dilbert Principle" to speak after lunch on the second day. In addition, the following are the session titles for the current list of breakout sessions: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NextGen Telephony: Battle of the IT Telco Wannabe's - who will win? 2. Developing Audio/Video Content specific for the Net: 3. Focus on Access Charges: 4. Internet Telphony - Review of Current Technology Issues. 5. Review of Streaming Technologies & Trends / Issues 6. Regulations's Reordering of Chaos and Caucophony: Internet Telephony as a Global Norm? 7. Internet Faxing 8. Realities of Net Broadcasting 9. Panel - "Last Mile" Bandwidth. 10. Effect of Internet Telephony on Consumer Entertainment Marketplace 11. Patents & Speech Coders 12. Effect of Internet Telephony on Business: 13. Content Push << Pull : Next Generation of Content Delivery... 14. Business Conferencing on the Net. An End User's perspective. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to all of these sessions, I'm also working on pulling together a a day of post-conference "Vendor Sponsored" workshops on Thursday April 3rd. More details about these sessions will be added to the conference website. If you know of others who might be interested in this event, please feel free to e-mail: von97@pulver.com their name and e-mail address and I will forward them the conference informations and related updates as they become available. from the website - http://www.pulver.com/von97. Hope to see you at the conference. Best Wishes for '97 Jeff Pulver Tel. 516.487.1424 President Fax. 516.487.7269 Pulver.com http://www.pulver.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Ford Subject: Tunable Filters for the PCS-1900 Band? Date: 20 Jan 1997 20:31:26 GMT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Does anyone know where I can find tunable bandpass and notch cavity filters for use in the cellular telephone PCS-1900 band? The following table details the filters that are needed. Any help and information is greatly appreciated. Please email me. mford@aircom.com Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Filter | Tunable | -3dB | Reject | Reject | Insertion | VSWR | Maximum | | | Frequency | BandWidth | Attenuation| Attenuation| Loss | | Input | | | Range | | | | @desired | | Power | | | in MHz | | | | frequency | | | | | (Minimum) | (Minimum) | (Minimum) | (Minimum) | (Maximum) | (Maximum) | (Minimum) | |----------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|------------|-----------|-----------| | PCS1900 | 1710-1990 | 0.3 MHz | 15dB | 30dB | 5dB | 1.5 | 5W | | BandPass | (ideal) | | @1.0 MHz | @6.0 MHz | | | | | Cavity | | | offset | offset | | | | | Tunable | 1850-1990 | | | | | | | | Filter | (good) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1930-1990 | | | | | | | | | (fair) | | | | | | | |----------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|------------|-----------|-----------| | PCS1900 | 1710-1990 | 1.0 MHz | 20dB | | 5dB | 1.5 | 5W | | Notch | (ideal) | (ideal) | (ideal) | | | | | | Cavity | | | | | | | | | Tunable | 1850-1990 | | @tuned | | | | | | Filter | (good) | | frequency | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1930-1990 | 1.8 MHz | 15dB | | | | | | | (fair) | (fair) | (fair) | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Chris Ferraro Subject: Caller ID Data via Long Distance Date: 20 Jan 1997 03:55:20 GMT Organization: GTE Intelligent Network Services, GTE INS [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Original article did not appear in the Digest. PAT] In article <5an6i3$1ue$6@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Julien Mason <71320.2073@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > I receive inter-LATA name and number from MCI, SPRINT, LCI, and > LDDS callers now. However, AT&T callers still come up as Out of > Area. > Don't I recall that there was some deadline not long ago when all > carriers had to deliver the CID to the end office? Why is AT&T > not delivering the information to our wire center? We are in > Bell Atlantic (Virginia) and must have SS7 since we're getting > the information from the other carriers' subscribers. Atlantic's problem because they provide the Caller ID service. After talking to a switching technician (whatever you call them), I called AT&T back and explained to them that their network needs to transmit the data from the originating to the terminating CO for Caller ID to display a number. Other carriers transmit the data from the same phone. The representative actually said that Bell Atlantic was not happy that AT&T was entering the long distance market and might be trying to upset people. She also opened a trouble ticket for me. 1.) Does anyone is non-Bell Atlantic territory have this problem? 2.) Is this AT&T's fault? 3.) Why aren't they sending the Caller ID data? 4.) What can be done about this? 5.) Are there other carriers that do not send this info? 6.) Is there a law that requires them to pass the data along? I had my friend in Georgia (770 area code) place a few test calls. Here are the results: AT&T 10288 access code Caller ID data - Number: Out of area Name: Unavailable LCI International 10432 access code Caller ID data - Number: 770-922-XXXX Name: Unavailable Sprint 10333 access code Caller ID data - Number: 770-922-XXXX Name: Unavailable Wiltel (or whatever they are now) 10555 access code Caller ID data - Number: 770-922-XXXX Name: Unavailable ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:16:57 -0800 From: satchell@accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Subject: Nevada Drafts Anti-Spam Law Organization: Satchell Evaluations I thought that people here might be interested that the State of Nevada is about to jump on the bandwagon with regard to spam. The following is the Bill Draft for the next session of the Legislature, that session opening Monday 20 January. URL is Senate Bill No. 13-Senator Raggio Prefiled on January 14, 1997 ____________ Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY--Prohibits sending certain unsolicited electronic mail under certain circumstances. (BDR15-723) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: Yes. Effect on the State or on Industrial Insurance: No. AN ACT relating to crimes; prohibiting the transmission of certain types of unsolicited electronic mail under certain circumstances; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section Chapter 207 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows: 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person shall not send or cause to be sent unsolicited electronic mail to solicit a person to purchase real property, goods or services. 2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not apply to unsolicited electronic mail that is sent to a person who has a preexisting business relationship with the person who sends or causes to be sent the electronic mail. 3. As used in this section, "electronic mail" means an electronic message that is transmitted between two or more computers or electronic terminals. The term includes an electronic message that is transmitted through a local, regional or global network of computers, regardless of whether the message is viewed by the recipient, stored for later retrieval or printed on paper after receipt. Sec. 2. The amendatory provisions of this act apply to offenses that are committed on or after October 1, 1997. Sec. 3. The provisions of subsection 1 of NRS 354.599 do not apply to any additional expenses of a local government that are related to the provisions of this act. Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Nevada Bill to Outlaw E-Mail Spamming Date: 20 Jan 1997 20:02:39 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies This link was recently posted in news.admin.net-abuse.email: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/97bills/SB/SB13.HTM This bill is designed to prevent e-mail spamming, which I commend, however I wish these kinds of steps wouldn't be necessary. But the way spammers are flooding the 'net with casual disregard to the rest of us I knew it was bound to happen sooner or later. This bill is probably too vague to stand up without major changes. The way it's written, all of usenet could be considered illegal in Nevada if this were enacted. The bills sponser is Nevada Senator Raggio, and you can e-mail him at wraggio@sen.state.nv.us if you have any comments about this bill. I just sent him a note outlining the issues I have with the bill the way it's currently written. We'll see if I get any sort of response. Bruce Pennypacker Applied Language Technologies Remove .nospam from my address to e-mail me 215 First Street (617) 225-0012 Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:21:52 -0800 From: Mike Pollock Organization: SJS Entertainment Subject: AOL Puts America 'On Hold,' Claimed in Class-Action Lawsuit The bandwagon is leaving, better jump on! DETROIT, Jan. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- The following was released by Lionel Glancy, Esq., attorney for plaintiffs in class-action lawsuit against America Online (Nasdaq: AMER): A class-action lawsuit was filed today on behalf of all subscribers of America Online against the company, claiming that America Online has consistently put its customers "on hold" because of inadequate capacity. The lawsuit alleges that America Online succeeded in stirring up demand for its services by enticing subscribers with low-cost unlimited usage, and then abandoning its subscribers. Lower rates have caused increases in AOL usage resulting in an overload in network traffic, frequent busy signals for dial-up users, and network failures, thereby frustrating all users' ability to access the network and also making illusory AOL's claim of "unlimited access." The suit alleges people dialing in to use the computer service are unable to get through because of the inadequate number of call-in servers and other capacity of America Online. In addition, the suit alleges that once AOL entices subscribers with its low prices, customers become captive because of the inconvenience in switching to alternative Internet providers. Lionel Glancy, one of the attorneys for the representative plaintiff, Mary Jo Miles, emphasized that "customers are not getting what they paid for. They can spend substantial time trying to get connected to America Online, only to receive busy signal after busy signal. America Online actually put 'America on hold.'" Mr. Glancy also stated: "To the extent that AOL has recently made vague promises to add more dial-in access capacity by June, customers are still at risk of grossly inadequate capacity, and, further, AOL still will be wrongfully reaping tens of millions of dollars of subscribers' money through June that AOL is not entitled to because subscribers are not getting on-line or are not getting access to the sites they want." One of the plaintiffs, Mary Jo Miles, a Ph.D. candidate, currently lives in Traverse City and is frustrated about her inability to use America Online, which she subscribed to so that she could connect to the Internet and communicate with her husband and friends who live in the greater Detroit area. The suit seeks return of customers' monthly payments, multiplied by the number of all AOL users across the country, estimated to be over 7 million. This would mean that subscribers are paying in excess of tens of millions of dollars for services they are not getting. Mr. Glancy explained that "based on published reports, AOL can only provide on-line access to approximately 3 1/2 percent of its subscribers at the same time. This means that up to 96 percent of all subscribers sitting at their computers to use AOL could be denied access to the system they paid for." Mr. Glancy also stated, "class-actions are necessary in cases like this, in order to protect consumers who would not have the resources individually to file suit. The class-action case was designed where a huge multi-million dollar corporation takes undeserved money for millions of consumers, leaving the consumers with no other effective way to have their rights protected." The suit was filed today in Wayne County Circuit Court. No trial date has been set. SOURCE Lionel Glancy, Esq. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:31:08 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Bellcore Finally Announces NPA 340 For USVI Yesterday, Bellcore's "New Area Codes" web page finally added an entry for the last unannounced piece of the NPA 809 breakup puzzle: the United States Virgin Islands will split off to NPA 340 effective June 1 this year, with permissive dialing to end after June 30, 1998. This means that each one of the 19 nations, colonies and territories that formerly shared NPA 809 together will soon have its own NPA, with the Dominican Republic alone retaining NPA 809. We still don't know exactly when the breakup will be complete, because the schedule for one of the new area codes (784: St. Vincent & the Grenadines) is still listed as "To Be Determined". With any luck, 784 will go into effect no later than the current laggard (473 Grenada), which becomes operational on 1997-10-31 and mandatory after 1998-10-31. For the record, here is the complete 809 breakup table, sorted by date of effective operation (but note that this is not the same as the ordering by permissive end dates!): New Geographical Effective Permissive NPA Area Date End Date --- ------------ --------- --------- 809 Dominican Republic (Long ago) (Not appplic.) 441 Bermuda 1995-10-01 1996-09-30 787 Puerto Rico 1996-03-01 1997-01-31 268 Antigua and Barbuda 1996-04-01 1997-03-31 758 St. Lucia 1996-07-01 1997-01-01 246 Barbados 1996-07-01 1997-01-15 664 Montserrat 1996-07-01 1997-06-01 345 Cayman Islands 1996-09-01 1997-08-31 242 Bahamas 1996-10-01 1997-03-31 869 St. Kitts and Nevis 1996-10-01 1997-03-31 264 Anguilla 1997-03-31 1997-09-30 876 Jamaica 1997-05-01 1997-11-01 649 Turks & Caicos Islands 1997-05-31 1998-06-30 868 Trinidad and Tobago 1997-06-01 1998-05-31 340 United States Virgin Islands 1997-06-01 1998-06-30 284 British Virgin Islands 1997-10-01 1998-09-30 767 Dominica 1997-10-01 1998-09-30 473 Grenada 1997-10-31 1998-10-31 784 St. Vincent and the Grenadines ??? ??? As of today, 9 of the new codes have gone into effect, and 3 of them (Bermuda, St. Lucia and Barbados) are now mandatory; Puerto Rico will join them in a couple weeks. Assuming SV&G gets a reasonable schedule, all of the new codes will be operational by the end of this year, and all will be mandatory by the end of next year, thus bringing the longest (over three years) and most complicated (19-way) split in NANP history to a close. Oh, yeah -- other new NPAs listed by Bellcore yesterday, all with dates still TBD: 323: split of outer ring from 213 in Los Angeles 925: split of eastern side from 510 in Oakland area 450: split of non-island portions from 514 in Montreal area Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: kg.parr@iee.org (Keith Parr) Subject: SS#7 <-> ISDN Conversion Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:11:59 +0100 Organization: Information Management Does anyone know where to find a device to convert bothways between SS7 and ISDN signalling? Obviously such conversion will be incomplete at best, some of the supplementary services are likely to get lost, but could possibly be adequate for some purposes. Any help, either on the pros and cons or on potential suppliers of devices, will be most welcome. Thanks in advance, Keith Parr Information Management ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #17 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jan 21 09:11:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA27267; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:11:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:11:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701211411.JAA27267@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #18 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jan 97 09:11:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth Gains 37 New Wireless Markets in the Southeast (Stanley Cline) Re: ISPs and All Circuits Busy at BellSouth (Stanley Cline) InterLATA Minutes of Use Data Needed For My Dissertation (D. Burnstein) Re: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens (Linc Madison) Re: Monopoly? (Linc Madison) Re: Var-Tech LD -- $5.00/Month and $.10/Minute (Stanley Cline) Re: Var-Tech LD -- $5.00/Month and $.10/Minute (Henoch Duboff) Requesting Info on the Use of E-Switches (J. Hoffman) Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph (Thomas Cain) 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: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: BellSouth Gains 37 New Wireless Markets in the Southeast Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 02:48:43 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com Press release from BellSouth, forwarded to TD as courtesy. My notes are in [brackets]. SC Gain from Auction Fills in Wireless Footprint in Nine-State Region ATLANTA - BellSouth Corporation (NYSE:BLS) was the highest bidder for 39 licenses to provide wireless telephone services in 37 Southeast markets in the FCC's BTA (Basic Trading Area) 10 megahertz auction that concluded today. "This was a successful auction for us, and we are quite happy with our accomplishment of filling in our wireless footprint in the Southeast," said Earle Mauldin, President of BellSouth Enterprises. "Our bidding was guided by BellSuth's intent to provide the widesarray of communications services throughout the Southeast," continued Mauldin. "These new licenses will now serve to broaden our reach servicearea for customers, and soon all customers in our nine-state region will be able to use BellSouth wireless telephone service." The 39 new licenses effectively fill in BellSouth's wireless telephone coverage throughout the company's nine-state region that includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. BellSouth bids totaled $205 million for the new licenses. As a result of the five-month auction for the D-, E- and F-block broadband PCS (Personal Communications Services) licenses, BellSouth is gaining 11.8 million POPs. In the coming months, Bell South will be announcing its plans for building out the new wireless networks. BellSouth was the highest bidder for licenses in the following markets: In Alabama: Montgomery, Selma, Opelika, Gadsden and Dothan. [Still no coverage in the "shoals" area. BellSouth is already licensed for cellular in Gadsden, *but not Fort Payne* which IIRC is in that BTA -- I'm not sure why/how that happened. It could be that BLS in fact got a license for Gadsden *in consideration of Fort Payne.*] In Florida: Tampa, Ft. Meyers[sic] (two licenses), Tallahassee, Sarasota, Gainesville, Naples, Pensacola, Lakeland, Ft. Walton, Panama City, Ocala and Ft. Pierce. [They now have licenses in virtually the whole state.] In Georgia: Savannah [This still leaves BellSouth with no way to provide service in the bulk of central/south GA, including Columbus, Albany, Augusta, Douglas, and Newnan. InterCel may be forced to give up the Newnan area, however, as they are licensed for BOTH cellular and PCS -- Powertel -- in that area, and the roaming situation between Atlanta and Newnan is getting ever more edgy.] Louisiana: Shreveport, Monroe (two licenses), Alexandria, Houma and Lake Charles. [They still don't have all of the New Orleans area -- particularly Plaquemines Parish -- an unfortunate example of MSA/RSA <> BTA] In Mississippi: Biloxi, Columbus-Starkville, Greenville, Hattiesburg, Natchez and McComb. [MCTA, the B-side cellular carrier in Jackson and Meridian, *is* BellSouth, but they don't flaunt it.] In Tennessee: Dyersburg. [BellSouth still doesn't have Shelbyville, Alexandria/McMinnville, or Polk County. {sigh} It looks as if BellSouth did get the Paris/Martin area.] [BellSouth was awarded MTA licenses for all of the Carolinas and for the Knoxville and Johnson City, TN areas. The overall coverage, combining the current cellular markets, DCS, and these new licenses, looks good, but the coverage holes -- particularly in Tennessee and Georgia -- are a bit disturbing. Of course, the question is: When will customers in the PCS areas be able to use their service without "roaming" in their cellular markets, and the reverse? Only the equipment manufacturers will be able to answer that question!] BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications company. It provides telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and publishing, video, Internet and information services to more than 26 million customers in 18 countries worldwide. # # # NOTE: For more information about BellSouth, visit the BellSouth Web page at http://www.bellsouth.com. Also, BellSouth news releases dating back one year are available by fax at no charge by calling 1-800-758-5804, ext. 095650. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Tim Klein 404-249-4135 Al Schweitzer 404-249-2832 Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ All opinions are strictly my own! ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: ISPs and All Circuits Busy at BellSouth Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 02:49:24 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) quoted: > Online Calls Cause Telephone Service Disruption Near Nashville When I saw the header, I almost automatically figured out which area of Nashville was affected -- Brentwood. I was right. :) > Users of America Online got a case of the "the busies" at the > beginning of the year. In Chattanooga, both AOL's "AOLNet" access number (actually provided by BBN Planet) and the 14.4 SprintNet number have been busy for weeks from around 2 pm to 2 am. For some odd reason -- I suspect misprogramming of a #5ESS -- calls to the "busy" AOL line do not generate busies, but a "all circuits busy" intercept. (My modem doesn't recognize SIT tones very well!) BBN's POP is run off PRI lines, which I suspect has something to do with the intercept. In Nashville, IIRC, there are *three* AOLNet access numbers in various COs across town. That helps distribute traffic across multiple SWITCHES (something I've long advocated is ISPs having multiple POPs in multiple COs in large calling areas -- in Chattanooga most ISP POPs are concentrated in one CO) but does nothing to address inter-CO capacity. I'm surprised Nashville is having any problems at all. (That's like saying Atlanta is having problems -- it's all but unheard of.) > On Friday, BellSouth and fellow local phone-service provider TDS > Telecom announced that they had added capacity because many calls > between Brentwood and Nashville had received "fast busy signals." AFAIK, the Brentwood area, including the Maryland Farms business park, is served by BellSouth itself. I'm not really sure where TDS is connected in this ... (If this were KNOXville, OTOH, I could guess easily -- and it has nothing to do with US Cellular!) > At least two of Nashville's largest providers -- EdgeNet Media and > Telalink Corp. -- don't dole out unlimited usage. They also haven't In Chattanooga, one provider (HTS/Chattanooga Online) has never adopted flat-rate pricing, instead offering 80 hrs/mo for $20 *then* $1 for each hour above that. Even at those prices, they suffered busies and assorted technical glitches -- despite the fact that their office is two blocks from the downtown BellSouth CO. CDC Internet, also local, was one of the first here to offer flat-rate. After CDC lowered its prices, a flood of other providers -- USIT, Mindspring, Netcom, the various ISPs that use UUNet POPs, IBM/Advantis, Concentric, AOL, etc. -- began to drive much business away from BOTH small ISPs. (I was one of the ones that switched ISPs -- FOUR times.) > providers, such as AT&T, MCI and BellSouth. What about all those others? Nashville is *awash* in ISPs, including one (Voyager Online) based in Chattanooga, and all the ones in Chattanooga, and even more. IOW: Hidden plug for telco ISPs. > choosing instead to compete by offering higher-quality service and > technical support for a higher price. MindSpring still gives unlimited access for $19.95, and *still* has higher quality of service (as compared to the Chattanooga local providers, USIT, and Compuserve) and 24/7 tech support. > "It's not that our network is short (of capacity), it's that it has to > be re-balanced," May says. "We have a lot of latent capacity that has > to be moved around or changed." I strongly agree. The Tennessee BellSouth network is one of the best I've seen -- virtually all COs, even in rural areas, support native ISDN VERY CHEAPLY and offer full CLASS services. =20 The independent telcos, including Sprint, TDS, Century, Citizens, and various cooperatives (Bledsoe, Dekalb, Ben Lomand, Yorkville, etc.) can't even compare ... still no ISDN in suburbs of Chattanooga and Knoxville served by independents when ISDN can be obtained in VERY rural areas served by BellSouth, small local calling areas and/or refusal to participate in "metro area calling" EAS, excessive directory assistance charges -- when BellSouth provides DA, and DA is totally free in BellSouth areas, etc. [Telalink growth 320%] > BellSouth can keep up with that, May says. It doesn't appear this time that BellSouth is pushing everyone toward BellSouth.net, as I'd expect. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ All opinions are strictly my own! ------------------------------ From: burnstei@pilot.msu.edu (David Burnstein) Subject: InterLATA Minutes of Use Data Needed For my Dissertation Date: 21 Jan 1997 03:17:36 GMT Organization: Michigan State University My proposal is an empirical analysis of market power in the long-distance telephony market. In particular, I am attempting to measure AT&T's market power while accounting for the possibility of strategic behavior. In particular, the regulated firm, AT&T, may have recognized a link between its current performance and future regulatory restrictions. For example, in 1989 when the FCC switched to price-cap regulation, AT&T may have taken measures to ensure that its earnings were reasonable (i.e., demonstrated good market performance) on the assumption that such behavior would influence the type of regulation imposed in the future. If this strategic demonstration effect has had a significant influence on the market price then measuring AT&T's market power in a static framework will reveal a lower degree of market power than is actually the case, were the model to incorporate a dynamic component that controlled for AT&T's strategic behavior. The model that I have developed incorporates a dynamic component that controls for AT&T's strategic behavior, and as a result, I hope to acquire a more meaningful measure of AT&T market power. The data that I wish to acquire is for interstate (or intrastate, if it is available) interLATA service. In particular I need a more acurate measure of AT&T, Sprint, and MCI's output (i.e. minutes use) than that which is provided by the FCC. I need several years of data, the more recent the better. I am very willing to pay good money for information on how I can attain this data. Sincerely, David Burnstein Michigan State University Department of Economics Marshall Hall E. Lansing, MI 48824-1038 fax: 517-432-1068 email:burnstei@pilot.msu.edu ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:12:35 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , stbrown@nacs.net wrote: > "When a temporary compound is used as an adjective before a > noun, it is often hyphenated [Note: often, not always] to avoid > misleading the reader. ... not 'a free form sculpture' but 'a > free-form sculpture'. Even though 'form sculpture' has no rational > meaning ..., it could cause a moment's hesitation for the reader: One of my favorite examples of this was a phrase that turned up often at a job I once had where my supervisor believed that all hyphens and commas are evil. (I'm not joking, and only very slightly exaggerating.) There were lots of safety documents that referred to "confined space personnel," so I kept looking around to find the imprisoned astronauts. As for telecom relevance, I wrote previously of having cause to call Midway Island, which at the time (1994) still required calling an AT&T operator to manually route the call, using a non-dialable 808 number. This was the same job. Our jailbird astronauts, uh, I mean our confined-space personnel, were doing some hazmat cleanup on some base on or near Midway. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Monopoly? Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:38:06 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Eric Florack) wrote: > In contrast, look at the cost of the Apple Mac, and it's costs > reletive to the Clones. True it's costs have come down somewhat, but > the cost/capability ratio is nowhere near what you have in the > DOS/WINDOWS world. (I'm including the cost of software, and expansion > parts, here) The reason? The folks making the MAC know they have a > monopoly on MAC hardware. First of all, your analogy is not only not parallel to the telephone situation, the situation you describe does not exist. The cost/capability ratio now dramatically favors the Macintosh clones over anything in the Intel world. The PowerPC 604e chip is intrinsically faster than even a Pentium Pro at the same clock speed, just as a 90 MHz Pentium will beat a 100 MHz 486 at most tasks. Within the next 6 months, you will be able to get a 533 MHz Exponential 704 chip, which is based on the PowerPC architecture. Nothing comparable on the Intel side exists, nor will it in that time frame. (Lest you accuse me of touting "vapor" hardware, the 533 MHz chip exists. I've seen it, and I've used it. It will be *commercially* available by summer.) Furthermore, the folks making the Macintosh know that they DO NOT have a monopoly on Mac hardware. You can buy a Macintosh clone from Motorola, Umax, or Power Computing, and several other vendors are entering the market. You don't want to pay for the extra performance of SCSI hard disks? Fine. You can now buy Macintoshes (both from Apple and from clone makers) that take IDE hard disks. You can't use a cheap PC internal modem card in a Mac. Big deal; you pay $20 extra for an external. There is no premium for the storage devices, the monitors (and that's very easy to make plural on a Macintosh, by the way), or the software, and the CPU is cheaper. It's true that there are some things you can do on a Wintel machine that just aren't possible on a Macintosh. However, the reverse is also true. As a matter of fact, the computer animation for those cute little "Intel Inside" commercials was rendered on a MACINTOSH. The packaging that your Windows 95 upgrade came in was designed on a MACINTOSH. If you want to talk about Apple Computer, kindly get some facts that are less than five years old. For a company that was "dead and buried" in 1980, Apple sure seems to have a lot of activity. I may as well throw in something vaguely telephone-related. When Steve Wozniak was designing the original Apple modem, he wanted to make it able to send out lots of useful signals, including things like blue-box tones. The lawyers persuaded him that it wasn't such a good idea. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Var-Tech LD -- $5.00/Month and $.10/Minute Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 02:49:29 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) wrote: > ...in Digest #11, brand@nortel.ca wrote.... >> VarTech(sp?). Their rate plan is fairly simple. $5.00 a month and 10 >> cents a minute in the US, INCLUDING IN-STATE, any time, day or night. > minutes. Two hours' usage is 120 minutes; the effective rate would be > about $.143 a minute ... definitely no bargain, particularly if you As I've mentioned to various Digest regulars, as well as in misc.consumers, VarTec charges a 3-min minimum per call. Even AT&T isn't that greedy! They *are* making an effort to disclose this (something that VarTec has been accused of not doing) but still, if a call is 30 sec, it costs 30c. That's an effective rate of 60c/min for a 30-sec call! For those who make many short calls (quick faxes, those who often have to deal with voice mail jail, etc.) or aren't disciplined enough to dial 10811, VarTec is NOT cheap by any means. (For the latter problem, one can subscribe to VarTec and get the same rates, and use another carrier, such as Dial & Save/LD Wholesale Club, for the short calls.) I don't think six-sec billing is all that's promised for the average home user, either. I had LCI (which does six-sec billing) and recently switched to AT&T -- my bills with AT&T were *lower* than with LCI. One reason: LCI's in-state rates are much higher than AT&T, especially for nighttime calls! LCI has also raised its calling card surcharge twice, making it less attractive than AT&T's One-Rate plan calling card, VoiceNet, and even prepaid cards for short calls. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ All opinions are strictly my own! ------------------------------ From: Henoch Duboff Subject: Re: Var-Tech LD -- $5.00/Month and $.10/Minute Date: 21 Jan 1997 02:53:11 GMT Organization: CHAI.COM [article about $5 monthly charge, etc. snipped] I'm using EconoPhone (1-800-454-7091) without any monthly fees. 11.5 cents per minute, 6-second billing increments. http://www.econophone.com And no, I don't work for EconoPhone ;-) Henoch Duboff http://www.users.fast.net/~hd1/index.html ------------------------------ From: jhoffman@nyx10.cs.du.edu (J. Hoffman) Subject: Requesting Info on the Use of E-Switches Date: 20 Jan 1997 13:32:39 -0700 Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. I'm a member of a Telecommunications Group for a large nationwide organization. We intend, very shortly, to up-grade our local Campus ethernet LAN environment with the goal to abandon Shared-Media hubs and concentrators and implement EtherSwitch technology utilizing dynamic bandwidth allocation (10/100Mbps). We have a large installed base of Cabletron LAN concentrators and Hubs. Our desire is to continue to utilize as many of the Cabletron concentrator chassis as possible with "new technology" Cabletron switching modules. We currently also have a "large" Cisco Systems Catalysis-5000 Etherswitch soon to be implemented within our Data Center. Keeping in mind: 1) Cisco etherswitch methodology handles up to layer-2 (i.e. - OSI 7-layer model) switching. 2) Cisco etherswitch methodology "Tags" each packet with three additional bytes of data. 3) Cabletron etherswitch methodology handles up to layer-3 switching. 4) Cabletron etherswitch methodology does not use "packet tagging." Our current inquiry pertains to: 1) Are Cisco and Cabletrons Etherswitching methodologies compatible with one another. (i.e. - can a Cabletron Etherswitch device successfully communicate with a Cisco Etherswitch device ?) 2) If not - pls. denote difficulties encountered. 3) If so - pls. denote problems encountered and learned solutions. Any information which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: tacain@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (Thomas Cain) Subject: Re: This Day in Telecom History - the Telegraph Date: 20 Jan 1997 16:36:54 GMT Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA Nils Andersson (nilsphone@aol.com) wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do either of the letters 'T' in >> ITT mean anything these days for the company which bakes bread >> among other things? How long has it been since International >> Telephone and Telegraph had any involvement with either? PAT] > At some point in the early eighties, ITT started an effort to develop > digital switches. They hired away a bunch of talent from AT&T at a > substantial premium, set up the lab with tight security and developed > away. > I am not sure how technically successful they were, but the marketing > effort that was carried out in parallel flopped, the Norwegian Govt > Telco was the only significant customer. > One day the access cards would no longer open the doors to the lab; > that is how the engineers found out that they had been laid off. > As the one sale did not justify finishing the effort, ITT satisfied > the customer contract by subbing out the bid and they bought I believe > Ericsson switches. Sic transit gloria mundi!!! I worked for ITT in switch design from 1978 - 1982. It was my first job out of college. I was hired to help design a new digital switch, but, before I started, ITT bought out North Electric and cancelled the new switch development. I ended up working on the Metaconta-L for two years instead. Metaconta was an SPC switch with an 8 stage latching reed relay matrix. The switch was very much like a crossbar with the smarts moved out of the marker and into a processor. Metaconta was brought into the U.S. from France and adapted to the U.S. network. It was always easy to tell which areas of the software were never touched in the U.S.; the comments were still in French! That was a 'hugely successful' product; I believe 12 were sold in the U.S. and half of those to Centel in Las Vegas. In 1980 I moved to the former North Electric facility in Delaware, Ohio to work on the digital switch which drove ITT to buy North Electric; the ITT 1210. North Electric called it the DSS-1. I don't now remember how many 1210s were sold, but, it was more than 12! ITT also began development on the 1240 at that time. Most of the development was done in Belgium with some work destined for the U.S. market done in Raleigh, NC. That Raleigh facility is now Alcatel. I always thought the 1240 was a real slick design, but, there was never any strong commitment to the U.S. market. I left ITT about 12-18 months before the doors slammed shut. The story I heard from Delaware was like this. Everyone came to work one morning and noticed LOTS of rent-a-cops around the outside of the building. Shortly after getting to work the data lines to the main compute facility in Raleigh went dead. Then there was an announcement over the PA asking everyone to leave via the front lobby. Everyone was handed an envelope on their way out the door. Everyone stood out front, opened their envelopes, and the rest is history. The funny part was that after they fired everyone, they still had contracts to meet! They then hired some of the guys back as contractors to finish up some committed work. A friend in that group said it was great because they just played cards and worked the phones looking for jobs! We always wondered if ITT had ever intended to make money in the U.S. switching business or not. I had a good time there, though, and still have contacts in the industry with friends from back then. I give my ITT experience a lot of credit for getting me started in this industry. I learned the telephone business during a 9 month stay in Onalaska, Wisconsin while working on the Metaconta. Metaconta was before the days of generic system loads. It had conditional assembly for various features in the switch, so, every load was different. Our custom was to send an engineer to every installation to babysit, install, test, and patch the system until it was ready for cutover. This was typically a 6 - 12 month job. During those 9 months working in a switchroom with installers and the local switch techs, I learned telephony in the real world. The people at LaCrosse Telephone were some of the greatest people I've ever met! It was an education that I could not have received in any training program. To this day I still try very hard to get my new people all the real world exposure possible. Tom Cain Voice: +972.477.8192 DSC Communications Corporation M/S 122 FAX: +972.519.3563 1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075 Internet: tacain@spd.dsccc.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #18 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jan 23 01:00:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA21181; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:00:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:00:21 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701230600.BAA21181@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #19 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Jan 97 01:00:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Canada Announces NPA 450 For Some Montreal Suburbs (Peter Laws) Book Review: "Using and Managing UUCP" by Ravin et al (Rob Slade) Florida PSC Selects Three-way NPA Split (John Cropper) Deadbeats Stiff Phone Companies (Mike Pollock) Some Passing Thoughts (TELECOM Digest Editor) Last Laugh: AT&T Check (James E. Bellaire) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: plaws@comanche.wildstar.net (Peter Laws) Subject: Bell Canada Announces NPA 450 For Some Montreal Suburbs Date: 22 Jan 1997 08:35:56 -0600 Organization: Wildstar Internet Services Found this at http://www.montrealgazette.com/ today (1/22). Looks like 514 will be split, with the islands that make up the Montreal Urban Community (a regional government) staying in 514 and the rest, including the large suburbs of Laval and Longueil going to 450. Note that the 'net played a role in the announcement. Peter Laws / plaws@wildstar.net / N5UWY Laval, South Shore lose 514 Bell area code becoming 450 for 1.5 million Jan Ravensbergen, The Gazette Much of the Montreal region will say goodbye to the 514 area code late next year, Bell Canada said yesterday. Outlying parts of the region will be switched to a new area code, 450. Montreal Island, Ile Perrot, Ile Bizard, Nuns' Island and the Expo islands are to remain in the 514 area. But starting sometime in the second half of 1998, all other parts of 514 territory - including the South Shore and Laval - are to be renumbered 450. Calls using the outdated area code will get through for a transition period of three to six months after the change has taken effect, Bell spokesman Daniel Hansen said. The transition period will last into early 1999, he added, although that schedule might slip by one or two months. Montreal is facing the same kind of split of its area-code territory that the Toronto region went through in 1993. That's when 416 was retained for the central Toronto area, and the rest of 416 changed to 905. The local change is being triggered, Hansen said, by ever-increasing demand for new telephone numbers - to reach pagers, cellular phones, fax machines, modems and other devices requiring a separate telephone number. He said the change "won't have any effect" on long-distance prices. "The actual local-calling zone will be the same, even though it will have to be dialed as if it's long distance, with another area code. But it won't be charged." The move's implications are broad: o An estimated 1.5 million telephone lines in the 514 area code will be switched to the new 450 code, with 3.5 million existing lines to remain within 514. o Family, friends and business associates worldwide will have to be notified by those affected. o Extensive reprogramming will be required for automatic dialers on fax machines and ordinary telephones, as well as computer modems. o Company letterheads and other documents, business cards and envelopes will have to be modified and reprinted. o Modifications will have to be made to a large number of PBX units throughout the current 514 region. These are the internal switchboards that funnel communications within a company. Even relatively modern PBX machines have trouble recognizing the new breed of area codes, which includes 450. "It's a great time to be a printer," said telecommunications analyst Ian Angus of Angus Telemanagement Group of Ajax, Ont., citing the anticipated flow of orders for new versions of printed material. For the Toronto region, Angus said, Bell managed the transition to the 416/905 split "far more smoothly than one had any reason to hope. They handled it exceptionally well." He was speaking from personal experience. Ajax, where Angus Telemanagement is situated, is now in the 905 area code. Bell gave "lots and lots of warning," he said, and during the transitional period put through incorrectly dialed calls anyway - after playing a recording reminding callers that the area code they had sought had been changed. The same approach will be taken for the 514 switch, Hansen said. The operation of North America's area codes is the responsibility of Bell Communications Research Inc. of Morristown, N.J. Bell Communications revealed the proposed change for Montreal in a posting on the Internet. The company, commonly known as Bellcore, is not an affiliate of Bell Canada. Hansen conceded yesterday that, from a public-relations standpoint, Bell Canada was caught flat-footed by the premature revelation of the move. It had been planning to break the news "in the next six to eight weeks," Hansen said. The utility had planned to make a private round first among mayors, MPs and National Assembly members, and then make a public announcement. That move was to coincide with the launch of an extensive publicity campaign over the next 18 months, Hansen said. Angus Telemanagement was the first to pick up the Bellcore announcement. It disseminated the information Monday in its electronic mailing of its Telecom Update, a weekly bulletin of telecommunications-industry news distributed over the Internet, after picking it up from the World Wide Web site maintained by Bellcore. Until recently, the second digit of an area code has always been a zero or a one. In order to sharply expand the universe of available numbers, area codes are being introduced that contain any number from 2 to 9 in the second digit - a trend that has gained momentum in the United States in the past two years. This change will allow the total number of available telephone numbers for North America to be increased to more than 6 billion. Like Montreal, area-code splits are in the works for many places. In fact, Hansen at Bell said, "from here to the end of the century, 37 per cent of all North American area codes will be split." In British Columbia, area code 250 was introduced for parts of southern B.C. beyond Vancouver last Oct. 19 by U.S.-controlled British Columbia Telephone Co. Ltd. In that case, the transition period will run until next June 1 - considerably longer than what Bell Canada is anticipating in the 514/450 territory. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:14:22 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review:"Using and Managing UUCP" by Ravin et al BKUMUUCP.RVW 961017 "Using and Managing UUCP", Ed Ravin/Tim O'Reilly/Dale Dougherty/Grace Todino, 1996, 1-56592-153-4, U$29.95/C$42.95 %A Ed Ravin %A Tim O'Reilly %A Dale Dougherty %A Grace Todino %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-153-4 %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 %S Nutshell %T "Using and Managing UUCP" Updating two earlier Nutshell books ("Using UUCP and Usenet", cf. BKUSUUCP.RVW; and "Managing uucp and Usenet", cf. BKMANUCP.RVW), this book is quite technical - but then, users of uucp are pretty much bound to be technical themselves, unless their "use" is limited to preprogrammed scripts. The layout closely follows that of the original books: sort of part one equals using and part tow equals managing. Chapter one is an introduction to uucp and networks (versions of uucp having been covered in the Preface). Using mail as an example, network routing and "bang paths" are explained. Chapter two deals with file transfers, and covers "permissions" and security aspects. Chapter three explains the "remote" execution of commands while five details remote login. Chapter four covers the matter of checking on the status of requests. Chapter six now covers email. I was interested to note that the original chapters seven, eight and nine form the "Using" book, which I had criticized, have been removed. They dealt with Usenet, and the reading and posting of "news". News is now dealt with only briefly in an appendix. When it comes to management, the book provides hardware guidance as well, particularly to those with Intel boxes. Chapters eight and nine deal not only with the basic operations and configuration of UUCP, but also with cabling, ports and modems. The material gives enough detail but does not go on to flaunt knowledge of unnecessary trivia. Further chapters give information on testing and troubleshooting, security and management. Once again, the chapters on Usenet news have been removed. There are now twelve very useful appendices covering shell scripts, spool directory, error messages, non-UNIX platforms, sendmail, news, the UUCP mapping project, management tools, modem setup, protocol internals, the UUCP g protocol, and other resources. UUCP may be seen by some to be obsolete, particularly in the face of the near dominance of TCP/IP. However, UUCP is a robust and useful system, particularly in dialup or otherwise difficult communication situations. This resource has significant life left in it yet. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1993, 1994, 1996 BKUMUUCP.RVW 961017 ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere. Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Florida PSC Selects Three-Way NPA Split Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:13:28 -0500 Organization: LINCS Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com The Florida PSC decided Tuesday in favor of a three-way split for NPA 904, to take place as early as late May. Essentially, the Pensacola, Panama City, and Tallahassee LATAs will retain area code 904. The Jacksonville LATA, encompassing the northeast corner of the state, will receive 850, and Daytona Beach will receive a third NPA, possibly either 780 or 550 (based on available domestic-relief codes, vs. assigned COCs in 904, 407, & 352). Permissive dialing could start as early as May 31, 1997 (based on documentation from the PSC meeting), and last as long as a year. The move was a surprise, considering most of the industry support was behind a two-way split, with Tallahassee/Panama City/Pensacola retaining 904, and Daytona/Jacksonville receiving 850. The move would allow 904 and 850 to last until 2004-6, and the new NPA to last six to ten years beyond that ... Coming February 1st: www.lincs.net * John Cropper, LINCS A new site, faster server, and * PO Box 277 fully redesigned web site. * Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 ************************************ Inside NJ: 609.637.9434 Check out our current site at: * Toll Free: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) http://208.205.126.126/nanp/ * email: psyber@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:19:04 -0800 From: Mike Pollock Organization: SJS Entertainment Subject: Deadbeats Stiff Phone Companies Deadbeats Stiff Phone Companies By DAVID E. KALISH AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Telephone deadbeats were once pariahs. Their failure to pay monthly phone bills faced the ultimate punishment from AT&T and other long-distance carriers -- cancellation of phone service. Now that threat is starting to fall on deaf ears. Instead of coming up with the cash, more and more phone debtors are simply switching to one of the alternate phone carriers that have sprung up in recent years. And they're sticking Ma Bell with the old bill. Uncollected bills, particularly from business customers, cost AT&T Corp. $200 million in the fourth quarter as the nation's largest long-distance provider reported profits on Wednesday that were shy of Wall Street's expectations. AT&T cited increased delinquencies, fraud and bankruptcies by customers. By writing off the debt as uncollectible, AT&T illuminated a potentially ominous trend for long-distance companies, which are locked in fierce marketing battles with each other for new customers. Spurred by government deregulation, a flood of new long-distance rivals in recent years has made it easy for deadbeats to just use another company. "It used to be that in the monopoly days, when people didn't pay their phone bills they didn't get phone service," AT&T chief financial officer Rick Miller said in a telephone interview. "(Now) when phone service gets canceled they have an option to go somewhere else." Emboldening customers is a trend by states toward blunting the main threat long-distance companies employ against deadbeats. In the past, long distance companies were able to cut off not only a customer's long-distance service but demand that local carriers cut off service as well. But in recent years, a number of states have barred long-distance carriers from pulling the plug on local service, according to Brad Ramsay, assistant general counsel at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, a states' lobbying group based in Washington. The problem is not confined to AT&T. MCI acknowledged in its third-quarter financial report last year that "uncollectibles" increased during the period, though a spokesman on Wednesday said the problem was not growing. Among local phone companies, unpaid bills grew 10 percent to $1.11 billion between 1992 and 1995, according to staff at the Federal Communications Commission. In the long-distance business, the problem seems to be hitting market leader AT&T the hardest. The company said the surge in phone debtors began last year, particularly among business customers. But consumer advocates had little sympathy for the phone carriers, which they have routinely criticized as being insensitive to consumers' needs for more affordable service. "This may be the comeuppance of the long-distance companies aggressively marketing to switch customers," said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of Consumers Union, a Washington-based consumer group that publishes Consumer Reports magazine. The problem comes at a difficult time for AT&T, which is struggling to revitalize its core long-distance business. The company reported that long-distance revenues increased 3 percent to $11.54 billion, while call volume rose 6 percent. The company said the increase came mostly from business services, but that its 15-cent-per minute calling plan for consumers was meeting its expectations for reducing customer defections. But some analysts noted that growth in AT&T's core business continues to lag that of rivals. "The earnings power has been diminishing, not increasing for AT&T," said William Vogel, an industry analyst at Dillon Read, noting that AT&T had reduced spending on its True Rewards phone program. AT&T said it earned $1.62 billion, or $1 per share, on revenues of $13.24 billion in the quarter ended Dec. 31. A year earlier, the company lost $2.68 billion, or $1.67 per share, on revenues of $12.89 billion. About half the $200 million in uncollected bills covered unpaid bills in the fourth quarter and the other half was for expected future losses. In one bright spot, revenues from mobile phone services rose 18.4 percent to $937 million as cellular subscribers grew 31.7 percent to 5.2 million. Last year's financial loss was the result of setting aside money to pay for the cost of cutting tens of thousands of jobs as it prepared for a three-way split it completed with the recent spinoff of NCR Corp. Results from the company's remaining operations in the latest quarter worked out to 76 cents per share, shy of Wall Street expectations for a profit of 80 cents. AT&T's stock dropped 50 cents to $38.87 1/2 on the New York Stock Exchange. For the full year, AT&T earned $5.91 billion, or $3.66 per share, on revenues of $52.18 billion. A year earlier, the company earned $139 million, or 9 cents per share, on revenues of $50.66 billion. ----------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since AT&T over the next decade will probably find its (then) shell of a corporate self in the same circum- stances as its once large and powerful ally Western Union -- that is to say in bankruptcy and largely forgotten about except by telecom historians, the advice I give next may be largely a moot point, but here goes anyway: One, when you run a promotion on a national basis advertised in papers and the media everywhere, make sure the local telcos actually have the software in their switches to handle it. I for one got tired of hearing about all the great prices you could offer me and the types of service you had available -- for example, 500 numbers; for example special prices on internatinal calls -- only to have none of it work the way you said and when I call to inquire you tell me the local telco does not have the software installed to handle the feature/pricing you have been advertising all over and you 'cannot force them to install it ...". Hey, I *know* the business, and you people get me confused at times; what about the general public? Do you think a few people got tired of having to call month after month to get manual credits on their bill because their local telco would bill it wrong. Do you think maybe people got tired of paying for 500 service which never worked right for them because their local telco never could seem to program their switches correctly? Do you think people get tired of not being able to reach a new area code that has been cut in and have your reps bounce them to local telco reps who in turn bounce them back to you again? To get Ameritech to include a certain prefix in Wisconsin so you could handle the call I had to set up a three way conference call myself between an AT&T guy in Denver and an Ameritech technician in Chicago, and then almost get obnoxious with both of them. What about the general public? Two, when you get in a snit with a local telco and pull all your billing away from them as you did with Ameritech a year ago or so, let's try to take care that we do not run the same billing tape twice, or run it again after the local telco had run it the month before, okay? And when customers complain, or refuse to pay the same bill twice, see if you can work it out instead of telling the customers they will have to go back to Ameritech to seek the adjustment on that end. Instead of thirty days later placing the customer with the Gulf Coast Collection Agency in Houston, Texas -- you talk about a beliger- ant and hateful outfit, 'GC Services' takes the cake -- and then proceeding to intercept all the customer's long distance calls with a recording saying 'access to the AT&T Network is denied', try to see if you can work out some of the billing problems in-house. In other words, don't blame 'deadbeats' for all your collection woes. Some of the large business customers you say are not paying you have taken that stance because they got tired of calling month after month to get adjustments that either your computers (or the local telco computers, who knows?) never could get straight. They got tired of having telemarketers and smooth-talking salespeople from AT&T make all kinds of promises and committments that no one could ever recall or find tariff authority for later on. Not that AT&T is unique in that regard; not by any means, but we are discussing your collection problems here. When one of my lines several months ago turned up on your hit list of 'access to the AT&T network is denied' I blew you a kiss goodbye and had the line defaulted to a different carrier the next day. I've not used AT&T now for many months, and it all goes back to a bill for eighty dollars which I paid Ameritech and sent you proof of payment on; your rep sassed and told me to get it back from Ameritech and then pay you. No matter that Ameritech had billed for the same calls already. Divestiture was a bad idea and a disaster; I don't blame AT&T for giving in (even 'voluntarily' as some here will claim, as if anything is voluntary when you have a very big gun held to your head) but the company certainly has had a hard time getting adapted to it. I think we will come to rue the day we embarked on this social experiment with what at one time was the greatest phone network in the world. In the meantime, if you feel better blaming the deadbeats for all the problems, go ahead and do so I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:25:39 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Some Passing Thoughts Weather and Illness: Last week in this area, we experienced some *awful* winter weather with temperatures for about three days running of zero or below, with six to eight inches of snow on the ground. I got sick from something on Friday and thought I was going to die; that is how nauseated and light-headed I was for a couple days. Most of the time I stayed in bed with blankets pulled over my head feeling quite chilled even though the inside temperature was in the seventies. Monday I still felt sort of feeble, but I am recovering from whatever it was. Now today the temperature here is in the forties ... go figure. The snow is totally melted and yesterday it rained all day, creating some *huge* puddles of water at the curbs, on all the sidewalks, etc. The Child Porn Spam Returns: In today's (Wednesday) mail, several readers sent me copies of the child porn spam again, each one beginning with the same notice that 'your name was found on a list that indicates ... ' etc. The text was changed slightly from the last one which went out, and instead of Steve whats-his-name given as the sender with a remail address in Queens, NY as the place to order, we are given some post office box in the same general territory. As before, it comes from America On Line although the sending name at AOL may be forged. The machine indicia indicates AOL once again however, and I suppose their mouthpiece there will deny it as they did before. Please do not bother forwarding copies of it to every police department, FBI agent and constable you know. It is an old, worn out spam by now. Speaking of Spams: Now they are coming from Japan. Did anyone besides me today get the one written in Japanese on the Make Money Fast theme? The one I got was earmarked for about a hundred newsgroups, but comp.dcom. telecom being moderated caused it to drop in my mailbox instead. In Japanese, mind you! Some fool at some university in Japan sent it out with an English version immediatly following the Japanese version in the same message. Make Money Fast written in Japanese, and kiddy porn advertising in the same day's mail ... good old Usenet! Cellular Phone Needed: Has anyone a used, unneeded cellular phone in working order they would send me/sell me for $25 or so? Someone literally picked my pocket when I had my coat hanging in a public place the other day and got mine. I called Frontier and had the ESN killed right away so whoever got it did not get the satisfaction of more than one or two calls. If I can get another one inexpensively -- I literally cannot afford to buy a new one right now, and Frontier supplies cellular service with any phone you happen to already have -- I will greatly appreciate it. Let me know if you have one you do not need. Digest Subscriptions for 1997: To the several of you who have given financial donations to the Digest covering 1997 subscriptions, my sincere thanks. If you have not yet sent in the suggested $20 per year donation to assist with publication and editorial costs, and can afford to do do -- and only if you feel this journal is worth it -- please do so at this time. Thanks. TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL 60076 PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:14:21 EST From: James E Bellaire Subject: Last Laugh: AT&T Check The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T is interesting: "My signing, cashing and/or depositing of this check authorizes you to switch my long distance service to AT&T, unblock my carrier choice service protection to make this switch possible, and notify my local telephone company of this decision. I understand that only one long distance company may be designated for the telephone number listed on this check. My local telephone company may charge me a fee to switch my long distance service. CHECK VOID IF ALTERED." 'unblocking my carrier choice service protection'? If AT&T can get around the block on changing my default long distance carrier for these checks, what stops them from doing it when their telemarketers 'think they heard the customer say yes' before I hang up on them when they call? So much for slam protection. BTW: This check will not be cashed. It is only for $10. I'm worth more than that AT&T! James E. Bellaire bellaire@tk.com Webpage Available 23.5 Hrs a Day!!! http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #19 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jan 24 02:59:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA26686; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:59:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:59:28 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701240759.CAA26686@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #20 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 Jan 97 02:58:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 20 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CFP: ICTL'97 (Mehmet Orgun) UCLA Short Course: Cellular, PCS, and Wireless Data Technology (B. Goodin) Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Marlon Brando) How to Remove a Bogus DA Listing? (Rick Prelinger) Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Charles Holcomb) PBS "American Experience" Telephone History (Lee Winson) International Operator Services Reciprocal Billing (tmccall) Book Review: "Managing Computer Networks" by Lewis (Rob Slade) E911 Adjuncts for NEC PBX (Greg Stahl) Fridays Free - Again? (Ed Kleinhample) Prepaid Phone Card Collecting (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:44:37 +1100 From: Mehmet Orgun Subject: CFP: ICTL'97 Reply-To: Mehmet Orgun [DEADLINE FOR PAPER SUBMISSION IS EXTENDED TO FEBRUARY 20] ICTL'97 - CALL FOR PAPERS SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TEMPORAL LOGIC http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/fmethods/ictl97.html Hulme Hall, Oxford Place, Victoria Park, Manchester, England July 14 - 18, 1997 CONFERENCE GOALS Following the success of ICTL'94, the first international conference on temporal logic, this conference attempts to create bridges between the various communities working in Temporal Logic. Connecting methods and researchers from areas such as temporal representation in natural language and the handling of time in software engineering to the study of pure systems of Temporal Logic and the applied temporal systems of AI. Areas of interest to the conference thus include: (1) Pure Temporal Logic, e.g. temporal systems, proof theory, model theory, expressiveness and complexity issues, algebraic properties, application of game theory; (2) Specification and Verification, e.g. of reactive systems, of real-time components, of user interaction, of hardware systems, techniques and tools for verification, execution and prototyping methods; (3) Temporal Databases, e.g. temporal representation, temporal querying, granularity of time, update mechanisms, active temporal databases, hypothetical reasoning; (4) Temporal Aspects in AI, e.g. modelling temporal phenomena, interval temporal calculi, temporal nonmonotonicity, interaction of temporal reasoning with action/knowledge/belief logics, temporal planning; (5) Tense and Aspect in Natural Language, e.g. models, ontologies, temporal quantifiers, connectives, prepositions, processing temporal statements; (6) Temporal Theorem Proving, e.g. translation methods, clausal and non-clausal resolution, tableaux, automata-theoretic approaches, tools and practical systems. Research papers (of up to 15 pages) are welcomed, especially those making connections among the above areas; short survey papers (no more than 30 pages) of areas for the benefit of participants from other areas will also be considered. The proceedings is expected to be published by Springer in the Lecture Notes in Computer Science series. Short position papers and system descriptions (of up to 5 pages) are also welcomed for poster sessions and will be published as a volume in the University of Manchester Computer Science technical report series. The best papers will be considered for publication in the Journal of Logic and Computation. If appropriate, revised and extended versions of survey papers will be published as a special volume in Kluwer's Applied Logic Series. CONFERENCE LOCATION The conference is being held in Manchester, one of the major higher education precincts of Western Europe, under the auspices of the University of Manchester at one of its long-standing halls of residence, Hulme Hall. The Hall's location, although close to the busy and vibrant Oxford Road with its numerous Indian and oriental restaurants of excellent value, is secluded, quiet and well equipped with excellent facilities for supporting large conference parties. The University of Manchester, itself, is short 10 minutes walk away in the city direction, taking you past the famous Whitworth Art Gallery, and the Manchester Museum. Further into the city, you can visit the Museum of Science and Industry at Castlefields, where the history of cotton industry and mills, engines, transport, computing and information unfolds, or view the glorious architecture of the Town Hall and other civic buildings, or shop, and when exhausted from sightseeing take refuge in one of Manchester's pubs to down a few pints of real beer. Manchester is well connected by road, rail, air and canal. Manchester International airport is 20 minutes away by taxi from the conference location, while a direct (and fast) rail link connects the airport with the city centre. FORMAT OF CONFERENCE The full conference will extend from an initial evening time reception on Monday July 14th 1997 through to mid afternoon on Friday July 18th 1997. To encourage graduate students and researchers wishing to broaden their expertise, the first day proper, Tuesday July 15th 1997, will be dedicated to tutorial presentations. The research paper presentations will last from Wednesday July 16th to Friday July 18th 1997; it is planned that each day of the research presentations will be preceeded by an invited talk. Social events are being arranged for the evenings. Further details will appear on the Web page. SUBMISSION OF PAPERS Each submission should include a separate cover sheet containing: the title of paper, the category of the paper and which of the topic areas listed above best describes their paper (if none is appropriate, please give a set of keywords that best describe the topic of the paper), the names and complete addresses (including email, when possible) of all authors, and an abstract. Correspondence will be sent to the first listed author, unless otherwise indicated. To be considered, papers must be received by the programme committee chair NO LATER THAN January 20th, 1997. Electronic submission in the form of a postscript file (uuencoded and gzipped if possible) is preferred (email to: ictl97@cs.man.ac.uk), alternatively 4 paper copies by regular mail is acceptable. Authors are encouraged to use the Springer llncs style which can be obtained from the directory: gopher://trick.ntp.springer.de/11/tex/latex/llncs/ Authors will be notified of the Programme Committee's decision by March 15th, 1997. Final camera-ready versions of accepted papers will be due by April 15th, 1997. PLANNING TO ATTEND People planning to attend the conference are asked to send a note stating their intention as early as possible to the local conference secretary, Mrs Lynn Howarth (Lynn.Howarth@cs.man.ac.uk), in order to help estimate the facilities needed for the conference. (Postal address: Mrs Lynn Howarth, ICTL'97, c/o Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England. Phone: +44 (0)161 275 6154, Fax: +44 (0)161 275 6204) GENERAL CONFERENCE CHAIR Dov M. Gabbay Department of Computing Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Huxley Bld. 180 Queen's Gate London SW7 2AZ England Voice: +44 (0)171 594 8205 Fax: +44 (0)171 594 8201 Email: dg@doc.ic.ac.uk http://theory.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ar3/gabbay.html PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CHAIR Howard Barringer Department of Computer Science University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL England Voice: +44 (0)161 275 6248 FAX: +44 (0)161 275 6211 Email: howard@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/fmethods/people/howard.html LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS CHAIR Bill Mitchell Department of Computer Science University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL England Voice: +44 (0)161 275 6117 FAX: +44 (0)161 275 6211 Email: bill@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/fmethods/people/wprm/new-fm-page.html TUTORIALS CHAIR Michael Fisher Department of Computing Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester, M13 England Voice: +44 (0)161 247 1488 FAX: +44 (0)161 247 1483 Email: M.Fisher@doc.mmu.ac.uk http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/STAFF/M.Fisher PROGRAMME COMMITTEE (Provisional) Howard Barringer (University of Manchester, UK) Gerd Brewka (GMD Bonn, Germany) Jan Chomicki (Monmouth University, USA) Allen Emerson (Austin, Texas) Michael Fisher (MMU, UK) Nissim Francez (Technion, Israel) Dov Gabbay (Imperial College, London) Joe Halpern (Cornell University, USA) Hans Kamp (IMS, Stuttgart, Germany) Angelo Montanari (Udine, Italy) Istvan Nemeti (Math Institute, Hungary) Hans Juergen Ohlbach (Max-Planck-Institut, Saarbruecken, Germany) Amir Pnueli (Weizmann Institute, Israel) Wojtek Pencek (University of Warsaw, Poland) Antonio Porto (Univ Nova de Lisboa, Portugal) Mark Reynolds (King's College London, UK) Willem Paul de Roever (Kiel University, Germany) Eric Sandewall (Linkoeping University, Sweden) Andrzej Szalas (University of Warsaw, Poland) Yde Venema (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) TUTORIAL SPEAKERS Temporal Logic and Planning -- Faheim Bacchus (Waterloo, Canada) Temporal Databases -- Jan Chomicki(Monmouth, USA) and David Toman (Toronto, Canada) Temporal Logic of Actions -- Peter Ladkin (Bielefeld, Germany) Temporality in Natural Language -- Mark Steedman (Pennsylvania, USA) IMPORTANT DATES Submission receipt deadline: January 20th, 1997 Author notification date: March 15th, 1997 Camera-ready copy due to publisher: April 15th, 1997 Conference: July 14th-18th, 1997 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PAPERS By email to: ictl97@cs.man.ac.uk Michael Fisher http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/STAFF/M.Fisher Department of Computing email: M.Fisher@doc.mmu.ac.uk Manchester Metropolitan University tel: (+44) 161 247 1488 Manchester M1 5GD, United Kingdom fax: (+44) 161 247 1483 ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: Cellular, PCS, and Wireless Data Technology Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:19:00 -0800 On April 15-18, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Cellular, PCS, and Wireless Data Technology", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are C. R. "Rick" Baugh, PhD, consultant, and Peter Rysavy, MSEE, consultant. The new digital cellular, Personal Communications Services (PCS), and wireless-data communications technologies are the most exciting advances in mobile communications since analog-cellular telephone technology was introduced in the late 1960s. By the end of 1996, there will be over 80 million wireless voice subscribers and over 75 million paging subscribers worldwide. A. D. Little predicts penetration of wireless services into 60% of U.S. households by the year 2005. Wireless local loop applications of cellular and PCS technologies will stimulate vigorous competition in local telephone services throughout the world. This course provides an understanding of the various wireless technologies and lays the foundation for answering these technical, planning, design, and business development questions: o What are the most important trends and significant recent advancements in this field? o How do the competing wireless technologies compare? o What voice, data, and paging services will these technologies support? o What technologies are best for which applications? o Which wireless data technologies are being used today? o What are the standards for digital wireless, wireless data, and wireless software? What is their status? o How will existing wireless data technologies coexist with new PCS technologies? o How does wireless interconnect with the existing telecommunica- tions and public data networks? o Will wireless local loop be an alternative for traditional telephone service? o Is PCS competitive with alternative wireline and wireless services? This course is intended for engineers and technical managers who plan, design, implement and operate voice and data communications systems for common-carrier service providers; corporate telecommunications planners and technical managers intending to include wireless voice and data systems within their firm's communications networks; and designers of equipment used for wireless voice and data products and systems. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1992. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. For additional 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: kline@cyberenet.net (Marlon Brando) Subject: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:53:52 GMT Organization: Cyberbrewer Reply-To: kline@cyberenet.net I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that I believe them. They are still in business after all. With reguards to my question, I just need to know if I'm asking the phone co. for the correct line (without going ISDN$$$.) Thank you in advance, mark kline@cyberenet.net http://www.cyberenet.net/~kline ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:19:05 -0400 From: footage@well.com (Rick Prelinger) Subject: How to Remove a Bogus DA Listing? Lately my customers have been informing me that Directory Assistance is giving them an outdated, three-year-old number for our business. As it happens, this number isn't in the NYNEX database, but I've determined that those getting this bad information are Sprint/MCI customers probably reaching some contract DA provider. Who are these providers? And how does one reach them to remove an outdated or incorrect listing in their DA databases? Rick Prelinger Prelinger Archives 430 West 14th Street, Room 403 / New York, NY 10014 USA 212 633-2020 / Fax: 212 255-5139 footage@well.com Visit the Our Secret Century web site at: http://www.secretcentury.com ------------------------------ From: Charles Holcomb Subject: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:08:00 -0600 Organization: DSC Communications Corporation On of my relatives can not use her LD carrier's PIC code to dial around her LEC for her long distance calls in her LATA. I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and still use your prefered LD carrier. Is this true, and why is it not mentioned by LD carrier's?? What excatly is the "700" number used for?? Just curious. Thanks, Charles Holcomb ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: PBS "American Experience" Telephone History Date: 24 Jan 1997 03:57:12 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS In February, PBS' "American Experience" will have a segment on the development of the telephone. Watch your local listings. Other segments will cover various technologies. They said this was financed by the "Sloan Technology Series". This series is an excellent history of technology, they have sponsored several excellent technology history books (such as Aspray's Computer history.) ------------------------------ From: tmccall Subject: International Operator Services Reciprocal Billing Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:55:34 -0500 Organization: World Telecommunications Services Inc. Reply-To: tmccall@technologist.com Hello to All, I am attempting to determine if any settlement mechanism would exist for foreign nationals using US based operators services with a foreign PTT's travel card. As an example. A US traveler abroad dials an international access number for a US based operator services company, say, AT&T's USADirect product. Any third party Operator Services Company with a billing agreement with AT&T can handle the call. But, can a US based operator services company establish the same kind of reciprocal billing arrangment with a Foreign PTT?? So they would be able to bill a call made with a foreign PTT's travel card?? Like Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, or British Telephone. Please forgive my ignorance ... I am not familiar with a lot of the operational aspects of operator services. Any feedback on this question would be greatly appreciated as would any information on operational aspects of US based operator services companies. Thanks to all, tmccall@technologist.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:20:42 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Managing Computer Networks" by Lewis BKMNCMNT.RVW 961018 "Managing Computer Networks", Lundy Lewis, 1995, 0-89006-799-6 %A Lundy Lewis %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1995 %G 0-89006-799-6 %I Artech House/Horizon %O 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: +1-617-769-6334 %O artech@world.std.com bookco@artech.demon.co.uk %P 205 %T "Managing Computer Networks: A Case-Based Reasoning Approach" This book is not so much about computer network management as about expert systems and case-based reasoning. The background and fundamentals, as well as an overview of the problems and difficulties, of these two fields of artificial intelligence are presented in chapters two and three. Chapter four looks at some established software systems that use CBR. Lewis does, then, move on to review computer network management systems which use CBR techniques. A number of problem areas in network management are raised, but at this point, the material seems to be more of an overview of the software's capabilities, rather than any discussion of network management as such, or the application of case-based reasoning to the problem. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKMNCMNT.RVW 961018 ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:37:44 CST From: Greg Stahl Subject: E911 Adjuncts for NEC PBX I am looking for information on E911 adjuncts for the university's NEC NEAX 2400 PBX. I have been looking for information regarding E911 on the WWW, but hav'nt had much luck. We are exploring the possiblility of adding an adjunct to our PBX, does anyone know of any vendors that sell a product like this and is anyone familiar with the laws regarding E911 or can point me in the right direction. Do we, by law, have to send the ANI/ALI info down to the county emergency center? Any help with this, or letting me know of any sources for this kind of info would be greatly appreciated. Thank You, Greg A. Stahl- KE4LDD Communications Technician St. Lawrence University Telecommunications Canton, NY (315)379-5918 GSTA@music.stlawu.edu Telecom is Cool !! ------------------------------ From: edhample@sprynet.com (Ed Kleinhample) Subject: Fridays Free - Again? Date: 23 Jan 1997 13:49:51 GMT Organization: K-Systems Software and Consulting - Land O' Lakes, FL. Over the weekend, I saw an ad for Sprint (on CNN) advertising the now-famous Fridays Free promotion. I listened carefully when I heard the ad again on Sunday evening -- I heard no mention that this promotion was for business customer, or that there were any limitations on the destination of calls on Friday. Same promotion as last spring -- $50 dollar/month minimum -- unlimited free calls every Friday. Do those people at Sprint ever learn their lesson? Ed Kleinhample (edhample@sprynet.com) Consultant - Land O' Lakes, FL. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh indeed they do learn their lessons Ed. They caught on fast that Friday Free was one of the most profitable bait-and-switch scams in their repertoire. For those not familiar with it, and so you won't fall in their trap, here is how it works. Sprint reps will claim to you that if you sign up with them and contract to spend at least fifty dollars per month for the next year, they will give you all your calls on Friday for free. They will indeed give you one or two Fridays of entirely free calling while they secretly evaluate your account. If it turns out to be profitable for them they'll let you stay on the plan, but if it appears it will not be profitable for them then they send you a letter telling you it was all a big mistake and that actually you do not get any free calls on Friday, you simply get a discount of some percentage on all your calls. They'll claim the rep who made all the promises to you had no right to do so, and to their way of thinking, that will be that. Some customers who were defrauded by Sprint on this promotion have reported that none-the-less Sprint kept on dunning them to pay the fifty dollars per month even after they had quit using Sprint entirely out of disgust at being tricked into signing up in the first place. Sprint tends to mail out the letter telling you about the 'mistake' late in the day on Wednesday, cancelling all free calls as of the Friday two days later. Naturally most customers do not get the letter before the weekend, so they get stuck with some humongous bill for all the calls they made that Friday thinking they would be free. Sprint of course wants payment on all those calls. It is really quite a scam. They sign the letter advising of the 'mistake' with the name of an employee who deliberatly then dodges phone calls from irate customers. Did anyone ever manage to get Robin Lloyd the last time Sprint promoted the Friday Free scam? After the company first started this last year, I suspect they waited to see how severe the backlash would be -- i.e. any class action lawsuits, etc -- before running it again. Now that experience has shown them most customers are not going to try and go up against a large corporation with endless dollars to spend on lawyers, they've apparently decided to advertise for a few more suckers. The best advice I can give any business thinking about signing up for the Sprint Free Friday promotion is don't fall for it. And if you have already been stiffed by Sprint either on Free Friday or some other case where their reps have been trained to fraudulently misrepresent the company's services, about all you can do at this point is put a complete freeze on all accounts payable to Sprint. Force them to go legal to get as much as a nickle out of you which they allege is due. It is the only way you will recover whatever you paid Sprint on the Friday (not really) Free at $50 per month plan. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:35:42 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting I got an interesting magazine in the mail a couple days ago on this topic, full of beautiful illustrations of prepaid phone cards. It seems collecting these things has become a very popular hobby, much like stamp collecting. But with stamp collecting, it always occurred to me that the real beneficiary was the US Postal Service, which sells the stamps for face value but is never called upon to deliver any service for the affixing of the stamp on a letter. The stamp is intended to be saved in a scrapbook rather than used for postage. I have to wonder if the telcos are in the same situation with their prepaid phone cards. They sell lots of these cards, getting paid in advance for service on their network which will never be used since the object seems to be collecting them in large numbers for their various designs and illustrations, etc. Or am I wrong, and people actually use prepaid phone cards and then proceed to save the expired card in their collections? The magazine I got claims phone cards are a 'billion dollar industry' and that people who buy/sell/trade them will make a lot of money. This magazine is called {Premier Telecard} and its USA ediion is on sale for $4.95 in many bookstores. You can also contact them at http://www.premier-tele.com for details. They've been in business now for a few years covering this theme exclusively: the buying and selling of prepaid phone cards. If for no other reason than to check out some really nice illustrations you might want to look at the magazine. I personally cannot imagine using prepaid phone cards since they cost a lot more per minute than DDD or other ways of placing calls and my personal experience in distributing them was not a very big success. Old-time readers will recall back in 1993 or so I had a bunch of sample two dollar cards I distributed on a test basis to readers here. I was not impressed with the results, but then this may not be the best source of customers for same. I suppose as collectibles they have some value so my question is are the telcos encouraging them for collectible purposes in the same way the United States Postal Service supports stamp collector clubs ... as a good way of making some money with little effort? In the sample copy I was sent, a letter said that Tom Foley, editor of the now defunct Private Line, a magazine on phones and phone systems he published for about a year is now a writer on the staff of their sister publication {Industry Review}. Any thoughts/opinions/actual hard data and facts on prepaid phone cards as collectibles? Truly a 'billion dollar business'? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #20 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jan 27 08:39:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA03075; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:39:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:39:19 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701271339.IAA03075@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #21 TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Jan 97 08:39:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Alternate Directory Providers (Mark J. Cuccia) Public Data Disappearing From NTIA Online Sites (Ronda Hauben) FCC Says NO to 56kbps Technology Modems (Billy Newsom) LINCS is Back Up and Running (John Cropper) Dixon, CA, Moving From 916 to 707 - Also Changing LATAs? (Linc Madison) Great European Renumbering Proposal (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 18:42:38 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Alternate Directory Providers Rick Prelinger wrote: > Lately my customers have been informing me that Directory Assistance > is giving them an outdated, three-year-old number for our business. > As it happens, this number isn't in the NYNEX database, but I've > determined that those getting this bad information are Sprint/MCI > customers probably reaching some contract DA provider. > Who are these providers? And how does one reach them to remove an > outdated or incorrect listing in their DA databases? AFAIK, when you use MCI or Sprint to call directory assistance in an out-of-state (or out-of-LATA or NPA), you still do route to the genuine Bell/LEC's inward directory operator who serves that called state/LATA/NPA. However, when using AT&T to call such out-of-state/LATA/NPA directory but still within the (continental) US, most likely, you will *NOT* route to the genuine Bell/LEC directory operator. There are still some local telcos which AT&T does route to. The third-party-contract company which AT&T is now using for directory assistance calls in certain parts of the US is known as "Excell Agency Services" in Tempe or Phoenix AZ. They are acting on 'behalf' of AT&T. Their directory operators and main offices are located in AZ, even though you might be trying to reach directory assistance in New York City! Excell (for AT&T) will claim to actually 'be' AT&T when asked if they are the Bell/LEC directory operator or someone else. They don't seem to want to admit that they are "Excell Agency Services". The listings in their database system aren't always up to date. There are *many* numbers which *I KNOW* to be relatively 'new' listings (about a month old), and have been in the issuing LEC's directory database within a day or two of the number being assigned, yet Excell's directory database won't have those numbers. (That's an 85-cent call via AT&T to 'not' get a number!). Some listings which were changed to other numbers about a year or two ago (as in Rick Prelinger's situation) are still listed by Excell as the old number. The old number, when dialed, might still go to intercept, but not to 'new-number-referral' anymore. That number might even have been *reassigned* to some other customer! Again, that's 85-cents via AT&T to be given a *wrong* number by Excell, and then an (AT&T) toll call to a number of some other customer! I've even heard that is could be possible they could even be giving out numbers which are flagged by the issuing local telco as "nonpublished"! It seems that they get their listings for their database from sources such as credit reporting agencies and the like, rather than from the issuing local telco's systems. As far as *I* am concerned, AT&T is *again* shooting itself in the foot by contracting out and routing to this third party for directory! Years ago, I would *never* have thought that *AT&T* would do such a thing! I would have thought that the 'other common carriers' would route 555-1212 calls to some third-party contract agency -- it seems to be the other way around! I still prefer to remain loyal to AT&T, but for long-distance directory calls, I am *now* placing most if not all of them via MCI and Sprint. I have told various people at AT&T that I have 'left' AT&T when it comes to calling directory! To place calls to out-of-state/NPA/LATA directory via carriers 'other' than AT&T, so that I can reach the genuine Bell/LEC inward directory operator or center, rather than "Excell", I dial the following: From home, I use 10(10)222 for MCI, 10(10)333 for Sprint, 10(10)450 for LDDS; then I continue dialing 1-NPA-KLondike-5-1212. If calling from a PBX/Cellular/Payphone which allows use of 10(1X)XXX+ codes, and then 0+ NPA-KL.5-1212, so as to bill to a card number, these carriers mentioned *do* allow billing to a LEC-issued (BellSouth in my case) card number whether a LEC-issued *line-number* card or a LEC-issued *RAO-based* card number. And, if you have a 'standard' CIID-based card from the dialed carrier, you could bill to that card. And, of course, you can bill to a 'proprietary' card issued by the dialed carrier if you have an account and card from that carrier. And you can probably bill the call to a 'commercial/consumer' credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, etc). If the PBX/Cellular/Payphone/CPE-interface you are calling from doesn't allow use of 10(1X)XXX+ codes, you can still place the call to directory via a carrier other than AT&T by using the carriers' 800 access numbers. However, if you don't have a 'proprietary' card (and account) from MCI or Sprint, you can still bill the call to a LEC-issued card number by dialing the following 800 numbers: MCI: 800-COLLECT (800-265-5328) Sprint: 800-210-CARD (800-210-2273) and then follow the instructions for the type of card you wish to bill to, and enter in the NPA-555-1212. (I wonder of these 800 numbers will also work to place calls to that carrier's 500-NXX-xxxx numbers but billed to a LEC-issued card number?) These 800 numbers go first to automated prompts, but you can cut-through to a live operator. Please note: the 'general' 800 access numbers for those carriers which are given to their *own* customers (800-877-8000 for Sprint, 800-888-8000 for MCI, and any 950 numbers or 800-950 numbers if they still do work from some locations) can be used *only* to bill calls to that carrier's own issued 'proprietary' cards, if you actually have an account with the carrier. As for Excell Agency Services, they do have an 800 number if you suspect that they have your entry indicated incorrectly in their database. Their 'customer service(?)' in Arizona can be reached at 800-553-8163. They do have a way (probably via MCI or Sprint, or maybe with an FX line) to verify the listing with the genuine Bell/LEC directory in the area in question. But I've been told that Excell doesn't like to identify themself on that 800 number, and will 'claim' to be AT&T Directory Services if you ask them who they actually are! I would hope that Excell can be made to clean up their act, or that AT&T will either go back to routing to the genuine Bell/LEC directory, or if they still want to 'contract out', that they will deal with a more responsible company! If the problems continue and mount, maybe the FCC and ATIS need to look into the situation, possibly even the FTC! Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the situation could get even more messy as local telco competition gets going. Who will maintain local directory listings databases in such a local competitive environment? Which telcos will actually access the database? When I dial 1/0+411 locally, which directory operator or company will answer the line? Another problem with AT&T contracting the services to Excell, and routing NPA-KL.5-1212 calls via their network to them is that it seems that calls *from* Canada, placed via the Stentor LEC (at least from Bell Canada territory, originating via Bell Canada rather than via another Canadian toll carrier) is that while the Stentor LEC's might seem to have a business and licensing arrangement with MCI, the actual routing of calls from Canada to the US (originated via the Stentor LEC) still route into the US-based AT&T (Long-Lines) network, as it did all along! Once the call enters the US AT&T network, the NPA-KL.5-1212 is routed to either the genuine Bell/LEC directory (in a few cases indicated below), or to Excell Agency. I don't know if Canada to US NPA-KL.5-1212 placed via a different Canadian long-distance carrier necessarily route via a US-based 'other' carrier which would route *all* NPA-555-1212 to the genuine Bell/LEC directory. As for the present situation, this is what I have been able to determine as to which locations AT&T routes to Excell and which ones AT&T routes to the genuine Bell/LEC for inward NPA-KL.5-1212 directory: Locations/LEC's where AT&T routes *to* the genuine Bell/LEC include most-if-not-all-of: SNET's NPA's 203, 860 (CT) Bell South's NPA's and states Ameritech's NPA's and states Cincinnati (OH) Bell region (NPA 513), which would include requests for numbers in Cincinnati Bell's suburban KY and IN, as since these could actually be handled by Ameritech and BellSouth, which AT&T does continue to route to. GTE-FL NPA 813 (and 941), Tampa area the Canadian Stentor LEC's NPA's and I assume that AT&T continues to route to GTE for 808 Hawaii, and to Alascom for 907 Alaska. Incidently, AT&T now owns Alascom. The Caribbean (809 and the new split-off NPA's) is a different situation; AT&T will probably continue to route to the genuine LEC (Cable & Wireless, GTE-Codetel in the Dominican Republic, US VITELCO, Puerto Rico Telco), although until 809 completely splits apart, use of 809-KL.5-1212 will continue to first route to an "AT&T Caribbean Intercept" Operator, who asks "what island, please?", before actually connecting to local directory on that island/country. Calls to directory for countries *outside* of the NANP must still be placed through the AT&T OSPS operator, and carry a charge of roughly FIVE DOLLARS (!). But those calls *are* routed to inward directory in the requested foreign non-NANP country. I also assume that AT&T will continue to route to the genuine GTA (Guam) and MTC (Micronesia Telco - CNMI) when +671 and +670 become +1-671 and +1-670 (i.e. integrated within the NANP), when one dials (1/0)-670 or 671 + KLondike-5-1212, via the AT&T network, rather than routing to Excell. AT&T seems to route to Excell Agency for directory when the dialed NPA of the 555-1212 request if for the following areas: most-if-not-all-of NYNEX NPA's most-if-not-all-of Pac Bell California (and Nevada Bell?) NPA's most-if-not-all-of US West's NPA's most-if-not-all-of Southwestern Bell's NPA's I haven't actually tried each and every NPA to call KL.5-1212 to double check, as each call can cost at least 85-cents and up to just over a dollar via AT&T. As for 555-1212 directory requests in Bell Atlantic's NPA's, I have come across the following: most if not all of Pennsylvania's NPA's- I *know* of 412 (and maybe 724?) in the Pittsburgh area. (I don't know about Delaware's 302 yet) seems to route to Excell Agency most if not all of New Jersey's NPA's route to Bell Atlantic, (formerly New Jersey Bell) the former C&P region of VA, DC, MD (and maybe West VA?) seems to route to CFW (Clifton Falls - Waynes) local *independent* telco's directory operator who might just have proper access to the actual Bell Atlantic database. CFW seems to be located in the Covington VA area, and *IS* a 'bona-fide' local independent telco for that part of Virginia. But calls to VA/DC/MD area code directory placed via MCI or Sprint *do* route to Bell Atlantic. I don't think that CFW, being an actual local telco, would have the same problems that Excell has. Unfortunately, such a vast erroneous listings database of Excell is going to give a bad name to AT&T, and also give an *undeserved* bad name to the actual Bell/LEC directory assistance operations. Customers are going to think that the inward LEC is giving them an old number or not giving them relatively new listings. And what about the customer who has been *paying* his LEC for a 'non-pub' for years, and finds out that people get the number 'from directory assistance'(!). That non-pub customer is first going to blame their LEC! Personally, I trust only the LEC directory operators. But if a contract agency can keep their database corrected and updated, it isn't that big of a concern. But another reason that the genuine Bell/LEC directory is better in my mind is that you'd expect them to be more familiar with the geography of the area in question, rather than some centralized contract directory center. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE: 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: ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Public Data Disappearing From NTIA Online Sites Date: 25 Jan 1997 18:59:06 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC For the past 2 years the Virtual Confernce on Universal Access held by the NTIA in Nov. 1994 was available online at an NTIA site. Now, however, that regulations in the U.S. are being written about Universal access, the public discussion on this issue is no longer being made available by the U.S. government online and one wonders if it is available anywhere any longer. It is disturbing that the online confernce called by the U.S. government under the Dept. of Commerce to supposedly help gather citizen views on what should be the future of the Net and how to provide for Universal access to the Net was never consulted by the U.S. lawmakers in creating the new Telecommunications law. It is even more disturbing that the link to it on the NTIA govt site no longer even works, making it seem as if the U.S. govt. is intent on an eastern European type of "forgetting" to not only *not* consider the opinions and views of citizens in the U.S. but also to make it seem as if the online conference they called and promised to keep available online, never even occurred. We have some articles on the Nov. 1994 online conference in our online book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook See especially chapter 11 "The NTIA Conference on the Future of the Net: Creating a Prototype of a Democratic Decision Making Process" and chapter 14 "The Net and the Future of Politics: The Ascendancy of the Commons" Ronda ronda@panix.com ae547@yfn.ysu.edu ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: FCC Says No to 56kbps Technology Modems Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 18:11:58 -0600 Hot off the press: According to a report Friday from the Los Angeles Times, the 28.8 kbps modem standard may very well be standard for a while longer. The FCC currently has a regulation that limits the amount of power used to send data through a telephone line - which could compromise the legality of faster modems. The issue surfaced during FCC hearings this week concerning the efficiency of telecommunications. Bandwidth, and its varied interpretations, are also in focus. Because newer, faster modems will require more power for data transmission than the existing FCC rule allows, the FCC must grant a waiver before 56K modems can be released. Manufacturers of advanced modem technology are pressing on towards the goal of better data transmission - but it could be much longer before such technological advancements become legal in the eyes of the FCC. Billy Newsom :^p uruiamme@why.net My site: Motherboard HomeWorld (a.k.a. **DANGER**) http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ nO nEED tO yELL! The only site on the Internet devoted exclusively to motherboards ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: LINCS is Back Up and Running Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:29:20 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Two good things happened last week ... 1. Our primary netserver came back up (after a bit of wrangling with our parts supplier after first the board we deployed in November died, then the CPU failed a week later!) and I was able to begin updating our web site properly. 2. We've made our -final- move for a while, and gotten our domain name (sorry Linc Madison ... lincs.net is now taken ... :->) For those who have suggested changes, thanks; we are now beginning to implement them now. We're running on a much faster, more stable server with multiple T-1 connections, and I'm working out the bugs for those who have their graphics settings turned OFF on their browsers to save space. http://www.lincs.net/ follow the 'NPA Info!' link for (literally) up-to-the-minute NANP information ... John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://www.lincs.net ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Dixon, CA, Moving From 916 to 707 - Also Changing LATAs? Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:09:45 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I was just looking at the LATA map in my phone book, and was reminded about the fact that Dixon, California, is switching from area code 916 into area code 707, rather than area code 530. (Dixon is currently the only part of Solano County that is not in 707, so this is a sensible move.) The other question that arises, though, regards LATA boundaries. At the moment, Dixon and roughly the southern 1/3 of the current 916 area code form the Sacramento LATA. Area code 707 is entirely in the San Francisco LATA, along with 415, 510, and the northern part of 408 (not counting the upcoming splits). It would seem to me that Dixon will also move LATAs at the same time it changes area codes, although this point has not been highlighted at all in the press coverage. LATA boundaries are certainly less important than they used to be, and may become entirely irrelevant in the not-too-distant future, but for now, there are still various special billing options from the LEC for calls within your LATA. Dixon is a toll call from Fairfield (the county seat) and from Vallejo (the largest town in the county). At present those are inter-LATA toll calls, while Sacramento and Lake Tahoe are intra-LATA. Trickier is the question of calls from Dixon to Davis. At the moment, that should be an intra-LATA local call, but it will be inter-LATA if Dixon is moved into the San Francisco LATA. Dixon is scheduled to be splash-cut to 707 on October 4, 1997; permissive dialing for the 916/530 split begins November 1st. I believe that Dixon is served by Pacific Bell, in which case Pac Bell needs to iron out these little details and notify folks in that area, making a special effort to contact any customers that have a Pac Bell Local Plus discount plan. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Great European Renumbering Proposal Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 04:09:17 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I've just been reading some documents from the European Union regarding some proposed numbering changes in Europe, on a vast scale. The full text of the proposal, in Microsoft Word for Windows format (213K) is at: This is not some off-the-wall proposal from some private citizen, but an official working document of the European Union. Various aspects of this plan are scheduled to be finalized by June or December of 1997, with implementation targed for 1998 through 2000. Of course, both the plan and the proposed schedule are insane and will never happen, but we can't just dismiss the plan out of hand, since it has official backing. The basic plan is to make Europe into a unified "World Zone 3," similar to the North American "World Zone 1," but with some significant differences. Each existing two-digit country code in Europe would be prefixed with a 3 to make a three-digit code; all existing 3-digit codes in Europe already begin with a '3'. Harmonization of numbering for freephone (0800) and other services would also be effected. However, the "green paper" doesn't address the colossal code conflicts that this proposal would create in France and Spain. For instance, London +44-20 would become +344-20, but that conflicts with Bilbao, Spain, +34-4-20... That number in Bilbao in turn would become +334-4-20..., but it would then conflict with a number in southeastern France, +33-4-420... [For those of you saying "London = 20?," area codes 0171 and 0181 in London will un-split into area code 020 in the year 2000, with 8-digit local numbers.] This particular example uses only real numbers which exist or will exist within 3 years, so the conflict is quite substantial. In order to work the proposed scheme, there will need to be at least a four-phase changeover, which must be followed sequentially. At each stage, there will need to be a minimum of one year of permissive dialing, followed by at least one year of intercept recordings. 1. Area code 03 in northeastern France (just created Oct. 18, 1996) is changed to an unused code (07, perhaps?). 2. France moves from +33 to +333. 3. Spain moves from +34 to +334. 4. Other countries with +3X or +4X codes move to +33X or +34X. Then, at last, you will be able to dial a number in London as follows: within London ..... dial the 8-digit local number, e.g. 2345-6789 other U.K. ........ dial 020-2345-6789 other Europe ...... dial 144-20-2345-6789 outside Europe .... dial +344-20-2345-6789 Note that for dialing to another country in Europe, you dial '1' plus the last two digits of the country code. This means, though, that many local service codes in Britain would conflict with the new pan-European dialing instructions. For example, 153 is international directory inquiries, but would be the new prefix for calls to Ireland. Also, there are areas in Europe that have local numbers beginning with 1; for example, Budapest. Then there's the problem of the split of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Currently, all country codes beginning with 4 are two digits, 40 through 49, but the plan is rumored to be to put the Czech Republic into 420 and Slovakia into 421. That throws a monkey wrench right into the grand EU plan, because you can't move them to +3420 and +3421, and even if you could, it would violate the uniformity of the new dialing rules. Anyway, the plan also includes using +388-8 for European freephone numbers, which would be dialed 1888 from within Europe. If the Ukraine goes along with the plan and doesn't have any city codes beginning with a significant zero, then 1800 would also be available. Note that 1800 is already used for freephone in Ireland, instead of 0800. They also plan to use 1500 for Personal Numbers (taking advantage of unused numbering ranges in Gibraltar) and 1900 for premium numbers. The plan also calls for harmonization of "short codes" throughout Europe, including directory inquiries, carrier selection codes, and operator service codes, in addition to the new European standard of 112 for emergency services. Country codes 30X, 31X, and 32X will be left spare, to allow for use of 10XXX carrier selection codes, 11X pan-European short codes, and 12X national short codes. Country code 390 will be left spare to prevent conflict with 1900 premium services. If the rest of Europe goes along, that would leave +36X, +39X (except +390), and +4XX available. The unused +3XX codes would be reserved to the European numbering authority, while the +4XX codes would be released to the ITU. (Hey -- maybe we could assign +4XX country codes to all those islands in the Caribbean that are/used to be +1-809!!) The E.U. currently consists of: +30 Greece changes to +330 -- no conflict +31 Netherlands changes to +331 -- conflicts with Paris +32 Belgium changes to +332 -- conflicts with NW France +33 France changes to +333 -- conflicts with NE France +34 Spain changes to +334 -- conflicts with SE France +351 Portugal remains +351 +352 Luxembourg remains +352 +353 Ireland remains +353 +358 Finland remains +358 +39 Italy changes to +339 -- no conflict +43 Austria changes to +343 -- conflicts with Barcelona +44 United Kingdom changes to +344 -- conflicts with Bilbao +45 Denmark changes to +345 -- conflicts with Seville +46 Sweden changes to +346 -- conflicts with Valencia +49 Germany changes to +349 -- no conflict? In addition, the following country codes are associated with the E.U.: +350 Gibraltar remains +350 +376 Andorra remains +376 +377 Monaco remains +377 +378 San Marino remains +378 +379* Vatican City remains +379 (*code not yet in use) +47 Norway (in the process of joining the E.U.) changes to +347 -- conflicts with Mallorca Then we have the other countries in the European zone: +354 Iceland +372 Estonia +387 Bosnia-Herzegovina +355 Albania +373 Moldova +389 F.Y.R. Makedonija +356 Malta +374 Armenia +40 Romania +357 Cyprus +375 Belarus +41 Switz., Liech. +359 Bulgaria +380 Ukraine +42 Czech Rep., Slovakia +36 Hungary +381 Yugoslavia (+420 Czech Rep. -- proposed) +370 Lithuania +385 Croatia (+421 Slovakia -- proposed) +371 Latvia +386 Slovenia +48 Poland All in all, it just goes to show that those who think that U.S. bureaucrats have a way of messing up our telephone system have clearly never been to Brussels. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #21 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jan 27 09:16:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA05794; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:16:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:16:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701271416.JAA05794@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #22 TELECOM Digest Mon, 27 Jan 97 09:15:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: International Operator Services Reciprocal Billing (Bill Sohl) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: New Area Codes (John Cropper) Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? (elvis_p@bellsouth) Re: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" (elvis_p@bellsouth.net) Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth (Monty Solomon) BellSouth Readies for Year 2000 Introduction (Mike King) 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: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: International Operator Services Reciprocal Billing Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 18:36:42 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises tmccall wrote: > I am attempting to determine if any settlement mechanism would exist > for foreign nationals using US based operators services with a foreign > PTT's travel card. > As an example. A US traveler abroad dials an international access > number for a US based operator services company, say, AT&T's USADirect > product. Any third party Operator Services Company with a billing > agreement with AT&T can handle the call. > But, can a US based operator services company establish the same kind > of reciprocal billing arrangment with a Foreign PTT?? So they would be > able to bill a call made with a foreign PTT's travel card?? Like > Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, or British Telephone. > Please forgive my ignorance ... I am not familiar with a lot of the > operational aspects of operator services. Anything is possible. International settlement agreements are worked out between the two entities that would be involved in the settlements. The expansion of competition in foriegn countries as well as the USA is likly to see numerous such agreements worked out. > Any feedback on this question would be greatly appreciated as would > any information on operational aspects of US based operator services > companies. I suspect the operational aspects of any company are viewed as proprietary and not likly to be routinely made available on a general information basis. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: 26 Jan 1997 18:52:54 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Charles Holcomb (cholcomb@tpd001.dp.tpd.dsccc.com) wrote: > On of my relatives can not use her LD carrier's PIC code to dial > around her LEC for her long distance calls in her LATA. > I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and > still use your prefered LD carrier. Um, maybe ... > Is this true, and why is it not mentioned by LD carrier's?? It depends on the carrier. Some plug it to high heaven. > What excatly is the "700" number used for?? Until just recently, and not even now in some areas, it was impossible to have your intRA-LATA traffic carried by anyone except the LEC, the local exchange carrier from whom you bought your phone service... unless you were a business, large enough to get your local service from a CLEC -- a competitive local carrier, like MCI. Under pressure, presumably from the FCC, LEC's have finally started allowing you to "PIC" (a verb derived from the acronym "Preferred Interexchange Carrier -- the name for the carrier who takes your 1+ LD calls) a carrier other than themselves for "local long distance" -- intRA-LATA calls. Until this became the case, though, many IXC's took advantage of the fact that all calls to 1-700 got to the switch of your preferred LD company ... and they used that to route calls to places in your own area code over their lines, often (but not always) charging you less for the privilege. Now, of course, in some areas, like Tampa FL, that no longer works too well ... most of the intraLATA LD from here is no longer _in_ the same AC as us (813) ... so it's harder to explain to people (the number of places for which they have to dial calls this way is lower, so they don't get into the habit as easily. But of course, we're one of the places that just got intraPIC ... so I guess it doesn't matter any more. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet Pedantry: It's not just a job, it's an adventure. Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 16:42:23 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Charles Holcomb wrote: > On of my relatives can not use her LD carrier's PIC code to dial > around her LEC for her long distance calls in her LATA. > I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around > and still use your prefered LD carrier. > Is this true, and why is it not mentioned by LD carrier's?? > What excatly is the "700" number used for?? To answer your last question first, the 700 Special Area Code was assigned in late 1983 by (pre-divestiture) AT&T and the "Central Services Organization" (to become Bellcore) to *each and every* long-distance company or inter-LATA carrier, for their own internal development purposes and services, but with the stipulation that 700-555-4141 would be routed to a 'verification identification' recording of that presubscribed primary 1/0+ carrier or per-call dialed 10(1X)XXX+1/0+ carrier. Thus, carrier A could have a particular 700 number for pay-per-call 'info' recordings, while carrier B could use the *very same* 700 number for autoconference services. The distinction of *which* carrier and their 700 service would be made by knowing the presubscribed primary carrier of the line, or by using a per-call dialed carrier code. AT&T uses certain specific 700-NXX codes for various services including automated set-up teleconference, switched 56Kbps and 64Kbps, while the bulk of their 700-NXX codes are used for "Easy-Reach" or "True Connections" 700 numbers. ER or TC 700 was an early version of 500 personal telephone numbers. For *any* of AT&T's 700 services, you had to be dialing from a line where AT&T was the primary carrier, or if it wasn't the primary (or you didn't know if AT&T was the primary) you would have to dial 10(10)288+ before 1/0+700 to use that *AT&T* 700 service. As for using 700 to 'dial around' (bypass) the local telco on intra-LATA toll calls, I know that MCI has offered such in certain parts of the country, and I've been told that Frontier (formerly Allnet) was using their own capabilities for 700 for 'dialing around' (bypassing) the LEC. However, since area code boundaries and LATA boundaries don't necessarily co-incide in neat ways, (and even where they do), there are instances where a LATA can contain all or part of ... one or more NPA. Conversly, it is possible that an NPA can contain all or part of ... one or more LATA! Just look at the New York City metro LATA. You have the five boroughs of New York City (212, 718, 917), the Long Island suburbs (516), the suburbs north of the Bronx (914), and even two ratecenters/wirecenters in extreme southeastern CT (203). And there are going to be more and more area code splits and overlays! If your LATA contains large portions of multiple NPA's, it would be impossible for a long-distance company to utilize 700 as a 'replace' code for anything within the LATA, since 700-234 could possibly refer to the 234 exchange in several different area codes, all within that one LATA! (and some of those area codes might even be *overlayed* on top of or within each other! Where 700 is used as a 'replace' code for so-called 'intra-LATA' toll, so that one can use their *long-distance* carrier instead of the local carrier for such calls, it *really* is a way to use that long-distance carrier for placing calls (including intra-LATA and inter-LATA) but only within your own area code! Because of the possible confusion, etc., many carriers which do allow such bypassing probably don't overly promote it. Presently, most states *do* now allow use of 10(1X)XXXX+ codes for intra-LATA use, to 'bypass' the LEC. Some states are now even allowing *presubscription* to a primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier, instead of 'having' to use the LEC! And already, competition is even heating up in some parts of the country for *local/dialtone* competition, with various multiple local telcos! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE: 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: John Cropper Subject: Re: New Area Codes Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:34:04 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Miguel Cruz wrote: > John Cropper wrote: >> WE202C3F wrote: >>> hey, let's go to 8-digit numbersas they did in paris >> Let's add $50 to *your* monthly phone bill to offset the $5-10 billion > Well, what about assigning overlay codes in such a way that the last > digits are different within any one area? Aside from the problem of areas > with codes ending in 0, you could implement 8-digit dialing by just > telling everybody that starting tomorrow, they have to dial the last > digit of the area code if it's local, otherwise proceed with 11d as > normal. Then you get 8 area codes per area, and when they fill up, start > dialing the last 2 digits and tell everyone they have 9-digit phone > numbers. > I don't exactly see why this would require any more changes to equipment > than 10/11d requires. It doesn't work in areas with hardwired equipment (from the 50s and 60s) that specifically times out at seven digits. While newer equipment in the metro areas might not have a problem with it, Mom & Pop America in Wazoo, South Dakota wouldn't be able to call junior at USC. The NANP used to be the largest market in the world with reliable, consistent connectability, regardless of location or number. Beginning in 1995, interchangable NPAs created small pockets of inaccessibility from certain older PBXs (roughly 15% of the NANP). Had we gone to a 3-8 scheme as you and everyone else suggested, 82% of the NANP (large regions in ALL 50 states, 12 provinces, and the handful of Caribbean countries would be affected) would be unable to dial areas numbered in the new scheme. John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://www.lincs.net/ ------------------------------ From: elvis_p@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: ISPs vs RBOCs: Are the Battle Lines Being Drawn? Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:33:38 -0600 Reply-To: elvis_p@bellsouth.net > Here in Nashville, Bellsouth is under fire because of an epidemic of > 'all circuit busy' recordings. They have blamed the internet as the > root cause to this problem. I suspect they have underestimated demand > AND grown the network conservativly, and by blaming the internet they > can attempt to justify the introduction of per minute charges against > the ISP's to receive a call, making independant ISP's pass the cost > onto consumers. The RBOC's offer internet access, and any such charge > would be an internal paper money transfer to them, therefore enabling > them a competitive advantage and the creation of yet another > opportunity for them to monopolize. I don't see the RBOC's giving up > their monopolies willingly, and will try to strengthen them at any > opportunity. I very much doubt they are asleep at the wheel as you > suggest. I hear that in Nashville they spent $500,000 to fix the "all circuits are busy now" problem. The RBOC's are predicting that they will lose 30 per cent of their business within the first year or two. If you knew you would lose 30 per cent of your customers soon would you buy equipment that would soon be collecting dust. I wouldn't but they did because they had no choice. What we are looking at in the near future is phone service much like the throw away phone. It won't matter how good it is just how cheap you can make it. ------------------------------ From: elvis_p@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:38:43 -0600 Reply-To: elvis_p@bellsouth.net Lauren Weinstein wrote: > Greetings. Early last Saturday morning, AT&T's Telstar 401 satellite, > with a full complement of C and Ku band transponders, apparently > suffered catastrophic failure. All contact was lost by ground > stations, and according to all available reports at this time it has > not been regained. > This satellite mainly carried television programming, including feeds > for the major U.S. networks and loads of syndicated shows. The > networks, as "platinum" customers, were quickly switched to backup > transponders on other satellites. Most other customers started a > scramble for alternate space, made all the more difficult by people > being hard to reach during the weekend and by the fact that many > industry folk were attending a trade show. It's reported that when > the outage was initially announced at the show, many attendees thought > it was a practical joke. > The sudden and complete loss of a modern, fully functioning commercial > geosync communications satellite in this manner is reported to be > essentially unprecedented. Wasn't there a solar flare about the same time? I hear that the solar flare flamed T-401 and now they are going to replace it temporarily with T-302 till a higher power replacement is launched this summer. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 02:26:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:52:43 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth and network congestion was pretty interesting. The first panel looked at the current deployment of xDSL, cable modems and wireless alternatives, and it was pretty sobering. Basically, for residential consumers, these technologies are not being deployed anytime soon, in significant numbers. Stagg Newman from Bellcore gave a nice description of the practical problems in deployment for the best known new technologies. His video of the speed of a cable modem using a reasonable assumption regarding cable network use showed how much slower this technology is likely to be when and if it is deployed in large numbers. The wiring problems for cable and ADSL were substantial. Les Vadasz from Intel expressed that company's frustration with the pace of deployment, and then asked the participants to "forget about the 1st million customers, tell me when will we get the second million" broadband customers? Apparently, not for a long time. I take a lot of flak for spending so much time on ISDN pricing, but after today's presentation, it is hard to see what else can be deployed broadly in the United States over the next seven years (an eternity in Internet time). The second panel ended up talking about various technologies and economic incentives to take POTS, ISDN or other digital calls off the circuit switched network at the central office, and send the data via packet switched networks to the ISPs. PacBell wants to charge ISPs about $45 per "port" for the equivalent of an incoming and modem for this service, which is more than what they pay now for POTS and a modem or ISDN. The phone companies want to impose new fees on the ISPs (which they compete against), in order to more or less force them to switch to the packet switched transport from the central office to the ISP. We suggested they encourage deployment by offering cheaper ISDN or other digital services, when they use the packet transport. An ISP might pay $45 for the line, if he could offer a higher speed digital connection to its consumers, particularly if it wasn't metered (as many local ISDN tariffs are now). The LECs are already charging way too much for ISDN, for example, and selling it to no one, so this might provide a win-win solution, giving consumers higher bandwidth, while moving the call off the circuit switched network. There was a fair amount of discussion about the fact that ISPs in general are typically set up so that only 5 to 10 percent of consumers can connect at any one time, and this is less than the 14 percent that the residential voice network is supposed to accommodate, raising the question -- how can this lead to congestion in the residential telephone network? We said the average duration of a call was meaningless in itself, without data on the number of calls and how they are distributed over the day. (1 20 minute call is hardly more of a burden than 20 3 minute calls). PacBell countered by offering California statistics that say voice users consume an average of 22 minutes of network resources per day, compared to 62 minutes for Internet users -- nearly three times more. But there was not much data on how Internet calling differs from the voice calling. For example, do Internet calls have longer peaks, and do they occur in hours when the voice network isn't being used? We suggested PacBell provide the FCC with data from their own ISP showing the percent of subscribers that can connect at any one time, and compare this to capacity of the PacBell voice network. Kevin Werbach asked what type of information the FCC could provide that would resolve some of these questions, and we asked for data on ISP usage, including both average minutes per day and the distribution of that usage over the day, and the ratio of customers to incoming lines. We also wanted to see better data on how voice and modem use (time, and distribution of use over the day) on the public switched network, and how these have changed in the past few years. I also suggested that the FCC create market incentives to get the LECs to deploy any kind of digital services. (ISDN, xDSL, anything). Since the LECs are basically monopolies in their own service areas, I suggested making the major LECs (assuming they don't all merge with each other) compete against each other for deployment, and have the FCC reward LECs that had the highest penetration of digital lines to residential consumers, and punish those that have the lowest, by tying deployment to Universal Service fund contributions (or something else that really mattered) to a ratio of that company's penetration rate to the average penetration rate. This would force the LECs to compete against each other. I thought this would leading to some surprising changes of heart among the LECs. The FCC staff wasn't too receptive to this proposal. James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Readies for Year 2000 Introduction Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:20:49 PST Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:22:57 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Readies for Year 2000 Introduction BellSouth Readies for Year 2000 Introduction In less than three years, a monumental change affecting computer software around the world will occur when the Year 2000 is ushered in. Compliance with all the changes brought on by the Year 2000 is an urgent concern that BellSouth shares with large and small businesses around the world. "Year 2000 compliance means that computer programs are designed to correctly interpret and process data representing the year 2000 and beyond," BellSouth spokesperson Gaye Walker said. Many software conventions were originally intended to conserve keystrokes and computer storage; an example would be reducing the representation of a year from four digits: 1997, to two: 97. Consequently, the year 2000 would be interpreted at 00. Most computer programs regard all years as if in the same century, so the year 2000 would be translated as "00" and interpreted as 1900. "This interpretation will ultimately lead to incorrect results or widespread system outages when the referenced year is actually 2000. Systems could fail any time their applications process dates beyond 1999 if the software was not specifically programmed for Year 2000 recognition," Walker added. BellSouth Telecommunications has established a corporate Year 2000 compliance team to ensure all information systems, telephony systems and business processes are prepared for the century date change. Additionally, an interdepartmental team has been formed to identify and correct potential date-related problems in mission-critical systems. "Responsibilities of BST's Team 2000 include ensuring all new systems and vendor software are Year 2000 compliant, addressing Year 2000 in training and testing capabilities, and communicating with other departments to facilitate conversion," Walker said. "We realize the critical nature of this situation and are working to anticipate and overcome problems." According to Walker, the best way to determine the possible severity of impact is to inventory all computerized processes, and test them to determine if they will be adversely affected by the year 2000's representation of the year by "00". All system components operated by or on behalf of BellSouth will be evaluated. Where potential problems are identified, the component will be converted and rigorously tested to address Year 2000 compliance. BellSouth requires that all vendor software be certified as Year 2000 compliant. The software must be tested by BellSouth or, if tested by the vendor, test results and test criteria must be provided back to BellSouth. The vendor tests must clearly demon strate that software products meet BST's compliance specifications. Additionally, the vendor must stipulate in writing that the software will not cause any problems with the Year 2000 date change. "BellSouth is striving to ensure through every reasonable means that information systems, telephony systems and business processes will be Year 2000 compliant and is working to minimize problems for our customers and business partners who interface with or otherwise rely on the service provided by BellSouth," Walker said. For More Information, contact Gaye Walker, (404)927-7421 -------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #22 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jan 28 09:12:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA27618; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:12:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:12:33 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701281412.JAA27618@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #23 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Jan 97 09:12:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 23 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson March ISDN Event in Tampa (Bob Cameron) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Keith Brown) Re: Czech, Slovak Republics to Split Country Code 42 (Bob Goudreau) Re: Ordering a Dedicated Modem Line (Rick R. Cox) Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth (Tim Gorman) Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth (John R. Grout) Cisco Could Enter PBX Market (Adam Gaffin) Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire (John Cropper) Re: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" (Lauren Weinstein) Apple Responds to FCC Spectrum Decision (Bennett Kobb) Breaking my Own Rule ... (Eric Florack) 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: ccg4isdn@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cameron) Subject: March ISDN Event in Tampa Date: 27 Jan 1997 15:56:35 GMT Organization: Netcom Full Week of ISDN Related Activities Planned for Tampa March 3 - 7, 1997 The North American ISDN Users Forum, Florida ISDN Users Group and attendees of Bellcore's Industry Seminar on the 1997 Version of National ISDN CPE Guidelines are all converging at the Doubletree Airport Hotel in Tampa, Florida the week of March 3, 1997. The North American ISDN Users' Forum (NIUF) meeting will be cosponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Cameron Communications Group. NIST (http://www.niuf.nist.gov/misc/niuf.html) is a not-for-profit arm of the Federal Government's Department of Commerce. Cameron Communications Group (http://www.ccg4isdn.com) conducts courses on ISDN Installation and Troubleshooting, Advanced ISDN Protocol Analysis, and ISDN Router Interoperability and has specialized in ISDN since 1987. The Florida ISDN Users' Group (http://www.fiug.org) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to furthering the growth of ISDN throughout Florida. It provides member education, a collective voice for influencing ISDN service deployment and tariffs, and coordinates communication of users' issues to the NIUF. Members of the FIUG will conduct a series of tutorials and panels for both NIUF and FIUG participants on Monday, March 3. Details on Monday's sessions are posted on the FIUG and NIUF web sites. There is no charge for attending these sessions. The regular NIUF steering committee meetings will take place Tuesday and Wednesday, March 4 & 5. Details are available on the NIUF web site. There is a charge for these sessions. On Thursday and Friday, March 6 & 7, Bellcore will host an industry seminar on the 1997 Version of the National ISDN CPE Guidelines. It will cover features that are planned to be generally available by at least one switch provider by the fourth quarter of 1997. These are detailed in Bellcore Publications SR-3887 and SR-3888. There is a fee for attending these sessions but participants are entitled to a 50% discount on the purchase of these documents. More information is available at http://www.bellcore.com/NIC. This week is an excellent opportunity to gain a broader perspective on ISDN issues and technology. Bob Cameron http://www.ccg4isdn.com ------------------------------ From: Keith Brown Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: 27 Jan 1997 16:13:32 GMT Organization: CallCom International Jay R. Ashworth wrote in article ... > Charles Holcomb (cholcomb@tpd001.dp.tpd.dsccc.com) wrote: >> On of my relatives can not use her LD carrier's PIC code to dial >> around her LEC for her long distance calls in her LATA. >> I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and >> still use your prefered LD carrier. > Um, maybe ... >> Is this true, and why is it not mentioned by LD carrier's?? > It depends on the carrier. Some plug it to high heaven. >> What excatly is the "700" number used for?? 700 access is still around and in use by some service providers. It was used mainly as you say a "dial around". But with the break up of the local toll markets, it will be short lived as local toll markets around the country open up to CLEC competition. It is just a matter of time now! Keith Brown CallCom International http://www.callcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:11:43 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Czech, Slovak Republics to Split Country Code 42 Dave Leibold writes: > A note on a Slovakia telecom information webpage indicates that the > telephone systems in the Czech and Slovak Republics will split into > separate country codes effective March 1997. > Country code +42 was originally listed in ITU's 1964 list as Czechoslovakia > (which became the separate republics in recent years). > The new country codes will be: > Czech Republic +420 > Slovak Republic +421 I wondered about the chances of confusion during the cutover; would any of the new +421 numbers in Slovakia collide with any old-style +42 1 numbers in the Czech Republic? (New +420 numbers in the Czech Republic won't be a problem, since there are currently no area codes beginning with 0 in either country.) A quick consultation with the Telecom Archives' Country Code database highlighted the problem: all Slovak area codes begin with 7, 8 or 9, and thus will change to +421 7, +421 8 and +421 9. Unfortunately, a number of Czech codes lie in the 17, 18 and 19 ranges (although 10 through 15 are vacant, and 16 doesn't collide): 17 Karlovy Vary 181 Rokycany 182 Plasy 183 Stribro 184 Tachov 185 Blovice 186 Klatovy 187 Susice 188 Horsovsky Tyn 189 Domazlice 19 Plzen So, unless these area codes were recently changed to move them out of the 17-19 range, it looks like there is a real potential for dialing error. Whether this results in a timeout (due to an insufficient number of digits being dialed) or a call to the wrong country depends on how long local numbers can be within the various area codes. Does anyone know for sure how many digits are used in each city? Another note about this change: I believe that once it takes effect, no two European countries will share a country code, with the exception of Switzerland and Liechtenstein sharing +41. There will still be one European country that shares a code with non-European countries: Russia shares +7 with the five ex-Soviet republics in central Asia. Three of these republics have Asian country codes reserved for their future use (Turkmenistan has 993, Kyrgyzstan has 996, and Uzbekistan has 998), but the other two (Kazakstan and Tajikistan) show no signs of any plans to leave the +7 integrated numbering plan. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: RICK.R.COX@x400gw.ameritech.com (Rick R. Cox) Date: 27 Jan 97 07:26:34 -0600 Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is > there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? > (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. > With reguards to my question, I just need to know if I'm asking the > phone co. for the correct line (without going ISDN$$$.) It sounds like you have run into the traditional analog nightmare headfirst. My guess is that Bell Atlantic treats POTS service like we do at Ameritech. If a customer reports line noise etc. a technician is sent to the customer premise with a butt set. If the tech doesn't hear noise or static through the butt set there is no problem. Of course a modem is much more sensitive to noise than the human ear. And at higher speeds the problem is only intensified. Telcos feel justified with this situation because the customer is paying for a voice grade line, which in modem speed terms usually equates to an old 2400. Will adding a new line help the problem? It might, but then again it might not. How old is the cable in your area? New subdivision or one that's been around for 30+ years? The older it is the less likely this is to help. Of course the problem could be on your provider's end, in which case you have accomplished nothing by getting a new POTS line. You might be able to order a "conditioned" line. This used to be available, but I don't know if they still are or not. A "conditioned" line was a POTS line that was checked from customer premise to the CO with all noise sources removed to provide the cleanest analog line possible. I don't know if your telco offers them or not, but it doesn't cost anything to ask. As far as a digital line you probably have 2 choices. ISDN you seem to already know about. This is a good choice (in most areas) for short duration usage. Call it 2 - 3 hours per day max. Is it more expensive than POTS? Of course it is. But what are you getting for your money? Probably 6 times your current effective bandwidth. Considerably more reliable communication. And a greatly reduced frustration level. Worth a few bucks extra in my opinion, but I am spoiled. I have an ISDN line at home (this e-mail will travel across it) and would never consider analog again. Your other digital option in most areas is DDS (Dedicated Digital Service). These are usually available in 3 flavors; DS0 (56k or 64k dedicated), F-DS1 (or Fractional DS1, usually in the 384k to 512k ranges), and DS1 (also known widely as T1 or 1.544M). These are good choices, again in most areas, for 5+ hours of connect time, on average, per day. The limitation here is that this is a dedicated 24hr connection. You pay a flat rate, get unlimited usage, but can't easily change providers (if you are using the line in question to get to an Internet provider). With ISDN you just dial a different phone number. With any of the dedicated services to change to a different far end requires ripping the original circuit out and rebuilding it to the new far end. Usually resulting in the installation charges being billed again. I don't know if any of this will be of value to you, I can only hope it will. Keep in mind that I am very familiar with this stuff (the digital anyway) because it's my job to talk to customers about it. But my knowledge does have an Ameritech slant to it. You can reach my equivalent at Bell Atlantic by dialing 800-570-4736, according to a list published by Bellcore. Best of luck with this! Rick Cox Data Design Consultant Ameritech Team Data ------------------------------ From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:20:50 -0600 James Love posted the following: > I also suggested that the FCC create market incentives to get the LECs > to deploy any kind of digital services. (ISDN, xDSL, anything). > Since the LECs are basically monopolies in their own service areas, I > suggested making the major LECs (assuming they don't all merge with > each other) compete against each other for deployment, and have the > FCC reward LECs that had the highest penetration of digital lines to > residential consumers, and punish those that have the lowest, by tying > deployment to Universal Service fund contributions (or something else > that really mattered) to a ratio of that company's penetration rate to > the average penetration rate. This would force the LECs to compete > against each other. I thought this would leading to some surprising > changes of heart among the LECs. The FCC staff wasn't too receptive > to this proposal. Since part of the reason for the Universal Service Fund is to assist in those areas with high cost lines, this would seem to be penalizing those very consumers who are to be helped with the USF. I'm not surprised that the FCC staff was not too receptive to such a proposal. While the concept may have merit, a different target should be considered. Tim Gorman SWB ------------------------------ From: glhpx10!j-grout@uunet.uu.net (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth Date: 27 Jan 1997 13:03:30 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu Monty Solomon writes: > The second panel ended up talking about various technologies and > economic incentives to take POTS, ISDN or other digital calls off the > circuit switched network at the central office, and send the data via > packet switched networks to the ISPs. PacBell wants to charge ISPs > about $45 per "port" for the equivalent of an incoming and modem for > this service, which is more than what they pay now for POTS and a > modem or ISDN. ... > We suggested PacBell provide the FCC with data from their own ISP showing > the percent of subscribers that can connect at any one time, and compare > this to capacity of the PacBell voice network. I think both of these are important points to consider when an LEC like PacBell is also acting as an ISP. As was reported last year in c.d.t, San Jose State University has outsourced their ISP function to PacBell, allowing people around the San Francisco Bay Area to call local modem banks for access to the SJSU network. One major source of potential profit for such outsourcing contracts is that Pac Bell could route modem traffic off the voice network at each CO onto its own co-located modem banks, terminal servers, and Internet routers (reducing the use of the circuit-switched network between COs). As an alternative to paying "port" charges, shouldn't independent ISPs be allowed to co-locate their own Internet POPs (points of presence) on LEC premises? John R. Grout j-grout@uiuc.edu Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Cisco Could Enter PBX Market Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:19:20 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com Cisco probes voice market By Jim Duffy Network World, 1/27/97 If your voice carries, Cisco Systems, Inc. wants to carry your voice. Over the next 12 months, sources said, the company plans to outfit its routers, switches and remote access gear with products to turn your data internetwork into an integrated voice/data speedway. By extending voice support across frame relay, ATM, IP and Ethernet, Cisco believes it can offer a higher performance, lower cost voice/data infrastructure than traditional time-division multiplexer suppliers. Cisco is also assessing its chances of breaking into - of all places - the PBX market, which has long been the domain of vendors such as Northern Telecom, Inc. and Lucent Technologies, Inc. Internally, Cisco has assembled a voice marketing team charged with rationalizing the company's entry into this arena, and identifying obstacles and adversaries. You can get the entire article online at Network World Fusion, http://www.nwfusion.com. If you haven't used the site before, you'll have to register first, but it's free (and once in, you can bookmark any page and not have to log in again). Enter 0430 in the DocFinder box on the home page to bring up the Cisco article. Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 "So, in 1996, CD-ROMs through Federal Express will emerge as the information superhighway." - Bob Metcalfe ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:59:41 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com I just got off the phone with an Ameritech rep concerning NPA 765. It seems, with just a few days before permissive dialing is set to begin (February 1st), there is NO official prefix list for NXXs moving from 317 to 765. (My list, compiled in late November, and posted to Pierre Thompson's and my websites, was based on ACTIVE NXXs and LATA information at the time. I updated that list in mid-January on my website). Meanwhile, prefix lists for 440 (mid-August), and 920 (late-July) are available ... (920 is available either on my website, or Ameritech's, and 440 is forthcoming from both sources) ... Isn't it strange how Ameritech was apparently caught off-guard by Indiana's change, one they knew about for almost fourteen months? Ameritech, you listening? :-) John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://www.lincs.net/ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 22:15:30 PST From: Lauren Weinstein > From: elvis_p@bellsouth.net > Wasn't there a solar flare about the same time? I hear that the solar > flare flamed T-401 and now they are going to replace it temporarily with > T-302 till a higher power replacement is launched this summer. There is (as far as I know) no definitive understanding of why T-401 failed. A solar event was in progress, and had been for sometime. Note however, that modern comm satellites are designed with knowledge of solar flares in mind, and most of the critical electronics equipment is duplicated so as to avoid total failure of all functions if overloads or similar events occur. Possibly of more interest are reports that orbit position station-keeping adjustments were in progress at the time of the failure, suggesting the possibility of propellant leaks (which might have induced unrecoverable positional variations) or explosion. Most likely we'll never know for sure, and last I heard the bird has been declared a loss. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: bkobb@newsignals.com (Bennett Kobb) Subject: Apple Responds to FCC Spectrum Decision Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:44:00 -0500 Organization: New Signals Press Apple CEO Gil Amelio has finally made a public statement regarding the FCC's recent action devoting 300 MHz of radio spectrum in the 5 GHz band to unlicensed National Information Infrastructure devices. The statement is in the form of the following two letters released yesterday by Apple's government affairs office. Bennett Kobb New Signals Press http://home.navisoft.com/nspi January 27, 1997 The Honorable Reed Hundt Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Hundt: I want to personally thank you and the FCC for making the U-NII band a reality, and believe we will look back at the Commission's allocation of 300 MHz for an unlicensed National Information Infrastructure band as a defining action. Apple applauds the FCC for creating a plan that will allow the development of limitless new wireless communications applications of immense benefit to the public. Apple appreciates your continued support for universal information access on behalf of students and teachers. The U-NII reduces the gap between creating or processing information and communicating it with others. In addition, the 90-plus percent of U.S. classrooms still without Internet access have a new way to overcome the high cost and complexity of wired connections. As soon as U-NII equipment comes to market, volunteers in projects such as NetDay will be able to get not only each classroom, but each student 'online'. In addition, Apple is pleased that the U-NII rules will provide for the development of longer reach community linkages for schools, libraries, and hospitals in rural and disadvantaged areas of the country and allow sufficient bandwidth for these participants in the National Information Infrastructure. We would not have made such rapid progress on the U-NII band had you not taken a direct personal interest in Apple's proposal from the beginning. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Sincerely, Gil F. Amelio Chairman and Chief Executive Officer * * * January 27, 1997 Larry Irving Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Room 4713 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Secretary Irving: Since the last time you visited Apple, keynoting the 'Ties That Bind' conference, the FCC has authorized 300 MHz in the 5 GHz range U-NII, the unlicensed National Information Infrastructure band. You and your associates in NTIA played a vital role in creating this band by describing how U-NII operates, including that Community Networks should be included because they are needed particularly for educators and rural Americans. Moreover, authorization of the U-NII band was possible only because NTIA confirmed that unlicensed U-NII devices, properly regulated, can share spectrum with federal operations. This principle, demonstrated effectively in your 'Reply Comments' (August 14, 1995) on ET Docket 96-102, was a key factor for U-NII and suggests that such sharing arrangements can become an increasingly valuable spectrum management approach. Thank you for your support of U-NII band. I would like to invite you to Apple for another visit in the near future. Sincerely, Gil F. Amelio Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:37:28 PST From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Eric Florack) Subject: Breaking my Own Rule .... The following is a direct quote from the Center for Strategic and International Studies report on GLOBAL ORGANIZED CRIME; the author who introduces the story swears it's true. -------------------------------- FBI agents conducted a raid of a psychiatric hospital in San Diego that was under investigation for medical insurance fraud. After hours of reviewing thousands of medical records, the dozens of agents had worked up quite an appetite. The agent in charge of the investigation called a nearby pizza parlor with delivery service to order a quick dinner for his colleagues. The following telephone conversation took place and was recorded by the FBI because they were taping all conversations at the hospital. Agent: Hello. I would like to order 19 large pizzas and 67 cans of soda. Pizza Man: And where would you like them delivered? Agent: We're over at the psychiatric hospital. Pizza Man: The psychiatric hospital? Agent: That's right. I'm an FBI agent. Pizza Man: You're an FBI agent? Agent: That's correct. Just about everybody here is. Pizza Man: And you're at the psychiatric hospital? Agent: That's correct. And make sure you don't go through the front doors. We have them locked. You will have to go around to the back to the service entrance to deliver the pizzas. Pizza Man: And you say you're all FBI agents? Agent: That's right. How soon can you have them here? Pizza Man: And everyone at the psychiatric hospital is an FBI agent? Agent: That's right. We've been here all day and we're starving. Pizza Man: How are you going to pay for all of this? Agent: I have my checkbook right here. Pizza Man: And you're all FBI agents? Agent: That's right. Everyone here is an FBI agent. Can you remember to bring the pizzas and sodas to the service entrance in the rear? We have the front doors locked. Pizza Man: I don't think so. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #23 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jan 29 09:02:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA14397; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:02:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:02:09 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701291402.JAA14397@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #24 TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 Jan 97 09:02:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson GTE Hassles With AT&T POP in Dekalb, IL (Mr. E. Writer) Re: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" (Tom Betz) Re: Dixon, CA, Moving From 916 to 707 - Also Changing LATAs? (L. Twombly) Re: Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire (J. Bellaire) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (dplatt@iq.navio.com) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Brian Yohn) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Jonathan I. Kamens) Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting (Mark Jeffrey) Re: TWX 1961 Automation Plans (Martin McCormick) 911 Calls From Behind PBX (Tad Cook) Re: New Area Codes (Diamond Dave) Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal (Franck Brunel) Wanted: GPS Over Cell Phone (Robert Orr) 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, 28 Jan 1997 00:11:41 EST From: A Friend Subject: GTE Hassle With AT&T POP in Dekalb, IL Hello. I have come into possesion of a bit of information that many people interested in telecommunications networks would like to know, even though the information is semi trivial. GTE has been having problems with AT&T's POP in Dekalb, IL. There was a ~3:24 hour outage there tonight (1/27/97) from 18:10 to 21:34 local (CST) time. AT&T started charging for blocked calls because they couldn't complete anything to the GTE lines. A GTE rep was dispatched, and the person had barely started testing before the situation stabilized. The situation is this as of now: (11:00 CST) - 32,143 total calls were blocked, ~23,000 in Dekalb alone. - AT&T is attempting to charge GTE for 10,444 of the calls, even though all of GTE's testing showed that the fault was AT&T's. This situation will be resolved in the next few days, most likely. - There were some problems with this AT&T POP in particular last Friday. I will attempt to get furthur information on this. - These problems may result in a misunderstanding of the physical link type between AT&T and GTE; this is unconfirmed. The real reason behind these outages has not been fully discovered. I will attempt to gather more information on this incident and similar incidents to come, since my source is somewhat reliable. I would appreciate it if my email address was not printed, otherwise my information sources may be in danger. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay, this once, an anonymous message however I really don't like printing them. Still, your information seems interesting enough that I wanted to pass it along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" Date: 28 Jan 1997 17:34:19 -0500 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Unsolicited Commercial Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Lauren Weinstein in : > From: elvis_p@bellsouth.net >> Wasn't there a solar flare about the same time? I hear that the solar >> flare flamed T-401 and now they are going to replace it temporarily with >> T-302 till a higher power replacement is launched this summer. > There is (as far as I know) no definitive understanding of why T-401 > failed. A solar event was in progress, and had been for sometime. > Note however, that modern comm satellites are designed with knowledge > of solar flares in mind, and most of the critical electronics > equipment is duplicated so as to avoid total failure of all functions > if overloads or similar events occur. This was an unusually strong event, with additional circumstances outside the designers' control. The science story I heard on this one (NPR's Science Friday or ATC, I forget which) was that this solar flare was of such intensity that the solar wind it generated flattened the Earth's magnetic field somewhat; enough to push much of the magnetosphere that usually protect T-401 and allow it (for a time -- as it was on the Noon side of its geosync orbit) to be exposed to a higher level of radiation than it was designed to handle. Don't forget, we've only been putting this electrical stuff up there for the last thirty-some years ... we have to expect previously unobserved phenomena to exceed our design expectations from time to time. Tom Betz (914) 375-1510 Want to send me email? First, read this page: ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: Dixon, CA, Moving From 916 to 707 - Also Changing LATAs? Date: 29 Jan 1997 00:35:47 GMT Organization: ESAC Linc Madison wrote in article ... [Snip] > It would seem to me that Dixon will also move LATAs at the same time > it changes area codes, although this point has not been highlighted at > all in the press coverage. Dixon is _not_ changing LATAs. Representatives of Dixon requested the NPA change from 916 to 707. This decision can be (and was) made by the Calif PUC. The decision to change LATA boundaries must be made by the FCC. Initially, there was no request to petition the FCC for such a change. Recent information indicates that Dixon may request this change in the future, but it will not be soon enough to coincide with the NPA change. This information is directly from one of Pacific Bell's Code Planners, and I'm confident of its accuracy. Laura Twombly Pacific Bell Technical Mgr ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:59:48 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Organization: Twin Kings Subject: Re: Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire John Cropper wrote: > It seems, with just a few days before permissive dialing is set to > begin (February 1st), there is NO official prefix list for NXXs moving > from 317 to 765. (My list, compiled in late November, and posted to > Pierre Thompson's and my websites, was based on ACTIVE NXXs and LATA > information at the time. I updated that list in mid-January on my > website). Ameritech does have Indiana 765 NPA information up, it was put on-line last week. They do have the pages in a strange place ... Ameritech Areacode Home ... http://www.ameritech.com/news/service/areacode/ (All other references in this post are in that directory.) "Code Finders" Page /news/service/areacode/finders.html This includes links to search engines to locate what codes are moving where in the Ameritech region, as well as links to lists and maps. Indiana 317 / 765 Map /news/service/areacode/indiana_locatormap.html Indiana 317 / 765 Prefixes /news/service/areacode/indiana_prefix.html Prefixes also available by FTP (ftp://www.ameritech.com) /pub/bsk/indiana_prefix.zip for Win/Dos /pub/bsk/indiana_prefix.sit.hqx for Mac James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Same web site, fancy new address! http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire BTW: I don't work for Ameritech. ------------------------------ From: dplatt@iq.navio.com Date: 28 Jan 1997 22:47:49 -0000 Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Organization: Navio Communications, Inc. > It sounds like you have run into the traditional analog nightmare > headfirst. My guess is that Bell Atlantic treats POTS service like we > do at Ameritech. If a customer reports line noise etc. a technician is > sent to the customer premise with a butt set. If the tech doesn't hear > noise or static through the butt set there is no problem. I've heard that one can sometimes get better results by telling the phone company that: [1] A fax machine connected to this line does not work reliably, but does work reliably on other lines. Faxes, like modems, can often be more sensitive to line noise than the human ear is. Perhaps because faxes are seen as "business equipment" (where modems have traditionally been viewed as "hobbyist"), complaints about fax problems sometimes seem to get more serious consideration than complaint about modem problems. [2] You aren't satisfied with a "butt test" check by ear on the line, and won't consider the complaint successfully dealt with until the company can show you that the line's noise level, distortion, and frequency response meets the standards laid down in the applicable tariff. Bringing up the standards in the tariff adds a bit of weight to your complaint. I've read that in most areas, the tariffs under which telcos provide residential phone service do include (or incorporate from other documents) some specifications about the quality of the phone line... amount of noise permitted, required frequency response, etc. I've been told that it's not uncommon for lines to be clean enough to pass an "ear test", but still fail to meet the tariff specifications. Of course, if the line is clean and per-spec all the way up to your building demarc, and the noise is coming from bad wiring inside the house, then you're on your own (unless you're paying your telco a per-month "inside wiring" fee to take care of such problems for you). ------------------------------ From: Brian Yohn Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:07:34 -0500 Organization: Delmarva Telecommunications Inc Reply-To: byohn@delmarva.com Marlon Brando wrote: > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. > With regards to my question, I just need to know if I'm asking the > phone co. for the correct line (without going ISDN$$$.) Chances are you may be on a long unconditioned loop that may be giving you problems, or you may be on digital loop carrier (SLC or whatever), where an older vintage of codec is being used and affecting your throughput. If the latter is the problem, the phone company can replace the line card. Brian J. Yohn Transmission & Network Engineering Delmarva Telecommunications Inc, a subsidiary of Delmarva Power PO Box 6066 Newark, DE 19714 / 302-452-6410 / fax 302-452-6399 ------------------------------ From: jik@cam.ov.com (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: 28 Jan 1997 16:12:06 GMT Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc. I was going to respond to the original article in this thread, but then I decided that there are probably other readers of comp.dcom.telecom who are more qualified than I am, and Rick Cox went ahead and proved me right :-). Nevertheless, I'd like to make a few comments about what Rick wrote. I had a modem line installed by NYNEX several months ago. I ordered it through their residential service department, and they were unfortunately pretty clueless about what I was asking for when I told them that I wanted a conditioned line (perhaps if I'd known the term "conditioned" then, that would have helped, but unfortunately, I didn't find out that's the term they use until later in the process, so I told them I wanted a "data-grade line"). I subsequently learned that conditioned lines are not offered as part of NYNEX's residential service. However, supposedly, NYNEX *does* have a conditioned line listed on their tariff charts for business service. It costs more, of course, but you get what you pay for, and what you're asking the phone company for is a high-speed modem line, not a voice line. I suspect that other phone companies treat conditioned lines like NYNEX does, so if you want to do things completely on the up-and-up and make sure you get a conditioned line, try calling the business service office instead of the residential service office and asking them for a conditioned line. In my case, when I ordered the second line, NYNEX was out of free pairs in my neighborhood, so rather than pulling a new pair from the central office, they installed a "miniplexor" on my existing pair and an identical unit at the central office, to carry two phone lines over my existing pair. Of course, a 33.6kbps modem does not appreciate sharing line bandwidth with someone talking on the same wires, so the performance was not exactly acceptable. I bitched and moaned to NYNEX and the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities about how I paid for a real line and I expected to receive a real line, and in the end NYNEX pulled a fresh pair directly from the central office to my apartment, and that pair has worked just fine ever since. It helped that I finally got to talk to the outside foreman for the local office, i.e., to someone who actually understood what I was asking for and how to fix it. If your neighborhood is short on free pairs and your phone company doesn't get new-line requests for your neighborhood very often, you might be able to play the following game ... Call their business office and order a conditioned business line. After they install it, make sure it works properly with your modem. Once you're convinced that it does, cancel the business line and order a second residential line on the same day. Unless they need to steal the conditioned pair for someone else between when you cancel the business line and when they come to install the second residential line, they'll simply use the existing pair for the residential line, and you'll be getting conditioned quality for the cost of a residential line. Of course, if they do steal the pair for someone else in that window, you're screwed, and you might have to try the whole thing again. On the other hand, depending on how much higher the monthly charges are on a conditioned line, it might be worthwhile to incur the installation charges a couple of times to avoid having to pay them. There are variations on this game. For example, you can start out by ordering a residential line, and tell them that you're going to use it for a modem. If they tell you at that point that you have to use a conditioned line for that at a higher rate, then you've been caught and you should proceed as described above. If not, however, you can try the new residential line and see if it works with your modem. If it does, you're all set. If it doesn't, you might be able to bitch and moan like I did and get them to fix it. At the very least, you can probably convince them to upgrade you to a conditioned line and credit your installation charges for the residential line to the conditioned line installation, since they didn't tell you that you needed a conditioned line to use a modem, and then you can either stay with the conditioned line or proceed as described above. Even if your local phone company doesn't offer conditioned lines by name, you might be able to play this game anyway. This is because ISN runs over the same copper pairs as regular phone lines -- an ISDN line is really just a conditioned line that the switch knows speaks ISDN. Therefore, you can order ISDN, make sure it's working properly with your modem, and then cancel the service and order a residential line as described above. However, the installation charges for ISDN are usually pretty high, so investigate the costs before you decide to do this. Whatever you do, don't let them install a miniplexor on your existing line and convince you that the resulting two lines will work just as well as if they were carried on separate copper pairs :-). If, in the process of trying to get the phone company to install a conditioned line (or conditioned-quality line), you hear people start to talk about "taps" and how lines without them are better, here's what they're talking about: When a brand new pair is installed for service to a particular location, that pair of wires runs intact from the central office to the service location. Now, let's say that that location cancels its service, and another location nearby orders new service. Rather than running a new pair all the way from the central office to the second location, the phone company might backtrack from the second location to the phone company until it finds where that path intersects the path of the original pair, and then install a new pair from that point to the second location, "tapping" the original pair at the intersection point but leaving the rest of the original pair in place. Like this (view in a fixed-width font in a News reader that doesn't compress spaces): +------------+ "tap" original pair +----+ | |-------+----------------------------------| | | Location 1 |-----+/-----------------------------------| CO | | | // | | +------------+ // +----+ // +------------+ // new pair | |// | Location 2 |/ | | +------------+ The problem is that the "tap" from the intersection point to the original location will cause interference on the line even though it is no longer in service. Therefore, a line which will be used for high-speed modems should be without any taps. If you manage to find someone who seems to know what he's talking about and tells you that your line won't have any taps on it, write down his name and his phone number and keep it in a safe place; it's very useful to have the name and number of someone at the phone company who knows what he's talking about :-). Another thing to keep in mind is that if you use existing inside wiring for the new line (i.e., if your current jack was wired for two lines from the demarc box outside your house/apartment, so they can wire a new jack for the second line without running new wire from the demarc inside the house), it's very important to make the installer check the quality of the inside wiring when he installs the second line. Many static problems with modem lines are caused by old or improperly installed inside wiring. As an alternative, if you don't want to pay the hourly rate to have the installer check and possibly fix the inside wiring, you can run new inside wiring yourself. Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | jik@cam.ov.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Jeffrey Subject: Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:39:49 -0800 Yes, this really is a huge industry, especially across Europe and Asia. The best collectors prices are obtained for unused cards. My previous employer used to manufacture a lot of payphones for around the world, and the factory had huge displays of thousands of the things. They've been around for at least ten years now, and were introduced to remove the need to empty coins from payphones. The American market is far from ideal for prepaid cards. In many countries, the cards cost little if any more than regular payphone rates. Also, most countries require payment for local calls, so you have more reasons to use the cards. One other major score is that when you are visiting another country, you can buy the cards in stores, perhaps using travelers checks, credit cards or local currency. You don't need to bill the call back through your home operator as you would with a calling card. I remember the pain of trying to make international calls home to the UK from a US payphone a few years back. You can't possibly carry enough change to cover the cost of payphone international charges, and at that time few if any US payphones would accept my (British - BT) calling card. By contrast, a Belgian friend of mine visiting the UK in 1986 just bought herself a BT prepaid card (cost about $6 I think), and used it up on a single call home to Belgium. Prepaid cards are one solution to cashless calling, and can be very flexible. They work best where the call is being put through and billed by the payphone operator, not a separate long-distance operator. I think the vast majority of them get used up, except the odd collector's item. Yes, it really is a billion dollar industry. The US is in this respect outside the mainstream of world telecommunications, where prepaid cards are part of everyday life. Mark Jeffrey Network Architect - Microsoft Public Network Partners Team ------------------------------ From: Martin McCormick Subject: Re: TWX 1961 Automation Plans Date: 28 Jan 1997 22:10:44 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK First of all, thanks for a very interesting historical article. This is this group at its finest. I am curious about how the speed and code converters worked. Were they electromechanical, solid-state, or did they use vacuum tubes? When one thinks about the technology of 1960, the problems presented by the thought of a duel world of four-row and three-row teleprinters seem quite daunting. In the first place, the four-row machines used ASCII which is pretty much as we know it today. The three-row machines used Baudot whose 5-bit characters bear not even a passing resemblance to their 8-bit ASCII counterparts. Baudot machines speak in upper case, but the big problem is that there is a special character that shifts the printer in to "Figures" mode so that qwertyuip now reads 1234567890 and all the other keys on the keyboard send various punctuation marks or do such things as ring the bell, (shifted S). When one was through ringing the bell or sending numbers, the "Letters" symbol was sent to return the printer to normal operation. The code/speed converters had to have enough intelligence to do this as well as translate the ASCII letters in to Baudot characters and remember to send the "Figures" or "Letters" symbols when required. Of course, the converter also had to understand the Baudot system so that it could send the right ASCII characters. When four-row machines were talking to three-row'ers, there also had to be a buffer to temporarily store the information since the receiving machines were running at 60 WPM and the transmitters were chattering along at 100 WPM. I thought that it was interesting that the plan to switch to the newer four-row machines mentioned the cost of the code/speed converters. Nowadays, something like that could probably be done with a hand full of integrated circuits costing less than $100.00 and you could probably have changed the whole network over to the faster speed and put one of the converters on each of the old machines so that they would look like the new ones to the rest of the net. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Subject: 911 Calls From Behind PBX Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:28:54 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Greg Stahl gsta@music.stlawu.edu writes: > I am looking for information on E911 adjuncts for the university's NEC > NEAX 2400 PBX. I have been looking for information regarding E911 on > the WWW, but hav'nt had much luck. We are exploring the possiblility > of adding an adjunct to our PBX, does anyone know of any vendors that > sell a product like this and is anyone familiar with the laws > regarding E911 or can point me in the right direction. Do we, by law, > have to send the ANI/ALI info down to the county emergency center? Any > help with this, or letting me know of any sources for this kind of > info would be greatly appreciated. Proctor & Associates makes the PBX ANI product. This solves the problem which Greg is referring to, which is when 911 calls are made from a PBX extension, how can the 911 answering point get location information for the extenstion that made the call? When you call 911 from your home phone, your seven digit phone number is sent forward as ANI in the form of MF tones by a dedicated 911 trunk at the CO that serves your phone. At the other end the ANI is received and the phone number is cross referenced in a database to your address. But when you call from a PBX, the ANI is for the particular trunk that your call goes out on, so the 911 center gets the same location for all the calls from the PBX. This can be a big problem with a large PBX, especially if you have off premise extensions. The only way around this is to send unique ANI for each extension with each 911 call. Since the system is set up to be secure, there isn't any way to change your ANI. But with the PBX ANI product you establish your own 911 trunks that go from the PBX to the 911 center, which means you can send forward any ANI that you want. In the case of non-DID lines, you get non-dialable number assignments from the telco just for the unique ANI for 911 calls. Contact Proctor about the PBX ANI product at: Proctor & Associates 15050 NE 36 St Redmond, WA 98052 phone: 206-881-7000 Regarding the law on ANI from PBXs, it varies from state to state. Some states have new laws requiring PBXs in certain applications, such as schools, to send ANI for extensions from PBXs on 911 calls. Your state PUC should have more information. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: New Area Codes Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:01:44 GMT Organization: BBS Corner John Cropper wrote: >> Well, what about assigning overlay codes in such a way that the last >> digits are different within any one area? Aside from the problem of areas >> with codes ending in 0, you could implement 8-digit dialing by just >> telling everybody that starting tomorrow, they have to dial the last >> digit of the area code if it's local, otherwise proceed with 11d as >> normal. Then you get 8 area codes per area, and when they fill up, start >> dialing the last 2 digits and tell everyone they have 9-digit phone >> numbers. > It doesn't work in areas with hardwired equipment (from the 50s and 60s) > that specifically times out at seven digits. While newer equipment in > the metro areas might not have a problem with it, Mom & Pop America in > Wazoo, South Dakota wouldn't be able to call junior at USC. Out of curiosity -- does anyone know how much of the US is served by old crossbar equipment? I thought by now that most all the US had converted to ESS or DMS100 (or similar) equipment. P.S. If you know of an area served by this old equipment, send me an E-mail. (Area code and prefix if you know it) Thanks, Dave ------------------------------ From: fbrunel@pasteur.fr (Franck Brunel) Subject: Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:05:49 +0100 Organization: Jungle Fever Linc Madison wrote: > 1. Area code 03 in northeastern France (just created Oct. 18, 1996) > is changed to an unused code (07, perhaps?). Actually "area code" (we don't have really area codes since we must dial all of our numbers) in France are just 1 digit. The leading 0 is the default prefix for routing outgoing calls through France Telecom network. Next year, I will be able to choose another telco and start dialing with a 2 to route my call through Bristish Telecom. Anyhow there are 5 "geographic zones" (01,02,03,04,05). 06 is the prefix for mobile phones, 08 is to access Transpac network. Minitel starts with the digit "3". > 2. France moves from +33 to +333. Damned, I wish we could have 666 as country code ;-) Ung Awa ------------------------------ From: Robert Orr Subject: Wanted: GPS Over Cell Phone Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:01:59 -0500 Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech Reply-To: rjo@cc.gatech.edu We're looking for a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit that can interface to a cellular phone and transmit its location data using touchtone (i.e., DTMF) tones. Does anyone know if such a thing exists? If so, where can I find it? A GPS unit that interfaces to an external DTMF converter would work, as well. Essentially, we're looking for any system that can send GPS data over a cell phone. Pointers to anything of this type would be greatly appreciated. Please mirror all responses to rjo@cc.gatech.edu as well as to the newsgroup. Thanks much. Robert Orr Ph.D. Student Future Computing Environments Group College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #24 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jan 30 09:08:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA23479; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:08:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:08:34 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701301408.JAA23479@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #25 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 Jan 97 09:08:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UCLA Short Course on "Turbo Codes" (Bill Goodin) FCC Forum on Telecom Network Congestion (oldbear@arctos.com) Massachusetts Area Code Splits (John Grossi) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (Joseph Singer) Book Review: "Focus on the Future: Migration Strategies" (Rob Slade) Pye Philps Broadcast Address Needed (Charles H. Beard) X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Dave Sieg) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Al Hays) Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal (Hendrik Rood) 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 Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Turbo Codes" Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:52:00 GMT On April 23-25, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Turbo Codes: Principles and Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Dariush Divsalar, PhD, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Sergio Benedetto, PhD, Politecnico di Torino; Guido Mortorsi, Politecnico di Torino; and Fabrizio Pollara, PhD, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Turbo codes were introduced in 1993 and are considered among the most important developments in coding theory. Researchers around the world have been able to extend the basic idea to other forms of code concatenations, with various applications to transmission over fading channels, band-limited satellite channels, and channels with intersymbol interference. A turbo code is formed by two simple convolutional codes separated by an interleaver. The decoder consists of two Soft-Input Soft-Output (SISO) modules connected by an interleaver and a deinterleaver. This course addresses fundamentals of turbo codes; understanding of the principles governing the code behavior; extension to multiple turbo codes, and iterative decoding; design of a turbo code for various throughputs and modulations such as M-PSK, M-QAM; implementation of a turbo decoder by using the Add-Compare-Select operations and lookup tables similar to those used in the implementation of Viterbi decoders; extensions of turbo coding concepts to other forms of concatenation with interleavers such as serial and hybrid concatenation; applications to space communications, digital direct broadcast satellite services, CDMA, and virtually any data communication system that can tolerate a delay due to an interleaver size of at least 250 bits (delay is proportional to the interleaver size divided by the data rate). This is a new subject area and the potential applications of this new coding scheme are potentially broad. Engineers working in all aspects of information transmission technology, as well as research scientists and academics, should benefit from the material presented in the course. The analytical details are kept to a minimum and no algebraic tools are required. The course fee is $1295, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 08:38:01 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: FCC Forum on Telecom Network Congestion Forwarded to the Digest: Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:47:26 -0500 From: James Love Subject: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth (and network congestion) (fwd) Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth and network congestion was pretty interesting. The first panel looked at the current deployment of xDSL, cable modems and wireless alternatives, and it was pretty sobering. Basically, for residential consumers, these technologies are not being deployed anytime soon, in significant numbers. Stagg Newman from Bellcore gave a nice description of the practical problems in deployment for the best known new technologies. His video of the speed of a cable modem using a reasonable assumption regarding cable network use showed how much slower this technology is likely to be when and if it is deployed in large numbers. The wiring problems for cable and ADSL were substantial. Les Vadasz from Intel expressed that company's frustration with the pace of deployment, and then asked the participants to "forget about the 1st million customers, tell me when will we get the second million" broadband customers? Apparently, not for a long time. I take a lot of flak for spending so much time on ISDN pricing, but after today's presentation, it is hard to see what else can be deployed broadly in the United States over the next seven years (an eternity in Internet time). The second panel ended up talking about various technologies and economic incentives to take POTS, ISDN or other digital calls off the circuit switched network at the central office, and send the data via packet switched networks to the ISPs. PacBell wants to charge ISPs about $45 per "port" for the equivalent of an incoming and modem for this service, which is more than what they pay now for POTS and a modem or ISDN. The phone companies want to impose new fees on the ISPs (which they compete against), in order to more or less force them to switch to the packet switched transport from the central office to the ISP. We suggested they encourage deployment by offering cheaper ISDN or other digital services, when they use the packet transport. An ISP might pay $45 for the line, if he could offer a higher speed digital connection to its consumers, particularly if it wasn't metered (as many local ISDN tariffs are now). The LECs are already charging way too much for ISDN, for example, and selling it to no one, so this might provide a win-win solution, giving consumers higher bandwidth, while moving the call off the circuit switched network. There was a fair amount of discussion about the fact that ISPs in general are typically set up so that only 5 to 10 percent of consumers can connect at any one time, and this is less than the 14 percent that the residential voice network is supposed to accommodate, raising the question -- how can this lead to congestion in the residential telephone network? We said the average duration of a call was meaningless in itself, without data on the number of calls and how they are distributed over the day. (1 20 minute call is hardly more of a burden than 20 3 minute calls). PacBell countered by offering California statistics that say voice users consume an average of 22 minutes of network resources per day, compared to 62 minutes for Internet users -- nearly three times more. But there was not much data on how Internet calling differs from the voice calling. For example, do Internet calls have longer peaks, and do they occur in hours when the voice network isn't being used? We suggested PacBell provide the FCC with data from their own ISP showing the percent of subscribers that can connect at any one time, and compare this to capacity of the PacBell voice network. Kevin Werbach asked what type of information the FCC could provide that would resolve some of these questions, and we asked for data on ISP usage, including both average minutes per day and the distribution of that usage over the day, and the ratio of customers to incoming lines. We also wanted to see better data on how voice and modem use (time, and distribution of use over the day) on the public switched network, and how these have changed in the past few years. I also suggested that the FCC create market incentives to get the LECs to deploy any kind of digital services. (ISDN, xDSL, anything). Since the LECs are basically monopolies in their own service areas, I suggested making the major LECs (assuming they don't all merge with each other) compete against each other for deployment, and have the FCC reward LECs that had the highest penetration of digital lines to residential consumers, and punish those that have the lowest, by tying deployment to Universal Service fund contributions (or something else that really mattered) to a ratio of that company's penetration rate to the average penetration rate. This would force the LECs to compete against each other. I thought this would leading to some surprising changes of heart among the LECs. The FCC staff wasn't too receptive to this proposal. Our prepared comments are on the web at http://www.essential.org/cpt/isdn/bandwidth.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org ------------------------------ From: John Grossi Subject: Massachusetts Area Code Splits Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 3:47:27 EST The Massachusetts PUC yesterday decided to carve area codes 617 and 508 up instead of overlay as NYNEX had suggested. The original plan was modified by the PUC so that no community was split between area codes. So in May 1998 Massachusetts will go from three to five area codes (413 in Western Massachusetts). The exact implementation plan was not discussed in The Boston Globe's front page article. -John Grossi (there is a disagreement between the Globe's Map and a the list of towns along the 508/978 line in Central Mass. i.e. East Brookfield is listed as switching and on the map it's shown still in 508) Here's the break down: staying in 617: Boston (all neighborhoods) Brookline Cambridge Chelsea Everett Milton Newton Quincy Somerville Winthrop (this amounts to the inner core of Boston) switching from 617 to 781 Abington Arlington Bedford Belmont Braintree Burlington Canton Cohasset Dedham Duxbury Halifax Hanover Hanson Hingham Holbrook Hull Kingston Lexington Lincoln Lynn Lynnfield Malden Marblehead Marshfield Medford Melrose Nahant Needham Norwell Norwood Pembroke Plympton Randolph Reading Revere Rockland Saugus Scituate Sharon Stoneham Stoughton Swampscott Wakefield Waltham Watertown Wellesley Weston Westwood Weymouth Whitman Winchester Woburn (a ring around Boston, in some places one town wide) switching to 978 from 508 Acton Amesbury Andover Ashburnham Ashby Athol Ayer Barre Berlin Beverly Billerica Bolton Boxborough Boxford Carlisle Clinton Concord Danvers Dracut Dunstable East Brookfield Essex Fitchburg Gardener Georgetown Gloucester Groton Groveland Hamilton Harvard Haverhill Hubbardston Hudson Ipswich Lancaster Lawrence Leicester Leominster Littleton Lowell Lunenburg Manchester Maynard Merrimack Methuen Middleton Newbury Newburyport New Salem North Andover North Reading Orange Peabody Pepperell Petersham Phillipston Princeton Rockport Rowley Royalston Salem Salisbury Shirley Sterling Stow Sudbury Templeton Tewksbury Topsfield Townsend Tyngsbourgh Warwick Wayland Wendell Wenham Westford Westminster West Newbury Wilmington Winchendon (basically Essex County, Northern Middlesex and the northern half of Worcester County (a line running about 10 miles south of SR 2) staying in 508 (~150 towns) major towns: Worcester, Framingham, Natick, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, Plymouth, Hyannis, Vineyard Haven, Nantucket. (The southern half of Worcester County, Bristol County, the southern half of Plymouth County, and all of Banstable, Dukes, and Nantucket Counties (Cape Cod and the Islands)) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 16:50:43 PST From: dov@accessone.com (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Lately my customers have been informing me that Directory Assistance > is giving them an outdated, three-year-old number for our business. > As it happens, this number isn't in the NYNEX database, but I've > determined that those getting this bad information are Sprint/MCI > customers probably reaching some contract DA provider. > Who are these providers? And how does one reach them to remove an > outdated or incorrect listing in their DA databases? On a slightly different note you may know that directory listings are available through several sources on the web including Four11.com (http://www.Four11.com/) and switchboard.com (http://www.Four11.com/). I'd like to know how accurate their listings are and where they obtain the information that they disseminate. Most of the listings that I've checked from switchboard.com have been correct, but the same listing when checked with four11.com many times turns up no listing. I'd be interested in anyone else's findings on this. Also with both of these services they have limited ability to search out e-mail addresses. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington, USA dov@accessone.com http://www.accessone.com/~dov PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:32:37 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Focus on the Future: Migration Strategies" CBMIGSTR.RVW 961019 "Focus on the Future: Migration Strategies for Emerging Technologies", Bellcore, 1996, 1-57305-084-9, U$695.00 %A Bellcore %C Room 3A184, 8 Corporate Place, Piscataway, NJ 08854 %D 1996 %G 1-57305-084-9 %I Bellcore %O U$695.00 +1-800-521-CORE +1-908-699-5800 fax: +1-908-336-2559 %O llavoie@notes.cc.bellcore.com mgordon2@notes.cc.bellcore.com %T "Focus on the Future: Migration Strategies for Emerging Technologies" Bellcore must have great plans for this one. Juan kept calling and asking if I had had time to review it yet, implying that I needed the "exposure" such a review would provide. Well, Juan, let this be a salutary lesson on what happens when you bug reviewers and your product is mediocre. I don't think either of us are going to get any benefit out of this "exposure". First, while it does warn you that it needs twenty-seven megabytes of disk space (I was able to fill out two pages of a densely packed questionnaire and still get halfway into the "Scientific American" before it was done loading), it doesn't say anything about the requirement for a 256 colour driver, which sent me scurrying around for old system disks. Once I got it running, it was pig slow. Now, I don't have an absolutely state of the art machine for testing, but it's still fairly common. The program lost track of itself several times on the way through, lost track of where I had been in the program (frequently), occasionally entered strange graphics modes, failed to respond to selections (incidentally, the "Return" and "Enter" keys are not handled identically), and finally crashed the machine. (When I restarted, it had lost all data about how much of the "training" I had already been through.) It would be wrong to say that this program is a page turner. Instead, it is a page turner through a complex and twisty little maze of mini-lessons. After a while they all begin to look alike. It's almost like an adventure game, in that you are never sure, when you click on one of the mandatory (and, oh yes! they are mandatory) links, whether you will find a single page, and then return to where you started, or go off through another huge subsection. All of which is probably beside the point, since the important thing is the information. There are four parts to the program. Two are sales brochures for advanced telephone services. One is an extremely simplistic guide to planning. The last module allows you to develop a plan--for the Westville County phone network. (By the way, when it comes time to deinstall the program, Bellcore cheerfully states that all you have to do is delete the files. What they don't tell you is that all the files were made read-only when they were installed. You remember where you put ATTRIB, don't you?) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 CBMIGSTR.RVW 961019 ====================== ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca The client interface is the boundary of trustworthiness - T. Buckland Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: chb890@aol.com (CHB890) Subject: Pye Philps Broadcast Address Date: 29 Jan 1997 22:17:22 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com We are looking for help in finding the address and phone number of the PYE PHILPS Broadcast Div. that mfg. the low power F M Broadcast Transmitters ( 300 Watt ) ( solid State ). We are trying to change freq on one of the 3 we have to 89.1 and the books we have only show it will go down to 89.5. HELP ! Charles H. Beard chb890@aol.com 800 588 2774 Charles H. Beard CSSI / KZEE RADIO 206 Wiggs Lane FAX 888-868-1661 telco 817-596-8768 ext 208 cellullar phone 817-682-8218 pager 817-596-1000 num alpha por#t 817-596-1950 PIN 1000 e-mail chb890@aol.com W5FJC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:09:17 +0000 From: Dave Sieg Reply-To: dave@tricon.net Organization: Zeta Image, Inc. Subject: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Just an idle thought while watching the stormclouds gather for the coming 56KWar ... The nearly 3,000 small ISP's in the US have been responsible for getting millions of users onto the Internet, and have experienced firsthand the pain of non-interoperating "standards". Many of these ISPs have grown despite these obstacles, and are no longer so small! They have yet to exercise their power as any kind of coherent group, largely because they see each other as competitors. The whole 56K thing seems to be based on somebody at USR figuring out that since they've sold millions of consumers modems with flash-upgrade capabilities, they can in one slick move: (1) Convince consumers to spend $90 for an upgrade (which costs them almost nothing) which will then: (2) Place pressure on ISP's to buy expensive USR terminal equipment. While the technology is still far from proven in the field, and a standard is still 12-18 months away, WOULDN'T IT BE INTERESTING if ISP's "exercised their power" at least to the extent of saying: "This stinks! Show me something that works and is a standard, and I'll buy it, meanwhile I'm telling consumers they've been sold vaporware!" Of course the argument against this is that the technology DOES work (witness all the testimonials in this newsgroup, for example) ;) and that if MOST of the ISP's agree to hold fast, some young upstart will steal all the business by diving into 56K with both feet. Gee, would _I_ bet my entire business on such vaporware? I'd like to see a show of hands from ISP's ... anybody taking this seriously? ------------------------------ From: Al Hays Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:24:22 -0600 Charles Holcomb (cholcomb@tpd001.dp.tpd.dsccc.com) wrote: > On of my relatives can not use her LD carrier's PIC code to dial > around her LEC for her long distance calls in her LATA. > I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and > still use your prefered LD carrier. > Is this true, and why is it not mentioned by LD carrier's?? > What excatly is the "700" number used for?? In addition to the many uses that have been presented in the past few days, there are other uses as well. We have Sprint's VPN (Virtual Private Network) as our LD service. In our five major call centers nationwide we have dedicated T1 access to VPN. Sprint allows us seven-digit "desktop-to-desktop" dialing by accessing these VPN trunks, dialing a three-digit city prefix which we defined and Sprint input into our account configuration and then the four-digit extension number of the party on the other end. Sprint simply outpulses the four-digit extension to the switch on the other end and viola ... you're on the remote desktop. This is particularly handy since only one of the call centers is equipped with DID trunks. Our remote Service Offices and Regional Sales Managers across the country have switched VPN LD service. They can dial direct to the desktop on any employee located within one of the five call centers with dedicated service by dialing 1-700 and the seven-digit desktop code as above. The same is true of our VPN Foncards. Accessing the Sprint Foncard 800# (800-877-8000) and then dialing 0-700-xxx-xxxx will place the call direct to a VPN desktop as defined above. According to Sprint, dialing 1-700 from a switched location advises the LEC to "ignore this call and pass it unaltered to the LD carrier." The LD carrier would then have some predefined manner of handling the call ... which could include an intra-LATA dial-around. regs, Alan H. Hays The Mark Travel Corporation Senior Telecommunications Analyst 8097 N. Port Washington Road Voice:414-934-2600 Fax:414-351-5837 Post Office Box 1460 EMail: ahays@marktravel.com Milwaukee, WI 53201-1460 ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 04:44:09 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote: > I've just been reading some documents from the European Union > regarding some proposed numbering changes in Europe, on a vast scale. > The full text of the proposal, in Microsoft Word for Windows format > (213K) is at: [snipped] > However, the "green paper" doesn't address the colossal code conflicts > that this proposal would create in France and Spain. For instance, > London +44-20 would become +344-20, but that conflicts with Bilbao, > Spain, +34-4-20... That number in Bilbao in turn would become > +334-4-20..., but it would then conflict with a number in southeastern > France, +33-4-420... [For those of you saying "London = 20?," area > codes 0171 and 0181 in London will un-split into area code 020 in the > year 2000, with 8-digit local numbers.] This particular example uses > only real numbers which exist or will exist within 3 years, so the > conflict is quite substantial. > In order to work the proposed scheme, there will need to be at least a > four-phase changeover, which must be followed sequentially. At each > stage, there will need to be a minimum of one year of permissive > dialing, followed by at least one year of intercept recordings. During the renumbering of the Dutch Telephony Numbering Plan the same type of code conflicts as you spotted in the European Commision plan were possible in the permissive dialling period. These problems has been resolved though by introducing a software feature in the switched called "numbering length analysis". I am currently preparing a comment on the plan (comments can be send to the EU up to februari 21st 1997) and looking after this issue. As far as my current investigation had let to results most of the numbering conflicts you have discovered can be resolved by introducing numbering length analysis in the digit analysis software resident in the international switches of the European countries involved . But I have not worked out if it is easy possible to adjust billing systems too. Nor maintenance and test systems. From what I have seen in press comments allready and heard in the market this plan is highly criticized. ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #25 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jan 31 09:04:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA09943; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:04:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:04:15 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701311404.JAA09943@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #26 TELECOM Digest Fri, 31 Jan 97 09:04:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 26 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More on the X2/56K War (Diamond Dave) Berkeley Student Takes 3.5 Hours to Crack RSA 40-bit Key (J. van Heteren) Re: ISP's vs. RBOC's (John Stahl) Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal (Bob Goudreau) Re: Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire (John Cropper) Re: International Operator Services Reciprocal Billing (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: More on the X2/56K War Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:52:17 GMT Organization: BBS Corner Reply-To: gentzel@pobox.com I recently forwarded an article from comp.dcom.telecom to a person (via E-mail) who posted on the X2/56K technology in another newsgroup. This is what he had to say: ------------------------------- Thanks for the message. I think, however, that Mr. Richards is trying desperately to convince his costomers that 56K is smoke and mirrors so they won't force him to spend money to upgrade his equipment ... > 1. The "X2" protocol from US Robotics is NOT compatible with the K56Flex > interoperable standard being developed by Lucent and Rockwell. The big > push from USR is an attempt to grab market share and sell their expensive > ISP-side equipment. Of course, and so is the K56Flex "standard". The only thing that makes one more "interoperable" and "standard" than the other is that K56Flex has more companies (but not necessarily more market share) on their side. Since my Courier will be upgradeable via a free flash to the ultimate (and far down the road) standard, I don't see why this is a problem. > 2. All of these protocols require OPTIMAL phone lines at the customer's > side, and DIGITAL circuits from the CO into the ISP. This means: > If you can't get a consistent 28.8 connection to your provider now, > you will never get a 56K connection with the new modems. This is not true. The demands of the ISP->user 56K link are very different, both in terms of frequency range and in S/N ratio, than the current V.34 standard. A line which can only get 26,400 with V.34 may well get 56K with X2 (or K56Flex). > You will NOT be able to call your friends or (any other non-digital > line- BBS, etc) and get connections above 33.6. Absolutely true. But why should I still not want it for my ISP calls? For me, the consumer, X2 is free. I realize that ISP's have to shell out $, and that not all will, but that is the free market. Those that don't may soon find their customer base eroding *if* the 56K stuff catches on. > 3. 56K requires all the same (expensive) resources on the provider's > end as for ISDN. Each digital channel costs, on average, $30-$45 per > month, plus several hundred dollars for equipment and installation, add the > cost for bandwidth to the Internet, and see how long $19.95 unlimited > access accounts are going to last... This is wrong. My current ISP has 100% digital line interfaces and pays nothing like $30-$45/mo. Either the pricing from your local Baby Bell is way out of whack, or you are > In real life, X2 is going to have about the same impact on your connection > speed as 33.6 has- you'll get and keep 28.8 connections more reliably, > but the average user will see speeds above that once in a blue moon. Only time will tell, but the "experts" I have consulted fully expect many folks to benefit from X2. The real question is the number of D/A and A/D transitions between the ISP and the consumer. If there is only a single D/A conversion, then you *should* see much benefit from 56K. What percentage of the modem-using public this constitutes, I can't say. Dave Gentzel gentzel@pobox.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:59:35 -0800 From: John van Heteren Reply-To: vanhet@sirius.com Subject: Berkeley Student Takes 3.5 Hours to Crack RSA 40-bit Key Hi, Though you'd be interested in the following article that I found at: http://www.urel.berkeley.edu/releases/ John van Heteren vanhet@sirius.com ------------------ Berkeley -- It took UC Berkeley graduate student Ian Goldberg only three and a half hours to crack the most secure level of encryption that the federal government allows U.S. companies to export. Yesterday (1/28) RSA Data Security Inc. challenged the world to decipher a message encrypted with its RC5 symmetric stream cipher, using a 40-bit key, the longest keysize allowed for export. RSA offered a $1,000 reward, designed to stimulate research and practical experience with the security of today's codes. Goldberg succeeded a mere 3 1/2 hours after the contest began, which provides very strong evidence that 40-bit ciphers are totally unsuitable for practical security. "This is the final proof of what we've known for years: 40-bit encryption technology is obsolete," Goldberg said. RSA's RC5 cipher can however be used with longer keysizes, ranging from 40 to 2,048 bits, to provide increasing levels of security. U.S. export restrictions have limited the deployment of technology that could greatly strengthen security on the Internet, often affecting both foreign and domestic users, Goldberg said. "We know how to build strong encryption; the government just won't let us deploy it. We need strong encryption to uphold privacy, maintain security, and support commerce on the Internet -- these export restrictions on cryptography must be lifted, " he said. Fittingly, when Goldberg finally unscrambled the challenge message, it read: "This is why you should use a longer key." The number of bits in a cipher is an indication of the maximum level of security the cipher can provide, Goldberg said. Each additional bit doubles the potential security level of the cipher. A recent panel of experts recommended using 90-bit ciphers, and 128-bit ciphers are commonly used throughout the world, but U.S. government regulations restrict exportable U.S. products to a mere 40 bits. Goldberg used UC Berkeley's Network of Workstations (NOW) to harness the computational resources of about 250 idle machines. This allowed him to test 100 billion possible "keys" per hour -- analogous to safecracking by trying every possible combination at high speed. This amount of computing power is available with little overhead cost to students and employees at many large educational institutions and corporations. Goldberg is a founding member of the ISAAC computer security research group at UC Berkeley, which is led by assistant professor of computer science Eric Brewer. In the fall of 1995 the ISAAC group made headlines by revealing a major security flaw in Netscape's web browser. ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Re.: ISP's vs. RBOC's Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:18:04 +0000 I guess the phrase "If you can't beat them, join them" continually proves itself true (just like Murphy's Law!). I'm down in Atlanta, GA on business, temporarily displaced from NY - and NYNEX service - where I expected to hear of no big surprises regarding telecon services (except of course from regularly reading TELECOM Digest, via the I'net), when what should I hear listening to a AM local radio on the ride from my hotel is that BELL SOUTH advertising it has entered the ISP business "...in selected cities...." Yep, Bell South, why wait until the FCC rules on requests for additional fees from the ol' nasty ISP's for "tieing up" all those lines, extending 'average' time usage from the formulated 3 minutes, and causing you to spend all that money to 'expand' the switches to handle all these Internet connections? Why not add to your revenue stream a subscriber Internet connection? What does that do, double your monthly income from every customer that signs up? At what cost, a fraction of a modem for each user and a connection to a T1 interface to the DSX bay? Hey, why not collect $19.95 per subscriber rather than the "suggested" $2.00 fee for each user from an ISP? What a great marketing idea - additional revenue generation for a very small 'up-front' equipment cost. Betcha' they have set up "bellsouth.net" as a separate subsidiary and even the revenue generated doesn't even fall under the scrutiny of (or limitations set by) the PSC/PUC, too! Here is some of their marketing info to attract people right from their net page: > Introducing the BellSouth.net (sm) Internet service. > Now available in select cities. > The faster, easier and more reliable way to get onto the > Internet. Now available in select cities, with features you > simply won't find on any other Internet service. Like the > latest Netscape Navigator software and instant access to > local information, such as movies, restaurants and special > events. Plus, because it runs through our local phone > network, your connections are not only faster, they're > more dependable as well. Best of all, we can offer it to you > at a very competitive price. Just click on one of the red > dots to the right and see how easy it is to sign up. > They even have a "Faq" page for Q & A of various important issues. Here is one of the Faq's: > Q. Where is the BellSouth.net service available? > A. Right now, the service is available in the following cities: > Atlanta, GA > Chattanooga, TN > Ft. Lauderdale, FL > Orlando, FL > Charlotte, NC > Jacksonville, FL > Nashville, TN > New Orleans, LA > Miami, FL > West Palm Beach, FL > Raleigh, NC > Memphis, TN > Louisville, KY Check it out! Here is their URL: (http://www.bellsouth.net). OK, now that its started, who is next to get on the ISP bandwagon: Ameritech, NYNEX, Bell Atlantic? Remember, if you can't beat em', join em'! Oh, and while you're at it, try to eliminate em' as competition! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises, Endwell, NY Consultants for LAN/WAN data installations email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:35:23 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal > However, the "green paper" doesn't address the colossal code conflicts > that this proposal would create in France and Spain... > In order to work the proposed scheme, there will need to be at least a > four-phase changeover, which must be followed sequentially. At each > stage, there will need to be a minimum of one year of permissive > dialing, followed by at least one year of intercept recordings. To be fair, the paper does state that some national renumbering will have to be done before the +3XX phase is entered. The author makes the further point that many European countries have been forced to renumber a lot recently anyway due to the explosion of non-POTS services and the introduction of competitive carriers (in some countries). His main thrust is that, as long as lots of painful renumbering is happening anyway, the various countries might as well coordinate their respective changes with an eye toward longer-range pan-European targets. However, I do agree with you that the proposed schedule seems too optimistic. > 1. Area code 03 in northeastern France (just created Oct. 18, 1996) > is changed to an unused code (07, perhaps?). > 2. France moves from +33 to +333. > 3. Spain moves from +34 to +334. > 4. Other countries with +3X or +4X codes move to +33X or +34X. Sounds perfect. It is a shame that the whole +3XX idea wasn't seriously broached a year or two sooner; then France's recent Great Renumbering could have left +33 3 and +33 4 vacant precisely to accommodate later permissive dialing to France as +333 and to Spain as +334. And perhaps we could also have headed off the split of +42 into +420 and +421 for the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both of which are hoping to enter the EU by 2000 or shortly thereafter; they could instead have gotten a pair of the vacant +38X numbers. > Note that for dialing to another country in Europe, you dial '1' plus > the last two digits of the country code. This means, though, that > many local service codes in Britain would conflict with the new > pan-European dialing instructions. For example, 153 is international > directory inquiries, but would be the new prefix for calls to Ireland. Again, I think such changes would be expected to take place in the prepatory renumbering phase, well before the +3XX country code phase. > Anyway, the plan also includes using +388-8 for European freephone > numbers, which would be dialed 1888 from within Europe. If the [sic] > Ukraine goes along with the plan and doesn't have any city codes > beginning with a significant zero, then 1800 would also be available. This could indeed work, because according to the data in the Telecom Archives' country code files, Ukraine does not have any +380 0 numbers: 380 Ukraine [assignment announced by ITU January 1995; effective 16 April 95; this replaces Ukraine numbers under the ex-Soviet system (country code 7 - former +7 0xy format becomes +380 xy) - a permissive calling period of at least 6 months was mentioned in ITU Operational Bulletin. The list goes on to show that all numbers in Ukraine are now in the range +380 3X through +380 6X. > Note that 1800 is already used for freephone in Ireland, instead of > 0800. They also plan to use 1500 for Personal Numbers (taking > advantage of unused numbering ranges in Gibraltar) and 1900 for > premium numbers. Indeed, I was amused at how much of the plan seems to follow existing NANP practice! 1-888 for free-phone; 1-900 for premium services; 1-500 for personal numbers; and 1+ for some intra-continental trunk calls (albeit only for those to other +3 countries). The major novelty that stood out to me would be the introduction of yet another hierarchy of dialing. Currently, phone users in most European countries have to think about three levels of dialing: local dialing; intra-national non-local dialing (requires trunk prefix and area code); and international dialing (requires international prefix, country code and area code). (Some microstates are too small to need area codes, and thus don't have to worry about the middle level.) But now a fourth level would be inserted into the hierarchy between the final two existing levels: international but intra-continental dialing (requires intra-Euro prefix, then sub-country code (i.e., last two digits of 3XX), then area code. I'm not sure how easy it would be for the average caller to remember all this. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 16:34:56 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com James E. Bellaire wrote: > John Cropper wrote: >> It seems, with just a few days before permissive dialing is set to >> begin (February 1st), there is NO official prefix list for NXXs moving >> from 317 to 765. (My list, compiled in late November, and posted to >> Pierre Thompson's and my websites, was based on ACTIVE NXXs and LATA >> information at the time. I updated that list in mid-January on my >> website). > Ameritech does have Indiana 765 NPA information up, it was put on-line > last week. They do have the pages in a strange place ... > Ameritech Areacode Home ... > http://www.ameritech.com/news/service/areacode/ > (All other references in this post are in that directory.) > "Code Finders" Page > /news/service/areacode/finders.html > This includes links to search engines to locate what codes > are moving where in the Ameritech region, as well as links > to lists and maps. > Indiana 317 / 765 Map > /news/service/areacode/indiana_locatormap.html > Indiana 317 / 765 Prefixes > /news/service/areacode/indiana_prefix.html > Prefixes also available by FTP (ftp://www.ameritech.com) > /pub/bsk/indiana_prefix.zip for Win/Dos > /pub/bsk/indiana_prefix.sit.hqx for Mac Thanks Jim, they weren't linked from the \areacode page until the 29th, tho ... I also received voicemail from a spokesperson at Ameritech regarding 765. She clarified a point that was not mentioned to anyone: The Indiana PSC *changed* the original plan from what was filed, and the boundary line shifted slightly here and there. She did mention, however, that the plan was finalized a week before Christmas, and that they (Ameritech) have been scrambling to get their printers producing on hardcopies of planning info for customers (which became available only this week). > James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com > Same web site, fancy new address! http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire > BTW: I don't work for Ameritech. Perhaps not, but take heart; they *ARE* watching... :-) John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://www.lincs.net/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:22:32 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: International Operator Services Reciprocal Billing tmccall@technologist.com wrote: > I am attempting to determine if any settlement mechanism would > exist for foreign nationals using US based operators services > with a foreign PTT's travel card. > As an example. A US traveler abroad dials an international access > number for a US based operator services company, say, AT&T's > USADirect product. Any third party Operator Services Company with a > billing agreement with AT&T can handle the call. > But, can a US based operator services company establish the same > kind of reciprocal billing arrangment with a Foreign PTT?? So they > would be able to bill a call made with a foreign PTT's travel card?? > Like Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, or British Telephone. > Please forgive my ignorance ... I am not familiar with a lot of the > operational aspects of operator services. > Any feedback on this question would be greatly appreciated as would > any information on operational aspects of US based operator services > companies. Many local/national telcos/carriers in various countries *all over* the world *do* have "home country direct" numbers, set up *from* various countries all over the world. Some of these access numbers are toll-free or coin-free from the originating country, while other originating country telcos require a local coin rate or from non-coin telephones, the access number could carry a local charge rate. But watch out for hotel/motel guest PBX surcharges on a room bill! And, of course, the carrier which issued the calling card will record and charge you whatever international rates/surcharges are in effect with their tariffs in the 'home' country. The above "home country direct" services is by no means set up universally throughout the world. But these days, some "home country direct" arrangements have been enhanced, so that you can access the country/network of the (home) issuing carrier (using the access numbers set up in the visited country), with the final destination being yet a *third and different* country. However, with this type of call, your home/issuing country's telco could possibly even bill you *double* international rates or surcharges! As far as the issuing country's telco is concerned, you placed a call from a visited country to the home country, and then a call from the home country, to yet a third country! Prior to the introduction and widespread use of "home country direct", many countries/telcos/carriers had (and *still do have*) various reciprocal billing arrangements, where you could place a call through the operator/network of the visited country, back to your home country. This, too, was never univerally implemented amongst all carriers/telcos/countries around the world. Where such arrangements have existed, for the most part, you were allowed to place/bill calls *only back to* the 'home' country of the carrier/telco which issued the calling card; you couldn't even use such a foreign-telco-issued card to place/bill calls within the visited country, not even local calls in that city such as when calling from a payphone and not wanting to use coins. However, much of that has been changing, with the more standard use and acceptance of the ITU/ISO "89" international calling card standard. Such card numbers begin with the digits "89", which is part of an ISO standard indicating "telecommunications related or issued charge cards". The next set of digits is the telephone country code of the issuing country. This is followed by a two or three digit ITU assigned "IIN", the Issuer Identifier Number. This code identifies the carrier, telco, network, or entity which issued that card from the 'home' country. Next follows that company's 'domestic' card number format, including a PIN code or password, and maybe even a 'Luhn Check Digit'. Where such business arrangements are in effect between various telcos/ carriers/networks/countries/etc, such an '89' card can be used to place calls *from* a country *to* most any other country (not just back to the 'home issuing' country), including billing of calls placed *within* the visited country, whether toll calls, or local area calls. The rates and billing would first be tracked by the telco/carrier of the visited country, and they might add various surcharges. Billing information would then have to be passed to the issuing country to actually bill the customer using the card. The issuing carrier/telco might add additional surcharges of their own. Of course, all of this depends upon mutual card-honoring business arrangements which need to be in effect, regarding access to validation databases, division of settlements of revenues, etc. These arrangements will vary from place to place, and change at various times. Even *within* the North American telephone system, AT&T-issued calling cards, for the most part, can't be honored anymore for calls placed within the local telephone company's network. And with the development of local telephone competition, what mutual card-honoring or validation might exist today could be terminated in the future! :( Also, as indicated above, rates and surcharges could vary from country to country, and from carrier/network/telco to another. Sometimes, the rates could vary, even for the same distance and time the call is placed, even between the same telcos/carriers, but because of the access method used by the calling party - i.e. whether using 'home country direct' or using an '89' card but first placed on the network of the visited country; or whether one dials all the digits themself or the requests the operator to enter in the digits. Before placing and billing any such calls, try to determine the various rates, and discount plans you might already have. "Home Country Direct" billing is tracked by the issuing country, however the issuing country needs to pay the visited country (and any international telco/carrier) for the (hopefully) toll free access number(s) *from* that visited country. Use of an "89" card via the visited country's operator or network has its billing initially tracked by the visited country's telco, thus the rates and charges must then be currency-converted somewhere between the visited country telco and the issuing country telco. All of these different methods could cause a difference in the type of rates the customer pays. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE: 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 V17 #26 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Feb 1 08:56:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA26309; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:56:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:56:09 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702011356.IAA26309@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #27 TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Feb 97 08:56:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indiana Change to New NPA (Tad Cook) FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger (Mike King) Re: More on the X2/56K War (David Richards) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Jeff Martin) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Mike Hazel) Public Meetings/916 Area Code Relief Plan (Mike King) 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: Indiana Change to New NPA Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:51:58 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Indiana Phone Companies Work to Make Change to New Area Code Easier By Cam Simpson, The Indianapolis Star and News Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 1--After months of planning, thousands of central Indiana residents awoke this morning to three new numbers that are bound to bring hassle and some expense into their lives. Optional dialing begins today for the region's new 765 area code, a move that affects the owners of about 530,000 land-based phone lines outside of Marion County. Thousands of cellular users also are affected. The change, which is being phased in over the next five months, is expected to hit business owners, small and large, hardest. They must reprogram phone-based gadgets and pay the expense for new business cards, stationary, envelopes and the like. But many business owners say it's no big deal. And local phone companies say they're working hard to ease the transition. "We know some procedures that will lessen the pain," says John Pyzik, a spokesman for Delco Remy America Inc., a huge employer in Anderson affected by the change. For starters, Pyzik says, state officials who ordered the new area code gave business owners plenty of time to prepare. The expense of producing materials bearing the new area code is minimal as a result. Delco Remy, like many businesses, has not ordered new supplies for months, Pyzik says. Inventories have been tightly regulated so there won't be any waste. That means materials emblazoned with the 317 area code should be exhausted by the time new supplies, bearing the 765 area code, are needed. "The buffer period allows us to use up inventories and avoid extra expense," Pyzik says. People dialing into the affected areas will have until June 27 to use either 765 or 317. After June 27, they will have to use the new 765 area code, though recorded messages informing callers of the change will be available for months, or even years, according to local phone companies. The change was first ordered by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission in November, though it was mulled for months before that. Cellular phones, pagers, fax machines, computer modems, voice mail and countless other electronic gadgets are gobbling up phone numbers here and elsewhere at a dizzying pace. The introduction of those conveniences (which to many have become necessities) is the driving force behind the changing area code. Welcome to the verge of the 21st Century. "All of these things have done so much to make our business easier and better that it would be a little bit hypocritical to criticize this when we have the additional benefits," says Charlie Shook, a small business owner in Lafayette. Shook, who heads the Shook Agency, a Better Homes & Gardens real estate franchise, says his employees rely on pagers, cell phones, faxes and even the Internet to do their jobs every day. Still, there's bound to be grumbling, especially when the change becomes permanent. Calls are not flooding into the state yet, says Cheryl Bickel, a spokeswoman for the IURC. But she expects complaints to hit the agency as June 27 draws closer. The map of the new area code looks like a lopsided diamond that surrounds Marion County. Everyone who falls within that diamond -- the owners of roughly 865,000 land-based and thousands of cellular phone numbers -- will remain in the 317 area code. That includes all Marion County lines. Everyone else now served by 317 gets the new 765 area code. Cellular users in the new area code may face the biggest hassles. Their phones actually must be reprogrammed by their cellular service providers. After reprogramming, land-based computer software will recognize and route cell calls using either area code during the grace period. Just like with land-based lines, however, the dual calling for affected customers ends June 27. The three cellular companies operating in the affected area, GTE Mobilnet, Ameritech Cellular and Cellular One, are making accommodations. GTE and Cellular One will be sponsoring special "reprogramming fairs" on weekends for the next five months. They will offer free reprogramming at those events. They're telling customers about the campaign through bill inserts, advertisements and special mailings. Ameritech is doing much the same, but will not sponsor special fairs. Instead, customers can bring their phones to Ameritech Cellular stores for free reprogramming any time. The phone companies also are working with large business customers to bring reprogramming equipment to offices throughout the area. ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:30:47 PST Forwarded to the Digest: Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:17:06 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger RELATED DOCUMENTS: * On-line Merger Information FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 31, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry Solomon, SBC Communications 210-351-3990 Lou Saviano, Pacific Telesis 415-394-3744 FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger SAN FRANCISCO -- The pending merger of SBC Communications and Pacific Telesis Group passed another regulatory milestone today when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved it unanimously and without conditions. "We're pleased that the FCC commissioners voted unanimously to approve and we look forward to completing the merger so we can provide more effective competition in California, particularly in the long-distance, international and wireless markets," said Phil Quigley, chairman and chief executive officer of Pacific Telesis Group. "Our merger is good news for California consumers wanting additional choices and combinations of services to meet their telecommunications needs." "The combination of SBC and Pacific Telesis will create a stronger world-class telecommunications company for our customers," said Edward E. Whitacre Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of SBC Communications. "As all telecommunications markets open to competition, we expect to be well-positioned to provide our customers with one-stop shopping convenience for advanced telecommunications services. "We recognize there are many important issues before the commission, and we appreciate its diligent review and approval," Whitacre said. The FCC's approval involved the transfer of hundreds of wireless licenses from Pacific Telesis to SBC, including Pacific Telesis' (PCS) licenses in California and Nevada. The FCC found that "the transfer will serve the public interest." The merger has been approved overwhelmingly by shareholders of both companies. In addition, the Nevada Public Service Commission has approved the merger, the U.S. Department of Justice found that the merger does not violate federal antitrust laws, and the California Attorney General has found that the merger will not lessen competition in California. Action by the California Public Utilities Commission is expected in March. SBC and Pacific Telesis announced their merger agreement April 1, 1996. Together, the two companies' 1996 revenues totaled $23.5 billion. The companies serve the nation's two most populous states and seven of its ten largest metropolitan areas. Pacific Telesis (NYSE:PAC) is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. Through its Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell subsidiaries, the corporation serves nearly 15.8 million access lines and offers Internet access services to both business and residential customers. Another subsidiary, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, has begun offering new wireless personal communications services (PCS) in the San Diego area, and will expand service in California and Nevada in 1997. SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) is one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies and the second-largest wireless communications company based in the United States. SBC's subsidiaries provide innovative telecommunications products and services under the Southwestern Bell and Cellular One brands. Its businesses include wireline and wireless services and equipment in the United States and interests in wireless businesses in Europe, Latin America, South Africa and Asia; cable television in both domestic and international markets; and directory advertising and publishing. ---------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: More on the X2/56K War Date: 31 Jan 1997 22:53:49 GMT Organization: Ripco Communications Inc. In article , Diamond Dave wrote: > I recently forwarded an article from comp.dcom.telecom to a person > (via E-mail) who posted on the X2/56K technology in another newsgroup. > This is what he had to say: > Thanks for the message. I think, however, that Mr. Richards is trying > desperately to convince his costomers that 56K is smoke and mirrors so > they won't force him to spend money to upgrade his equipment ... You read a lot into my message that isn't there -- rather rude, actually. Of course, you chopped out the bit where I said that we are considering Lucent's 'Flex' version, and have the equipment now to do 56K, but the recent FCC rulings confirm that it _is_ 'smoke and mirrors' for now ... >> 1. The "X2" protocol from US Robotics is NOT compatible with the K56Flex >> interoperable standard being developed by Lucent and Rockwell. The big >> push from USR is an attempt to grab market share and sell their expensive >> ISP-side equipment. > Of course, and so is the K56Flex "standard". The only thing that > makes one more "interoperable" and "standard" than the other is that > K56Flex has more companies (but not necessarily more market share) on > their side. Since my Courier will be upgradeable via a free flash to > the ultimate (and far down the road) standard, I don't see why this is > a problem. Of course, just because your Courier (a very good modem, I have one myself) will have a free flash upgrade to USR's 53K (per the FCC ruling) doesn't mean that the DSP has enough 'oomph' to meet whatever standard actually comes out of the ITU. >> 2. All of these protocols require OPTIMAL phone lines at the customer's >> side, and DIGITAL circuits from the CO into the ISP. This means: >> If you can't get a consistent 28.8 connection to your provider now, >> you will never get a 56K connection with the new modems. > This is not true. The demands of the ISP->user 56K link are very > different, both in terms of frequency range and in S/N ratio, than the > current V.34 standard. A line which can only get 26,400 with V.34 may > well get 56K with X2 (or K56Flex). And a line which can get 33,600 with V.34+ may well not get any advantage from 56K/X2. >> You will NOT be able to call your friends or (any other non-digital >> line- BBS, etc) and get connections above 33.6. > Absolutely true. But why should I still not want it for my ISP calls? > For me, the consumer, X2 is free. I realize that ISP's have to shell > out $, and that not all will, but that is the free market. Those that > don't may soon find their customer base eroding *if* the 56K stuff > catches on. >> 3. 56K requires all the same (expensive) resources on the provider's >> end as for ISDN. Each digital channel costs, on average, $30-$45 per >> month, plus several hundred dollars for equipment and installation, add the >> cost for bandwidth to the Internet, and see how long $19.95 unlimited >> access accounts are going to last... > This is wrong. My current ISP has 100% digital line interfaces and > pays nothing like $30-$45/mo. Either the pricing from your local Baby > Bell is way out of whack, or you are Read Boardwatch? (not the greatest magazine, but as an ISP they give me free issues). $30-$45/month for digital lines is not out of whack. >> In real life, X2 is going to have about the same impact on your connection >> speed as 33.6 has- you'll get and keep 28.8 connections more reliably, >> but the average user will see speeds above that once in a blue moon. > Only time will tell, but the "experts" I have consulted fully expect > many folks to benefit from X2. The real question is the number of D/A > and A/D transitions between the ISP and the consumer. If there is > only a single D/A conversion, then you *should* see much benefit from > 56K. What percentage of the modem-using public this constitutes, I > can't say. Exactly. 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 (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail! ------------------------------ From: jrmartin@super.zippo.com (Jeff Martin) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 07:25:07 GMT On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:53:52 GMT, kline@cyberenet.net (Marlon Brando) wrote: > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is > there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? > (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. > With reguards to my question, I just need to know if I'm asking the > phone co. for the correct line (without going ISDN$$$.) Mark, Just a shot in the dark, but can usually tell quite a bit. Try dialing your long distance access code before dialing, this way it routes thru their lines instead of the local telco. It will cost you but at least you'll be able to tell the difference between the connections. It's worked here in California (Pac Bell). Good luck. Regards, Jeff Martin jrmartin@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: m_hazel@enet.net (Mike Hazel) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: 31 Jan 1997 18:12:02 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet In article , kline@cyberenet.net says ... > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is > there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? > (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. > With reguards to my question, I just need to know if I'm asking the > phone co. for the correct line (without going ISDN$$$.) There are a number of things that may be impacting your circuit. Some people have identified pieces. So rather than quoting you all, I respond to the poster. 1) A 'conditioned' circuit is frequently referred to as a '3002' line, and was indentified earlier. This is normally tariffed as a business service, and priced accordingly. 2) The location of your problem may or may not be in the local loop on your end, as a 19.2-24k connection is not a -bad- connection. Some of the possibilities outside of your end of the loop: Number of CO's between you and your destination ... over 3 CO's will not normally carry 28.8k. Number of analog to digital transitions, 33.6 usually requires digital delivery at the terminating point. More Analog to Digital transitions means lower signal quality. TCoded carrier circuits ... not likely in BOC residentials, but possible. Finally, to directly answer your question, not really ... POTS is analog, nearly everything else is digital (ISDN, DDS, DS0, NT1, Frame Relay, SMDS..and on, and on, and on..) Mike Hazel Sr Systems Engineer CellularONE, SW Region ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Public Meetings/916 Area Code Relief Plan Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:14:09 PST Forwarded to the Digest: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:24:46 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: Public Meetings/916 Area Code Relief Plan FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael Heenan (916) 972-2811 Nancy Ray (916) 972-6604 Public Meetings Set on Proposals to Modify 916 Area Code Relief Plan Sacramento, Placer And El Dorado County Residents Could Be Impacted By Changes SACRAMENTO -- Residents and businesses will have an opportunity to voice their opinions on four proposals for changing the boundaries of the recently approved geographic split of the 916 area code at a series of public meetings in early February. The four proposals by telecommunications industry and government officials would adjust the boundaries of the reconfigured 916 and the soon to be created 530 area code in a variety of ways, potentially impacting the area code designation for thousands of residents and businesses in some or all of Placer County and parts of El Dorado and Sacramento counties. Last August, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a plan to split the 916 area code into two area codes -- 916 and 530, but subsequently received four petitions to modify those boundaries. As originally approved, the 916 area code would be reconfigured to cover most of Sacramento County, the south Placer County cities of Roseville, Loomis and Rocklin and the city of West Sacramento in Yolo County. The new 530 area code, which is scheduled to go into service November 1, 1997, would serve all or portions of 22 Northern California counties, previously served by 916. The new 530 area code is needed to meet the rapidly growing demand for new phone numbers in the 916 area code. Dates, locations of the meetings and phone numbers to call for more information are: Monday, February 3 Maidu Community Center 1550 Maidu Drive Roseville (916) 781-0690 Noon to 2 p.m. Monday, February 3 Holiday Inn 120 Grass Valley Hwy. Auburn (916) 887-8787 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday, February 4 El Dorado Hills Community Center Pavilion 1021 Harvard Way El Dorado Hills (916) 933-6624 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Customers unable to attend one of the meetings can send written comments by February 28, 1997, to: Director, Telecommunications Division California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave., Room 3210 San Francisco, CA 94102 CPUC Administrative Law Judge Timothy Kenney, who reviewed the boundary petitions, ordered the public meetings to give residents an opportunity to comment on the proposals. "Because each petition would, if adopted, affect thousands of people and many different government entities, the public should have an opportunity to provide input on the proposed changes to the 530/916 boundary," the judge wrote in his ruling earlier this month. The four petitions offer three different alternatives, since two of the petitioners support the same option. A fourth option has been proposed for consideration by Judge Kenney. Because an area code change has no impact on the price of calls, none of the proposals would impact call price. "Call distance determines call price," said California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett, who oversees area code relief on behalf of the telecommunications industry. "What is a local call today will remain a local call, regardless of the area code change." The four proposed boundary modifications are: * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to include Pleasant Grove, Lincoln, Newcastle, Penryn and the community of El Dorado Hills in the 916 area code. These changes were proposed in petitions both from the California Code Administrator and Roseville Telephone Company. The Code Administrator's petition was filed on behalf of the telecommunications industry and in response to requests from residents. * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to include the city of Auburn in the 916 area code. This change was proposed in a petition from the city of Auburn. If this petition is approved, it would result in some of the unincorporated area surrounding the city of Auburn and the Cool area in El Dorado County also remaining in the 916 area code because of wiring configurations. This would impact prefixes: 823, 883, 885, 886, 887, 888 and 889, which would remain in the 916 area code. * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to include all of Placer County in the 530 area code, instead of splitting the county into two area codes, 916 and 530. This change was proposed in a petition from Placer County officials. * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to place all of Placer County and the entire Roseville Telephone service area in the 530 area code. Since Roseville Telephone's service area covers parts of Placer and Sacramento counties, this option would also move the Sacramento County portion of Roseville Telephone's service area -- Citrus Heights, a small portion of Orangevale and most of Antelope -- out of the 916 area code and into the 530 area code. This was proposed for consideration by Judge Kenney. In proposing this option, the judge noted that one of the reasons for adopting the original 916/530 area code split boundary was to avoid dividing Roseville Telephone's serving area. "However, if Placer's petition is adopted, it would split Roseville's service territory between two area codes," he wrote. Consequently, the judge asked for comments on a fourth option that would place all of Roseville Telephone's service area in the 530 area code in the event Placer County's petition to move into the 530 is adopted. Bennett said he will report back to the Commission by late February with comments from the public meetings. A final decision on the boundary proposals is expected from the Commission by the end of March. ------------ Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #27 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Feb 2 13:41:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA21475; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:41:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:41:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702021841.NAA21475@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #28 TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Feb 97 13:41:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson All Circuits Busy in Seattle (Tad Cook) Does Anyone Make This Neat Little Phone Gadget? (Bob Yazz) Re: Ameritech Now Too Impatient For Dialing (Bob Yazz) Country Codes Profile For Turkmenistan; Former USSR Nations (Dave Leibold) Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal (Jock Mackirdy) Re: Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire (J. Bellaire) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Ed Ellers) PPP Transfered to Moldavia (From RISKS 18.80) (A. Padgett Peterson) Bell 103/212A Standards (Gordon A. Sterling) Call For Local Exchange Lists (Shawn Chandler) Time T (Expanded International Number Length); All Systems Go? (D Leibold) 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: All Circuits Busy in Seattle Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:05:41 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Business News : Feb. 1, 1997 US West: Busy-circuits fix won't be quick by Thomas W. Haines Seattle Times business reporter This could take awhile. That's what US West told a state regulatory agency yesterday about problems customers have had completing local phone calls in and around Seattle. In an eight-page letter to the Utilities and Transportation Commission, US West Vice President Scott McClellan said that the company is adding capacity to its network, but it does not expect the problem to be solved any time soon. The commission had sent a letter to US West on Jan. 24 outlining concerns that a significant number of customers were hearing "all circuits busy" recordings when trying to place calls. Nearly 50 people had complained to the commission directly. In its letter, the commission expressed concern that the blocked calls were caused by insufficient capacity leading to and from the main call switching center in downtown Seattle. The commission noted that an earlier US West report indicated that as many as 15 percent of the calls traveling over one part of the network routinely received the circuits busy message. State law requires US West, under normal circumstances, to ensure that 99.5 out of every 100 calls gets through. If not, it could be penalized up to $1,100 a day for each blocked call. In yesterday's response, McClellan denied the company was violating state law. The capacity problems, he said, could largely be attributed to increased call traffic from Internet users. The company has not been able to determine which calls are made by Internet users. But the number of calls attempted over one piece of the network increased to more than 650,000 on Jan. 5 from 340,117 in September, according to the company. Marilyn Meehan, spokeswoman for the commission, said the commission had hoped to find out exactly where the blocking problems are occurring and how bad they are. US West engineers are scheduled to meet with commission staff Feb. 10 to discuss the problems. The commission and US West have battled over rates since the commission denied a rate-increase request last April. An appeal to allow US West to raise residential and business rates will be heard by the state Supreme Court this spring. In his letter to the commission yesterday, McClellan criticized the commission for airing its concerns about US West service to the media without giving fair warning to the company. ------------------------------ From: yazz@pacbell.net (Bob Yazz) Subject: Does Anyone Make This Neat Little Phone Gadget? Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 15:32:54 -0800 Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: yazz@pacbell.net Keep the phone by your bed from ringing in the middle of the night! I don't make this gadget but I hope somebody does. It could be smaller than a cigarette lighter with a phone jack at one end and a 4-inch cord with phone plug at the other. It would have a digital clock and a way to specify which block of the 24-hour day the phone would be prevented from ringing. You'd have to buy one for each phone whose ringing you wanted to control. There's a second thing I'd like to control and direct calls coming into my home/office, but it's not so simple a gadget: Anyone got any communications management system to suggest? I'd want it to route calls based on all sorts of parameters like caller-id (including the unavailability of a number or it's intentional withholding), time and date, distinctive ring, and so forth. For identified numbers, I'd want to make decisions on the area code or other specific portions of the number. All these decisions could be made before the phone is answered, and the device would then route the still-ringing phone line to one of several destinations (at least 4) such as a particular answering machine or phone extension. At the January 97 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, I did see a system that would do these things and more -- the El Cid from Multi- Link in Nicholasville, Kentucky (I have nothing to do with the company), but it is not going to be available for months (and I'm a consumer, not a dealer). Hope you like these gadget ideas -- anyone know where these might be available now? Best Wishes, == Bob Yazz == ------------------------------ From: yazz@pacbell.net (Bob Yazz) Subject: Re: Ameritech Now Too Impatient For Dialing Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 15:53:05 -0800 Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: yazz@pacbell.net Gail M. Hall wrote: > A few months ago Ameritech "upgraded" our lines somehow. Ever since > then if I take the least little bit of extra time dialing a number, it > interrupts me and the voice tells me the call didn't go through. This > is in spite of the fact that I haven't dialed more than 3 or 4 numbers > yet. When a new "BCS" (software release) was installed in my local switch in the San Diego area, the same problem occurred. (It was a DMS switch.) The problem is that your local telephone company failed to program the switch with the correct timeout values. As is the case with most any slightly complex problem, normal repair was useless. I then did two things that had the problem fixed in just a few days -- I called a couple of local TV news stations and I posted an article that appeared here in the TELECOM Digest. The most dramatic television picture (TV news loves that, so mention this very early in your conversation with the media person) I could imaging was someone whose only way of dialing a phone was to put a stick in his mouth, and strain with his neck muscles as the merciless timeout told him he had failed Ameritech's new little "neck-to-eye" co-ordination game yet again. The TV news folks will have contacts within the Ameritech organization, and they can verify the shortness of the timeouts themselves in mere seconds. I also suspect they're in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Good luck in getting the behomoth to move; I think this is a very winnable battle. Best Wishes, == Bob Yazz == ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:54:58 EST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Country Codes Profile For Turkmenistan; Former USSR Nations Turkmenistan's own telephone country code of 993 should now be in full effect. This replaces access via country code 7, originally assigned to the now-defunct USSR by the ITU (or actually under the former CCITT name). Canada seemed to be one of the first nations to begin use of country code 993 for Turkmenistan. Stentor, the Canadian group of major telephone companies, filed a tariff notice with the national regulator (CRTC) to set new rates for Turkmenistan. This was to reflect the introduction of country code 993 in Canada. The CRTC approved the tariff which took effect 29 November 1996. According to Toby Nixon, it seems the Turkmenistan administration did not formally inform the ITU of the new country code until 8th January 1997. The announcement would likely have been in the ITU Operational Bulletin #636 of 15 January 1997. 993 was reportedly coming into effect 3 January 1997, with a "mandatory" dialing date of 3 April 1997 (the date at which calls can no longer be placed via country code 7). New area codes will be in use with the new Turkmenistan country code, according to a bulletin found on the Turkmenistan U.S. Embassy website (http://www.infi.net/~embassy/new.html): Place Old New Ashgabat (Ashkhabad) +7 363 2 +993 12 Charjou +7 378 22 +993 422 Mary +7 370 22 +993 522 Tashauz +7 360 +993 ??? Below is a summary of the country codes that have formed in the wake of the USSR dissolution. Kazakstan and Tajikistan do not appear to be splitting from country code 7 at this time. There are no known country code assignments for those nations. Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan have their own country code assignments, but I have no information on if these are in service yet or what implementation dates have been set. Russia seems to be keeping country code 7 so far, but one wonders if a single-digit country code will remain justified for a single nation. If 7 were changed to a two-digit country code (like 71 or 77), up to other 90 country codes would be available for assignment. In the table, "Effective" means the date at which the country code began service (which could vary according to the nation). "Mandatory" means the date at which the country code 7 is invalid for calls to that nation. There are a number of question marks since exact dates have not been collected in all cases. Contributions of additional or corrected information would be welcome here. Ex-USSR Country Codes Profile CC Nation Effective Mandatory Notes 370 Lithuania 1993? ??? Announced Jan 1993 371 Latvia 1993? ??? 372 Estonia 1 Feb 1993? March 1993? 373 Moldova 1993? ??? Announced Jan 1993 374 Armenia 1 May 1995 1 July 1995 Announced Jan 1995 (ITU) 375 Belarus 16 Apr 1995 1997? 380 Ukraine 16 Apr 1995 Oct 1995? 7 Kazakstan (no known changes) 7 Russia (presumably not changing) 7 Tajikistan (no known changes) 993 Turkmenistan 3 Jan 1997 3 Apr 1997 Canada as of 29 Nov 1996 994 Azerbaijan Sept 1994? ??? Announced 1992 995 Georgia 1994? ??? ref: Telecom Digest Oct 1994 996 Kyrgyz Republic ??? ??? Announced Sept 1995 (ITU) 998 Uzbekistan ??? ??? Announced 1996? (ITU) Information courtesy Toby Nixon, ITU, Stentor (Canada), TELECOM Digest (including information collected for the country code listings and the respective sources). David Leibold -+- dleibold@else.net ++ aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: David questions whether Russia (the former Soviet Union) should have a single digit country code in the form of '7'. He raises a good point, however I think the same question should be raised about the USA/Canada/Carribbean countries which use '1' to the exclusion of everyone else. I would prefer to see Canada and the USA on separate country codes, possibly of the form '12' and '13'. I suppose using '10' would be sort of confusing since we here in the USA have the option of dialing '10xxx' as part of a long distance number when we want the call routed to a partic- ular carrier, and having to dial something like 01110 or 01111 to reach Canada would be sort of a drag also. What sort of hassles would be caused for the Russian people if '7' was replaced with some two or three digit number beginning with '7'? Also I want to mention that David has recently forwarded to me an entirely new set of country code files presumably updated through early 1997. I intend to get these in the archives hopefully Sunday night or else Monday. My problem of late -- in case you had not noticed from the dearth of issues of the Digest and the scarcity of Editor's Notes since the start of this year has been that I had to take full time employment elsewhere and I get about an hour to work on this each day. Times will get better for me; they always have and they will again. I'll install his new files ASAP and you might want to get the revisions when they are available. Have I mentioned lately a corporate sponsor for the Digest -- like Micro- soft used to be -- would be a wonderful thing? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jock Mackirdy Subject: Re: Great European Renumbering Proposal Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 02:08:38 +0000 Reply-To: jockm@basluton.demon.co.uk In article on Thu, 30 Jan 97 04:44:09 GMT, hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) wrote: > During the renumbering of the Dutch Telephony Numbering Plan the same > type of code conflicts as you spotted in the European Commision plan > were possible in the permissive dialling period. These problems has > been resolved though by introducing a software feature in the switched > called "numbering length analysis". When the UK had ambiguous number lengths (and step-by-step switch routings) in the early days of national dialling, a four second timeout was applied when an ambiguous number was dialled. The down-side of this is that the post-dialling delay is increased (from virtually zero nowadays so a huge increase in delay as perceived by the user would result). It gets worse if the delay has to be repeated for further ambiguities later in the number. Jock Mackirdy Business Advisory Services Independent Telecomms and Business Advice Luton UK ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:26:51 EST From: James E Bellaire Subject: Re: Ameritech's Procrastination ... Indiana Down to the Wire > Thanks Jim, they weren't linked from the areacode page until the 29th, > tho ... Actually it was up on January 22nd, and linked to the /areacode page. At least for a few hours. I sent TD a short email (which thankfully went unpublished) and went back to reading the Ameritech pages and found that they had unlinked them. I didn't see any changes when they relinked them. I must have been checking while they were working and just got lucky to see a 'sneak preview'. > I also received voicemail from a spokesperson at Ameritech regarding > 765. She clarified a point that was not mentioned to anyone: The Indiana > PSC *changed* the original plan from what was filed, and the boundary > line shifted slightly here and there. She did mention, however, that the > plan was finalized a week before Christmas, and that they (Ameritech) > have been scrambling to get their printers producing on hardcopies of > planning info for customers (which became available only this week). The change to the original plan was the addition of Shelbyville and most of Shelby County, Southeast of Indianapolis. They had complained to PSC that they should be left in 317 because of business ties to Indy. There was an announcement in Indianapolis area news about this, and the news stories in November were saying that the PSC had approved the plan. I posted a TV news story to TD on November 14th, 1996. It was in TD615. I also changed the map on my Telecom Indiana page in late November. We on TELECOM Digest always seem to be one step (or more) ahead. >> BTW: I don't work for Ameritech. > Perhaps not, but take heart; they *ARE* watching... :-) If I did work for them, they would probably stop me from posting all the wonderful advance information that I have collected from the media. Everything I have posted has come from Newspapers, TV, or my own knowledge. I'm glad I'm not censored by them. 765 starts / started Saturday ... James E. Bellaire bellaire@tk.com Webpage Available 23.5 Hrs a Day!!! http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire/ ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: 1 Feb 1997 18:46:06 GMT Organization: Mikrotec Internet Services, Inc. (MISNet) Dave Sieg wrote in article : > While the technology is still far from proven in the field, and a > standard is still 12-18 months away, WOULDN'T IT BE INTERESTING if > ISP's "exercised their power" at least to the extent of saying: "This > stinks! Show me something that works and is a standard, and I'll buy > it, meanwhile I'm telling consumers they've been sold vaporware!" Yes, it would be interesting ... especially to the FTC. The prospect of a group of providers deciding among themselves *not* to offer a certain improved service to the public is exactly what the antitrust laws are supposed to prevent! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:59:54 EST From: A. Padgett Peterson Subject: PPP Transfered to Moldavia (From RISKS 18.80) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original article appeard in RISKS and did not appear in this Digest, however I know many of you read both journals. This is Padgett's reply to the original article. PAT] Is interesting to see all of the hoopla about the PPP calls being rerouted through Moldavia as a result of an executable "click here". Is the sort of thing am sure will pass into urban legend like the Iraqi printer virus. Have used Supra (plug) external modems for years, the display is handy to tell me what is going on (even tells baud rate of both TX and RX). Since is in my line of sight (deliberately), would probably notice such antics, particularly since I watch as after URLs and such are given to see progress - suddenly seeing "OK" followed by "DI" (dialing indicator) would make me curious. What I would really like to know is how the IP/DNS/gateway addresses are being recreated on the fly. This does not sound like a trivial effort. Is this built into Win95 or does only work for people who do not hardcode *anything* (my PPP assigns an address but the gateway/DNS is hardcoded.) (Well I could think of a way in Moldavia...). However,there is a very simple answer that would probably be effective that not one person in a million will use: the S2 register. Just change the 43 ("+") to something else like 126 ("~"). This is the "attention" character. Of course if Windoze 95 is as smart as you indicate then you would probably not want to tell it about the change (another nice thing about an external modem is the "OFF" switch). When you get down to the nuts and bolts, something just does not sound right (could be just ignorant, has happened before). Not saying that it is not theoretically possible but does not sound at all like an amateur effort. Of course since the header stream in any HTTP connection will give the connected host all sorts of information (OS type, directories, platform, Browser, etc.), it might be restricted to W95 and be a directed attack, not a generic one. S2 should still work since unless you hardcode it in somewhere (mentioned that would be a No-No), the program would have to get your modem's attention before it could ask it how to get its attention. (again could think of a way but not in this session). This sort of hardware/firmware (S2) answer to a software problem has always been around. S8=7 is a very simple way to avoid wardialers on a line that must be autoanswer but no-one bothers. Few even use CNID. Reminds me of the old song "Fools rush in..." ------------------------------ From: gordon.sterling@analog.com (Gordon A. Sterling) Subject: Bell 103/212A Standards Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 04:32:08 GMT Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Hello, I have been trying to find the original Bell 103 and 212A standards without success. I have called Bellcore, Lucent, Philips and several other standards houses, but they do not have any ideas or listings. Does anyone know where I might be able to find these standards, or even a hint at where to start! Thanks, Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 13:04:18 -0500 From: Shawn Chandler Subject: Call for Local Exchange Lists I'd appreciate it if everyone could help me out with a project I've been working on. After searching the Internet and countless phone calls to different phone companies, i was unable to get a database or book containing tables for determining whether a call from phone # xxx-xxxx was local to phone # yyy-yyyy. In the front of some phone books there are lists of local calling areas, ie if you live in area code 519 exchange 683, you can call local to area code 519 exchanges 351,352,354,355,359,380,436,627,692. What I am currently doing is compiling all the information I have into a database and program that can do local number look ups. What I'd really appreciate, is if everyone could look in their phone books and jot down the local calling areas for all the exchanges in their area. (If it's not in the phone book, just write down the ones you know of for sure from memory). I'd like to get the data for all of North America if possible. If you can, email the information to me in the following format: FromAreaCode,FromExchange,ToAreaCode,ToExchange so since 519-683 can call 519-627 locally, you would enter it as 519,683,519,627 if the call works locally in reverse too, enter it also as 519,627,519,683 (Entering it both ways is important because some areas are local one way, and long distance in the reverse). Thanks for everyones time and effort beforehand. I'll upload the prototype to the TELECOM Digest Archives when it is ready. Here is a web site that lists the local calling areas by location names (town, city) but unfortunately it does not have a cross reference by areacode/exchanges. http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/Information/NEST/technol/communic/lca/ Shawn Chandler schandler@ciaccess Tel 519-683-1062 Fax 519-683-1075 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:59:27 EST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Time T (Expanded International Number Lengths) - All Systems Go? With the New Year, Time "T" has elapsed. International number lengths (following overseas dialing prefixes such as 00+, 011+, 001+, etc.) can now be up to 15 digits in length (total of country code, area/routing code, subscriber number), increased from the previous 12-digit limit. Are there any Time "T" test numbers available, to check if carriers have properly expanded the international dialing capabilities? Are any nations using international numbers whose lengths already exceed the old 12-digit limit? David Leibold -+- dleibold@else.net ++ aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #28 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 3 09:10:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA10206; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:10:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702031410.JAA10206@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #29 TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Feb 97 09:10:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mon, 2/3, 9pm PBS History of Telephone (John Lundgren) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (Lynne Gregg) Destiny Telecomm & NC Settle (Gregory Boop) Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill (Mike King) Telecom Archives New Mirror Site (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Rich Hurd) Re: New Area Codes (BlakeD6450) 28k8 Fax/Modem Testers and Line Simulators/Emulators (Romke Kats) Telegraph Questions (Lee Winson) Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth (Erik Florack) Re: TWX 1961 Automation Plans (Bill Horne) 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: jlundgre@delta1.deltanet.com (John Lundgren) Subject: Mon, 2/3, 9pm PBS History of Telephone Date: 3 Feb 1997 01:10:58 GMT Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, Ca Monday night, Feb 3, 9PM on PBS American Playhouse will have The History of the Telephone, which should be interesting. Set your VCRs. | John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. | jlundgre@ | | Rancho Santiago Community College District | deltanet.com | | 17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 | http://www.rancho| [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bear in mind different cities and stations air this at different times. Check for local scheduling, however it is expected to be a good show. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: Mon, 03 Feb 97 10:21:00 GMT Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > As far as *I* am concerned, AT&T is *again* shooting itself in the > foot by contracting out and routing to this third party for directory! > Years ago, I would *never* have thought that *AT&T* would do such a > thing! AT&T has always subcontracted directory assistance service here in the U.S. to the local operating company (RBOC, LEC). Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 00:16:14 -0500 From: Gregory Boop Reply-To: gboop@pagesz.net Subject: Destiny Telecomm & NC Settle by Steve Swindell Raleigh - A long distance company based in California has agreed to change the way it does business in North Carolina and to pay the state $100,000 for its investigation of the matter; the state Attorney General's Office said Thursday. Destiny Telecomm, which markets prepaid tele- phone cards, was told in November that its oper- ation appeared to be a pyramid scheme and that it must stop doing business or face legal action, said Alan S. Hirsch, special deputy attorney general. The company agreed at the time to submit a marketing plan in compliance with state law. The company signed an agreement Thursday that meets that requirement, Hirsch said. The agreement specifies that at least 70 percent of the company's sales in the state will be to the general public, Hirsch said. The company was marketing the opportunity to sell three-hour phone cards for $100 each. People who bought the cards would then be able to sell the opportunity to sell more cards. Destiny Telecomm, based in Oakland, Calif., started recruiting people in North Carolina in early 1996. The company had about 15,000 representatives in North Carolina, who had sold about 17,000 phone cards. The low average number of cards sold per representative was part of what led the Attorney General's Office to begin its investigation in May. The company also agreed Thursday to document its compliance at least monthly and to cease operations if it failed to comply. In paying the $100,000, the company did not admit its operations were illegal under the old plan, but agreed to reimburse the state for its costs in the investigation and in enforcing the new agreement. -------------- ****My comments: Three hour phone cards for 100 bucks. **** Let's do the math $100/180minutes = 55 cents a minute sounds pretty pricey ... ** Any unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address will be ** ** subject to a $500 processing fee. Sending mail to this address, ** ** manually or automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms. ** Greg Boop * Telecom Engineer * Cary, N.C. * gboop@pagesz.net ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 20:07:30 PST Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:47:33 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill FOR MORE INFORMATION: Pamela Corante (213) 975-0406 Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill February 97 Launch Expected to Significantly Improve Service to Spanish-Speaking Customers LOS ANGELES --Gilda Rozsahegyi, a service representative at Pacific Bells Premier Customer Service Center in Alhambra, receives scores of phone calls every day from Spanish-speaking customers who have questions about their phone bill. They call primarily because the billing can be difficult to understand if English is not their primary language, she says. We help translate it for them over the phone. The high percentage of Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers in Pacific Bells service area is one reason the telecommunications company consistently monitors the needs of these customers. In a series of recent focus groups, customers unanimously expressed their desire for a bilingual bill. To meet this demand and better serve its Spanish-speaking client base, Pacific Bell will roll out its first bilingual phone bill in February 1997. Nearly 940,000 Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers statewide will automatically receive the new bilingual version of the phone bill in February. These are customers who have previously expressed a preference that Pacific Bell communicate with them in their native language. Pacific Bell will accommodate the requests of customers who decide they do not want the bilingual phone bill, and will provide the bilingual bill to any customers who wish to receive it. Pacific Bell regularly upgrades its service to meet the needs of its diverse customer base, said Carmen Nava, Pacific Bell Vice President of Diverse Markets Group. The bilingual bill will dramatically improve our service to Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers and complement our existing Spanish-language bill inserts, pamphlets, product brochures and newsletters. The new bilingual bill is a milestone in customer service to Pacific Bells Hispanic consumer base. The fact that the bill is bilingual will greatly accomodate the needs of multilingual households with some members who prefer receiving materials in their native language and others who are more comfortable with the English language. Now, customers will receive a phone bill that is much easier to understand and will alleviate some confusion. Research indicates that Pacific Bells Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers are extremely satisfied with the companys ethnically-focused customer service operations. Pacific Bell continues to monitor the marketplace to see if new services, such as billing in other languages, are warranted. Those customers who have already expressed a language preference will automatically receive the bilingual bill in February. All other Pacific Bell residential customers who wish to receive the bilingual bill may request it by calling 1-800-870-5855. Business customers may call 1-800-300-2733 to request bilingual billing. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of the Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified telecommunications company based in San Francisco. --------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 03:34:13 GMT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Telecom Archives New Mirror Site Jim Roberts has kindly agreed to install a mirror of the Telecom Archives to provide ftp access for users who are unable to get access here at lcs.mit.edu and this mirror is up and running as of today. FTP access is available at ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives Tnanks very much Jim! Archives users, please check this out and respond to Jim with comments and questions. PAT ------------------------------ From: me@where.i.am (Rich Hurd) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: Mon, 03 Feb 97 03:30:17 GMT Organization: run in circles, scream and shout In article , kline@cyberenet.net wrote: > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is > there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? > (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. I found a great web site dealing with the problems with USR courier modems that do a lot of re-negotiation. It may be the line, but it might be your modem too. Try opening http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq.html and seeing what kind of info his page can help you with. r/h rahurd@poboxes.com / ICT Associates __/ "I've been ionized, but I'm okay now." Easton, PA USA / -- Buckaroo Banzai / My address has been fictionalized in the header. Use the sig address to reply. ------------------------------ From: blaked6450@aol.com (BlakeD6450) Subject: Re: New Area Codes Date: 3 Feb 1997 05:11:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > Out of curiosity -- does anyone know how much of the US is served by > old crossbar equipment? I thought by now that most all the US had > converted to ESS or DMS100 (or similar) equipment. My guess is that only a very small percentage of the US is still served by the old type of equipment. For example: my mother lives in a small town in rural Western Tennessee, served by an independent telco (Century Telephone), in a town of about 2,000. And that area is served by, if not the latest switching equip.(And I think it is), at least electronic equipment (I know it's not crossbar equipment). The town has caller ID available, and all other CLASS services. The same goes for all areas of Tennessee & Mississippi that I'm familiar with (Both Bellsouth and Independent). If rural areas of Tenn. & Miss. are up to date then I would think the majority of the US would be also. I know that the Bellsouth area seemed to embrace the new switching technology (at least in rural areas), faster than some other areas of the country. (I know of some areas served by Southwestern Bell in Arkansas and Missouri that didn't convert until about 4-5 years ago.) I still think most of the country, both rural and urban have been updated. Aside from technical issues though, I think the idea of 8 digit local numbers should be considered, but not nationwide. Why couldn't we have a European-like system. Where more digits (8) are assigned in major metro areas, and leave the rural and smaller metro areas with 7 digits, until they need 8? Or better yet, require 8 in major metros, and permissive dialing of all 10 everywhere? Or even better, have nothing to do with 8 digits (Which would set the North American telephony world on its ear). Go to 10 digits mandatory in major metro areas (with overlays) with 7 digits elsewhere with 10 digits optional? I can't believe the uproar over this. To hear some people, you'd think the world would come to an end, if they had to dial an extra 3 digits. Oh, what a rough life that would be :-). Just my 2 cents worth. ------------------------------ From: Romke Kats Subject: 28k8 Fax/Modem Testers & Line Simulators/emulators Date: 02 Feb 1997 14:37:02 GMT Organization: Philips Electronics N.V. We are going to test/compare modems 28K8 very soon and I have been looking at Modem testers and Line simulators. The only two test systems I could find for proper Modem Test are: TSC 700/701/702 and the TAS Series II Line emulator. The Tests I am looking for are: V.34 Basic Central Office simultaion/emulation pulse/tone dailing ITU (CCITT) V.56 EIA TSB-37/38 PCM/ADPCM transfere rates/ abbility of compression. Country dependancy Local loop simulation etc.. Q: Does anyone have any experience with these two systems? Q: Does anyone know advantages/disadvantages of these systems? Q: Which one of these is most commenly used? Q: Are there any other systems I could use? Any informations is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Romke Kats Philips Semiconductors TriMedia Eindhoven Email: kats@ehv.sc.philips.com ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Telegraph Questions Date: 03 Feb 1997 00:21:16 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS In old movies, when they're reading from a telegram, they use the word "stop" between sentences. Yet, didn't Morse code and Teletypewriters have punctuation, so there was no need for a full word? Indeed, I recall reading in a 1948 secretary's book _not_ to use the word "stop" in telegrams. Would anyone know if they really did use the word "stop" in telegrams, and if so, why did they and when did they stop? Speaking of telegrams, in old movies they are mentioned quite frequently, indeed, people appear to send telegrams in situations where today we'd use long distance telephone. I know years ago Long Distance was very expensive -- could I assume telegraph rates were relatively cheap? (Now an oral Western Union telegram is quite expensive , delivery, if available, is even more.) Anyway, I guess at some point long distance phone rates declined to the point where it became cheaper to telephone rather than telegraph. Would anyone know approximately when that was? Lastly, today, given how expensive they are, why would anyone use a telegram? I would guess only when you need to send a "certified" message in a hurry, that is, the equivalent of a Certified Letter (official proof of receipt), which you can't get from a fax. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 06:47:10 PST From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Erik Florack) Subject: Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth glhpx10!j-grout@uunet.uu.net (John R. Grout) writes in response to Monty Solomon : >> The second panel ended up talking about various technologies and >> economic incentives to take POTS, ISDN or other digital calls off the >> circuit switched network at the central office, and send the data via >> packet switched networks to the ISPs. PacBell wants to charge ISPs >> about $45 per "port" for the equivalent of an incoming and modem for >> this service, which is more than what they pay now for POTS and a >> modem or ISDN. ... >> We suggested PacBell provide the FCC with data from their own ISP showing >> the percent of subscribers that can connect at any one time, and compare >> this to capacity of the PacBell voice network. > I think both of these are important points to consider when an LEC > like PacBell is also acting as an ISP. As was reported last year in > c.d.t, San Jose State University has outsourced their ISP function to > PacBell, allowing people around the San Francisco Bay Area to call > local modem banks for access to the SJSU network. My compliments to John. We are in apparent agreement on this point. Money, clearly, is the issue. The LEC's cries of capacity problems because of the internet, certainly take on new meaning when one considers that we never hear about what the LEC plans to do about internet traffic generated by it's own ISP operations. All we hear is loud complaints about the *competition* to the LEC's and their ISP traffic ... say, AOL, for example, or, C$. Don't LEC's ISP operations take roughly as much overall bandwidth as anyone else's? Looks from here like the LEC's don't mind jamming the switch with ISP traffic, so long as it's *their* ISP, hmmm? (sigh) > One major source of potential profit for such outsourcing contracts is > that Pac Bell could route modem traffic off the voice network at each > CO onto its own co-located modem banks, terminal servers, and Internet > routers (reducing the use of the circuit-switched network between > COs). > As an alternative to paying "port" charges, shouldn't independent ISPs > be allowed to co-locate their own Internet POPs (points of presence) > on LEC premises? Again, my compliments. This would appear to be among the more constructive comments I've heard in some time on this topic. I can see only one fly in the ointment; the one you started with ... the amount of money charged by the LEC to the competeing ISP on a per-POP basis. I mean, the LEC would still want money for each POP, and likely an ASP surcharge, I'd think. Do you have any suggestions around this one? Or am I missing an important point in your logic? Past that, It'd work, I think, to everyone's advantage. The voice network would get relief, the data network would get an infrastructure boost ... everyone benefits. The fatal flaw, of course, is that it seems to make good sense. (You may recall, I've already been informed that telcos don't run with common sense ... grin) /E ------------------------------ From: bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne) Subject: Re: TWX 1961 Automation Plans Date: 02 Feb 1997 17:18:51 GMT Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA martin@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu wrote: > I am curious about how the speed and code converters worked. > Were they electromechanical, solid-state, or did they use vacuum tubes? > When one thinks about the technology of 1960, the problems > presented by the thought of a duel world of four-row and three-row > teleprinters seem quite daunting. > In the first place, the four-row machines used ASCII which is > pretty much as we know it today. The three-row machines used Baudot > whose 5-bit characters bear not even a passing resemblance to their > 8-bit ASCII counterparts. Baudot machines speak in upper case, but > the big problem is that there is a special character that shifts the > printer in to "Figures" mode so that qwertyuip now reads 1234567890 > and all the other keys on the keyboard send various punctuation marks > or do such things as ring the bell, (shifted S). When one was through > ringing the bell or sending numbers, the "Letters" symbol was sent to > return the printer to normal operation. The dual case problem wasn't unique to Teletype(r) machines: the original IBM EBCD code was a six-level set with SHIFT and UNSHIFT signals. It was used in the "Selectric" printers that airlines had at their counters: in fact, TYMNET used to (or perhaps still does) provide automatic speed and code conversion for these machines when they were equipmped for dialup. The first printer I used for my Heath H89 had this character set: it was an Anderson-Jacobson 841 I bought at the MIT surplus market. I can tell you all you'll ever want to know about writing device drivers for Z80 micros running CP/M - but I digress. If the far end (3-row TWX) operator forgot to send the LTRS code, the machine would continue in Figures mode, producing gobbledegook that required a special "cheat sheet" to decode. Some machines (I think it was the entire TELEX network, but it might have been just European machines) had a feature called "unshift on space", so that they'd go to LTRS mode after every spacebar push. International traffic via TWX/TELEX gateways caused unusual interactions: if the US was the originating end, and sent columns of numbers, the receiving set would downshift after every column! That meant the originator had to send a FIGS command after every space, or the recipient had to disable the function for that message. > The code/speed converters had to have enough intelligence to > do this as well as translate the ASCII letters in to Baudot characters > and remember to send the "Figures" or "Letters" symbols when required. > Of course, the converter also had to understand the Baudot system so > that it could send the right ASCII characters. 4-row users had a list of "unusable" characters that would be either ignored or converted (I don't recall which) when sent to a 3-row machine. Of course, unusual problems arose: if a technician on a 3-row machine sent an "RY" tape, the converter would repeat "RY" to the 4-row machine. That was not, however, the desired effect: "RY" in Baudot is a series of alternating marks and spaces, but the ASCII equivalent is different. > When four-row machines were talking to three-row'ers, there > also had to be a buffer to temporarily store the information since the > receiving machines were running at 60 WPM and the transmitters were > chattering along at 100 WPM. It wasn't much of a buffer: the 4-row machines had special modems, which could detect the presence of BOTH mark and space tones from the conversion office. When both tones were received at once, the 4-row machine would turn off it's tape sender and light the "RESTRAIN" light to tell the operator not to type until the 3-row machine had caught up. If I remember correctly, some 4-row machines had an optional keyboard lock during RESTRAIN. > I thought that it was interesting that the plan to switch to > the newer four-row machines mentioned the cost of the code/speed > converters. Nowadays, something like that could probably be done with > a hand full of integrated circuits costing less than $100.00 and you > could probably have changed the whole network over to the faster speed > and put one of the converters on each of the old machines so that they > would look like the new ones to the rest of the net. Compared to the cost of training typists for the 3-row model 28/32 machines, it was cheap even then. Bill Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #29 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 4 23:57:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA23408; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:57:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:57:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702050457.XAA23408@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #30 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Feb 97 23:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Global 800 Numbers (Tad Cook) Sprint Submits Access Reform Proposal to FCC (Al Hays) Fax Spam! (Tad Cook) GSM vs CDMA Technical Seminar (Konny Zsigo) Wayland MA, Screwed by DPU (Ken Levitt) Re: Telegraph Questions (Nils Andersson) Re: Telegraph Questions (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. * ************************************************************************* 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: Global 800 Numbers Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:36:56 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Companies Call In Requests for Global 800 Numbers By Jon Van, Chicago Tribune Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News CHICAGO--Feb. 4--Toll-free phone service, fabulously successful in the United States, is about to go global. But it's not clear if you'll soon be dialing 800 EAT SNAIL to order food delicacies from France or 800 FOR OOOMPA to buy musical tapes from Germany. International toll-free dialing is far more complex than its domestic counterpart, but even so, tens of thousands of businesses have applied to get the numbers, say long-distance phone carriers. While vanity numbers that spell out words have been hugely popular for 800 service in North America, concerns hoping to do business with one number for several foreign countries probably won't spell out words, said Patricia Sieh, a spokeswoman for AT&T Corp. "In most other countries, they don't have letters on the telephone touch pad, so you can't spell out words," Sieh said. "And in France, they do have letters, but they start over the first pad instead of the second as we have in North America. So spelling words still doesn't work the same way." Large international phone companies began signing up customers for international 800 service last September in a process that ended last weekend. Customers could apply through their phone company to the International Telecommunications Union in Geneva, Switzerland, for the numbers they want. The international toll-free service will use 800 followed by eight digits instead of the seven-digit format used in the United States and Canada. The 800 is preceded by a country's international access dial, which is 011 in the United States. In the next few months, applicants will learn if they got the numbers they sought, Sieh said. If two or more applicants sought the same number, the international body will follow pre-established guidelines to award the number. There are already toll-free numbers in most industrialized countries, but they are different from one country to the next. The new service will make it much easier for companies to advertise a single number. "If you want to check with your airline, it'll be easier to know just one number that you can use whether you're in Germany, France or the United Kingdom," said Alan Garratt, a spokesman for MCI Communications Corp. The new system is good only for international calls and won't affect existing domestic toll-free services. The first round of applications for international 800 numbers has been rather quiet as major carriers contacted customers to explain the service, AT&T's Sieh said. "It's been an educational campaign rather than a marketing campaign," she said. "We didn't have to market it because we know people want it, but it takes a lot to explain how it works." The second phase of international 800 numbers promises to attract more attention as smaller phone companies join the fray. One international carrier, USA Global Link, based in Fairfield, Iowa, launched its marketing campaign Monday with ads in {The Wall Street Journal}. Now that the initial application phase is complete, subsequent applicants will be given international 800 numbers on a first-come, first-served basis. USA Global Link is urging American companies with popular domestic 800 numbers to apply for similar numbers for international use, even if they aren't now marketing their products globally. "If they don't protect their number now, they may never have a chance again," said Ginger Taylor, director of strategic operations for USA Global Link." The international 800 numbers will initially work in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. ------------------------------ From: Al Hays Subject: Sprint Submits Access Reform Proposal to FCC Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:16:31 -0600 SPRINT SUBMITS INNOVATIVE ACCESS REFORM PROPOSAL TO THE FCC WASHINGTON, Jan. 29, 1997 -- Sprint today submitted to the FCC a comprehensive proposal for access reform which will result in lower long distance rates. At the same time, the proposal distributes the costs of access in a more economically rational manner during the first phase of access reform. Leon Kestenbaum, Vice President for Federal Regulatory Affairs said, "Sprint has provided the Commission with what we think is a very well-balanced approach to access reform. Clearly the burden should not be placed on one sector of the industry. We have in the past taken on the role of 'honest broker' because of our unique role as both local and long distance service providers, and we feel that we have achieved an even-handed approach to much needed reform." The following measures are what Sprint proposes the Commission adopt to restructure access rates: o Immediately transfer all carrier common line and non-traffic sensitive switching costs to the Subscriber Charge. o Require all the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) under price cap regulation to submit cost studies reflecting total element long-run incremental costs (TELRIC), and to transition their usage-sensitive switching charges and transport charges to TELRIC levels within five years. o Apply the annual price cap productivity factor against the transport interconnection charge (TIC) until it is reduced to zero. In the meantime the TIC should not be assessed in cases where the transport is provided by an alternative access vendor. o Any increase in explicit universal service funds received by an ILEC should be offset dollar for dollar by reductions in the TIC and in the difference between current and TELRIC-based rates for usage-sensitive switching and local transport. These steps would immediately reduce the cost of interstate access charges by nearly one-half, would place only a modest additional burden on the fixed monthly charges paid by end users, and would give the ILECs a brief period of time to adjust to a new legal and competitive environment and to manage their remaining above-cost charges down to a cost-based level. Sprint estimates that at the end of this transition, the access charges paid by long distance carriers would be only one-fourth of present levels. These reductions in access charges would facilitate further reductions in long distance rates for consumers, and for many consumers, these lower toll rates would more than offset the slightly higher fixed monthly charges. Sprint also strongly cautioned the Commission against allowing the RBOCs to provide long distance service in-region before access charges are reduced to TELRIC levels. Such a move would permit the RBOCs to engage in an anti-competitive price squeeze. Sprint is a global communications company -- at the forefront in integrating long distance, local and wireless communications services, and the world's largest carrier of Internet traffic. Sprint built and operates the United States' only nationwide all-digital, fiber-optic network and is the leader in advanced data communications services. Sprint has $12.8 billion in annual revenues and serves more than 15 million business and residential customers. Contact: Eileen Doherty, 202-828-7423 E-mail: Eileen.B.Doherty@mail.sprint.com Alan H. Hays The Mark Travel Corporation Senior Telecommunications Analyst 8097 N. Port Washington Road Voice:414-934-2600 Fax:414-351-5837 Post Office Box 1460 EMail: ahays@marktravel.com Milwaukee, WI 53201-1460 ------------------------------ Subject: Fax Spam! Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 23:27:12 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Colorado-Based Businesses Fight Unsolicited Facsimile Messages By Jane Turnis, The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.--Feb. 3--Rob Sachs' home office has been invaded. Sachs, who owns Sachs Marketing Resources, was thumbing through a business magazine last month when he saw an advertisement for a marketing-services book that piqued his interest. He called to place an order, and the company also asked for his fax number. He gave it. Then he went on a business trip. But while he was gone, strange things were happening in his office. "While I was in Palm Springs, my fax-paper roll ran out, and I started getting messages from clients saying, `Your fax machine is giving us an error; it's out of paper,' " Sachs said. He called his wife and asked her to put more paper in the machine. When she went into his office, she saw them. Faxes. Everywhere. They had dollar signs, flames and a plethora of exclamation marks. "Shaa-zam!! Multi-Billion $$$ Industry," one screamed. "EARN $400 DAILY! ONLY $50 TO START!" shrieked another. One, hawking "The HOTTEST Recruiting Audio Tape of 1997!" featured a giant picture of a dust mite, with the words, "Guess Who's Sleeping in YOUR Bed?? You MITE Be Shocked!!" They came from different companies offering different multilevel- marketing plans and get-rich-quick schemes. And they kept coming. Sachs has received one or two a day for three weeks now. "These people are buying a fax list like companies buy mailing lists," said Sachs. (His name rhymes with fax.) At the bottom of some of the faxes is a note: "You were referred to us as someone who might be interested in a Home Based Income Opportunity. However, if this is not true, call (800) 424-2678 and you'll be removed. Please accept our sincere apology." But in many cases, the only way Sachs could stop receiving further faxes was by faxing the company back and paying for a long-distance call. Some of the calls were to Florida, Connecticut, Tennessee, Maryland and Virginia -- states all different from the faxes' origination point. "If you don't get off the list, you're in the fax twilight zone," Sachs said. Unfortunately, the only way to get off fax calling lists is to fax back. "There's an address you can write to keep unsolicited mail from coming to you, but fax numbers are a whole different thing because they're so new," said an employee at the Colorado Attorney General's Consumer Protection Unit. "We get a lot of complaints about this." Beginning in 1992, the Federal Communications Commission banned the transmission of unsolicited advertisements to fax machines. "No person may transmit an advertisement describing the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services to a telephone facsimile machine without the prior express permission or invitation of the party receiving the facsimile," the rule states. Any message sent to a fax machine must clearly mark the date and time of transmission, identity of the sender, and telephone number of the sender or sending machine. Beyond faxing or calling the sender back, about all fax victims in Colorado can do is file complaints with the state attorney general's office. Sachs said the number of faxes he's receiving is dropping off now, but in the meantime, he's armed himself. He typed up a note telling the company to remove his fax number from its list and keeps it next to the fax machine. "As soon as they come in, I fax that out," he said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:44:52 EST From: Konny Zsigo Subject: GSM vs CDMA Technical Seminar THE GREAT DEBATE GSM vs CDMA February 26 - 27 - 28, 1997 The Embassy Suites Hotel San Francisco, CA A technical workshop to explore both GSM & CDMA technologies. Sponsored by Zsigo Wireless More details available at http://www.zsigo.com 800-594-5102 or 517-337-3995 telephone Program Overview ---------------- There is currently great interest in CDMA and PCS1900 systems as two of the technology choices for upcoming PCS services. These digital systems are considerably more complex than their analog counter parts. In this tutorial we will discuss the technical aspects of both of these systems including the physical layer characteristics, network performance characteristics, and the various estimates on system capacity and the assumptions involved in such estimates. The quantitative effect of various different assumptions which have been made in previous analyses will be explained, so you can learn why various previous estimates differ so significantly. We will clearly identify factors in comparative system analysis which are inherent features of the two technologies and distinguish them from features which are included in the system but which are either optional for the system operator or which could be designed in or designed out without affecting the basic aspects of comparison. We will investigate several important facets of both system designs, including: - The GSM frequency hopping system. - The CDMA multiple access technique. - The forward and reverse links. Why are they different? - Inter-cell and intra-cell interference - various models. - Power control. - Required operating value of SNR and its relationship to the cellular environment. - Network capacity and its dependence on the environment and multi-path propagation. - The Rake receiver, pilot tones, pilot tone tracking, cell size. - Physical layer parameters of IS-95 and PCS-1900. - Significance of spread spectrum vs. frequency hopping on fading and channel quality. - Soft handoff vs. seamless handoff vs. hard handoff. - Various cell cluster frequency plans and use of sectored and directional antennas. - Speech coders and speech quality. - Design aspects which permit longer standby and transmit time from the handset battery between recharges. Telecommunications technology is now growing in areas which were recently the very specialized and arcane province of only a few experts. Today a large number of telecom industry people, regardless of their technical background, must understand these technologies and make responsible decisions based on their understanding. This presentation puts you in that position. The Logistics ------------- The Great Debate will be held in San Francisco, CA on February 26, 27 & 28, 1997 at: The Embassy Suites Hotel San Francisco Airport - Burlingame 150 Anza Boulevard Burlingame, California 94010 Phone: 415-342-4600 Fax: 415-342-8109 Dr. Richard Levine, Sc.D. ; Concentrating on GSM ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Richard Levine is an Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He has lectured frequently on digital radio access technologies and has consulted for numerous telecommunications firms on this subject. Dr. Levine will focus his presentation on GSM and PCS-1900. Although this presentation does not cover IS-136, significant points of comparison to that additional TDMA technology will be drawn where appropriate. Prof. Elvino Sousa, Ph.D. ; Concentrating on CDMA -------------------------------------------------- Professor Elvino Sousa teaches at the University of Toronto in the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering. He has worked in the area of spread spectrum communications since 1983. He has also given numerous short courses, seminars, and special presentations in the areas of mobile communications and CDMA at the major IEEE conferences in wireless communications and industrial and University research Labs in various countries. At the University of Toronto he leads a group working in the area of wireless communications and CDMA. Prof Sousa will focus his presentation on CDMA. We are fortunate to have two independent members of academia who are both actively involved in the evolution of digital airlinks. You will hear a comprehensive and unbiased presentation of two technologies in a public forum. Sessions will begin at 8:00 am in the Santa Cruz room. Breakfast and Lunch will be provided. Zsigo Wireless has blocked rooms for this event. To receive our discounted rates of $150/single or $165/double, please mention Zsigo Wireless when making your reservations. We would be happy to assist you in making your room reservation or you can call the hotel direct. The EMBASSY SUITES SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT BURLINGAME is located directly on the San Francisco Bay. Five minutes south of San Francisco International Airport and an easy 20 minutes from downtown, convenient to CTIA. Free airport shuttle available. Konstantin J. Zsigo, President Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants, Inc. 2875 Northwind Drive, Suite 232, East Lansing, MI 48823 517-337-3995 (phone); 517-337-5012 (fax) kjz@zsigo.com Check out our web site at http://www.zsigo.com Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants provides training and consulting services to wireless carriers and manufacturers in North America. Since 1989, we have provided technical and marketing insights to over 10,000 industry professionals. We concentrate on advanced technologies (such as CDPD, CS/CDPD, cellular modems, GSM, TDMA and CDMA) with programs ranging from customer service to sales to engineering. Zsigo Wireless is the proud sponsor of the industry's most prestigious trade exposition and conference, CelluCommEXPO. CelluCommEXPO '97, Scottsdale, May 19-21, 1997 CelluCommEXPO '98, Dallas, May 4-6, 1998 ------------------------------ From: Ken Levitt Organization: Vet's Pet Veterinary & Kennel Software Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:37:12 -0500 Subject: Wayland MA, Screwed by DPU Wayland Massachusetts sits directly on the border of the proposed 508/978 area code split. It is a mostly residential community with about 6000 phone lines in use. What makes Wayland unique is that even though there is already a Wayland phone exchange (358), more than half (more like 2/3) of the phone lines in town are services by exchanges from the MUCH larger towns of Natick and Framingham. When the state killed the idea of an overlay area code, Nynex proposed a split which had Wayland, Natick, and Framingham in the new 978 area code. This solution would have balanced the load between 508 & 978 and kept the status quo in regards to Wayland still having most of it's lines serviced by exchanges in other communities. This situation has existed since the 50's and cause no problems. However, the politicians and other special interests managed to get Natick and Framingham put back into 508 causing a 60/40 imbalance between the two area codes and leaving Wayland hanging in the middle. Local politicians faced with the prospect of having 2 different area codes in the same small town opted to have all of the town in 978. The general public was never made aware that this would require 2/3 of the town to not only get a new area code but a new exchange as well. The DPU told town officials that people would get to keep their same last 4 digits, but my investigations indicate this is not always possible. Nynex plans to only add 1 new exchange for the people in south Wayland. Given that there are currently 7 Natick exchanges and 20 Framingham exchanges, there are bound to be some duplicates in the last 4 digits. Almost nobody was aware of the prospect of losing our phone numbers until about a week ago. (I have had the same home number for 25 years and the same business number for 15.) People in town now agree that we need to keep all of Wayland in 508 and keep our old numbers. The DPU's position is that there was plenty of time for public comment and their decision is final. They say that 508 already has too much of the load and they can't unbalance it any further. My position is that all of the publicity around the public hearings centred around the split vs overlay issue and there was no mention of losing our phone numbers until a week ago and the public had no opportunity to be herd on this issue. My talks with Nynex seem to indicate that they don't really care one way or the other. I want to fight this decision, but I'm not sure if I can make a difference. I have contacted all of our elected officials but they don't seem to anxious to get overly involved in this issue. It looks like the deadline for filing an appeal is 2/13/97. Any advice on how to fight this would be appreciated. Ken Levitt Vet's Pet Veterinary & Kennel Software Levitt@VetsPet.com http://www.VetsPet.com ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Date: 3 Feb 1997 20:22:37 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > Lastly, today, given how expensive they are, why would anyone use a > telegram? I would guess only when you need to send a "certified" > message in a hurry, that is, the equivalent of a Certified Letter > (official proof of receipt), which you can't get from a fax. Yes indeed. As late as in the seventies, international phone calls were so expensive that for a short message a telegram was lots cheaper. Now, the main reasons to use a telegram are: 1) To have a verified send (as you suggest); 2) If the addressee does not have a phone, or cannot be reached by phone for some secondary reason, even trivial ones like the phone being left off-hook intentionally or unintentionally. I once participated in sending a telegram to a person who was too deaf to understand an important message over the phone. 3) In some contries, used for congratulations or condolances, leaving a permanent record (somewhat similar to 1) above. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 18:06:46 GMT Organization: Honeywell, Inc. - DAS lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) wrote: > Speaking of telegrams, in old movies they are mentioned quite > frequently, indeed, people appear to send telegrams in situations > where today we'd use long distance telephone. I know years ago Long > Distance was very expensive -- could I assume telegraph rates were > relatively cheap? (Now an oral Western Union telegram is quite > expensive , delivery, if available, is even more.) Anyway, I guess at > some point long distance phone rates declined to the point where it > became cheaper to telephone rather than telegraph. Would anyone know > approximately when that was? PBS has been running a documentary on the history of the telephone. One of the comments they made was that AT&T set rates for the first long distance calls to be 1/5th the cost of a train ticket between the respective points. They cited an example between two east coast cities, but I don't recall what it was. Ken Jongsma kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems, Albuquerque, NM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #30 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 5 03:38:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA06425; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 03:38:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 03:38:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702050838.DAA06425@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #31 TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Feb 97 03:38:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telegraph Questions (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Telegraph Questions (John R. Grout) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (Lou Jahn) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (John R. Covert) Re: Country Codes Profile For Turkmenistan; Former USSR Nation (B Goudreau) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Eric Elder) 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: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:58:14 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > In old movies, when they're reading from a telegram, they use the word > "stop" between sentences. Yet, didn't Morse code and Teletypewriters > have punctuation, so there was no need for a full word? Indeed, I > recall reading in a 1948 secretary's book _not_ to use the word "stop" > in telegrams. Tucked away in my family archives are some old Western Union telegrams from the 1940s announcing important events (like *my* being born.) These are remarkable in that they consist of strips of paper tape, cut and pasted (apparently by hand) onto a Western Union telegram form. Apparently printed like "ticker tape" and with the text in all uppercase letters (as Baudot code generates) punctuated with =STOP= (with the equal signs as shown) between sentences. In the early 1960s, I used to stay with my grandparents at a resort hotel, and being bored, made friends with the hotel desk clerk who used to let me operate the hotel plug-board switchboard at times and to help sending and receiving Western Union telegrams for the guests. Telegrams were sent by having the guest hand write the message on a paper form which was placed on a small machine with a rotating drum and then scanned to Western Union. After sending a message, it was important to remove it from the drum and replace it with an incoming telegram form which was printed on special paper (the precursor of thermal fax paper?) which could record the next incoming telegram as a pinpoint of light "burned" it into the paper as the drum rotated. Then, in my first job after grad school in the late 1970s, I recall sending telegrams from a Western Union TWX machine (a Teletype Model 33) where one would use the designator "PMS" in the message header, indicating that the destination was a physical address and not another telex or TWX teleprinter. PMS stood for "Postal Message Service" and, it was my understanding, was a designator which dated back to the days of the Western Union messenger boys who have been immortalized in so many movies of the 30s and 40s. (PMS was not be confused with Mailgrams, another Western Union product which provided the printing of the message at a site close to the addressee and the depositing of the message into the US Mail at the main post office for next day delivery via ordinary first class mail.) > Would anyone know if they really did use the word "stop" in telegrams, > and if so, why did they and when did they stop? Even after all that ... I have no idea why =STOP= on the teleprinter, unless to delimit paragraphs -- most telgraph-ese paragraphs being single sentences. > Speaking of telegrams, in old movies they are mentioned quite > frequently, indeed, people appear to send telegrams in situations > where today we'd use long distance telephone. I know years ago Long > Distance was very expensive -- could I assume telegraph rates were > relatively cheap? Also, not everyone had a home telephone and long distance calling was quite inconvenient, requiring operator assistance and common delays in setting up the call. The telegram had been around for decades and was easy and reliable -- and predicable because one paid by the word for a pre-written text, unlike telephony where one could never be certain if the call would turn into a conversation, even if brief. I do not know if Western Union rates were distance sensitive. Somehow, I recall that one paid by the word, regardless of where in the Western Union system the message was going. > (Now an oral Western Union telegram is quite expensive , delivery, if > available, is even more.) Anyway, I guess at some point long distance > phone rates declined to the point where it became cheaper to telephone > rather than telegraph. Would anyone know approximately when that was? To have someone dictate a telegram over the phone and then to messenger its final delivery is quite labor intensive compared with today's automatic switching of telephone circuits. Interestingly, the Telex network remains well used in Europe where language problems frequently make written communication easier than telephony. Even so, FAX will eventually replace the TLX system. Cheers, The Old Bear [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A curious thing about telegrams was that like phone calls you could send them 'collect' asking the recipient addressee to pay for them, but unlike phone calls, the recipient got to read the message and *then* decide if if he wanted to pay for it or not. If so, he got to keep the paper it was printed on; if not the messenger (if delivered to you) or front desk cashier/ clerk (if you called for it in person at one of the Company's public offices or at a telegraph agency) took the paper back from you and kept it. A message also went back to the originating public office or agency telling them payment was refused and to get the money from the sender. None the less, the recipient was aware of the message even if he did not have the paper it was printed on. The public telegraph offices were curious places. The ones operated by WUTCO itself were always very ornate; i.e. marble floors and counters; nice brass containers with blank telegraph forms to be filled in by the customer; fountain pens fastened with little chains to the table (just like the post office used to have) where the customers would sit to compose the messages they wished to send. Large brass spitoons and ashtrays around the room; incadescent lights suspended from the ceiling on chains with rather elegant globes on them; ceiling fans throughout the room which always seemed to be on low speed and spinning sort of slowly; of course one or two Western Union clocks of the fancier style in wooden case with a visible pendulum and a constant din in the background from the machinery and a telephone that never seemed to stop ringing. Behind the marble counter at which the clerk (larger offices like Chicago had three or four clerks on duty at the same time) was stationed, one would see the telegraph machines. Typically the telegrapher was male and the counter clerk was female, although sometimes the telegrapher was female also. One telegrapher was expected to oversee three or four machines; sending stuff out on one machine while two or three others were getting incoming messages. It was very rare except in the wee hours of the morning (when typically only one person was on duty serving both as clerk and telegrapher) that one or more machines would not be chattering and clacking as it printed out whatever it had to say. But sometimes it would happen that all the machines would go idle during a slow traffic period and the silence in the room was quite obvious. Maybe the silence would last all of a minute or two, or maybe just ten seconds ... but invariably the silence would be broken by a humming noise as one of the machines came on followed by a different noise as the gears engaged and it started to receive and print out a new incoming message. The counter clerk ruled the office like a little kingdom. After you composed your outgoing message you would walk up to the counter to the clerk, paper in hand. If the clerk was on the phone taking a mess- age to be set out you waited. If the clerk was talking to you then the phone would ring and ring and ring, the clerk seemingly oblivious to it except to perhaps lift it off hook after ten or fifteen rings to say in the mouthpiece 'hold until I am available', not really caring who it was; they would wait in line like everyone else. The clerk would read over what you had written, stopping now and then to ask you to decipher some part of your writing that was illegible ("what is this word here?" she would ask and point at it; you told her the word or the name and she would 'pencil it in' with block letters the telegrapher would understand). Counting the words she would then say "that will be sixty cents" or whatever it came to. You gave her the money, she opened the cash box to put it in or make change, and once payment had been made (unless you were sending it 'collect') and the illegible handwriting corrected to the point the telegrapher could read it the clerk would stamp it with indicia indicating the payment, the date/time, and other accounting department administrivia. Then she stuck it on a spindle; the telegrapher would reach over and pull it off the spindle and start it on its way. About that time the phone would ring again and the clerk would roll her eyes, reach over and answer to take another phoned-in telegram to be sent out. The clerks were quite unctious at times, and their demeanor and attitude changed with each customer. Naturally they got to read the message first in the process of calling out the person's name to see if they were in the waiting room waiting for a telegram to arrive. A message comes that Cousin Itt graduated from high school yesterday and the clerk would call for the recipient. Mr. and Mrs. Jones walk up to the desk, collect the piece of paper and stand there to read it. The clerk would smile and say something like, 'congratulations folks, he sounds like a real intelligent boy ...' and then beam and smile as the Joneses were doing the same. The next clatter from the machine brought a message that grandmother had passed away yesterday after a long illness and will you please come to the funeral ... the clerk would call for Mr. and Mrs. Smith who approached the counter, already expecting the worst. The clerk hands them the piece of paper which they read silently, probably with Mr. Smith with his arm around his wife as they read it. Tears begin to form in Mrs. Smith's eyes and that was the signal for the clerk to say, "honey, I sure am sorry to have had to give you this news ... " with her lower lip sort of protruding and her own eyes glistening a little. She would offer Mrs. Smith a tissue and ask sympathetically if they needed assistance in composing a reply. "If you reply while you are still here in the office it will only cost you fifty cents to send a message letting them know if you will be going to the funeral or not." Ditto with the outgoing messages; joyous news of newborn children and promotions at work mixed with messages of grief and sorrow; the clerks would laugh and smile with one customer and grieve with the next customer. Federal communications laws prohibited the clerks and telegraphers from ever discussing with anyone the content of any messages they processed. They did sometimes talk in generalities though with personal friends and other employees. About 1961 I had a roomate for a short time who was a clerk and telegrapher for the telegraph agency in Hammond, Indiana, where the agency was located in the local bus station. He told me once of seeing a young woman about eighteen or nineteen years of age get off the bus and come straight into his office full of smiles and happiness to send a message to her parents saying she had arrived safely and would be in touch again in a couple days. He mentioned her being so cheerful and asking questions about this new town she would be living in, etc. He said the next morning he happened to walk out in the depot waiting room area to get his morning coffee and he saw her standing in a corner with her suitcase sitting next to her, with tears running down her face. He said presently she walked in, laid the exact amount of money on the counter with her message to her parents asking them to meet her when the bus would arrive later. She said 'goodbye, and thanks for being so nice to me yesterday ...' and then walked out, still crying. She picked up her luggage and got on the bus. "Someone must have hurt her very badly," he said, and he wondered later if he could have said or done anything to ease her pain a little. "But the agency I worked for was under contract to WUTCO to provide telegraph services and the contract plainly said that no employee was ever to have any personal discussion with a customer about their messages. We were never to release names, message text or anything like that. Had I spoken to her in a personal way at all and WUTCO decided that I had violated a customer's trust, well they could not fire me because I did not work directly for WUTCO but they would have put a lot of pressure on the agency to fire me." He quit the job because he said the clerks would get a lot of hassles from constantly ringing phones and sometimes long lines of cranky, beligerant customers. Most of the public offices were phased out during the 1970's, and the WUTCO agents of today have nothing to do with telegrams at all; they are just in the money transfer side of things. But there was a time they brought Americans messages of great joy alternating with messages of tremendous sorrow. PAT] ------------------------------ From: j-grout@glhpx2.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Date: 03 Feb 1997 09:02:55 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > Speaking of telegrams, in old movies they are mentioned quite > frequently, indeed, people appear to send telegrams in situations > where today we'd use long distance telephone. I know years ago Long > Distance was very expensive -- could I assume telegraph rates were > relatively cheap? (Now an oral Western Union telegram is quite > expensive , delivery, if available, is even more.) Telegraphy used to be cheaper because inter-city bandwidth using wired trunks (or, internationally, radio links) was so expensive and limited that one could introduce the significant labor costs of the telegraphy system (operators, pick up and delivery persons) and still save money by maximizing the use of the scarcest resource. Since intra-city bandwidth was relatively less expensive, service for many larger or communication-intensive businesses used a slightly-different tradeoff between labor and bandwidth ... these businesses still used telegraphy, but had their own wire link to the local Western Union office to lower pickup and delivery costs. As terrestrial microwave, fiber optic and satellite trunking technology was introduced, the cost of bandwidth decreased, leading to use of Telex, TWX, and fax technology. John R. Grout j-grout@uiuc.edu Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ Date: 03 Feb 97 13:24:10 EST From: Lou Jahn <71233.2444@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers First - the "New Telecom World" as created by the T/C Act is forcing different business methodogies to deliver services, this includes Directory Assistance (DA). DA was originally provided by AT&T to enhance Callers ability to find targeted numbers to increase traffic. Later PUC's found it a service worth mandating. Then as DA became a priced service, the PUCs often priced it under the true/cost to a LEC to deliver DA service. Bell Atlantic receives $0.57/DA-call in Pennsylvania, yet only $0.25/call in NJ (after six free calls). The service and platforms are the same. In 1984, the courts created a dual delivery of DA numbers. LECs were not permitted to carry your DA inquiry across NPAs, hence IXCs owned NPA-555-1212 delivery while LECs owned 411 and/or 555-1212 service. The court also "arbitrarily" determined that $0.75 was a fair price to allow IXCs (mostly AT&T) to charge for NPA-555-1212 DA access. Since the LEC actually owned the subscriber relationship (e.g. the tele-number assigned, Pub or Non-Pub relationship) they retained ownership of the existing (1984) DA platforms and subsequent service. Immediately, all IXCs started with "outsourced" DA to the LECs. The IXC carried your call to the LEC owning the NPA (and subscriber) for a look-up. Most RBOCs were getting between $0.22-0.25 per call from the IXC to provide the actual number look-up. The IXC kept the rest of the $0.75 for transport, local access and billing charges. Today many of the IXCs charge $0.90 or more for NPA-555-1212 access. Since my LD rate is $0.11/minute - I could save money if I were allowed to dial NPA-411. Most importantly, the RBOC DA service was restricted by law from providing enhanced DA service to the IXCs using their basic DA service. And of course, came the issue of branding. Call Completion (CC) is an example of a desireable enhanced DA service. At one time AT&T was asking NPA-555-1212 callers if they desired CC before turning the caller over to an RBOC DA bureau. If the caller said yes (via DTMF) AT&T added a shadow operator to follow the call with the DA operator and they took the number and "advanced the call" by entering the number released by DA causing a DA/CC call. This was expensive and cumbersome. Also you have to remember the clever MCI trick announced last year called 1-800-GET-INFO. While this was advertised as a DA system, it actually was a play for capturing a portion of AT&T's then 60% LD market share by giving out numbers and picking up Call Completion for MCI to carry the LD call, even if you were presubscibed to AT&T. AT&T quickly struck back with 1-900-555-1212 and started using alternate DA providers. There is also the new markets with the creation of CLECs. If you were the CLEC VP of Marketing and spent a ton of money to capture say 5,000 subscribers from an ILEC, would your next move be to provide the list of your successes to your competition? It easily helps their analysis and reaction to your ability to sell and build programs to capture subscribers. Hence CLECs are also looking for alternate DA providers that enhance their differentiation and provide their brand on the DA call handling. Years ago a third party firm was inserted into Yellow Page Directory publications in the LA aera which is split between Pac Tel and GTE for similar reasons (related to trying to capture the others AD spaces). Now why are some alternative providers having a problem with accuracy? It stems from many of the RBOCs refusing to "rent or license" their listings for the alternate DA provider. Thus some systems use "complied" listings. If they pick up records from financial sources (of even Motor Vehicle Agencies), they will include Non-Pub numbers. When a person with Non-Pub completes their driving license or credit application, they gave little thought that that record list may be rented to a mail distributer, who in turn rents their list to "want-a-be" telephone providers. If the listing came from printed directories, they can have up to 18-20% error rate by the next publication cycle. Another problem occurs in complied listings. The telephone companies have an inventory of telephone numbers and who is the currently "using" the number. Complied lists are generally an inventory of people which includes their telephone number. As a subscriber drops their service, the telco issues a delete of that record to the DA database. Complied listings nver get such deletes and infact may have multiple records of say John Smith or J. Smith, etc all carrying different telephone numbers if Mr Smith moved. Alt. DA firms can access existing LEC DA systems via Electronic Data Access but it is well over priced and eats up operator time. It is used to assist the internal DA system with much reluctance. Unfortunately for Callers, the number of alternate DA providers are growing as the new telephone markets appear. CLECs will find these firms helpful in equalizing their position against ILECs. Today a CLEC can offer listings and Call Completion for all of North America using 411 or 555-1212. If they desire, they can do so at costs far less to callers than the 90 cent/call IXC plan. The CLEC gets branding. They get the same caller system or interface in each CLEC area they choose to enter. IXCs have always outsourced their DA business starting with going to the RBOCs. Thus as alternate DA providers add service options that assist the IXC to meet its competitors or that help the IXC expand services (e.g. gaining call completion revenues), IXCs will utilize alternate DA firms to a higher degree. Meanwhile, the FCC has determined that RBOCs must open their listings for competitive use. As the RBOCs move to comply with this ruling, the accuracy and services of alternate DA providers will improve. In addition, alternate providers offer DA services that RBOCs to not. Since they are creating a new service definition, they can provide FAX, pager and other methods of contact not available from a basic LEC DA system. You will be finding far more DA delivery by alternative channels as the FCC ruling assists their access to LEC listings. When the listings access is resolved, you will also find better and lower priced services available for callers. Louis Jahn Listings Services Solutions Inc. (An Alternative National DA Provider) Box 10, Amherst Commons Lumberton, NJ 08048 609-702-8232 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 16:13:34 EST From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Mark J. Cuccia had written: > As far as *I* am concerned, AT&T is *again* shooting itself in the > foot by contracting out and routing to this third party for directory! and then Lynne Gregg replied: > AT&T has always subcontracted directory assistance service here in the > U.S. to the local operating company (RBOC, LEC). BUT NOT ANYMORE. And that was Mark's point. The Local Exchange Carriers have up-to-date directory information. It was wonderful when calling 10288-1-NPA-555-1212 caused AT&T to connect you to the local exchange carrier. You usually got numbers within a few days of their being installed. But not anymore. AT&T now contracts with a third party with no direct access to directory information. The data is now often several months out of date. A major downgrade in quality of service. /john ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:48:22 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Country Codes Profile For Turkmenistan; Former USSR Nations > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: David questions whether Russia (the > former Soviet Union) should have a single digit country code in the > form of '7'. He raises a good point, however I think the same > question should be raised about the USA/Canada/Carribbean countries > which use '1' to the exclusion of everyone else. Yes, but the privilege of +1's shortness is tempered by the fact that it has to be shared among *several* countries (almost 20) instead of monopolized by a single one, as +7 was when the USSR was a unitary state, or as +7 might be again if Kazakstan and Tajikistan left and only the Russian Federation remained. Really, the +1 case is no more selfish than, say, the +4 zone, which has only 11 countries (soon to be 12 with the Czech/Slovak split of +42). > I would prefer to see Canada and the USA on separate country codes, > possibly of the form '12' and '13'. I think those would be particularly *undesirable*, since it would not allow for a permissive dialing period during which calls originating from outside of the NANP could be dialed using either the new or old country codes. Consider the ambiguity of +1 334 555 1212 vs. +13 345 551 212X, for example. Of course, if you used *three*-digit codes ending in 9 (e.g., +139), things could work (because the N9X series of NPAs are currently reserved), but heck, I don't think the US or Canada deserve to get knocked down all the way to (shudder) *three*-digit country code status! :-) :-) Some of us have in the past kicked around some ideas about what it would take to split up the NANP in a way that allowed graceful transition periods. The best approach that I came up with (and which many other folks independently developed) exploits the fact that no existing NPAs begin with 0 or 1; thus, +10 and +11 could be introduced as the new codes for Canada and the US without disturbing existing +1 dialing during the permissive (parallel running) period. The smaller (ex-+1-809) NANP countries would get 3-digit 1NX country codes, either after the US/Canada withdrawal phase is complete, or simultaneously (but only if they use +1N9 codes, for the reason described earlier, and obviously only 8 of them could exploit this early-departure option). > I suppose using '10' would be sort of confusing since we here in the > USA have the option of dialing '10xxx' as part of a long distance > number when we want the call routed to a particular carrier, and > having to dial something like 01110 or 01111 to reach Canada would > be sort of a drag also. But is there anything preventing the US and Canada from continuing to coordinate their numbering spaces in order to keep them disjoint (and thus still dialable from the other country with just 1+NPA), even though callers from *outside* countries would have to provide the correct country code? Of course, full canonical international dialing should be available between the US and Canada anyway, even if short-cut dialing continues to exist. But this change would also be an opportune time to change the international direct-dial prefix from 011 to 00, since otherwise, operator assisted international calls to other +1X countries (01 1X) could be confused with international direct-dialed calls to elsewhere in the world (011 X). > What sort of hassles would be caused for the Russian people if '7' > was replaced with some two or three digit number beginning with '7'? They shouldn't be directly affected unless the country code change is accompanied by alterations in the internal numbering plan (such as area code changes); callers within Russia would still use the same old trunk prefix (81? I think) to reach another area code within the country. The big issue is continuity for callers trying to reach Russia from elsewhere, since they would have to know about the country code change. Ideally, a permissive dialing regime could be set up for this case as well, again with an eye for an unambiguous scheme. For +7, this looks easy -- there appear to be *lots* of digits that are not used as the initial digit of any area code even now: 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9. So +71 would be my suggestion for the new Russian Federation country code. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: cgordon@worldnet.att.net (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: 3 Feb 1997 13:57:34 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 dave@tricon.net said: > (1) Convince consumers to spend $90 for an upgrade (which costs them > almost nothing) According to USR's website (http://x2.usr.com/upgrades/index.html), the upgrade cost varies from free to $7. (Some of the "free" stuff expired 1/31, and no mention is made of new prices.) > (2) Place pressure on ISP's to buy expensive USR terminal equipment. And they'll upgrade the ISP's equipment for free. (Granted, the ISP must be using USR's equipment in the first place ...) USR is making a big marketing-based move here: They (and the rest of us as well) know that the Lucent/Rockwell crowd are just a few months down the road with _their_ 56K technology. So USR wants to be the first ones out of the gate and build up market share. If they miss (they're already a bit late) those other guys will steal the thunder that USR has so carefully rumbled up over the last couple of months. Let's say a consumer has an upgradeable USR modem. Would they pay a one-time fee of $7 to cut their downloading times by a third? I think so. Now, three months later, would that same consumer be likely to pay an additional $150 for a Lucent/ Rockwell modem that would further decrease their download times by as much as ten percent? Probably not. A lot of consumers are going to fall into the "early adopter" category, since most of them are already tired of waiting for Web pages to load. They will buy USR "X2" modems (indeed; they've already bought upgradeable modems) not because the technology is better, but because it's available. The tired old example of VHS/Betamax shows that superior technology doesn't always prevail. Not that I'm passing judgement on any of the 56K contenders -- the point I'm trying to make is that having the "best" technology isn't necessarily important. Marketing is. This means ISPs who do not currently have USR equipment may consider buying USR for their next port expansion, since many of the ISPs' customers would start to favor USR-compatible connections. If the technology works, EVEN IF ONLY TO 50K, then USR stands to establish X2 as a "defacto" standard simply by being the first ones to deliver. Disclaimer of vested-interests: I sell hardware. When I sell modems, I sell USR modems exclusively. I do this for my own reasons, and not because of any "sweetheart deal" with USR or anyone else. My total profits from modem sales in 1996 were less than $500, and I can't be bought that cheaply. Gordon S. Hlavenka O- cgordon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: Eric Elder Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:17:21 -0800 Organization: Lucent of Largo Netcare Services Reply-To: eelder@mailhost.paradyne.com Ed Ellers wrote: > Dave Sieg wrote in article lcs.mit.edu>: >> While the technology is still far from proven in the field, and a >> standard is still 12-18 months away, WOULDN'T IT BE INTERESTING if >> ISP's "exercised their power" at least to the extent of saying: "This >> stinks! > Yes, it would be interesting ... especially to the FTC. The prospect > of a group of providers deciding among themselves *not* to offer a > certain improved service to the public is exactly what the antitrust > laws are supposed to prevent! Yes, but many ISP's simply won't be able to afford to offer this service. Some writers in the comp.dcom.modems conference expect the service to cost nearly as much as ISDN. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #31 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Feb 7 09:16:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA10923; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:16:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:16:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702071416.JAA10923@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #32 TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Feb 97 09:16:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 32 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson And the New Number is ... 323 (Mike King) CID-on-CW-Beep and Other ADSI-Based Features (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (Linc Madison) New Internet Domain Names (Greg Monti) FBI's "888" Unabom(b)er Line Gets '800' Owner Angry (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. * ************************************************************************* 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 Subject: And the New Number is ... 323 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:37:35 PST Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:53:21 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: And the New Number is...323 FOR MORE INFORMATION: David A. Dickstein (213) 975-4074 dadicks@legal.pactel.com And the New Number is...323 Geographic Split Approved For 213 Area Code In Los Angeles LOS ANGELES -- California's first donut-shaped geographic area code split was approved today by the state Public Utilities Commission to provide relief for the 213 area code in Los Angeles. The split will create a new area code -- 323 -- to serve part of the region beginning next year. Introduction of the new 323 area code, which will be California's 21st, is planned for June 13, 1998, and is needed to meet the rapidly growing demand for additional phone numbers in the 213 area code. Among the communities currently served all or in part by the 213 area code are: Bell, Belvedere Gardens, Commerce, Cudahy, Eagle Rock, East Los Angeles, Highland Park, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Laurel Canyon, Los Angeles, Maywood, Montebello, Monterey Park, South Gate, Vernon, Watts and West Hollywood. New Area Code Boundaries: Under the 213 area code split, a three-mile diameter region in downtown Los Angeles will keep the 213 area code. All other existing 213 area code customers will receive the new 323 area code. The split will have a donut shape, with the downtown Los Angeles business district located in the center of the donut. "While the donut shape does not conform to the traditional east-west or north-south splitting of NPA (area code) boundaries, it is the only way to achieve an equal division of the 213 NPA into two parts without splitting downtown Los Angeles," the California Public Utilities Commission wrote in its order approving the geographic split plan. California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett, who oversees area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry, said two options for adding an area code in the 213 were submitted to the Commission in November 1996 following public comment in July 1996. "Because the industry could not reach consensus on one plan, two options were submitted -- the geographic split plan that was ultimately approved and an overlay proposal," Bennett said. In an overlay, a new area code is placed over the existing area code, with both codes sharing the same geographic boundaries. The new area code is generally given to people who request new phone numbers, while existing customers keep the old area code. The Commission issued a policy decision in late December precluding the use of overlays in California for area code relief projects through the year 2000. The Commission said several issues related to competition need to be resolved before overlays may be used. Last month, Pacific Bell asked the Commission to reconsider its area code policy ruling to allow an overlay in the 213 area code. Area Code Portion of Phone Number Impacted, But Not Call Price Bennett said the new area code's introduction will not affect customer's seven-digit phone numbers. However, customers in the new 323 area code will need to change the area code portion of their phone number beginning June, 13, 1998. The introduction of the new area code will have no impact on the price of telephone calls, Bennett added. "Call distance determines call price. What is a local call today will remain a local call regardless of the area code change." The new 323 area code is estimated to last 11 to 13 years, while the reconfigured 213 area code will have enough numbers to accommodate growth for 5 to 7 years. Bennett said the new area code is needed to meet the skyrocketing demand for new phone numbers in the Los Angeles area and across the state. "Californians are continuing to use telephone numbers at record rates," he said. "California has 14 area codes and will need to grow to 26 area codes by the year 2001 to keep pace with customer demand." In the greater Los Angeles region, 213 is one of four area codes that have been split or that will split by the end of 1998. Last month, the new 562 area code was split off from the 310 area code and now serves southeastern Los Angeles County. The 818 area code in northern Los Angeles County will split off the 626 area code later this year. And in 1998, Orange County's 714 area code will also split off the 949 area code. Bennett said when the new 323 area code is introduced in June 1998, there will be a six-month permissive dialing period during which callers can dial either the old or new area code. Things to Remember: Bennett said a new area code impacts consumers and businesses in many ways. Among the things to remember: * Change stationery, business cards and advertising to reflect the new area code * Notify friends, relatives, clients and customers of the change * Reprogram fax machines and auto-dialers * Customers with cellular phones and pagers should check with their service provider to see if reprogramming is required Make Sure Equipment Can Accommodate The New Area Code: The new 323 area code is part of a series of new-style area codes introduced in North America beginning in 1995 that can be any three digits. This has special implications for certain types of telecommunications equipment, which must be reprogrammed to recognize the new-style area codes, Bennett said. "Historically, area codes always had either a '1' or '0' as the middle digit for identification purposes, but all of those codes are gone. The new number combinations allow area codes to be any three digits from 220 to 999, creating an additional 5 billion phone numbers. "Because of this, it's important for customers to know that PBX (private phone) systems, auto-dialers, alarms and other telecommunications equipment will have to be re-programmed to recognize these new-style area codes," said Bennett, adding that people should check with their equipment vendors to see if their equipment needs to be reprogrammed. More Area Codes To Come Statewide The 213 area is the latest in a series of regions in California requiring area code relief due to growing demand. That demand is being spurred by several factors, the two primary being the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access, and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone lines. The other factor is the onset of competition in California's local telephone service market, with each new provider requiring a separate supply of telephone numbers. In addition to the 213 area code, California areas which have already been designated as requiring new area codes are: 818 in the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valley areas, 619 in the San Diego, Palm Springs and Inland County areas, 415 in the San Francisco Bay area, 916 in Sacramento and Northern California, 510 in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, 714 in Orange County, 408 covering the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas, 209 in the Stockton, Modesto and Fresno areas and 805 serving the Ventura County, Santa Barbara County and Bakersfield areas. Plans for the 213 area code were collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group representing more than 30 companies, including Pacific Bell, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, AirTouch, GTE, Pagenet, AT&T Wireless, MFS Communications Co., Teleport Communications Group (TCG), the California Cable Television Association and others. --------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:39:55 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: CID-on-CW-Beep and Other ADSI-based Features BellSouth just added CID-CW in the switch which serves my home telephone, the "Seabrook" switch (504-24x prefixes), which is _STILL_ a #1AESS office. I found this out on Sunday afternoon, when verifying with the Business Office that my payment was properly applied. The feature was added to the serving central office on Friday 31 January 1997. I am under BellSouth's "Complete Choice" plan, which allows me to pick and choose, add or drop, mix and match, etc. any, or virtually all of the "Vertical Services" which my central office switch can provide, all at _ONE_FIXED_ monthly price. If I add or modify services under "Complete Choice", I do _NOT_ have to pay any 'one-time' charges, neither any 'monthly recurring' charges. By Vertical Services, I am referring to the Custom Calling features, CLASS features (BellSouth's trademark is called "Touchstar"), the trademark "Ringmaster" service (more than one telephone number associated with _one_ line, each incoming number with a distinctive ringing pattern), etc. I have had virtually every CLASS and Custom Calling feature on my line, under the "Complete Choice" package, including Call-Waiting, as well as Caller-ID Number and Name, for some time now. But now, I have the added capability of receiving 'off-hook' CID name/number info, _during_ a Call Waiting 'beep' tone! Now, when someone calls my line while I am already on another call, unless I've done *70/1170 to 'cancel-CW', in addition to the standard CW beep tone (the 'subscriber alerting signal' - aka SAS), I also hear a quick high-pitched 'chirp' tone of 2130+2750 Hz (the 'CPE alerting signal' - aka CAS). This CAS is to 'wake-up' the CID box or ADSI-based CPE, which will 'mute-out' the telephone or handset, and then the CPE will send a touchtone 'A' or 'D' signal (from the 1633 Hz fourth column) to the central office switch. The c/o will then 'modem-dump' the CID number/name info thru the loop to the CPE display. Finally, the CPE will 'unmute' the telephone or handset. This is all to take place in less than a second. In my "Call-Waiting Deluxe" service, I also have _additional_ options as to the _disposition_ of the CW-beeping party, or the _disposition_ of either/both of the two parties if I am 'flashing-back-and-forth between them': a) I can actually _Bridge_ the CW-beeping party into the conversation with the original party ... or if after flashing-back-and-forth, I can still _bridge_ the two parties togather with my line. b) I can have the c/o switch hold the CW-beeping party and have a message played back to them, that the party being called knows that they are calling, and that I will be getting to them shortly, and to please hold. This is nice if I don't want to interrupt the original party, yet in my situation, 'doing nothing' would cause that CW-beeping party to eventually forward over to cellular/voicemail. c) I can _instantly_ cause the CW-beeping party to be forwarded to a forwarding telephone number or voicemail I might have. In my situation, all incoming calls to my home telephone number forward to my cellular phone (which has voicemail service) if my line is 'busied-out' (i.e. with *70/1170 Cancel-CW on a per-call basis) or after about three unanswered rings. With the new feature, I can _instantly_ forward that 'beeping' caller to my cellular and voicemail service, without them having to 'wait' through three ring cycles. d) I can have the c/o switch _drop_ that CW-beeping party from my line, but before dropping that caller altogather, the c/o switch will play a message to them that the party being called knows that they are calling, and that I will _call_them_back_later_on_, and to please hang up now. Of course, the switch _does_ eventually drop that party. e) I can cause a 'hang-up' _instantly_ on the original party, thus answering the beeping party, but I don't have to actually 'disconnect the hook and allow the beeping party to ring'. Nor do I have to do similar if wanting to 'hang-up' on either party in a 'flash between the two' to take a call from only one of the parties. There is a way to 'flash to the _other_ party and immedietely disconnect the present party', even if I have been going back and forth between the two. Now, to _properly_ take advantage of _all_ of these features and options, I will need a 'screen-display' phone capable of ADSI-features, with have central-office per-situation-programmed 'soft-touch' keys/buttons. However, I don't presently have a Nortel PowerTouch Model 350 type of phone, nor even yet do I have a 'plain-Jane' CID-on-CW-beep display box. However, I _am_ able to utilize some of the ADSI-based 'disposition' options to the CW-beeping party! How can this be done? Well, when flashing the switch-hook between the two parties, the original party is put on hold upon flashing, however, there is a noticeable split-second _delay_, before the 'other' party is taken 'off' hold and able to talk with me. _DURING_THAT_DELAY_, a special DTMF receiver is brought into the line, which a screen-display (convenience) phone will send out a specific touchtone for the disposition options mentioned above. But even without a screen-display ADSI-based phone, I can do a standard hook-flash and _immedietely_ touchtone a single digit to control what disposition is to be taken to either the 'beeping' party, or one or the other of the two parties if 'flashing-back-and-forth'. I can 'flash' + a DTMF'd digit, _rapidly_, to do the following: - a touchtoned '3' takes care of option 'a' above. - a touchtoned '6' takes care of option 'b' above. - a touchtoned '9' takes care of option 'c' above. - a touchtoned '8' takes care of option 'd' above. - a touchtoned '7' takes care of option '3' aboce. These 'flash plus DTMF single digit' is what the 'soft-key' buttons on an ADSI screenphone do. There are other possible telco offered (switch-based) ADSI features which could be available, such as "Visual Screen List Editing", where I can dial a number or a code, and actually modify my Custom Calling and CLASS lists, and while hearing the voiceprompts, I can also see info loaded from the c/o switch displayed on the CID-plus LCD pad! Also, other 'non-telco' information providers, such as a telephone mail order center, a transportation company (bus, train, airline), bank, etc. can have 'ADSI-based' information downloaded to your unit. You will interface with the buttons on your box, and maybe even hear voiceprompts, and strings of DTMF will be sent from your CPE to the (non-telco) ADSI-host to indicate as to what you are requesting. The info 'downloaded' from the (non-telco) ADSI-host could be airline schedules and fares, your checking account balance from your bank's system, the status of a telephone/mail order you placed with a department store, etc. Both of the above 'added' features (general info from 'non-telco' sources, and telco-provided Visual List Editing), will use strings of DTMF from the ADSI-based CPE to the c/o or provider/host, _including_ the touchtone 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' signals (as well as '*' and '#') in a full sixteen-button DTMF arrangement. Now ... I am not really in the market for a full 'screenphone', however I would like to locate a 'stand-alone' ADSI-features box! I am quite happy with the nostalgic WECO/NECO phones I have from the 1920's through the 1960's. I could plug the phone thru the ADSI-box, and use that box for the controls. However, I have not been able to locate such a 'stand-alone' ADSI box from my conversations with BellSouth's CPE subsidiary or Nortel. I've even checked with AT&T-leased-products (800-555-8111), which doesn't lease CID items, and referred me to Lucent products sales (800-222-3111). Presently, it doesn't seem that Lucent (formerly AT&T equipment, formerly the Western Electric and Manufacturing Company) makes nor distributes CID boxes for CID-on-CW nor anything yet for ADSI-features. The Radio Shack stores in the New Orleans area sell a 'plain-Jane' CID-on-CW-beep box, which does 'just' that. It does hold about 100 numbers/names, IIRC. My present CID box has (IIRC) a storage of 85 numbers/names. BellSouth's CPE subsidiary distributes the Nortel manufactured CID-on-CW box which holds 50 numbers/names, yet it has some additional features, but it seems to be only 'convenience' features, such as 'scrolled number dialing'. Similar to 'last number redial' buttons on many CPE, this box can be scrolled thru the up-to-50 numbers (and names), and you can press a button to 'autodial' to that number. The 'basic' CID-on-CW box also has a 'Call-Waiting-off' button, which I think causes the box to out-dial *70/1170 on every outgoing call, until you 'deactivate' the 'CW-off' feature. (I wonder if the box can '3-way-flash' and *70/1170 to Cancel-CW on an incoming call?). And I think that there were a few other 'CPE-only' type features that this CID box can do. I don't want to spend over $200.00 for a full screen-display phone. I do eventually want to get some form of box which can show CID info _on_ a CW-beep tone. But I am hoping that Northern Electric (Nortel) or Western Electric (Lucent) will soon make/market a full-ADSI-featured standalone box. BTW, some of the ADSI-based CPE even have a 'mag-card' swipe, for credit card verification/validation and transactions! I don't anticipate the need for that, but I do need some form of ADSI equipment, without having to buy a special 'full' telephone! But I am happy with the new features and options of the ADSI platform, even though I presently have to 'manually' flash and DTMF rapidly, and IMO, BellSouth is providing some of the most customer-friendly service when I compare it with other LEC's in North America! The "Complete Choice" package, as well as their introduction of ADSI-based features is going to be a _great_ benefit to customers like myself who like to have as many central-office based features as possible, all at an affordable price! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__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.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:10:14 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Lou Jahn <71233.2444@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > [some good stuff, but I have a couple of points...] > In 1984, the courts created a dual delivery of DA numbers. LECs were > not permitted to carry your DA inquiry across NPAs, hence IXCs owned > NPA-555-1212 delivery while LECs owned 411 and/or 555-1212 service. > The court also "arbitrarily" determined that $0.75 was a fair price to > allow IXCs (mostly AT&T) to charge for NPA-555-1212 DA access. The boundary was never the NPA. The boundary was the entirety of all NPAs that were wholly or partially within your LATA. Thus, if, here in San Francisco, I called 1-408-555-1212, I would be connected by Pacific Bell to the Pacific Bell D.A. center, which would give me the number, whether it was in my LATA (San Jose/Santa Cruz area), or in the Monterey LATA. Unless I dial 10XXX-1-408-555-1212, my call will never touch an IXC. My LATA includes all of 415, 510, and 707, and the northern part of 408, not counting upcoming area code splits. This setup creates some asymmetries, by the way: if a caller in Los Angeles dials 1-619-555-1212 for a number in Escondido, that call will be handled by the LEC, because part of 619 is in the Los Angeles LATA. However, if the party in Escondido dials 1-{213, 310, 562, 818}-555-1212 for the number in Los Angeles, the call will be handled by the IXC, because the San Diego LATA does not include any part of those L.A. area codes. (When the 619/760 split happens, the example above will remain true, but with "760" substituted for "619".) > There is also the new markets with the creation of CLECs. If you were > the CLEC VP of Marketing and spent a ton of money to capture say 5,000 > subscribers from an ILEC, would your next move be to provide the list > of your successes to your competition? It easily helps their analysis > and reaction to your ability to sell and build programs to capture > subscribers. Yes, it would, as a matter of fact. A good number of those subscribers are going to want published numbers. Having their number listed with the CLEC's competitive DA provider does little good, because then callers who try to find their number through the ILEC's DA bureau (or through some other alternate DA provider) will get "no listing." That is an unacceptable result and would impair my competitiveness. > Now why are some alternative providers having a problem with accuracy? > It stems from many of the RBOCs refusing to "rent or license" their > listings for the alternate DA provider. Thus some systems use > "complied" listings. If they pick up records from financial sources > (of even Motor Vehicle Agencies), they will include Non-Pub numbers. That's "compiled," not complied. Anyway, you just finished saying that the CLEC's shouldn't provide the numbers of their subscribers to the ILEC's DA bureau, but the ILEC should provide its listings to the ADAP. What was that about a level playing field? ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 01:38:52 -0500 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: New Internet Domain Names There's an article on page B6 in the 6 February, 1997 {The Wall Street Journal} titled "Internet Domain: Cyberspace Expands With New Addresses; Standards Panel Seeks to Ease Overcrowding By Creating Seven Web Site Suffixes". A summary: Internic's monopoly on top-level domain naming will be broken by the end of 1997. Up until now, Internic, owned by Network Solutions, was the sole arbiter of who got domain names ending in .com, .org or .net (or .us). Within the year, twenty-eight different companies will be in charge of handing out top-level domain names ending with: .firm (for any kind of business or firm) .store (for businesses offering goods for purchase) .info (information services) .web (world wide web related) .arts (cultural and entertainment) .rec (recreational activities) .nom (personal web domains or pages) The purpose of .nom was to let individuals who want a domain name for their web presence to be freed from the .com domain where they are largely placed now. The Internet Society considered using .name or .pers for this domain, but settled instead on .nom Don Heath, President of the Internet Society, noted that the French-speaking world loves it, in the midst of an otherwise English-dominated internet. The article notes that 85,000 new domain names are registered per month, 90% of those ending with .com The 28 firms that will register the names will likely charge $50 per year per name, same as Internic charges. The 28 name givers have formed a Council of Registrars to administer conflicting claims. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:49:04 EST From: danny burstein Subject: FBI's "888" Uunabom(b)er Line Gets '800' Owner Angry From an AP story describing the FBI's '888' number which plays the "white male with no discernable accent"'s warning about the centenial park bombing. (btw, what do you think the chances are that they're ANI'ing all the callers hoping that that the bad guy will check in? FBI toll-free number plays 911 tape warning of Olympic Park bombing By PATRICIA J. MAYS The Associated Press 02/06/97 3:15 PM Eastern ATLANTA (AP) -- Federal agents have a new "888" toll-free number to let the public hear the voice of the man who called 911 to warn about the bomb in Centennial Olympic Park. But the businessman who has the same number, with an 800 area code, is less than thrilled. The audio tape of the 911 call placed just before the fatal July 27 blast can be heard by calling 1-888-324-8404, federal officials announced Wednesday. The story continues with a description of the problems the business with the '800' version of the number is having due to the call volume. There was another (short term) problem, as well: The number, which was supposed to operate nationwide, was not accessible from Seattle and some other cities. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course, it is not the fault of the FBI that large numbers of Americans do not understand how to dial their telephone and that 888 is not the same as 800 even though they function the same way. If I were the owner of the 800 number and had a little extra money to spend, I would use the 800 version to completely blast the FBI totally condemn their mishandling of the matter in the beginning. I would also use the phone number to challenge the FBI on their handling of the 'original unabomber' and ask why after all this time Ted K. has not yet been put on trial and why no trial date has ever been set up. I would ask why the FBI (where Ted K. is concerned) is being held incognito and they are refusing to allow him any media contact or more than just minimal contact with his own attorney. I guess they know by now they have the wrong person there also; that like Atlanta they jumped the gun and let the media give Ted K. their version of a 'fair trial' and now they are unable to prove any of it. Yes, if I had a large number of people calling my 800 number daily thinking they were reaching the FBI, I would definitly use it to my advantage to let people know just how rotten that agency is. Indeed, the entire US Department of Injustice needs a major overhaul, beginning with Janet Reno. What a great opportunity, depending on how the owner of the 800 number feels about it. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #32 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Feb 8 01:44:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA07720; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 01:44:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 01:44:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702080644.BAA07720@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #33 TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Feb 97 01:44:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 33 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call For Papers: IWCS'97 (Irene Ludman) Re: New Internet Domain Names (John R. Levine) Re: Telegraph Questions (Ed Ellers) Re: Telegraph Questions (Bill Ranck) Re: Telegraph Questions (Eric Elder) Looking For Access Devices (Data, Voice and Video) (Jaime Alvarez Mendez) Re: Florida PSC Selects Three-Way NPA Split (Linc Madison) Ohio Residents Choose New Area Code (Tad Cook) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Linc Madison) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Tom Betz) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Ron Newman) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Dale Hesselroth) 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: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:17:09 GMT From: ludman@austerlitz.devinci.fr (Irene Ludman) Subject: Call For Papers: IWCS'97 CALL FOR PAPERS 1st INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON COMPUTATIONAL SEMIOTICS 26th - 27th May, 1997 Ple Universitaire Lonard de Vinci PARIS - LA DEFENSE - FRANCE TOPICS SEMIOTICS OF TEXT : Suzanne Bertrand-Gastaldy, University of Montreal Computers are increasingly used to assist text analysis for cognitive, literary, anthropological, sociological, documentary, etc. research. The workshop will focus on actual realisations, on the possibilities and limits of methodologies and existing tools to take into account the complex and multidimensional nature of texts, allowing multiple points of views for a variety of user needs. Issues such as desirable features of text analysis software, robustness and conviviality of implantations, interaction between corpora and users, constraints that actual tools put upon kinds of analyses and coding choices, the ability to elaborate models of electronic analytical tools suited to different semiotic theories, semiotical foundations of markup languages are examples of possible debates. SEMIOMETHODOLOGY : Claude Vogel, Lonard de Vinci University Several genres are currently under investigation for semiotic studies : electronic mail, news, corporate information, Web publishing. The flood of full text is overflowing semantic analysis, and this major paradigm break leads us to reconsider our approach of text processing. The size of these new corpora, the lack of consistency of information, the physical scattering of the basic units of texts, make the classical documentary solutions very uncomfortable. Instead, the semiotic based analysis seems to be a highly compelling perspective. It is focused on chronology; it provides a way to build transitive narratives throughout large amounts of data, and it does not require the understanding of the details of each local grammatical sentence in order for a global plot to be elaborated. This promising trend may give a second wind to ethnomethodology. For this reason, it is more appropriate to use the term "semiomethodology" when evoking this attempt to rationalize the computational approach of the symbolic dynamics which underlie collaborative production. ORGANIZATIONAL SEMIOTICS : Kathleen Carley, Carnegie Mellon University Organizational semiotics is the semiotics of organizations and organizational dimensions of textual semiotics. The objective of this workshop is to define the boundaries of this new specialty. Specifically, we will address the issue of: "How can semiotic analysis of interpersonal and corporate exchanges be used to reveal, evaluate, and contrast the underlying organizational logics and changes in these logics over time ?" Recent advances in textual analysis are facilitating this endeavor and creating new opportunities for understanding organizational behavior. Critical issues in the area of organizational semiotics include : 1) how to quickly and reliably analyze large quantities of texts, 2) how to reduce textual data to an empirical form that can be combined with other types of data and analyzed statistically, 3) how to identify corporate texts (those representing the "view" of the organization as an entity) and address issues of authorship, and 4) how to identify institutional constraints on the production and maintenance of corporate texts. New and innovative computational methods for empirically analyzing texts are being developed to address these and related concerns. These techniques have the potential to move textual analysis beyond counting words or locating a few themes or concepts. This section will focus on the issues involved in performing organizational semiotics with particular attention to the new computationally based techniques for facilitating organizational analysis that increase the ease, speed or reliability of coding texts and generate information that can be analyzed statistically. BIOSEMIOTICS : Jean-Claude Heudin, Lonard de Vinci University Recently, algorithms and architectures based on models derived from biological systems have been receiving an increasing amount of interest. This section will explore how such new approaches and techniques could be used for managing large amount of information exchanges on Internet or Intranet. Topics of particular interest include, but are not limited to, applications of agent-based systems, autonomous and evolving agents, genetic algorithms and programming, neural networks, cellular automata etc. to text stream analysis and in the more general framework of semiotics analysis. SUBMISSION OF PAPERS Send four copies of an abstract (approximately 500 words) in English or email it to: Irne Ludman - IWCS'97 Ple Universitaire Lonard de Vinci 92916 PARIS-LA DEFENSE-CEDEX, FRANCE Phone: (33) 01 41 16 73 05 Fax : (33) 01 41 16 73 35 Email : irene.ludmann@devinci.fr DEADLINES Submission of abstracts by 1st April 1997 Acceptance notification to authors by 15th April 1997 Submission of full papers by 12th May 1997 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Claude Vogel (chairman) Suzanne Bertrand-Gastaldy Kathleen Carley Jean-Claude Heudin PROGRAM COMMITTE Pierre Boudon (canada) Guillaume Deffuant (France) Evelyne Lutton (France) Joe Porac (USA) Carl Roberts (USA) J. Sebeok (Canada) Peter Stockinger (France) Bill Turner (France) For more information please visit the following Web page : http://www.devinci.fr/home/actua.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 97 10:16:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: New Internet Domain Names Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > The article notes that 85,000 new domain names are registered per > month, 90% of those ending with .com The 28 firms that will register > the names will likely charge $50 per year per name, same as Internic > charges. The 28 name givers have formed a Council of Registrars to > administer conflicting claims. If that's what the article said, they're jumping the gun by several months. The registars will be chosen by an application process, with a lottery if there are too many qualified applicants. There are rules to ensure geographic diversity as well. For the true facts, see http://www.iahc.org where the report is, along with far too many comments. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:13:05 -0500 Organization: PCM Magazine Reply-To: edellers@mis.net John R. Grout wrote: > Since intra-city bandwidth was relatively less expensive, service for > many larger or communication-intensive businesses used a > slightly-different tradeoff between labor and bandwidth ... these > businesses still used telegraphy, but had their own wire link to the > local Western Union office to lower pickup and delivery costs. This led to a move by Western Union starting in 1948 to install fax machines (connected to their local offices by leased lines) to move telegrams to and from specific high-volume locations -- first public places such as hotel lobbies with a system called Telefax, then business offices with the less expensive Desk-Fax system. (One of the Desk-Fax machines can be seen on a secretary's desk in the movie "Desk Set.") Western Union scrapped the Desk-Fax project in the 1960s, and thousands of machines were sold off, many to amateur radio operators who converted them to operate over HF or VHF radio links. ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Date: 6 Feb 1997 20:23:34 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Lee Winson (lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote: > In old movies, when they're reading from a telegram, they use the word > "stop" between sentences. Yet, didn't Morse code and Teletypewriters > have punctuation, so there was no need for a full word? Indeed, I > recall reading in a 1948 secretary's book _not_ to use the word "stop" > in telegrams. > Would anyone know if they really did use the word "stop" in telegrams, > and if so, why did they and when did they stop? This is just a guess, but the item we Americans refer to as a period, is called a "stop" or "full stop" by the British. It may be as simple as some old/different terminology being used within a fairly closed culture (the culture of telegraphers) for many years. * Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center * ------------------------------ From: Eric Elder Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:55:30 -0800 Organization: Lucent of Largo Netcare Services Reply-To: eelder@mailhost.paradyne.com The Old Bear wrote: > In the early 1960s, I used to stay with my grandparents at a resort > hotel, and being bored, made friends with the hotel desk clerk who > used to let me operate the hotel plug-board switchboard at times and > to help sending and receiving Western Union telegrams for the guests. > Telegrams were sent by having the guest hand write the message on a > paper form which was placed on a small machine with a rotating drum > and then scanned to Western Union. After sending a message, it was > important to remove it from the drum and replace it with an incoming > telegram form which was printed on special paper (the precursor of > thermal fax paper?) which could record the next incoming telegram as a > pinpoint of light "burned" it into the paper as the drum rotated. The Air Force was still using the burning drum technology in the mid- 1960's to fax weather maps. The smell from the ozone could get instense when two or three of the machines were operating at the same time. These machines were messy. Several ounces of carbon that had to be removed every week. I was elated when the thermal fax machines showed up. No smell, no carbon and the maps looked a lot nicer. The maps didn't mess your clothing either. ------------------------------ From: Jaime Alvarez Mendez Subject: Looking For Access Devices (Data, Voice and Video) Date: 6 Feb 1997 19:34:29 GMT Our network have the following topology: Central Site ------------ Office ----------------- Remote Site (ATM backbone) + +------------ Remote Site + +- Office We are looking for an access devices like this: Central Site ------------ Office Access Devices -- LAN WAN link +- PBX (E1, E3, OC3, ...) +- Video +- Routers +------------- Remote Site WAN Link Access Devices - LAN (leased line, + PBX frame relay, + Video etc.) We know the ADC Kentrox products (by catalog) but we want to know others products. Jaime Alvarez Mendez Systems Engineer Tenerife - Spain jaimeam@iedatos.es ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Florida PSC Selects Three-Way NPA Split Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 16:38:54 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , psyber@mindspring.com wrote: > The Florida PSC decided Tuesday in favor of a three-way split for NPA > 904, to take place as early as late May. > Essentially, the Pensacola, Panama City, and Tallahassee LATAs will > retain area code 904. The Jacksonville LATA, encompassing the > northeast corner of the state, will receive 850, and Daytona Beach > will receive a third NPA, possibly either 780 or 550 (based on > available domestic-relief codes, vs. assigned COCs in 904, 407, & > 352). > Permissive dialing could start as early as May 31, 1997 (based on > documentation from the PSC meeting), and last as long as a year. > The move was a surprise, considering most of the industry support was > behind a two-way split, with Tallahassee/Panama City/Pensacola > retaining 904, and Daytona/Jacksonville receiving 850. The move would > allow 904 and 850 to last until 2004-6, and the new NPA to last six to > ten years beyond that ... How long is 352 supposed to last? The original plans called for a much larger area to be moved out of 904 into the new area code, but the plan was changed on the basis of the assertion that 904 didn't really need all that much relief, so it would be okay to move only the Gainesville LATA. Here they are talking about another split not even a year and a half later. Many people have expressed concern about the pace at which we are using up area codes now. I'm not really concerned about things like the 19-way split in the Caribbean, because at least that's a one-shot deal. However, if we keep having splits where not even 200 prefixes are moved into the new area code, we're going to be in serious trouble. According to John Cropper's figures on his web page, 352 currently has only 184 prefixes in it. In Colorado, area codes 970 and 719 combined have fewer prefixes than what's left of 303. Area code 320 in Minnesota has only 183 prefixes, leaving 612 to split again almost immediately. In Virginia, area code 757 has only 294 prefixes, while 804 will be left with about 478, putting it right back in the queue for another split. Don't get me wrong -- I think a 3-way split is probably the best option at this point. However, I think it would've been more prudent to have made essentially a 3-way split, but with Daytona Beach joining Gainesville in area code 352, so that what was 904 two years ago would be three, instead of four area codes a year from now. How many people in Daytona Beach are really pleased that they got to hold onto 904 for an extra 18 months? ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Subject: Ohio Residents Choose New Area Code Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 23:39:15 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) North Summit County, Ohio, Residents Choose New Area Code By Melanie Payne, Akron Beacon Journal, Ohio Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News AKRON, Ohio--Jan. 24--Presented with the choice of the Cleveland suburban area's new 440 area code and the 330 area code, telephone customers in northern Summit County chose the latter. "We left them in the 216 area code for as long as possible," Brynette Drennan, community affairs administrator for Alltel Ohio Inc., said. Alltel is the local phone company that serves Aurora, Hinckley, Hudson, Northfield, Peninsula, Richfield and Twinsburg, all of which will switch to the 330 area code later this year. "At the time of the split (of 216 into 330) we didn't know how far down 216 would extend, but when the industry team met they didn't extend 216 down far enough to accommodate these customers," Drennan said. The "industry team" is a national group of telecommunications companies that makes decisions on area code coverage. The available numbers for the 216 area code were depleting so rapidly that the team decided that only the city of Cleveland could continue with 216. The remaining 216 area would become 440 in August. Unfortunately, for northern Summit County the gamble to stay with 216 failed. If customers had not fought so hard to remain in the Cuyahoga County area code, they would have entered into the 330 code 15 months ago when the rest of Summit county converted. "We know (changing area codes) is a problem and that people really don't like it, but it's a reality. It's happening all over the country, every state," Drennan said. Recently, Alltel sent information to some of its business customers in the northern Summit County area alerting them to the change. From August 1997 until April 1998, people living in the former 216 area code will be able to dial as usual. After April 1998, people will have to dial the area code prior to the number, in other words, dial 10 digits, to reach numbers in the 440 area code and for some exchanges in the 330 area code. Local calls, however, will remain local calls, even if the area code is different. "This is a unique situation because people are right in the middle between Akron and Cleveland," Drennan said. Because of the proliferation of devices needing telephone numbers (pagers, fax machines and cellular phones) the area code split was a necessary evil, she said. Drennan said that the industry team is trying to diminish future area code splits by making coverage areas smaller. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:33:36 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , James E Bellaire wrote: > The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T > is interesting: > "My signing ... this check authorizes [AT&T] to ... unblock my carrier > choice service protection to make this switch possible... CHECK VOID > IF ALTERED." > 'unblocking my carrier choice service protection'? If AT&T can get > around the block on changing my default long distance carrier for > these checks, what stops them from doing it when their telemarketers > 'think they heard the customer say yes' before I hang up on them when > they call? So much for slam protection. Simple. It's in writing with your signature. The carrier change block applies only to verbal authorization. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: 07 Feb 1997 08:03:34 -0500 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Unsolicited Commercial Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth James E Bellaire in : > The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T > is interesting: > "My signing, cashing and/or depositing of this check authorizes you > to switch my long distance service to AT&T, unblock my carrier choice > service protection to make this switch possible, and notify my local > telephone company of this decision. I understand that only one long > distance company may be designated for the telephone number listed > on this check. My local telephone company may charge me a fee to > switch my long distance service. CHECK VOID IF ALTERED." > 'unblocking my carrier choice service protection'? If AT&T can get > around the block on changing my default long distance carrier for > these checks, what stops them from doing it when their telemarketers > 'think they heard the customer say yes' before I hang up on them when > they call? So much for slam protection. Actually, a signature endorsement is pretty good protection. They probably did this to keep people like me, who had protection on, from cashing checks (mine was for $80) and then never getting around to confirming the change with the local Telco. AT&T finally called us a couple weeks ago (about three months after we cashed the check) and facilitated making the change. We put the block back on after we made the switch. I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't had a lot of people like me cash those checks and forget to follow through ... Tom Betz (914) 375-1510 Want to send me email? First, read this page: ------------------------------ From: rnewman@cybercom.net (Ron Newman) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 08:47:32 -0500 Organization: Zip News In article , James E Bellaire wrote: > The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T > is interesting: > "My signing, cashing and/or depositing of this check authorizes you > to switch my long distance service to AT&T, unblock my carrier choice > service protection to make this switch possible, and notify my local > telephone company of this decision. I understand that only one long > distance company may be designated for the telephone number listed > on this check. My local telephone company may charge me a fee to > switch my long distance service. CHECK VOID IF ALTERED." The check also has a blank space that says, "If your address or telephone number is printed incorrectly on the front of this check, please make changes here." I'm thinking of filling in the phone number of some local COCOT and depositing the check. What would AT&T do then? Ron Newman rnewman@cybercom.net Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What they would be perfectly within their legal rights to do at that point is file federal charges of postal fraud against you; using the mail as part of a deceptive practice. You do not own the COCOT nor have the authority to make changes in the status of the line it is connected to. Ditto the COCOT owner; he could make a stink with you also. Rephrase the last paragraph of your article to read, "I am thinking about filling in the phone number of some other person, cause them to get their service slammed, and cash the check ... what would AT&T do?" Better still, if anyone has any AT&T checks laying around, why not fill in Ron Newman's phone number then cash the check? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dale Hesselroth Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 08:20:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check If you really want the last laugh, don't endorse the check, but enclose it with your payment to your current carrier deducting its value from the amount due your carrier. Many carriers will honor checks from their competitors rather than lose you as a customer! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the current carrier chooses to eat the loss and issue the same amount as goodwill credit, fine. But they should not plan on collecting the money from AT&T; remember, if altered or not filled in correctly, then the check is void and will not be paid by AT&T. As soon as your present carrier stamps its acounting and remittance advices on the back of the check, it has become 'altered', remember? And it certainly will not have your all-important signature. If the truth were known however, I'll bet AT&T has absorbed some pretty hefty losses on that program due to people 'forgetting' to unblock carrier change restrictions, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #33 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Feb 8 03:19:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA12759; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 03:19:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 03:19:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702080819.DAA12759@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #34 TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Feb 97 03:19:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 34 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Alternate Directory Providers (Stanley Cline) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (Mark Peters) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (John Mark) Re: Alternate Driectory Providers (Adam H. Kerman) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Will Kim) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Jim St. John) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Eric Elder) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Ed Ellers) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Gary Gunn) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Michael Dillon) 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: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:01:17 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On 03 Feb 97 13:24:10 EST, Lou Jahn wrote: > In 1984, the courts created a dual delivery of DA numbers. LECs were > not permitted to carry your DA inquiry across NPAs, hence IXCs owned > NPA-555-1212 delivery while LECs owned 411 and/or 555-1212 service. This doesn't mean, however, that one can't call 411 or 555-1212 and get numbers in another NPA or even STATE -- that depends upon state tariffs and/or the telcos and calling areas involved. This is most common with multi-state or multi-NPA local calling areas, such as many in Tennessee [Chattanooga TN/GA, Bristol TN/VA, Memphis TN/MS/AR, Clarksville TN/KY] and Metro Atlanta [which now has numbers in FOUR area codes.] In such cases, one simply dials [1-]411 and can get numbers for anywhere in the local calling area. Further, at least in Tennessee, it's possible to get a number that is LONG DISTANCE to the caller by simply dialing [1-]411. I've called 1-411 several times from here [Chattanooga] and gotten numbers in Knoxville or other areas of NPA 423 with no problem. At least once, I was given a number in NASHVILLE -- a different NPA -- when calling LOCAL DA! > service. Immediately, all IXCs started with "outsourced" DA to the > LECs. The IXC carried your call to the LEC owning the NPA (and Most independent LECs (including such companies as ALLTEL, Century, and TDS -- and even GTE in some areas!) contract provision of their DA service out to the RBOC serving that service area's LATA. In such a case, the independent LEC sends the call over intraLATA lines to the RBOC serving the LATA. In such cases, the cost to the end-user is somewhat higher -- almost always higher than what the RBOC charges their own customers for DA. (Charges are split between RBOC and independent LEC.) HOWEVER, a few independents, most notably GTE, CFW in Virginia, and Interstate/Valley Telephone in the West Point, GA area, are still providing their "own" DA. (Depending on the NPA, inbound callers to RBOC DA agencies from the same or other NPAs are transferred to the independent; or the independent answers DA calls from other NPAs, but can query the RBOC's listings -- or has to transfer to the RBOC!) AFAIK, DA calls for Alaska -- which isn't serviced by "RBOCs" -- are answered by ATU of Anchorage, then transferred to the LEC serving the general area in which the desired listing is located. > Also you have to remember the clever MCI trick announced last year > called 1-800-GET-INFO. While this was advertised as a DA system, it > actually was a play for capturing a portion of AT&T's then 60% LD > market share by giving out numbers and picking up Call Completion for > MCI to carry the LD call, even if you were presubscibed to AT&T. AT&T I remember this -- they were going to charge 75c/call -- to an *800* number! The FCC grumbled, and MCI went to a *900* number (and didn't charge for calls already placed to the 800.) Strangely enough, that service isn't around anymore. :( > Now why are some alternative providers having a problem with accuracy? > It stems from many of the RBOCs refusing to "rent or license" their > listings for the alternate DA provider. Thus some systems use Exactly. > firms helpful in equalizing their position against ILECs. Today a > CLEC can offer listings and Call Completion for all of North America > using 411 or 555-1212. If they desire, they can do so at costs far Many cellular and PCS carriers (which can be considered akin to "CLECs" under interconnection agreements) have been doing this for some time. Typically, B-side cellular carriers are using the RBOC serving the cellular area, while *most* (but not all) A-side cellular carriers are using alternate DA providers. PCS carriers are using a mix of the two, but most appear to be using alternate DA providers. (The lone exceptions may be Powertel PCS in the Southeast, who is closely related to Interstate/Valley Telephone [see above] and BellSouth Mobility DCS.) The wireless carrier gains branding, DA revenue, *and* airtime revenue; the caller gains more convenience. > Meanwhile, the FCC has determined that RBOCs must open their listings > for competitive use. As the RBOCs move to comply with this ruling, What happens with independents? If independents are *not* held to the same standard as RBOCs/CLECs in this regard, then DA calls for numbers in independent LEC territory will remain a problem. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From: line changed so I get NO SPAM! See http://www.vix.com/spam/ ------------------------------ From: mpeters@mcs.com (Mark Peters) Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: 6 Feb 1997 00:21:08 GMT Organization: MCSNet Services My parents who live in a retirement complex served by a PBX with DID have no directory reference. Ameritech in Wisconsin does not include data from behind a PBX. Their new number is not in the local telephone book. Mark Peters ------------------------------ From: j@rambla.com (John Mark) Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:06:16 GMT Organization: "SNET dial access service" Lynne Gregg said AT&T always handles DA through the local operating company ... That AT&T always contracts out Directory Assistance to the local operating company is at variance with my recent experience. I tried to obtain a new phone number listing in the 617 (Boston) area code. AT&T did not have the listing. The listing was however available by dialling 411 from within the 617 area code (which I assume means from the LEC) and was also available through Sprint and MCI by dialling 1033316175551212 and 1022216175551212. I was so amazed by this finding because prior to this I had thought dialing 1+area code+555-1212 always gave one acces to the "one database" out there maintained by whatever LEC was involved that I confirmed and reconfirmed my findings several times. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:41:41 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Lou Jahn <71233.2444@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > In 1984, the courts created a dual delivery of DA numbers. LECs were > not permitted to carry your DA inquiry across NPAs, hence IXCs owned > NPA-555-1212 delivery while LECs owned 411 and/or 555-1212 service. That did not seem to be the way it worked in the Chicago area. The rule appeared to be that LEC provided DA to intraLATA NPA's. Even though what had been NPA 312 is now five NPA's, the DA database was never broken up; local DA will lookup in any of the five NPA's. Until two years ago, DA for NPA 815 was handled in a bizarre manner. If calling from Chicago to 815 555-1212, the call was intercepted by an operator, who asked, "What city?" If that city was in the Chicago LATA, such as Joliet or Woodstock, the call was routed to a different DA bureau (and billed differently) than if it was Rockford, in which you were billed for long distance DA. Annoyingly, you couldn't simply dial "411" and ask for DA information for Joliet. Even though the Chicago LATA included a dozen or so Central Offices in 219, and a small territory in 414 was wired to a CO on the Illinois side, DA in 219 and 414 was always long distance. On an unrelated matter, does anyone know why you can no longer dial "411" from an Ameritech pay phone in Chicago to reach local DA? Now, you must dial 555-1212. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think until a couple years ago you could get Joliet and other stuff in the Chicago LATA portion of 815 using 411; I do not remember for sure. I know that the majority of 815 had to be obtained from 815-555-1212. Whether or not you can get DA for North Antioch, WI from the local 411 or if you must dial 414-555-1212 seems to be in how you ask for it. If you ask for it by the name of the town they'll almost always say to dial 414-555-1212 but if you ask for Antioch, IL via 847 and then she happens to see the listing is on the Wisconsin side some will be nice and say 'it happens to be a 414 number ... ' and give it to you. A few get rude and make you dial 414. Ditto dialing 414-555-1212 and asking for information in North Antioch, WI, then giving a name which happens to be listed in Antioch, IL. Most will go ahead and give you the number. I seem to remember this one place in Virginia City, NV from back in the days when that town was completely manual, with three digit numbers such as 'Virginia City 246' ... and there was this one place in town whose local number was non-pub but they had a listed foreign exchange number from San Fransisco. If you dialed 702-555-1212 and asked for Virginia City the operator would look for numbers there but stress that you had to place the call through your long distance operator; it could not be dialed direct. But when asking for the number of that one company, the 'local number' given was 415-whatever, and the DA operator remarked to me, 'that certainly is weird ...'; this one customer in a town that was all manual had a dial number out of another city published as the number to be used to reach them. Other oddities would come up in the 'olden days' when an out of town business had an 'Enterprise' number (but no local presence) in some other community. If you called DA for that community and asked for that company (which only had an Enterprise/Zenith type number) the DA operator would see that entry and think about it for a minute and usually say something like, 'well they have a listing, but it is only an 'enterprise' number, I do not know if you can reach it or not ...' You get odd results now sometimes with companies which choose to list their 800/888 numbers in the local directory for their community instead of/in addition to the toll free directory number 800-555-1212. Of course anyone can purchase a listing in any directory; I could have my Skokie, IL number listed in the San Fransisco phone book for some monthly fee if there were some reason for it. But if you try asking whatever-555-1212 for the 'toll free 800 number' of some company they will invariably tell you to dial 800-555-1212, but if you play dumb and just ask for the number of the company and the directory database you are calling contains an 800 number for the firm the operator will go ahead and give it to you. Another hodge-podge of entries will be found if you look in 'metro area' printed directories (instead of a local community directory) under the category 'police' or 'fire department'. In local community directories PD/FD will generally be listed twice; once just as the PD/FD but also under the 'Cityname, City of' listings along with other city departments. Now try just the generic phrase 'police' or 'fire department' in a large metro directory with perhaps fifty or sixty communities. Some of the communities listed will give seven digit numbers, some will just say '911' next to the entry for whatever good that would do you being in a different town. Then you will also get cases where the sheriff or fire protection district in some rural area is on a different area code than the community it serves. Once I got a listing from a DA operator in North Dakota for the local sheriff in a community there. He was in a town several miles away and the local directory only had an 'Enterprise' number for him. Seriously. An interesting result of the 312/773 split here in Chicago is that all city offices, regardless of location, stayed in 312 while all the public schools, regardless of location, moved to 773. That is because their respective centrexes are located in those areas (downtown for City Hall and southwest side of the city for the School Board offices.) I was told by someone at Ameritech that once the split is official and the correct area code is required, DA calls from anywhere in the USA directed to 312/630/708/773/847-555-1212 will all be 'aliased' or forwarded to just one place. 815 will not be handled by this office when calls come from outside the LATA since they will have no way of knowing if the person wants the part of 815 that is in our LATA or the parts that are not. Somewhere else will deal with 815 I guess. But, if you approach DA as a Chicago LATA customer through '411' then they will also provide 815 listings. Ameritech is still doing their national directory lookup service also through 411 which seems to be a pretty popular service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wkim@NO_SPAMMERS.MediaLight.Com (Will Kim) Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 97 20:19:09 GMT Organization: Co-Op Student - University of Waterloo Reply-To: wkim@medialight.com In article , cgordon@worldnet. att.net (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Said Something About: > Let's say a consumer has an upgradeable USR modem. Would they pay a > one-time fee of $7 to cut their downloading times by a third? I think > so. Now, three months later, would that same consumer be likely to > pay an additional $150 for a Lucent/ Rockwell modem that would further > decrease their download times by as much as ten percent? Probably > not. .... > This means ISPs who do not currently have USR equipment may consider > buying USR for their next port expansion, since many of the ISPs' > customers would start to favor USR-compatible connections. If the > technology works, EVEN IF ONLY TO 50K, then USR stands to establish X2 > as a "defacto" standard simply by being the first ones to deliver. This is very reminiscent of the v.fc / v.34 problems ... people wanted the >14.4 speeds even if it meant only connecting at 24k. Of course, v.fc lost in the end. But I'm a firm believer in USR. (Though I really think their Sportsters stink, the Courier v.everything's are second to none. And I'm glad to have shelled out the money for one.) 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 Designers Of The 1st ADSL PC Card http://www.medialight.com ------------------------------ From: Jim St. John Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 22:38:55 -0500 Organization: Internet Indiana Reply-To: jim@su1.in.net Eric Elder wrote: > Ed Ellers wrote: >> Dave Sieg wrote in article > lcs.mit.edu>: >>> While the technology is still far from proven in the field, and a >>> standard is still 12-18 months away, WOULDN'T IT BE INTERESTING if >>> ISP's "exercised their power" at least to the extent of saying: "This >>> stinks! >> Yes, it would be interesting ... especially to the FTC. The prospect >> of a group of providers deciding among themselves *not* to offer a >> certain improved service to the public is exactly what the antitrust >> laws are supposed to prevent! > Yes, but many ISP's simply won't be able to afford to offer this > service. Some writers in the comp.dcom.modems conference expect the > service to cost nearly as much as ISDN. The kicker is that the 56K technology requires that the ISP side be a direct digital connection to the CO. ISPs that use analog lines simply can't upgrade to 56K. In some areas the use of digital trunks by ISPs is common because of pricing. Here, in Central Indiana, it is far cheaper to buy bulk analog Centrex lines at a little over $20/month per line, compared to $50+/line/month for a digital connection. When you are looking at doubling or tripling your monthly local line cost, plus the major dollars to invest in the USR digital modems, converting to 56K is a very expensive proposition. On top of all that, at this point who can say what the prevailig rate for 56k connections will be? Without knowing that, it's impossible to do a cost analysis. Even the ISPs who are digital now aren't much better off, as most of them have non-USR digital modems. It's going to be a mess ... -jim- ------------------------------ From: Eric Elder Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 10:19:46 -0800 Organization: Lucent of Largo Netcare Services Reply-To: eelder@mailhost.paradyne.com Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote: > A lot of consumers are going to fall into the "early adopter" > category, since most of them are already tired of waiting for Web > pages to load. They will buy USR "X2" modems (indeed; they've already > bought upgradeable modems) not because the technology is better, but > because it's available. The tired old example of VHS/Betamax shows > that superior technology doesn't always prevail. Not that I'm passing > judgement on any of the 56K contenders -- the point I'm trying to make > is that having the "best" technology isn't necessarily important. > Marketing is. It's not quite that simple. Most of the upgradeable modems have Rockwell chipsets. Modems with Rockwell and AT&T chipsets will get the K56Vflex upgrades. Most of the ISP's have modems that are flash ROM upgradeable. They will upgrade based upon what is avaiable to them from the manufacturer. In the immediate future ITU will sign off on a 56K -- actually a 53K -- standards. At that time all the manufacturers will send out firmware that is compatible with both X2 and V56flex. > This means ISPs who do not currently have USR equipment may consider > buying USR for their next port expansion, since many of the ISPs' > customers would start to favor USR-compatible connections. If the > technology works, EVEN IF ONLY TO 50K, then USR stands to establish X2 > as a "defacto" standard simply by being the first ones to deliver. Will the ISPs go out and replace there rack mount modems with USR products during the interim period? I doubt it. Those who do will be the ISPs with the really old technology that need digital upgrades to work with the new technolgy. It will be interesting to watch developments in the next year. Meanwhile the telcos are upgrading there switches to work with ADSL that runs 10-20X faster than the 56K modems. I suspect those who want to be trend setters will make some expensive mistakes. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:08:13 -0500 Organization: PCM Magazine Reply-To: edellers@mis.net Eric Elder wrote: > Yes, but many ISP's simply won't be able to afford to offer this > service. Some writers in the comp.dcom.modems conference expect the > service to cost nearly as much as ISDN. I dunno. The added cost of *providing* ISDN service is based on the cost of ISDN lines, the cost of terminal gear and the cost of expanded bandwidth to the rest of the Internet to handle the load. If the ISP already has USR's digital V.34 modems connected to T1 lines (as many apparently do) the upgrade will be very cheap and the only added cost element will be the wider "pipe." ------------------------------ From: Gary Gunn Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 21:30:00 -0800 Reply-To: garygunn@pacbell.net > According to USR's website (http://x2.usr.com/upgrades/index.html), the > upgrade cost varies from free to $7. (Some of the "free" stuff expired > 1/31, and no mention is made of new prices.) The x2 FAQ there now has upgrade prices, $60/Sportster $95/Courier. The $7 charge is shipping/handling for those Sportsters which qualify for free upgrade, purchased during a Dec/Jan window, now expired. Couriers and Winmodems are software-upgradable, Sportsters require replacing a rom chip. > And they'll upgrade the ISP's equipment for free. (Granted, the ISP > must be using USR's equipment in the first place ...) No, the free upgrade of ISP equipment is also a special offer for purchases within a limited time window. Previously purchased equipment costs approx $60/port to upgrade. Since the equipment costs $800+/port, that's probably still a bargain. I would think it likely there would be another charge later to upgrade from x2 to whatever becomes an adopted 56 standard. gary gunn ------------------------------ From: Michael Dillon Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 23:07:43 -0800 Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet and ISP Consulting Reply-To: michael@memra.com Dave Sieg wrote: > Just an idle thought while watching the stormclouds gather for the > coming 56KWar ... > The nearly 3,000 small ISP's in the US have been responsible for > getting millions of users onto the Internet, and have experienced > firsthand the pain of non-interoperating "standards". Many of these > ISPs have grown despite these obstacles, and are no longer so small! > They have yet to exercise their power as any kind of coherent group, > largely because they see each other as competitors. That's not entirely accurate. A major reason why there are 3,000 independent ISP's and growing, is that many ISP's are willing to help others establish their businesses by sharing technical and other information on several Internet mailing lists and through a number of websites like http://www.amazing.com/internet > (2) Place pressure on ISP's to buy expensive USR terminal equipment. > While the technology is still far from proven in the field, and a > standard is still 12-18 months away, WOULDN'T IT BE INTERESTING if > ISP's "exercised their power" at least to the extent of saying: "This > stinks! Show me something that works and is a standard, and I'll buy > it, meanwhile I'm telling consumers they've been sold vaporware!" This is precisely what many ISP's are now doing. A lot of ISP's have invested in Cisco or Ascend or Xylogics or Computone or Shiva terminal servers with integrated modems. And many ISP's who use USR modems have them hooked up to Livingston PM2e terminal servers and find the new Livingston PM3 (with integrated digital modems) more attractive as an upgrade option than the USR TC equipment. Since all these other brands support the interoperable K56plus or v.flex2 (K56flex for short) they have an incentive to stop their customers from buying X2 modems. So, many ISP's are warning their customers to not buy X2 as well as warning them that there are a number of pitfalls with 56K including the fact that they may have to price the service higher than 33.6K. Some have already decided to sell 56K at the same price as ISDN. For the most part, customers are happy to be warned that there is a compatibility issue and are holding off on buying the USR models. Of course, ISP's are also taking a good look at ISDN since the terminal servers that will support 56K also support ISDN. The 56K movement is actually causing more ISP's to upgrade to ISDN capable equipment. And at least one manufacturer, Ascend, is supplying a new kind of xDSL. If an ISP install's Ascend's IDSL cards in their terminal servers in place of digital modems then the ISP will be able to supply 7/24 connections to any customer who has ISDN on their end, even if they are in a city in which the telco does not have ISDN switches. That's because IDSL, like all xDSL variants, is a direct connection and does not require a switch. And many ISP's are also using or experimenting with various spread spectrum wireless products as well. The independent ISP's are well aware of the existing and emerging technology options and most certainly *ARE* starting to flex their muscles. I should probably note here that I am on the board of directors of the ISP Consortium, a trade association that focuses on small and mid-size ISP's. More info is available at http://www.ispc.org or you can email me at Michael.Dillon@ispc.org Michael Dillon Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #34 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 10 02:27:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA13441; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:27:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:27:28 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702100727.CAA13441@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #35 TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 Feb 97 02:27:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 35 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Good Item Lost (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? (Danny Weiss) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (John Mark) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Stanley Cline) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (xymox@cts.com) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (John Cropper) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Jeff Buckingham) Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around (Nils Andersson) Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting (Robert Holloman, Jr.) Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting (Lowell Heusel) Phone Company Advertising (was Deadbeats...) (Lisa Hancock) Czech, Slovak Republics to Split Country Code 42 (Dave Leibold) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Mark Steiger) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Mark Fletcher) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Robert Casey) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Ryan Tucker) Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check (Dave Jabson) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 03:42:30 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Good Item Lost Someone recently sent me a new and greatly improved version of the phone number to name coverter program. Unfortunatly it got lost somehow in the shuffle here. This new version had been written by their sysadmin and inluded several additional features. Would that person PLEASE send me a duplicate copy so it can be posted here. Thanks, PAT ------------------------------ From: dweiss@ibm.net (Danny Weiss) Subject: Re: X2/56K: What if They Gave a War and Nobody Showed? Date: 09 Feb 1997 16:12:20 GMT Reply-To: dweiss@ibm.net In , Dave Sieg writes: > Just an idle thought while watching the stormclouds gather for the > coming 56KWar ... > While the technology is still far from proven in the field, and a > standard is still 12-18 months away, WOULDN'T IT BE INTERESTING if > ISP's "exercised their power" at least to the extent of saying: "This > stinks! Show me something that works and is a standard, and I'll buy > it, meanwhile I'm telling consumers they've been sold vaporware!" > Of course the argument against this is that ..snip.. some young upstart will > steal all the business by diving into 56K with both feet. > Gee, would _I_ bet my entire business on such vaporware? > I'd like to see a show of hands from ISP's ... anybody taking this > seriously? Like it or not, you probably should bet your business on this "vaporware," though I think it is less vaporous than you do. You've hit the key risk factor in your own argument: if everyone doesn't move to accommodate the 56Kbps technology, the few that do will have a significant competitive advantage. The only protection against that is to believe that 56Kbps will ultimately fail and we all remain at 33.6; I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. I think the best analogies here are the previously vendor specific protocols such as HST, 19.2Kbps, 21.6Kbps, and early 28.8Kbps technologies. It was possible to resist adoption of those, at least for a while. It was easier to resist those speeds back then because of the lower level of consumer awareness, somewhat less consumer interest in absolute speed, and the slower rate of change in the marketplace as new modem technologies became available. Remember, when USR released HST, you could only take advantage of it by using their top of the line modem. Today, they plan to roll out 56Kbps on the entire product line. While we clearly face a period of confusion while USR and Rockwell compete to dominate the early "pre-standard standard," both firms know they'll have to provide an easy upgrade path to the final standard when it comes along. Looking at this as a consumer, I plan to upgrade my USR modems to 56K ASAP. If my ISPs are too slow to adapt, yes, we will look for different ISPs - at least for our users needing the higher performance for extensive WEB access and download activities. As a side note to all this, we might be ignoring the 56K technology if the BOCs had priced ISDN service at a level to make it affordable for data communications. ISDN might provide 2 to 4 times the performance of my 33.6 modems, but it remains far less expensive to plan those lenghty downloads in a way that I can tolerate the delay while saving a bundle on line use costs. Danny dweiss@ibm.net DC Fire and EMS Chainring BBS: 202-554-3175 ------------------------------ From: j@rambla.com (John Mark) Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 16:13:31 GMT Organization: ESSLink A few days ago I attempted to get a number for someone who had recently subscribed to service in the 617 area code. I am PIC'd to AT&T and I dialled 1-617-555-1212. I was told they had no listing and that new numbers took three to six weeks to be available. I then called someone else in the 617 area code and they called 411 from within the area code and obtained the number! Prior to this I had not been aware that there was more than one database. I had thought when one dialled 1+area code+555-1212 one got access to the local database within that area code. I then tried 10333-1-617-555-1212 (Sprint) and again obtained the correct number and 10222-1-617-555-1212 (MCI) also led to the correct number. Both MCI and Sprint had the same method of DA with a recorded voice asking for what listing whereas AT&T was a person after an announcement asking me to choose whether I wanted to pay 50 cents to be connected after the information might be given. I just checked again and AT&T still doesn't have the listing. Are some LD carriers given access to some local databases whereas others are frozen out? What if any are the rules about making listings available!? ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 04:49:41 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com [no equal access on intraLATA 1+] > I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and > still use your prefered LD carrier. > Is this true, and why is it not mentioned by LD carrier's?? Depending on the carrier, yes, it's true. MCI, LCI, and some other carriers allow the use of 1+700 instead of 1+NPA for routing calls through their networks, for exactly the reason you give. Note that this works ONLY for calls within the same area code (from 706 to 706, for example) -- it will NOT work for calls between NPAs (as there's no way to specify the area code!) At one point, MCI had their Chattanooga switch screwed up, so that 700 was interpreted as the area code the SWITCH was located in, rather than the area code of the CALLER. (I'm in the Chattanooga LATA in NPA 706; the switch is in NPA 423, so if I dialed 10222+1+700, MCI treated it as 10222+1+423.) Last I checked, this had been fixed. Not all carriers support this dialing method -- AT&T and Sprint do not -- so that may be one reason it's a "secret." > What exactly is the "700" number used for?? NPA 700 (considered by Bellcore to be a SAC, or Special Area Code) is assigned to carriers for "whatever use they like." The vast majority of carriers use 1+700+555-4141 for LD carrier verification. Other than that, though, it's a free-for-all. Examples of 700 use: * AT&T still uses *0*+700+456-1000 for teleconferencing, and did have a 500-like service in other parts of 700. (I believe some of those numbers are still around.) * At one point, Allnet [now Frontier] had a PAY-per-call number in NPA 700. Some LD carriers may use numbers in NPA 700 for internal service or testing numbers, as well. 700 numbers not used for intraLATA intraNPA calling are carrier-specific; that is, 10288+1+700-XXX-XXXX (AT&T) is NOT the same as 10222+1+700-XXX-XXXX (MCI), etc. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ All opinions are strictly my own! ------------------------------ From: xymox@cts.com Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 22:15:03 -0800 Organization: CTS Network Services Reply-To: xymox@cts.com Charles Holcomb wrote: > On of my relatives can not use her LD carrier's PIC code to dial > around her LEC for her long distance calls in her LATA. > I was told you can use a 1-700-xxx-xxxx to be able to dial around and > still use your prefered LD carrier. Dial the LD access # ie 10333 then 1.700.555.4141. It will say thank you for choosing Sprint, or the name of which ever LD company access # you dial before the 700#. ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 06:01:59 -0500 Organization: LINCS Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com 700 service first appeared in the mid-80s, when AT&T offered them to large corporations for interconnectivity purposes. I remember KMart having a block of 700 numbers (where 700-NXX-Store # connected you to that particular store number) for store-to-store calls for stock inquiry, transfers, etc at 15cpm 24/7. In the early 90s, 700 was opened up for Personal Communications Services by AT&T, Sprint and MCI. Any individual could obtain one, and it would usually be issued with a PIN. This number was usually used in an 800-style fashion (anyone who you gave your PIN to could call you, and YOU would pick up the cost of their call). [I used to have a 700#, but it proved to be cumbersome, and I later replaced it with an 800/888#] . 700 Personal Service never really caught on, and now the NPA is used for various other connectivity purposes as well. At present, only a small number of 700 prefixes are assigned for personal/business purposes. The remainder are in use by the carriers themselves. Opened February 1st: www.lincs.net * John Cropper, LINCS A new site, faster server, and * PO Box 277 fully redesigned web site. * Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 ************************************ Inside NJ: 609.637.9434 Check out our current site at: * Toll Free: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) http://208.205.126.126/nanp/ * email: psyber@mindspring.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Buckingham Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 06:24:02 -0800 700 is an NPA that is routed to the presubscribed LD company and is completely free to be assigned for use by each LD company in any way that they choose. Many companies use the 700 NPA for virtual private network dialing where your company's offices around the country might all be assigned 700-344-67XX numbers so you only have to remember two digits to dial any office. 700 has also been used to allow customers to dial intra-lata calls in areas where 10XXX dialing has not been opened up. It only works in single area code latas since there would be no way to differentiate between two different area codes inside one lata with the single 700 NPA. The user would just dial 1-700 in front of their 7 digit intra-lata call, the LEC sees 700 and routs the call to the LD carrier, who then strips off the 700 and completes the call. Quite a nifty little plan if I do say so myself. Most areas of the country have 10XXX unblocked now so 700 intra-lata dialing is becoming part of our colorful history and a tribute to the crafty telecom entrepreneur's ability to meet the customer's needs in any way possible while outwitting the evil monopolies. ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Using a "700" Number to Dial Around Date: 09 Feb 1997 22:29:25 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , Charles Holcomb writes: > What excatly is the "700" number used for?? 700 is different from all other area codes, real and imagined, in that each LD carrier owns the whole series. Thus 10288-1-700-234 5678 and 10222-1-700-234 5678 have nothing to do with each other. Each carrier can do pretty much what he wants with the 700 series. AFAIK, the only thing that is standardized is that 1-700-555-4141 should make the carrier identify himself. For example, AT&T sells 700-xxx xxxx (most numbers) to their customers as a "follow me" service. The only problem with that is that it only works on AT&T lines, and this has been largely superceded by the 500 personal number service. (Each LD carrier owns certain prefixes, and they often interoperate, so if you call my own 500 number 1-500-CUT xxxx even from an MCI line, the call gets connected, by AT&T, btw CUT is 288 which also spells ATT, not a coincidence). Getting to your question, it is eminently possible for an LD carrier to use the 700 to get your call into their system, but what happens after that is a function of the individual LD carrier, you will have to ask them. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Robert Holloman, Jr. Subject: Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:54:14 -0500 Organization: Concentric Internet Services TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > I personally cannot imagine using prepaid phone cards since they > cost a lot more per minute than DDD or other ways of placing calls > and my personal experience in distributing them was not a very > big success. Old-time readers will recall back in 1993 or so I > had a bunch of sample two dollar cards I distributed on a test > basis to readers here. I was not impressed with the results, but > then this may not be the best source of customers for same. > I suppose as collectibles they have some value so my question is > are the telcos encouraging them for collectible purposes in the > same way the United States Postal Service supports stamp collector > clubs ... as a good way of making some money with little effort? Seems prepaid phone cards are popular items of pyramid schemes and borderline MLM companies. The NC AG office believed Destiny Telecomm's $.56/minute phone cards were part of a pyramid scheme. See the following links for details: http://www.wral-tv.com/features/5investigates/1996/1118-phone-card-scam/ http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/5investigates/1996/1119-phone-card-folo/ http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/1997/0123-destiny-agrees-to/ Progressive Fortunes is a blatant pyramid scheme I came across on the Internet. Here's a message I posted to the fraudMLM-discuss mailing list about PF: Anyone familiar with this one? It sounds really great. Spend just $10, sign up a few people, go through the six "phases," and you'll turn that $10 into over $20,000 and nearly 10 days worth of prepaid calling cards! Catch is, there's no mention of the odds of doing so, which I suspect is less than your chances of winning all of next years lotteries and sweepstakes. Out of boredom I decided to have a little fun with the numbers. It's based on my understanding of what's presented at http://205.186.236.142/fortune/ If I enter this system, let's see how my downline will have to grow in order for me to complete phase six, assuming everyone only buys one ID# (up to seven are allowed). When someone enters phase two they'll automatically be entered into stage one again with a new ID#. As a result one-sixteenth of the slots in the matrix will be occupied by re-entries. (I'll be reentered into my levels 4, 8, 12, etc.) In order for me to enter phase two and receive my phase one rewards, the matrix must fill on levels one through three with people entering phase one. For phase three entry, my first three levels must enter phase two. But those eight people on my third level can't enter phase two until their first three (which are my fourth through sixth) levels are filled. As a result the matrix will progress as follows over time: Level Slots Phase Entry for Everyone on Each Level ===== ====== ============================================== * 1 (me) 2 3 4 5 6 (Completed) 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 16 (a1) 1 (a2) 2 (a3) 3 (a4) 4 (a5) 5 5 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 64 1 2 3 4 5 7 128 1 2 3 4 8 256 (b1) 1 (b2) 2 (b3) 3 (b4) 4 9 512 1 2 3 4 10 1024 1 2 3 11 2048 1 2 3 12 4096 (c1) 1 (c2) 2 (c3) 3 13 8192 1 2 14 16384 1 2 15 32768 1 2 16 65536 (d1) 1 17 131072 1 18 262144 1 Total Slots: 2^19-1 = 524,287 Total People: ~491,519 (total slots X 15/16) In addition to my original ID# having completed phases one through six, my second ID# (a), which is created when the original ID# completes phase one, will finish the first through fourth phases. (And possibly phase five, but it's not certain.) Etc. for b, c, and d. My totals: $22,650 221.5H a) 650 71.5 b) 250 21.5 c) 50 6.5 d) 0 0 ------ ----- $23,600 321H Company totals: In: 491,519 X $ 10 = $4,915,190 Out: 1) 65,535 X $ 10 = $ 655,350 & 65,535 1.5H CC's=98,302.5H 2) 8191 X 40 = 327,640 & 8191 5H =40,955 3) 1023 X 200 = 204,600 & 1023 X3 5 =15,345 4) 127 X 400 = 50,800 & 127 X10 5 = 6350 5) 15 X 2000 = 30,000 & 15 X30 5 = 2250 6) 1 X 20,000 = 20,000 Total Out: $1,288,390 163,202.5H The company will surely make a nice profit. Less than 62 thousand folks will at least receive one calling card and their $10 back. Meanwhile over 400 thousand people will be out $10 with nothing to show for it. Nearly 3.5 million additional suckers will have to enter the program in order for the bottom quarter million souls to get their $10 and card. And for them to all complete the whole program, well over ONE HUNDRED BILLION more people are needed. The above represents the minimum number of people needed in the system at the instant I complete phase six. Everyone in my 16th, 17th, and 18th levels will have had to have entered phase one. But in actuality the matrix won't grow so uniformly, thus some of those people will have already entered phase two meaning others are already in my 19th and lower levels. Now add all the people in my upline and their downlines (running concurrent with mine), and you see just how ridiculous the whole thing is. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 18:12:45 EST From: lowellkim@aol.com (Lowell Heusel) Subject: Re: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Dear Pat: I agree. I do not see the value in collecting prepaid phone cards. I have read, however, that cards that are used (to make calls) lose their value as collectibles. So it would seem that you are right about someone making a lot of money off something that will never be used. Lowell K. Heusel Indianapolis, IN ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Phone Company Advertising (was Deadbeats...) Date: 10 Feb 1997 02:28:48 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Per Pat's comments... One of the sad bad effects from divesture/competition is the ridiculous advertising that goes, for services that are still essentially a public utility in nature. When a department runs a sale, it can order the goods and stock them. A utility can't upgrade switchgear overnight -- technically impossible. Unfortunately, the "advertising/marketing" people have taken over. They advertise products/services whether the company can deliver them or not, whether they or fairly priced or not, and whether they are truly useful to the consumer or not. The marketing guys win, the company gets some short term profits (and long term consumer resentment). The consumers lose out. There's an American "concept" that "competition is good". Yes, this is generally true, but there also negative points to competition. We're seeing them in full force in the telephone business. We'll be seeing them soon in the electric business too. Unfortunately, for us consumers, the "big three" MCI, Sprint, and AT&T are equally $#@!*&^%! bad for consumers. The kicker is they're moving to do the same thing in the electricity business! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 21:21:11 EST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Czech, Slovak Republics to Split Country Code 42 A note on a Slovakia telecom information webpage indicates that the telephone systems in the Czech and Slovak Republics will split into separate country codes effective March 1997. Country code +42 was originally listed in ITU's 1964 list as Czechoslovakia (which became the separate republics in recent years). The new country codes will be: Czech Republic +420 Slovak Republic +421 These are the first 3-digit country codes beginning with 4 (World Zone 4) since the early 1960s when country codes +401 to +405 were assigned, and subsequently changed to make way for Romania (+40). (This was indicated on the Country Codes History document I did some months back). The telex country codes for Czech and Slovak Republics have already been separate for some time. source: http://www.eunet.sk/slovakia/slovakia/business-economy/telecom thanks: Mark Cuccia for tip-off :: David Leibold -+- dleibold@else.net ++ aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca :: ------------------------------ From: Mark Steiger Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: 09 Feb 1997 21:06:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet (602)416-7000 James E Bellaire wrote: > The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T > is interesting: > "My signing, cashing and/or depositing of this check authorizes you > to switch my long distance service to AT&T, unblock my carrier choice > service protection to make this switch possible, and notify my local > telephone company of this decision. I understand that only one long > distance company may be designated for the telephone number listed > on this check. My local telephone company may charge me a fee to > switch my long distance service. CHECK VOID IF ALTERED." What would happen if someone were to deposit that check at an ATM without signing it? Would they still be able to switch you? The check would still be deposited into your account and you can't stop an already paid check ... would be something to try out.. :) Mark [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Certainly you can stop an 'already paid check'. AT&T would instruct their bank to not pay the check due to lack of endorsement. Their bank would return the check to your bank. Your bank would debit your account and return the check to you due to incorrect or lack of endorsement. You can deposit anything you want at an ATM, and press buttons on the front of the ATM to make any declaration you want as to the contents of what you put in the slot. Eventually the ATM-owning institution (which probably deposited the check to the Federal Reserve and advised your bank of amount to be credited to your account) will get the check back for lack of endorsement and refer it to your bank, or maybe the returned item will go to direct to your bank; in any event the debit will hit your account sooner or later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Fletcher Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:13:22 GMT Organization: Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Reply-To: u1009128@warwick.net Jim, You're missing the BEST PART! What you need to do is contact your LD carrier and tell them you want to be PIC'd as a "casual user". Basically this keeps your account open with them, and allows you to bill with them on all 10xxx calls. You can now sign that check, and the many more you will receive, and let whoever change your PIC'd carrier to whatever, you have then upheld your "agreement" with them by allowing them to change your PIC, however you can still get the best rates by dialing 10XXX on your LD calls with your "casual user" carrier. A little extra trouble, but I know people that have gotten checks for $50 to $75 for "changing" their PIC. Personally, I consider it payment for all of those annoying telemarketing calls that always seem to come in during my primetime nap! Mark ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 18:18:49 GMT I received a similar check from AT&T referring to a phone number I have since disconnected (I moved out of town). What happens if I did cash it? AT&T become the long distance carrier for a dead number? I didn't cash it, might be fraud if I did. Check was about $80. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No 'might be' about it ... it would be fraud. You are instructing AT&T to take over a phone number which is no longer yours to use. You are claiming to be the owner of something of which you are not the owner. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rtucker@netins.net (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: 09 Feb 1997 15:42:33 GMT Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA James E Bellaire (bellaire@tk.com), in article , wrote: > 'unblocking my carrier choice service protection'? If AT&T can get > around the block on changing my default long distance carrier for > these checks, what stops them from doing it when their telemarketers > 'think they heard the customer say yes' before I hang up on them when > they call? So much for slam protection. The difference is most likely the signature on the check. By endorsing and cashing the check, you're basically agreeing to the terms on it -- whether it's authorizing a transfer of $15 from Account A to Account B or changing your long distance provider. A check is just an oversimplified and automated contract, and AT&T is using that to their advantage. Ryan Tucker rtucker@netins.net http://www.netins.net/showcase/rtucker ------------------------------ From: djabson@ucsd.edu (Dave Jabson) Subject: Re: Last Laugh: AT&T Check Date: Sun, 09 Feb 97 16:20:09 GMT Organization: MPL of SIO James E Bellaire wrote: > The wording on the back of the latest carrier switch check from AT&T > is interesting: [snip] > BTW: This check will not be cashed. It is only for $10. > I'm worth more than that AT&T! I got my first AT&T bribe check sometime in late 95 or early 96, I forget which (it was for $60). This was a great deal for me because my monthy long distance charges total about $5/mn. So I happily cashed the check and said goodbye to MCI. Well, about two months ago I got another $60 check from AT&T asking me to switch to them. So I gladly agreed and cashed the second check as well :) I read the agreement carefully several times to make sure there wasn't anything in the fine print saying I could only accept one of these offers but I didn't find anything. So AT&T has paid me $120, which amounts to about two years worth of long distance for me. Keep em coming guys ... dj [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as you do not provide AT&T with a number that is not yours to assign, and you do not tamper with the endorsement on the check by rendering some portion of the 'contract' illegible or with a different wording or intention than the maker of the check had in mind, then you are doing fine. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #35 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 10 03:01:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA15632; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:01:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:01:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702100801.DAA15632@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #36 TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 Feb 97 02:54:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 36 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC to Allow per Minute Charges on Internet Users? (Jack Decker) United States Cellular Answers Me (Stanley Cline) Really Strange Problem (Clifton Sharp, Jr.) Re: Florida PSC Selects Three-Way NPA Split (John Cropper) Kevin Mitnick Update (Dave Harrison) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 18:02:58 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: FCC to Allow per Minute Charges on Internet Users? Another message on this topic from the VON (Voice on the Net) mailing list: Message-Id: <199702092207.RAA17745@enterprise.pulver.com> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:53:42 -0500 From: John Collins To: "jeff@pulver.com" cc: VON Mailing List Subject: [VON]: (#1) FCC to allow per minute charges on internet users? Sender: owner-von@Pulver.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Jeff, I've received several notices this weekend about the FCC's pending approval of telco's per minute charging for internet access. The reports all had a "Good Times Virus" air about them, so I've ruffled some feathers by demanding verification. This report is below - you'll see what I mean ... Through my own research, I finally dug up enough "proof" to begin to believe the reports. Because of your past experience with the ACTA petition, work with the FCC, etc., I figured you're the most qualified person I know that I can seek an opinion from. Is there anything for us to worry about? Should I influence my circle of contacts to contact the FCC? If so, what are the guidelines you'd give for doing this? I'm taking the liberty of forwarding you several additional emails. Thanks for your time, and any comments you may have. God bless you, John Collins << start of forwarded material >> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:46:57 -0500 From: atomclow@pepper.ncinter.net (Tom Clow) Subject: Alerting Gods Saints On January 28, 1997, a conglomerate of local phone companies made a filing with the FCC for permission to impose per minute charges on internet users. The phone companies want to cash in on the millions of internet users. A copy of the actual filing is listed below and can be found on the FCC's home page at http://www.fcc.gov/filings.html Protests (or your concerns) can be e-mailed to isp@fcc.gov In the Matter of Access Charge Reform (96-262)/Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers (CC Docket No. 94-1)/Transport Rate Structure and Pricing (CC Docket No.91-213)/Usage of the Public Switched Network by Information Service and Internet Access Providers (CC Docket No. 96-263). Comments - Ad Hoc, ACC Long Distance Corporation, Alabama Public Service Commission, Alaska Telephone Association, Aliant Communications Company, Alliance for Public Technology, Alltel, America Online, Inc., American Association of Retired Persons, American Library Association, American Petroleum Institute, America's Carriers Telecommunication Association, Ameritech, AT&T, Bankers Clearinghouse, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, BellSouth Corporation & BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Cable and Wireless, Cable and Wireless , California, Cathey Hutton and Associates, Centennial Cellular Corporation, Cincinnati Bell Telephone, Citizens Utilities Company, Comments of Independent Telephone & Telecommunications, Commercial Internet Exchange Association, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Communications Workers of America, Competition Policy Institute, Competitive Telecommunications Association, Compuserve, Inc., Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), CSE Foundation, Errata by Bell Atlantic and Nynex, Excel Telecommunications, Inc., Florida Public Service Commission, Frederick and Warinner, L.L.C., Frontier Corporation, General Communications Inc., Group of State Consumer Advocate, GSA, GTE, GVNW, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, ICG Telecom Group, Inc., Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, Illuminet, Information Industry Association, International Communications Association, Internet Access Coalition, ISA, ITCs, IXC Long Distance, Inc., John Steaurulakis, Inc., Joint Comments - American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, et al, Kansas Corporation Commission, LCI International Telecom Corporation, Lyman C. Welch, MCI, Media Access Project, Microsoft Corporation, Minnesota Independent Coalition, National Cable Television Association, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, National Exchange Carrier Association, New York State Department of Public Service, Northern Arkansas Telephone Company, Ohio Consumer's Counsel's, Ozarks Technical Community College, Pacific Telesis Group, Pennsylvania Internet Service Providers, Personal Communications Industry Association, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Roseville Telephone Company, Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative, Rural Telephone Coalition, Rural Utilities Service, SDN Users Association, Inc., Small Western LECs, Evans Telephone Company, Sonetech, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, Southern New England Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Spectranet International, Inc., Sprint Corporation, TCA, Inc., TDS, Telco Communication Group Inc., Tele-Communications Inc., Teleport Communications Group, Inc., Tele-Communications, Inc., Teleport Communications Group, Inc., Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel's, Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc., TRA, US West, Inc., USTA, Washington Independent Telephone Association, Western Alliance, Winstar Communications, Inc., Worldcom, Inc., Airtouch. << end of forwarded material >> Pastor John Collins wcs@smart.net Grace Hour Christian Radio -- (Almost) Live on the Internet! http://www.ggwo.org/ ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: United States Cellular Answers Me Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 22:37:51 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com Earlier this week I finally received a response to the voluminous, numerous complaints I've made to and about United States Cellular about the persistent roaming problems discussed here before -- lack of coverage and excessive overlap into other systems, overcharges, etc. -- and it turns out that USCC doesn't appear to be at fault as much as I thought. In fact, my current (soon to be ex-) cellular carrier -- BellSouth Mobility -- has been providing somewhat confusing and misleading information for the past year or so. Here's a summary of what USCC has stated, and my comments: * No coverage in Polk County (Ocoee, Copper Basin), TN -- USCC is *NOT* "licensed" in that area, as BellSouth has stated previously. In fact, USCC's Construction Permit for Polk County expired in late 1995; therefore, the FCC now considers the area "unserved" and (apparently) the territory could be licensed to *any* carrier. BellSouth stated -- INCORRECTLY -- several times between February and October 1996 that *USCC* was responsible for the area, when in fact *BellSouth* could have it IF THEY WANTED IT. Of course, BS claimed they COULDN'T provide service in Ocoee, when they COULD! Currently, there is still no B-side service in that area; BellSouth has shown no interest in providing service there, and USCC has let it go. Apparently one of four things will happen: a) BellSouth wakes up and gets the license, and a tower up in Copperhill, b) RamCell, the carrier to the east of Copperhill, buys the license, c) someone else gets the territory, or d) area remains with no B service. The way it looks now, d) is what I expect to happen. Further, it turns out USCC has an agreement for its customers to roam on the "A" system (GTE Wireless/CellularOne) in Polk County AT HOME RATE. BellSouth customers, OTOH, are sent to Cellular Express (which charges $2/min.) In fact, BellSouth has pulled most if not ALL A-side roaming agreements for its B-side customers. (On a recent trip to Louisiana, I could NOT roam on ANY A-side systems, and couldn't even in one B system.) I have prodded BellSouth for MONTHS to get an agreement with GTE, but they said they "wouldn't get an agreement with the competitor [in Chattanooga.]" Never mind that GTE's customers *CAN* ROAM ON THE CHATTANOOGA BELLSOUTH SYSTEM! * Phone listing in Copper Basin: USCC said it was intended to help those in Copper Basin area obtain their service "if they live in the area and work in other areas", etc. Given BellSouth's stance on Polk County, it is apparently GOOD that USCC does so -- if only because USCC offers home rate there (which BellSouth doesn't.) * Coverage "overlap" in Spring City, TN: USCC *IS* licensed for the Spring City area. This means that Chattanooga is yet another BellSouth market (Atlanta and New Orleans are others) where BellSouth doesn't hold cellular licenses for a whole local calling area, and that the Rhea County B-side is split in half (BellSouth in Dayton and southern end, USCC in northern half.) * Other coverage overlaps (Coffee and Dekalb counties, etc.):=20 Apparently these were transient, or my phone was misbehaving. * *611 charges: USCC claims BellSouth has caused problems. Apparently this is the case, as for the aforementioned Louisiana trip, I was charged for two customers service calls (both in the Fort Payne, Alabama area.) * Charges for BY/NA: USCC bills other carriers for BY/NA calls IF the call exceeds 59 sec.; whether the other carrier bills the roamer is up to the other carrier. (Apparently under the new quasi-"statewide" local calling, BellSouth does NOT bill for BY/NA in USCC's areas.) USCC denied claims it was intentionally overbilling and gouging customers of BellSouth and other carriers. It turns out I may file complaints against BELLSOUTH, for CONTINUING to advertise its "statewide" local calling when it KNOWS there is NO service in or roaming agreement for Polk County (which IS in Tennessee), and for various other problems mentioned in the Digest before (billing local, intRALATA calls as intERLATA long distance calls, poor service in Jasper, etc.) ... The day after I received the response, I received several emails of a press release issued by BellSouth and US Cellular -- BellSouth is trading its Wisconsin cellular markets (including Green Bay, Janesville, Oshkosh, Racine, and Milwaukee) for interests in other systems in the South. BellSouth will get controlling interest in: * Shelbyville, TN B-side (should be combined w/ BellSo Nashville system) * Bowling Green, Owensboro, Paducah KY A-side * Corbin, Hazard KY A-side * Evansville, IN metro area A-side (will probably be combined with Indianapolis system) and will get partial interests in Nashville, TN; Huntsville, AL; Baton Rouge, LA; and southern Mississippi (Biloxi, etc.) All of these areas, except for Biloxi, are now controlled by BellSouth. ... Anyway, I'm glad to know that USCC isn't as much of an enemy as I used to think, and that I can put this mess behind me. (I'm also dropping my two phones with BellSouth -- they ALREADY know WHY I'd do so! Besides, I may soon be working for CellularOne anyway! Even so, I'm looking at getting a phone with USCC just for ROAMING!) The enemy is now BellSouth! Now I can concentrate on other things, like my web site ... Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, TN mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From: line changed so I get NO SPAM! See http://www.vix.com/spam/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 17:18:54 -0600 From: clifto@webspun.com (Clifton Sharp, Jr.) Subject: Really Strange Problem We opened our latest telephone bill this morning to find a tremendous surprise; several international calls to Australia, Germany and Diego Garcia (?). There has to be some sort of equipment failure involved, and I doubt it's anything I have connected. Here are some call details as shown on the bill. MCI: No. Date Time Place Called Number Code Min Amount 1 1-03 816A AUSTRALIA 61211966 Y 1 1.15 2 1-03 816A GERMANY 496997266111 R 1 1.38 3 1-03 823A AUSTRALIA 61211966 Y 1 1.15 4 1-03 824A GERMANY 496997266111 R 1 1.38 Note that AT&T is our zero-plus IXC. So theoretically, we dialed 10222-01-61-211966, waited for the call to supervise, hung up, dialed 10222-01-49-699-726-6111, waited for the call to supervise, and hung up ... *all within 60 seconds*. AT&T: No. Date Time Place Called Number Code Min Amount 3 1-03 817A DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 4 1-03 817A DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 5 1-03 824A DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 6 1-03 825A DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 7 1-06 146P DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 8 1-06 147P DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 9 1-06 154P DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 10 1-06 154P DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 Again, note the first two and the last two. Also note call 5, which was in the same minute as MCI call 4. Ameritech deleted the MCI charges and said they'd contact repair service to check whatever needs checking; AT&T asked that I call back when I hear what the problem was (they're perfectly willing to delete the charges, but they'd like to know what account to charge them to; I don't mind). Anyone with any ideas what might have caused this? Cliff Sharp | If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make WA9PDM | foghorns out of? --Lonnie Donnegan ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Florida PSC Selects Three-Way NPA Split Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 08:47:15 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Linc Madison wrote: > In article , psyber@mindspring.com > wrote: >> The Florida PSC decided Tuesday in favor of a three-way split for NPA >> 904, to take place as early as late May. >> Essentially, the Pensacola, Panama City, and Tallahassee LATAs will >> retain area code 904. The Jacksonville LATA, encompassing the >> northeast corner of the state, will receive 850, and Daytona Beach >> will receive a third NPA, possibly either 780 or 550 (based on >> available domestic-relief codes, vs. assigned COCs in 904, 407, & >> 352). >> Permissive dialing could start as early as May 31, 1997 (based on >> documentation from the PSC meeting), and last as long as a year. >> The move was a surprise, considering most of the industry support was >> behind a two-way split, with Tallahassee/Panama City/Pensacola >> retaining 904, and Daytona/Jacksonville receiving 850. The move would >> allow 904 and 850 to last until 2004-6, and the new NPA to last six to >> ten years beyond that ... > How long is 352 supposed to last? The original plans called for a much > larger area to be moved out of 904 into the new area code, but the plan > was changed on the basis of the assertion that 904 didn't really need > all that much relief, so it would be okay to move only the Gainesville > LATA. Here they are talking about another split not even a year and a > half later. Originally (in 1995), the Gainesville and Daytona Beach LATAs were to split off 904 and become 850. When 407-850 was discovered to exist, AND was a 7D local call from the Gainesville LATA, the NPA was hastily changed to 352. Additionally, resort owners in Daytona Beach complained of losing their identity, so the idea of moving DBL out of 904 was shelved. The resulting 904/352 split only shaved 179 COCs off 904 (effectively extending its life a maximum of 24 months, as we have now been witness to). As well, 352 has only ADDED prefixes since its initial split in 4Q95, and might be expected to last until 3Q2012 at the current rate of growth (assuming a graduated 7% residential/ business growth boom expected by local planning commissions early in the 21st century). > Many people have expressed concern about the pace at which we are using > up area codes now. I'm not really concerned about things like the 19-way > split in the Caribbean, because at least that's a one-shot deal. However, > if we keep having splits where not even 200 prefixes are moved into the > new area code, we're going to be in serious trouble. You have to remember, Linc, the telcos administering the NANP are at the whim of each respective PSC/PUC. More knowledgable commissioners will advocate the proper methods to prevent frequent need for further relief (be it a multiple split, or an overlay). Less knowledgeable (or in some cases, really stupid) commissioners will go with the 'one-shot, quick fix', as happened in 206/360, 303/970, 602/520, 612/320, 404/770, 904/352, 703/540, 305/954, ... the list goes on. > According to John Cropper's figures on his web page, 352 currently has > only 184 prefixes in it. In Colorado, area codes 970 and 719 combined > have fewer prefixes than what's left of 303. Area code 320 in Minnesota > has only 183 prefixes, leaving 612 to split again almost immediately. > In Virginia, area code 757 has only 294 prefixes, while 804 will be left > with about 478, putting it right back in the queue for another split. Except that in the case of 804/757, you might just see them both split/overlay at the same time, since much of the growth in 804 was in the Chesapeake basin ... > Don't get me wrong -- I think a 3-way split is probably the best option > at this point. However, I think it would've been more prudent to have > made essentially a 3-way split, but with Daytona Beach joining Gainesville > in area code 352, so that what was 904 two years ago would be three, > instead of four area codes a year from now. How many people in Daytona > Beach are really pleased that they got to hold onto 904 for an extra 18 > months? Believe me, they were thrilled to hold on to their identity just as much as your *408ers* fought not to have their domain split ... John Cropper voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 LINCS 609.637.9434 PO Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com http://www.lincs.net/ Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be traced, and the sender's ISP notified. NO COMMERCIAL E-MAIL! ------------------------------ From: Davew@cris.com (Dave Harrison) Subject: Kevin Mitnick Update Date: 8 Feb 1997 08:45:15 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Here's an article I came across in one of our online magazines ... I thought it may be of interest to Digest readers. Note that in a week, Kevin will have been in custody for *two* years and hasn't had a trial date set. The Feds also plan on dragging this out by prosecuting Kevin in multiple jurisdictions because he wouldn't sign a plea bargain. As a sidenote, a few weeks ago, Mitnick was throw in solitary for a weekend and his Walkman was confiscated -- the Feds actually thought he was going to modify it in to a walkie talkie. They also believe he can whistle commands over the phone to remote modems. ---------------------------------------------- Hacked, Cracked and Phreaked All these idiots," Kevin Mitnick told me when I was researching a book about his notorious network infiltrations. "They put their workstations on the Internet and then they run their [encryption] software on their Unix box, and I just backdoor it [for] their pass phrase." With all their bravado, hackers can make you skeptical about the latest advances in computer security. Sure, encryption, firewalls, intrusion detection programs and digital IDs are all helpful tools, but I'm not one of those expecting a miracle cure. As another former cracker recently told me, "Using encryption doesn't make people smart." Two guys named Kevin with eight years of jail between them -- and counting -- have taught me how the other side thinks. I started getting late-night calls on a pay phone from Kevin Mitnick more than two years ago, when he was on the run from the FBI and a little-known security whiz named Tsutomu Shimomura. Kevin Poulsen may be less notorious, but he's no less intriguing. Charged with everything from espionage to hacking radio giveaways -- he won two Porsches -- Poulsen recently finished a five-year stint in federal jail. Last fall, Mitnick's crimes were hinted at in a federal indictment. Since then I've tracked down some of his purported corporate victims and uncovered a clearer picture. The hacker's real targets were industry giants such as Motorola and NEC. Was their computer security bad? Not really. Did Mitnick teach these multinational corporations some very important lessons? Yes. The major alleged offenses against Mitnick are the misappropriation of the proprietary software of a Who's Who of the high-tech world -- Motorola, Nokia, Fujitsu, Novell and NEC. Eighty million bucks is what these companies lost, the government privately says. Some of the companies say the government is exaggerating, arguing that Mitnick seemed to be in it largely for the thrill. But the danger is clear. A hacker with his skills, hired by competitors or foreign governments, could have easily used his intrusions to steal millions of dollars' worth of secrets. How did Mitnick do it? A source at Motorola alleges Mitnick installed what now seems a dated technique -- a packet sniffer to suck up passwords. He did a little "social engineering," allegedly phoning the company and impersonating executives to trick Motorola out of the information he needed to complete his theft. "He did move a block of code," confirms a Motorola official. "He stole source code." Now, the company has new policies for information given out over the phone. Fortunately for Motorola, the company found "no pattern of abuse or fraud." Mitnick, in other words, didn't damage their computers, and as far as they could discern, had no plan to sell their code. In Motorola's defense, sniffers were still new at the time, and Mitnick was a gifted social engineer. The subsequent victims had fewer excuses. Months later, another major cellular phone maker was hit. "By then everybody knew about packet sniffers," says one of the victims. Everybody, it seemed, except for the victimized corporation. Again, they were lucky. Although Mitnick swiped the source code that operates their cellular phone and other wireless products, he didn't seem interested in money or wreaking havoc. Technically, there was no excuse for the success of Mitnick's attacks, because products to combat them were already widely available. But there's frequently a time gap between the latest hacking methods and how quickly companies respond with fixes. Countless Internet mailing lists and World Wide Web sites are posted weekly, highlighting new operating system bugs that could provide access. Staying secure is a fast-moving target. Hackers study and share the vulnerabilities more thoroughly than most security professionals. If you don't patch it in days, you may be the next victim. It's tempting to think that prepacked encryption and other technical innovations will eliminate these risks. But then I remember Mitnick telling me how frequently companies make mistakes in deploying such tools, things as simple as forgetting to delete decrypted messages. And there's another, more subtle problem. Often, the more technology corporations buy, the more they develop an aura of invincibility, an aura the Kevin Mitnicks of the world love to pierce. Pressure to join the Internet and the Web creates another dilemma. The Web may be the future, but its general absence of security is spinning us back into a hacker's Wild West. In the last few months, Web sites for the Air Force, the Department of Justice and the CIA have been hacked and plastered with graffiti. Topless pics of "Friends" TV stars aren't the images the Justice Department wants to portray to the public. Imagine the worst that might show up on your company's window to the public. It's tempting to think technology and the government's tough line on hacking will rid our networks of crime. But consider what the CIA recently told Congress: Hacker terrorists, warned the CIA's director, could execute a strike against our telecommunication and information infrastructure with the destructive force of a nuclear attack. Remember Kevin Poulsen? He wrote a program that ran on Pacific Bell's computers and tipped him off to nearly every FBI wiretap in the state of California. He found mob taps, DEA taps and national security taps. And he could wiretap whomever he wished. Just a kid with no high school diploma, without a political agenda. Imagine what the really scary criminals are doing. Jonathan Littman is a free-lance writer in Mill Valley, Calif., who writes and speaks about computer security. He is the author of "The Fugitive Game" and the upcoming "The Watchman: The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #36 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 10 03:35:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA17589; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:35:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:35:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702100835.DAA17589@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #37 TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 Feb 97 03:35:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 37 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Florida's 904 NPA (Bryan Bethea) Re: New Internet Domain Names (Greg Monti) Re: New Internet Domain Names (John R. Levine) Re: New Internet Domain Names (Dave Close) Re: New Internet Domain Names (Michael P. Deignan) California PUC Approves Splits (Tad Cook) Message Waiting Message (Dave Stott) Re: And the New Number is ... 323 (Dave Close) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (B. A. Clark) Can Caller ID Be Provided As DTMF Tones? (Nicholas Marino) Re: Telegraph Questions (David Wigglesworth) Re: CID-on-CW-Beep and Other ADSI-based Features (Stan Schwartz) Business Complaints Against Jeff Slayton (Dave Keeny) New Scam! Unwanted Calls to Moldava (Tad Cook) 714 to Split in April, 1998 (Tad Cook) California's First Donut-Shaped Area Code Split (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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Bryan Bethea Subject: Florida's 904 NPA Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:52:29 -0600 The Florida PSC has ordered a three-way split of the code in May. All exchanges in the Jacksonville LATA will move to the new 850 NPA while the Daytona Beach LATA will move to yet another new code. Pensacola, Panama City, and Tallahassee will retain the 904 NPA. In my opinion this is not prudent use of numbering resources. The major reason that 904 was retained in the Panhandle was the whimpering of the State government over the inflated cost of reprogramming state equipment and reprinting stationery, etc. The Tallahassee bureaucrats have decided in favor of themselves rather than North Florida residents that will be impacted by these changes. Both the new 850 NPA and the smaller 904 NPA will be roughly equal in size. They will each need relief by 2006. The new Daytona Beach code, however, will only contain 64 codes! (and will last until my great-great-great grandchildren are on medicare!) Daytona Beach needs to be moved into the 352 NPA now covering the Gainesville LATA. From my reserarch there would be only one code conflict that could easily be resolved. The City of Jacksonville is appealing the PSC's decision to force Jacksonville into 850. I think the commission should reconsider and move Pensacola, Panama City, and Tallahassee into 850 and leave Jacksonville in 904 while moving Daytona Beach into the 352 NPA. Here is a code analysis of the 904 NPA: Pensacola LATA 112 codes Panama City LATA 73 codes Tallahassee LATA 120 codes* Jacksonville LATA 250 codes* Daytona Beach LATA 64 codes Orlando LATA 8 codes Mobile, AL LATA 3 codes [*approximate numbers] Since the 1995 split of the 904 NPA with the 352 NPA, the Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville LATAs have been the heaviest consumers of new codes. It is only logical to separate the three fast growing regions by moving Pensacola and Tallahassee into the 850 code and leaving Jacksonville in the 904 code while moving Daytona Beach into 352. Bryan Bethea Market Analysis Team Touch 1 Communications ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 22:47:39 -0500 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: Re: New Internet Domain Names At 10:16 AM 2/7/97 EST, John R. Levine wrote: >> The article notes that 85,000 new domain names are registered per >> month, 90% of those ending with .com The 28 firms that will register >> the names will likely charge $50 per year per name, same as Internic >> charges. The 28 name givers have formed a Council of Registrars to >> administer conflicting claims. > If that's what the article said, they're jumping the gun by several > months. The registars will be chosen by an application process, with > a lottery if there are too many qualified applicants. There are rules > to ensure geographic diversity as well. The Wall Street Journal is usually pretty good with facts on technical stories. (The front page story about the storm of Skypage beepers going off last month was wonderfully detailed and humorous.) You're right. They jumped the gun this time. I think what they should have said was that 28 firms had lined up for naming duties. > For the true facts, see http://www.iahc.org where the report is, along > with far too many comments. You're not kidding. Those guys go on and on. And that web page was not the letters to the editor column, it was more like a press release. A short course in Publicity 101 couldn't hurt. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:01:51 EST From: John R Levine Subject: Re: New Internet Domain Names > jumped the gun this time. I think what they should have said was that 28 > firms had lined up for naming duties. Nope, the lottery has slots for 28 winners, with geographic quotas. They're still probably a month away from accepting entries, at least three months away from selecting winners, and six months away from accepting any registrations in the new domains. >> For the true facts, see http://www.iahc.org where the report is, along >> with far too many comments. > You're not kidding. Those guys go on and on. And that web page was not the > letters to the editor column, it was more like a press release. A short > course in Publicity 101 couldn't hurt. Considering both the time pressure and political pressure the IAHC have been working under, they did a pretty good job. The real issue, and one that nobody seems to be covering, is the coming war with NSI. NSI's agreement with the NSF runs out at the end of '98, at which point it is far from clear who has the right to decide who's the registrar(s) for .COM, .ORG, and .NET. NSI seems to have a theory that the database of domain names belongs to them, so they get to be the registrar forever, even though they created it under a government contract. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, Trumansburg NY Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: New Internet Domain Names Date: 9 Feb 1997 21:44:17 -0800 Organization: Network Intensive gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) writes: > The article notes that 85,000 new domain names are registered per > month, 90% of those ending with .com It might help if local governments didn't register absurdities like cityname.com. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: New Internet Domain Names Date: 9 Feb 1997 17:51:34 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Greg Monti wrote: > The article notes that 85,000 new domain names are registered per > month, 85,000 x 100 = 85,000,000 x 12 = 1,020,000,000 Hmmm ... Pretty lucrative business the Internic has going, isn't it? MD ------------------------------ Subject: California PUC Approves Splits Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:00:24 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) State PUC approves split for 408, 510 area codes Mercury News Staff Report As expected, the California Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday approved plans to split the 408 and 510 area codes. The splits are to relieve the crunch in availability of new phone numbers. The 408 split will create the 831 code, which will serve most of Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties. The industry-drawn plan, prepared after a number of public hearings, was approved by the PUC without changes, and the 831 code is scheduled to go into effect July 11, 1998. For the first six months after the code goes into effect, callers will be able to use either the 408 or 831 code to complete calls. After that grace period, 831 becomes the permanent code. Rates are not affected by area code splits. The 510 split will create the 925 code to serve areas east of the Oakland hills, including Martinez, Concord, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Moraga, Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. It is scheduled to go into effect March 14, 1998. The PUC also approved a unique split for Los Angeles. The 213 area code will become the first area code in the state to be split into a ``doughnut.'' The current 213 code will serve the downtown business district, while the area circling the downtown area will become 323, effective June 13, 1998. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:22:41 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Message Waiting Message I've had both Call Waiting and Caller ID with visual message waiting indication for the past several months, but /do not/ have Call Waiting with Caller ID. Suddenly, just last Wednesday, in fact, my Caller ID box (a CIDCO SA-60A-10 name and number unit) started showing the message "MESSAGE WAITING." Sure enough, my Notify MessagAlert (model 300) light was blinking as well. And when I picked up, there /was/ stutter dial tone. Here's the question: anybody else ever seen this on a standard CIDCO name and number box? I don't think it's ADSI compliant, and I know for a fact that U S WEST hasn't changed their Voice Messaging service (I know the people who work on it). Any suggestions? Dave Stott dstott@worlnet.att.net or dstott@mtg.com ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: And the New Number is ... 323 Date: 9 Feb 1997 21:42:31 -0800 Organization: Network Intensive Mike King writes (quoting a PacTel press release): > That demand is being spurred by several factors, the two primary > being the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers, cellular > phones, modems for Internet access, and data communications networks > like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone > lines. The other factor is the onset of competition in California's > local telephone service market, with each new provider requiring a > separate supply of telephone numbers. Also according to PacTel, as quoted in the LA Times about two weeks ago, the total number of new telephone lines installed statewide last year was about 650,000. At 14 area codes in the state right now, and allowing for the fact that not all are equally dense, that's not much more than about 50,000 per area code. Or only five or six local exchanges (NXX) per NPA due to additional telephone lines. Clearly, the "explosion" of new phone uses does not account for much of the reason to add new area codes. Yet PacTel, and everyone else, keeps assigning primary blame to that factor. By ignoring the current and =potential= demand for new numbers by competitors, they shift the blame to consumers. I strongly believe that if consumers realized the real culprit, they would demand a different solution than a split. I am not against competition. But consumers should realize that their cost in new stationery, new advertising, lost or disrupted business, etc., etc., is primarily to benefit the new companies. If it weren't for their demand that their numbers not be easily distinguishable from PacBell's, there would be no reason not to solve the problem with an overlay. The CPUC has given in to the competitor's pressure but should be given a good dose of common sense by the public. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: baclark@swbell.net (B.A. Clark) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: 10 Feb 1997 00:10:59 GMT Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services Jonathan I. Kamens wrote in article ... > In my case, when I ordered the second line, NYNEX was out of free > pairs in my neighborhood, so rather than pulling a new pair from the > central office, they installed a "miniplexor" on my existing pair and > an identical unit at the central office, to carry two phone lines over > my existing pair. Of course, a 33.6kbps modem does not appreciate > sharing line bandwidth with someone talking on the same wires, so the > performance was not exactly acceptable. I bitched and moaned to NYNEX > and the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities about how I paid > for a real line and I expected to receive a real line, and in the end > NYNEX pulled a fresh pair directly from the central office to my > apartment, and that pair has worked just fine ever since. It helped > that I finally got to talk to the outside foreman for the local > office, i.e., to someone who actually understood what I was asking for > and how to fix it. Hate to tell you this, seeing as you are so knowledgeable, but some of those "miniplexor's" are actually digital lines, 128k of data broken into 2 64k channels, with 16k of signaling outside. Surprising similar to ISDN. ------------------------------ From: Nicholas Marino Subject: Can Caller ID Be Provided As DTMF Tones? Date: 10 Feb 1997 03:56:33 GMT I have a rather large (48 line) voice mail installation in Connecticut, and would like to take advantage of Caller ID. Unfortunately, the voice boards I'm using don't recognize Caller ID. They are Dialogic D240/SC boards. Is it possible for SNET (the local telco in CT) to provide Caller ID as DTMF or MF tones? Or, more importantly, is it practical for them to do so on a case-by-case basis? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:30:56 -0500 From: David Wigglesworth Subject: Re: Telegraph Questions Bill Ranck (ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu) wrote: > Lee Winson (lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote: >> Would anyone know if they really did use the word "stop" in telegrams, >> and if so, why did they and when did they stop? > This is just a guess, but the item we Americans refer to as a period, > is called a "stop" or "full stop" by the British. Indeed you are correct. The term "stop" is used to signify what the Americans refer to as a period. Incidently, my father is a Postmaster, in England, and while the Post Office stopped handling telegrams years ago, I can still remeber him getting telegrams passed to him over the phone and then he would then go out and deliver them. You can still send a telegram in England today, but I am not sure why, modern technology seems to have completely surpassed the current system: You call a British Telecom number and they transcribe the message. That message is then sent electronically to the nearest city to the recipient, where it is printed out and put in the first class mail and, you've guessed it, delivered with the morning mail delivery. Definitely a little quirky. David Wigglesworth David_W@pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: CID-on-CW-Beep and Other ADSI-based Features Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:48:49 -0500 Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Also, other 'non-telco' information providers, such as a telephone > mail order center, a transportation company (bus, train, airline), > bank, etc. can have 'ADSI-based' information downloaded to your > unit. You will interface with the buttons on your box, and maybe even > hear voiceprompts, and strings of DTMF will be sent from your CPE to > the (non-telco) ADSI-host to indicate as to what you are > requesting. Using an ADSI screen phone, try calling 516-560-7000. Pretty cool. > BellSouth is providing some of the most customer-friendly service > when I compare it with other LEC's in North America! The "Complete > Choice" package, as well as their introduction of ADSI-based features > is going to be a _great_ benefit to customers like myself who like to > have as many central-office based features as possible, all at an > affordable price! The last year and a half I've spent with BellSouth have been the best experience I've ever had with an LEC. I'm moving 3/4 of a mile down the road (same city, state, and zip code) over an imaginary borderline and I have to switch to Alltel Carolinas for my LEC service. I haven't heard great things about Alltel, but only time will tell. I had Complete Choice on my BellSouth lines, and it was great. Unfortunately the PUC in North Carolina still hasn't approved CID/CW "Call Waiting Deluxe" or Anonymous Call Rejection, so I could take advantage of those under Complete Choice. I'm sure going to miss a customer service department where I could speak to a live person 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Stan P.S.: Anyone who needs to send me "I saw your name in comp.dcom.telecom and thought you'd be interested in the dreck I'm selling" e-mail, please save your keystrokes. I don't do business with junk e-mailers. ------------------------------ From: Dave Keeny Subject: Business Complaints Against Jeff Slayton Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 15:27:50 +0500 Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation Pat, It's seems like a while since there has been much discussion of spam, in its various forms, in the Digest. I thought I'd pass along an excerpt from http://com.primenet.com/spamking/ : > 1/20: Good News! Jeff Slaton is being investigated by the FBI in > response to "lots of complaints" about various activities more related > to shady business practices than the actual spamming. Slaton is almost > at a felony level, and the FBI needs a few more complaints against him > to push him over into that category. If you have any firsthand > complaints about damage or theft that Slaton or IQ-Internet Marketing > has done to you, please call Joe Ayala of Albuquerque FBI at > 505-224-2000. There are far more spammers out there than Slaton, but > it's going to be good to see him finally getting what he deserves. I hope there is substance to this report. BTW, in the ATTITUDE.TXT link of that URL, Slaton credits the Digest with helping him attain Urban Legendhood. Wish he'd mention how much the Digest helped in boosting his 1-800 telephone inquiries. Dave ------------------------------ Subject: New Scam! Unwanted Calls to Moldava Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:55:51 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (I'm a LITTLE bit skeptical of this, just because it reminds me of email virus warnings, but it comes from a reliable source. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com) from www.fraud.org the National Fraud Information Center (1-800-876-7060): Monday, February 4, 1997 PORNO SURPRISE Consumers who visited a pornographic website (www.sexygirls.com) last month got a big surprise on their phone bills. After a few teaser pictures, surfer was told he/she needed to download a special program to view the archived images. That program was actually a viewer with an entire communications suite hidden deep inside (a non-self propogating Trojan Horse). The program disconnected user from his/her ISPs, shut off the volume on the modem if it was computer controlled, and dialed a number in Moldova -- a small, former republic of the Soviet Union wedged in between the Ukraine and Romania. All the while the consumer was on the website, and even if he/she then browsed other sites on the World Wide Web, the Internet access was being provided through the Moldova number, resulting in huge international phone charges! Consumers didn't know that until their phone bills arrived. According to the Toronto Star Business Reporter, there are Canadian reports of bills into the thousands. The Toronto star also reports that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has requested all calls from Canada to that number in Moldova be blocked. Bell Canada is attempting to provide relief for Canadian consumers. US consumers should contact their long distance providers if they find these unexpected charges on their bill. The RCMP has also required the owners of sexygirls.com to place a disclaimer on the site, alerting consumers to the presence of the communications software in the viewer. The disclaimer also tells consumers how to disconnect if they do not wish to use the server in Moldava. In November, Internet Fraud Watch warned consumers concerning the possible dangers of downloading programs over the Internet. Some tips: Don't download unnecessary items. If it's just a piece of razzle-dazzle, don't bother. It will only take up space on your hard drive and perform no useful function. If there's no gain for you from the program, there's no reason to take it. Only download from sites you know and trust. While even a major corporations site can sometimes have a viral infection, a lone programmer might be using an attractive piece of code as a delivery vehicle for his pet virus. Don't download material directly onto a computer network at work. First download it onto a stand alone PC. Test it out. Make sure it doesn't have any malicious side-effects. Check that machine for known viruses. Only at that point should you install the dostand alone PC. Test it out. Make sure of it. If you feel you must download files, keep track of what files you have on your system and what files are created during a program installation. That way you can easily uninstall any program if you find it to be undesirable. This also helps in detecting new installed files that aren't supposed to be there. Remember, your main worry is an executable file (i.e. a program or application). Despite what you hear all over the Internet, you cannot get a virus from a piece of e-mail. If you are having a problem with calls to Moldova, the connection will only be made if you attempt to use the viewer. If you try to use the viewer, shut down your machine after you are finished at that site. If you wish to remove the viewer altogether, the file name is david.exe (for IBM users). If you are in Windows, it should be in your program folder. ------------------------------ Subject: 714 to Split in April, 1998 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:36:10 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Orange County's 714 Area Code To Split As Planned In April 1998; PUC Denies Request To Move Up Timeline For Introduction Of New 949 Area Code LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 5, 1997--The geographic split planned for the 714 area code in Southern California's Orange County will occur in April 1998, instead of six months earlier under a ruling issued today by the California Public Utilities Commission. The Commission turned down a request from most of the telecommunications industry to move up the 714 area code's split date by six months to October 1997. Instead, the 714 area code will be split on April 18, 1998 with the introduction of a new area code -- 949 -- to serve Orange County's southern half. In the same order, the Commission approved the boundaries of the 714-949 area code split, which had been submitted for approval in December 1996. The boundaries were supported by the telecommunications industry and reflect customer input received during three public meetings in June 1996. California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett, who oversees area code relief statewide for the telecommunications industry, said the 714-949 area code split's introduction timeline was the only issue of disagreement among industry planning committee members. `Because of the number crunch in the 714 area code, a significant part of the group wanted the 714 area code split timeline moved up,` Bennett said. `But the Commission apparently felt this would not allow adequate notification time both for consumers and the national telecommunications industry.` As approved, the existing 714 area code -- which serves most of Orange County -- will be split near the county's geographic center. The details are as follows: -- Most existing 714 customers in the northern portion of Orange County will keep the 714 area code. Some of the communities that will remain entirely in the 714 include: Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Orange, Placentia, Seal Beach, Stanton, Westminster and Yorba Linda. The majority of customers in Santa Ana and Tustin will also keep the 714 area code. The 714 area code will also continue to serve very small portions of Brea, La Mirada, La Palma, Los Alamitos and La Habra. -- Most existing 714 customers in the southern portion of Orange County will receive the new 949 area code. Some of the communities to be served by the 949 include Aliso Viejo, Balboa, Capistrano Valley, Corona del Mar, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana Heights. Most customers in Irvine will also receive the new 949 area code. Several communities located along the new 714-949 split line border will be served by both area codes, meaning part of the community will stay 714 and part will receive the new 949 code. In Irvine, for instance, most of the city will be served by 949, except a small portion that will stay 714. Other cities that will be served by both area codes include Santa Ana and Tustin, which primarily remain 714 and Costa Mesa, which will be divided in half by the two area codes. The new 949 area code is estimated to last 18 to 22 years, while the reconfigured 714 can accommodate number growth for four to five years. Because there was disagreement in the industry on the most appropriate introduction date, Bennett said position papers were filed with the Commission supporting and opposing the advanced 714 area code split timeline. AT&T, the California Cable Television Association, ICG Access Services and AirTouch Cellular supported acceleration of the timeline while Pacific Bell and GTE opposed the advanced timeline. Pacific Bell said moving up the new area code's introduction may cause customer service disruptions, with adverse impacts possible on 911 service, call completions, billing and repair service among other effects. Pacific Bell also said moving up the schedule would not allow adequate notification to customers of the new 949 area code's revised introduction date. Instead of a 15-month notice required by state law, customers would only receive an 8-month notice. `Public Utilities Code 7930 was enacted because the Legislature was concerned that customers receive adequate notice of a change in their area code, so that they could participate in the planning process, could notify friends and relatives, could order new stationery, signs, brochures and other advertising materials and would not waste large sums in buying stationery and advertising materials containing their old area code,` Pacific Bell said in its petition. Pacific Bell also noted that PBX (private phone system) owners, alarm companies and ISDN customers also must have adequate notice to update their equipment. But the California Cable Television Association and ICG argued that the potential for problems stemming from an accelerated schedule must be weighed against the certainty that new entrants into the local telephone market cannot begin to offer phone service if they do not have sufficient phone numbers. The Commission concluded that, `On balance, the negative effects on customers and the industry resulting from an insufficient implementation timeline for the 714 NPA (area code) relief plan justify keeping the scheduled start date for permissive dialing April 1998.` CONTACT: Pacific Bell, Los Angeles David A. Dickstein, 213/975-4074 http://www.pactel.com http://www.businesswire.com ------------------------------ Subject: California's First Donut-Shaped Area Code Split Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:49:51 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) And the New Number is ... 323; Geographic Split Approved For 213 Area Code In Los Angeles LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 5, 1997--California's first donut-shaped geographic area code split was approved today by the state Public Utilities Commission to provide relief for the 213 area code in Los Angeles. The split will create a new area code -- 323 -- to serve part of the region beginning next year. Introduction of the new 323 area code, which will be California's 21st, is planned for June 13, 1998, and is needed to meet the rapidly growing demand for additional phone numbers in the 213 area code. Among the communities currently served all or in part by the 213 area code are: Bell, Belvedere Gardens, Commerce, Cudahy, Eagle Rock, East Los Angeles, Highland Park, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Laurel Canyon, Los Angeles, Maywood, Montebello, Monterey Park, South Gate, Vernon, Watts and West Hollywood. New Area Code Boundaries Under the 213 area code split, a three-mile diameter region in downtown Los Angeles will keep the 213 area code. All other existing 213 area code customers will receive the new 323 area code. The split will have a donut shape, with the downtown Los Angeles business district located in the center of the donut. `While the donut shape does not conform to the traditional east-west or north-south splitting of NPA (area code) boundaries, it is the only way to achieve an equal division of the 213 NPA into two parts without splitting downtown Los Angeles,` the California Public Utilities Commission wrote in its order approving the geographic split plan. California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett, who oversees area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry, said two options for adding an area code in the 213 were submitted to the Commission in November 1996 following public comment in July 1996. `Because the industry could not reach consensus on one plan, two ultimately approved and an overlay proposal,` Bennett said. In an overlay, a new area code is placed over the existing area code, with both codes sharing the same geographic boundaries. The new area code is generally given to people who request new phone numbers, while existing customers keep the old area code. The Commission issued a policy decision in late December precluding the use of overlays in California for area code relief projects through the year 2000. The Commission said several issues related to competition need to be resolved before overlays may be used. Last month, Pacific Bell asked the Commission to reconsider its area code policy ruling to allow an overlay in the 213 area code. Area Code Portion of Phone Number Impacted, But Not Call Price Bennett said the new area code's introduction will not affect customer's seven-digit phone numbers. However, customers in the new 323 area code will need to change the area code portion of their phone number beginning June, 13, 1998. The introduction of the new area code will have no impact on the price of telephone calls, Bennett added. `Call distance determines call price. What is a local call today will remain a local call regardless of the area code change.` The new 323 area code is estimated to last 11 to 13 years, while the reconfigured 213 area code will have enough numbers to accommodate growth for 5 1/2 to 7 years. Bennett said the new area code is needed to meet the skyrocketing demand for new phone numbers in the Los Angeles area and across the state. `Californians are continuing to use telephone numbers at record rates,` he said. `California has 14 area codes and will need to grow to 26 area codes by the year 2001 to keep pace with customer demand.` In the greater Los Angeles region, 213 is one of four area codes that have been split or that will split by the end of 1998. Last month, the new 562 area code was split off from the 310 area code and now serves southeastern Los Angeles County. The 818 area code in northern Los Angeles County will split off the 626 area code later this year. And in 1998, Orange County's 714 area code will also split off the 949 area code. Bennett said when the new 323 area code is introduced in June 1998, there will be a six-month `permissive` dialing period during which callers can dial either the old or new area code. Things to Remember Change stationery, notify friends and associates Bennett said a new area code impacts consumers and businesses in many ways. Among the things to remember: -- Change stationery, business cards and advertising to reflect the new area code -- Notify friends, relatives, clients and customers of the change -- Reprogram fax machines and auto-dialers -- Customers with cellular phones and pagers should check with their service provider to see if reprogramming is required. Make Sure Equipment Can Accommodate The New Area Code The new 323 area code is part of a series of new-style area codes introduced in North America beginning in 1995 that can be any three digits. This has special implications for certain types of telecommunications equipment, which must be reprogrammed to recognize the new-style area codes, Bennett said. `Historically, area codes always had either a `1` or `0` as the middle digit for identification purposes, but all of those codes are gone. The new number combinations allow area codes to be any three digits from 220 to 999, creating an additional 5 billion phone numbers. `Because of this, it's important for customers to know that PBX (private phone) systems, auto-dialers, alarms and other telecommunications equipment will have to be re-programmed to recognize these new-style area codes,` said Bennett, adding that people should check with their equipment vendors to see if their equipment needs to be reprogrammed. More Area Codes To Come Statewide The 213 area is the latest in a series of regions in California requiring area code relief due to growing demand. That demand is being spurred by several factors, the two primary being the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access, and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone lines. The other factor is the onset of competition in California's local telephone service market, with each new provider requiring a separate supply of telephone numbers. In addition to the 213 area code, California areas which have already been designated as requiring new area codes are: 818 in the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valley areas, 619 in the San Diego, Palm Springs and Inland County areas, 415 in the San Francisco Bay area, 916 in Sacramento and Northern California, 510 in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, 714 in Orange County, 408 covering the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas, 209 in the Stockton, Modesto and Fresno areas and 805 serving the Ventura County, Santa Barbara County and Bakersfield areas. Plans for the 213 area code were collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group representing more than 30 companies, including Pacific Bell, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, AirTouch, GTE, Pagenet, AT&T Wireless, MFS Communications Co., Teleport Communications Group (TCG), the California Cable Television Association and others. CONTACT: Pacific Bell David A. Dickstein, 213/975-4074 http://www.pacbell.com http://www.pactel.com http://www.businesswire.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #37 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 11 23:59:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA13420; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:59:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:59:35 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702120459.XAA13420@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #38 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Feb 97 23:59:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 38 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "The Hill on the Net" by Casey (Rob Slade) Internet Access Coalition Web Site (Toby Nixon) "Satellite Phone Scam Hits Internet (Van Hefner) The Coming 56kbps War (Tad Cook) Alternatives to Per-Minute Charges For Internet Access (Billy Newsom) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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, 10 Feb 1997 13:20:04 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Hill on the Net" by Casey BKHILNET.RVW 961022 "The Hill on the Net", Chris Casey, 1996, 0-12-162870-1, U$19.95 %A Chris Casey chris@casey.com %C 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 %D 1996 %G 0-12-162870-1 %I Academic Press Professional %O U$19.95 619-231-0926 800-321-5068 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com %P 266 %T "The Hill on the Net: Congress Enters the Information Age" The subtitle, of course, may be overstating the case. Given Clipper, Exon, and the phrase "Information Superhighway", Washington, DC, if it has been dragged to the edge of the info age, has not entered with any degree of enthusiasm or understanding. Still, from his position as a support staffer in Senator Edward Kennedy's office, Casey has been around for most of the evolution, such as it is. He provides an insider's view and perspective on the activities and development of electronic communication in the political side of the US federal government. There were a couple of ironies I found in reviewing the book. One is that, for all my complaints about general Internet titles that were profoundly US-centric, this book, legitimately concentrating on strictly American political concerns, provides a fascinating insight into the Washington machinery, particularly in regard to correspondence with constituents. Another is that Casey's limited computer background in no way detracts from the text. A text by a technical expert would have been quite a different work. Casey's background is, in a sense, representative of the lack of familiarity with computer and communications technology in the US capitol as a whole. It is instructive to watch Casey go into lecture mode as he berates the general public over the style of email to be sent to representatives. (The rest of us get spam on a daily basis, and most don't have paid staff to deal with it. Lighten up, Chris.) It is also interesting to come to the end of the book and realize that much has been said about press releases, postings, and Web sites for the politicians to get the message out to the electorate, and almost nothing about the use of the net as a research tool for those who are supposed to make the big decisions. As I discussed the book with my wife, she reminded me to the antics of Ted White, our local Member of (Canada's) Parliament. He has spent thousands (and thousands more than he should have) on various technical schemes to poll the riding. He seems to have a knack for picking the wrong technology for some very good ideas. Still, for all his incompetence, you have to admire someone who is so willing to push the envelope on the political use of technology. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKHILNET.RVW 961022 Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm Genesis 4:9/Proverbs 24: 11,12 - your choice ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Internet Access Coalition Web Site Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:41:44 -0800 If you're concerned about the possibility that the FCC may allow local exchange carriers to impose interstate access charges on Internet Service Providers, possibly doubling (or more) the cost of your Internet access, then you should check out http://www.internetaccess.org. The Internet Access Coalition web site explains the issues and tells you what you can do to help keep the cost of Internet access low. Toby Nixon, Program Manager - NetMeeting http://www.microsoft.com/netmeeting Microsoft Corporation, Applications and Internet Client Group, Redmond WA +1 (206) 936-2792 Fax: +1 (206) 936-7329 mailto:tnixon@microsoft.com begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(AL2`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M%0```$E032Y.3U1%+E-%0U5212Y324=.`)X%`06 `P`.````S0<"``L`"@`I M`"P``@!"`0$@@ ,`#@```,T'`@`+``H`* `T``(`20$!"8 !`"$```!#,#)$ M031%,#(U.#1$,#$Q.#5$.# P.# U1D0T-C@Q, #O!@$-@ 0``@````(``@`! M!( !`",```!);G1E``J "" &``````# ````````1@`````WA0```0````$`````````'@`+ M@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`````.(4```$````!``````````,`!A -DGD. M`P`'$!\"```>``@0`0```&4```!)1EE/55)%0T].0T523D5$04)/55142$50 M3U-324))3$E4651(05142$5&0T--05E!3$Q/5TQ/0T%,15A#2$%.1T5#05)2 M24524U1/24U03U-%24Y415)35$%414%#0T534T-(``````,`$! ``````P`1 M$ `````"`0D0`0```+H"``"V`@``"@0``$Q:1G4VQQF_`P`*`')C<&'1O( =P&B$8P N M=.\=D0&0'I 9<&,9$ 01$-+_'1 $( (@&# >@AE !4 &879V#> 8P% #8"$` M!(%SZBP:%6P:P&0(8 )@"X"X9R H!;$$8 EP*1G3_P6@'L @`!A3!< @1Q\D M(> G&>$#H!AQ(',3P'5L]QE@$- %D&L@`!FQ"- `00DFH"!H`D!P.B\ONG9R>!`4 FH!% +A.0&?&]($=!'S0(4 = &J!I(!'X=V5B M)F :H!C '+ +4_\=L1GQ! $*4 0@`' 98!Z0]QP`!" F,G<:\B8R'' #H(#_,' CRB3='$$HD JB"H0+,2,S`P&1("TM$Y!O8OIY,N1? M-1\V+S<_-[4RY9D#T#$V-&,'L&EX`B!G(> A40G 86T%T !P8<\=$ 7 -% ' MP'1-"> L$&\B\3P$)X\HD&T-X -@<\DD4'0N!:!M+R"1!X"W.[,IUC+D33VV M*[%R&B#G.H L$B'@07 +4 W@00.[+A0@1T,:D GP!4!'`V!T=7 AX%()@ 1@ M+D$@1%=!/ !54T$XQC%4("M%<"@!T#8CH#E!#S M,C#I%C#0#VK/R<3(CE -S+J"[8+,O,4(0!-D ``"P`" M``$````>`' ``0```",```!);G1EDTUC !&&KW]8TF0MG>EB'4\Q-B, M%8 8329A7$T>KD0W_#`0(#`0`! M, <&!2L.`P(#`T$`2O7P3,-E*?S&?C!DK^KIN"5QU 8`,KUT`L&5Y!ZQI_LZ MP/VDS_<=?. "7>[-W91V/FQ%PI+7BL7 7M/@=WE2$ ````4```! $$P\*-\Y MC@XR+V Y>B(&6:P````H````*5&]B>2!.:7AO;@````P```! 9LH&3H_( M)NS#.IFES@"IW1 `MO_^Z,#HL'YW#/:4%48?R^>%Q5IG4W^ MB7GMLOE^CIOST9F])@```!4````$$ D!`@````\````$-P$``````&,````` M``! `#D`H&"&.DL8O $#`/$_"00```,`_3_D! ```P" $/____\#`"8````` M``,`-@``````'@`U$ $````V````/#,P04$Q,$9%-#(R1$-&,3$X-4(V,# X M,#5&1#0V.#$P,#)#1#9&-C= 4D5$+3$P+4U31SX````"`4<``0```# ```!C M/553.V$](#MP/6US9G0[;#U2140M,3 M35-'+3DW,#(Q,3$X-#$T-%HM-C@Y M-P`"`?D_`0```%$`````````W*= R,!"$!JTN0@`*R_A@@$`````````+T\] M34E#4D]33T94+T]5/4Y/4E1(04U%4DE#02]#3CU214-)4$E%3E13+T-./3$Q M-3@Q,@`````>`/@_`0````L```!4;V)Y($YI>&]N```"`?L_`0```%$````` M````W*= R,!"$!JTN0@`*R_A@@$`````````+T\]34E#4D]33T94+T]5/4Y/ M4E1(04U%4DE#02]#3CU214-)4$E%3E13+T-./3$Q-3@Q,@`````>`/H_`0`` M``L```!4;V)Y($YI>&]N``! ```#T``0````$````` M````"P`I```````+`",```````(!?P`!````3 ```#QC/553)6$]7R5P/6US M9G0E;#U2140M,3 M35-'+3DW,#(Q,3$X-#$T-%HM-C@Y-T!)3D54+3 R+4E- 30RYM:6-R;W-O9G0N8V]M/@#67S(Q ` end ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:27:21 -0800 From: Van Hefner Subject: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet Eureka, CA, Feb. 11, 1997 (DLD Digest) -- We have been flodded this past week with inquiries about a new "breakthrough technology" which is being touted via the internet, junk faxes and junk mail. The vaguely worded press releases we have seen proclaim that this is the MLM opportunity of a lifetime. It goes on to claim that satellite telephones will soon be available to consumers which will lower the price of long distance calls to as low as 4 cents per minute, anywhere in the world. The releases also claim that "major corporations" are backing this project, although those releasing the info refuse to name the actual companies. The claims are quite simply FALSE. Though we do not know who the actual company is that is distributing this "spam", we do know that the entire thing is a hoax. The only new satellite-telephone system that is even SCHEDULED for deployment (MAYBE!) this decade belongs to Motorola, and they have announced rates that will be higher than cellular phone rates, approximately $1.00 per minute. The only other satellite-telephone system available to the public is Inmarsat, on which time can be purchased for perhaps as low as $3.00 per minute. Terminals for this service cost several thousand dollars. Geosynchonous satellites, such as those used for satellite television, can not be used for satellite-phones very effectively because of a time delay (2/3 of a second) that is produced in conversations, due to the fact that each satellite orbit 22,300 miles from earth (even at the speed of light, it takes nearly a second to make the round trip). If a phone conversation is taking place somewhere the first satellite does not reach (such as from the U.S. to Japan) TWO satellites must be used in a relay fashion. This produces a time delay of 1 1/3 seconds in the conversation. This is one reason why most long distance traffic is carried underground/undersea via fiber optics, and NOT via satellite. The time delay not only makes conversations much more difficult to carry on, but makes the transmission of faxes, the internet, etc. nearly impossible in many cases. Data on Motorola's system is only guaranteed at 2400 baud! Motorola's Iridium system will use numerous LEO (low earth orbit) satellites to solve the above problems. However, using satellites in a lower orbit means that the "coverage" is not as good, and approximately 66 LEO satellites will be needed to cover the entire planet. This means years of preperation and BILLIONS of dollars in start-up costs. It also means that a project of this size would be impossible to "hide" from the general public for any length of time. Thus, if any new satellite-phone system were near deployment, it would be known about many years in advance. NO SATELLITE PHONE SYSTEM SUCH AS THOSE TOUTED ON THE INTERNET ARE SCHEDULED FOR DEPLOYMENT THIS DECADE! Though we can only speculate as to the motives of those behind this alleged get-rich-quick satellite-phone scam, we do know that there is absolutely no basis for their claims, and that such a phone system will definately not be deployed as claimed within this decade. We would have to guess that some MLM company is trying to build itself an "opportunity seekers" mailing list. Such mailing lists can be very valuable to companies recruiting MLM distributors. This farce sounds like a good way for them to collect names, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses for possible spamming at a later date. Don't be surprised to see many more such offers if you give your name and address to these people. We advise you to stay as far away as possible from this whole mess. For information on the next "real" satellite-phone system that is scheduled for deployment, check-out Motorola's Iridium Homepage at http://www.iridium.com Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.thedigest.com ------------------------------ Subject: The Coming 56kbps War Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:41:35 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New modems are fast, cheap, incompatible BY FREDERICK ROSE and EVAN RAMSTAD The Wall Street Journal The good news for computer users is that they'll soon be able to connect to the Internet nearly twice as fast. The bad news is that they'll have to take sides in a battle between two incompatible modems. Over the coming months, Rockwell International Corp. and U.S. Robotics Corp. will be shipping modems -- devices to transmit computer data across phone lines -- that allow home computer users to receive information at 56,000 digital bits a second, compared with the currently common 28,800. The companies are vying aggressively for a market estimated at more than $5 billion a year. As computer users, frustrated by downloading delays, seek upgrades, analysts expect 56,000-bit modems, which will likely be priced below $200, to dominate the market more quickly than any previous advance in computer-transmission speed. The problem is that the two companies have different technologies for making the leap. Without a compromise between modem makers, computer users with U.S. Robotics modems won't be able to connect at the full 56,000-bit speed with modems made with the Rockwell chip. The two modems will be able to hook up at 33,600 bits and slower, and to connect with lower-speed modems. But the makers of modems and PCs risk confusing their customers at best and, at worst, dividing them. Both companies are lining up allies for their cause. Rockwell, based in Seal Beach, Calif., is the leading maker of computer chips for modems. Rockwell sells its technology to dozens of modem makers, including Boca Research Inc. and Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. -- and the Megahertz division of U.S. Robotics itself. Its chips are also used in modems made by Ascend Communications Inc., which provides industrial-size modems to Internet providers, and networking-equipment giant Cisco Systems Inc. Rockwell last week announced it would ship its 56,000-bit technology to modem makers by mid-month, making it possible for the first products to appear this spring. In addition, Lucent Technologies Inc., another major modem-chip maker, has agreed to make its 56,000-bit technology work with Rockwell's. Meanwhile, U.S. Robotics, based in Skokie, Ill., is the leading modem maker, with about one-quarter of the units sold in North America. This week, its first fully equipped 56,000-bit modems will be shipped to stores, followed by $60 software to upgrade modems it has sold since last summer. It has hired physicist Stephen Hawking and Apple Computer Inc. cofounder Stephen Wozniak for a television and print-ad blitz. "We think we are months ahead of competitors in our ability to deliver product," says Casey Cowell, chief executive officer of U.S. Robotics. U.S. Robotics, which bases its products on chips from Texas Instruments Inc. and its own software, has gained a head start by selling three million modems since August that it says can be reprogrammed to 56,000-bit speeds with software or new chips. Its new modems can be adapted with software alone to whatever standard is eventually set. Modems using Rockwell chips are hardwired, and can't be changed. But, recognizing that the ground is shifting, Rockwell says some of its new chips will be reprogrammable. Lucent's new modem chips all will be adaptable. Thus, consumers aren't likely to face a Betamax scenario in which they have to toss out the loser's modems, though any upgrade will add costs. With neither Rockwell nor U.S. Robotics backing down, it will be up to the International Telecommunications Union, the Geneva-based group of telecom companies and scientists that sets technical standards, to develop a compromise. A committee of the U.S. Telecommunications Industry Association is expected to set interim standards for the U.S. this year. To be sure, users of fast new modems may have trouble reaching the full 56,000-bit speed, because of the condition of ordinary phone wires. Far faster alternatives like digital "ISDN" phone lines and satellite connections are expensive, and phone and cable companies have been slow to improve their networks for consumer use. By some estimates, as few as one in 10 phone lines are clear enough to allow data to move at the full rate. "Many stars have to align just right with the moon for this standard to work," says Mory Ejabat, president and chief executive officer of Ascend Communications. Furthermore, even with the new modems, sending data to the Internet remains slower than downloading from it. Because of the difficulties of translating digital information into analog signals, data sent from most home computers to the Internet will only travel at 33,600 bits per second. Nevertheless, consumers will see faster connection speeds. And many customers, frustrated with slow downloads, are already champing at the bit. "If I can go out, buy a new modem for $200, pay nothing extra to the phone company or my Internet provider and still connect (at a higher speed), I'm going to be very happy," says Steve Bass, president of the Pasadena, Calif., IBM Computer Users Group. Choosing between Rockwell and U.S. Robotics may be hardest for the nation's 3,600 Internet service providers, but they are moving to upgrade their equipment anyway. An unpublished survey by Boardwatch, a trade publication based in Littleton, Colo., found that 12 percent of all Internet service providers have "current and immediate plans" to offer 56,000-bit service. Many of them are expected to upgrade their existing modems from U.S. Robotics. "It's a case of `do it now or do it later,"' says George Peace, president and owner of Pennsylvania On Line, a small Internet service with 2,000 subscribers in Harrisburg, Pa. It is leasing new modems from U.S. Robotics that are due to arrive this week, because its current modems aren't adaptable. Mr. Peace says he's averaging five inquiries a day from clients about 56,000-bit service. Some companies will offer access using either technology -- or neither. Fewer than a dozen of E.Central Inc.'s 3,000 subscribers have inquired about 56,000-bit modems, said Ted Pinkowitz, president of the Denver-based Internet-access provider. "If all of a sudden we have a lot of requests for the 56K solution, then we'll begin to consider it," he said. "We don't just jump on technology as soon as something gets brought out of the box." ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: Alternatives to Per-Minute Charges for Internet Access Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:02:15 -0700 Organization: http://www.columbia.net/ Reply-To: uruiamme@why.net This message is being sent to the FCC in response to an e-mail forwarded to me 2/11/97. The message originator is unknown, but it said to send an opinion to isp@fcc.gov. Deadline is said to be 2/13/97. So the LEC's want to charge more money, then let's let them. But not the residential and business modem-user. I am afraid that the money a LEC makes on a per-minute tarriff will greatly exceed what is necessary. Certainly, the LEC's need to begin increasing their facilities for handling larger call volumes. Just like the ISP's have found out who sell "unlimited access" Internet access when there is a finite limit. If an ISP can offer a flat-rate monthly access fee, then so can the LEC's as they alwayys have for local calls. The LEC's understandably need some more money for increasing the number of switched circuits necessary. So here's my suggestions: 1. Do not have the customer pay per-minute rates for Internet access. 2. Allow the LEC to charge an ISP a huge amount for every line they have switched, because of the large volume it will probably carry. 3. Allow the ISP some non-switched, dedicated facilities that connect directly to the non-switched Internet. The LEC would either lease their central office space or lease epuipment to the ISP so the ISP could have computer euipment of their chioce. 4. Allow the LEC's to end their "unlimited access" for all commercial customers. This would, of course, include ISP's. True unlimited access would still be available for a high premium. The ISP's would be forced to pay these high rates. Normal business customers who use only their phone lines perhaps 1 to 8 hours per day will pay the same as they always did. In this way, the ISP's pay for the LEC's need for more switched facilities. The ISP's customers pay more, but it is much easier to bear when the money is paid the the ISP. The LEC will get their money from the ISP's. But what if the LEC also offers Internet access in competition to the ISP's? Since the LEC has the advantage of not having to pay the high rates for "unlimited access," they will be able to compete against the ISP's by charging lower fees to Internet customers. This is a catch-22 for the LEC. Do they charge Internet customers less and increase revenue for their Internet business? Or do they charge the same as other ISP's and use the profits for expanding their switching facilities? This is the goal we want LEC's to achieve - no more busy signals because of lack of switching. The problem is, can we force the LEC's to increase their swithed facilities? Hardly. Maybe the FCC can. What we don't want to happen is for the LEC's to use the profits from the above tarriffs/Internet access fees on more Internet connections or more advertising or increased coverage areas or competing in new markets. The FCC should encourage the purchase of increased public-switched network lines that will benefit the citizens of the US. Bottom line 1: No usage-based tarriffs for home users. This is a step backwards and could reduce the FCC's "hold" on the baby Bells. Bottom line 2: We need more public-switched network facilities, and we must do something to allow the LEC's to raise the money needed. Summary: The Internet is a major cause of the increasingly high instance of busy lines and the users should pay for increasing the number of facilities. I'm afraid that too many political activists (yes, the ones that use the Internet are the ones who have political voice) would strenously direct to what would seem like a "modem tax" waged by the LEC if there was a per-minute tarriff. Sincerely, Billy Newsom Columbia Healthcare Billy Newsom uruiamme@why.net My site: Motherboard HomeWorld (a.k.a. **DANGER**) http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ See also my new web page: How to Build a PC ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #38 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 12 01:08:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA18851; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:08:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702120608.BAA18851@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #39 TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Feb 97 01:08:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 39 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telco Competition in Dallas (Tad Cook) Can You Help? Need Telephony Expert Witnesses in Court (John Marinelli) Indiana Cellular (was re: United States Cellular Answers) (James Bellaire) Compuserve Wins Anti-Spam Lawsuit (Bruce Pennypacker) BellSouth's Lousy Customer Service (ctelesca@ncsu.campus.mci.net) Customer Surveys Indicate BellSouth's Service Nation's Best (Mike King) Last Laugh! Sorry, Wrong Number (800-S0S-APPL) (Shalom Septimus) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Telco Competition in Dallas Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:13:24 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Dallas Telephone Market Barely Open to Competition A Year after Law Passed By Jennifer Files, The Dallas Morning News Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 10--Last fall, amid the fuss over the new 972 area code in the Dallas area, some frustrated consumers raised deregulation's rallying cry: Watch out, local phone monopoly. Competition is coming, and we'll take our business elsewhere. "At least in January, there will be some new kids on the block," said one consultant who feared her clients wouldn't be able to find her after her number changed. Lots of other people thought so, too. After all, the government said local phone markets would have to be open for at least limited competition by the start of this year. It was the cornerstone of telecommunications reform, a sweeping campaign to change the way U.S. communications companies do business. Eventually, local phone carriers, long-distance companies, and wireless and cable firms would all cross into one another's industries, people were told. The new competition would inspire innovative technology, better service and lower prices results any customer would welcome. But a year after President Clinton signed the law Feb. 8, 1996, only a small fraction of Americans have more than one local telephone company to choose from. In Dallas, a handful of new entrants are installing equipment to handle local calls, but almost all of them are targeting lucrative corporate accounts and ignoring residential customers. Many cable and phone companies are settling back into their familiar niches. And rates have gone up across the board, with increases from 1 percent for local telephone service to 7.8 percent for cable, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Turns out, competition is more complicated to negotiate and more expensive to operate than most regulators thought. But even asking why that's true opens a storm of accusations. AT&T and other big long-distance carriers accuse Southwestern Bell, GTE and other local phone companies of using extreme tactics to protect regional monopolies; local providers fire back that the long-distance companies and other firms that want to provide local service may be exaggerating their troubles in order to stave off long-distance competition in the future. Southwestern Bell says it has removed barriers to local phone competition. "The doors are open today," says Cliff Eason, president and CEO of Southwestern Bell Communications. His competitors debate him on that point, but at least one thing is clear: Few companies have made it inside. Meanwhile, Dallas-area residential customers wonder when competition will come. "You've got all these big companies with their lobbyists that are trying to protect their business while enabling them to poach the other guys' service," says Brad Kozak, who runs a "virtual company" from his East Dallas home via ISDN phone lines. "I understand it from a business standpoint, but it doesn't do me any good." Battle waging ... The ongoing battle to deregulate Texas phone companies started at the state level, was partly taken over by Congress and now is being waged by state and federal regulators and the court system. In the first round, the Texas Legislature was at the center of debate. Deregulation was among the most contentious issues of the 1995 legislative session, involving all kinds of companies that transmit sound, pictures or information, including local and long-distance phone companies, newspapers, consumer groups and cable operators. The Legislature decided to allow companies such as Southwestern Bell to buy the use of long-distance networks and resell the services to consumers, a common practice in the long-distance industry. But it barred big long-distance firms from reselling local service. To compete against Southwestern Bell, long-distance companies would have to spend billions of dollars to lay their own telephone networks. Long-distance companies were incensed. Other states allowed reselling, and none had such extreme requirements, they said. Both AT&T and MCI threatened to stay out of the market altogether. "I think you can just about be guaranteed this bill will chase investment away from Texas," an MCI official said at the time. But federal legislation superseded most provisions of the state law last year, and Congress' version of telecommunications reform looked nothing like Texas law. Under the federal act, Southwestern Bell and other local phone companies may not sell long-distance services until they prove they've opened their local markets to competition. The philosophical difference alone would have exacerbated tensions in Texas, but the rules the Federal Communications Commission published in August for making the reform work dramatically escalated the dispute. States set the prices local phone companies can charge to connect long-distance firms to their networks, but the FCC wrote guidelines for figuring out what those rates should be. Those rates don't take into account the huge costs of building the telephone networks that the new local providers will be using. And thus came the third stage of telecom reform: Led by GTE, local phone companies have sued the FCC and regulators in several states, including Texas, over the rules and the resulting rates. "It would put us in a situation where we're reselling below our costs," says GTE's Tom Hall, regional president for Texas and New Mexico. Repeated appeals and court challenges make it risky for anyone to plan too far ahead, says Rian Wren, AT&T's vice president for local service in the Southwest. AT&T recently started selling local service to some California consumers and to large business customers in 45 states. Because Texas rules would slash its profits, Mr. Wren says, the service isn't available here. Mr. Wren says AT&T intends to roll out consumer and business local service in Texas this summer. By year-end, he says, the company could have "small digits" of market share. "At this point we're starting to commit some real dollars, and yet everything that I'm basing this on is being appealed," he said. MCI would not comment on a date to roll out residential services, but the No. 2 long-distance company said late last week that it will start offering local phone services to businesses this year. And while the residential market is largely still on hold, the business market appears poised to thrive. "If you're a business customer and you're not exploring alternative local carriers you're missing the boat," said Bryan Van Dussen, director of telecommunications research for the Yankee Group, a Boston-based technology research firm. Businesses spend about $24 billion on local services, including access charges paid to connect their calls to a long-distance carrier's network, Mr. Van Dussen said. Business customers are more profitable than residential customers because wiring a network to one building can serve hundreds or thousands of phones. Marketing expenses are lower, and calling volumes and rates are higher, allowing providers to recover costs more easily. The companies vying for that sector include Teleport and Worldcom, both big names in the corporate telecom market that sell private-line and other telephone services to corporate customers. More of an upstart is their Houston-based competitor, American Telco. That company, which primarily provides business long-distance services, was the first Texas company to begin selling its own local switched service to business customers, in Houston in November. American Telco began targeting Dallas customers in January by reselling Southwestern Bell's service and plans to begin using its own equipment within a few months. Business phone competition "is happening very quickly," says Jim Henry, director of Dallas sales and operations for Shared Technologies Fairchild, a publicly traded company that manages phone systems for more than 30 office buildings in Dallas-Fort Worth. Some of the new services could cut his local phone costs by 50 percent. Mr. Henry hopes to switch five buildings to a new provider within 30 days. There is some risk to using a new provider, he notes. "We definitely want to proceed with caution, but the cost savings are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year," Mr. Henry said. Some residential customers, however, say savings may not be worth potential technical problems. Deb McAlister wasn't thrilled about Southwestern Bell last week. Working from home as the company's workers were a day late hooking up her new office phone lines, she said, "I guess I'm not the best reference for them these days." But, she added, "The one thing I can say for them ... is: When I pick up the phone, there is a dial tone." "I don't know if I'd switch, but then again, I don't know what I'd be offered." ------------------------------ From: jmarinel@freenet.npiec.on.ca (John Marinelli) Subject: Can You Help? Need Telephony Expert Witnesses in Court Date: 11 Feb 1997 02:55:38 GMT Organization: Niagara Peninsula Industry Education Council Hi! Remember me? Several years ago I had posed the question: Is it physically possible to infiltrate a telephone company's network; remotely manipulate the company's switches; process long distance calling; make it appear as if the calls had originated from a particular location and then subsequently billed to that location ? How so? Well I've finally done it! I go head to head with Bell Canada ... I'm awaiting a trial date as I sit here writing this. The pre-trial magistrate has ordered that I can submit notarized documentation into evidence at trial in lieu of potential witnesses coming to Canada to testify as long as legitimate contact information is given to the other side. Please help me put this 16 year struggle to rest, once and for all. Can you provide a detailed, technical analysis that will clearly explain and clarify the "how to", signed by yourself and duly notarized? A current curriculum vitae would be extremely helpful. Please advise of the associated costs so that I may forward payment. Thank you for time and co-operation in this matter. Looking forward to your immediate reply as time is now of the essence. Respectfully submitted, John P. Marinelli [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers interested in assisting John should contact him directly. I imagine several of you will be able to provide very expert assistance in this legal case he is in. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:28:55 EST From: James E Bellaire Subject: Indiana Cellular (was re: United States Cellular Answers Me) roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) wrote: > ... I received several emails of a > press release issued by BellSouth and US Cellular -- BellSouth is > trading its Wisconsin cellular markets (including Green Bay, Janesville, > Oshkosh, Racine, and Milwaukee) for interests in other systems in the > South. BellSouth will get controlling interest in: > * Shelbyville, TN B-side (should be combined w/ BellSo Nashville > system) > * Bowling Green, Owensboro, Paducah KY A-side > * Corbin, Hazard KY A-side > * Evansville, IN metro area A-side (will probably be combined with > Indianapolis system) I would hope that the Evansville System also includes RSA7 Vincennes. That would provide continuous A band coverage from Indianapolis South on BellSouth. (52 counties) Almost as much coverage area as the B side GTE Mobilnet-Contel Cellular combination. (GTE owns both companies, now covering 68 counties.) Cellular Coverage in Indiana (with count of number of counties) Centennial Wireless 35 A Cellular One - Indy 29 A BellSouth US Cellular 13 A Cellular One - Chicago 2 A Southwestern Bell Contel - Louisville 2 A GTE/Contel Cellular One - Cincin. 1 A (Part of Centennial's Northern Indiana coverage is on towers owned by US Cellular. The sites have USCC's Threatening 'FCC Licensed Communication Site - No Trespassing' signs, invoking the FCC to keep people away. At least GTE and 360 put their callsign and location number on the signs.) GTE Mobilnet 40 B GTE/Contel Contel 28 B GTE/Contel US Cellular 12 B 360 Communication 7 B Bellsouth - Louisville 2 B Ameritech - Chicago 2 B Ameritech - Cincin. 1 B (LaPorte county is shared between Ameritech and GTE. I give it to GTE in the counts because they cover the rest of the RSA that LaPorte is part of.) BTW: Sprint PCS is busy building its Indianapolis sites (I noticed a completed one in Greenfield this past week, #108) and GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One (Bellsouth) are adding a lot of new towers this year. Most of the Indiana companies have replaced antennas on older towers with newer style 'boxes', closer to the ground. GTE has also replaced a few of the old monopoles near Indianapolis with more conventional tripod towers, as well as replacing antennas. James E. Bellaire bellaire@tk.com Webpage Available 23.5 Hrs a Day!!! http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire/ ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Compuserve Wins Anti-Spam Lawsuit Date: 10 Feb 1997 14:12:16 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Contact: Gail Whitcomb CompuServe, Inc. (614) 538-4457 gwhitcomb@csi.compuserve.com COMPUSERVE REPORTS E-MAIL COURT VICTORY COLUMBUS, Ohio, February 6, 1997 -- CompuServe (Nasdaq:CSRV), after winning the first-ever court decision of its kind making unauthorized junk e-mail illegal, responded today to a report that Cyber Promotions, Inc., a commercial mass e-mailer, would not accept a federal court's halting of its spamming activities directed against CompuServe subscribers. Cyber Promotions indicated that it intended to appeal that decision which follows the settlement of a similar suit by another ISP which continues to allow Cyber Promotions to send junk e-mail to their members. "The Court's decision has a broad impact as the first decision of its kind that says unauthorized mass junk e-mailing is illegal," said Steve Heaton, general counsel for CompuServe. "This precedent is likely to be used by other ISPs to protect against intrusive and unwanted junk e-mail. CompuServe's goal was to see this through to a binding court decision to prevent not only this defendants spamming efforts, but those of others who would seek to exploit CompuServe and its subscribers." The decision may be read at the following web site: http://wsgrgate.wsgr.com/resources/intprop/briefs/compu.htm Founded in 1969, CompuServe Incorporated provides the world's most comprehensive online/Internet access through its two brands CompuServe Interactive 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 communications environments for more than 1,000 corporate customers. With world headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, the CompuServe organization includes offices in Reading, UK; Munich; Utrecht, Netherlands; Zurich and Paris. Bruce Pennypacker Applied Language Technologies Remove .nospam from my address to e-mail me 215 First Street (617) 225-0012 Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------ From: ctelesca@ncsu.campus.mci.net Subject: BellSouth's lousy Customer Service Date: 11 Feb 1997 13:51:00 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Back in May 1996 I found out that someone had apparently hacked the PIN for my Remote-Access Call-Forwarding service over a 18 month period and made a lot of calls that showed up on my bill as dial-direct calls (with no "F" rate code for these calls even though there is supposed to be one according to the back of the bill). I asked Bell South to investigate for me, but had a very hard time getting the technically-illiterate Customer Service people to understand how the R-A C-F service even worked. When I ran into a dead-end at BellSouth, I posted some questions to this newgroup, and heard from some very helpful people. Well, I need your help again. When BellSouth told me to contact AT&T (my LD provider), and AT&T told me to contact BellSouth, I knew I was getting the run-around. So I contacted my state's Public Utilities Commission for help. I now have a formal complaint filed with them in writing, which was supposed to keep BellSouth from cutting-off my service, but this morning BellSouth cut it off anyway. Even though the calls in question were made during an 18-month period between December 1994 and May 1996, BellSouth "recoursed" calls I made after May 1996, and that's why I was cut-off. What I need from you folks out there is any information you have about toll-fraud using Call-Forwarding services, billing and call-accounting information (using SS7, for example), how to deal with a TELCO that "recourses" calls against the customer's request, and refuses to deal with the calls the customer specifically refers to. Because of BellSouth screwing-up my phone service, you can't call me at (919) 676-2597 for the time being. You can either call me at (919) 982-0866 and page me (via my digital pager - enter your phone number and I'll call you back), or call me at (919) 847-0612 and leave a message, or call (919) 848-2500 and enter my phone number - 676-2597 - at the prompt and leave me a message. Hopefully this won't last long? Chris [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In a way you are lucky someone from the PUC took any action at all. (I am assuming they did something with your written complaint.) If you complain to the Illinois Commerce Commission by phone, you are told a representative will call you back 'as soon as one becomes available ...' and when you get called back it is a call from someone at telco; generally a highly placed flunky authorized to make some decisions. Ditto with gas and electric service here; they just take your name and number then someone from the utility calls you back. Maybe you get satisfaction, maybe not. Anyway there seems to be some conflicting opinions about BellSouth (or do you refer to them as BS?) today. I ran your letter here in juxta- position with the press release issued by Bell South, which follows as the next item in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Customer Surveys Indicate BellSouth Phone Service Nation's Best Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:16:18 PST [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyway, here is today's BS ... err ... BellSouth view of the news. PAT] ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:34:53 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: Customer Surveys Indicate BellSouth Phone Service Nation's Best BellSouth .........................................February 10, 1997 Customer Surveys Indicate BellSouth Telephone Service Nation's Best ATLANTA -- Southerners love the telephone. They love talking on the telephone. They love optional telephone services. And they love BellSouth. For the third time in six months, a national survey of customer satisfaction with their local telephone service has rated BellSouth tops in the U. S. This time it's the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, a national survey conducted by the University of Michigan Business School and the American Society for Quality Control, published in the February 3 issue of FORTUNE magazine. Last fall, in independent surveys,both the Yankee Group and J. D. Power & Associates came to the same conclusion. "We've always enjoyed a mutual love affair with our customers," said BellSouth President Jere Drummond. "We do our utmost to provide the best possible telephone service for them and they have been appreciative of our efforts. It's really rewarding when surveys such as these confirm what we already know -- we provide the best telephone service in the nation to the best customers in the nation." Not only do BellSouth's customers appreciate their telephone company, they're also buying optional services and installing lines at record paces. Consider: on the average day, BellSouth customers have over 11,000 optional calling features added to their telephone service. Not average "business" day; every day, 365 days a year, BellSouth customers order more than 11,000 optional services such as Caller ID, three-way calling and call return. At the same time, BellSouth was installing more than one million new lines during a twelve-month period in 1996. That's a record for new lines installed by a U. S. telephone company. Now, BellSouth has more than 22 million lines in service in the nine southeastern states where the company operates. "While our region of the country has experienced dynamic growth, it's interesting to note that approximately half of the lines we added in 1996 were additional lines -- that is, lines being added to homes or businesses where telephone service was already working," Drummond pointed out. One of the ways BellSouth has endeared itself to its customers is by providing service when its customers want it. "To make our offices more accessible, we've expanded the hours customers can call us to order new services or to check on their bills. For the past three years, we've been open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. We've also expanded our installation and repair operations to seven-days a week," Drummond said. Another way BellSouth is reaching out to better serve its customers is through the company's multilingual center. Located in South Florida, the multilingual center provides assistance to non-English speaking customers in all of BellSouth's nine states. At this time, the center offers assistance in five languages, plus a number of additional dialects. "BellSouth has always taken pride in the quality of service we provide our customers. We have a tradition of service stretching back over 100 years and we intend to maintain and improve the quality of our service in the future," Drummond said. "As would-be competitors move into markets we serve, they know that they face a company that sets the standard for customer service, both in the southeast and nationally." BellSouth provides telecommunications services in nine Southeastern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. With its headquarters in Atlanta, BellSouth serves 22 million local telephone lines and provides local exchange and intraLATA long distance service over one of the most modern telecommunications networks in the world. For more information on BellSouth, visit our site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bellsouth.com. For more information, call John Goldman, (205) 977-5007 john.t.goldman@bridge.bst.bls.com -------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 1997 04:54:40 -0000 From: Shalom Septimus Subject: Last Laugh! Sorry, Wrong Number (800-S0S-APPL) Organization: UB Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: From: The Unsinkable Camille Klein Newsgroups: alt.tech-support.recovery Subject: Re: 800-S0S-APPL Date: 7 Feb 1997 08:01:03 -0700 Organization: Primenet (602)416-7000 The Fiendish Flouridators and the Elders of Zion forced Garner Miller to say: > I still remember when this 76-year-old woman called me and asked about > getting one of Apple's warranty exchanges on her PowerBook. I told her > she'd need to call Apple directly, and gave her the number: 800-SOS-APPL. > That's Ess-Ohh-Sss...i.e., 767-2775. She then called me back asking who in > the hell I thought she was, screamed for another five minutes, and was > ready to hang up on me. I couldn't understand what the problem was, so I > had her read back exactly what she'd dialed. Ohboy ... I can see where this is going. > Well, turns out she dialed Ess-ZERO-Ess (707-2775), and that's an ENTIRELY > different sort of phone line. Go ahead. Dial 800-707-2775 and take a > listen. I scared my coworkers I was laughing so hard. :-) *dials* *listens* *ROTFLHAOPHP* Now if that's not a meta-lart, I dunno what is!! :) Camille. Sharing this with her co-workers. All unsolicited commercial e-mail coming to this account is subject to a service charge of $250 per piece of mail. Sending any UCE to this account constitutes acceptance of these terms. http://www.primenet.com/~capella/mob.html Death to Playmates and Harmony Gold! ------- end of forwarded message ------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I called it, and yes it is filthy, lewd, crude and rude. Please note they are actually forwarding it to some other number, and also please note they are charging back the caller at some rate per minute, so you may want to make the call from some phone other than any you have to pay for personally (har har har!). They may have not been smart enough to identify and block out pay phones from being able to use their pay-per-minute cheap thrills line so a good place to call would be from your friendly neighborhood COCOT or Genuine Bell payphone. In the event those are blocked from the programming presented on 800-Ess Zero Ess APPL then I guess you will have to make the call through your employer's or school's phone system. That is, unless the phone administrator read this before you did and blocked it out. Enjoy! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #39 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 12 09:06:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA10717; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:06:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:06:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702121406.JAA10717@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #40 TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Feb 97 09:06:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 40 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson TN Consumers/Lower BellSouth Fees To IXCs (Mike King) Re: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet (John R. Levine) Re: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet (Steve Bagdon) Free Comparative PCS Pricing Information (Richard C. Harris) Caller-ID Provided via Pager - Real-Life Puzzle (Clive Dawson) Re: Really Strange Problem (David E. Sorkin) Global 800 Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer) Traffic Engineering - Training and Consulting (Mario A. Castano) IP: Internet Access Coalition Report on the RBOC Conjection (D. Farber) Re: Can Caller ID Be Provided As DTMF Tones? (Mike Sandman) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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 Subject: TN Consumers/Lower BellSouth Fees To IXCs Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:22:17 PST Forwarded message: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:49:42 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: TN Consumers/Lower BellSouth Fees To IXCs BellSouth ...........................................February 10, 1997 Tennessee Consumers May Not Get Full Benefit NASHVILLE, TN -- Consumers will not receive the full benefit of lower instate long distance rates created by BellSouth's $9.5 million reduction in access fees unless the long distance companies change their ways. The Tennessee Regulatory Authority is expected to approve Tuesday a reduction in fees that the long distance companies, including AT&T, MCI, Sprint and others, pay to BellSouth for connecting calls to their networks. The reduction is scheduled to take effect on February 15. A second reduction of $8 million is scheduled to become effective July 1, 1997. BellSouth, today, called on AT&T and MCI to carry out their promises and pass the entire reduction on to consumers in the form of lower instate long distance prices, instead of pocketing part of the reductions as has been their previous pattern. The reduction in access charges to be approved by the TRA will apply to all long distance carriers, who generally follow AT&T's lead in changing their prices. "Over the past five years Local Exchange Telephone Companies, including BellSouth, have reduced their interstate access charges by more than $9 billion, while long distance rates have increased more than six times over the same period," said David May, regional director for BellSouth. "We believe all consumers, including more than 65 percent who do not subscribe to discount calling plans, should benefit from these reductions." "The issue here is whether long distance companies pass all the access reductions on to customers, not that access charges exceed actual costs, as the long distance companies contend," May added. Current access charges are approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Tennessee Regulatory Authority to support the concept of universal service. "The principle of universal service provides a subsidy from higher-priced services, such as long distance, to keep basic telephone prices low so that all consumers can afford to have a telephone, regardless of their locality and the actual cost to provide the service," May added. The FCC is currently examining the best method to reduce access charges closer to their costs while maintaining affordable prices for all consumers. Their findings are due by May 8. ### Note: A line graph showing "Trends in Long Distance Rates and Exchange Access Charges" is available. Call Karen Williams at 615/214-5874 or your local BellSouth manager to receive this information, or visit BellSouth's News Center at http://www.bellsouthcorp.com/headlines/bell_releases/97/feb/021097b.html. For more information contact: David May, 615/214-5901 --------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 00:58 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Geosynchonous satellites, such as those used for satellite television, > can not be used for satellite-phones very effectively because of a > time delay (2/3 of a second) that is produced in conversations, due to > the fact that each satellite orbit 22,300 miles from earth (even at > the speed of light, it takes nearly a second to make the round trip). Your arithmetic is off -- a geosync satellite hop adds 1/4 sec of delay, and they have been used for many years for long distance phone service. If anyone still remembers SBS, the phone company started by IBM and others and finally folded into MCI, it used satellite links for all of its long distance connections. The delay was noticable, and kind of annoying, but not bad enough to make the service unusable. On the other hand, it is indeed completely implausible that any sort of cheap personal service could use geosync satellites, for two reasons. The main one is power. 22,000 miles is a long, long, way to send a radio signal, which means that your base units have to have relatively large and carefully aimed antennas and fairly large batteries. The smallest such units I'm aware of are the size of a laptop computer, cost three thousand dollars to buy, plus $2.80 per minute on the phone, and have various other limitations that make them unsuitable as a replacement for cellular and landline phones: they take 40 seconds to set up, aim the antenna, and make a call, you can't use them while in motion, and they need a line of sight to the satellite, either outside or through a window. If you still want one, check out Comsat's web site at http://www.comsat.com/planet1/. They're not licensed for outgoing calls in the U.S., by the way. The other reason why geosync will never be mass market is limited bandwidth. Each satellite can handle only 2,000 conversations and the number of slots in the sky for geosync satellites is very limited, since they all have to be over the equator, far enough from other satellites using the same bands to avoid interference, yet visible from the entire area which they're supposed to cover. The satellite phones I described above can only use four (4) satellites, which means only 8,000 in use at once in the entire world. Iridium and its competitors will address the power and bandwidth issues by using larger numbers of satellites in much lower orbits, but they'll still only be interesting if you are in areas with no other kind of phone service. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:16:37 -0400 From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet Van Hefner said > Geosynchonous satellites, such as those used for satellite television, > can not be used for satellite-phones very effectively because of a > time delay (2/3 of a second) that is produced in conversations, due to > the fact that each satellite orbit 22,300 miles from earth (even at > the speed of light, it takes nearly a second to make the round > trip). Huh? Yes, InMarSat is in geosynchonous, but I believe you have your time off slightly. If the speed of light is 250,000miles/sec (just a nice, round number, people!), then that would be about a 200ms delay. > If a phone conversation is taking place somewhere the first > satellite does not reach (such as from the U.S. to Japan) TWO > satellites must be used in a relay fashion. This produces a time delay > of 1 1/3 seconds in the conversation. This is one reason why most long > distance traffic is carried underground/undersea via fiber optics, and > NOT via satellite. The time delay not only makes conversations much > more difficult to carry on, but makes the transmission of faxes, the > internet, etc. nearly impossible in many cases. Data on Motorola's > system is only guaranteed at 2400 baud! After exhaustive (and quite irritating!) debugging, I was able to get 14.4 faxes through via InMarSat *sometimes*, and 9600 faxes 99% of the time. No, that single satellite hop (fax modem, earth station, satellite, earth station, fiber to local town, fax modem) did *not* cause that many problems. What *did* cause problems was when using CamSat's IOR (Indian Ocean Region) earth station in Turkey. The AEOR (Atlantic East Ocean Region) and AWOR (Atlantic West Ocean Region) are both serviced in New York (Long Island?). And the POR (Pacific Ocean Region) is serviced in California (Long Beach?. That would mean that in over 75% of the world (three-fourth's of the satellites) your satellite hop terminates on an earth station in the continental US, so you are pretty much guaranteed quality land-line phone service to your phone in America. But again, in the IOR the earth station is in Turkey. There was at least one particular incident when the fiber-optic line from Turkey to New York went down (AT&T? ComSat equipment in Turkey?), meaning that ComSat had to bounce the signal off *another* satellite to get the fax from Turkey to New York (earth station, satellite, earth station, satellite, earth station, fiber to local town). And *that* would be a 400ms delay, causing serious faxing problems. My only complaint with ComSat's customer service line was that when I called them about faxing problems, they were only doing tests from Turkey to the remote earth station - not thinking to include the delay from New York to Turkey. *I* had to tell them to think of the Turkey-New York line. It took a few hours, and a humbling call on their part, to finally admit the problem. They did call me back when the fiber line was back up, though. So the answer is - no, you should *not* have problems faxing at 9600 over InMarSat. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net (h) USFMDDKT@ibmmail.com (w) Katharine aNd Steve (KNS) http://www.rust.net/~bagdon '91 MR2T (K&N FIPK, Mr.2PP boost controller. For sale, again.) '85/'85/'91T MR2 (parts car) '90 Camry All-Trac (project car) ------------------------------ From: NMKL79A@prodigy.com (Mr. Richard C. Harris) Subject: Free Comparative PCS Pricing Analysis Date: 12 Feb 1997 01:53:34 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Subject: Free Comparative PCS Pricing Information I have recently completed a data base for every PCS BTA market detailing the winning bids for the corresponding MTA's in the A & B auctions and the winning bids in each of the C,C re-auction,D,E,& F auctions. As companion to this information, I have compiled certain demographic information by county including population, population growth, median household income, and population density. I will be happy to provide this information on a single market for anyone who will send me an e-mail with the following: Market of Interest (Name and BTA #); Fax Number (Prodigy doesn't accept, to my knowledge, file attachments in e-mail); Some piece of information from my web site (www.snj.com/harris). As you can see, I am trying to encourage visiting my web site for some value added piece of information in return. I would appreciate your comments both on the idea and for those who partake of the offer if it was worthwhile. Thanks, Rich Harris Harris & Associates ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 18:20:53 CST From: Clive Dawson Subject: Caller-ID Provided via Pager - Real-Life Puzzle The recent query about Caller-ID provided via DTMF prompts me to relate a very strange occurence which turns out to be a pretty good "real-life" puzzle. I have a Panasonic answering machine with a feature which allows me to set up a phone number for it to call after somebody leaves a message. I have it set up so that the unit will call my pager and send a special code which tells me that a message is waiting for me on my answering machine. This has worked fine for years. This past weekend I was amazed to receive a page from my answering machine which sent a string of digits including not only my special code, but also the phone number of caller who had left the message! It took me a while to guess how this might have come about, and when I returned home and approached my answering machine, my theory was confirmed. Additional info: I do subscribe to Caller-ID, but it is not built in to the answering machine in any way. Also, this was not caused by the caller; i.e. he did not reprogram my answering machine in any way to change the call-back number. In fact, he didn't key in any numbers at all while leaving his message. This had never happened before, and probably will never happen again. Anybody care to guess what I saw when I arrived home? I'll send Pat the answer in a couple of days, or you can send me e-mail. Enjoy! Clive Dawson Austin, TX ------------------------------ From: David E. Sorkin Subject: Re: Really Strange Problem Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 01:35:11 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services Reply-To: "David E. Sorkin" In TELECOM Digest on Feb. 8, Cliff Sharp reported finding several instances of multiple international calls made within a minute of each other on his telephone bill. Some calls were billed by MCI, others by AT&T. That reminded me of a story I read a few days ago on CNET (and more recent similar stories elsewhere), describing a scam involving a program that turns off a modem's speaker and causes the modem to dial Moldova (possibly a number which provides the perpetrator with kickbacks from inflated long distance charges, as in the recent 809 area code callback and pager scams). The calls billed to Mr. Sharp were to Australia, Germany, and some place billed as "DIEGOGRCIA", and were very short in duration, so I doubt that this is the same scam, but it could be one caused in a similar manner. The Moldova scam apparently involves software downloaded from web sites including "sexygirls.com" and "erotica2000.com", and available on individual web pages at other sites. The program, named "david.exe" or "david7.exe", would cause the user's modem to hang up its current connection and dial a number in Moldova (in the former Soviet Union), which would then reroute the call to an Internet provider in Ontario. (The phone number in Moldova is registered to the Ontario company, according to MSNBC.) Because the program turns off the modem speaker, the user might not ever realize what happened. The CyberTimes article reports that thousands of Internet users in the U.S. and Canada have been affected, and that neither AT&T nor Bell Canada is willing to forgive the charges, because the calls were to an overseas number. Solid Oak Software (producer of the CYBERsitter filtering software that blocks out web pages and words that are sexually explicit, feminist, liberal, critical of Solid Oak, or otherwise objectionable) issued a press release claiming credit for blocking access to some of the sites that distributed the Moldova scam software. - DES References: Clifton Sharp, Jr., Really Strange Problem, Telecom Digest, Feb. 8, 1997 Courtney Macavinta & Nick Wingfield, Sex Sites Scam Big Bucks, CNET News, Feb. 6, 1997 Alan Boyle, "Trojan Virus" Costs Porn-Seekers, MSNBC News, Feb. 8, 1997 Robert E. Calem, Internet Scam Costs Thousands in Phone Bills, N.Y. Times CyberTimes, Feb. 11, 1997 (free sign-up required to access this site; be sure to deselect the junk e-mail consent option if desired) Solid Oak Software, New Internet Scam Can Cost Users Hundreds, Feb. 5, 1997 Peacefire, CYBERsitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today? [critique of Solid Oak's CYBERsitter software] David E. Sorkin ... 7sorkin@jmls.edu, http://www.jmls.edu/ Ass't Professor & Assoc. Director, Center for Info. Tech. & Privacy Law, The John Marshall Law School - (312) 987-2387 ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Global 800 Numbers Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:59:58 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net My two cents: During the pre-Feb. 1 "priority application" phase of Global 800, MCI told me (once I got past the "I don't know what you're talking about, do you mean 888?") people, that my client would have to port their domestic 800 number to MCI, for MCI to obtain the matching global 800. Now, this isn't an ITU requirement, so I figured all right, I got one lady who doesn't know her butt from a hole in the wall. No surprise. So I spoke with someone else, different MCI sales office, etc. Same story. Then I got phone calls from other clients who'd called AT&T and Sprint. If they got through to someone who could help at all, ATT and Sprint had advised the same thing. No freephone application without porting the matching domestic 800 (or by Sprint, any 800 - one domestic number ported per global number obtained.) I don't know if this is Big-Three company policy or just local office sleezy marketing (although it seems too consistent for that), but the only carrier I contacted who I found knowledgable and satisfactory was USA Global Link. (a) no 800 domestic porting necessary; (b) no monthly service fee; (c) they immediately knew what I was talking about (how nice to call a carrier and not have to school their salespeople in order for them to sell to me!) If you're interested, you can call Chris Bush at 800 546-5737. I found him to be very helpful. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ From: Mario A. Castano Subject: Traffic Engineering - Training and Consulting Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:17:39 -0500 Hello all ... First, let me introduce the company I am currently working for. CINTEL (Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones, Telecommunications Research Center, established 1994) is a private, non-profit organization with 41 shareholders that represent the most important companies related with the telecommunications business in Colombia, including 23 local and long distance telephone service providers, universities, telecomms equipment providers and governmental institutions. We provide R&D, standardization, certification, consulting and training services to the whole telecomms sector in our country. Our objective is to collaborate in the technological development of the telecomms companies and services in Colombia. One of those telcos has asked us to organize for them short courses in traffic engineering. As I am not an expert in this subject, I would thank a lot to the TELECOM Digest readers that can advice me about the topics that modern short courses in basic and intermediate level traffic engineering should cover. We are also very interested in contacting individuals and companies that provide international consulting and training services in the following telecomms fields: - Telecomms business and marketing strategies - Strategic planning - Introducing new technologies and services - Service management - Network planning and optimization - Spectrum management - Regulatory frameworks - Legal aspects - CATV, ATM and PCS network design - Internet and Intranet Thanking you for your kind attention. Mario A. Castano Director, Planning Office CINTEL Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones Av 9 118-85 Bogota Colombia Tels: +57 1 620 8178 620 8123 620 8137 Fax: +57 1 214 4121 Email: m.a.castano@ieee.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:43:38 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: IP: Internet Access Coalition Report on the RBOC Conjection From: James Love The Internet Access Coalition's report that demolishes the RBOC assertions on network congestion is available for a free download. It requires adobe acrobat ... http://www.itic.org/ppdocs.htm A few highlights .... the peaks for data and voice are pretty different. Because of the differences in calling patterns, the internet users have added to the switch daily load, lowering the average per minute costs ... which run about 9 cents per HOUR. ISPs are cheaper to serve, because the cost to the telco of delivering data to the ISP using an ISDN BRI line is much cheaper than 23 twisted pair POTS lines, which might be deployed to other businesses. Heavy Internet users are likey to have purchased second lines. Second residential lines generated $1.4 billion to RBOCs in 1995. The calls terminating at an ISP are "paid for" by the callers. In asking for termination fees, the RBOCs are asking to be paid twice for the same calls. As a group, residential Internet callers are not using the network such that they place higher demands on capacity than do voice callers. RBOCs have economical ways of taking traffic off the circuit switched network, that can be deployed now, should there be a need to do so. jamie ------------------------------ From: mike@sandman.com (Mike Sandman) Subject: Re: Can Caller ID Be Provided As DTMF Tones? Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:21:49 GMT Organization: Mike Sandman Enterprises Reply-To: mike@sandman.com Hi, We have a Caller ID device that does exactly what you want, using normal Caller ID from the phone company. You set up your application to receive DTMF first, before the greeting. When we sense that you answer, we spit out the Caller ID info in DTMF (just the phone number - no name), followed by a #. When your aplication sees the #, you'll have the number you wanted and you just start your normal greeting. When the unit is dialing the digits into your IVR, it splits the line so the caller won't hear the digits. BTW, Caller ID is provided in DTMF in maybe 30% of the world (BT in England is the biggest), but not the US. Mike Sandman 630-980-7710 E-mail: mike@sandman.com WWW: http://www.sandman.com Our 72 page catalog of Unique Telecom Products & Tools is on the World Wide Web. We have a fantastic assortment of Cable Installation Tools and Training Videos to help you use them. NEW "Basic ISDN", "Intro to T1" and Fiber Optic/CAT 5 Training Videos are now available. Also check out our Telephony History Page, which contains ads and articles from telephony related magazines from the first part of the century. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I strongly recommend that all Digest readers become aquainted with the catalog published by Mike Sandman and the telephone parts/supplies business he operates here in the Chicago area. Email him and request a copy of the latest catalog to be sent to you in snail mail. Do not worry about getting spammed, etc. Mike has been a trusted business person on the net and a regular participant here in this Digest for several years. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #40 ***************************** Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:09:01 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #41 TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 41 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Slovak Telephone System Changes (Robin E. Haberman) UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems Using DSP" (Bill Goodin) Book Review: "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" by Flanagan (Rob Slade) LEC's Wanted Extra Charges From ISP's (John Stahl) Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Lee Winson) INMARSAT Phones in U.S. (Ed Ellers) Internet Access Coalition's Report Available (Erik Florack) ActiveX/Quicken = Overdraft! (Monty Solomon) Re: Really Strange Problem (Fred R. Goldstein) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: robineh@ibm.net (Robin E. Haberman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 20:25:51 Reply-To: robineh@ibm.net Subject: Slovak Telephone System Changes I have been following the articles in TELECOM Digest on the coming code changes for both the Slovak and Czech republics. As an international specialist and database developer on telephone numbering plans around the world I find I can offer something on the current topic. I received a fax from Dr. Peter Halus, Director of Telecommunication Division in the Slovak Ministry of Transport, Posts & Telecomminucations. I had been asking him about the country code change that will go into effect on 28 Febuary 1997. I would have sent mail before but I just returned from a Bellcore seminar on Numbering Strategies in Phoenix. I asked Dr. Halus if this code change will be the first step in other changes in their national telephone numbering plan and how I could follow along with each change. What follows is the text of a fax that he sent to me: "The numbering plan used today in the Slovak Republic is derived from the numbering plan of the former Czechoslovakia. Basic character- istics of the Slovak numbering plan established in the Technical Regulation TPT-S 1(1996) are the following: * open numbering plan, integrated for the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, present CC 42, introduction the new CC 421 from the 28th of February 1997 23.59 UTC, * numbering structure CC+NDC+SN, * variable number length, international number length is from 7 to 11 digits, after change of CC to 421 it will be international number length from 8 to 12 digits, N(S)N length from 5 to 9 digits, * international prefix 00, national prefix 0, * 82 geographical numbering area in the PSTN. Future plans: The new numbering plan is under consideration. Basic principles are the following: * decrease the amount of numbering areas from 82 to 25, * distinguishing of geographical and non-geographical NDC in accordance with international trends, present geographical NDC beginning with 7,8, 9 to move to NDC 2,3 and 4, * non geographical numbers 700 reserved for the personal numbering, 800 freephone, 8XX shared cost services, 900 premium rate services, * medium term objective the fixed length of N(S)N 9 digits, * changes will be made in two phases from 1999 to 2003 or 2005." I hope that this information can be of use to you. robineh@ibm.net.us ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems using DSP" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:34:00 -0800 On April 12-16, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bernard Sklar, PhD, Communications Engineering Services, and frederick harris, MS, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University. As part of the course materials, each participant receives a copy of the text, "Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications", by Bernard Sklar. This course provides comprehensive coverage of advanced digital communications. It differs from other communications courses in its emphasis on applying modern digital signal processing techniques to the implementation of communication systems. This makes the course essential for practitioners in the rapidly changing field. Error-correction coding, spread spectrum techniques, and bandwidth-efficient signaling are all discussed in detail. Basic digital signaling methods and the newest modulation-with-memory techniques are described. Topics that are covered include: data encoding and baseband transmission; bandpass modulation and demodulation; channel coding: error detection and correction; defining, designing, and evaluating systems; modulation and coding trade-offs and bandwidth-efficient signaling; spread spectrum and multiple access techniques; digital signal processing tools and technology; non-recursive filters; signal conditioning; and adaptive algorithms for communication systems. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1990. The course fee is $1495, which includes the text and extensive course notes. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:51:11 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" by Flanagan BKJVSCDG.RVW 961021 "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide", David Flanagan, 1996, 1-56592-193-3, U$29.95/C$42.95 %A David Flanagan %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-193-3 %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 454 %T "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" There is something contradictory in calling a book "the definitive guide" and then stamping the front and back covers "BETA EDITION" in large, bold, red caps. Flanagan, however, has done an admirable job of presenting useful and reasonable information about a product that hasn't even been finalized yet. The first half of the book is an introduction, the second half is a reference for JavaScript itself. The introduction could have been easier, particularly given the seeming intention that JavaScript should be for novices. On the other hand, JavaScript really can't be handed to beginners until it's finished, so this can't be considered a major fault. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKJVSCDG.RVW 961021 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: LEC's Wanted Extra Charges From ISP's Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:24:02 +0000 The FCC is just finishing it's public response phase regarding the request from the LEC's for permission to charge ISP's something extra to connect with the telephone network. I responded to this (addressed to isp@fcc.gov) with the statements that follow and I thoiught it might offer some "food for thought": With respect to the requests by the LEC's to ask the FCC for approval to impose additional charges on ISP's (and hence persons' subscribing to these ISP's) for interconnection with the telephone networks, I urge the FCC to reject them. The following is offered in support of my rejection request: In the February 3, 1997 issue of 'Communication News' magazine, there appeared on page 51 an article titled "Study Says Bells Safe From 'Net". In it the author, John Rendleman, relates that a study, commissioned by a coalition of on-line and computer companies called the Internet Access Coalition, conducted by Economics and Technologies, Inc., a Boston research firm, concluded that, in the near term, the nation's voice telephone network won't be swamped by Internet traffic. This study refuted the claims by the Bell regional telephone companies that Internet traffic is harmful to the Bells' network. Further the article relates, "Consumer Internet access is not clogging the nation's public telephone network," said Paul Misener, chairman of the coalitions's steering committee and manager of telecommunications and computer policy at Intel. The 'Communication News' article further emphasizes that these are ridiculous requests for additional charges from the ISP's by the telcos; in effect branding the requests as 'two-faced' by indicating that: "In addition to exaggerating the negative effect of Net traffic, the nation's local telephone companies are profiting handsomely from the Internet by aggressively selling their own dial-up Internet access services to consumers, Misener said." I recently attended the ComNet show in Washington, DC, where I personally witnessed Bell Atlantic aggressively trying to sign up customers to their own Internet access service. Additionally, in a recent issue of Inter@ctive magazine, there featured a chart indicating that all of the RBOC's have either already initiated their own Internet access services (both dial-up and/or ISDN) or plan to become ISP's by mid-year, 1997. Many of this nation's Independent Telephone companies also have their own ISP services started; for example, Commonwealth Telephone in Dallas, PA has started their own internet service provider system called Epix.net, offering it via fiber optic links to other independent telephone companies throughout PA and Denver and Ephrata Telephone in Ephrata, PA, has started Red Rose.net with the same purpose in mind. How can these phone companies ask for additional charges from ISP's when they themselves are 'loading down' their own systems with Internet traffic. Thereby when asking for additional moneys from other ISP's, they seem to be of the intent to drive the other independent companies out of business through unfair competitive strategies, Is that a fair request? I maintain it is not! I can only I hope the FCC agrees with my thinking. Don't let the LEC's charge the ISP's, as they already have individual monopolies on telephone services; don't let them drive the ISP's out of business and have the computer network, too! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Systems Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Date: 12 Feb 1997 20:20:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS With today's area codes covering a smaller and smaller area and with area codes and exchange codes looking alike, keeping track of phone numbers can get confusing. Someone could leave a message with a string of digits and the recipient wouldn't be sure if it's a ten digit number, a seven digit number followed by an extension, a phone mail address, beeper address, etc. A lot of people don't think to give their area code at all. Years ago the Bell System suggested saying the words "Area Code" before giving a phone number. I think today telephone administrators should train their users to do just that. In other words, EVERY time you leave your telephone number with someone, especially in a voice mail message, you should say: "My number is area code 311 555-2368". While you'd think people should know this, most do not: Train your users to speak S L O W L Y when giving a phone number. A stranger won't understand "fafafatuthresicate" spoke at 200 chars per second, let alone be able to write it down. I've received many important messages I wasn't able to return because I couldn't understand the caller's phone number. And of course be specific when giving a voice and/or fax number. Remember too electronic phone mail systems have pretty low clarity. In the old days every telephone had a crisply stamped number card showing clearly the area code, number, and extension. Today, many phones have only a scribled blur. I used a blank that has the words "AREA CODE" pre-printed and I make sure all phones under my control have a clearly legible number. Suppose a stranger is using the phone -- he probably won't know what area code he's in, esp in built-up areas. I've seen various standards in business stationery for phone numbers, which is very confusing. What does the +1 mean? I've always thought the conventional standard was (311) 555-1212 the area code is in parenthesis. No other codes/numbers shown except for extensions which may follow. I don't like numbers shown as 1-311-555-1234. In the case of 800 and 888 numbers, it may be appropriate to print in small letters "TOLL FREE" before the number. Of course, fax, beeper, and data comm numbers should be so identified. Thank you for your consideration. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:12:51 -0500 From: Ed Ellers Reply-To: edellers@mis.net Organization: PCM Magazine Subject: INMARSAT Phones in U.S. John R. Levine wrote: > The smallest such units I'm aware of are the size of a laptop computer, > cost three thousand dollars to buy, plus $2.80 per minute on the phone, > and have various other limitations that make them unsuitable as a > replacement for cellular and landline phones: they take 40 seconds to > set up, aim the antenna, and make a call, you can't use them while in > motion, and they need a line of sight to the satellite, either outside > or through a window. If you still want one, check out Comsat's web site > at http://www.comsat.com/planet1/. They're not licensed for outgoing > calls in the U.S., by the way." Some companies have obtained experimental licenses to use INMARSAT facilities on land in the U.S. for special purposes. This is the same sort of licensing used for testing new radio services; basically the FCC will grant experimental licenses for most any legitimate purpose that isn't covered by other radio services, assuming that no interference will be caused. (Experimental licenses are often used by equipment manufacturers to test new transmitters, either because the equipment hasn't yet been type accepted or because they can't get a regular license for the service for which the transmitter is designed.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:37:19 PST From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Erik Florack) Subject: Internet Access Coalition's Report Available Recently, I've spoken to some of you regarding the Telcos and the internet, and though you might be interested in this bit of news ... /E -=-=-= The Internet Access Coalition's report that demolishes the RBOC assertions on network congestion is available for a free download. It requires adobe acrobat ... http://www.itic.org/ppdocs.htm A few highlights .... the peaks for data and voice are pretty different. Because of the differences in calling patterns, the internet users have added to the switch daily load, lowering the average per minute costs ... which run about 9 cents per HOUR. ISPs are cheaper to serve, because the cost to the telco of delivering data to the ISP using an ISDN BRI line is much cheaper than 23 twisted pair POTS lines, which might be deployed to other businesses. Heavy Internet users are likey to have purchased second lines. Second residential lines generated $1.4 billion to RBOCs in 1995. The calls terminating at an ISP are "paid for" by the callers. In asking for termination fees, the RBOCs are asking to be paid twice for the same calls. As a group, residential Internet callers are not using the network such that they place higher demands on capacity than do voice callers. RBOCs have economical ways of taking traffic off the circuit switched network, that can be deployed now, should there be a need to do so. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:27:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ActiveX/Quicken = Overdraft! Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:49:32 -0800 (PST) From: Useful-Dot-Com Subject: ActiveX/Quicken=Overdraft! FYI: The original article is at C|Net: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7761,4000.html Hackers belonging to the Hamburg, Germany Chaos Computer Club have demonstrated an ActiveX control that will transfer funds from users' bank accounts without using a personal identification or transaction number. The Chaos crackers demonstrated their hostile ActiveX control on a German TV show to make their point about what they saw as the security risks posed by ActiveX. If made available on a web site, the control could install itself on a users' computer and covertly check to see if the popular personal-finance software package, Quicken, is installed. Continuing the scenario, if the control had found Quicken, it would issue a transfer order and add it to that application's batch of existing transfer orders. The next time the Quicken user paid their bills, the illicit transfer would be included, unnoticed by the victim. Quicken claims to have more than 9 million active users worldwide. Computer security experts, who have been highly critical of Microsoft's ActiveX, said this was just another example of why the technology should be abandoned. "ActiveX may be very useful for intranets, but it has no place on the Internet because of the security problems," said Kevin McCurley, a cryptography expert at Sandia National Laboratories. ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Really Strange Problem Date: 12 Feb 1997 16:52:28 GMT Organization: BBN Corp. In article , clifto@webspun.com says ... > We opened our latest telephone bill this morning to find a tremendous > surprise; several international calls to Australia, Germany and Diego > Garcia (?). There has to be some sort of equipment failure involved, > and I doubt it's anything I have connected. > 1 1-03 816A AUSTRALIA 61211966 Y 1 1.15 > 2 1-03 816A GERMANY 496997266111 R 1 1.38 > 3 1-03 823A AUSTRALIA 61211966 Y 1 1.15 > 4 1-03 824A GERMANY 496997266111 R 1 1.38 The German number is at least plausible, though I don't know if there is such a number. Does Oz have six-digit numbers in area 2? > AT&T: > No. Date Time Place Called Number Code Min Amount > 3 1-03 817A DIEGOGRCIA 246260003264 R 1@ 3.46 Now we're really spotting a loony. Diego Garcia is a small island. Its country code may be 246 but it wouldn't have 9-digit numbers. AT&T knows this. So it's taking a J-random billing string and trying to turn it into an international number. Since MCI is doing this too, the problem is probably at the local CO. So now the guess. This is probably an AMA (automatic message accounting) bug in the local CO switch, causing digits to be dropped and leading to weird dialed-number strings. A few years ago I saw the same problem with a user in Watertown, MA, then the only Ericsson AXE CO in the NYNEX network (and since replaced). What happened in Watertown was this: The user was trying to use AT&T 10288 to call an intra-LATA number (PIC didn't apply) in the 508-474 code. He dialed 10288-1-508-474-wxyz. The AXE mis-parsed the string. It handed off the call to AT&T, which apparently completed the call, but the AMA (it was a telco bill on behalf of AT&T, not generated by AT&T) dropped something. So instead of billing 1 508474 it billed 8474 which is country code 84, Viet Nam! I'm not sure you could even direct-dial Viet Nam on AT&T, but the bill showed it, and yes, AT&T did eventually drop the charges. So the caller might have been dialing some other numbers which, with dropped digits (probably leading), came out as country codes. Of course the fact that multiple calls occurred simultaneously may imply a more complex problem, but you can make two 30-second calls, each billed 1 minute, show up at the same (to the minute) time. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com BBN Corp., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #41 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Feb 14 08:59:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA22039; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:23 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702141359.IAA22039@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #42 TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Feb 97 08:59:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 42 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Rhode Island LEC Competition (Tad Cook) FCC Solicits Comments? (Tad Cook) BellSouth Comments on Access Charge Reform (Mike King) Internet Access PR - Bell South (Timothy Templeton) Medical Report Says Drivers on Cell Phones More Likely to Crash (R. Casey) Where to Find Used Telecom Equipment? (Michael Ross) New Article: Out of Sight, Out of Mind (Judith Oppenheimer) Caller ID in New Zealand (Ken Moselen) UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems Using DSP" (William R. Goodin) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Rhode Island LEC Competition Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:04:35 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) NYNEX Braces for Deluge of Rivals in Rhode Island By Timothy C. Barmann, The Providence Journal-Bulletin, R.I. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News PROVIDENCE, R.I.--Feb. 14--It looks like another piece of junk mail, but a brochure sent by NYNEX to some of its customers this week signals nothing less than the start of Rhode Island's phone wars. NYNEX is preparing for battle against a slew of companies that are getting ready -- and in some cases have already begun -- to sell local telephone service. NYNEX wants to lock in some of its customers by asking them to stay with it through the end of the year. In return, the customers get discounts at a handful of sporting events, museums, parks and theaters throughout New England. The stakes are huge for NYNEX, which last year, collected $370 million in revenues in Rhode Island. Now, the company is facing an almost certain decline in market share. As of yesterday, 186 companies have filed with the state to resell in-state and out-of-state toll service, with more applications trickling in every week. And two companies, Brooks Fiber Communications and Teleport Communications Group, already are competing head to head with NYNEX in limited areas. "There's going to be an explosion of availability," said Brian Kent a telecommunications rate specialist with the state's Division of Public Utilities. The upcoming phone battles are the result of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was passed with the intent of fostering competition in both the local and long-distance markets. In Rhode Island, the action is heating up in the local market. Next week, the Public Utilities Commission will likely be presented a plan that allows customers to automatically choose the carrier they want for in-state toll calls. You can now use a carrier other than NYNEX for such calls, but you have to dial a five-digit code before each call to connect to that carrier. Most people don't bother dialing the extra digits, Kent said, so by default their calls are automatically routed through NYNEX. The plan the PUC will consider will eliminate that extra dialing requirement and "level the playing field," Kent said. If the PUC approves the plan, it may go into effect in August. Most of the nearly 200 carriers registered with the state are referred to as "resellers" because they buy blocks of time on a local phone carrier's network and resell it to consumers, presumably at a lower rate. The companies don't have their own equipment to handle calls. (A list of resellers registered with the state is posted on the PUC's World Wide Web site at http://www.ripuc.org.) Besides the resellers, there are two others that are building their own telephone networks and operate switching facilities to offer local exchange service. Brooks Fiber Communications, based in St. Louis, has been offering service to homes and businesses in parts of Providence for about two months, with 25 route-miles of fiber optic cable. It will expand service to parts of Pawtucket and East Providence in the next 60 days, said Robert J. Shanahan, the company's regional vice president. In the next six months, Brooks will expand into Warwick and Cranston, he said. The company has not been marketing its phone service to residential customers, though it is available if a customer lives in its service area. Instead, the push has been to sign up businesses, which are more profitable for Brooks, said Shanahan. Its rates are 15 percent below NYNEX's rates, he said. The other local phone carrier is Teleport Communications Group, based in Staten Island, N.Y., which is owned by four cable television companies, including Cox Communications. TCG began offering local service last fall and serves only businesses. Its rates are 25 percent below NYNEX's rates, said Peter N. Atwood, director of sales and marketing. The company has been expanding its fiber optic network in Rhode Island thanks to Cox, which owns about 30 percent of TCG, according to documents filed with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. TCG is leasing cable that Cox already has in place to serve its cable customers, Atwood said. In some cases, phone calls placed through TCG will pass through the same fiber optic cable -- though on different strands -- Cox uses to transmit its cable signals. TCG's fiber network is 50 miles long in Rhode Island and passes through Providence, East Providence, Cranston, Warwick, West Warwick and Pawtucket. This year, it will also stretch into Smithfield and East Greenwich, Atwood said. Cox itself has said it plans to offer local phone service as well. The company is positioned to become a major challenger to NYNEX after acquiring all of TCI Cablevision's New England subscribers this year. Cox now serves 90 percent of all cable subscribers in Rhode Island. Waiting in the wings are the three long-distance phone giants that want to sell local service as well. MCI and Sprint have reached preliminary agreements with NYNEX about how they will link to its network, Kent said. The two companies are soon expected to submit proposed rates to the PUC. AT&T is winding its way through the state regulatory process to get approval for local service, said spokeswoman Kay Gibbs. As for NYNEX, it hopes its arts and entertainment discount promotion will help stem customer defections. Given all the options customers are about to face, NYNEX wants to convince them it is still the best choice. "What we plan on doing is to try to keep our customers educated," said Tracey Kennedy, a NYNEX spokeswoman. "If we can keep the lines of communication open between the customers and the company, we'll be able to retain the largest share of the market." ------------------------------ Subject: FCC Solicits Comments? Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:14:00 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (This is from Patrick Crispin's TOURBUS. This is a new perspective on the mail going around the net asking for comments to the FCC. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com) FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling you that: Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. At first, I thought that this was simply a new version of the old "modem tax" hoax (http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84) that has been floating around the Net since *1987*. After all, the current FCC story has all of the markings of a classic urban legend: 1. It uses official-looking language; 2. It mentions a government agency or an organization with which everyone is familiar; 3. It contains a plea for you to take some sort of immediate action; and 4. It requests that you forward the warning letter to as many people as possible. Besides, according to an article that appeared in this morning's Edupage, ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in reality, a bonanza for the Bells. The study found that local carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the additional usage. A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer. Both sides agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks. (Business Week 17 Feb 97) Well, out of curiosity -- and out of a deep-felt desire to avoid studying for the two major economics tests that I have next week -- your fearless bus driver decided to call the FCC in Washington to see if anyone there was willing to talk about this rather explosive issue. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the FCC only has one employee, she is a secretary, and her job is to transfer all incoming telephone calls into voice mail hell. :) Actually, I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a ten page explanation of what's *really* going on. Unfortunately, the ten page explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few inaccuracies; if it does, please let me know). First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by Internet Service Providers. Local telephone companies currently charge long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to access the Internet. In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place." In other words, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion. Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each and every one of us to stop the evil FCC. What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you agree or disagree with their decision. The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts ever. I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for their organization one-hundred-fold. Part of the ten-page explanation that the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the development of emerging packet-switched data networks." Because of this, the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network. Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens in the future' has earned my respect and admiration. By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first. At the bottom of this page are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC. Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while. They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and misinformed) opposition. ====================================================================== Join : Send SUBSCRIBE TOURBUS Your Name to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Leave : Send SIGNOFF TOURBUS to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Info : On the Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/tourbus.htm ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Comments on Access Charge Reform Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:22:18 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:31:28 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Comments on Access Charge Reform BellSouth .......................................February 13, 1997 NEW PUBLIC POLICY MATERIAL AVAILABLE FROM BELLSOUTH On December 24, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on interstate access charge reform, a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on the treatment of interstate information services providers (ISPs) and the Internet, and a Report and Order which relaxes certain rules governing interstate price cap regulation. This proceeding was initiated as part of a trilogy of actions that collectively are intended to foster and accelerate the introduction of efficient competition in all telecommunications markets, as part of the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Interconnection proceeding and the Universal Service proceeding are the other parts of the trilogy. BellSouth filed comments in response to the FCC NPRM on interstate access charge reform on January 29, 1997. A copy of that response and a summary are now posted on the public policy pages of BellSouth's website at http://www.bellsouthcorp.com/issues/filings/dk96262.htm --------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:49:19 -0800 From: Timothy Templeton Subject: Internet Access PR - Bell South Although it seems that this fellow has cited an exerpt that says "hey, Mr. Consumer, we're on your side", I don't know if he speaks for the rest of the LECs. ------------begin included text----------------------- You wrote: > Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the > FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service ... > Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to > sneak it in just under the wire for litigation. Let everyone you > know here this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can > think of. Your post to this list says all telcos have asked the FCC to lift the exemption from access charges currently enjoyed by Internet Service Providers. In a filing in the access charge docket on January 29th BellSouth said quite the opposite. Please correct your posting. Here's the language we used: C. Treatment of Interstate Information Services (paras. 282-290) Since their inception, the access charge rules have exempted enhanced service providers (ESPs) from paying interstate access charges. The ESP exemption was initially conceived as a transition mechanism to avoid rate shock in the relatively nascent information services segment of the telecommunications industry. There was and continued to be very little traffic generated by ESPs realtive to other public switched network traffic. The widespread use of personal computers and the demand for connectivity has given rise to a new form of enhanced service, the Internet. The use of the Internet is growing and is expected to grow exponetially. It represents a potentially important resource in a variety of public policy areas such as education and medicine. The internet phenomenon has never been fully analysed within the context of access charges. At one level, there is considerable internet usage and this usage has different characteristics than the typical voice traffic that transits the public switched network. This gives rise to equitable concerns such as whether internet usage be treated differently than other usage. It also gives rise to operational concerns regarding congestion of the public switched network. Given the importance of the internet in the development of public policy, the Commission should be sure that its telecommunications policy foster efficient use of the telecommunications network which includes public switched voice traffic as well as internet traffic. To achieve this goal is more complex than just deciding whether to apply or not to apply access charges. The solution will require far more creative approaches that will necessitate, among other things consideration of the appropriate jurisdiction for internet access and the investigation of market-based incentives that would direct internet traffic to packet-switched networks. Until these types of solutions are explored, changing the ESP exemption might only achieve disrupting the marketplace rather than making it operate more efficiently. Bill McCloskey - Director Media Relations, BellSouth Corp. -------end of included text------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Medical Report Says Drivers on Cell Phones More Likely to Crash Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:59:21 GMT Saw on the TV news a story that a major medical journal (New England Journal of Medicine, if memory serves) had published a report that they found that drivers using a cell phone while they are actively driving a car are about four times more likely to have an accident than drivers without a cell phone. This is like drunk driving, except you "sober up" when you finish the call. Phones not requiring the use of your hands doesn't help significantly. Apparently, the brain gets too distracted talking on the cell phone to pay enough attention to the driving task. I don't know why this doesn't happen if you are talking to your passenger who is physically present next to you in the car you're driving. Other than he might spot a hazard you missed. Most everyone grew up on landline corded phones, and you may tend to concentrate on your hearing and ignore some your vision. Sitting at home or office this is no problem, on the road, big problem? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:25:55 -0800 From: Michael Ross Reply-To: mross@best.com Subject: Where to Find Used Telecom Equipment? I'm looking for a used AT&T 843A Call Display Server. It's an accessory for the 854 phone (4-line KSU-less system). Thanks for any info! Cheers, Michael mross@best.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:40:59 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: New Article: Out of Sight, Out of Mind Go here: http://www.clickit.com/touch/newpage.htm#News and scroll down to "Point of View", for article "Out of Sight, Out of Mind". Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:12:04 +1300 From: Ken Moselen Subject: Caller ID in New Zealand Gidday Pat, Yesterday (February 13th) Telecom New Zealand after an abortive attempt last September, finally successfully launched it's Caller ID service nationwide. From my limited testing so far, Telecom is exchanging numbers in both directions with Bellsouth (the GSM Cellular operator - who has had Caller ID since November). Also, landline's with their numbers unlisted/restricted appear to have had per-line blocking set to on by default - but so far, of the 10 calls I've received since 3:30pm yesterday when the service was turned on on my line, only one has been from a blocked number, so I suspect the service will be fairly usable. Since last September, Telecom has changed the Block/Unblock codes for the service - in an effort to make the service more PABX friendly - The Block code is now 0197 (or 197 from a toll-barred phone), and the Unblock code is 0196 (or 196 from a toll-barred phone). Cheers, Ken Moselen CAD Administrator, City Design, Christchurch City Council, PO Box 237, Christchurch, New Zealand. Ken.Moselen@ccc.govt.nz Tel: +64.3.3711708 Fax: +64.3.3711783 Gsm: +64.21.337963 ------------------------------ From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems using DSP" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:18:51 PST Organization: UCLA Extension On April 12-16, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bernard Sklar, PhD, Communications Engineering Services, and frederick harris, MS, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University. As part of the course materials, each participant receives a copy of the text, "Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications", by Bernard Sklar. This course provides comprehensive coverage of advanced digital communications. It differs from other communications courses in its emphasis on applying modern digital signal processing techniques to the implementation of communication systems. This makes the course essential for practitioners in the rapidly changing field. Error-correction coding, spread spectrum techniques, and bandwidth-efficient signaling are all discussed in detail. Basic digital signaling methods and the newest modulation-with-memory techniques are described. Topics that are covered include: data encoding and baseband transmission; bandpass modulation and demodulation; channel coding: error detection and correction; defining, designing, and evaluating systems; modulation and coding trade-offs and bandwidth-efficient signaling; spread spectrum and multiple access techniques; digital signal processing tools and technology; non-recursive filters; signal conditioning; and adaptive algorithms for communication systems. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1990. The course fee is $1495, which includes the text and extensive course notes. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #42 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 17 08:02:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA29113; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:02:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:02:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702171302.IAA29113@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #43 TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Feb 97 08:02:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 43 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Secret "Dime-a-Minute" Rate (Jack Decker) US Keeps World Waiting on Telecom Deal (Tad Cook) US West Wants Online Users to Pay More (Tad Cook) NYS-PSC Orders $109.6 Million Nynex Customer Refund (Danny Burstein) 904 Split Finalized (John Cropper) 913 Splits to 785 on July 20th! (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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:01:14 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: AT&T Secret "Dime-a-Minute" Rate This is FYI ... it was posted in the Usenet misc.consumers newsgroup: Subject: Long distance phone rates From: steve@accessone.com (Steve Hoffman) Organization: AccessOne Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:50:26 GMT Newsgroups: misc.consumers Message-ID: <3303c759.11036022@news.accessone.com> Best Phone Discounts Go To the Hardest Bargainers Wall Street Journal 2/13/97 Shhhh. Don't tell anybody, but now Ma Bell is a "dime lady," too. Millions of customers switched to Sprint Corp.'s dime-a-minute plan over the past two years, lured by the simple but limited offer from its "dime lady" pitchwoman, Candice Bergen. The Sprint plan charges just 10 cents a minute for long-distance calls on nights and weekends and 25 cents a minute on weekdays. Stung, AT&T Corp. responded with a flat-rate offer that, while less catchy, charges 15 cents a minute around the clock. AT&T named the plan One Rate. Now it turns out that One Rate actually is two rates: AT&T customers can get dime-a-minute calling 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- if only they know to ask for it. That is the hardest part, for AT&T has been uncharacteristically quiet about the new offer. The company hasn't advertised it; it hasn't sent out press releases heralding the latest effort to one-up the folks at Sprint. AT&T's customer-service reps don't even like to talk about it. "How did you find out about this? Who told you?" one AT&T representative demanded to know when a customer dialed the company's main toll-free number seeking the secret discount. AT&T's "you-gotta-ask-for-it" plan is a risky defense. While aimed at stopping customers from sprinting away to Sprint, it is going to irk people who discover they are paying more than they have to. The stealthy offer also reveals a new consumer caveat: the days of one-size-fits-all discount plans may be over, and how good your deal is will depend on how hard you haggle. Some customers, of course, have played long-distance providers off one another in recent years, surfing among carriers to land cash bonuses for switching. Now, the heavily advertised discount plans -- from AT&T's True Reach to MCI One to Sprint Sense -- are yielding to a new kind of telecom bazaar, in which different customers will get different rates. In the entirely unheralded AT&T offer, which it calls One Rate Plus, the toughest bargainers can do even better than the dime-a-minute deal; they can persuade AT&T to waive a $4.95-a-month fee for several months. Sprint, which usually charges 25 cents a minute in daylight hours, will match AT&T's 15-cent rate -- but only if customers demand it. (MCI Communications Corp. claims it doesn't dicker: It stands by a 12-cent-a-minute rate for customers who spend at least $25 a month.) "When I called AT&T, at first the customer rep acted like she didn't know what I was talking about," says Cheryl-Ann Barrington, a One Rate customer in Odenton, Md. "But then I told her my sister got the 10-cent rate, and she gave me the details." Ms. Barrington, who spends up to $90 a month on long-distance calls, landed the all-hours, dime-a-minute rate plus a six-month freebie on the monthly fee. "If my monthly bills don't go down, I'll do something else," she says. The negotiations unnerve even some customers who are nervy enough to hondle. "I was notified about a 12-cent-a-minute MCI plan, and I called AT&T to see if they could offer anything cheaper," says Jack Balos, an AT&T customer in New York. Emboldened by the surprise dime offer, he also landed a refund of $27.90 for the nickel-a-minute extra he has been paying since signing up with One Rate. And he got AT&T to waive the $4.95-a- month fee -- albeit for only two months rather than six. "The individual negotiations are ridiculous," Mr. Balos complains. "They're not advertising this, and that's not fair to the people who have signed up for AT&T's 15-cent One Rate plan." An AT&T spokesman makes no apologies for the special pricing, given the intense competition. It is used, he says, on "a case-by-case basis with an AT&T customer who has gotten an attractive offer from a competitor." But consumers might well wonder "who's being true," says Yankee Group analyst Brian Adamik, borrowing from AT&T's high-profile ad campaign for the True Reach discount program. Over the past year or so "all carriers have had secret pricing offers in their back pockets, and they take them out and use them when needed," he says. AT&T gave its telemarketers the dime plan two weeks ago to keep customers from fleeing to rival discount services. Its unusual level of discretion in making One Rate Plus known may be understandable: The plan marks a 33% discount off the existing One Rate. If millions of customers grabbed for it, that would hinder the already-slow growth in AT&T's revenue, which grew 2.7% last year. That is why AT&T has been raising its basic rates in the past couple of years, and why rivals have been following in lockstep. They aim to offset a falloff in revenue brought about by discounting. Consumer watchdogs have long decried the fact that more than half of AT&T's 80 million household customers still pay high basic rates, apparently unaware of, or uninterested in, cheaper plans. Even the $4.95 monthly fee in One Rate Plus may not necessarily alleviate the revenue pressure. Under the 15-cent-a-minute plan, a customer who makes 300 minutes of long-distance calls in a month would be charged $45. The same customer at a dime a minute would be charged $34.95, or 22% less, even factoring in the $4.95 fee. The mishmash of discounts and hard bargaining will probably increase as customers negotiate individual service plans that bundle in everything from local and long-distance phone service to cellular, paging and Internet access. It lets the phone companies try to differentiate their services from commodity-like long-distance rates. MCI bundles local, long-distance, Internet and wireless services with its MCI One plan. Sprint bundles long-distance, paging, toll-free calls and other services. GTE Corp. has begun to do this in its national markets. Such packaging could enable carriers to wean consumers off discounts -- but will require customers to become savvier about the back-and-forth. A media executive, say, could get her own bundle of phone, Internet and other services, while a person with a home office could get his different bundle at different prices. With every combatant -- from AT&T to even something called the Long Distance Wholesale Club -- offering cut-rate pricing, "fighting on price alone just isn't sustainable," says Mr. Adamik of Yankee Group, a Boston research firm. "Another company will always rise up to beat your price." AT&T is willing to take up the challenge -- for now, although it won't say how long the dime deal will last. While such bargains are unadvertised, with a little persistence you can find out about the latest one by calling the company. Just dial 1-800- CALLATT. The Long-Distance Haggle AT&T ADVERTISED PLAN One Rate: 15 cents per minute on any long-distance call made at any time in the U.S. IF YOU CALL AND ASK One Rate Plus: 10 cents per minute on any long-distance call plus a $4.95 per month fee that is sometimes waived for two or more months. TOLL-FREE NUMBER 1-800-CALL-ATT (1-800-225-5288) Sprint ADVERTISED PLAN Sprint Sense: 10 cents per minute 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Mon.-Fri. and all weekend. During the day the charge is 25 cents per minute IF YOU CALL AND ASK Sprint Sense Day: 15 cents per minute, around the clock, if you tell Sprint you're a work-at-home person or homebound. Sprint also offers a 10-cents-per-minute rate on the one number you call the most. TOLL-FREE NUMBER 1-800-PIN-DROP (1-800-746-3767) MCI ADVERTISED PLAN MCI One: 12 cents per minute if you spend at least $25 a month. IF Spend less than $25 and the per-minute charge is 15 cents. MCI also bundles wireless, Internet and other services into its package. IF YOU CALL AND ASK None, apparently. "We're not in the promo game at all," a spokesman says. TOLL-FREE NUMBER 1-800-444-3333 ------------------------------ Subject: US Keeps World Waiting on Telecom Deal Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:14:43 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U.S. keeps world waiting on telecom deal BY CAROLYN HENSON Associated Press GENEVA -- The United States put the rest of the world on hold Friday with the deadline looming for a multibillion-dollar deal to bring down the cost of telephone calls. Negotiators delayed by several hours a meeting intended to complete the agreement, hoping for signs that the United States was satisfied with market liberalization offers from other countries. But there was no word from Washington. "We still have to finish our job," said Renato Ruggiero, head of the World Trade Organization, as he headed into the meeting, which finally convened Friday evening. "We have come a very long way. We are not far from a good result but it's too early to be certain." More than 60 countries are negotiating a global pact that would phase out monopolies and restrictions on competition that have allowed telephone companies to overcharge for calls and given them little incentive to improve services. "(There) is a huge prize at stake. It means a massive liberalization of the world telecom market, which (the United States) would be crazy not to grasp with both hands," European Union trade chief Sir Leon Brittan said. U.S. negotiators had no comment as they entered the WTO's lakeside headquarters. The WTO is sponsoring the talks, which conclude by midnight Saturday. Officials in Washington earlier stressed that the United States had no intention of pulling out of the talks, as it did last April when it claimed that other countries had not done enough to open their markets. "We are continuing to make progress. We still have some issues to work out with Japan and Canada but backing out is not an issue," said a U.S. trade official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But there were still fears in Geneva that, under domestic political pressure, the Clinton administration might scale back its offer and risk undoing the whole process. Some American lawmakers were particularly unhappy at Canada's refusal to allow foreign companies to hold majority stakes in their main telephone companies while the United States was offering 100-percent foreign ownership. Mexican and South Korean offers restrict foreign ownership to less than 50 percent, they say. Japan has restricted foreign participation in its main two telephone companies to 20 percent. But a senior Canadian official, while announcing an improvement to the Canadian offer in other areas, said his country would not budge on foreign ownership. He pointed out that while the United States had the world's largest telecommunications market, representing a third of the world's $600 billion annual revenue, Canada's share was just 1.8 percent. "There's going to be no invasion by Canadian companies into the United States," he said. "Whether Washington will decide to ignore economics and business interest and all the work that has been done for political reasons, that is their own decision. But I just don't think so." U.S. industry sources said they believed a deal was close. "The atmosphere right now is that we are going to be able to solve whatever differences are remaining," one industry spokesman said. Telecommunications is one of the most dynamic sectors of the world economy, but trade barriers have prevented technological gains from being passed on to the consumer. For instance, it costs an estimated 2 cents per minute to provide a trans-Atlantic phone link -- the same as a local call. Still, European consumers pay about $2 per minute. Customers could gain $1 trillion dollars over 14 years, according to some estimates. The developing world would also gain from improved telecommunications technology. ------------------------------ Subject: US West Wants Online Users to Pay More Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:21:58 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) US West Wants Online Users to Pay More By Thomas W. Haines, The Seattle Times Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News OLYMPIA, Wash.--Feb. 14--US West Communications wants Internet users to begin paying phone companies extra money to stay online. Companies providing Internet access say that's just a ploy by the company to make money rather than fix a clogged phone network. US West wants the state Legislature to settle the dispute. A Senate committee hearing Thursday was the latest phase in an increasingly prominent debate over just how much Internet use is bogging down the local phone network. During recent weeks, some people placing phone calls in and around Seattle, especially those connected through a downtown Seattle switching station, have heard "all circuits busy" recordings when trying to place calls. US West is the state's largest local telephone company, with lines to more than 2 million customers. US West and other regional Bell telephone companies have maintained that the increased congestion on their phone networks is caused by Internet users, particularly those using a flat-rate plan offered by America Online, a leading Internet service provider. Internet service providers and other technology companies contend that the phone companies are exaggerating the problems. The dispute centers on claims and counterclaims that so far have not been backed up by definitive data in Washington state. State regulators are encouraging US West to solve the problem quickly. The company says it is spending more than $300 million on the network this year, and quickly adding critical pipelines in and around Seattle. US West is filing weekly reports with the state Utilities and Transportation Commission. But an official there says it is not yet certain exactly what is causing the blockages. Energy, Telecommunications and Utilities Committee Chair Bill Finkbeiner, R-Carnation, described Thursday's hearing as an "educational process" for the committee. It is not clear whether US West or any of the other parties involved plans to propose legislation this session. Some phone companies have made a request that the Federal Communications Commission consider setting rates for users who stay online for long periods of time. Yesterday was the first time US West publicly made its case to state lawmakers. "We are going to have to come up with a different rate structure," said Ed Shaw, a US West attorney. "... Consumers should have a flat rate for a reasonable amount of voice traffic, but if you're going to use it more than that, you pay an increment." Shaw contended that the local phone network, over which Internet traffic is routed, was built to support voice calls lasting three to five minutes. He said that during January the company saw a repeated increase in calls lasting 20 minutes or more, typical of Internet use. A group of local Internet service providers joined Microsoft and the American Electronics Association -- a technology industry trade group -- to counter US West. Garry Myall of Microsoft said fax machines, telephone banking and lower long-distance rates, which encourage more calling, were culprits. A study submitted by a Microsoft lobbyist contends that, if anything, US West and other local phone companies are making money by installing additional phone lines for people using the Internet. Glenn Blackmon, a staff analyst with the state utilities commission, which regulates US West, says he's studied the length of calls during hours when the "all circuits busy" problem seems worst. He says that the calls appear to be shorter in length, roughly two to four minutes -- a finding that he says, so far, contradicts US West's claim that extended calls by Internet users are causing the problem. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:17:58 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS-PSC Orders $109.6 Million Nynex Customer Refund (a hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon we're talking real money.../dannyb) STATE OF NEW YORK Public Service Commission John F. OMara, Chairman Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 Further Details: (518) 474-7080 http://www.dps.state.ny.us FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 97011/92C0665 COMMISSION ORDERS $109.6 MILLION IN REBATES TO NYNEX CUSTOMERS -$87 Million for Improper Affiliate Transactions & $22.6 Million in Service Quality Rebates- ALBANY, NY --February 12-- The New York State Public Service Commission today ordered the New York Telephone Company (NYNEX) to rebate a total of $109.6 million to customers. The rebates are the result of a settlement in the Commissions investigation into the companys alleged improper dealings with affiliates between 1984 and 1991, and the companys failure to meet certain service quality targets established in the current Performance Regulatory Plan (PRP). The settlement approved today in the New York Telephone affiliates case reflects a reasonable resolution to this proceeding, said Commission Chairman John F. OMara. With respect to the service quality rebates, this Commission will continue to be vigilant in ensuring that New York Telephone meets the targets established for improving the service delivered to its customers. Affiliates Case The affiliates case was instituted by the Commission in 1990 when, during a rate case, it was alleged that ratepayers had been harmed as a result of improper purchasing practices at NYNEX, and that excessive charges had been imposed on New York Telephone by its affiliate, NYNEX Materiel Enterprises Company (MECO), for central office equipment removal services. As a result, a separate proceeding was established to examine these allegations and transactions with other affiliates, as well as questions concerning whether or not NYNEX Information Resources Company (NIRC), an unregulated subsidiary that handled directory publishing for NYNEX and other phone companies, was adequately compensating the company for access to its subscriber lists. The purpose of the proceeding was to determine what, if any, adverse financial effects the companys transactions with these affiliates had on ratepayers. In a November 1996 recommended decision, the administrative law judge in the case, citing questions about the reliability of data underlying the affiliate transactions, found it difficult to support or oppose the settlement agreement. Instead, he recommended continuation of the proceeding to give NYNEX further opportunity to prove that the transactions were reasonable. By approving the agreement today, the Commission chose to follow a different course of action than the judges recommended decision. This case has dragged on for far too long. The Commission believes that the continuation of litigation would not necessarily yield a better result, and that the interests of consumers are best served by concluding this contentious and resource-intensive proceeding with this agreement, OMara said. At the Commissions behest, NYNEX has agreed to a comprehensive restructuring plan that virtually eliminates NYNEXs ability to repeat these types of affiliate transactions, and we believe the agreement fairly compensates ratepayers for the companys actions prior to restructuring. Under the terms of the agreement -- which was signed by the staff of the Department of Public Service, the Department of Law, the Consumer Protection Board and the company -- New York Telephone must refund $53 million plus interest as a result of the companys transactions with NYNEX affiliates, and an additional $30 million plus interest relating to the NIRC transactions. In addition, the agreement requires NIRC to transfer its subscriber listings database and its management back to a regulated subsidiary of NYNEX which, in turn, must provide access to its subscriber listing information to all competing directory publishers, including NIRC, on the same terms. This will ensure that ratepayers of New York Telephone receive the maximum benefit for the companys ability to provide this information. The $87 million in rebates must be included as a one-time credit on customer bills within 90 days. Refunds will be distributed pro rata to all business and residential customers. $22.6 Million in Service Quality Rebates The Performance Regulatory Plan (Plan) approved for New York Telephone in September 1995 included a system of positive incentives and negative penalties for service quality improvement. The Plan froze basic rates for at least five years (September 1, 1995 through August 31, 2000), reduced many other residential and business rates and charges, and eliminated touchtone charges. It also established service improvement targets that become increasingly tougher each year, exposing the company to greater penalties for failure to improve service quality. In November of 1996, the Commission found that NYNEXs performance after the first full year of the Plan (September 1995 - September 1996) warranted $72.9 million in penalties. After granting waivers in the amount of $617,000, the Commission ordered $62.3 million in rebates, and a decision on the remaining $10 million in penalties was withheld pending consideration of another waiver request and a staff investigation of NYNEXs claims of miscalculation of certain performance data. Today, the Commission denied the companys waiver request and, on the basis of staffs review, found that while there were some miscalculations of reported data, the penalties were warranted and therefore ordered the $10 million to be refunded to customers within 30 days. A separate incentive segment of the Plan was designed to allow the company to earn up to $26.5 million in incentives for improving service quality in the companys worst performing areas during calendar year 1996. Specifically, the company could earn up to $17.5 million for improving residential customers accessibility to its business offices, plus another $9 million for reducing the number of instances of weakspot customer trouble report rates statewide and the number of lines that are out-of- service for more than 24 hours in the Greater Metro Region (Brooklyn, Staten Island, Queens, Bronx, and Northern Manhattan). The company was unable to meet the $9 million targets, and therefore today the Commission ordered it to rebate the full amount, plus interest, to customers within 30 days. With respect to the $17.5 million incentive for improving customer accessibility to business offices, the Commission denied the companys request to extend the reporting period at todays meeting. As a result, the company was ordered to rebate to customers $3.6 million of the $17.5 million incentive plus interest. Recent Service Quality Trends Show Improvement Even as the Commission directed New York Telephone to rebate $22.6 million in penalties for its earlier record of poor service quality, it observed that the companys results for the fourth quarter of 1996 improved on 16 out of 16 measures when compared to the fourth quarter of 1995. The Commissions focus on service quality and the companys willingness to devote the necessary resources have produced significant results, Chairman OMara noted. I commend the company for its efforts and challenge them to continue. http://www.dps.state.ny.us/PRESS/97011.DOC-2.t ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 904 Split Finalized Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:35:21 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@nospam.lincs.net On the tenth, the Florida PSC finalized the 904 split. Here is the summary: We find that of all the options we have considered on this record, Option 4 best serves all the customers in the present 904 NPA code. Therefore, we find it appropriate to order that Option 4 (three-way split with Tallahassee retaining 904, Jacksonville LATA getting one new code [850], and Daytona Beach LATA another new code [???]) be implemented to relieve the 904 NPA code exhaustion. We will inform Bellcore that two new NPA codes are needed to implement our plan. The permissive dialing period should begin as soon as possible and extend for approximately one year in order to permit end-users to prepare for the change. We find that it is reasonable for the industry to implement permissive dialing under Option 4 by June 30, 1997. Mandatory dialing, therefore, shall be implemented by June 30, 1998. Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that each and all of the specific findings set forth in the body of this Order are approved in every respect. It is further ORDERED that the 904 NPA code relief shall be implemented by means of the relief plan described as Option 4 in the body of this Order. It is further ORDERED that permissive dialing shall be implemented by June 30, 1997. It is further ORDERED that mandatory dialing shall be implemented by June 30, 1998. It is further ORDERED that this docket shall be closed. By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission, this 10th day of February, 1997. /s/ Blanca S. Bays BLANCA S. BAYS, Director Division of Records and Reporting This is a facsimile copy. A signed copy of the order may be obtained by calling 1-904-413-6770. ------------------------------------ John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Communication Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 913 Splits to 785 on July 20th! Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:43:46 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@nospam.lincs.net From the Kansas Corporation Commission: News Release February 12, 1997 New area code to be 785 TOPEKA, KANSAS - The Kansas Corporation Commission today announced the assignment of the new area code to be implemented in a portion of the 913 calling area. The new area code is 785. The assignment of the 785 area code fulfills the Commission's relief plan addressing the rapidly approaching problem of running out of available phone numbers in the 913 area code. The relief plan geographically split the existing 913 area and established an additional area code for Kansas. The new 785 area code will become operational at 12:01 a.m. on July 20, 1997. This will initiate a permissive dialing period. During the permissive dialing period, a consumer placing a call to the new area code can dial either the old 913 area code or the new 785 area code and the call will be completed. This period will provide additional time for business and residential customers to prepare and adjust to the new area code. Based on current projections the permissive dialing period will extend 14 months to October 1, 1998. A 60-day intercept message period will follow the permissive dialing period. During this period, a consumer dialing the wrong area code will receive a recorded message informing them of the new 785 area code. The availability of three-digit exchange prefix numbers within the 913 area code is projected to be exhausted in the fourth quarter of 1998. As of January 1996, 648 of the 792 possible exchange prefix numbers had been assigned. The splitting and assignment of a new area code within the geographic area currently served by the 913 area code is necessary to meet future demand for new telephone numbers. Based on current projections, the relief plan will meet the demand for new telephone numbers through the year 2005. The Commission relief plan splits the 913 area code along an existing LATA (Local Access Transport Area) boundary line. The LATA line runs south through Atchison and Jefferson counties and continues along the western edge of Johnson, Miami and Linn counties. LATAs were formed at the time of the breakup of the Bell System in 1984 and are geographic areas within which regional Bell operating companies are authorized to provide service. The existing 913 area code will be retained in the area east of the LATA line, and the new 785 area code will be assigned to the LATA area which extends west to the Colorado state line in the northern half of the state. While both LATA areas have approximately the same number of access lines, the eastern LATA area, which includes the metropolitan Kansas City area, has significantly more incoming interLATA calls, requiring ten-digit dialing. The plan preserves seven-digit dialing for local calls. The new area code number was assigned by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator which is responsible for the assignment and monitoring of telecommunication number requirements through North America. In December 1996, the Commission approved an industry planning group recommendation geographically splitting the existing 913 area code and establishing an additional area code in Kansas. The recommendation was the result of a six-month effort by KCC staff, representatives from various segments of the telecommunications industry, and CURB (Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board). The relief plan recommendation met three criteria established by the Commission: minimize disruption of telephone number assignment for the largest possible number of people, preserve seven-digit dialing in the Kansas City metropolitan area, and provide relief for a minimum period of eight to ten years from the date of implementation. The Commission, along with the various telecommunication providers in the state will continue to provide consumer information on the implementation of the new area code. (JC's note: Missouri is supposed to be co-ordinating the 816 split with Kansas' 913 split, but no word is yet available from either SBC or Missouri on the 816 split.) ------------------------------ John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Communication Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #43 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 17 08:56:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA01789; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:56:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:56:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702171356.IAA01789@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #44 TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Feb 97 08:56:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 44 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Slammed! (Tad Cook) Ameritech Discriminates Against Michigan U.P. Residents (Jack Decker) At What Point Do I File a Lawsuit on my LEC? (Billy Newsom) World Reaches Multibillion-Dollar Telecoms Pact (Tad Cook) Top of the World: Cellphone Penetration (Kimmo Ketolainen) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Slammed! Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:13:04 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (The article doesn't mention this, but one way to test to see if you have been slammed is to dial 1-700-555-4141, which will tell you what your default long distance carrier is. Do this ocasionally, and you will know if your carrier has been changed. This article mentions calling the Florida PUC, but of course you would only do that if you were in Florida. Tad Cook, tad@ssc.com) Long-Distance Telephone Carriers Slam Customers By Patricia Horn, Sun-Sentinel, South Florida Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 17--Slammed. Every year, millions of people switch their long distance telephone carriers in efforts to save money or improve service. Every year, thousands of Floridians and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans have their long-distance telephone carrier switched without their knowlege. They've been slammed. The typical result: higher rates, frustration, a lot of phone calls to correct the problem, and sometimes even a bad credit rating. Nikki Townsend was slammed twice last year by Heartline Communications. "I don't know where they came up with my number," she said. By her calculation, Heartline charged her twice as much as did her chosen long distance company, Sprint. "I never approved it either time," she said. Townsend ran into the problem every slammed customer does: You don't know a company has taken over your long distance service until that company's first bill arrives. And, unless you read your bill closely every month, you may not know it even then. Townsend did. A friend directed her to the Florida Public Service Commission. There she learned an irony of slamming: Although she hadn't ordered that company's service, she still had to pay the bill. She did, however, get a refund for the difference between Sprint's charges and Heartline's. Houston-based Total World Telecommunications bought Heartline over a year ago. Vice-president Ed Kennard acknowledged that some of Heartline's customers were indeed slammed. "We've spent over $4 million to provide the cost of switching these people back, of settling fines in your state and other states, and are totally against the business of slamming," he said. For consumers, slamming is insidious and nearly unpreventable. You might sign a sweepstakes form for a new Mustang or a Hawaii vacation at the mall. If you didn't read the fine print -- and sometimes even if you did -- you wouldn't know that signature also will change your phone service. Laura Griffith's daughter and boyfriend filled out a sweepstakes form while shopping. That form changed the Cooper City family's phone service to Home Owners Long Distance Inc. -- and higher rates. "That something as erroneous as this could change your long distance service is absurb," Laura Griffith said. You might agree to receive information from a phone company over the phone. That "yes" can change your long distance service -- even though a switch such as that is illegal. You might think you are talking to AT&T, agree to a discount plan, and discover that it's not AT&T and it's not a discount plan. You might do nothing, and still get your phone service changed. That's what happened to Diana Pirich of Fort Lauderdale. She was switched from AT&T to Integrated TeleServices Inc. "I had never heard of them," she said, until after her first bill from Integrated arrived. By her figuring, since Integrated spelled her name incorrectly, just as on a mailing list she's on, that's where the company must have acquired her name. No one knows how big a problem slamming is. But anecdotal evidence indicates it is growing -- and has been since the late 1980s. In Florida, complaints about slamming to the Florida Public Service Commission have risen from 194 in 1990 to 2,393 last year. "That's only the tip of the iceberg," said Nancy Pruitt, the commission's point person for slamming complaints. She estimates the commission might hear from only 10 percent of those affected. The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates interstate phone service, doesn't track slamming. But slamming complaints to the FCC have nearly quadrupled since 1994. The closest reference to an actual count came in a "Wall Street Journal" article last year. It said the seven Baby Bells, which bill for most long distance carriers, received more than 100,000 complaints about slamming in the first six months of 1995. Slamming originated in the early long distance marketing wars between MCI and AT&T in the late 1980s, according to John Muleta, chief of the FCC's enforcement division for common carriers. He said AT&T coined the word "slamming" during those battles. In the early and mid-1990s, after the price of wholesale long-distance rates dropped, hundreds of companies entered the market and began to compete for more consumers' long distance dollars. From that intense competition came new marketing techniques -- such as sweepstakes and door-to-door sales, Muleta said. Some are illegal. The FCC, for example, is investigating forged signatures on letters of agency, the actual document that changes your long distance service. The Florida Public Service Commission is investigating sweepstakes contests that never state -- or say only in vague fine print -- that people who enter have signed up to switch phone service. "There has been such a proliferation of long distance companies, but they are having to divide up the same pie in 700 ways instead of three," Pruitt said. Now, with further deregulation in the industry, slamming is expected to get worse. Today, you can chose different phone companies for two different types of phone service: long distance and local toll. (A local toll call is a call from, say, Fort Lauderdale to Delray Beach.) Competition will also increase in local service over the next few years, for calls now exclusively carried by BellSouth. Here are examples of the biggest cases last year at the Florida Public Service Commission: The commission received more than 400 complaints of slamming by Phone Calls Inc. Now the commission can't find the company. Phone Calls Inc. used sweepstakes promotions, in one case for a Mustang convertible. By filling out the card, the signer unwittingly authorized the company to change their phone service to Phone Calls, Pruitt said. The only hint, in small print on the contest entry form, pertained to fees that BellSouth would charge for the switch, which would be reimbursed. In 1996, the commission received nearly 300 complaints about slamming by Heartline. Heartline also used car and vacation trip sweepstakes promotions, as well as charity appeals. One sweepstakes featured a Hawaii vacation, $15,000 cash, a red Mustang and the appeal "Help Childhelp USA end child abuse." The fine print underneath the entry forms: "Submission of official form can result in a change of long distance service." Heartline's buyer, Total World Communications, agreed to pay the commission a $50,000 settlement, refund customers for its higher rates and not to use sweepstakes contests in Florida. The commission received 176 complaints on Integrated TeleServices Inc., 45 on Network Utilization Services and 77 on Discount Network Services. With all three companies, consumers have told the commission they thought they were talking to AT&T. Discount's telemarketers refer to the company as "AT&T Bill Management Discount Network Services." And, according to a tape of a conversation, when one person asked the telemarketer "You are not changing my service, are you?" the telemarketer answered "You remain with AT&T 100 percent, just as you are now." Discount Network Services has since agreed to stop making any reference to AT&T in its telemarketing scripts. So what can consumers do? Be incredibly savvy. Read everything. Trust no one. Pruitt says she cautions people to think twice before talking to telemarketers or filling out any sweepstakes offers at all. "When these people say they are calling from AT&T what are you supposed to say, `No, I don't think you are really AT&T?"' she said. Although the FCC and the Public Service Commission say they are trying to tighten the rules around slamming, there still isn't that much protection for consumer. The Public Service Commission has been fining companies since 1989. It tried to put one company, Cherry Communications, out of business in Florida, but the Florida Supreme Court sent the decision back to the commission on a technicality. The commission decided not to pursue the case and agreed to settle for $100,000 with guarantees that Cherry would abide by anti-slamming rules. The cost of that legal battle in time, resources and staff sobered the commission, enforcement chief Alan Taylor said. "Basically what we have is an industry that I guess is thriving on its ability to easily change someone's long distance service and nobody wants to implement any sort of controls," he said. The FCC says it has stepped up its actions. In late 1994 it began to fine companies, including a levy of $500,000 against Cherry Communications. The FCC's Muleta says his agency is also considering allowing consumers to not pay the bills to companies that slammed them. Consumer advocate Ken McEldowney San Francisco-based Consumer Action says that, plus a stiff fine, is the solution to slamming. "It's the only thing that will stop the fraud," he said. There are steps consumers can take to help prevent slamming, but nothing guarantees it won't happen. Not even asking BellSouth to freeze your accounts with your current long distance service. Townsend, for example, said she asked BellSouth for a freeze and still got slammed a second time by Heartline. The bottom line, said the FCC's Muleta, is for consumers to be vigilant. -- Don't talk to telemarketers, or be very cautious if you do. Just saying yes to getting information from a long distance company can be misconstrued as a "yes, change my phone service." -- Don't fill out sweepstakes forms. If you do, read carefully. Buried in the small print might be an agreement to switch phone service. -- Ask BellSouth to freeze your phone service with your current carrier. -- Read the fine print in everything, including any checks, offers for calling cards, or post cards you can return requesting more information. -- Sign up for "No Sales Calls" with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. Send $10 with your complete name, mailing address, and residential telephone number with area code and a note saying "please sign me up on no sales calls list" to: Florida Department of Agriculture, Second Floor, Division of Consumer Services, Tallahasse, FL 32399-0800. You will get on next quarter's list. -- If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If you have been slammed: -- Call the Florida Public Service Commission's hotline at 1-800-342-3552. The commission can help negotiate this process for telephone service in the state, and your call can help them track companies that slam. -- Call your local telephone company. In this area, that's BellSouth. Tell the company that you did not order service from the new company, that you want to be reconnected to your previous long distance company, and that you want any charges for switching companies removed from your telephone bill. -- Call the company that slammed you. Tell them you will only pay the calls at the rate your original company would have charged. You are still liable for paying those calls at that rate. -- Call the long distance company you were switched from and ask to be reconnected at no charge. Make sure to re-establish any calling plans or calling cards you may have had. -- If this does not get resolved to your satisfaction, or just to file a complaint, you can also call the Federal Communications Commission at 1-888-CALL FCC. Source: Florida Public Service Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Tele-Consumer Hotline. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although this article states that AT&T coined the term 'slamming' the fact is that AT&T started using it after a few readers of this Digest discussed the problem when it first became apparent several years ago, and we talked in this Digest about a name or term to describe it. The term 'slamming' as it is now used commonly to describe unauthorized switching of long distance carriers began here. Do any long-time readers from back in the 1980's recall it ever being used before seeing it in this Digest? I think AT&T took it for use after reading about it here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:02:10 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: Ameritech Discriminates Against Michigan U.P. Residents I own a C-band satellite dish and almost every week I listen to a program for dish owners called "Friday Night Live" (for more info on this see the web page at http://ttn.nai.net/). During the second half of this program they take calls from listeners. During the past few weeks they have been plagued by calls from a prank caller, and Gary Bourgois (the show's host) mentioned that Caller ID is not available in Marquette, Michigan (from whence the show originates -- specifically the 906-228 exchange). Apparently the problem is not that the switch isn't capable of doing Caller ID ... it's simply that Ameritech, for whatever reason, doesn't feel that it's necessary to offer Caller ID in that part of the Upper Peninsula. In the past, I would have said "write to the Michigan Public Service Commission." But unfortunately, the last rewrite of the Michigan Telecommunications Act has basically gutted the power of the M.P.S.C., especially where "enhanced services" (a.k.a. "custom calling features") are concerned. Put simply, the way the law is now, if Ameritech decides they want to deny a particular service to customers in a given exchange, they may do so. Someone else who was concerned about the inability to subscribe to Caller ID in Marquette actually did write to the M.P.S.C., and received a letter back saying pretty much what I've stated above. I didn't record the show so I can't quote it verbatim, but if anyone is really interested, the show should be available online this week (in RealAudio format) at http://ttn.nai.net/fnl.ram (you want the show with a copyright date of February 14, 1997, and the part where he talks about Ameritech should be in the last 15 minutes of the second hour or thereabouts). It would be one thing if the central office switch were not capable of Caller ID, but since that is not the case, one has to wonder what Ameritech's reason might be for denying this service to those customers that want it. Anyway, here is a case where removing M.P.S.C. oversight has put some Ameritech customers at a disadvantage. Another fine mess our legislators have gotten us into! On a related note, Michigan residents that wish to sign up for the MI-Telecom e-mail mailing list can do so very easily by going to the Web page at http://www.MailList.Net/mi-telecom.html. You don't even have to send an e-mail message, just fill out the short form on that page and that's all there is to it. For more information on the MI-Telecom mailing list, see the page at http://www.utilitywatch.org/maillist.html (which also gives instructions for subscribing via the usual method of sending an e-mail message). Jack ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: At What Point do I File a Lawsuit on my LEC? Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:15:21 -0700 Organization: http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ Reply-To: William.Newsom@Columbia.net "Billy. It was our fault. You're going to have to stop making calls on those lines until we figure out how to make it work." That's what my Southwestern Bell rep told me Friday. This was in response to a problem we had with a new service SWBT offered to customers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. It's called "Local Plus." SWBT has advertised this service with full-page newspaper ads, television commercials, radio commercials, direct mailings, and flyers in billing statements. It is being offered to residential and commercial customers. Apparently, SWBT is unable to provide this service to us, even though we were told they could. It all comes down to the fact that we use ISDN, and they can't figure out how to make it work. That's why we were charged about $2500 for calls that should have been free. I am the telecommunications manager for a call center in the mid-cities of D/FW. Our long distance call volume is high enough that we use direct AT&T lines. Local calls go through SWBT T-1s and the long distance calls bypass the LEC and are routed to the AT&T T-1s. But in December, my SWBT account manager told me about a plan called "Local Plus," which extends our local calling area to about thirteen counties centered in the D/FW metro area. "Wow, this will save us $10,000 per year on long distance calling! Hook us up." Last week, we received our SWBT telephone bill. At first glance, it was correct. Except for the fact that we had been charged for 4,500 calls made to the thirteen counties surrounding D/FW. These should have been free. After calling my SWBT rep, I got a visit from him. He tried to make it look like my fault. He's really a great guy. I convinced him that I had done my outbound routing correctly. So SWBT was going to make sure everything was done correctly at the central office. It wasn't. Here's the sob story I got: My company was only the second customer using ISDN PRI that had requested "Local Plus" service. The other customer had had the same problems we had had. Southwestern Bell has no clue how to make Local Plus work with a Primary Rate Interface. It will take at least ten business days for the engineers to figure it out. We will be reimbursed for the calls we made for the last month (100% of them were in the Local Plus calling area, due to my superior call-routing) plus the $300 per month it cost us for the Local Plus service. But until SWBT hashes it out, we have to pay for calls using long distance rates. We have to wait until SWBT makes the service available. Here's the bottom line that I may inform the Public Utilities Commission. Southwestern Bell offered a service to everyone, including my company. Now, we are told that the service is not available at this time even though we were sorta allowed to use it for a month. Is this a false advertising situation? Is this an issue for the Texas PUC? Is this a class-action lawsuit issue (for all of the ISDN-PRI customers in D/FW)? Could we sue SWBT for the AT&T charges we will incur in the interim between now and whenever SWBT says they're ready for re-installing the Local Plus service? I truly feel sorry for my SWBT rep and the person who performed the installation mainly because they thought that everything was A-OK. They are finding out that a service is unavailable months after the fact. I'm afraid this is another issue with the marketing guys promoting that which is technically impossible. Reminds me of AOL and a much larger class-action suit. In addition, I never received official operating instructions or even much more than a map of D/FW and a list of cities. I probably spent a couple days investigating and configuring my PBX to use the Local Plus service, and now I look pretty stupid to my boss. Does anyone know what the PUC can do in this kind of situation? I'm not sure if this is even major enough to bother with. Our company got free calls for a month because of it. But that savings will quickly evaporate in "ten business days" while we start paying AT&T for long distance. I'm not going to hold my breath. Billy Newsom :^p uruiamme@why.net My site: Motherboard HomeWorld (a.k.a. **DANGER**) http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ nO nEED tO yELL! See also my new web page: How to Build a PC ------------------------------ Subject: World Reaches Multibillion-Dollar Telecoms Pact Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:08:36 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) World reaches multibillion-dollar telecoms pact By CAROLYN HENSON Associated Press Writer GENEVA (AP) -- Negotiators from 67 countries clinched a landmark deal Saturday to open their telecommunications markets to foreign competition, declaring it would save money for telephone customers around the world. The agreement -- which gives the United States a chance to expand in one of the most dynamic sectors of the world economy -- was reached at the World Trade Organization only hours before a midnight deadline. In Washington, President Clinton said the agreement will bring "clear benefits to American workers, businesses and consumers alike -- new jobs, new markets and lower prices." Acting U.S. Trade Representative Charlene estimated that the cost of international phone calls to U.S. consumers would drop over the next several years by 80 percent -- from $1 a minute on average to 20 cents a minute. The accord will liberalize trade in telephone services, fax and data transmission. The countries taking part in the agreement account for more than 90 percent of the $750 billion global telecommunications industry. The United States already accounts about a third of that market, with the European Union holding another third and Japan about 15 percent. "This is a great success," said the deputy U.S. trade representative, Jeffrey Lang. "Everyone is going to benefit." "We have had competitive markets for 15 years and our companies are lean and ready to go and looking for new market opportunities," Lang said. "For the rest of the world, telephone rates are going to go down because there's going to be more competition." In Washington, executives from America's giant telecommunications companies appeared at a news conference with Barshefsky to praise the deal. Telecommunications are one of the most vital sectors of the world economy, but trade barriers have prevented technological gains from being passed on to the consumer. The deal would phase out monopolies and restrictions on competition that have allowed telephone companies to overcharge for calls and given them little incentive to improve services. The developing world would also gain from improved telecommunications technology, said the director general of the World Trade Organization, Renato Ruggiero. "This is good news for firms, which spend more on telecommunications services than they do on oil. It is also good news for families that in today's world are so often separated by physical distance," he said. He said the freeing up of the market could mean global savings of $1 trillion over the next decade or so. Washington had been the final holdout in the negotiations. The Clinton administration, under pressure from Congress to drive a hard bargain, had insisted up to the last moment that other countries improve their offers. Some Congress members were unhappy at Canada's 46.7 percent cap on foreign ownership while the United States itself is offering 100 percent, up from 20 percent. Mexican and South Korean offers also restrict foreign ownership to under 50 percent and Japan has restricted foreign participation in its main two telephone companies to 20 percent. Though South Korea and Mexico sweetened their offers somewhat, Japan and Canada refused to budge. Other countries were relieved to get the United States on board. The United States walked away from the negotiations last April in protest at what it said were insufficient offers. "We're glad the United States has finally decided to join the avant garde. We welcome the United States as an active participant," said the European Union trade chief, Sir Leon Brittan. "I'm very happy. It's a good result," said Canadian trade ambassador John Weekes as he emerged from the meeting at the World Trade Organization, which sponsored the deal. The countries have until Nov. 30 to ratify the agreement, which would take effect Jan. 1, 1998. ------------------------------ From: kk@iki.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen) Subject: Top of the World: Cellphone Penetration Date: 17 Feb 1997 05:14:58 +0200 Organization: Weyland-Yutani Corporation According to Financial Times publication Mobile Communications, the cellphone penetration rate is getting closer to one third of the population in three countries in Europe. The December 1 issue said 28.09% of Finns had a cellphone, so did 27.81% of Swedes and 26.75% of the Norwegians. The publication also lists Iceland, Great Britain, Luxembourg and Italy to have more than ten cellphones per one hundred people. Behind these countries came Germany with seven and France with four. In other continents, Australia was also near 28%, United States at 17% and Japan near with 15 %. Kimmo Ketolainen * kk@sci.fi * http://iki.fi/kk * Tel. Earth +358 40 55555 08 Studentville 84A, 20540 Turku, Finland * irc:Kimble#kk * Fax +358 22 50 22 40 SunOS weyland-yutani0 5.5 Generic_103093-03 sun4d sparc SUNW,SPARCserver-1000 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #44 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 19 08:09:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA25172; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:09:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:09:21 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702191309.IAA25172@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #45 TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Feb 97 08:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 45 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indiana Girds for Telecom Fight (Tad Cook) 765 Ready to Arrive (James E. Bellaire) Dallas Telephone Customers Can't Call Forward From Old Numbers (Tad Cook) Book Review: "The Java Tutorial" by Campione/Walrath (Rob Slade) SONET OC-48 "SVC"? (David P. Wiltzius) Destiny Telecomm (was: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting) (Robert Holloman) Nevada Wants LUCKY 7-7-7 for its Forthcoming NPA Split (Mark J. Cuccia) Newbridge Mainstreet For Sale (davew@cris.com) 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising (TELECOM Digest Editor) Help With Motorola Advisor Gold Pager (Lawrence Rachman) March CTI Meeting Announcement (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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Indiana Girds for Telecom Fight Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:32:17 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Indiana Lawmakers Prepare for War among Nation's Largest Telephone Companies By Cam Simpson, The Indianapolis Star and News Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 19--Lawmakers are girding for war among the nation's largest telephone companies after news Tuesday that negotiations broke down on legislation that aims to control the shape of competition in the state's $1.4 billion local phone service market. Representatives from AT&T, MCI and other long-distance providers withdrew from talks with local phone companies, saying they would fight passage of any telecommunications legislation this year. They charged that legislation before lawmakers will hurt the state's consumers by protecting companies such as Ameritech that currently enjoy local service monopolies. Ameritech and other local service providers say they were working toward compromise just as the long-distance companies pulled out. Cable television providers and the state's largest consumer group, the Citizens Action Coalition, also called for lawmakers to defeat telecommunications legislation this session. Debate over the legislation has been marked by intense lobbying. More than 30 lobbyists are registered as combatants in the fight. The decision by the long-distance companies to withdraw from talks means that campaign will only intensify, players on both sides said Tuesday. Ameritech, GTE and other local service companies must fight on the Senate floor to keep their legislation alive, while long-distance lobbyists will fight to kill it. Both sides have friends in both political parties. "Within the next 10 days or so, I think at least 49 senators are going to be sick and tired of talking to telephone lobbyists," said Ron Gifford, a lawyer with Baker & Daniels representing AT&T. "I'm already tired of them," said Sen. Beverly Gard, a Republican member of the Senate Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, where the telecommunications bill is pending. "I think it's gotten a little bit out of control." Lawmakers on the committee complain of being deluged by phone lobbyists attempting to talk to them on the complex details of the proposals. Indiana's part-time lawmakers do not have staff members, meaning they often rely on lobbyists to decipher complicated issues. The administration of Gov. Frank O'Bannon has refused to let state regulators comment publicly on how the telecommunications legislation may affect consumers. However, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission has said no legislation is needed this session. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised to open local telephone markets to the kind of competition experienced in the long-distance industry since the government-ordered breakup of Ma Bell in 1984. However, it's up to the IURC to implement key local competition provisions. Ameritech and the other local service companies are pushing Senate Bill 426, which is sponsored by Sen. Morris Mills, the Republican chairman of the commerce panel. Ameritech says SB 426 would give it the flexibility to compete on a level playing field with the long-distance giants. Long-distance companies say the legislation, which allows local companies to deregulate for some services on their own, allows Ameritech and others to crush competitors before competition could take root. Mills continued Tuesday working on compromise proposals that he says address the concerns of the long-distance companies. He put off a committee vote for one week. "We've been trying to work toward a compromise here, but it's almost like we're compromising with ourselves now," Susan Brock Williams, a lobbyist for Ameritech, said. "I think this is really going to hurt the process." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:08:23 EST From: James E. Bellaire Subject: 765 Ready to Arrive Ameritech sent out bill inserts in the February mailings (although I only received one in one of my Ameritech bills) entitled '765 ready to arrive' and announcing: ON FEBRUARY 1, 1997 AREA CODE 765 WENT INTO EFFECT The maps and prefix list were as previously published on their website, the only new information (at least for TELECOM Digest participants) was the dialing instructions: > o To place a local call into another area code, you should > DIAL THE AREA CODE + THE SEVEN-DIGIT NUMBER. > o Within the same area code, local calls can be completed by dialing > the seven-digit telephone number. > o When calling long distance into another area code, you should > DIAL 1 + AREA CODE + THE SEVEN-DIGIT NUMBER. Ameritech is now accepting 1+10 digits on local calls, so I can dial 1+10 to call across the street if I really feel like it. 1+10 is not required on local calls, but I like it permissively. One final note, the test number is up and busy! 1-765-281-6988. The four second message now repeats instead of just hanging up on you after the first playback. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ ------------------------------ Subject: Dallas Telephone Customers Can't Call Forward from Old Numbers Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:36:15 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Dallas-Area Telephone Customers Can't Keep New Area Code By Jennifer Files, The Dallas Morning News Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 18--Dallas-area telephone customers who changed to the new 972 area code will not be able to keep using their old 214 numbers for a fee, as state officials promised last fall. Because of the way telephone numbers are assigned, the service, called "remote call forwarding," would have tied up too many numbers, requiring another area code immediately, the Public Utility Commission of Texas said in a written statement. Phone customers, especially business owners, asked last fall to keep their old numbers so clients and other callers would be able to find them. To compensate for not offering the service, the commission said it would extend for one month, to April 18, the period during which Dallas callers can reach 972 numbers without dialing the area code. It will also use a message through June 18 to remind callers to dial area codes. The commission is taking similar measures in Houston. Some business owners who had feared the new area code would cost them business said the remote call-forwarding would have made little difference. "Too little, too late," said John Allan, president of Dallas-based Integrity Center. But Anita Reed, a motivational speaker, said that not having the option could have "a dramatic effect" on her business. "My name and phone number are on every piece of advertising material. It could appear that I've gone out of business." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:15:38 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Java Tutorial" by Campione/Walrath BKJAVATU.RVW 961027 "The Java Tutorial", Mary Campione/Kathy Walrath, 1996, 0-201-63454-6, U$39.76 %A Mary Campione %A Kathy Walrath %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1996 %G 0-201-63454-6 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$39.76 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com %P 864 %T "The Java Tutorial" This introduction to Java language programming has been "field tested" as a Web site prior to publication. It also uses a moderately interesting "ski trail" format to direct the reader/student through various streams of interest. Unfortunately, neither of these tricks is enough to make the book really stand out from the crowd of Java books. The material is clear enough, but isn't presented to any particular advantage. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKJAVATU.RVW 961027 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse ------------------------------ From: wiltzius@coral.llnl.gov (David P Wiltzius) Subject: SONET OC-48 "SVC"? Date: 18 Feb 1997 05:26:08 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab As I understand SONET rings are generally deployed with some level of redundancy. For SONET, the redundancy is a ring on standby: Idle and ready to transport traffic when another ring fails. Thought: Would telcos be interested in providing access to this "idle" ring at a much reduced rate? Clearly not for mission critical traffic, since the provider would not give any guarantees for access to this backup ring. I envision organizations scheduling access to a lot of bandwidth periodically (say once a day) to resync databases, perform inter-site backups, etc. I certainly could envision folks like DOE Labs using such a service. Meanwhile, the providers have a new source of revenue. ATM SVCs presently deal with small bandwidths ( Subject: Destiny Telecomm (was: Prepaid Phone Card Collecting) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:58:33 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: holloman@mindspring.com Here are some of the specifics on the agreement between Destiny Telecomm and N.C., from http://www.state.nc.us/Justice/cpsmain/destiny.htm : Destiny and N.C. Sign Agreement Destiny entered into an agreement with the State on January 23, 1997. The agreement specifies conditions Destiny must follow in order to comply with North Carolina law. As long as they are in compliance with the law, Destiny may operate in North Carolina. Within one week of signing the agreement, Destiny was to provide copies of the agreement to all its North Carolina participants. The conditions under which Destiny may conduct business in North Carolina include the following: - Participants may receive no business benefit from their own purchases. - 70% of all sales must be retail sales to persons who are not connected to the Destiny sales force in any way, including as "Independent Representatives" or members of their households. - Should a retail customer later become a participant, his prior purchase shall be considered an internal sale not a retail sale. - In the event that retail sales are not maintained at the 70% level, all internal sales and recruitment efforts shall cease until the 70% level is achieved. - Participants shall not receive more than one "tracking ID number". - Participants who violate the above conditions shall be permanently terminated and forfeit all compensation resulting from the violation. In a previous post I wrote: > Seems prepaid phone cards are popular items of pyramid schemes and > borderline MLM companies. The NC AG office believed Destiny Telecomm's > $.56/minute phone cards were part of a pyramid scheme. See the > following links for details: > http://www.wral-tv.com/features/5investigates/1996/1118-phone-card-scam/ > http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/5investigates/1996/1119-phone-card-folo/ > http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/1997/0123-destiny-agrees-to/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:08:11 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Nevada Wants LUCKY 7-7-7 for its Forthcoming NPA Split A few years back, Nevada wanted to have 711 reserved for their area code in a future split, since it would be 'lucky seven-eleven' for the gambling state. However, N11 codes aren't to be used for NPA codes, as they are 'three-digit' short codes (i.e., 411 for Directory, 611 for Repair, 811 for Business Office, 911 for Emergencies, etc.). 711 has been reserved (in Canada at least) for either voice or text access (I don't remember which form of access - 511 has been reserved in Canada for the other form of access) to the TDD/TTY operator for the hearing impaired. NOW Nevada wants 'lucky 777' for use in its forthcoming NPA split. The only problem is that the second and third digits are 'identical'. (It doesn't matter that the first digit is identical to the second or third digit, however; just that the 'B' and 'C' position digits are identical.) Codes of _that_ format are reserved for 'Easy-to-Recognize' purposes. This continues the use of N00 codes for NANP-wide 'non-geographical' _services_, such as 800 for Toll Free, 900 for PAY-per-call, 700 for 'Carrier Services', 600 for Canadian Special Services, 500 for Personal Numbering. In the 'Toll-Free' arena, the '8s' are used for expansion, which include the current 888, the forthcoming 877, and the future 866, 855, 844, 833, 822. In the 'Personal Numbering' arena, the '5s' are to be used for expansion, which include 533, 544, 566, 577, 588. 522 might be used for PCS expansion if the 52x 'pseudo-NPA code' billing-identification situation with Mexico is ever resolved. 555 is _NOT_ available for assignment as an NPA code (due to possible confusion with 555-xxxx numbers), and 59X/89X can't be used for PCS or Toll-Free due to the middle digit of '9' being reserved for expansion of the NANP ten-digit number into one which is longer. Nevada has asked the INC for a waiver so that 777 can be turned into a "General Purpose Code" so that it could be reserved/assigned to the split of Nevada's existing and only NPA, 702. This topic is documented as Issue 108 of the INC (Industry Numbering Committee), and was discussed on 31 January 1997 at the INC's meeting in Seattle WA. It can be downloaded in MS-Word from the ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions) ftp site. http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/iccf/inc/incissue.htm and scroll down to issue 108, ftp://ftp.atis.org/pub/clc/inc/108.doc MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__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: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:14:57 EST From: DAVEH Subject: Newbridge Mainstreet For Sale For Sale... Private Party. Newbridge Mainstreet 3624 with 12 LGS cards. Recently removed from service (we changed to T1 cards in our System 75) working, exc. condition, about 1 year old. $2250 obo (plus UPS). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:27:32 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising Judith Oppenheimer wrote in a message I have misplaced to tell of Compuserve's efforts to promote itself by making reference to the constant busy signals one gets when trying to use America OnLine these days. It seems Compuserve acquired the number 888-NOT-BUSY and advertised it recently ... but the advertising was broadcast as 800-NOT-BUSY. ^^^ Of course this resulted in confusion since the 800 version was not in service. This was an embarassing, and costly mistake. I am not certain at this point if it was CIS which incorrectly prepared the advertising copy or if it was the television stations airing it which got it wrong. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:02:10 -0500 From: Lawrence Rachman Subject: Help With Motorola Advisor Gold Pager I've been recently using a Motorola "Advisor Gold" pager, and while fiddling with it one evening, I managed to get it into a 'test mode', where it displayed operating parameters and then, as I pushed buttons, exercised the graphic display and the noise maker. But try as I might, I can't seem to repeat the key sequence that started the whole thing off. Does anyone out there know the secret? Thanks in advance, Larry ------------------------------ From: becnel@crl.com (Robert Becnel) Subject: March CTI Meeting Announcement Date: 18 Feb 1997 07:29:04 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] ANNOUNCEMENT Contact: Tony Zafiropoulos (314) 537-3959 February 16, 1997 Barron Communications To Give Repeat Performance At CTI User's Group Topic: Ken Barron, President of Barron Communications, will speak on the particulars of the CTI voice mail VCM model by ComDial. Barron will display a visual demo of an interactive voice response (IVR) system software by ComDial as it is integrated into the complete package. Barron Communications represents the ComDial product line here in St. Louis. Barron Communications last spoke to the CTI User's Group on a similar subject in early summer along with a Novell Netware local reseller. Date/Time: Wednesday, March 5, 1997; 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM (approx) Location: Bridgeton Trails Library (Rm #1) - 3455 McKelvey Road St. Louis, MO (one block south of St. Charles Rock Road) Cost: None. New members welcomed monthly free of charge. Robert G. Becnel becnel@crl.com (email) http://www.crl.com/~becnel (www) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #45 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Feb 20 09:15:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA16442; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:15:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:15:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702201415.JAA16442@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #46 TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Feb 97 09:15:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 46 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Virginia Moves to End Beeper Ban (Tad Cook) Idaho Phone Competition (Tad Cook) Scam Site Shut Down (jamie@comet.net) FCC Designates 311 for Nonemergency Calls (Tad Cook) These Long Distance Rates Are a Steal! (Van Hefner) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Virginia Moves to End Beeper Ban Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:18:53 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Virginia Assembly Moves to End Beeper Ban By Patrick Lee Plaisance, Daily Press, Newport News, Va. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News RICHMOND, Va.--Feb. 17--For weeks after he got in trouble for bringing a pager to school, Ryan Hudson's kindergarten classmates called him "beeper boy." The 5-year-old, who delighted in the device as a toy, even joked that other kids could do the same thing if they ever wanted to stay home for a day, his mom said. The October incident for which he was suspended is ancient history for Ryan now, buried by craftmaking sessions and story hours at Kiln Creek Elementary School. But more than three months after Ryan's beeper suspension was the talk of national television shows, it remains a point of bitterness for mother Kim Hudson, who believes her son was the victim of school officials' mindless adherence to a rule that often failed the test of common sense. And similar school rules around the state have drawn complaints from parents who feel they have legitimate reasons for wanting their children to have beepers and cellular phones during school hours. As a result, the House of Delegates has voted to repeal the state beeper ban on school grounds, and to give local school boards the power to decide when they could be allowed and how students should be punished if they're not. "At one time, they were sort of used as a tag to identify drug dealers," said Hampton High School Principal Mike Canty. "Drug dealers are much more sophisticated now." As for pagers: "They're on everyone now." Four lawmakers, responding to parents, proposed changes to the state beeper law during this Assembly session. All of the measures have been rolled into one bill repealing the prohibition and giving total discretion to local school officials. The House of Delegates approved the measure last week. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure Monday. "Local school divisions can regulate it better," said Linda T. "Toddy" Puller, D-Fairfax County, one of the bill's co-sponsors. "They could use it to expel a child if necessary. But you certainly don't want to include parents going to a football game." Parents across the region have hailed the change, arguing the state prohibition on beepers at schools makes no distinction between a mischievous 5-year-old and a teen-ager with a bag of crack cocaine to sell. "That would be great," said Hudson, who has a meeting with School Board officials Wednesday in her continuing efforts to appeal her son's suspension. She said she favored allowing local school boards to write their own beeper guidelines because it would make local officials more accountable. "Then they could not just point to their rule book and say, `That's the rule,"' Hudson said. While Ryan's principal initially punished him with a long-term suspension - which could range anywhere from 11 to 180 days -- officials allowed the boy to return after one day when the case was publicized. "They change the rules to make themselves look better, but not to make parents happy," Hudson said. Many school officials still say beepers should be barred from classrooms. "Telephones and beepers have no place in the classroom," said Newport News School Board Chairwoman Betty Ann Davis. "The students are there to learn, and distractions like that would be detrimental." To parents who argue they want the ability to communicate with their children for medical or other reasons, Davis and other officials counter that standard phones in the school offices are just fine. Right now, state law makes it a misdemeanor for students to bring beepers or cellular phones onto school property. That offense is punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 for students who are 18 or older. Younger students could be put on probation or sent to juvenile detention for violating the law. The law makes exceptions for students with medical conditions and students who are involved with organizations that require their use, such as volunteer fire companies. "Parents in Virginia Beach have been asking for us to ease the law, after it was getting some kids trapped" and caught unaware that their beepers were illegal, said Del. Robert Tata, R-Virginia Beach, a sponsor of one of the measures. "They were unaware the law was so stringent. We have to change, to adapt. One locality may not have a problem with them, and another locality may want to take a strict line against having them." But area school officials say they routinely use such discretion in handling students caught with beepers, despite the state's blanket prohibition. Canty said school officials may confiscate three or more beepers a week at Hampton High School. But in most cases, the devices are handed over to the parents, he said. And despite the state law, beeper cases are rarely treated as something criminal. "We're supposed to give them to the police, but they've told us, `No, don't do that"' Canty said. Although Ryan was sent home, at least one young Newport News student caught with a beeper was not, Davis said. "We have used discretion in Newport News," Davis said. "It's a very complex issue," she said. "I would prefer that the state kept the law there. They had good reasons for it. But they have had a lot of different pressures from other people, and the state threw up their hands." Regardless of whether the state law is changed, Newport News officials have begun their annual review of school policies and had intended to consider revising the beeper guidelines -- something that Hudson urged officials to do last fall. The School Board would consider any revisions in April. Last month, Virginia Beach school officials scrapped their stiff rule requiring principals to recommend a one-year suspension for any student who brings a beeper to school, noting that of the 125 beeper cases in schools last year, eight involved weapons and four involved drugs. Parents and school officials say such statistics demonstrate that a blanket prohibition can cause some crises of common sense -- especially when many students bring them to school by mistake or for what they consider legitimate reasons, such as a young mother worried about an infant kept in day care. While Newport News school officials insisted on subjecting Ryan to the state law, his mother said prosecutors have told her that he cannot be prosecuted for an act he's too young to understand -- school rulebook or no. "He's just a 5-year-old," Hudson said. ------------------------------ Subject: Idaho Phone Competition Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:31:33 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Idaho Phone Service Will Soon Be Open to Competition By Stephen Stuebner, Post Register, Idaho Falls, Idaho Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 17--The whole idea behind opening up the telecommunications industry to free competition was to save money for you, the customer. So why is US West applying for a $28 million rate increase from its residential and small business customers in southern Idaho -- right on the eve of full deregulation? Is it right? Is it fair? Consumer groups and independent analysts say no. US West has been riding on its stature as a monopoly. It's scrambling to get every dollar it can get now before the competition kicks in,'' said Joel Thierstein, a professor of communications law at Purdue University in Calumet, Ind. Tom Power, chairman of the economics department at the University of Montana, is representing Idaho consumers in the US West rate case before the state Public Utilities Commission. He contends US West is trying to pick the pockets'' of consumers because they're easy prey. This is the most captive group of customers they have, and they're saying, `We have to nail them,''' Power said. US West officials defend the increase proposal, saying residential customers have been subsidized by business customers and artificially high in-state long distance rates for too long. Once competition kicks in, subsidies have to end, they say. Further, US West argues that residential customers should pay for a portion of the company's 10-year, $500 million investment in state-of-the-art telecommunications equipment in southern Idaho. The Public Utilities Commission referees these rate cases. The commission will begin holding hearings on US West's proposed rate increase March 10. Its staff studied the US West proposal and countered with a recommendation that the 14-state corporation should cut Idaho residential and small business rates by $32 million. Roll prices back to 1958 when we all had rotary phones? Come on, we were insulted by that,'' said Clint Berry, a spokesman for US West in Boise. The IPUC staff remains stuck in a historic regulatory mindset where legitimate business expenses can be ignored or forever pushed off to the next generation,'' adds Barbara Wilson, Idaho vice president of US West Communications. Welcome to the complex, high-stakes world of telephone deregulation. Almost exactly a year after the Telecommunications Act was passed by Congress on Feb. 8, 1996, big telephone companies like US West, and small rural carriers like Century Telephone of Idaho in Salmon, are gearing up for a flood of new competitors. The lynch-pin issue of who pays for infrastructure investment -- fiber-optic cables and switching systems -- is not only germane to US West, but also to Idaho's rural companies. They stand to lose their largest business customers in small towns -- companies or public schools -- which subsidize the cost of service for rural residents flung far and wide at the end of expensive phone cables. Competitors are likely to work hard for big clients in town, while making no effort to win the business of ranchers and farmers out in the country. It's a real problem,'' said Conley Ward, an attorney who represents a coalition of rural carriers and co-ops. No companies want to be left in the position of serving all of their customers at below-cost rates. You can't get blood out of a stone.''Meanwhile, if the Idaho Legislature passes a new telephone deregulation law, as it is expected to do in the coming weeks, a series of dizzying changes will occur in the industry. Changes will be phased-in over a period of years. New competitors will enter the market, offering a series of services from a single source. Customers may be able to one-stop shop for phone service, voice messaging, Internet access and long distance service. US West will, for the first time, be able to enter the out-of-state long distance market, trying to compete with the likes of AT&T, MCI, Sprint and Access. US West also plans to enter the Internet market. Companies that provide the best service and the most competitive rates are likely to win the most customers. US West cannot compete in that new market without removing the subsidy it gives residential and small business customers, company spokesman Berry said. It costs US West an average of $1,800 to install a new phone line, he said, while the utility has been charging an average of $12 for the service. US West is the largest provider of local telecommunications services in southern Idaho, with 350,000 residential customers and 130,000 business customers. US West serves the Idaho Falls area and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, while rural carriers and co-ops serve smaller service territories in mountain valleys. US West's rate increase comes on the heels of a $3-a-month hike that paid for extended service, a service that wipes out long-distance charges for customers from Rexburg to Pocatello. It also comes at a time when US West's profit margin ranked 46th in the latest Fortune 500, with $1.371 billion in profits. US West is employing the same strategy of trying to boost rates for small customers in the rest of its territory before competition kicks in. The state of Washington rejected US West's proposal to hike rates $300 million, and ordered a $62 million credit. That case has been appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. US West's rate case boils down to basic accounting, depreciation, quality of service and who pays for what. University of Montana's Professor Power, the advocate for customers, argues that most of US West's infrastructure investments benefit businesses and future economic development, not residential customers. What's at issue is not the rate increase as much as who pays the bill,'' he said. Under a law pushed by US West in the Idaho Legislature in 1988, US West's costs for regulated services (residential customers and business customers with five lines or less), are placed in one column, and the costs for unregulated services are placed in another column, PUC officials said. In analyzing the numbers, the PUC staff found that US West was not only trying to raise rates for infrastructure investments, but also to cover a percentage of corporate expenses --things like legal fees and salaries. The PUC argues that those expenses are not appropriate to use in defending the rate increase proposal. US West officials disagree. This is a case that will be decided by attorneys and accountants,'' Berry said. Competitors point out that US West has had a proprietary interest in making infrastructure investments prior to deregulation. As owners of the infrastructure in southern Idaho, US West will be able to charge competitors a wholesale access fee for using its fiber-optic and copper phone lines for many years into the future. That access fee is being hashed out by AT&T and US West before the Federal Communications Commission. Their perspective is shaped by 100 years of dominion. It's a perspective of a monopoly,'' said Jeffrey Mayhook, vice president of legal and regulatory affairs for GST Telecomm Inc., a new competitor in Idaho. The `Baby Bells' like US West were given a monopoly service, a guaranteed rate of return and a guaranteed profit. And the ratepayer has paid for it all.''GST won't have the luxury of charging customers for its own infrastructure investments, which, admittedly, will be far less expensive than US West's, Mayhook said. GST will have to offer rates at a competitive level -- while paying a percentage to US West -- and make profits through efficient operations and quality service, he said. The responsibility to our investors will be to make our customers happy.''Given the recent level of dissatisfaction with US West's service, one might wonder why US West would sting small customers with a rate increase not long before competitors will come knocking with promises of better service and lower rates. US West's service has been so poor in parts of Idaho in recent months that it paid a $5,000 fine to the PUC for four months in a row (October 1996 through January 1997) for failing to restore service in 24 hours in parts of its service territory. In high-growth areas like Meridian and west Ada County, it can take weeks to get a new phone line. INEEL officials say US West has been slow to install the latest technology in eastern Idaho to benefit businesses and future economic development. Customer complaints filed with the Idaho PUC have spiked in the last three years, with twice as many complaints (1,200 in 1996), as any other utility in Idaho. The problem has persisted over much of US West's territory. An August 1995 headline in the Portland Oregonian blared US West, US Worst?'' A Forbes magazine article compared the corporation's service to that of the Third World. Typical complaints include lengthy waits for service, unhelpful employees and difficulty in reaching real people'' in customer service. Berry said US West is working on improving service. He notes that if delays in telephone service persist, US West offers to provide a temporary cellular phone. I'll be the first to admit that we've had problems,'' he said. Idaho's Public Utility Commission will be weighing all of these factors when it presides over hours of testimony next month. For US West, the battle is over corporate profits and positioning itself for a new age of competition. For consumers, it's a matter of keeping costs down. Purdue's Thierstein points out that if US West does not fare well in the shakeup caused by deregulation, it could sell out or merge with the likes of AT&T. That's a potential danger that could lead to the formation of a new monopoly,'' Thierstein said. That's why consumer groups need to watch all of this very closely.'' The proposal would increase rates for monthly telephone service for residential customers and small businesses with five lines or less. US West's proposed rate increase has been adjusted from $38 million to $28 million. The increase means $7.37 more per line per month, from $15.63 to $23. The increase would be phased in over three years. It is the first proposed rate increase for residential and small business customers in 10 years. Senior citizens who meet low-income guidelines will have options to avoid paying the increase. Another option involves a $12 monthly rate with three hours of free local calling, after which a per-call surcharge kicks in. Contacting the PUC: By phone: (208) 334-0300By e-mail: ipuc(at)puc.state.id.usPUC home page: www.puc.state.id.usBy mail: Public Utilities Commission, 472 W. Washington, Boise, ID 83720Commissioners: Ralph Nelson, president; Marsha Smith, commissioner; Dennis Hansen, commissioner. ------------------------------ From: jamie@comet.net (jamie) Subject: Scam Site Shut dDwn Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:18:15 -0500 Found this on htpp://www.news.com FTC shuts down alleged Net scam By Courtney Macavinta and Nick Wingfield February 19, 1997, 8:30 a.m. PT The Federal Trade Commission today won a court order to shut down "free adult entertainment" Internet sites that it alleges illegally billedNet surfers hundreds of thousands of dollars. As previously reported by CNET, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was investigating one of the sites, "sexygirls.com," which employed a special program to disconnect unknowing Canadian users from their Internet service providers and re-route their calls through Moldova, a republic in the former Soviet Union. Earlier this month, a warning was issued by the National Fraud Information Center to American long distance carriers about the alleged scam. Today the FTC is taking action on behalf of thousands of American consumers, who like Canadians, downloaded a program called "david.exe" from the sites. Through a tangled series of international connections, the program quietly boomeranged calls from users to Moldova then to a Web site in Dallas, Texas. Unaware surfers racked up charges at more than $2 a minute, according to the FTC. "Even more insidious, this is essentially a "stealth" scam -- consumers are kept in the dark because the software program also turns off their modem speakers so they cannot hear either the disconnect, or the dialing of the international phone number," Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, said today. She added: The software program used by the defendents risks consumers sense of security about using the Internet." Defendants named in the FTC case are Audiotex Connection, Rockville Center, New York; Promo Line of Dix Hills, New York; Anna Grella, president of Audiotex; William Gannon, president of Promo Line; and David Zeng, who was the employee of both firms. They could not immediately be reached for comment. A federal district court judge has issued a temporary restraining order, freezing the defendants assets and ceasing any further operations of the sites. AT&T helped the FTC investigate the case. CNET reported that at least two pornographic Web sites -- "sexygirls.com" and "erotic2000.com" -- used the program to make international calls, but both were inaccessible earlier this month. Along with "sexygirls.com," the FTC is targeting "beavisbutthead.com" and "1adult.com." In the FTC's complaint, it says the defendants promised the "adult images" could be downloaded for free. On January 23, more than one of the Web sites posted a disclaimer warning about the international re-routing. Even then, the FTC says, the new disclaimer was false, stating calls would go through Canada -- not Moldova. "erotic2000.com," which is not named in the FTC case, did include a link to a disclaimer that warned users of the call to Moldova. "By downloading our image viewer software, your modem will disconnect from your ISP and will be automatically reconnect to a remote site where international long distance charges to Moldova apply," the disclaimer read. jamie "Wasting your time, and mine, since 1961" jamie@comet.net http://www.comet.net Charlottesville, Va. 804-295-2407 "When arguing with a fool, make sure s/he's not doing the same." Why do you need PGP? mail jamie@comet.net with Subject:GET PGPDOC mail jamie@comet.net with Subject:GET KEY for PGP public key ------------------------------ Subject: FCC Designates 311 for Nonemergency Calls Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:52:39 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) FCC designates 311 for nonemergency calls By JEANNINE AVERSA Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government is setting aside 311 as the telephone number for people to call police or other local agencies for nonemergency help. Millions of people call 911 each year, but the Justice Department says most of those calls in many communities are for situations that are not emergencies, such as noisy neighbors or lost pets. Wednesday's 311 allocation by the Federal Communications Commission responds to a request from President Clinton last July. To help combat crime, Clinton asked the agency to designate a number for community policing and other nonemergency calls. That number, he said, would take pressure off the 911 emergency calling system. Available for use nationwide, the 311 code could improve the effectiveness of 911 service by cutting down the number of calls made to it, the FCC said. In Los Angeles alone, 325,000 callers to 911 hung up two years ago because the jammed line denied them immediate help. The FCC's action does not require local governments to use 311 but ensures the number will be available if they choose to. Baltimore, where more than 60 percent of 911 calls are estimated not to be for emergencies, became last October the first city -- and according to the FCC the only one thus far -- to institute 311 service. That Maryland city can route 311 calls directly to local precincts and can treat as 911 calls emergency calls inadvertently made to the new number. The FCC chose 311 because it's not widely used. Companies, individuals or governments that currently use 311 for purposes other than nonemergency police calls can retain the number until their local government activates the new service. A uniform number for community policing and for nonemergencies nationwide will minimize confusion and provide consistency as people travel or move to new communities, the Justice Department says. In a speech at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, Clinton hailed the FCC's action Wednesday. "To all of you out there who are just citizens, I say, use both numbers and talk to your neighbors about using them in the right way. Be a part of neighborhood watch," he said. "We'll do our part. You have to do your part." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 04:36:53 -0800 From: Van Hefner Subject: These Long Distance Rates Are a Steal! Van Nuys Man Awaits Trial in 'Clip-On' Phone Scam Crime: Simi Valley police say defendant was illegally apping into business lines and selling long-distance calls. By SCOTT HADLY, Times Staff Writer SIMI VALLEY--Maximo Pintle Cruz has been locked up in the Ventura County Jail for a month for allegedly helping people reach out and touch someone. The problem, prosecutors allege, is that the people he was helping had no telephones, and his help came in the form of illegally tapping into Pacific Bell phone lines and selling cut-rate phone service. Cruz, who is awaiting trial on two charges of telephone fraud, was arrested in late December after a Simi Valley police officer noticed people lining up to make calls at a pay phone. The 25-year-old Van Nuys man is believed to be the first person arrested in Ventura County on suspicion of performing the so-called "clip-on" fraud, said Mark Yelchak, a fraud investigator for Pacific Bell. The scam, which has swept through California in the last year, involves breaking into telephone boxes and tapping into business phone lines and then selling long-distance service either on the spot or transferring the line to a neary phone booth and selling the service there, Yelchak said. The victim businesses often end up with huge phone bills, officials said, and the scam artists are long gone by the time the fraud is discovered. Prosecutors believe that Cruz twice broke into phone boxes -- also known as "b-boxes" -- outside of businesses in Simi Valley and then sold long-distance service to people on the street, said Deputy Dist. Atty. David Lehr. Lehr would not comment on details of the case but said that Cruz pleaded not guilty to the phone fraud charges earlier this month and is scheduled to have a preliminary hearing next week. The Simi Valley Police Department was tight-lipped about the case, only saying that detectives are still investigating. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.thedigest.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #46 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Feb 21 03:36:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA16445; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:36:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:36:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702210836.DAA16445@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #47 TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Feb 97 03:36:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 47 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Lionel Ancelet) Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Torsten Lif) Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Eric Truman) Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Paul Robinson) Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Leonard Erickson) Re: Nevada Wants LUCKY 7-7-7 for its Forthcoming NPA Split (John Cropper) Re: At What Point do I File a Lawsuit on my LEC? (John R. Levine) Re: At What Point do I File a Lawsuit on my LEC? (Victor Escobar) Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising (David Love) Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising (Diamond Dave) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: la@well.com (Lionel Ancelet) Subject: Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Reply-To: la@well.com Organization: The WeLL Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:54:53 GMT On 12 Feb 1997 20:20:39 GMT, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) wrote: > I've seen various standards in business stationery for phone numbers, > which is very confusing. What does the +1 mean? > I've always thought the conventional standard was (311) 555-1212 > the area code is in parenthesis. No other codes/numbers shown except for > extensions which may follow. I don't like numbers shown as 1-311-555-1234. Well, there happen to be a few phone lines outside USA and Canada, and +1 merely is the country code. As you pointed out, visitors may not necessary know the area code of the business they're visiting. Let alone, the country code. If you were visiting, say, UK, you might appreciate to see a label that says +44 (0) 1234 802 803 on the phone you're using, and not have to find out what the country code is. Regards, Lionel Ancelet ------------------------------ From: Torsten Lif Subject: Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:45:29 -0500 Organization: Ericsson Messaging Systems, Woodbury, New York, USA Lee Winson wrote: > I've seen various standards in business stationery for phone numbers, > which is very confusing. What does the +1 mean? > I've always thought the conventional standard was (311) 555-1212 > the area code is in parenthesis. No other codes/numbers shown except for > extensions which may follow. I don't like numbers shown as 1-311-555-1234. The "old" assumptions of the Northern American dialing scheme no longer hold true. It used to be that an area code was identified by having its second digit be a "0" or a "1". Thus, switches could distinguish between "local" dialing and "long distance" based on this alone and the correct number of digits to expect could be determined. But now that the area codes are running out, area codes with leading parts conflicting with local numbers have to be distinguished from local dialing. Thus, you now have to start with a "1" when you want to dial long distance. In effect, your area codes have been extended from 2.2 digits to 3. This matches the schemes that have been used in Europe for decades, where in most cases the "0" is reserved for leading into area codes. The practice in most countries is to provide the number as it has to be dialed. Putting area codes within parenthesis is common. We may argue that the leading digit (usually a "0") which defines the area code is redundant. That's the way it's usually treated here in the US where it's left up to the subscriber to remember the leading "1" before an area code. Which way is better is mostly a matter of personal taste. But the "+1" notation is something different, though many people in the USA get confused by it. Since the access number for international dialing is different between almost all markets, anybody wanting to hand out his phone number to an international clientele is stymied by the plethora of codes. To dial international from Sweden you punch "009", from England "010", from France "19" (at least, that's the way it was a few years ago). In most of the US you dial "011" but I've been to places where it was "01". Let's say you're an American businessman who wants to reach international customers but you don't know what they need to dial for international calls. The "+" is the standardized means of printing this and most people doing international telephony will recognize this and substitute it with what is appropriate on their local market. So, as an example, my office number in Stockholm, Sweden, used to be 719 4881. The area code to Stockholm is 8 but the custom is to always print the leading "0" so the number for domestic dialing is (08) 719 4881. If I wanted to hand this out to somebody in another country I would give the country code to Sweden (46) followed by just the "8" for Stockholm and the local number, but to identify that 46 has to be prefixed by that person's international access number, I'd lead it with a "+". +46 8 719 4881. To dial that from New York you'd go 01146 8 719 4881. From some phones in California it would be 0146 8 719 4881. Now, the country code to USA+Canada is 1 so the way to describe this to somebody from Europe would be to lead with "+1". My office number here in New York is (516) 677 1098. My international business card (if I had one) would say +1 516 677 1098 and a person wanting to call me from London would punch 0101 516 677 1098. Is it good or bad that the US+Canada use the same digit (1) to lead long-distance dialing as the country code they have? Passing judgment on these things is pretty futile but it sure does seem to have a lot of people confused. We'll see if the suggested "European region" code, which is based on a similar scheme, fares any better. ------------------------------ From: Eric Subject: Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Date: 20 Feb 1997 23:16:05 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Good advice on how to give out phone numbers. I grew up in Kansas City and always gave out numbers by area code when talking to someone long distance. After all sometimes they were 816 numbers and sometimes they were 913 numbers. Not that it meant much to locals. Hard to keep track of which prefixes were on which side of the state line. I wonder how long after the 913/785 and 816/??? split they make ten digit dialing across the state line. I live in Phoenix now and after our 602/520 split two years ago I keep having to urge people to do this in our office for out of town numbers. (Doesn't seem that long since permissive for Tucson numbers lasted until 12/31/96!!!) Later this year 602 should split/overlay. That will get interesting. At any rate I usually note numbers by writing in the format 311/555-1212. I used to write parenthesis around the area code but now that most major cities will have 10 or 11 digit dialing soon I just think this new format is the way to go. Parenthesis imply that it's optional and in more and more areas it won't be optional. The slash seems more appropriate then 311-555-1212 or 311.555.1212 which are some of the others I've seen recently. Eric trumanjs@primenet.com ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:51:37 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software Lee Winson wrote: > In the old days every telephone had a crisply stamped number card > showing clearly the area code, number, and extension. Today, many > phones have only a scribled blur. As it turned out, the Southwestern Bell office in Midland, Texas was using an ordinary desktop adding machine with the "paper" in the machine being dial stickers. (I lived there for a summer about ten or fifteen years ago.) The clerk would punch in the telephone number on a couple of slips and give them to you to put on your phone so you would have clean, printed number stickers. > I've seen various standards in business stationery for phone numbers, > which is very confusing. What does the +1 mean? Standard international practice is to indicate what part of the number is the international code, and what part is the number in that country. In this case, +1 is the code for North America excluding Mexico, e.g. the U.S., Canada and the "forty-eleven" countries that share or used to share the 809 area code. The US and the other North America countries are in the unique position that the internal code for dialing a long distance number within North America (1) is the same code that is used to dial numbers in North America from outside, when proceeded by that country's international dial code. This would be the equivalent of the number dialed after 011 or 01 from the U.S. to place a call outside of North America. > I've always thought the conventional standard was (311) 555-1212 > the area code is in parenthesis. No other codes/numbers shown except for > extensions which may follow. I don't like numbers shown as 1-311-555-1234. What you should show in parenthesis is the portion that is dialed ONLY from within a country, i.e. a caller in London might use +44 (0)171 999 1000 (that's a fictional number; 999 there is the same as 911 in the US), because callers outside of international area code 44 do not dial the 0 before the city code. Callers to the U.S. would dial ALL of the number, so the standard international format would be to use +1 311 555 1212 WITHOUT ANY PARENTHESIS. Paul Robinson Evergreen Software Home page coming soon ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:37:15 PST Organization: Shadownet lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > I've seen various standards in business stationery for phone numbers, > which is very confusing. What does the +1 mean? That's the iTU-T standard for giving numbers for *international* use. "+" indicates that you dial your country's "international access code" (011 in the US) before dialing the rest of the number. The digits following the + up until the first space are the country code. For the US, Canada and Caribbean this is "1". It's a pure co-incidence that this is the same as the "long distance access code" used for calls inside the US. The international format is basically this: <+> The local portion may have spaces in it. Use of any seperators other than spaces isn't allowed. So as an *international* standard, you should get used to seeing it in print. > I've always thought the conventional standard was (311) 555-1212 > the area code is in parenthesis. No other codes/numbers shown except for > extensions which may follow. I don't like numbers shown as 1-311-555-1234. The recommended format for numbers inside zone 1 (US, Canada, Caribbean) is: <(><)><-> With areacode and exchange being three digits and the local part being four digits. But as far as I know, it *isn't* a standard. So anything that might go to folks outside of Zone 1 should list the number *both* ways. And if the number is an 800 or 888 number, be sure to add a note to use 880 or 881 when calling from outside the US. > In the case of 800 and 888 numbers, it may be appropriate to print in > small letters "TOLL FREE" before the number. Except they *aren't* if you are outside the country ... In case you are wondering, one of the reasons for the special notation for international format is that in many countries the areacodes include leading digits that are *not* used when dialing from outside the country. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Nevada Wants LUCKY 7-7-7 for its Forthcoming NPA Split Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:56:17 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@nospam.lincs.net Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > A few years back, Nevada wanted to have 711 reserved for their area > code in a future split, since it would be 'lucky seven-eleven' for the > gambling state. However, N11 codes aren't to be used for NPA codes, as > they are 'three-digit' short codes (i.e., 411 for Directory, 611 for > Repair, 811 for Business Office, 911 for Emergencies, etc.). 711 has > been reserved (in Canada at least) for either voice or text access (I > don't remember which form of access - 511 has been reserved in Canada > for the other form of access) to the TDD/TTY operator for the hearing > impaired. > NOW Nevada wants 'lucky 777' for use in its forthcoming NPA split. The > only problem is that the second and third digits are 'identical'. (It > doesn't matter that the first digit is identical to the second or > third digit, however; just that the 'B' and 'C' position digits are > identical.) Codes of _that_ format are reserved for 'Easy-to-Recognize' > purposes. > Nevada has asked the INC for a waiver so that 777 can be turned into a > "General Purpose Code" so that it could be reserved/assigned to the > split of Nevada's existing and only NPA, 702. Pac Bell and the Nevada PSC have already gone the extra step ... It is anticipating the assignment of '777' and is already planning to move Clark county into the 'new NPA 777' (Clark county contains Las Vegas, and its surrounding suburbs) if/when it is approved, possibly as early as 4Q97. Such a split would move 270+ exchanges into the new 777 NPA. It should also be noted that 702-777 is assigned to the city of Elko in the northeast corner of the state ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Communication Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 97 09:00:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: At What Point do I File a Lawsuit on my LEC? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > [SWBT can't implement their "Local Plus" billing on ISDN lines, say it > will take two weeks to fix. ] I suspect you will discover that there's loopholes in the tarriff that let them roll out a service incrementally if that's technically necessary. If they were going to stall you for months, that would be one thing, but two weeks is in the reasonable range. I'd rattle the PSC a little, but not get my hopes way up. I's propose as the solution that since this is just a systematic billing error, and by their own admission it only affects two customers, that they audit and adjust your bill manually until they can get their automatic system to handle it. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ From: barrett@freedomnet.com (Victor Escobar) Subject: Re: At What Point do I File a Lawsuit on my LEC? Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:18:37 GMT Organization: INTERNET AMERICA On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:15:21 -0700, Billy Newsom wrote: > Is this a false advertising situation? Is this an issue for the Texas > PUC? Is this a class-action lawsuit issue (for all of the ISDN-PRI > customers in D/FW)? Could we sue SWBT for the AT&T charges we will > incur in the interim between now and whenever SWBT says they're ready > for re-installing the Local Plus service? Yes. If a company advertises something for *everyone* and then later changes their claim by saying, `Oh, everybody but YOU!' this constitutes not only fraud and negligence, but incompetence and denial of service. If you took SWB to court, you'd have a field day. > Does anyone know what the PUC can do in this kind of situation? I'm > not sure if this is even major enough to bother with. Our company got > free calls for a month because of it. But that savings will quickly > evaporate in "ten business days" while we start paying AT&T for long > distance. I'm not going to hold my breath. If the PUC is anything like the State Corp. Commission in Virginia, by the end of all this you'll have SWB doing backflips for you. Victor Escobar Internet Consultant ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising From: David Love Date: 20 Feb 1997 08:08:30 -0700 Pat, At least they picked a number that wasn't in service ... When United Airlines was getting ready to rollout their new shuttle service, they had reserved the vanity number 1-800-SHUTTLE. They then created a brochure which introduced the service and proudly displayed the vanity number. As an added convenience, the actual number was listed right below the vanity number. Immediately after sending that brochure to each of its three million+ Mileage Plus members, they discovered the real number listed was wrong. It was, however, an active 800 number used by an MCI customer (all of United's 800 service is provided by AT&T). Things were hopping for a few days while they worked that one out. Dave ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:59:04 GMT Organization: Diamond Mine On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:27:32 EST, you scribed: > Judith Oppenheimer wrote in a message I have misplaced to tell of > Compuserve's efforts to promote itself by making reference to the > constant busy signals one gets when trying to use America OnLine > these days. > It seems Compuserve acquired the number 888-NOT-BUSY and advertised > it recently ... but the advertising was broadcast as 800-NOT-BUSY. > Of course this resulted in confusion since the 800 version was not > in service. This was an embarassing, and costly mistake. I am not > certain at this point if it was CIS which incorrectly prepared the > advertising copy or if it was the television stations airing it > which got it wrong. I saw the commercial during the Super Bowl and it listed the 888 number. Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got the original item wrong, which I was trying to recall from memory based on Judith's message. It seems everyone concerned -- Compuserve, the ad writers, the telco involved, the television announcers -- all got it right. They all gave it as '888' ... it was John Q. Public who got it wrong. Large numbers of people 'assumed' it was 800, and dialed it that way. Sorry for misquoting your original item, Judith. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #47 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Feb 22 08:07:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA08292; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:07:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:07:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702221307.IAA08292@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #48 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Feb 97 08:07:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 48 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Colorado PUC Investigates New Telcos (Tad Cook) NY Times on Moldova Scam (Tad Cook) FCC Access Fee Reform Proceedings (Monty Solomon) UCLA Short Course on "Telecommunications Networking" (Bill Goodin) Book Review: "Pegasus Mail for Windows" by Kocmoud/Pierce/Stegman (R Slade) Sanford Wallace ("Spam King") to Start His Own Spam Service (Lisa Hancock) Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL (Danny Burstein) Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising (Judith Oppenheimer) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Colorado PUC Investigates New Telcos Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:42:18 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Colorado Regulators Investigate New Telephone Companies By Kerri S. Smith, The Denver Post Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 20--Tipped off by a Denver Post story, Colorado regulators Wednesday reviewed evidence that the state's newest telephone companies inappropriately refused to service residential customers. After talking with Public Utilities Commission staffers, PUC regulators cleared ICG Communications Inc. of Englewood, saying the company took immediate steps this week to correct its error. But utility commissioners ordered officials of New York-based TCG Inc. to meet with them Feb. 25. Discussion will center on TCG's contention that it can't provide residential service due to technical problems. "We're meeting with the commission's staff because they want clarification," said Mike Ruley, TCG spokesman. "The commission did not cite us." At issue is whether local telephone providers must offer residential as well as business service, given that computer linkages between the new providers and US West Communications Inc. are not complete. The link is necessary because both companies will route their residential customers' calls over US West's phone lines. Hooking US West's system into ICG's and TCG's will allow the competitors' own customer service employees to do routine tasks, such as setting up service for a new customer or answering a billing question, Ruley said. The linkage is less urgent for ICG's and TCG's business customers, because both companies built their own fiber optic networks to ring the city's major commercial areas. They laid fiber optic lines near downtown Denver skyscrapers and Denver Tech Center business parks because telephone companies make a lot more money off of multi-line businesses than they do from single-line residential customers. On Friday, a Denver Post reporter posing as a consumer was turned down for residential service by both ICG and TCG representatives. State regulations require telephone companies to offer residential service if they're offering business service. In addition to apparently violating state regulations, the turn-downs may confirm what officials of US West have long predicted: that competitors would "cherry pick" the telephone giant's lucrative business accounts and stick them with the less-profitable residential customers. PUC director Bruce Smith told commissioners at Tuesday's meeting that ICG admitted it was in the wrong and took steps to remedy the situation. Since Friday, ICG officials put together a four-person residential service team, re-trained employees, designed a computerized form to deal with requests and developed an information packet for prospective residential customers. ICG officials told PUC staffers that the problem stemmed from "first-day jitters." The PUC had given regulatory approval to ICG just two days before The Denver Post called. "Our staff believes ICG has addressed the problem and now intends to provide residential service," said PUC spokesman Terry Bote. "They have solved their issues." "TCG, on other hand, is still working with the PUC staff to resolve differences. That's why we are meeting Feb. 25, to try and resolve these differences." TCG has been authorized to provide local service since Jan. 23. TCG's Ruley said his company is not violating state regulations, because PUC rules direct US West to provide a computer link -- called an interface -- that allows other companies to tap into its network. Without that, Ruley said, "we cannot take orders electronically. We cannot review billing records. We cannot give quality service, and there are substantial penalties if we cannot deliver quality service." The linkage "is up and running but still being tested to make sure that orders are handled flawlessly," responded US West spokesman David Beigie. He could not say when it will be available to competitors. Noting that ICG will process residential service orders manually until the computer linkage is available, Beigie asked why TCG does not do the same. "All the companies have to do is pick up the phone and give us a call. We're ready to take orders for residential service -- but to this point, we haven't gotten one, not from any company in Colorado," Beigie said. ICG spokeswoman Cindy Schonhaut said dozens of callers have requested residential service since The Post's story ran Saturday, but said most sound like they are reading from a script. She believes they are US West employees. ------------------------------ Subject: NY Times on Moldova Scam Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:53:56 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Scheme bills browsers for high phone costs New York Times WASHINGTON -- In what authorities describe as a fraudulent new high-technology scheme, telephone and Internet marketers are joining with telecommunications companies in emerging nations to bilk unsuspecting consumers around the world. The latest operation, uncovered by federal regulators and American phone company investigators this month, enticed on-line computer browsers with a promise of free pornography and then subjected users to exorbitant telephone charges billed from a number in Moldova, the former Soviet republic. A federal judge in New York shut down the operation, allegedly run by three Long Island residents, after the Federal Trade Commission accused the defendants of running "one of the most insidious scams" the agency had ever seen. Federal officials uncovered a similar operation in November involving an Iowa company that lured telephone customers to place lengthy calls for free travel offers to numbers in Guyana and the Caribbean. Officials said they expected such schemes to proliferate as sophisticated World Wide Web site operators employed the growing telephone systems of underdeveloped nations to defraud naive Internet users. "There are phone companies all over the world that have tried to attract business from information providers using pay-per-call services," said Eileen Harrington, an FTC specialist in telecommunications fraud. Ms. Harrington said that phone companies in several countries were aggressively soliciting business from Internet and long-distance information service providers by apparently agreeing to pay them a portion of the telephone billing revenue. She said that these countries had invested in state-of-the-art telephone systems but did not have sufficient local business to support them and are looking abroad for income. Ms. Harrington said that she did not know whether the foreign telephone companies were active participants in the schemes or merely conduits for fraudulent activity beyond their borders. An official of the Moldovan Embassy in Washington said that his government was looking into the alleged fraud. "I have called people at the Federal Trade Commission to give me more information so that the ministry of telecommunication can begin the investigation," said Vlad Spanu, economic counselor at the Moldovan mission here. He speculated that the alleged scheme could involve "some private people in Moldova" but said it was not yet clear that the calls ever reached Moldova. In the current case, the FTC sought a permanent injunction against three individuals -- and three companies they controlled -- who allegedly offered free pornography on three Internet sites: www.sexygirls.com, www.beavisbutthead.com and www.1adult.com. Named in the FTC complaint were Anna M. Grella, William Gannon and David Zeng, who operated three companies: Audiotex Connection Inc., of Rockville Centre, N.Y., Promo Line Inc., of Dix Hills, N.Y., and Electronic Forms Management, of no known address. Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said that the complex scheme threatened the integrity of the Internet and posed a formidable law enforcement and regulatory challenge. "This scam has generated numerous complaints, many from parents with Internet-savvy children, who have incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal phone charges," Ms. Bernstein said. Judge Denis R. Hurley of U.S. District Court in Hauppauge, N.Y., issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants on Feb. 13. The order was kept under seal until midnight Tuesday to give authorities time to locate and freeze their assets to help recover consumers' costs in the alleged fraud. Joel R. Dichter of New York, the defendants' lawyer, said that the web sites contained disclosures that the material was for adults only and notified users that they would be connected to a telephone number in Moldova. He said that his clients shut down the sites before the FTC action and noted that there were no regulations to govern behavior on the Internet. "One learns as one goes," Dichter said. He also denied that his clients had a kickback arrangement with the Moldovan phone company, as the FTC alleged. And he insisted that they "are not pornographers." The three Internet sites were described in accompanying promotional material as providing "All Nude All Free pictures" with no membership fees or credit card charges, according to the FTC complaint. Users who wished to enter the sites were told they must download an electronic "viewer" to receive the images. The viewer contained a software program that clicked off the user's telephone connection to his local Internet service provider and reconnected the computer to a phone number in Moldova that generated charges of $2 to $3 a minute. "Their modems were basically hijacked," Ms. Harrington said. The program shut off the speaker in the computer dialing device so that the users could not hear their Internet connection being broken and the new number in Moldova being dialed. "It gets worse," Ms. Bernstein said. "Once the program is activated, it does not disconnect the international call when consumers leave the defendants' web sites to visit other web sites, or even when they sign off the Internet and turn to other computer activities such as word processing." The charges stopped accruing only when the computer was turned off. And the consumer's first notice of the cost was on their monthly long-distance telephone bill. AT&T, which has a contractual arrangement to handle all calls from the United States to Moldova, was alerted to the operation in December when it noticed it was billing U.S. customers for thousands of calls to the same numbers in Moldova. Richard Petillo, AT&T's security manager, said the alleged fraud operated from mid-December through early February and affected Internet users from as far away as New Zealand. He said that AT&T was trying to recover some charges from the Moldovan telephone company and from the operators of the web sites. But he said that customers were liable for the charges, even if they were not aware that they were incurring them. "Ultimately we expect all consumers to pay their bills to keep their accounts current," the phone company official said. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:52:10 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Access Fee Reform Proceedings Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:24:13 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Fcc Access Fee Reform Proceedings Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from listproc@tap.org INFORMATION POLICY NOTES February 18, 1997 FCC Policy on Access Charges and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) James Love, CPT (love@tap.org, 202.387.8030) The FCC has two separate proceedings on the topic of Access Fees by local exchange telephone companies (LECs). The first is a proceeding on Access Charge Reform that was noticed on December 24, 1996. The comment period for this docket (CC Docket No. 96- 262) closed on February 14, 1997. CPT filed comments in both the initial and reply rounds. The second proceeding is a "Notice of Inquiry" into the status of the "enhanced service provider" (ESP) exemption for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The initial comments on this proceeding are due March 24, 1997, and reply comments are due April 23, 1997. The FCC set up two email addresses to receive informal comments on the proceeding. For the access charge docket, the address is access@fcc.gov. For the notice of inquiry, the address is isp@fcc.gov. The FCC has a very useful Web page on both proceedings at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html. CPT's Web page on Access Charge Reform is http://www.essential.org/cpt/afr/afr.html. Background: Ever since the AT&T breakup, the FCC and state regulatory bodies have pursued a policy of using hefty per minute charges on long distance calls to keep down the monthly fixed cost of having telephone service. For the "interstate" market, these are called "common carrier line" (CCL) charges, and in recent years, they averaged about 5.7 cents per minute for originating and terminating long distance calls. These charges are imposed on the long distance telephone company by the LEC, and passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for long distance services. Internet Service Providers and other data processing or value added computer services don't pay network access fees because they are considered "end users" by the FCC, and covered by the Enhanced Services Provider (ESP) exemption. (See Robert Cannon's paper on the ESP exemption at http://www.cais.net/cannon/memos/espart.htm) For many years, several local service telephone companies have tried to get state regulators or the FCC to impose per minute usage fees on modem users. When Netscape and other software companies announced software for Internet telephony, an association representing small independent distance telephone companies asked the FCC to ban the Internet telephony software or regulate its use. The large long distance companies and many (not all) of the LECs told the FCC that the ESP exemption should be eliminated for ISPs. CPT and others objected. The CCL charges are so high they would create havoc in the dial-in market for Internet Access. If ISPs were required to pay the CCL charges for originating an Internet connection, the charge would be $1.67 per hour. This would eliminate all flat rate dial-in subscription plans. Beginning in 1995, CPT told the FCC in several pleadings that the CCL should also be eliminated or reformed for ordinary long distance voice traffic. The CCL is highly inefficient. By using hefty per-minute charges to support the non-traffic sensitive (NTS) costs of local telephone service, long distance companies and others cannot offer innovative services or billing options. CPT was willing to trade increases in the fixed monthly costs of local telephone service for the elimination of the CCL, or to see it reformed in some way that was not so inflexibly linked to per minute usage charges. The CPT position on this issue was controversial among some consumer groups. Gene Kimmelman from Consumers Union initially argued that the usage based CCL was essential to keep the fixed costs of local telephone service low. Kimmelman asserted that the CCL provided a mechanism for cross subsidies between rich and poor consumers. Long distance service was discretionary, the argument ran, but having a telephone in the home was an essential service, and prices should be as low as possible. CPT countered that income was not the only factor that determined long distance usage -- family size and proximity being the main non-income factors. In the universal service docket, CPT presented data showing that as a percent of the monthly bill, differences in consumption of toll and discretionary services were not very different between rich and poor consumers, and that black consumers consumed more toll wasand discretionary services than do whites. Table 1 How do Phone Bills Differ by Income? Average Percent of Income Monthly Toll & Average Quintile Bill* Discretionary* Monthly Bill Poorest 43.70 25.00 57% 2nd 48.40 29.70 61% 3rd 53.40 34.70 64% 4th 57.10 38.40 67% Richest 70.70 52.00 74% White & Other 54.40 35.80 66% Black 64.00 45.30 71% * For 1992. Source: SRCI (From http://www.essential.org/cpt/telecom/us.html) CPT argued the elimination of the CCL will lead to much lower long distance rates. Moreover, CPT argued that it was increasingly necessary to phase out the CCL as we use the "public switched telephone network" PSTN for new services, such as residential connections to the Internet, for which the per-minute CCL charges were a poor proxy for affordability. There are also many other issues that are connected to the access charge and ESP proceedings. The FCC and local regulators are writing rules that allow firms to lease LEC facilities in order to compete for local telephone service, and the entire system of funding universal service is also being rewritten. In each of these areas regulators must decide if per-minute or other usage based charges are the appropriate basis of fees for use of the PSTN. "Traffic sensitive" costs exist, but they aren't as high as one might think. Before Internet traffic became important, the "average cost" of using a switch was about .17 cents per minute, or about 10.2 cents per hour, for some LECs, or about 6 percent of the CCL charge for originating a call. Internet usage has increased the total demand for network usage, but it has also changed the patterns of demand. Where voice peaks are typically around 4 pm, the Internet peak usage is often well after 9 PM -- when voice usage is very limited. The daily "load" on the switch is greater, but this is good news, because longer daily loads result in lower average costs per minute. Moreover, LECs can now deploy technology being marketed by Nortel, Lucent and others, which can completely bypass the LEC's circuit switches and trunks, and transport data from the local loop directly to the ISP in a packet switched network. This radically changes methods of cost allocation in networks because an open data connection doesn't consume bandwidth in the absence of file transfers. (Just staring at the screen doesn't consume bandwidth in a packet switched network). CPT wants the FCC and other regulators to facilitate the migration to affordable full time data (24x7) connections to the Internet. We believe the most practical path today is to use the copper wire local loop, first for ISDN, and later for various xDSL technologies that provide greater bandwidth. CPT has tried to get regulators interested in ISDN pricing, because this is the only digital technology that can be deployed in the mass market right now. The FCC has to decide how to charge consumers for higher bandwidth connections. Some LECs, such as SBC, now double the subscriber line charge for ISDN BRI service. If the FCC eliminates the CCL charges, it must replace at least some of the lost revenue to the LECs. There are many competing proposals -- such as higher fixed monthly charges for the consumer, or new charges for long distance companies, based upon a flat rate for each "line," or something based upon value added or gross revenues. AT&T and some other companies want the FCC to impose a new charge on the use of residential second lines. There are also issues relating to life-line subsidies for the poor, or the degree to which businesses and residences make different contributions to the "joint costs" of the network. The ESP/ISP inquiry is also complex. Do dial-in Internet users impose excessive costs on the network, or does the new Internet traffic actually lower average costs for everyone? CPT, BBN's Fred Goldstein, the Information Technology Industry Council and others have provided the FCC with evidence that dial-in users are not using the network in ways that exceed peak capacity requirements for voice users, that LECs are making substantial profits from deployment of second lines, that LECs have off the shelf methods of dealing with congestion at the terminating ISP end, and that LECs benefit from certain economies in delivering derived channels to ISPs. If ISPs are required to pay for incoming calls, should consumers pay less for making local calls? Should regulators eliminate usage fees on ISDN calls made to ISPs if the ISPs are paying for incoming calls? How would ISPs be charged for incoming calls? On the basis of minutes per connection? Are off-peak usage fees economically inefficient? What does it cost to meter usage? Should fees be based upon a percent of revenues per subscriber? Should regulators distinguish between value added and basic services? Should ISPs be charged separately for Internet telephony? Who would monitor such usage? Would ending the ESP exemption have a significant revenue impact on the LECs? What would it do to the development of the Internet? Isn't the subtle and complex nature of data usage such that it is entirely inappropriate to fund the fixed costs of the local loop through usage based charges? There are also a number of issues relating to LEC strategic behavior. If usage fees become a profit center, will the LECs have an incentive to deploy technology that bypasses traffic sensitive resources (circuit based trunks and switches)? Will excessive access fees permit the LECs to eliminate independent ISPs through predatory pricing? Many of the LECs and the long distance companies are pushing for per-minute fees on ISPs. PacBell and Bell Atlantic/Nynex are among the most aggressive LECs seeking per minute fees on ISPs. There are also some disagreements among LECs. For example, BellSouth told the FCC that with the current CCL charges, it would be a mistake to eliminate the ESP for the ISPs, and BellSouth has also not adopted the "the sky is falling" position being advanced by PacBell and Bell Atlantic/Nynex. The ISPs themselves are just getting organized politically. The main ISP trade association, CIX, is badly co-opted on this issue by the large telcos who have joined CIX. In the absence of an effective ISP voice, a number of computer, software and consumer electronics companies have created the Internet Access Coalition (http://www.internetaccess.org), which has developed rapidly into an effective advocacy effort. This is the group that sponsored the excellent study by Lee L. Selwyn and Joseph W. Laszlo, "The Effect Of Internet Use On The Nation's Telephone Network," which is available on the Internet at (http://www2.itic.org/itic/eti_toc.html). The enormous expression of interest by individuals who sent email for the February 14, 1997 deadline in the Access Charge docket (access@fcc.gov) was an important step in impressing the FCC staff and commission members about the views of the Internet community. It will also be important to comment on the Notice of Inquiry that will examine the IPS's ESP exemption. Email for this round can be sent to isp@fcc.gov. It will also be helpful to file formal written comments. The first round of comments are due by March 24, 1997. It will be particularly helpful to have in the record information on topics such as: 1. How the Internet is used for civic discourse, to exercise free speech, and to promote education. (One might make comparisons to television). 2. How the Internet promotes economic development in the United States. 3. How flat rate local calling has contributed to the high level of residential penetration of Internet services in the United States. 4. What types of information should the FCC obtain from the LECs about network usage and costs. 5. What information the FCC should gather from the LECs and network vendors regarding deployment of higher bandwidth technologies, or the introduction of network solutions for 24x7 residential digital data connections to the Internet. 6. Are the LECs engaging in anticompetitive practices with respect to independent ISPs and other enhanced service providers? CPT will provide additional reports on this important issue. James Love Consumer Project on Technology love@tap.org; 202.387.8030 http://www.essential.org/cpt INFORMATIONPOLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored by the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT). CPT is a project of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of Info-Policy-Notes are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/ CPT's Web page is http://www.essential.org/cpt Subscription requests to info-policy-notes to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Telecommunications Networking" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:46:00 -0800 On May 19-23, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Telecommunications Networking: Local, Metropolitan, and Wide-Area Networks", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Izhak Rubin, PhD, Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA, and Michael A. Erlinger, PhD, Professor, Department of Computer Science, Harvey Mudd College. This course presents the integration of communication, switching, networking, traffic, service, computer engineering, and management principles, and highlights continuing trends in telecommunications network technologies, architectures, planning, management, evaluation and design. Elements essential to the implementation and control of cost-effective, reliable, and responsive telecommunication networks are thoroughly discussed. Key networking implementations and experimentations are presented and evaluated. Test cases involving multimedia networking over FDDI, Ethernet, Token-Ring, TDMA, ALOHA, Wireless, internetworked packet-switched networks, and B-ISDN ATM networks are demonstrated using the IRI Planyst program. Specific topics include: network fundamentals; narrow-band and broadband ISDN services; communication and network protocols; multi-access algorithms, schemes and protocols; local area networks; internetworking; high-speed fiber-optic local area networks; high-speed metropolitan area networks; networking methods for cellular wireless networks; network management; ATM network protocols and architectures; ATM switch architectures; traffic, flow and congestion control by ATM wide-area networks; and ultra high-speed communications networks. The course is designed for communications, computer, telecommunications, and system engineers; managers; system analysts; project leaders and scientists. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1982. The course fee is $1495, which includes all course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:13:29 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Pegasus Mail for Windows" by Kocmoud/Pierce/Stegman BKPEGMLW.RVW 961022 "Pegasus Mail for Windows", David J. Kocmoud/J. Matthew Pierce/Michael O. Stegman, 1996, 0-13-261900-8 %A David J. Kocmoud david-kocmoud@tamu.edu %A J. Matthew Pierce matt.pierce@tamu.edu %A Michael O. Stegman mstegman@li.net %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1996 %G 0-13-261900-8 %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 472 %T "Pegasus Mail for Windows" I don't understand this book. I mean, I understand the *book*. It is a perfectly clear and understandable set of documentation for Pegasus Mail, its functions, uses, and advanced uses. No problems there. No, what I don't understand is why the book *exists*. After all, David Harris, who created Pegasus mail, provides and maintains it free of charge. (Yes, you get a copy of Pegasus Mail with the book, as well as instructions on where and how to get the latest version off the net.) The only way for Harris to make money is to charge for the documentation for his program. So why is he enthusiastic enough to support a *competing* set of documentation that he not only supports the publication but actually writes a forward for the book? (Then again, someone recently asked why I provide these reviews, and I haven't got an answer for that either ...) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKPEGMLW.RVW 961022 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) Subject: Sanford Wallace (the "Spam King") to Start Own Spam Service Date: 21 Feb 1997 00:46:31 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS The {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported (2/19/97, Business Page 1) that Sanford Wallace, notorious for his unsuccessful court actions against Compuserve and AOL, will open his own service for mass mailings. Most online services and ISPs prohibit bulk e-mailings and will terminate such customers. Wallace is president of Cyber Promotions. He charges $50 for a 3 line ad packed with other ads, to $2,500 for a one-time 40 line exclusive e-mail addresses Wallace has amassed. [I can't believe paying customers respond to these things, at least enough to pay the cost.] Some critics say unsolicited e-mail should be deemed illegal under the federal regulations that prohibit unsolicited faxes. [Sounds good to me!] Private Citizen, a 2,000 member junk-mail fighting organization in Naperville, Ill, has set up a WWW page (http://www.ctct.com) where those who wish to be removed from Cyber Promotions' mailing list can leave their email addresses. Wallace said he was cooperating with them. IMHO, such guys like Wallace ought to be thrown in jail for trespassing. Unlike a letter mailed to my house or business, which costs me nothing, email DOES cost me. I pay for my online time, and time spent filtering through junk email and Usenet posts costs me. If my ISP has to increase his system size to accomodate the increased junk traffic, those costs get passed on to me. It is well known that junk email clogs the Internet because (1) a lot of messages are undeliverable from old addresses and generate returns, and (2) the spammers use forged headers, so the returned mail (and complaints from recipients) get bounced back. So, what starts out as a single message can mushroom, and we Internet users are paying for it. Wallace has also shown incredible arrogance and disrespect to people. He has filed lawsuits (and lost) demanding he be allowed to invade private space. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:32:57 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL Per an Associated Press story 20-Feb-1997: New Network Makes Bulk E-Mail Easy By JENNIFER BROWN Associated Press Writer PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- It's about to get much easier for advertisers to send junk e-mail on the Internet. Cyber Promotions Inc. will launch the first bulk e-mail friendly Internet provider in the nation on March 17. It will allow computer users to send millions of commercial ads -- also known as spam -- for a single monthly fee. (The article continues with a discussion of how spammers are frowned upon by most ISPs and how they get their accounts canceled left and right as soon as they start their little pursuits.) "What people are doing is jumping around from one (Internet provider) toanother, and they don't have a secure home. We're going to give them a home," said Cyber Promotion founder Sanford Wallace. (snip) Wallace, known as the "Spam King," said Cyber Promotions is an extension of the Internet advertising service he has run since 1994. The company sends up to 4 million e-mail ads each day. ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:59:43 -0500 Organization: ICB Toll Free News Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Pat, not only did John Q. Public get it wrong -- John Q. Press did too. Multiplying and compounding the problem. I know we've disagreed on this, but twice now you've rewritten a posting I've submitted - the first message the one you misplaced, and now the equally explanatory correction. The nature of the problem: where the cost and embarassment from 800 vs. 888 lies - is with the attempt to equate 888 with the well-branded 800. 800 is not just another area code - 800 IS THE TOLL FREE BRAND. These problems - along with their inherent costs, confusions, and lost business, will continue to happen. Both the advertisers, and consumers, will suffer. Short-sightedly, so will the industry. (How much traffic revenue did AT&T make on 888 NOT BUSY, versus what it could have made?) 888 was, and is, a big mistake. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #48 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Feb 22 08:42:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA09904; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:42:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:42:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702221342.IAA09904@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #49 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Feb 97 08:42:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 49 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic Sues NJ Regulators to Block Competition (Tad Cook) GTE Claims Rural Exemption from Competition in Idaho (Tad Cook) Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger (Mike King) Satellite Cellular? (MSgt Paul Berens) Re: Why/What Extensions to snmpd? (tmax@htconn.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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Bell Atlantic Sues NJ Regulators to Block Competition Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:13:18 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Bell Atlantic Sues New Jersey Regulators to Block Competition By Raymond Fazzi, Asbury Park Press, N.J. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 21--Bell Atlantic-New Jersey sued the state Board of Public Utilities yesterday in an attempt to block the start of medium-distance toll-call competition in New Jersey on May 5. The company currently holds a monopoly in toll-call service. The suit could lengthen the time it takes for customers to see offers from competing companies and, possibly, lower prices. Bell Atlantic is arguing the state BPU violated the U.S. Telecomm- unications Act of 1996 in setting the May 5 start-up date. Under the federal law, the company alleges, toll-call competition in New Jersey should start at the same time Bell Atlantic enters New Jersey's long-distance telephone market. "We think that Congress clearly intended that those things were supposed to go together," said Anne Babineau, general counsel for Bell Atlantic Corp., parent company of Bell Atlantic-New Jersey. A BPU official said the agency stands by its decision. "We believe that our decision is legally supportable," BPU Executive Director Michael Ambrosio said. "The BPU will defend its order." The question raised by the lawsuit is whether or not the BPU met a federal Dec. 19, 1995, deadline for ordering the start of toll-call competition. Under the Telecommunications Act, any state that did not meet the deadline cannot order toll-call competition until its local telephone monopoly is allowed to compete in the state's long-distance market, or by February 1999 -- whichever comes first. The BPU maintains it met the deadline when BPU President Herbert Tate and Commissioner Carmen Armenti voted to institute toll-competition on Dec. 14, 1995. In making the decision, Tate and Armenti said they felt competition was in the public interest because it could lead to lower prices. The board had approved limited toll-call competition in July 1994, but under that order, customers could only use competing companies by dialing a five-digit code before all their calls. Under the December 1995 order, customers will be able to choose a toll-call company in the same way they now choose a long-distance company. Bell Atlantic, however, is arguing the BPU vote only made toll-competition a public policy. The company argues in the lawsuit that the BPU did not set a date for the start of competition, or set up the rules for competition, until after the federal Dec. 19, 1995, deadline. "More than a policy decision was required at that time," Babineau said. "The statute is pretty clear that what is required is an order requiring implementation." Ambrosio said the agency is confident it met the requirements of the Telecommunications Act. "The question of whether or not we were grandfathered is certainly something we looked at and we believe we were," he said. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were Tate and Armenti. A spokesman for AT&T Corp., which would be Bell Atlantic's largest competitor in the state's toll call market, criticized Bell Atlantic's action. "It seems like every time we get close to a point where there might be some kind of competition, Bell Atlantic calls in the lawyers," AT&T spokesman Ritch Blasi said. ------------------------------ Subject: GTE Claims Rural Exemption from Competition in Idaho Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:01:52 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) GTE Seeks Protection from competition, Claims It Qualifies for Rural Exemption By Betsy Z. Russell, The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wash. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News BOISE, Idaho--Feb. 22--GTE is claiming it falls under an exemption for rural telephone companies and shouldn't have to face competition for local phone service in North Idaho. Competitors are skeptical of the claim, since GTE is the nation's largest phone company. But if it succeeds, the move could keep competitors like AT&T and GST Telecommunications out of the North Idaho phone market. Mitzi Sachs, vice president and general manager of GST Telecommunications in Spokane, said an exemption for GTE could thwart her company's plans to offer high-tech phone, data and Internet services to Coeur d'Alene businesses. "I think the consumer is the loser, especially the business consumer," Sachs said. "It'll delay technology getting to Coeur d'Alene that much faster." The Idaho Public Utilities Commission agreed Thursday to schedule a hearing on GTE's claim within the next 45 to 60 days. The move came just as the House State Affairs Committee is deliberating on a bill that would grant small, rural companies an automatic, three- to five-year exemption from competition. GTE, with 123,000 telephone customers in Idaho, is the state's second-largest provider of local phone service. But its North Idaho service area doesn't include any communities with more than 50,000 people -- which could allow the company to fit under the legal definition of rural phone companies. "This catches me totally flat-footed -- I can't imagine what their thinking is," . Ron Crane, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee and sponsor of Idaho's telecommunications deregulation bill. "There's a lot of support among the legislators for what we consider to be the rural telephone companies -- we're a rural state." But legislators generally think of the tiny firms that provide phone service in towns like Albion, Cambridge and Weippe when they think rural, Crane said. "We have a lot of rural area in Idaho that's high-cost," said Carol Rutgers, director of external affairs for GTE. "We think there should be some consideration of how that's going to impact universal service." When competitors come into the market, they tend to pick off the higher-profit business customers, not the expensive-to-serve remote residences, Rutgers said. GTE provides local phone service throughout North Idaho. Small rural companies have been lobbying the Idaho Legislature strongly on the deregulation issue. They persuaded lawmakers to give them protection from competition in the state legislation, saying immediate competition from such competitors as AT&T, Sprint and MCI would pose a hardship for small firms. GTE probably wouldn't qualify for the three-year exemption in the state legislation, because the bill includes a requirement that qualifying companies have less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines. But if the PUC upholds the company's claim to rural status under the federal law, GTE might be able to keep competition at bay. Eileen Benner of AT&T said of GTE's claim, "That's something, isn't it? Poor old little GTE. "Is that the kind of company that needs to be shielded from competition?" she asked. Three companies have received PUC approval to compete with GTE in North Idaho, once they negotiate agreements with GTE to use its lines. AT&T, one of the three, has requested that the PUC arbitrate between it and GTE because the two firms haven't been able to reach an interconnection agreement. But Rutgers sent a letter to the PUC this week saying the agency can't arbitrate anything because GTE is a rural company that's exempt from competition. Under the 1996 federal law deregulating telecommunications, the PUC must look into whether allowing competition against a rural phone company would be economically burdensome, whether it's technically unfeasible and whether it would interfere with maintaining universal phone service. The PUC must use those criteria to decide whether to allow competition. "All we're asking is just keep that in mind as we go forward," Rutgers said. GTE has argued unsuccessfully for rural exemptions in at least two other states, Ohio and Minnesota. GTE is all for competition where it will be fair, Rutgers said. "We're talking about rural and hard-to-reach areas." ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:30:51 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:20:24 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: California Administrative Law Judges' Proposed Decision Casts Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger RELATED DOCUMENTS: * Additional Merger Information FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 21, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry L. Solomon, SBC 210 351-3990 Michael Runzler, PacTel 415 394-3643 mrunzler@legal.pactel.com California Administrative Law Judges' Proposed Decision Casts Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger Companies Call Proposed Penalty of More Than $750 Million, Other Conditions, "Unreasonable" SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Telesis and SBC Communications said today that a proposal by two administrative law judges to impose a crippling penalty of more than $750 million and other conditions on the merger of the two companies could jeopardize the deal if it is adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The administrative law judges' proposed decision will be reviewed by the full Commission over the next several weeks. The Commission will either accept or amend the proposed decision when it issues its final ruling, which is expected in late March. "While we're extremely disappointed with the adminstrative law judges' proposed decision, we're hopeful that the Commission next month will reach a decision which allows the merger to go forward to create new jobs, more competition and tens of millions of dollars in new community investment in California," said Phil Quigley, Pacific Telesis Group chairman and chief executive officer. "If the proposed decision is adopted by the CPUC, it could seriously jeopardize the merger." "This merger will create a stronger, more competitive company that will be able to offer better services to Californians at more competitive prices," said Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., SBC chairman and chief executive officer. "The merged company will generate 1,000 new jobs and establish four new company headquarters in California, creating a positive ripple effect of more than $100 million on the state's economy over the next few years. Also, we'll expand Pacific Bell's commitment to the technologically underserved communities of the state, with potentially more than $80 million in new investments, if the merger is approved without penalty." "The proposed decision ignores the facts presented in weeks of hearings and appears designed to severely penalize the companies and discourage the merger," Quigley said. "If the merger is terminated, Pacific Telesis shareowners -- including almost 200,000 Californians -- will be very seriously harmed. "Any penalty is unwarranted," Quigley said. "We hope the commissioners will look at the facts and make a final decision which allows the benefits of the merger -- more competition, jobs and community investment -- to flow through to Californians. While other states eagerly seek new jobs and investment, California's ALJs have recommended a payment that penalizes an effort which will create jobs." The proposed decision is based on the ALJs' interpretation of a California state law which provides that customers share in the benefits of a merger between "utilities." The companies have maintained they are not utilities, but diversified holding companies. "Also, the law was written when we didn't have competition in the local telephone business like we do today from about 100 competitors," Quigley said. The companies stress that customers will benefit from the merger through lower prices and more choices brought about by increased competition in the local long-distance and wireless service markets, and that a merger penalty is unjustified. Since the merger was announced April 1, 1996, it has been approved by 97 percent of the voting shareowners of both companies. The U.S. Department of Justice and the California Attorney General said the merger would not reduce competition in the state's telecommunications markets. The Federal Communications Commission unanimously said the merger is "in the public interest." The Nevada Public Service Commission approved the merger in December. In addition, the merger received widespread support at seven public hearings the CPUC held throughout the state last year. "Not surprisingly, the main opponents of the merger have been our competitors," Quigley said. "AT&T and MCI want to prevent creation of a new company with the resources to give them a run for their money. Clearly, the public interest is best served by having several healthy competitors who will vie for the business of Californians." Pacific Telesis (NYSE:PAC) is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. Through its Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell subsidiaries, the corporation offers a wide array of telecommunications services in California and Nevada, including directory advertising and publishing. Through its operating subsidiaries, the corporation serves nearly 16.4 million access lines and offers Internet access services to both business and residential customers. Aer subsidiary, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, has begun offering new wireless personal communications services (PCS) in the San Diego area, and will expand service in California and Nevada throughout 1997. SBC Communications Inc. is one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies, with tens of millions of customers in 13 U.S. states and eight counties. Through its subsidiaries, it provides innovative communications services under the Southwestern Bell and Cellular One brands, including local and long- distance telephone, wireless, paging, Internet access, cable TV and messaging services, as well as telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and publishing. SBC (www.sbc.com) reported 1996 revenues of $13.9 billion. ----------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: MSgt Paul Berens Subject: Satellite Cellular? Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 16:45:00 PST Coincidence? Teledesic is projecting four cents a minute as their cost. They don't seem to be the company involved in this MLM froth, but their cost is the same ... See www.teledesic.com BTW, there's a slight bias in the below. He refers several times to deployments "this decade". If he's referring to the decade from 1997 to 2007, there are more than just Iridium. If he's referring to the decade from 1990 to 2000, it's hardly a big statement since we're 60% through ... Wonder if he owns Motorola stock??? I OTOH have no vested interest. I'm active duty military so I've got no business connection to the issue, and the only stock I own is Sunshine Mining. (And that just about says it all regarding my investment acumen!) Paul J. Berens pberens@spacecom.af.mil > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:27:21 -0800 > From: Van Hefner > Subject: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet > Eureka, CA, Feb. 11, 1997 (DLD Digest) -- We have been flodded this past > week with inquiries about a new "breakthrough technology" which is being > touted via the internet, junk faxes and junk mail. > The vaguely worded press releases we have seen proclaim that this is > the MLM opportunity of a lifetime. It goes on to claim that satellite > telephones will soon be available to consumers which will lower the > price of long distance calls to as low as 4 cents per minute, anywhere > in the world. > The releases also claim that "major corporations" are backing this project, > although those releasing the info refuse to name the actual companies. > The claims are quite simply FALSE. Though we do not know who the actual > company is that is distributing this "spam", we do know that the entire > thing is a hoax. ------------------------------ From: tmax@htconn.com Subject: Re: Why/What Extensions to snmpd? Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:07:34 GMT Organization: Hi-TECH Connections Reply-To: tmax@htconn.com Mark Lo Chiano mentioned last Tue, 21 Jan 1997 in comp.protocols.snmp > Dru Nelson wrote: >> I see some people asking a lot about extensions to >> snmp daemons running on various platforms. Can some >> people post some interesting examples of what they >> are monitoring/controlling? (certain processes, >> a proxy for something, a coke machine?)? > Interesting is an "interesting" word :-}. It is all in the > perspective. > We traditionally use an "SNMP multiplexing" approach to solving our > partners needs for several primary reasons: [snippage of reasons for "modular design"] > ====================================================== > As far as real-world uses of extensible agents, we have > instrumented a wide array of capabilities: > -- Virtual Private Networks. In this arena, a public service [and other cool "leading edge designs" which don't relate directly to extensible agents] > Respectfully, > Mark Lo Chiano > President >Center Technology Mark and Dru; Extensions is an "extensible" concept, it would appear. Sorry for the snippage, Mark, but it wasn't technically relevant, or specific enough to answer the question. I don't mean to flame you personally, and I'm sorry for the burnt lapels, but this is a technical newsgroup, and I didn't see any technical information in your response (great marketing, yea, but nothing detailed enough to be helpful). I am greatly interested in hearing some answers to Dru's question, but I find I'm confused about what exactly the question is. Respectfully, Mark, you're the President of Center Technology. Do you think maybe we could hear from your engineers on _actual_ extensible agent implementations they've _actually_ done? I'm not saying you haven't put management in place for VPNs, or applications management, or legacy equipment support (the other two examples you sited, without giving any indication how the extensibility of the agent technology has helped to implement them). I'm not saying you haven't used "extensible agent technology" (probably one of the commercially available agent development environments, like EMANATE or Bridgeway EventIX, to name the two I am most familiar with) to do this. But you haven't answered the question. Or have you? I realize now that I'm confused about the term "extensions to agents". Your question, in retrospect, Dru, seems to simply wonder 'why'. The easy answer (sorry, Mark, but this is the one you gave ;-}) is that you start with sort of a "core agent" which supports a standard MIB, and then add locally developed "private" extensions to cover specific instrumentation. Whatever that instrumentation may be (coke machine, serial interface to a device like a PBX, or even database server function calls, to name three examples I'm familiar with), this would be what I would term a "statically extensible" agent. This seems to be primarily what "agent development kits" such as those I cited were built for. But the problems they're solving could just as easily be solved by a "monolithic" agent which is developed from the ground up by a single developer. There is currently an IETF working group attempting to standardize a methodology for extensible agents, the agentx specification. The debates I've seen on the mailing list (subscribe at agentx-request@fv.com) tend to center around making sure it works in what I would term a "dynamically extensible" environment. This means that various sub-agents will be added or removed from the implementation on a semi-routine basis. The example I am most interested in would be a master agent which monitors a host, with sub-agents being incorporated within major applications (server processes, mostly). As a package is installed on the host, application-specific MIB support would be made available automatically via the master/sub agent capabilities. This type of capability is far more demanding than the "proxy agent" system which, as I mentioned, could just as well be fixed with a single monolithic agent. The real nut to crack, it seems, is what you do when you want more than one agent at a single transport address. But this is only a problem if you can't just sit down and write that one agent yourself. As long as you are developing the agent, you're just developing an agent. A truly "extensible" agent would allow for much more, such as my example above. The biggest problem I've heard of is when two such sub-agents both support the same MIBs and, more specifically, want to separately support separate rows within a table within a MIB. Unfortunately, I don't believe anyone has really implemented very many systems of this nature (not just my example, but _any_ dynamic extensibility). The majority of "extensible agent" methodologies are used for simply customized agents, often referred to as "proxy" agents. Most if not all of these implementations could be completely constructed with a monolithic agent, and gain no real advantage from "extensibility" except as a simple method of development. It's a lot easier to build an agent in EMANATE or EventIX than to get the cmu code and program it yourself in C or whatever. (I particularly like Bridgeway's "graphic mib builder", which allows the definition of the agent's mib through a GUI, rather than writing ASN.1 directly.) The only real example of dynamically extensible agent design I've ever seen anyone to admit to, though, was a mention by a Bay Networks engineer that they use EMANATE for their hub agents. This may be a true dynamic extensible agent, as new RMON probe/Network Management Module hardware (DCMs or DMEs in Bayspeak) can be added to their 5000 hub chassis as a snap-in board. Unfortunately, it may also explain why this system is plagued by real-life implementation problems; issues which often make anything but the most basic hub port traffic monitoring unusable. Now having insulted the president of a fellow integrator for being technically vapid, and no less than Bay Networks for their management implementations, let me try to resubmit Dru's question. I'm sure that Center Technology has done some impressive, and even interesting, development (and I recognize the points you made and examples you sited as important and useful). And I still believe that, with all it's faults, Optivity from Bay Networks is the most powerful element manager on the market, and provides unparalleled functionality for hub-based management. But is anyone really creating (or even planning to create) dynamically extensible agents which solve real-world problems? I believe one of the reasons I may not have been able to find out about any is the fact that they are essentially proprietary implementations, and no one really wants to give any details away about their own tricks. On the other hand, maybe the only ones who are dealing with these issues at all are the agentx group themselves, in which case they are wasting a lot of cycles trying to build something that isn't really feasible. All I've seen on the list so far is "thought experiments" concerning sub-agent support of the ifTable, which doesn't seem like a very pressing concern, as routers seem to get along pretty well with a single monolithic agent. To put it bluntly; do any of the sub-agents which use current proprietary systems act in a dynamic manner? I am taking the liberty of cross-posting this a little to try to generate some discussion. I'm considering even sending this to the agentx group via email, as it may help their effort in designing real-world solutions (is there really a real-world problem?). Follow-ups set to comp.protocols.snmp. I hope I haven't gone on too long, or stepped on too many toes. I'm just a curious consultant, myself, and anxiously wondering if I've made my point clear. The difference between statically and dynamically extensible agents seems to be an obvious one, but I'm not sure if everyone who talks about extensible agents (people who have used EMANATE and the agentx working group, to be specific) are talking about the same thing. Am I missing something? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #49 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Feb 23 01:27:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA23564; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:27:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:27:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702230627.BAA23564@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #50 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Feb 97 01:27:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 50 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Utah Selects 435 (John Cropper) Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Chris Farrar) Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number (Craig Milo Rogers) Re: Idaho Phone Competition (Lee Winson) Re: Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL (Lawrence V. Cipriani) Re: Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL (Travis Dixon) Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising (John R. Levine) Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising (Judith Oppenheimer) SMS Database Searchable? (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Satellite Cellular? (Van Hefner) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: John Cropper Subject: Utah Selects 435 Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:26:39 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net ...from the Salt Lake Tribune AREA CODE 435: Rural Utah Callers To Ring In Summer With a New Number Thursday, February 20, 1997 BY TOM ZOELLNER THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Come June, the sovereign state of Utah will be partitioned into two telephonic kingdoms: the 801 and the 435, the Wasatch Front and all the rest. Utah no longer will be unified by the three-digit calling card of its statewide area code. All residents in Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Morgan and Utah counties will keep the familiar 801 code. But every other county surrounding the urban island has to assume a new digital identity, this newfangled 435. A small piece of rural residents' vital personal data will change forever. When they call home from out of state, they no longer will hear that touch-tone melody -- the A-flat, B-flat and D of 801 -- that can ring out a picture of home from even the coldest phone booth in the loneliest town. ''There's an emotional attachment to an area code,'' acknowledges Jack Ott, the numbering-plan administrator for US WEST in Denver. Telephone companies generally do not have warm or sentimental feelings about numbers, though. Push-Button Pioneers? There was some preliminary talk of making Utah's new code 724, to commemorate July 24, the date that the first Mormon pioneers entered the Great Salt Lake Valley. But 724 already is a working exchange in Orem. So, by a mathematical process of elimination, planners settled on 435. ''For us, area codes are buckets with numbers in them,'' said Ken Branson, a spokesman for Bellcore in Piscataway, N.J., the company that administers area-code assignments. ''It really is a boring, unromantic, practical piece of work that needs to be done.'' Utah has no alternative to creating the new code, said Stephen Mecham, head of the state Public Utilities Commission, which ordered the change. The proliferation of modems, cellular phones and fax machines quickly is exhausting the supply of three-number exchanges. Barflies at the Arrow Club in Price have been grumbling about it, said bartender Diana Jersey. Why, they wonder, should rural people have to change their numbers? ''Nobody's happy about it,'' Jersey said. ''But we don't have much choice. We're out here in the sticks and we don't really belong to the state, do we?'' Whenever North American area codes are split, big-city centers always inherit the old number, Ott said. That's to protect the large number of businesses concentrated in urban cores who would have to print up new business cards, change their billboards and recall their catalogs. Wasted Business Cards: Only businesses outside the 801 island have to deal with this particular hassle. Jolayne Okerlund, who runs the Country Keepsakes store in downtown Salina, ordered 10,000 new business cards imprinted with the 801 area code barely days before she learned of the new code. Now, she's wondering what she's going to do with them. More than a number on a business card, though, the new area code is a high-tech signpost of the changing times. The suburbs may continue to grow and attract residents, but city centers still carry the cultural clout. Chicago kept its cherished 312 area code, and the crescent of suburbs got stuck with 708. Boston retained its trademark 617, while the nether regions beyond the outer belt were consigned to the new 508. And downtown San Francisco, home of the legendary 415, will slough off the South Bay to the dreaded stigma of 650 this August. Affections people may feel for their old area code probably will fade as they get used to the new number, Mecham said. And in any case, the emotional attachment to three little numbers is not nearly as great as the love that old-time telephone customers used to feel for their two-letter word exchanges, such as HIghland 5-0642 or PEnnsylvania 6-5000, which were phased out in the late 1940s. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Communication Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net http://www.lincs.net/ ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:59:52 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca Torsten Lif wrote: > If I wanted to hand this out to somebody in another country I would > give the country code to Sweden (46) followed by just the "8" for > Stockholm and the local number, but to identify that 46 has to be > prefixed by that person's international access number, I'd lead it > with a "+". +46 8 719 4881. To dial that from New York you'd go 01146 > 8 719 4881. From some phones in California it would be 0146 8 719 > 4881. Re your 011 vs 01 for international long distance from Country Code 1 (US and Canada). Generally the breakdown (in Bell Canada territory anyway) is that 011-international number is for direct dialed calls (the equivalent of 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX for long distance within the US and Canada) and 01-international number is for operator assisted calls (the equivalent of 0-NXX-NXX-XXXX within country code 1). Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:04:47 -0800 From: rogers@ISI.EDU (Craig Milo Rogers) Subject: Re: Say the Words "Area Code" Before a Phone Number Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute In article shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: > The international format is basically this: > <+> > The local portion may have spaces in it. Use of any seperators other > than spaces isn't allowed. But, it's a foolish standard. Perhaps it was created by people who thought that creating stylish business cards was the most sophisticated use of a phone number that they could imagine? Spaces are sublect to line breaks and other miscellaneous word processing mayhem. If you're writing the phone number in a plain ASCII file you probably don't have access to a non-breaking space character; even if you have access to one, such as " " in HTML, people often don't remember/bother to use it. I often see a dash or period as a separator: +1-310-822-1511 +1.310.822.1511 This conforms more nicely to the realities of current computerized text processing. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Idaho Phone Competition Date: 21 Feb 1997 22:41:32 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per Tad's post of the Knight-Ridder article ... IMHO, the issue is very simple. If "they" want competition (whoever "they" is, I don't know myself), then mandate a competitor may not solicit business until EVERYONE in the service area (ie all of Idaho) can get service, all at the same rate. I think it is utterly ridiculous for these so-called "consumer advocates" to cross-subsidization for one carrier, and free-market for another. You can't have it both ways. And don't forget, there will be a lot of start up costs in interconn- ecting the new startup companies to the existing network. A lot of area code splits are the result of competition. Does anyone remember the Penn Central railroad? The once mighty Pennsylvania and New York Central railroad companies, who at one time set the standard of excellent railroad service, ended up at the bottom of service quality, and went bankrupt. While there were a number of factors, hindsight allows us to see unfair government regulation was a big factor. The Penn Central was forced to operate very unprofitable passenger service and light-duty freight service "in the interests of public service". Regulators treated it as if it had a transportation monopoly when in fact highways and aviation were competing with the railroad. The successor company, Conrail, wasn't able to flourish on its own until railroads were deregulated. These consumer advocates somehow think there's a free lunch, that the telephone companies are filthy rich and can afford to subsidize service while competition doesn't have to. It doesn't work that way. Remember the Penn Central. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mention the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads which were merged into Penn Central and later turned into Conrail. Then of course Amtrack entered the picture and got things even further out of kilter. Now we are told that Amtrack is as good as dead, with massive cuts in service on a regular basis. None of the grand old passenger trains of the past are running on a daily basis. Some are gone completely and others run three or four days per week. Amtrack is *always* looking for a handout from the various states it operates in; it seems they always threaten to cut even more service unless the local or state government gives them more money. Here in the midwest, Amtrack has repeatedly tried to get money from Wisconsin and Illinois for the Chicago <-> Milwaukee trains. Not too long ago they asked for a million dollars to keep the line operating 'another six months ...'. A guy from Greyhound went to the very same state officials who had been approached by Amtrack and told them in essence if they wanted to give Greyhound a million dollars " ... we will haul people between Milwaukee <-> Chicago for free ..." The bus line currently runs sixteen trips daily between the two cities with most of them as express busses making the trip up and down I-94 in 90 minutes officially, although if the traffic and weather are right, they do it in 75 minutes. A half-dozen of the trips are 'locals' and serve the intermediate points of Skokie, Great Lakes Naval Base, Waukegan, Kenosha and Racine and the 'locals' make it in a little over two hours. All for the fare of eleven dollars from one end to the other and six/seven dollars from either end to intermediate points. But Amtrack can't seem to make do and always needs more money. I think it interesting and relevant that Amtrack is a government agency while the two dozen or so interstate bus lines operating in the USA (being Greyhound with about fifty percent of the traffic; Jefferson Lines with about ten percent of the traffic and the several companies which do business under the 'Trailways' trademark getting the bulk of what is left) are all privately owned and receive no government subsidies at all. They all 'interline' with each other (accept each other's tickets), use each other's bus stations and serve about six thousand communities, many of which are tiny little places. Remember when the railroads *used* to be that way? The railroads were in great shape until the government nationalized them via Amtrack. But then, isn't that always the case when the government decides it can do better than private enterprise? A few years ago in Chicago, the City Council seriously considered 'municipalizing' (that is the polite or politically correct word for stealing something from its owners) Commonwealth Edison under the pretext that would prevent the citizens from getting ripped off on electric bills. A running joke at the time was the bunch of cronies who operate the Chicago Public Schools, the public housing and the public transit would now be operating the nuclear plants as well. That sufficiently scared the beejeezus out of enough corporate executives and civic leaders that the uproar caused the City Council to back down. All the government meddling in the telecom industry has begun to hurt there also. Tell it to the judge I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lvc@lucent.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) Subject: Re: Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL Date: 22 Feb 1997 13:49:15 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio Reply-To: lvc@lucent.com In article , Danny Burstein wrote: > Per an Associated Press story 20-Feb-1997: > New Network Makes Bulk E-Mail Easy > By JENNIFER BROWN Associated Press Writer > PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- It's about to get much easier for advertisers > to send junk e-mail on the Internet. What's to stop an ISP from charging Cyber Promotions for the privilege of sending commercial ads to their subscribers? An ISP could tell their subscribers "In order for you to receive email from a commercial advertiser we require a contractual agreement with the commercial advertiser. We block all incoming email messages from advertisers that we do not have a contractual agreement with." The terms of the contract would then be structured so that the "free rider" aspect of the Internet advertising would be eliminated. That is the ISP would charge a processing fee of, say $1.00, per email message. Then the millions of "free" email messages sent out by Cyber Promotions would then start costing them some serious money. They would be out of business in short order. Is this workable legally, and is it a practical solution to junk email? ------------------------------ From: travisd@saltmine.radix.net (Travis Dixon) Subject: Re: Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL Date: 22 Feb 1997 15:02:56 GMT Organization: RadixNet Internet Services Well, at least it'll be easier to set up the router to block -- they should be limited to a fairly limited block of IP's. Wonder if there's any way of blocking them from access to the NAPs and MAE's?? travis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Feb 97 10:27:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > 888 was, and is, a big mistake. Well, perhaps. There's 8 million 800 numbers possible, and they've all been assigned. How else could the telcos have continued to provide toll-free service to new customers? Adding extra digits won't be feasible for another 25 years, so it's either add more toll-free area codes or else treat 800 as a fixed resource and auction the numbers off every year or something like that. I'm asking this seriously, since maybe there's a better solution nobody's explored. The auction isn't a totally stupid idea -- I have three 800 numbers, none of which get much traffic. If I had to pay a market rate for my 800 numbers, I'd only have one rather than three. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:23:55 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Re: 800/888 Confusion Messes up Advertising John, at the time that 800 conservation measures were imposed by the FCC, carriers were asked to reply to a survey to ascertain what the replication participation might be. The first question on the survey: "How many 800 numbers are you the Resp Org for?" This was asked of all the Resp Orgs. The answer, total? 4 million+ 800 numbers in use by subscribers - 4 million+ 800 numbers for which Resp Orgs had 'agency' responsibility. Out of 7.8 million 800 numbers. (Remember, with toll-free, these Resp Orgs are supposed to act as *agent* for subscribers, not competitors with them. And Rules for 800 are that a carrier is supposed to have a subscriber order to remove a number from the SMS Database.) So my question to you: what shortage? If carriers, with favored Resp Org access to the SMS, treat 800 numbers as product and line extensions - misappropriating numbers with no subscriber orders attached because they need warehouses of numbers to use as incentives when signing on residential long distance customers (as MCI did), or because they have other "follow-you-around" products that require a portable architecture to ride on - is that a shortage? What it is, is an abrogation of their contractual agency responsibility, and regulatory obligations, as Resp Orgs. That said, with the damage done, the answer is separate domains. There are applications for which the utility of toll free is appropriate - pagers, for instance, and residential toll-free numbers "so Johnny can call home from college." But the BRAND of toll-free - 800 - is heavily relied upon by both consumers and marketers, and not at all necessary for pager and residential use.* These are the applications for which a separate domain - 888 - should have been assigned. However, AT&T & friends said pager companies didn't want 888's. Yet at one of the first FCC meetings on the issue, pager companies said they'd be glad to use 888's - they just needed toll-frees to assign.* Carriers also said consumers wouldn't want to give up residential 800's for 888's*. Why not? It's no different than changing their local area codes, or pager area codes (I'm in New York, where we have 212 for local, and 917 for pager. When the numbers changed, given the one-to-one versus many-to-one logistics of usage for pagers, it just wasn't a big deal.) Who else has recommended this? The Direct Marketing Association. The Communications Managers Association. A number of other comments and responses to the FCC's Toll Free NPRM. So why would the carriers screw this up? Monopoly mentality. Anti-competitiveness. Short-sightedness. Stupidity. Indifference. Outright negligence. Misguided pursuit of corporate agenda above all else. I have stacks of meeting notes from INC, SNAC, and even ITU meetings, which demonstrate this over and over again. So, by no means were all 800's, or even most, assigned. And the separate domain suggestion was raised over two years prior to the release of 888, at an early INC meeting on the issue. Just as the big carriers told the State Dept and ITU that U.S. users had no interest in protecting their domestic 800's in the global marketplace (this *before* 888 became an issue, at the beginning of the formulation of freephone), they pushed the same lies at INC, and to the FCC, until their customers made so much noise (finally) that replication was put on the table. Too bad it was too late for freephone. The better longer-term solution to separate domains? Not auction. Free market. Real estate is a finite resource, yet it doesn't run out. Why? Buying. Selling. Leasing. Renting. An open market of supply and demand. People pay taxes on transactions, the govt gets its take, etc. That is the best solution. We already know it works, because its a very common and routine, if quiet, practice. Second best - separate domains. The only option left - replication (right of first refusal.) Judith *Of the 4 mil + 800 subscribers in the survey, approximately 25% said they'd want to replicate their marketing 800's in 888 - and 877, 866, etc. Only 1% of pager users, and 1% of residential users, said the same thing. ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: SMS Database Searchable? Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:33:35 -0500 Organization: ICB Toll Free News Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Unless you're a Resp Org - no way! But surprise, surprise, the ITU's global 800 database is now searchable by the public. You can find the search engine on the UIFN site - http://gold.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/uifn/uifn.form - but I prefer the one USA Global Link as put up - provides clarifying information, what it does and doesn't do, etc. You can register there as well. You can find that one at hppt://www.thedigest.com/icb/, scroll down to "SEARCH FOR YOUR GLOBAL 800 NUMBER." (Both the ITU's and USA Global Link's searches are free.) BTW, the ITU UIFN sight now lists all the ROA's worldwide - there are five U.S. companies listed in addition to the one's already publicized (ATT, MCI, Sprint, LDDS Worldcom & USA Global Link.) I've noted my comments here previously about ATT, MCI, & Sprint - not recommended - , and USA Global Link - recommended. LDDS Worldcom held up one of our associates for weeks saying they'd get the registration paperwork to them - and then bailed out at the last minute (of the embedding period, claiming they'd decided not to participate?!) So, pending further input, I add them to my "not recommended" list. The new ones listed by the ITU I'll be checking out, and will keep you posted. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:11:03 -0800 From: Van Hefner Subject: Re: Satellite Cellular? MSgt Paul Berens wrote: > Coincidence? Teledesic is projecting four cents a minute as their > cost. They don't seem to be the company involved in this MLM froth, > but their cost is the same ... See www.teledesic.com > BTW, there's a slight bias in the below. He refers several times to > deployments "this decade". If he's referring to the decade from 1997 > to 2007, there are more than just Iridium. If he's referring to the > decade from 1990 to 2000, it's hardly a big statement since we're 60% > through ... Wonder if he owns Motorola stock??? > I OTOH have no vested interest. I'm active duty military so I've got > no business connection to the issue, and the only stock I own is > Sunshine Mining. (And that just about says it all regarding my > investment acumen!) I wish to reply to the accusations made by Mr. Berens as stated above. To suggest that I am a Motorola stockholder, or that I have anything whatsoever to gain financially by alerting people to such an obvious scam is ludicrous. My only "bias" is that I hate to see people shell out money to become involved in an obviously fraudelent mlm scheme. For the record, I own NO shares of Motorola stock, or any other stock, for that matter. I simply mentioned Motorola's program because it is the satellite-phone system which happens to be nearest actual deployment. I was indeed referring to THIS decade, which I believe technically ends on Dec. 31, 2000. The fact that I was "only" looking ahead a few years, rather than another 10 years, was absolutely intentional. The scheme that I was discussing suggested that this system would be ready for deployment within the next 2-3 months. Obviously, there is no such system in place. I have no doubt that such systems may be deployed after the year 2001, but such systems obviously have no connection with the one I was writing about. FYI, the scamsters I was speaking of have now backed off from their "satellite phone" claims, and now say that satellites will NOT be used. Rather, they are now claiming that these amazingly low rates will be made possible by using what they refer to as a "magic box", which attaches to your phone. This scenario is also obviously fraudelent, and I will be writing another article concering the exact details of the scheme and debunking their technical claims on Monday. William Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.thedigest.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #50 *****************************