From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 24 09:07:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA14859; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:07:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:07:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702241407.JAA14859@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #51 TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Feb 97 09:07:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Hacker Challenges Dark Side Book (Tad Cook) CC Docket No 96-263 and Southwestern Bell's Solution (Simple Nomad) Re: CC Docket No 96-263 and Southwestern Bell's Solution (Jeff LaCoursiere) Hurdle Cleared in Pac Bell/SWBT Merger (Tad Cook) URL Correction in "SMS Database Searchable?" (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: Hacker Challenges Dark Side Book Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:48:43 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Hacker challenges `dark side' book By Simson Garfinkel Special to the Mercury News KEVIN Poulsen was one of the most talented "dark side hackers" ever to phreak a phone call. For more than two years, Poulsen lived the life of a fugitive as part of the seedy Los Angeles underground. He made money by reprogramming Pacific Bell's computers for pimps and escort services, re-activating old telephone numbers and building a voice-mail network pairing prostitutes with their johns. And he cleaned up by messing with the phones used by Los Angeles radio stations, rigging their call-in contests so that he would always win the big bucks or the car. But Poulsen got caught and he spent more than five years in jail. Behind bars in 1993, Poulsen did what any phone phreak would do: He picked up the pay phone and started making collect calls. But these calls where different: they went to Jonathan Littman, a journalist in Mill Valley who had just published a magazine article about Poulsen's crimes and exploits and was about to write a book on the same topic. Poulsen wanted to make sure that Littman got the story right. He felt that Littman had made a lot of mistakes in the magazine article. Today, Poulsen feels somewhat betrayed by the journalist to whom he gave total access. After reading an advance copy of Littman's book, Poulsen says Littman has twisted the truth in order to make a more compelling story. "Most of my complaints about Littman's book are small things," said Poulsen, who is on parole and living in Sherman Oaks, a Los Angeles suburb. "He has major events right but then he changes the meaning of them by changing minor events and making up quotes." Littman stands by his work. The book, "The Watchman: The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen," is due to be published next month by Little, Brown and Co. It's an insider's look at the world of a criminal computer hacker, one of the most detailed yet published. "He was one of the first to hack the Internet and get busted for it," said Littman, referring to Poulsen's 1984 arrest for breaking into university computers on the ARPAnet, predecessor to today's Internet. "They decided not to prosecute him because he was 17" when he was arrested, Littman said. Instead, Poulsen was hired by a Silicon Valley defense contractor. "It was every hacker's dream -- to commit a crime and instead of going to jail, to get a job with what was a top think tank and defense contractor," Littman said. Soon, however, Poulsen was back to his old tricks -- with a vengeance, according to the book. He started physically breaking into Pacific Bell offices, stealing manuals and writing down passwords. Much of what he found went into a storage locker. But Poulsen couldn't handle his finances, and got behind in his rent. When the locker company broke open Poulsen's lock his stash was discovered and a trap was laid. As the FBI closed in, Poulsen left town, a fugitive on the run. Guilty plea He was caught June 21, 1991, and spent nearly three years in pre-trial detention. On June 14, 1994, in federal court in Southern California, he pleaded guilty to seven counts of computer fraud, interception of wire communications, mail fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He was then transferred to Northern California to face a spying charge, based on his possession of material the government called classified. He pleaded guilty to fraud, possession of unauthorized access devices and fraudulent use of a Social Security number, and was released June 4, last year. The Watchman is Littman's second book on the computer hacker underground. His first, "The Fugitive Game," followed the exploits of hacker Kevin Mitnick, who was on the run and eventually caught by computer security expert Tsutomu Shimomura and New York Times reporter John Markoff. Shimomura and Markoff wrote their own book describing the chase, and they both objected to Littman's version of the events. For his part, Poulsen seems most angry about the implication of the new book's title -- that he was somehow obsessed with eavesdropping and largely acted alone. Only two wiretaps In the book, Littman has Poulsen listening to dozens of conversations -- even wiretapping the telephones of people trying to sell used equipment through newspaper classified ads, to see if they are being honest with their prices. Poulsen insists that he wiretapped the telephones of only two people: another hacker who was also an FBI informant and his high-school girlfriend. "He also reports that I obsessively followed the details of every escort date, including details of the tricks," Poulsen says, among other complaints. "He made that up. Totally made that up." Littman denies making up quotes, and insists that everything in the book was told to him by one of the participants. "I've written a book about a very complicated story about controversial people who had very different versions of what happened," Littman said. "I've done the best I can to view them objectively. Somebody else might view them differently, and the participants obviously have a subjective perspective. My views are in the book." But Poulsen says that Littman's fundamental premise is flawed. "John had a problem in writing this book," Poulsen said. "He wanted to sell it as the troubled loner-hacker-stalker guy. The problem is I had five co-defendants and it is hard to portray someone as a troubled loner when you have five other people making it happen." Not a loner Ron Austin, Poulsen's friend and co-conspirator, agrees. "Littman has to write an interesting book, I guess," he said. "He downplays the role of a lot of people, but I think that's because he is writing a book about Kevin. My role is downplayed." Austin also said the role of Justin Petersen, a hard-rocking hacker and co-conspirator is underplayed. Austin, also on parole, said he is concerned that the controversy regarding Littman's portrayal of Poulsen might obscure some of the more important issues raised by Littman's book: That the FBI engaged in widespread wiretapping of foreign consulates in the San Francisco area, the FBI's apparent hiring of an informant to commit illegal acts on the agency's behalf, and that the FBI's apparent ability to decrypt files on Poulsen's computer that had been encrypted with the U.S. government's Data Encryption Standard, a popular data-scrambling algorithm. The FBI office in Los Angeles declined to comment on the Poulsen case. A representative of the FBI's Washington office said, "We normally do not comment on books that are coming out until we have had an opportunity to review the book." As a condition of his plea bargain, Poulsen is prohibited from discussing FBI wiretaps. Littman said he feels "lucky as a writer to have been able to spend some time with Poulsen and these other characters in the story." "One thing about Poulsen is he really had a very highly developed ethical model that he believed in," Littman said. "He found it challenged by his circumstances and the people he associated with. I found it fascinating to see how he resolved this age-old computer hacker ethic with a changing world." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:06:28 -0600 From: Simple Nomad Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 and Southwestern Bell's Solution It is very interesting that Southwestern Bell would be party to a complaint to the FCC about Internet users hogging their voice network resources, when they already have a solution that they are marketing. The complaint, before the FCC as CC Docket No 96-263, is a request for "per minute" pricing, is intended to get a chunk of data traffic, aka Internet access, off voice networks. But Southwestern Bell already has a plan to do just that. That's right, SBC Communications aka Southwestern Bell announced last January 14th in California that it had a solution to get data users off of voice networks and onto their own separate network. Internet/ Intranet Transport Services, or IITS, has been quietly tested with two ISPs in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area for months, and is now available in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, St. Louis, Kansas City, Topeka, Wichita, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Little Rock. Other areas in TX, OK, AR, KS, and MO are targeted for later this year. The service, aimed exclusively at ISPs, has several advantages for everyone: - Since Southwestern Bell maintains the modem pool, the ISP can get rid of modems. - Faster and more reliable connections for users since they no longer compete with voice network users. - SWB gets Internet users off their voice network and has a new revenue stream. - Eventually SWB could sell this to large companies that have home users. - Current support up to 33.6Kbps, with 56Kbps on the way. The technology, developed by Technology Resources Inc. (R & D for SBC) and Northern Telecom (Nortel), works like this -- IITS recognizes the call is a data call and redirects it at the originating switch to the appropriate ISP over a frame relay connection directly to the ISP, bypassing the voice network, being pumped in over 1.5Mbps (180 simultaneous users) or 45Mbps (5040 simultaneous users) lines. Pricing is a "per port" rate plus the monthly high speed pipe. All the ISP needs is a router that supports Layer 2 Forwarding protocol -- normal authentication takes place, and supposedly admins at ISPs can have some degree of control over their ports (knocking down a hosed user, set timers for inactivity). SBC wants to keep their "intelligent" switches that do this routing at about 75% capacity to leave room for "quick growth needs" as they arise. And since (by SBC's projections) the cost would save ISPs 20% over the old ISP-owned modem pool solution, it is expected to be an easy sell, especially for ISPs just starting up and not wanting to fork out the expense for buying and maintaining a modem pool. What SHOULD the target area be? California. By some estimates, 40% of the U.S.'s Internet activity starts or involves California. California residents have been complaining about access problems, several second delays before getting a dial tone after lifting the receiver, and calls not going through. THIS is the reason for the push for a "per minute" rate, and I would hope that the FCC would have enough sense to not honor CC Docket No 96-263 with anything except a statement that says "you have your own solution already, implement it". Now let's hope that CC Docket No 96-263 can be put behind us, since the dozens of players behind this odd request already have a solution developed, tested, and being implemented. Simple Nomad February 22, 1997 Nomad Mobile Research Centre ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:27:26 CST From: Jeffrey D. LaCoursiere Subject: Re: CC Docket No 96-263 and Southwestern Bell's Solution I have been to SWB's presentation of IITS, and I can tell you that we won't be using it if we can help it. I have enough trouble with Bell as it is, and I'll be !$#% if I am going to let THEM control the one thing that seperates ISP's today (IMHO), modem uptime. In addition, we do clever things with routing (proxy arp, switched ethernet behind modems, etc.) that will be impossible to reproduce using IITS. No SNMP access. No access to ARP tables. We also have some scalability concerns. All this aside, I think they will probably sell quite a few of them, especially if they force us into it. For example, I cannot get any more trunks in downtown Dallas until June. If I hit capacity in Dallas before then, what am I supposed to do? Their answer: IITS. Hmmm. If they are going to take the trouble to intelligently switch calls to the voice or data networks, I say put our PRI's on the data network and switch the calls to us exactly as they are switching them to the IITS equipment now. It would have the same effect, as far as seperating the modem calls from the voice network, and I would get to keep my modems. Even though IITS is up and running today, there are very few CO's that use the switching equipment needed to get the modem calls off the voice network. Even if I were to replace all of my PRI's with IITS, 90% of the callers into my service would still use up voice trunks. It will take time to deploy the switching equipment. Lastly, what the heck does Bell know about this business? We have all witnessed large ISP's growing very fast take big dips in customer satisfaction. What happens when IITS grows faster than they can handle it? Will I have to put up with their inability to handle the growth and quirks of something on the very bleeding edge of technology? While all my customers go elsewhere? I don't want to be the guinea pig myself. I would think most medium->large ISP's feel the same. Hell, it took a good year and a half to stabalize our service to my own satisfaction. So will it be an easy sell? Not to me. Not to horribly change the subject -- the FCC docket is the main idea here, and I agree that it should be shot down. But IMHO, IITS is _NOT_ the answer. Jeff LaCoursiere President FastLane Communications, Inc. ------------------------------ Subject: Hurdle Cleared in Pac Bell/SWBT Merger Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:13:44 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Hurdle cleared in phone merger But Pac Bell faces $590.5 million refund order By Howard Bryant Mercury News Staff Writer An administrative law judge of the California Public Utilities Commission Friday approved the $24 billion takeover of Pacific Telesis Group by Texas-based Southwestern Bell Communications Inc., but on the condition Pacific Bell first refund $590.5 million to customers. The proposed decision is the first major step toward what could be the nation's initial joining of regional Bell phone companies. Oral arguments over the decision begin March 14, and the full commission could vote on the takeover as early as March 18. It's expected the deal will ultimately be approved, and if that happens, the takeover will represent one of California's biggest utilities being owned by an out-of-state interest. In her ruling, Judge Kim Malcolm also said Pac Bell must continue its commitment to providing service in poor neighborhoods. Until they make a final decision, the five PUC commissioners can rewrite or reject the proposed decision, or instruct Malcolm to make another finding. Observers already say some major retooling of the proposed decision is likely, especially the $590.5 million refund figure. "If the commission adopts this proposed decision, it's a significant win for ratepayers," said Helen Mickiewicz, attorney for the PUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates. "But their track record tends to suggest that they will keep the refund amount to a minimum." State law requires merging utilities to refund to the public at least half the savings realized from any deal. The judge said that the takeover -- which came as a shocker when announced last April -- would garner savings of $1.181 billion. Her decision would return half that amount, to be paid to customers over a five-year period. PUC attorney Janice Grau said that while the $590.5 million represents a few cents refund on an average telephone bill for Pac Bell's 10 million customers, paying out nearly $600 million is a significant hit. It's not yet clear whether refunds would actually be paid to customers, or whether amounts would instead be credited on bills. It also remains to be determined how former customers might be affected. Contested figures Not surprisingly, Pac Tel's anticipated savings are in dispute. TURN, the San Francisco-based watchdog group, had asked the PUC to order a $1 billion refund, while the Office of Ratepayer Advocates had sought $2.1 billion. Pac Tel, meanwhile, had asked the PUC to grant only $200 million. "The proposed decision shortchanges ratepayers by a significant amount," said Tom Long, telecommunications attorney for TURN. "What the decision doesn't seem to reflect is that merging these two companies will cost more at first, but after five years, the full savings will start to kick in." Pac Tel executive vice president Dick Odgers said he was very disappointed by the judge's ruling, and that the proposed decision was a "gross overestimation" of Pac Bell's savings. The decision represents a mindset "many years behind the times," he said. If approved, Pac Bell will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Texas-based Southwest Bell. Out-of-state ownership of California's biggest telephone company is another clear sign -- perhaps the most concrete yet in California -- of a new era in telecommunications. The result of having the state's biggest phone company run by an out-of-state company, Long said, could be poorer customer service for Californians. "Telephone service is pretty fundamental to getting along in society," Long said. "And it is a cause of concern when the shots are being called from thousands of miles away." Added the PUC's Grau: "There is major concern that over time, the decisions about California's phone service will be made out of Texas." In fact, the PUC continues to grapple with that question. Rules of change This new era began last year with the signing of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, a bill that was designed in large part to spur competition and lower prices for telephone and cable television customers. In theory, markets closed to competition for decades would open and consumers would have unprecedented choice for various services. Reality so far, however, has been something different. Consolidation has been the operative word. In the year since the act was passed, none of the top players in regional phone markets have been challenged by competition, and three of the nation's top 10 telecommunications companies -- MCI, NYNEX and Pac Bell -- have agreed to be taken over by would-be competitors. "It is a source of big concern that local control over important companies is a thing of the past unless regulators halt it," Long said. "The telecomm act was supposed to promote competition, but it has had the perverse effect of starting this industry down the path of an oligopoly structure with a handful of giants controlling the industry." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:39:47 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: URL Correction For Article "SMS Database Searchable?" USA Global Link's Global 800 search engine can be found at http://www.thedigest.com/icb/, scroll down to "SEARCH FOR YOUR GLOBAL 800 NUMBER." Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #51 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 26 08:54:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA00267; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:54:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:54:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702261354.IAA00267@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #52 TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Feb 97 08:54:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 52 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson North York Goes to the (Phone) Polls (David Leibold) Bell Canada Seeks Charges For New/"Out of Book" 411 Requests (D. Leibold) Should I Switch to PCS From Traditional Cellular? (Rick Strobel) Wireless Local Telephone Service (Tad Cook) Call Waiting Caller ID Usability Surprises (Starwalker) Who Should Own Phone Numbers? (Judith Oppenheimer) VON/VoIP Industry Conference (von97@pulver.com) Re: URL Correction For Article "SMS Database Searchable?" (telone@shout) Re: SMS Database: Thanks, But No Thanks (Judith Oppenheimer) ISP Common Carrier Status (was Re: Cyber Promotions) (Stanley Cline) Re: Utah Selects 435 (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 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: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:42:06 EST From: David Leibold Subject: North York Goes to The (Phone) Polls One of the current controversies in the Toronto area involves the Ontario government's intention to amalgamate the six individual municipalities within Metro Toronto. A "megacity" of Toronto would be created within the 416 area code boundaries. The separate cities within Metro aren't taking their assimilation lying down, thus they have set up polls for the public to register their support or opposition to the megacity plans. North York is doing its referendum via phone. Eligible voters on the provincial electors list were mailed a 10-digit password number and instructions on how to vote via phone. Some elements of the phone vote: - a valid passcode can be used once for a vote (i.e. citizens cannot "vote early and often"). - vote began on 22nd February 8 a.m. local time - vote ends 3rd March 8 p.m. local time - poll number is on the (416) 872.**** "choke" exchange - TTY/TDD number available for those requiring this access (a (416) 296.**** number here) - English, French, Italian, Mandarin and Cantonese language voice prompts are available in the voting system - the vote is Yes or No to "Are you in favour of eliminating the City of North York and all other existing municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto and amalgamating them into a megacity?" - the documentation says the vote can be done "By Touch Tone or Rotary Phone" One concern that might arise with such a vote is that a PIN/passcode number could be traced to a voter and linked to the vote. That depends on the software used in the system. The referendum and passcode package carries a statement that the vote secrecy is guaranteed. {The Toronto Star} did report a glitch with respect to the rotary/pulse dial aspect of the vote (24 Feb 1997). The Star tested the line with rotary dial and found that this option resulted in a message that all lines were occupied and a request to call back later. The Star kept calling for 30 minutes with the same problems each call. I tried the line with pulse dial and did not encounter the occupied line problem. However, there were a few problems trying to get past the language selection (English 1, others 3). Dial-pulsing 1 kept returning to the English/Other voice prompt. After selecting the "other languages", then going back to English (by dial pulsing 9), things seemed to continue. Meanwhile, a North York election official has advised rotary/pulse dial voters to call on touch-tone equipment until the bugs are resolved, which is presumably in the works. Trouble is, many folks have kept rotary lines, especially since Bell Canada has grandfathered the old rotary line rates (at $2.55/month cheaper, as long as one doesn't move or upgrade to tone dialing). (ref: Tor. Star: "Low-tech phones a hang-up in high-tech vote", 24 Feb 1997) David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That sort of amalgamation is truly a very frightening thing. Here in the USA from time to time the large inner-city urban areas have tried to pull off that same sort of thing. In particular, the City of Chicago has in the past made overtures to gobble up all the suburbs and used such rationalizations as 'the suburbs should appreciate all the great things Chicago has to offer' and 'the suburbs would not exist if it were not for the main city ...' this latter argument ignoring the fact that some of the suburbs were incorporated earlier than the city itself back in the early 1800's. The way many of us look at it is that Winnetka and Wilmette would provide ninety percent of the tax base and the City of Chicago would use about ninety percent of the revenue. When this insane notion (of a mega-city) was last broached here a few years ago a standing joke was, "and who would govern this new mega- city? The Trustees of the Village of Kenilworth ..." Of course the answer is the Democratic machine in Chicago would run it all. I certainly hope the people in York, Ontario do not let this happen. I cannot imagine they would benefit by being forced to be part of Toronto, albeit that city is much nicer than Chicago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:50:27 EST From: David Leibold Subject: Bell Canada Seeks Charges For New/"Out of Book" 411 Requests Bell Canada, in a continuing quest for new and increased customer charges, has applied to the CRTC (Canadian telecom regulator) to apply directory assistance charges to requests for new or "out of book" number inquiries. Currently, requests for numbers already listed in the local phone book are chargeable; requests for new/changed listings are currently exempt from charges, as are requests for local numbers in exchanges outside the caller's home phone book area. A few other exemptions apply in certain cases ... for the time being at least. An example of "out of book" would be Toronto and Brampton - these exchanges have free local calling, but are covered by different directories. Traditionally, directories covering local exchanges outside a customer's home directory area have been provided free by Bell Canada. However, wording in the tariff application suggests that this may become yet another revenue source for the telco. The CRTC would decide in March whether to approve or reject the tariff application, or perhaps to begin a public notice proceeding. The tariff notice 5941 is posted on the CRTC website at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/proc_rep/telecom/wo_ntce/tariffe/1997/bell5941.htm David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Should I Switch to PCS From Traditional Cellular? Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 06:21:05 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. Cheaper rates, Caller-ID, 1st minute inbound free, voice mail, paging (available 4th qtr), longer battery life, et al. These are some of the reasons I'm considering switching to Sprint PCS which just went live in my area (Louisville, KY). Currently I use BellSouth Mobility. I don't travel often at all, so roaming is not a feature I need. Anyone care to comment on PCS versus standard cellular? I'm anxious to sign up for the new service, but would like to understand the pluses and minuses. Any pointers to other net resources on the subject appreciated. Thanks, Rick Strobel | | InfoTime Fax Communications | Fax-on-Demand | 502-426-4279 | & | 502-426-3721 fax | Fax Broadcast | rstrobel@infotime.com | Services | http://www.infotime.com | | ------------------------------ Subject: Wireless Local Telephone Service Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:32:03 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AT&T, grabbing for local phone customers, thumbs nose at copper wires By DAVID E. KALISH AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- AT&T Corp. wants to cut the cord on your local phone service. AT&T and other long-distance companies are working on wireless technologies that could provide local phone service nationwide while bypassing traditional copper-wire networks in towns and cities. Customers could use the same cordless phone to call from home, the supermarket and the car -- for only slightly higher rates than wired calls. While the service is at least several years away, the companies are hoping it will help seize local phone business from the Baby Bells and GTE Corp., and save money in the process. But the real winners could be consumers, analysts say. Several regional Bell companies also are working on the new mobile technology, promising competition that could drive down prices. The new phone service could be priced similarly to local calls, said Jeffrey Hines, a telecommunications analyst with NatWest Securities Corp. "That's the whole key." Since the services have yet to be launched, cost savings are a matter of speculation. People familiar with AT&T's plan told The Wall Street Journal on Monday that AT&T may charge as little as $10 a month as a flat fee to let a user of its new service make unlimited local phone calls from home. AT&T declined to comment, but its plans have been discussed for months among industry analysts, who say the largest long-distance company appears positioned to lead the way. The Journal reported that the AT&T technology uses a sophisticated electronic box to tie home telephones to the company's wireless network. The Journal said the box, which is 18-inches square and mounted on the side of a home, would sell for less than $300. "They have a massive outlet, their wireless network, which they are laying awake at night thinking of ways to leverage," said Jeffrey Kagan of Kagan Telecom Associates, an Atlanta-based consulting firm. AT&T isn't alone. Sprint PCS, a joint wireless venture of Sprint Corp., Tele-Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications, is "looking aggressively" at its own wireless local service, a spokesman said. While MCI Communications Corp. doesn't own a wireless network, it hopes to bypass local telephone wires through a venture with New York-based NextWave, which owns digital wireless licenses in 63 markets. In addition to customers, the Baby Bells could lose the access fees paid by the long-distance companies to lease their copper wires. Regional phone companies played down the threat, saying that the technology has yet to be tested and needs to overcome several roadblocks. Paul Miller, a spokesman for Philadelphia-based Bell Atlantic, questioned whether AT&T's wireless network could handle the extra traffic from local phone customers. Still, the Baby Bells aren't sitting idle. U S West Communications is testing a technology similar to AT&T's that would bypass its own copper-based network, said Peter Mannetti, head of the company's wireless division. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:47:48 -0500 From: Starwalker Subject: Call Waiting Caller ID Usability Surprises After hearing about the ability to now get caller-id info on a call-waiting tone, I called my LEC and sure enough, it was available to me, no additional charge over caller-id deluxe which I already have. Sign me up, I said! I pick up a new CID box with call waiting support, and hook it up. Because I have two lines in the house, and the CID box doesn't pass thru the 2nd line, there is no phone plugged into the box. So, I pick up my main line (which has my new Caller ID feature), and make an outgoing call, to my work's voice mail. Then I pick up a second phone, and on my second line, I call my main number. With my main number phone to my ear, I hear the familiar call-waiting tone, and a little extra chirp afterwards. My new Caller-ID box clicks, and ... nothing happens. To make the story short, according to BellAtlantic, Nortel, CIDCO, and BellSouth, Caller ID on Call Waiting only works if you are talking on the phone that is plugged into the Caller ID box. If you are on a different extension, the unit will not log the call. Why? Because you might hear the Caller ID info on the extension, and any noise you make might garble it; the box wants to mute your phone so this won't happen. If it can't, it won't signal the switch to send the CID data. IMHO, this makes the feature 90% useless. Personally, I don't mind hearing a few ascii characters over the phone in order to get the Caller ID info logged. If I talk or make noise and garble the data, then the box can display "Error," and it'll be my fault. But to say that when I'm in another room on another phone, you won't log the Call Waiting ID -- I feel that's a major loss of functionality. I'd love to find a manufacturer who has a box that will log these calls. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 09:22:08 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Who Should Own Phone Numbers? In Monday's Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition -- February 24, 1997, "The Telecom Deal Is Just a Start", By SCOTT BEARDSLEY, he discusses the World Trade Organization's telecom pact. He writes, in part: Equal access. This is the regulatory term for ensuring that consumers can switch easily to new carriers. How easily consumers can shop around will depend largely on the actual telephone number. Many customers, particularly businesses, are disinclined to change carriers if they have to change telephone numbers. So who should own the number, the operator or the customer? The U.K. regulator decided that number portability will be allowed. But most countries must make decisions not only on the principle, but also on who will pay for the costs of implementing and administering the portability. ------------------ He zooms right in on the focal aspect of the phone number, and the connection between portability and its logical consequence, ownership. Perhaps in light of such an unconnected observation, the concept of open market in phone numbers, both toll-free and others, doesn't seem so heretical. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:34:48 -0800 From: Pulver.Com Conferences Reply-To: von97@pulver.com Organization: Pulver.Com - http://www.pulver.com Subject: VON/VoIP Industry Conference April 1 - 3, 1997 Ritz-Carlton Hotel San Francisco, CA ----------------------- a pulver.com conference ----------------------- "The Voice of Telephony on the Net - shaping the VON industry since its inception" SPONSORS: Microsoft * Compaq * Lucent Technologies * Intel April 1-2 April 3 Conference Workshops WHO SHOULD ATTEND? CEOs, Presidents and Managing Directors of companies implementing VON technologies; PTTs, PTOs, RBOCs, LD/IXCs; Internet Access/Service Providers; Telecommunications companies, resellers; software companies; PC manufacturers; Venture Capitalists, Investment Bankers, Management Consultants. KEYNOTES: April 1 & 2 include: Vint Cerf, MCI Telecommunications David Farber, University of Pennsylvania Ron Vidal, MFS Worldcom John Ludwig, Microsoft Mike Po, Netscape Joe Mele, President, elemedia George Favoloro, Compaq Neil Starkey, DataBeam Corp, IMTC Colin Harrison, IBM Zurich Denis Aull, Lucent Technologies Mark Fisher, Pacific Bell Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert BREAKOUTS: April 1 & 2 include: Internet Telephony Forum Review of Current Technology Issues Effect of Internet Telephony on Business NextGen Telephony Fax over IP: Corporate Internet Solutions Patents & Speech Coders Internet Telephony & Consumer Entertainment Business Opportunities Webcasting Streaming Technologies & Trends / Issues Developing Audio/Video Content Realities of Net Broadcasting Content Push/Pull: NextGen of Content Delivery Business Conferencing Regulatory Access Charges Internet Telephony as a Global Norm? Local Loop Alternatives: Promise or Reality? WORKSHOPS - April 3 Post conference workshops will be offered to conference delegates. See the website for additional details and fees. LUCENT * COMPAQ * DATABEAM's H.323 * INTERNET TELEPHONY GATEWAY WORKSHOP * HOW TO REGISTER (and for more information): Online - http://www.pulver.com/von97/ Phone - 800.798.2928 408.354.3569 (Outside the US) Fax - 408.354.2571 Mail - pulver.com 20 N. Santa Cruz Los Gatos, CA 95030 Email - von97@pulver.com ------------------------------ From: telone@shout.net (Tel-One Network Services) Subject: Re: URL Correction For Article "SMS Database Searchable?" Date: 26 Feb 1997 00:09:36 GMT Organization: Tel-One To Judith Oppenheimer: I resent the fact that you are using this newsgroup as a method of promoting your own professional services. Most of us have affiliations with one telephone carrier or another - but most of us respect that this newsgroup is of a professional nature, catering to those professionsals who wish to discuss REAL issues, not trying to "sell" something. > USA Global Link's Global 800 search engine can be found at > http://www.thedigest.com/icb/, scroll down to > "SEARCH FOR YOUR GLOBAL 800 NUMBER." > Judith Oppenheimer > ICB Toll Free News > j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith has no connection with them, and she responds in the next message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:34:08 -0500 From: "J. Oppenheimer" Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Re: SMS Database: Thanks, But No Thanks ICB Toll Free News has no professional affiliation with USA Global Link; this was written in the context of reporting about a free Global 800 search engine that USA Global Link is offering. In the original article the URL was misquoted -- I believe you are referring to the correction I asked Pat to print. The URL leads to my site -- ICB Toll Free News (a free web zine), where I have a brief article about the search engine that links to the search engine itself. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: ISP Common Carrier Status (was Re: Cyber Promotions) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 00:40:56 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:32:57 EST, Danny Burstein quoted: > Cyber Promotions Inc. will launch the first bulk e-mail friendly > Internet provider in the nation on March 17. It will allow computer=20 > users to send millions of commercial ads -- also known as spam -- for > a single monthly fee. Spamford has been bounced from one backbone ISP to another, finally to land upon AGIS's network. Unlike other ISPs (including MCI, Sprint, and Digex) that deal with spam however slowly, AGIS *refuses* to respond to complaints about spam ISPs, claiming a "common carrier" status. Personally, I think the "common carrier" excuse is simply BS to allow spam to proliferate on its network. As of now, most of the major spammers have moved to AGIS to shield themselves from complaints or disconnection ... and in response, net-admins and users are starting to block IP packets and email originating from AGIS customers! Many in the net-abuse groups (including myself) have branded AGIS itself a "rogue ISP" -- putting them in the same group as Spamford, Lyle Larson [Micrologic/Earthstar], Jeff Slaton, etc. My question is: What exactly *is* ISPs' status as "common carriers" -- and why does AGIS claim it's legally incapable of controlling spammers, when *telco-owned* ISPs can and do cut off spammers? 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: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Utah Selects 435 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 03:09:08 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs. net wrote: > ...from the Salt Lake Tribune > AREA CODE 435: > Rural Utah Callers To Ring In Summer With a New Number > 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. The fact that area code 724 was already assigned may have played a small role in this decision as well. (724 will overlay 412 in western Pennsylvania later this year.) > 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. A little behind the times there. The 312/708 split is hardly news, and most of Chicago is no longer 312. As for San Francisco, the 415 area code "sloughed off" the South Bay back in 1959, to the "dreaded stigma" of area code 408. It is the Peninsula that will get 650 later this year. ** 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 #52 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 26 09:24:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA02890; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:24:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702261424.JAA02890@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #53 TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Feb 97 09:23:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Ready for Wireless Local Bypass in Colorado (Tad Cook) New Area Code Info from Bellcore (Tad Cook) More BellSouth Cellular Swaps (Stanley Cline) 311 For Police Non-Emergency Calls (Brian M Krupicka) This 800 Number is Really Out Of This World (Paul Robinson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at 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: AT&T Ready for Wireless Local Bypass in Colorado Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:22:14 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AT&T Seeks Approval for Local Wireless Telephone Service in Colorado By Kerri S. Smith, The Denver Post Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 26--AT&T is testing a wireless telephone system that it says can bypass U S West's network while providing faster, clearer local service to customers' homes. If it works, AT&T may be able to lure away 30 percent or more of local service customers from U S West and other Baby Bells, analysts said. The former long-distance company is part-way through the regulatory process required to offer local service in Colorado. Patents are pending on the new system, which includes neighborhood antennas beaming radio frequencies to a 13-inch box mounted on each customer's home. Each antenna could service up to 2,000 homes. Called "fixed" wireless because of the box fixed on the home's exterior wall, the system initially would provide each household with two phone lines and a high-speed Internet access line. The Internet access line would have a capacity of 128 kilobits per second, four times as fast as today's fastest modem. "This is great news, a fabulous idea, and if the technology works, it's going to be very good for the company," said Douglas Christopher, an analyst with Crowell Weedon & Co. in Los Angeles. "But does it work? We don't know yet. It's still early to say what's going to happen, because we`re still in the speculative stages of testing," Christopher added. In a Tuesday-morning conference call with reporters and analysts, AT&T president John Walter said the system worked well when tested at an apartment complex in Washington, D.C. Chicago trials already are under way, and will be expanded through that area into a full-scale test later this year, he said. Shortly before the conference call, Walter introduced the new system while addressing the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in Washington, D.C. He told the audience, which included Colorado utility commissioners Vincent Majkowski and R. Brent Alderfer, that special safety features make it harder for others to eavesdrop on conversations of fixed wireless calls. AT&T's new system would allow customers to use their cordless telephones anywhere -- at home, work or on the road -- without depending on copper wire or cellular networks, said Mary Beth Vitale, AT&T regional vice president of local service in Denver. While similar wireless systems are under development by U S West, MCI and other telecommunications companies, Vitale insists AT&T's technology is ahead of the pack. "This is brand-new technology and nobody else has it," Vitale said. "The difference is that we are using 10-megahertz slices of bandwidth and multiplying its capacity." But because the testing process is just beginning, it likely will be at least two or three years before fixed wireless is available to Colorado customers. AT&T won't wait for the new system to be up and running before offering traditional local service here, Vitale added. Until the new system is operating, AT&T will share U S West's network -- buying service from the former monopoly at wholesale rates and reselling it for retail -- and whenever possible, routing calls on its own fiber optic network, Vitale said. AT&T's stock barely budged in response to the news, dropping from $41.25 when the New York Stock Exchange opened Tuesday to $41.13 at the close of trading. That's not surprising, said David Allman, a telecommunications analyst with Elliott Wave International. "Regarding stock price, this news is pretty much a yawner; people are yawning at the announcement because new technology always promises big things and over time, those announcements turn out to be overstated," Allman said. "Only time will tell how good this technology is." New York analyst Scott Wright was more positive about fixed wireless' potential, saying its best feature may be that customers have to ask for it before the company spends money installing it. "Unlike the cable industry, where you have to lay a lot of cable down the street, then go back and convince people to take cable service, this product is demand-driven," Wright said. "The customer wants service, you roll a truck out and install the box on their house. It's a cost-effective way to do business. Wright also liked the flexibility the new system will give AT&T as it attempts to penetrate the local telephone market. "This gives them another arrow in their quiver -- they can do land lines or ride their own wireless network when it makes sense. It gives them a strategic advantage," he said. In response to AT&T officials' claims that fixed wireless customers will bypass the U S West network, making it unnecessary to pay access charges, U S West spokesman David Beigie deplored its competitor's "lack of interest in investing in the network." "For AT&T to say they are going around the Bell system is true to their pattern, of going around the network," Beigie said. "We believe the issue of competition is to encourage investment in the network." Vitale said AT&T and other competitors are required to contribute money to a universal fund that pays for maintenance and expansion of the existing network. Meanwhile, officials of Englewood-based U S West downplayed the significance of AT&T's announcement. "We are not intimidated at all by this offering from AT&T, because we have a wide range of similar personal communications service products that we'll roll out in Colorado this year," said Peter Mannetti, vice president and general manager of wireless products for U S West. ------------------------------ Subject: New Area Code Info from Bellcore Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:34:38 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Area Code Info (Including Maps) Available On The Web MORRISTOWN, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 25, 1997--Bellcore, the communications software and engineering company that also administers area codes in the United States, Canada, Bermuda and the Caribbean has made an up-to-date list of area codes, a series of maps, and other information available on its web site, www.bellcore.com/NANP/. The site also includes answers to the most commonly asked questions about area codes. `We've been on-line for a year now,` said Jim Deak, Bellcore's Manager-North American Numbering Plan (NANP) Administration. `But the demand for maps has been very strong from reporters, telecommunications people and just plain citizens. They can be downloaded, and they can be read with Adobe Acrobat(TM) software.` The maps on the site include maps showing: -Canadian area codes -U.S. area codes -Caribbean area codes -Close-ups of area codes in southern California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Bermuda, Guam and the Marshall Islands. `People want to see what the new area codes look like,` Deak said. `Of course, these maps are pretty high-level. They aren't going to show you the street-level boundary lines between area codes. But they will give you a general idea of where one area code ends and the neighboring one begins.` Bellcore's NANP web page also contains several lists of area codes. For example, there is a list of all the area codes in North America, arranged alphabetically and numerically. There is a list of all the area code changes that have taken place since January 1, 1995, and a shorter, continually updated list of area codes assigned since January 1, 1997. A person accessing these last two lists can click on a changed or changing area code and get more information about that particular change. `We hope that people will take advantage of this new resource and this new opportunity to help them understand how numbering works in North America,` Deak said. Bellcore, headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey, is a leading provider of communications software, engineering and consulting services based on world-class research. Bellcore creates business solutions that make information technology work for telecommunications carriers, businesses and governments worldwide. Bellcore has sales offices throughout the United States, and in Europe, Central and South America, and the Asia-Pacific region. On November 21, 1996, SAIC (Scientific Applications International Corporation) announced that it had agreed to purchase Bellcore once requisite regulatory approvals have been obtained. More information about Bellcore is available at its web site, www.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: More BellSouth Cellular Swaps Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:15:06 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com Seems BellSouth is doing yet more swapping of cellular markets! * BellSouth gains Dothan, AL and more share of GA-1 (Dalton) (they should own 100% of GA-1 soon) * 360 gains Richmond, VA (they already own most of the area *around* Richmond) and BellSouth's share in Tallahassee, FL system. This, along with the US Cellular swap and the PCS D/E/F licenses, leaves BellSouth with wireless coverage nearly everywhere in its landline region *except* south Georgia (Newnan, Columbus, Albany, etc.), Augusta GA, the Alabama Shoals area, and Polk County, TN (which BellSouth may gain when the FCC re-auctions off unserved areas.) I have *no* idea *what* BellSouth plans to do about South Georgia ... (Quite frankly, however, BellSouth is by no means dominant in south Georgia; ALLTEL and numerous independents are the main LECs. Maybe this is deliberate.) SC On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:37:47 -0500 (EST), BellSouth wrote: > BellSouth ...........................................February 24, 1997 > BellSouth, 360 Communications To Restructure Cellular Partnerships > In Florida, Georgia, Virginia and Alabama > ATLANTA/CHICAGO BellSouth Corporation (NYSE: BLS) and 360 > Communications Company (NYSE: XO) today announced that they have signed > definitive agreements to combine ownership interests in two cellular > partnerships and transfer interests in two markets. > Under terms of the agreements, which are subject to regulatory approval, > the two companies will combine ownership interests in two partnerships > that own and control cellular licenses and operations in Central Florida, > including Orlando, and in Richmond, Va. The resulting partnership will > be owned approximately 75 percent by BellSouth and 25 percent by 360. > NOTE: To obtain copies of 360's Form 10-K, 10-Qs, or copies of quarterly > earnings and other recent news releases issued by the company, please > call toll-free 1-888-360.INFO (1-888-360-4636), 24 hours a day, seven days a > week. 360 Communications' news releases are also available at no charge > by calling 1-800-578-7888, #111849. 360's Internet address is > http://www.360.com.=20 > Margaret Kirch Cohen > 360 Communications Company > 773-399-2385 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: Mon, 24 Feb 97 09:41:38 CST From: Brian M Krupicka Subject: 311 For Police Non-Emergency Calls 311 Non-Emergency Dialing Application Programming Printed: February 21, 1997 The new 311 Non-Emergency number is starting to go into effect in several areas of the country. This new number was requested by President Clinton last year and was just approved for use in the North American Dialing Plan. The intention of this new number is to remove non-emergency telephone traffic from the 911 response number and still be easily remembered anywhere in the country, like 411, 611, and 911 are today. It will take several years of education to get people to dial the new non-emergency telephone number. It has already reduced traffic to the 911 operators in those locations where it is available. The Naperville Illinois Central Office by Ameritech does NOT provide for routing of 311 traffic at this time. In an effort to minimize confusion with our on-campus users, the following steps were taken to implement this feature in the North Central College telephone system. The North Central College telephone system is a Rolm 9751 9006. The telephone system was programmed to route both 9-311 and 311 dialed calls. Programming was done in two sections. The first being calls routed via LCR (ie: 9-311) and the second by callers dialing 311. The following is for LCR routing programming: The first requirement was to establish a LCR OUTDIAL RULE (ODR number 5). This was done so a call routed by dialing 9-311 would be directed to the seven digit non-emergency number for the Naperville Emergency Services responsible for the North Central College campus. The second step was to program the LCR ROUTE DEFINITION TABLE (LROUT 4). We elected to route the calls out the colleges PRI trunks and overflow to the Central Office trunks. This route was assigned the lowest AUTH (5) in our system plan. Since we had a unique ODR, we set up a different LROUT. The third step was to program the LCR DIALING PLAN (LDPLN 257). This also was programmed with the lowest AUTH in our telephone system plan and directed calls to LROUT 4. The following are programming examples of the call routing via LCR access. Each sites programming will differ. DIS-LODR RANGE = 5 DIS-LODR:5; H500: AMO LODR STARTED << DISPLAY LCR OUTDIAL RULE >> ODR NO COMMAND BRANCH VALUE ------ ------- ------------ 5 OUTPULSE 4206666 END -------- END OF DISPLAY -------- AMO-LODR -173 AMO LCR ODR FOR SWITCHING UNIT DISPLAY COMPLETED; DIS-LROUT ROUTE = 4 DIS-LROUT:4; H500: AMO LROUT STARTED LCR ROUTE DEFINITION TABLE -------------------------- ROUT EL TRK MGR ---SCHEDULES--- AO AU ON OFF ODR APL INFORMN TRK SCC SVC SVC NUM EM GRP IDX A B C D E F G H RT TH Q Q NUM TYP TRS CAP SIG ID VCE N-V ---- -- --- ---- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- --- ---- --- ------- --- --- --- --- 4 1 3 1 X 1 5 N N 5 V S PRI NON NON 2 2 2 X 1 5 N N 5 V S CO NON NON END OF LCR ROUTE DEFINITION TABLE DISPLAY AMO-LROUT-173 ROUTE DEFINITION DETERMINATION PACKAGE DISPLAY COMPLETED; DIS-LDPLN PLAN = 257 DIS-LDPLN:257; H500: AMO LDPLN STARTED OUTPUT DISPLAY FORMAT ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |DIGIT PATTERN : 9-311 |AREA CODE FIELD IDX : NONE PLAN NUMBER: 257 |OFFICE CODE FIELD IDX: NONE |TYPE OF NUMBER : NATIONAL |NUMBERING PLAN ID : ISDN_TELEPHONY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DIGIT ANALYSIS GROUP : 0 ROUTE : 4 ACCOUNT FLAG : USER AUTHORIZATION : 5 AMO-LDPLN-173 AMO LCR DIALING PLAN FOR THE SWITCHING UNIT DISPLAY COMPLETED; The following is for callers dialing 311: We tried several different approaches and all had mixed options. We selected the following, that defines an analog station number (Prime DN) as 311 and then manually established call forwarding to a predetermined off-site number. The first step was to create a Class-of-Service (COS 18) which had the Call Forward To The CO (CFWCO) feature assigned to it. The second step was to create an analog station with a directory number of 311 (SCSU 311). We also programmed the lowest AUTH (5) in our system plan and programmed the PUBSCR filed with our main campus telephone number (ie: 6306375100). The third step was to install an analog telephone on the PEN and use the variable call forwarding feature code (ie: #91) to program the destination number for Naperville Non-Emergency Services (VAR CFW 94206666). DIS-COS TYPE = 18 M33: VALUE TYPE DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO TYPE IN VALUE TABLE TYPE = COS COS = 18 DIS-COS:COS,18; H500: AMO COS STARTED +------+------------+------------+------------+ | COS | VOICE | DTE | FAX | +------+------------+------------+------------+ | 18 | | | | | | CFWCO | | | | | MDR | | | | | | | | +------+------------+------------+------------+ AMO-COS -173 CLASSES OF SERVICE, SWITCHING UNIT DISPLAY COMPLETED; DIS-SCSU STNO = 311 TYPE = ALL DIS-SCSU:311,ALL; H500: AMO SCSU STARTED STNO 311 NAME - ACT DEV COS1 18 COSX 0 DIAL DTMF DLIDX - DEVFUNC ANATE COS2 18 SPDC1 - DPLN 0 TA N PEN 1-3-109-9 LCRCOSV1 5 SPDC2 - HTLNIDX - TADLIDX - PUBSCR 6306375100 LCRCOSV2 5 SPDI N ITR 0 TAINS - ACTCDE 0000000000 LCRCOSD1 - HANDSFR - SPECL - ACCLASS - NTYPE - LCRCOSD2 - INS Y PUGRP - QPRIOR - RPTYPE DSSALERT - DTS N STD - FAXSERV N HDSTYPE NWBALNO - CDIDX - WINKOFF N SEIZE - DTE DL VER CFWDV Y CFWDD N DND N CALLWAIT N VCE DL VER 0 VCP - MSGWLMP - PHONMAIL N COMGRP - DNIDSP - FIXED CFW1 - FIXED CFW2 - VAR CFW 94206666 STATION-HUNT N UCD-HUNT N PILOT-HUNT N NIGHTVARIANT N AMO-SCSU -173 SUBSCRIBER CONFIGURATION IN THE SWU DISPLAY COMPLETED; Once the Ameritech Central Office is programed for 311 dialing capability, we can reprogram the LCR routing to use the normal LCR Route Definition Table for all local calls. However, we will still need to maintain the caller's ability to dial 311. This will prevent having any extension numbers in the range of 3110 through 3119. Brian Krupicka Telecommunication Manager North Central College 630-637-5451 ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: This 800 Number is Really Out Of This World Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:51:46 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software In the motion picture, "Super Mario Brothers", based loosely on the Nintendo video game, two plumbers cross over into an underworld in another dimension to help a princess who is being terrorized by an evil despot. As it turns out, the despot discovers the two plumbers have crossed over and encourages residents of the underworld to report if they have seen them, and offers a reward for calling in. As it turns out, the "wanted poster" in this movie actually lists a number for people in the underworld to call in and make reports: 1-800-776-9753 So it made me wonder, what happens if someone calls it from the "real" world (ours.) Nothing! The number does not even click after it is dialed! It simply goes to silence, as if it is attempting to connect to ... Nowhere. Even after a full minute on the line, it's still dead silent. Maybe it really IS going to another world... :) I thought this was cute, myself. Paul Robinson Evergreen Software Home Page coming soon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #53 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Feb 27 09:02:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA22010; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:02:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:02:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702271402.JAA22010@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #54 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Feb 97 09:02:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 54 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pedophiles on the Net (Tad Cook) To the FCC, on Local Charges and Data Service Pricing (Randolph Fritz) UCLA Short Course: "Spread Spectrum Wireless Communications" (Bill Goodin) Bellcore NANP WWW Pages (John R. Grout) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at 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: Pedophiles on the Net Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:48:39 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Drake Witham Knight-Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON -- In early February, police say, a man here ended three months of increasingly suggestive on-line chat with a 13-year-old boy in California and flew across the country to arrange a sexual encounter with the child. But when he arrived at a Huntington Beach restaurant for a face-to-face meeting with the boy, he was instead arrested by local vice officers. That reckoning is clearly an exception in the freewheeling world of cyber-chat, where growing numbers of young Americans are spending hours sitting at keyboards talking intimately with strangers. Police efforts to rein in on-line sexual predators face daunting legal, technical and financial challenges. Pursuing them is so difficult, and some critics wonder just how serious the problem is. To be arrested, pedophiles must transmit obscene images of provable minors or step out from behind their keyboards and solicit sex from a child in person. "It takes about 30 seconds to find a hard-core conversation or full-color image and six months to build a case," said Sgt. Nick Battaglia of the San Jose (California) Police Department. "And then you can find out the guy you've been talking to all along lives in Australia." If the predators are elusive, their prey is right at home. Nearly six million kids under 18 regularly use the Internet, up from 1.1 million in 1995, a recent study estimates, and chat rooms are their favorite hangouts. "Children love e-mail and they love chat," said Tom Miller, who conducted the study for the private Emerging Technology Research Group. "The curiosity is such a part of their natural profile." One recent afternoon America Online, the most widely used on-line service, had more than 400 public chat lobbies open, each with more than 20 talkers; more than 50 "member rooms," many with sexually suggestive labels, filled to capacity; and an unknown number of private rooms. Much of the explicit talk kids encounter in those rooms would shock or frighten parents. What's more shocking to some is that it's legal for an adult to write sexually explicit messages to children on line. "It's kind of like a verbal orgy," said Nan McCarthy, who has been hanging around on line for 10 years researching her recently published novel "Chat." "These people in live chat rooms don't spend a lot of time on foreplay." Only a few local police departments across the country routinely conduct on-line sex crime investigations, though some others have worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an ongoing national effort. A successful investigation requires large sums of money for high-tech computer equipment, many man hours and officers who can present themselves as children or pedophiles. To pull off the recent sting in Huntington Beach, an officer had to strain his voice to sound like a 13-year-old and dupe the man into a meeting. The suspect, a 39-year-old employee of the National Academy of Sciences, will be arraigned March 13. Most on-line pedophiles aren't caught. "We think of child victimization as this big monster hiding under the bridge, but it's not like that," said Peter Banks, training director for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "They charm kids. They're very good at what they do." "The Internet has got to be the pedophile's dream come true. They can stalk children without any concern of being seen," said Cheryl Kean of Rochester, N.Y. She has not had contact with her 13-year-old daughter since she disappeared in December with a 22-year-old man she met on the Internet. Just how much sex crime is actually perpetrated using the Internet is impossible to estimate. The missing-children center says it has documented more than 50 cases of child abductions by predators who gained the trust of children with sweet talk on the Internet. Most of those children have since been located. Dr. Ira Rosen, a child psychiatrist and physician from Dayton, Ohio, who has worked with abused children for decades, says the new technology clearly has made pedophilia easier. But he believes it's unlikely that the number of people with the problem are growing. "It's certainly more visible," said Dr. Jonathan Freedman, a clinical sociologist in Atlanta and former education director for the Hutchings Psychiatric Center in Syracuse, N.Y. In the unregulated chat section of the Internet called the Internet Relay Chat -- or IRC -- evidence of pedophilia is frighteningly visible. A large array of individuals is almost always there, trading electronic images of nude children -- sometimes engaged in horrifying acts -- across state and national borders. In California last year, two men held a "pedo party" in which they photographed a 10-year-old girl in explicit poses and transmitted, in real time, the images to users in other states and Finland. They even took requests. Authorities in Minnesota discovered last fall that two inmates compiled a list of addresses and physical descriptions for 2,000 children, and sent it beyond prison walls and over the Internet. Inspired by the Internet-related abduction and murder of a Maryland child in 1993, the FBI launched an operation called Innocent Images in 1994. Agents in 52 of the bureau's 56 field offices have since prowled on line, using suggestive log-on decoys like "horny15bi" and racy conversations to identify potential pedophiles in 46 states. Agents have had the most success thus far posing as adults looking for sexually explicit images of children. To date there have been 237 searches, 112 formal charges, 87 arrests and 78 convictions out of Innocent Images, according to Larry Foust, a spokesman in the FBI Baltimore field office. Agents in a branch of that office run the FBI's Internet sex sting operation. Kimberly Kellogg, a criminal defense attorney in Kansas City, Kan., handles about 20 pedophilia cases a year and says on-line law enforcement techniques may be entrapment. "It may not be your true pedophile but someone who is just curious," she said. "If the FBI is setting this up, I would think there is an excellent chance of proving entrapment." Lt. Dan Johnson, a vice squad officer in Huntington Beach, disagrees. "In order to entrap someone you have to put the idea in their head and make it so attractive that a normally law-abiding citizen would want to do it," Johnson said. "How do you make it attractive to have sex with a 13-year old?" Even the most ardent defenders of free speech on the Internet stop short of condoning child exploitation, but are concerned the search for pedophiles could eventually lead police to overstep constitutional boundaries. "For the FBI to go in and entice people, masquerading in this game playing, this is likely to extend into other areas. I could see it very easily with the militia movement," said David Sobel, legal counsel for the Electronic Privacy and Information Center. "I think it's a strange way to use limited law enforcement resources." Even some officers who conduct on-line investigations question the need for such operations. Detective Tom Polhemus of the Fairfax County Police Department in Northern Virginia said Internet investigations put the emphasis in the wrong place. "That's not how kids are being abused," said Polhemus, who handles child exploitation cases. "They're being abused by your best friend, your friendly neighbor, your husband. If the Internet is all we worried about, we'd be sitting here all day eating doughnuts." Just what can or should be done to make the Internet less menacing to children remains a divisive question. Last year Congress made it illegal to transmit any sort of sexually explicit message to children. Critics said the new law violated basic principles of free speech and was so vague that it might shut down sites for Playboy magazine and Planned Parenthood. Last June, a federal appellate court in Philadelphia agreed, striking down the measure on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court will decide the case this spring. Meanwhile, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress that would require Internet service providers to offer software that could be used to block sexual and violent images. But Internet experts say such efforts are futile because of the technology's basically open structure. Complicating the problem is the varied nature of the on-line world. The largest numbers of on-line users connect through structured commercial sites like America Online, CompuServe and Prodigy. America Online offers parental controls to determine which sites, newsgroups and chat rooms their children can use, and offers guidelines for all users on keeping safe on-line. But it also is clear that it is easy and common for libidinous adults to meet children in these services, despite such safeguards. "Parents can control everything from web access to newsgroups to e-mail. Chat rooms generally have a guide in them and guides can be paged 24 hours a day," said Andrew Graziani, a spokesperson for America Online. "But we're not monitoring private messages." The Internet and the Internet Relay Chat are more difficult to police. There is no normal commerce on the IRC and thus no providers to share the burden of protecting children. And dozens of sites selling access to sexual images and chat on the Internet appear and disappear with startling speed. Software with names like Net Nanny and Cybersitter designed to screen kids from such sites is increasingly popular. Since January 1995, Surfwatch has sold three million copies of a program that blocks access to 25,000 adult sites and can be tailored by parents. "It's a nice alternative. There's a value for law enforcement, but we favor a more preventative approach," said Jay Friedland, co-founder of Surfwatch. But Friedland also points out that parents can't rely solely on software, because kids are often more savvy then their parents about computers and can find a way around protective programs. + + + + Related Internet sites include: http://www.yahooligans.com http://www.cyberangels.org/chatsmarts.html, http://www.cyberangels.org/AOLsmarts.html http://www.cyberstalker.org http://www.nvc.org/ddir/info44.htm ------------------------------ From: randolph@teleport.com (Randolph Fritz) Subject: To the FCC, on Local Charges and Data Service Pricing Date: 26 Feb 1997 15:42:01 -0800 This is what I suggested to the FCC regarding their proposed internet access rate changes. A much more serious issue--and one worth a great deal of attention--is that the FCC is considering major reforms in the whole area of information service pricing. They are, in other words, reconsidering their Computer Inquries. I believe this is needed--but given the current government and regulatory climate, I expect a great deal of pressure to design the system in such a way as to favor large-scale business. This comment, therefore, contains my suggestions as to how to deal with the larger issues. If you feel you have something to contribute to this debate I strongly suggest that you do so. See: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html For details, paragraphs 311-318 of the Notice are the relevant ones. Also, if you know any news groups and mailing lists appropriate to such discussion, please let me know their names. Randolph Fritz randolph@teleport.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:36:56 -0800 (PST) From: Randolph Fritz To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Regarding CC Docket No. 96-263 (fwd) Randolph Fritz 24 February 1997 The FCC at their e-mail address, isp@fcc.gov Gentlefolk: In answer to your NOTICE OF INQUIRY ON IMPLICATIONS OF INFORMATION SERVICE AND INTERNET USAGE, docket 96-263. In the NOI we have: 313. Many of the concerns now being raised about switch congestion caused by Internet usage arise because virtually all residential users today connect to the Internet -- a packet-switched data network -- through incumbent LEC switching facilities designed for circuit-switched voice calls. The end-to-end dedicated channels created by circuit switches are unnecessary and even inefficient when used to connect an end user to an ISP. We seek comment on how our rules can most effectively create incentives for the deployment of services and facilities to allow more efficient transport of data traffic to and from end users. We invite parties to identify means of addressing the congestion concerns raised by incumbent LECs, for example by deploying hardware to route data traffic around incumbent LEC switches, or by installing new high-bandwidth access technologies such as asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) or wireless solutions. The problem breaks into two parts: first, how to maintain the voice network in the face of the new type of usage presented by current internet users and second, how to develop new higher-performance services. Given the growth of the internet, it seems appropriate to begin treating internet modem access as simply another type of basic service. Since the growth in the service has led to substantial increases in LEC revenues, and since the LECs have ignored the emerging service, I find it appropriate that LECs be required to deploy technologies that would route internet traffic around their existing switches to existing ISPs. This would make very small changes to the users of those services, and would alleviate any concerns with congestion. I see no reason to reward the LECs for, basically, bad planning and customer service. Indeed, despite heavy penalties in switch loading for not deploying such services, the LECs are apparently simply ignoring this potentially lucrative service. I see, basically, no reason to grant the LECs any regulatory relief at all -- let them clean their own houses! In this connection I regard high-bandwidth access services as a red herring: it will take at least five years, and more likely a decade to deploy such services and numerous current users will need to upgrade their equipment to make use of them. High-bandwidth access services will not alleviate the present load on the network unless they are very inexpensive indeed and, if they are at all costly, would lead to substantial expenses for current internet users. I do see a public interest in developing new, high-performance data services and some regulatory relief, in the form of allowing the LECs substantially higher profits for building and deploying faster public access services, seems appropriate. However, there is no reason to charge current rate-payers for the immense capital investment required: let the LECs raise capital the way any other business does. Since the LECs have a long history of killing such services by over-pricing and under-deploying them (consider ISDN), some encouragements to make such services widespread and moderately priced might be appropriate. The current division in our rules between basic and enhanced services may not accurately capture the types of companies that provide information services today, and the manner in which these companies use incumbent LEC facilities. There are many kinds of information services, with different usage patterns and effects on the network. For example, arguments about network congestion caused by long hold-time calls would not seem to apply to information services such as telemessaging or credit card validation. We seek comment on whether we should distinguish between different categories of information or enhanced services. In addition, several companies now provide software that allows a voice conversation to be conducted over the Internet. Such "Internet telephony" allows what appears to be a basic service -- voice transmission -- to take place over a packet-switched interactive data network that we have traditionally considered to be an enhanced service. We seek comment on how new services such as Internet telephony, as well as real-time streaming audio and video services over the Internet, should affect our analysis. Over the past 20 years, "basic service" has been quietly converted to a switched 56-kilobit digital network -- only the customer connection remains analog. Increasingly, this is in turn carried over a flexible frame or packet digital network. It makes sense, therefore, to redefine basic service in terms of bandwidth and delay properties, without reference to voice, and enhanced service in terms of services above and beyond that basic information transport service. There need to be market mechanisms designed to both pay for and charge these services. Our local telephone services appear to me to have all the problems of badly regulated monopolies; they are cutting services and raising prices, secure in the belief that the customers have no good alternatives. The internet as it stands is now experiencing a different sort of market failure: an inadequate pricing mechanism, where prices and costs are disconnected. For instance, there is no financial incentive to provide quality backbone service, nor currently any way to charge for such a service. Nor are local ISPs in a position to return such charges to their customers--customers are billed for their use of ISP resources, but not the ISP's backbone resources. Unsurprisingly, the public internet is now undergoing a race to the bottom; the only thing that keeps service levels at all tolerable is the intense competition between the smaller ISPs, and that same competition is likely to soon lead to their demise, leading, I fear, to the grungy bus line on the information superhighway. :) An ideal solution would maintain the current low-bandwidth, high-delay services (e-mail, Usenet, public file archives) as free or very inexpensive, while charging a fair rate for the more bandwidth-hungry, low-delay services like voice, video, the fancier sort of web sites, and so on. I believe this is achievable; the demands of the current services are so small relative to the likely demands on the net that they could reasonably be offered as free, or at very low cost. If the network is designed to carry a substantial amount of video, it is even possible that voice service might be made as inexpensive as e-mail currently is. There are two classes of problems here: economic and technical. The technical side should certainly be left to the current internet designers; for the economic side I strongly suggest you bring in consultants who will devise a mixed economic model; one which both can and will be regulated but does not need continuous regulatory attention. Economic consultants should be consumer-oriented; there is every reason to prevent the various interests from creating a government-sponsored monopoly. Also, the economists and engineers need to work together; the best economic model will fail if it ignores engineering reality, and the best network designs will fail if no-one can figure out how to pay for them. The digital revolution presents both enormous possibilities and difficulties. With leadership and luck, I believe we will arrive in the 21st century with a high-quality information infrastructure. Randolph Fritz Networking consultant randolph@teleport.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: "Spread Spectrum Wireless Communications" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:54:00 -0800 On May 28-30, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Spread Spectrum Wireless Communications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Babak Daneshrad, PhD, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA, and Zoran Kostic, PhD, MTS, Wireless Communications Systems Research Department, AT&T Bell Laboratories. Spread spectrum data communication has seen a revival in recent years. Two of the main driving forces behind its current interest have been the opening of the ISM bands by the FCC in the mid-1980s and the standardization of the IS-95 (CDMA) U.S. digital cellular standard. Currently available wireless LAN products operating in the ISM bands are based on either direct sequence or frequency-hopped spread spectrum technology (WaveLAN, RangeLAN, etc.). Spread spectrum systems are also being used in the implementation of wireless local loops (AirTouch) as well as for digital cellular communications where field trials and limited service are already being offered in various sites in the U.S. and Asia. With recent announcements by PrimeCo (PCS consortium, Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, etc.) regarding its intent to use a CDMA-based system for its future PCS network, it is expected that spread spectrum communication will become more prominent and that the technology is here to stay. Intended for individuals involved in CDMA product design and system deployment, this course provides a foundation for the design of direct-sequence spread spectrum systems (DSSS) for wireless communications. A wide range of issues are covered, ranging from system (cellular) engineering to hardware design and partitioning. The course is motivated by the IS-95 (CDMA) U.S. digital cellular standard -- one of the more complex DSSS systems in existence today. As such, all parts of the standard relating to the physical layer as well as the MAC layer protocols are covered. The course also provides a thorough treatment of the wireless channel and mechanisms involved in radio wave propagation. The course begins with an overview of the cellular industry and the differentiating factors between the various cellular standards, followed by an introduction to the mechanisms of code division multiple access (CDMA), its limitations, and the concepts in the IS-95 standard to overcome them. Physical layer issues are discussed, such as the importance of timing synchronization among users, as well as the CRC, coding, and interleaving schemes used in the IS-95. Key issues in the implementation of a typical IS-95 transceiver are also examined. The course fee is $1295, 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. ------------------------------ From: j-grout@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Bellcore NANP WWW Pages Date: 26 Feb 1997 17:44:49 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu Bellcore, the company that administers the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), has a set of WWW pages containing a list of area codes, a series of maps, and other information on the NANP. The URL is: http://www.bellcore.com/NANP John R. Grout j-grout@uiuc.edu Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #54 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Mar 1 13:16:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA27565; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 13:16:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 13:16:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703011816.NAA27565@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #55 TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Mar 97 13:15:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Email Flood Causes Lost Messages (TELECOM Digest Editor) NYC to add 646 NPA in 1998 (John Cropper) ITU UIFN Database Shut Down to the Public (Judith Oppenheimer) California Accuses Prepaid Card Company (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Person to Person on the Internet" (Rob Slade) NYNEX Confirms 646 for Manhattan (Linc Madison) Book Review: "Web Visions" by Marlow (Rob Slade) Sprint, Contracts and Trustworthiness (John Many Jars) NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month (Dave Nye) 3Com Buying US Robotics (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 08:33:36 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Email Flood Causes Lost Messages On Thursday for several hours I was subjected to a flood of email from digex.net -- literally thousands and thousands of items, all nonsense caused by a mail loop -- and this so badly overran the mail spool here that a large number of legitimate items will never be recovered. I had to spend several hours on Friday just digging through the spool of stuff deleting stuff, hundreds of messages at a time, the way one would use a bucket to try to bail out a sinking boat in the ocean. You may have noticed something wrong if you sent me mail on Thursday or Friday and got an autoreply with a receipt numbered in the thousands. I saved what mail I could, and now have digex.net blocked out from reaching me. PAT ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: NYC to add 646 NPA in 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:08:59 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net From NYNEX: February 28, 1997 CONTACT: Steve Marcus (212) 395-0500 Manhattan To Get Second Area Code, 646, Next Year As Heavy Demand Rapidly Uses Up Supply Of Telephone Numbers In 212 (NEW YORK) -- Manhattan will need a second area code in 1998 because a sharp increase in the demand for telephone numbers from NYNEX's customers and competitors is rapidly using up the supply of numbers in the 212 area code. In addition, the 917 area code, which is used primarily for cellular phones and pagers in Manhattan and the other four boroughs in New York City, is expected to run out of numbers in 1999. NYNEX plans to use 646 for the new area code in Manhattan for all services, including cellular phones and pagers. "We are running out of numbers in the 212 area code because of the demand for additional telephone numbers from our business and residence customers in Manhattan and from the growing number of telephone companies that are offering local exchange service in competition with NYNEX," said Arnold Eckelman, NYNEX's executive vice president and group executive for New York. "In the past four years, the demand for numbers in the 212 area code has more than tripled," Eckelman said. In a report submitted today (2/28) to the New York Public Service Commission, NYNEX outlined three options for adding the new area code: -- A geographic split in which Manhattan would be divided along a physical boundary line such as 42nd Street or Fifth Avenue. All customers on one side of the boundary would be assigned to the new area code but would keep their existing seven-digit telephone numbers. All customers on the other side of the boundary would remain in the 212 area code and there would be no change at all in their telephone numbers. -- Transferring telephone numbers in a portion of the 212 area code, such as northern Manhattan, into the 718 area code. This method was used in 1993 when the Bronx was transferred from the 212 to the 718 area code. -- An overlay in which the new area code would be applied to the same geographic area served by the 212 area code. Under this option, no customers in Manhattan would have to make any change in their current telephone numbers or area code. Anyone ordering a new telephone line would be given a number in the new area code. This method was used when the 917 area code was introduced in 1992 to ease the demand for numbers in the 212 area code. It was also used nationally last year to implement a second, toll-free area code -- 888 -- when the 800 service area code ran out of numbers. NYNEX said in its report to the PSC that "the introduction of a new area code in New York City can affect telephone calls made by millions of New Yorkers and the businesses that operate in the city." Therefore, the report said, "all potential solutions need to be weighed for their impact on these telephone users." The report, in analyzing the three options for implementing the new area code, recommends the overlay. For customers, this option would be the least disruptive and least expensive and would provide the longest period of time before the supply of telephone numbers in Manhattan would run out again, the report said. NYNEX will hold a series of industry forums to discuss the proposed options with other telephone companies that operate in New York and to obtain their views and recommendations. In addition, NYNEX will provide a variety of opportunities -- including focus groups, advisory panels and community meetings -- for consumers to present their views. The PSC will conduct Public Statement Hearings and Educational Forums to enable the public to participate in the decision process. After those hearings, the PSC will select the option that will be used to implement the new area code. The commission is expected to act by September 30th. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:44:12 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: ITU UIFN Database Shut Down to the Public The ITU suddenly decided to restrict public access to the UIFN database at its internet site on Wednesday -- taking down USA Global Link's access with them. According to the ITU, (1) businesses were prematurely advertising their numbers; and (2) public access was restricted to avoid "abuse." I've seen no evidence of premature advertising, or "abuse" (?). In all likeliness (based on their standard modus operandi), the larger carriers pressured the ITU to shut down public access. It's too bad -- for a brief enlightened moment, telecom managers and marketers could plan intelligently, and avoid adding to the 2,000 plus conflicts already burdening the ITU. Perhaps the ITU will see the light, and reopen public access. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ Subject: California Accuses Prepaid Card Company Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:12:30 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) State accuses pre-paid phone card company of pyramid scheme OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Law enforcement officials have accused a national phone card business of running a pyramid scheme that duped thousands of investors. Destiny Telecomm Inc. promised impossible riches to its investors, state and local prosecutors charged in a $20 million lawsuit against the company. The 18-month old company, based in Oakland, sells long-distance pre-paid phone cards and has distributors nationwide. Its president, Randy Jeffers, denied the allegations. Albert Shelden, the state's deputy attorney general, said law enforcement officials believe Destiny is operating "an illegal endless-chain scheme." He said a civil complaint alleges Destiny's marketing employees are compensated according to their ability to get new employees to buy their way into the company, not according to sales of products or services. He said attorneys general in North Carolina and Michigan have filed similar complaints against Destiny and other states are also investigating the company. The California complaint alleges the company is violating the state's laws against misleading advertising and unfair competition. Investigators conducted a search of Destiny's Oakland headquarters Thursday. A day earlier, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Sandra Margulies issued a temporary restraining order authorizing the search. The order also froze Destiny's assets. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:52:04 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Person to Person on the Internet" by Reiner/Blanton BKPTPINT.RVW 961114 "Person to Person on the Internet", Diane Reiner/Keith Blanton, 1997, 0-12-104245-6, U$19.95 %A Diane Reiner %A Keith Blanton %C 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 %D 1997 %G 0-12-104245-6 %I Academic Press Professional %O U$19.95 619-231-0926 800-321-5068 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com %P 490 %T "Person to Person on the Internet" The chapter on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) is good. It is informative, detailed, and gives something of a feel for IRC chatting. The rest of the book would have made a good magazine article, except that it is too long. Material is presented in a disorganized fashion, and topics get repeated in multiple places. Unfortunately, this repetition doesn't provide additional information. A great deal of important stuff is simply missing. The section on mailing lists doesn't cover the vital functions of subscribing and unsubscribing. The virus section has errors, internal contradictions, and nothing about "Good Times". The netiquette section has nothing about chain letters and other garbage. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKPTPINT.RVW 961114 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 02:35:37 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! A NYNEX press release on Friday confirmed that area code 646 will be used for relief in Manhattan some time in 1998. NYNEX is recommending an all-services overlay, although a geographic split is also being put forth as an option. NYNEX's press release also mentions the possibility of shifting part of Manhattan into area code 718 with the other four boroughs, although that plan is so utterly insane as to defy belief. (Area code 718 already has 540 prefixes, so any shift from 212 into 718 would place 718 into immediate jeopardy.) The NYNEX press release is available on the web at HIGHLIGHTS: NYNEX clearly identifies local-service competition as one of the major reasons that 212 is exhausting its capacity. Demand for numbers in 212 has more than tripled in the last four years. The boundary that would be used if a geographic split is ordered was not discussed; the press release mentions two hypothetical boundary lines, 42nd Street and 5th Avenue, but neither of those is even a remote possibility for the actual boundary. (First of all, the boundary would not be one of the avenues. It would most likely be the boundary between central office territories, probably right at the southern end of Central Park, although this would leave far more than half the numbers in 212.) There's also a nice quote from NYNEX's report to the PSC, mentioning that the impact on customers of any proposed relief plan needs to be weighed. NYNEX doesn't finish the thought, but I would draw the inference, "instead of looking only at the impact on competing local exchange carriers." ** 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: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:42:27 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Web Visions" by Marlow BKWEBVSN.RVW 961109 "Web Visions", Eugene Marlow Ph. D., 1997, 0-442-02453-3, U$29.95 %A Eugene Marlow Ph. D. emabb@cunyvm.cuny.edu %C 115 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003 %D 1997 %G 0-442-02453-3 %I Van Nostrand Reinhold (VNR) %O U$29.95 800-842-3636 212-254-3232 fax: 212-254-9499 aburt-murray@vnr.com %P 273 %T "Web Visions" Week in, week out, I get another "how to use the Web for business" book across my desk. And week in, week out, the author has gotten hold of a copy of Netscape and gone surfing to look at all the pretty little corporate logos on the net. Lots of opinion, lots of gee whiz, lots of enthusiasm, and almost no information. Marlow has gone to a number of people involved with the creation, maintenance, promotion, and business evaluation of a select number of the most successful corporate sites on the Web. He interviewed them in depth, and analyzed the results. The history and evolution of original plans to current activity is included. In addition, he has looked at the most recent business research into Internet use. The result is a thoroughly informed and tremendously practical guide to Web creation and use. (Not only on the Internet: three corporate Intranet setups are studied as well.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKWEBVSN.RVW 961109 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: hanuman@clark.net (John Many Jars) Subject: Sprint, Contracts and Trustworthiness Date: 27 Feb 1997 17:13:56 GMT Organization: Hanumanji Given the huge uproar about Fridays Free here a few months back, and a few months before that, and a few months before that ... I thought this might be of interest to Sprint followers. Here in Washington DC, Sprint has a PCS system in place: Sprint Spectrum. The rates are quite good, the phones are relatively cheap, and there's no contract required. Apparently, though, they offer contract rates to certain businesses and students that are even better: monthly charges of $7.50 or $10.00 a month, with .10 peak and .25 off-peak airtime charges. These rates used to include handset replacement insurance, but that's changed recently. A lot of these contract users are up in arms because Sprint apparently changed their policy recently. Though the users are bound by their contract, with high costs to cancel, Sprint has now decided that they need to pay $4/month for handset replacement insurance, and changed the terms of the insurance as well. They were sent cards in the mail informing them that if they didn't reply in a short time, they would automatically be charged the additional $4/month and if they didn't want the insurance, they could continue service at the same rates without the $4 insurance included. Granted, that $10/month is a *great* price for service, and an additional $4 is still cheap service, but it seems like Sprint is treating these contracts as applying only to the users and not to them. For some users (students, for example) that 40% increase in price can be pretty hefty, and the policy of "mail in this coupon immediately or we'll start charging you" seems kind of sneaky as well. jmj [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are talking typical Sprint business tactics. They realize many subscribers will not receive the coupons in the mail (either in time, or considering the postal service, at all) and of those who do, some will fail to read it carefully, etc. Sprint's attitude has always been that contracts apply to customers, not the other way around. I've always been amazed that after the Free Friday fiasco, where they bait-and-switched how many ever thousands of people into changing their long distance service fraudulently that various attorney's general did not get a cease and desist order against the company and or start a class action lawsuit. Sprint is really getting as bad as a couple of pyramid telco resellers I could name. Given their extreme anti-labor tactics (remember the telemarketing hellhole Sprint was running in San Francisco?), their attitude that customers can be damned when it comes to honoring the bogus deals their customer service people cook up apparently with no authority at all, etc, it really is hard to imagine that the government has not slapped them very hard by now. Money talks, I guess, and Sprint has a lot of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: evil@Empire.Net (Dave Nye) Subject: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month Date: 27 Feb 1997 17:42:36 GMT Organization: Empire.Net Inc. info@empire.net Here's my NYNEX rant of the week ... three actually. Get CTC to get NYNEX to install a FR line and 32 Centrex lines into a POP location for us. They say, 45 business days, *grumblebitchmoan* Okay says I. 45 business days go by, Saturday I wake up in a cold sweat thinking that for some reason CTC and/or NYNEX forgot to put the order in for the FR line ... even though I've checked with CTC twice. Monday arrives, I get a call from the NYNEX tech; he's ready to install the Centrex lines. I say great! I'll be right there. He works on getting things done and I mention that the FR T-1 would be installed today as well so he had to make room on our 100 pair cable patch board, etc. He calls for me to check on the fate of the NYNEX T-1 guy after a few hours of waiting, they don't have an order. Panic sets in and I call CTC (Computer Telephone) and ask why the NYNEX guy can't find a record of the order. He finally fesses up that he didn't make the order, I go a tad balistic and tell him that this is only the 6th POP we've done in a few months and we always get 32 centrex lines and a FR link ... why did he think this was different??? I tell him to expedite at all costs the order for the FR T-1, I figure it can't be that bad I can throw a rock to the CO (yes, I actually did throw a few). He comes back a couple days later and says he's made the order but I can't have a date yet. (Time goes by ... I am now calling 2 x daily for a install date.) Nynex tech calls, says I am ready to install your FR T-1, can you open the door. I say GREAT!! I go up and call CTC asking why they hadn't told me, he says he hadn't heard a thing and no date was scheduled. Well, someone has a date because the NYNEX tech is standing next to me working on the line, the CTC rep comes over to the POP and sees for himself and chats with the NYNEX guy. Problem ... they don't have a circuit id and he's got to get the CO to do their handywork anyway, so he's just gonna do the physical work in the POP today. Two days go by and CTC still can't find out who did the job for the link ... and still no Circuit ID. Now the NYNEX tech calls again, things are ready and he's ready to test out to the CO. Done ... Call CTC ... NYNEX has no clue about an install date. I said it's INSTALLED already; just give me the damn Circuit ID so I can start passing packets. *sigh* ... still nothing; nobdy has a clue at NYNEX and I still can't light my fire. Different POP than above. NYNEX is supposed to install 32 centrex lines, I always have them extend the demark and give me a RJ21x connection for my special Octopus cable. (And I force the CTC folks to burn this into the order with a hot iron.) I drive over and the tech complains that he hadn't even started the job from the street box four blocks away and he was going to have to wire down a bunch of lines and get them connected to the telco room. And down the hall to the office ... right.. Huh says he ... extending the demark says I. Hmm, that's not on this order. It is now says I and he calls his NYNEX handler and they go around and around. Okay says they, but it's gonna take another day of work because he doesn't have a helper or the 100 pair cable long enough, etc. No problem says I, just for kicks ... these are Centrex and on a hunt group, right? Yeah, they're Centrex; ummm ... hunt group? *Doh!* He calls the handler again who knows me by name and decided she better not talk with me today as I slowly boil over. Tech gets most of the job done to the telco room done the first day and comes back with help and cable and gets it all wired up before noon, except only ten lines; he's gonna have to work on the other lines. No problem, I finish my install of equipment and test out the first ten lines, no problem. Go home, test the full 32 that evening, everything is working, even the hunt group!! Great says I. Next morning test again before we sign up customers; works great. Sign up customer, he logs in; great, working good. Noon he calls saying it's just ringing, is something broken already? *doh!*, I put him on hold and test out a few numbers; only the second number out of 32 work, all others just ring no answer *sigh*. I give him the working number and call CTC and NYNEX again. So ... what was that about a free month on a down time of a leased line?? :) I've had at least one four hour outage. Three hours of that time it was sitting on the repair service tech's screen while she went (somewhere, no clue) I call three times and finally get a tech. He finds the note and says OH! This is a T-1! Duh ... Yes, says I ... We'll get right on this he says. And this is just THIS month's happy NYNEX stories ... *sigh* I want my money back!! :) Or at least a competitor or three to liven things up around here..tis' far too boring. :) Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You want your money back? Why did you pay in advance knowing the reputation they have? Did anyone see the feature in the {New York Post} recently regarding Nynex? Nynex referred to it (the article) as a 'hatchet job' on the company, and I have to say after reading the copy sent to me that frankly I was embarassed for the two people I know by name who work for the company. Nynex is a lot like Sprint in this regard: You should NEVER pay them up front for anything until they do whatever they have promised to do. In Sprint's case I long ago recommended that readers should instruct their accounts payable department to put a complete freeze on payments Sprint alleges are due until a lot of the problems in the company are cured. The same situation would appear to be the case with Nynex: tell them until the work meets your requirements that you will not authorize payment on the job. If by chance you have already paid them for a job on which the work is unsatisfactory then hold back payment on another job. Do not turn it into a situation where you have to beg them to give you credit for downtime; reverse it so that telco comes to you looking for payment. That is the one thing they understand. Do not let their collection department bully you or get obnoxious with you. Tell them your payment terms are 45 days ... maybe; just like their promises. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: 3Com Buying US Robotics Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:34:52 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 3Com buying U.S. Robotics for $6.6 billion By CLIFF EDWARDS AP Business Writer CHICAGO (AP) -- 3Com Corp., a maker of computer networking products, is buying modem maker U.S. Robotics for $6.6 billion as the two seek to become a leader in the business of connecting computers. The deal, announced Wednesday, will create a high-tech company with $5 billion in annual revenue and more than 12,000 employees. "The combination of 3Com and U.S. Robotics dramatically alters the networking landscape," Eric Benhamou, 3Com's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. Computer networking involves linking groups of machines, often within a single company, to allow employees to work together even if they are several hundred miles apart. It is one of the fastest-growing areas in the computer business today. 3Com will acquire U.S. Robotics for its own stock, giving Robotics shareholders 1.75 shares of 3Com for each share they hold. The works out to $6.6 billion as of the market's close, or $68.25 a share. The combined company will retain the 3Com name and Benhamou will remain chairman and CEO. 3Com and U.S. Robotics together will be able to provide customers with the hardware necessary to create networks, including interface cards that allow computers to understand each other, and high-speed modems. Casey Cowell, chairman and chief executive of U.S. Robotics, said the combination will allow the new company to sell its products to a variety of customers including big and small corporations, telephone carriers, network and Internet service providers, and consumers. The news was announced after markets closed Wednesday. 3Com shares closed at $39, down 12 1/2 cents on the Nasdaq Stock Market. U.S. Robotics was off 50 cents at $61 in Nasdaq trading. 3Com shares have fallen by almost 50 percent in the past month amid concerns about general weakness in the networking sector that have also weighed on U.S. Robotics' stock. Cowell will become vice chairman of 3Com after the deal is completed, which is expected this summer. The companies said there would be an unspecified charge against earnings to account for the deal in the quarter in which it is completed. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This came as quite a surprise to us locals here in Skokie also; of particular interest to me was the announcement that few or none of the employees based here in Skokie will be offered employment on the west coast with the merged companies. Whether or not they plan to continue any local presence here is uncertain at this time. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #55 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 4 09:06:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA05441; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:06:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:06:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703041406.JAA05441@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #56 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Mar 97 09:05:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 56 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month (Blake Droke) Significance of Area Codes (Tad Cook) Re: Sprint, Contracts and Trustworthiness (Joel M. Hoffman) LAN/WAN Networking and Cabling Help (Peter Guenther) Re: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan (ulmo@q.net) 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: Blake Droke Subject: Re: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 20:05:50 -0800 Organization: T-Net Reply-To: blaked@netten.net Dave Nye wrote: > Here's my NYNEX rant of the week ... three actually. > Get CTC to get NYNEX to install a FR line and 32 Centrex lines into a > POP location for us. They say, 45 business days, *grumblebitchmoan* > Okay says I. 45 business days go by, Saturday I wake up in a cold > sweat thinking that for some reason CTC and/or NYNEX forgot to put the > order in for the FR line ... even though I've checked with CTC > twice. Monday arrives, I get a call from the NYNEX tech; he's ready to > install the Centrex lines. I say great! I'll be right there. He > works on getting things done and I mention that the FR T-1 would be > installed today as well so he had to make room on our 100 pair cable > patch board, etc. He calls for me to check on the fate of the NYNEX > T-1 guy after a few hours of waiting, they don't have an order. Panic > sets in and I call CTC (Computer Telephone) and ask why the NYNEX guy > can't find a record of the order. He finally fesses up that he didn't > make the order, I go a tad balistic and tell him that this is only the > 6th POP we've done in a few months and we always get 32 centrex lines > and a FR link ... why did he think this was different??? Actually this sounds an awful lot like Bellsouth to me. If I place an order with Bellsouth, I sometimes ask them to put in a second order, just to fix whatever the screw up the first time around. Most orders I place are far more simple than yours, (Like, disconnect 1, one & only one line, or remove one simple feature from a group of lines). But simple only seems to make it worse. About two months ago, I did a traffic study and realized we could get by with one less line. I ordered them to disconnect the line. I called Bellsouth, and they said it would be disconnected the next day. One week later it was still working. I call again. They say they have no record of my disconnect notice, so I put in another order and say I won't pay for the line after the original disconnect date, they agreed. The next day, they disconnect the line. Maybe its my fault for not being specific enough, but I thought that when you have a line disconnected, that is in a hunt group, it should be understood that it should also be removed from the hunt group. (I know better now.) Well the line was disconnected, but if the lines before it were busy, the rolled over to the now disconnected line, with a recording of "We're sorry (yes they are), the number you've dialed has been disconnected. Well it wasn't a terrible disaster, because that line wasn't receiving many calls, but I still didn't want it to seem like we'd gone out of business if one did come in. So I call Bellsouth, the business office says its not their problem, call repair. I call repair, it takes 1.5 hrs to explain what is wrong. They say they'll check it out. Next day, I have a voice mail from Bellsouth repair saying they've fixed the hunt group problem. Great!!! (Ah, but you know they couldn't do right the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time.) What they'd done was remove and other ACTIVE lines from the hunt group, and left the disconnected line in the group. About 20% of our incoming calls were now getting the disconnected message when they call us. Well I call repair, scream yell, rant, etc. They say they don't see a problem, it looks right in the computer (Which it did), but I couldn't convince them that the CO wasn't right. Three days go by, I call BS repair and customer service once every hour. I finally get their attention. They make a change, they remove the disconnected line from the hunt group, totally rearrange the rest of the group. Now calls are routing to the wrong depts, but at least instead of a disconnect message, most callers just get a busy signal. So I call everyone at BS whose number I can find, scream, yell, rant, etc. Finally someone takes action and after a week the problem is resolved. They graciously offer $100 off our next months bill. How nice. It's not the money, I couldn't care less about $100. I don't want a credit, I want decent service. When your business relies on phone service, (and how many don't) you should be able to expect better than this. Competition is now available here in the Memphis area, but it will do me no good. Several companies said they'd give me better rates than Bellsouth, but since I'm in a unprofitable area of town, they won't run their on wires in, they'll re-sell BellSouth to me. Great, imagine the chaos the next time they screw up something, and I have to go through a middle man to Bellsouth, who won't care, because, I'm not really their customer. So for now, I'm stuck with them, and all I can hope for is a $100 credit. ------------------------------ Subject: Significance of Area Codes Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 00:06:54 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) The Orange County Register, Calif., Life on the Line Column By Stephen Lynch, The Orange County Register, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 4--By 2001, California will have a mind-numbing 26 area codes, up from 13. Four years after that, it will probably have 30. The result sounds like an algebra problem: The `area' represented by 213, which once covered the Los Angeles basin, will be a mere three miles in diameter, an island in a gerrymandered sea of 818, 310, 562, 626 and 323. "The geographical significance of area codes is going away," acknowledges Bruce Bennett, the code administrator for the state. So it is that somewhere, in a war room straight out of "Dr. Strangelove," a dark-suited crowd is now discussing the future of telephone numbers. The Industry Numbering Committee, a group representing every major American telecommunications company, is thinking ahead to 2025, when, by some estimates, the one-plus-area-code-plus-seven-digit-numbering system we know and love will exhaust itself. This is bad news for people with bad memories. Proposed are 22 solutions, including 4-digit area codes or eight-digit phone numbers. "It's not too early to start talking about this," Bennett says. "We need to come up with a feasible plan." Surprisingly, telephone officials knew back in 1947 -- when the modern dialing system was first developed -- that this day would come. Before then, numbers were divided into "exchanges," two-digit codes that matched the name of a community. As phone use skyrocketed, officials designed a three-digit area code system to supplement exchanges, forever relegating songs such as "Pennsylvania 6-5000" to the realm of nostalgia. Taking into account population growth, but not the rise of cellular phones and modems, technicians estimated that the area code system would last 75 years. Even as telephone companies started using area codes with numbers other than 0 or 1 in the middle (the first was Illinois' 630, in January 1995), Bennett says that original prediction may still hold true. The INC is estimating how much it would cost to, say, bump up phone numbers to eight digits, expanding the cache of numbers and forever relegating songs such as "Jenny, Jenny (867-5309)" to the realm of nostalgia. Another proposal would divide the nation into eight regions, the number of which you would dial first. So instead of 1-714-555-7929, you'd dial 6-714-555-7929, with six being the region code for the Southwest. Under such a system, local calls would be a 10-digit dial, but the same area codes can be used in multiple regions. Slightly more radical is the idea of number portability. Individuals would be assigned a 10- or 11-digit phone number, much like a Social Security number, which would follow them around wherever they move. The problem, Bennett says, is that this takes "area" completely out of "area code," and people would be confused about how much each call would cost. "A significant change in billing would be needed," he says. "Like mailing a letter -- it's 32 cents whether you mail something across the street or across the nation." Of course, unpredictable factors could make this all irrelevant. Video phones, for instance, could use an addressing system similar to the Internet. You type, or speak, a person's name, and the computer interprets that as a numerical location and connects you. Or the International Telecommunications Union could set a global dialing standard, as they did with toll-free services last month (companies can now get an 800 number with 8 digits that works from about 20 different countries). Then again, such systems get unwieldy, as a recent ITU discussion illustrated. Because of its expanding phone bank, dialing Germany from another country can require punching 15 digits. Compared with that, California's calling outlook seems positively elementary. THE LINK To read about the North American Numbering Plan, the system that has governed the United States, Canada and the Caribbean since 1947, visit http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/ -- it includes a list of all area codes, new and old. The Industry Numbering Committee's home page is at http://www.atis.org/atis/clc/iccf/inc/inchom.htm ------------------------------ From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Sprint, Contracts and Trustworthiness Date: 2 Mar 1997 02:09:21 GMT Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are talking typical Sprint business > tactics. [...] Sprint's > attitude has always been that contracts apply to customers, not the > other way around. I've always been amazed that after the Free Friday > fiasco, where they bait-and-switched how many ever thousands of people > into changing their long distance service fraudulently that various > attorney's general did not get a cease and desist order against the > company and or start a class action lawsuit. Sprint is really getting The problem is that the courts won't touch it. Sprint has argued that the courts have no jurisdiction over FCC matters, and in the few cases where Sprint was sued, the judges threw the case out for lack of jurisdiction. But, and here's the catch, the FCC won't do anything either. I filed a complaint with the FCC, called them every Friday for 8 monhts, and finally got someone to look at the complaint. A month later, the FCC sent a complaint letter to Sprint. Sprint answered, "we have already addressed Mr. Hoffman's concerns." So the FCC sent me a letter than they were CLOSING THE CASE. After nine months! I didn't even have a chance to reply to Sprint! So it looks like Sprint is right. Its contracts only apply to us, not to them. Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ask the FCC to order Sprint to supply more precise details on *how* they 'addressed your concerns.' I used the FCC rather successfully against MCI back in 1975-76 with MCI's early 'Execunet' service, but it did take a lot of correspondence. Sprint is hoping you will grow tired and give up. Show them otherwise. And remember, the one thing they do understand is money. Refuse to give them any. Keep a freeze on all accounts payable to Sprint. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Guenther Subject: LAN/WAN Networking and Cabling Help Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 07:50:31 +1000 Organization: C3Plus/Andrew Boon Pty Ltd Reply-To: pguenther@h130.aone.net.au Andrew Boon Pty Ltd have just completed establishment of some new WWW pages to help network planners; architects and property services managers; corporate communications users and managers; schools; and people looking for leads and case studies on the latest technologies. In summary, the following have been provided:- http://www.andrewboon.com.au Home page, menu links to other pages and index outlining services offered http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/BOONSCS1.html Structured Cabling System Starter Guide:- Provides guidelines for planning the establishment of a computer network using a structured cabling approach. Incorporates latest Australian standards, inter building link planning, Fast Ethernet, and system administration. Includes sample spec for simple jobs and budget guidelines. Has links to Web Sites with good structured cabling briefing data. http://www.andrewboon.com.au/images/100BaseT.GIF Fast Ethernet Topology diagram. http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/COMBRIEF.html Provides a standard brief for communications services which can be used by "property services" type people when briefing architects or consultants. Use of the brief will ensure all site strategic and connectivity issues are addressed, not just the cabling of a building extension in isolation. http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/Firesyst.html Case study of Tasmania Fire Service's new integrated touch screen telephone/radio multi region dispatch control system, featuring radio over compressed voice channels on frame relay. http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/ISPguide.html Internet Starter Guide:- Choosing a modem, internet service provider and internet software can be less straightforward than it seems. This document covers a host of issues to be considered, without making any specific recommendations on ISP, software or hardware. Topics include registration, tariff plans, startup problems with software, billing problems, user identity issues, newsgroup filtering, newsfeeds, E-mail difficulties, and Web Page hosting. Primes readers on how to ask right questions and make informed decisions. http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/LUXYHOME.html Planning considerations for audio visual and automation systems for luxury homes. http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/CeBIT961.html http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/CeBIT962.html http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/CeBIT963.html http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/CeBIT97.html http://www.andrewboon.com.au/html/CeBIT964.html Other pages linked to the home page give an extensive run down on communications and computer networking products seen at CeBIT 96 with a particular focus on advanced cabling products, ISDN, DECT, video/TV and TETRA; CeBIT 97 contact details, and a paper on German Telephone Network developments and CeBIT, highlighting unusual network features, outlining the road traffic information system, and providing an overview of the CeBIT trade fair. Peter Guenther, Senior Engineer Comms/Andrew Boon Pty Ltd Consulting Engineers PO Box 308, North Hobart TAS 7002, AUS. Ph +61 3 6224 8277 fax +61 3 6224 8150 Web Home Page:- http://www.andrewboon.com.au ------------------------------ From: ulmo@Q.Net Subject: Re: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 18:55:59 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC NYNEX is right in chosing overlays, both for the specific case of NYC and in general. I: * Grew up in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area (which includes a bay larger than it); crunches included 408 & 415, and recent splits included 415/510. * Lived in West Hollywood, a small city with two area codes: 310 and 213, and many nearby area codes including 818; both 310 and 818 were recent splits. * Live in Manhattan, which has 212, 718, and 917, both 718 and 917 being recent, one a split, one an overlay; I have had 212 and 917 nearly from the start. Opinions: - In the specific case of Manhattan and the surrounding islands, there is a unique advantage of very well understood, very well defined boundaries, both geographical and political, since there are large bodies of water and people who know damn well where the hell they are, and at any given moment. For this reason, the 212/718 split was not as horrible as it would have been if it were in any other area, e.g., Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. (Even San Francisco doesn't have large bodies of people on islands.) However, the next useful split will not have this advantage at all: it would have to be far more similar to the disasterous splits that happened in Los Angeles (the worst of which is 213/310; what kind of boundary is "La Cienega" anyway? Perhaps "cienega" means something in Spanish that I don't know?? Like "Area Code Boundary", and I just didn't know it?) - Geographic area codes where you must know what area code you're in to call your own area code or another nearby area code are rediculously difficult to live with. NYNEX must in any case start to accept numbers dialed that start with the normal area code dialing sequence within the same area code. NYNEX seems to be behind most other local phone providers in this respect, including MFS Intelenet (an affiliate of WorldCom, according to a February 1997 letter I just received from WorldCom), and California's Pacific Bell. - Similarily, even when 1+area code is always allowed, the advantage of not having to dial the area code is outweighed by the difficulty of figuring out when you can if the difference is geographic, since knowing your location is extremely difficult (work, school, home, spouse, recreation, transportation, opera, etc. can all be in a different area code). This is compounded by the horrible expense of updating many existing numbers and the resulting legacy of non-updated numbers that are wrong. This difficulty also exists with overlays, however it is more likely that the posted number on the telephone will be correct, so the person may ascertain this efficiency more reliably. It can be argued that in the case where people haven't marked the phone # on the calling device that the geographic distinction is clearer, but from experience I can tell you it is very difficult to remember where one is at while making a cyber connection of any sort (audio, visual, or otherwise, including POTS). - The expense to everyone in geographic splits, is, as NYNEX points out, a HORRIBLE expense. I still run into lots of situations where 718 hasn't been properly applied to a phone number and this causes problems (718 split from 212 before I moved here). I never have problems with the 917 overlay of this type (except when someone pages me with a 7 digit telephone number, but they don't deserve a callback, and furthermore neither method fixes that problem in my experience). This is experiencial evidence. Similarities: = Both overlays and splits cause the user to have to either always dial 1+areacode or check the area code before dialing. = Both cause someone to start giving out area codes for all numbers where this was not previously necessary. The social circles of Manhattan simply are not so small that they can all fit within 7 digits any more; any geographic split will necessarily split nearly all social circles. Other items: + For a long, unforseable time, people and signs will still give out numbers without area codes and assume the original area code (in Manhattan, that would be 212); for instance, "The 6th precinct is 741-4811". This is ok so long as people know their history and don't assume that a 7 digit number can be dialed as a 7 digit number. Most cell phone users are already used to this, but the 70IQ 88yo grandma on prozac with an income in the poverty level that just gave up her rent controlled 3 bedroom original construction apartment at $250/month to move across town to an uncontrolled $1800/month poorly reconstructed falling apart smelly studio apt (i.e., this won't happen) in an area with a different prefix and had a new installation put in that didn't use existing lines or somehow was in the new area code might not think to dial the area code during an emergency; this is if she dialed the non-emergency number during an emergency (the emergency number here, like much if not all of the USA, is 911). A comparison in West Hollywood is a sign on/near Formosa Ave. in 1994 that said to dial the law enforcement at 289-something but doesn't include the area code: the area code on that street is 213, but that law enforcement # (services contracted out to the (county) sheriff actually) are in area code 310, west of city hall. Which reminds me, West Hollywood's city hall is in 213, right? Most of the entertainment businesses are in 310. Most confusing. To think of all those owners constantly dialing 1 2 1 3 x x x x x x x for a building that's 3 blocks down the street. Of course, most of the city council probably lives in 310 ... but their subordinates probably live in 213 ... never mind. Suffice it to say, an area code mess. + In an overlay, having a phone number in the "new area code" can be deemed both a credit risk, since you don't have an "established number", and a credit plus, since you have activity, perhaps that of the chic, or that of business at work. Witness +1-888: many businesses look worse or better because of it. One can always say, "Oh, I split my personal and business line, and my *insert qualifier* line got the new #." Who can argue that it is a difficult decision whether to alert personal or business contacts of a new number, with someone who has a large number of both or some who are one-way contacts? Compare this to a split, where one can have any long-established phone number suddenly categorized more by geographic classism and nuance, and little else. + There is such a significant number of disgruntled NYNEX customers that numbers in the new area code may actually be more attractive, meaning "no longer dealing with NYNEX", despite whatever realities may exist. In addition, these disgruntled customers will probably quickly fill a new area code, leaving "competition" arguments in the dust. This situation is unique to Manhattan as far as I can tell. However, MFSI has had enough rotten service so as to be comparable to NYNEX; whether competition lives up to being better than NYNEX is definately a big question (NYNEX as a behemoth only does "good enough"; sometimes "good enough" is down-right rotten, back when there was no competition and lots of BS; these days "good enough" may be much, much better to be able to compete). + Number exhaustion and new number requests come in so fast around here that people will quickly get used to the new area code, and protests of competition will be unfounded. This is in comparison to other areas. + Those who do as they're told and include area codes on all their numbers will not be hurt by an overlay, whereas those who are uncooperative and don't include their area codes will have a slight although not large problem. If there is a split, those who did the correct thing will be punished, and those who were ignorant, stupid, arrogant or otherwise annoyingly not doing what they were supposed to will be rewarded by being ahead of the game. That is simply not fair. Finally, last opinions: * Variable length dialing would have been a better plan from the very, very beginning, but when the fixed-length number with 3-digit area codes was designed, this was sort of trodden over by the silly waste in that second digit. * I get tired of internationally-accessible websites that don't take my phone number without my having to strip it; the format I use and my cellular phone company (OmniPoint) also can use is +1212xxxxxxx. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #56 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 6 03:24:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA22900; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:24:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:24:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703060824.DAA22900@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #57 TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Mar 97 03:23:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 57 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes (Mike King) What Browser do You Use? (Craig Strickland) New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Curtis Anderson) Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! (Dave Levenson) March 20 - Telecommunications Symposium (Laurent Schumacher) 300 Telecom Related Sites (Danny Burstein) Toronto's New Area Code (james@io.org) Sprint, Contracts, Trustworthiness (John Many Jars) Looks Like IBM Will Have a Problem With Area Code 240 (Paul Robinson) V & H to Latitude and Longitude (Col. G.L. Sicherman) Possible Internet Scam (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 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: More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:34:11 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 11:52:42 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 4, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eric Johnson (209) 454-3602 Bill Kenney (916) 972-2813 Michael Heenan (916) 972-2811 More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes Public Will Be Asked To Comment On Which Area Keeps The 209 Area Code SACRAMENTO -- Residents and business people who live and work in the 209 area code will get a chance to comment at a series of public meetings later this month and in April on which part of their region -- the northern or southern section -- should keep the 209 area code. The public meetings are the second set to be held in the 209 area code, which will be split into two area codes in November 1998 to meet the growing demand for new phone numbers. In the split, roughly half the customers will receive a new area code and the rest will keep the existing area code. The new area code's introduction will have no impact on the price of telephone calls. "Consensus has not yet been reached on the very important issue of which part of this geographic area should keep the 209 area code and which should receive the new area code," said California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett, who oversees the coordination of area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry. "Because it's an issue that will impact millions of residents and businesses, we feel it's important to give the public another opportunity to comment before the industry files a 209 area code relief plan with the California Public Utilities Commission." Bennett said the industry originally planned to hold two additional public meetings to discuss this issue and recently added a third meeting. Dates and times of the three public meetings are: Thursday, March 27, 1997 Board of Supervisors Chambers Hall of Records 2281 Tulare Street Fresno 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday, April 17, 1997 City Council Chambers 707 W. Acequia Visalia 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Friday, April 18, 1997 Red Lion Inn 1150 N. 9th Street Modesto Noon to 2 p.m. Public meetings were previously held on the 209 area code split in October 1996 in Fresno, Stockton and Merced. At those meetings, a plan developed by the telecommunications industry to split the 209 area code on a north-south basis was presented. The split line generally runs along the Madera County line where it borders on Mariposa and Merced counties. The northern area includes: Tuolumne, Calaveras and Amador counties, most of Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Mariposa counties and very small parts of Madera, Fresno, Sacramento, El Dorado, Alpine, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The southern area includes: most of Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings counties, and very small parts of Merced, Mariposa and Kern counties. Bennett said the industry looks at a variety of factors when recommending which region in an area code split should keep the existing area code. "We look at the two areas and compare things like the number of phone numbers in use in one area versus the number of phone numbers in use in the other area. The reason this is important is that we generally try to inconvenience the fewest number of customers with an area code number change. In the 209 area code, however, this is not a clear cut issue. The southern area has a slightly higher population, but the northern area has a slightly higher number of telephone numbers in use." Bennett said the industry also looks at things like communities of interest -- that is trying to place communities in the same area code which share business, shopping, social and other common interests. Another important factor is the area code lifespans, Bennett said, adding that in the 209 area code the lifespans would be fairly equal regardless of which side keeps the 209. Once the 209 area code is split, Bennett said, the area which keeps the 209 area code is expected to have enough new phone numbers to accommodate growth for about 10 to 11 1/2 years, regardless of whether the northern or southern region keeps the 209 area code. The new area code is expected to last about 12 1/2 to 15 years. People unable to attend one of the public meetings can send written comments by April 18, 1997 to: Director, California Code Administration 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 1S955 San Ramon, CA 94583 Bennett said residents and business people who cannot attend one of the meetings also can express their views to their elected representatives. "In addition to the public meetings, we are holding three meetings in March and April with city and county government officials throughout the 209 area code to get their input on this issue," he said, adding that citizens should give their feedback to local representatives prior to these meetings. "By meeting again with the public and local officials, we hope to come up with more information that will help us make the best recommendation possible to the Public Utilities Commission on the 209 area code," Bennett said. The 209 area code is one of numerous areas throughout the state requiring area code relief due to growing demand for phone numbers. That demand is being spurred by several factors -- the two primary being the explosion of high-technology and competition in the local telephone service market. The demand for high-tech equipment requiring phone numbers has risen dramatically in the last several years, with the use of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access, and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services. And, with the onset of local competition, a separate supply of telephone numbers must be furnished to each new provider of local telephone service in California. California currently has 14 area codes, more than any other state. That number is expected to grow to 26 area codes by the year 2001. Note to editors and reporters: For further information for your news story, please call of the spokespersons listed at the top of this news release. Their geographical areas of responsibility are as follows: Eric Johnson Fresno, Madera, Tulare, Kings and Kern counties Bill Kenney Tuolumne, Mariposa and Merced counties Michael Heenan San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Amador, Sacramento, El Dorado, Alpine, Alameda and Contra Costa counties -------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Organization: tgi Computer Consulting Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 21:59:57 -0500 From: Craig Strickland Subject: What Browser do You Use? Be aware that a security hole was discovered in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. A nasty webmaster could go so far as to format your hard disk! See for details. A friend of mine ran through the demos and said they work, even through a firewall. MS supposedly will have a patch within the next 48 hours. This came from the mentioned web site: Internet Explorer Bug 2/27/97 (Version 3.0 (4.70.1155)) Microsoft Internet Explorer v3.01 (and earlier?) has a serious bug which allows web page writers to use ".LNK" and ".URL" files to run programs on a remote computer. This bug is particularly damaging because it uses NO ActiveX, and works even when Internet Explorer is set to its highest security level. It was tested on Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 3.0 (4.70.1155) running Windows 95. This demo assumes that Windows is installed in "C:\WINDOWS". Windows 95 DOES NOT PROMPT BEFORE EXECUTING THESE FILES. .URL files are WORSE than .LNK files because .URLs work in both Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 (.LNK's only work in Windows 95). .URL files present a possibly greater danger because they can be easily created by server side scripts to meet the specific settings of a user's system. We will provide .URL files for execution in the next day or so. The "shortcuts" can be set to be minimized during execution which means that users may not even be aware that a program has been started. Microsoft's implementation of shortcuts becomes a serious concern if a webpage can tell Internet Explorer to refresh to an executable. Or worse, client side scripts (Java, JavaScript, or VBScript) can use the Explorer object to transfer a BATCH file to the target machine and then META REFRESH to that BATCH file to execute the rogue command in that file. Physical: 26 11'46"N 80 14'20"W Amateur: KE4QJN Internet: tgi@pobox.com CompuServe: 76545,1007 Web: http://pobox.com/~tgi/ PGP Key: Available from key server: pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu Fingerprint: E6 E1 25 DE 7C 6F 34 CD E7 75 ED 21 7E 45 6E D7 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 22:19:11 -0500 From: Curtis R. Anderson Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse Subject: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving According to a brief announcement heard on WKBW-TV during the six p.m. news, the New York legislature is considering a bill which would ban the driver's use of handheld cellular phones while the vehicle is being operated. The Legislature is using those studies which suggest high accident risk while the driver is talking on a cellular phone. It almost makes one wonder about folks who get cellular phones in their cars for safety and convenience. Even if the bill does not pass, one can expect insurance companies to raise liability premiums for cars with cellular phones. Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com ------------------------------ Subject: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! Date: Tue, 4 Mar 97 18:10:18 EST From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Reply-To: dave@westmark.com It's bad enough that Caller*ID service, even at this late date, only delivers the calling number on about 30% of all inbound calls here. Today I received a telemarketing call from Bell Atlantic -- offering me Caller*ID Deluxe (that version delivers caller name and number) for an additional monthly fee. I told the caller that I was not interested. She tried harder, and offerd to throw in one free month of Voice Mail service if I bought Caller*ID Deluxe. I told her that I would not spend an additional cent on Caller*ID until it started delivering caller identification on far more than the 30% of calls on which it currently works. She insisted that it works on `most calls' today. I told her that her own call was displayed as `OUT OF AREA'! She wished me a good evening and disconnected. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. Voice: 908 647 0900 Web: http://www.westmark.com Stirling, NJ, USA Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Laurent Schumacher Subject: March 20 - Telecommunications Symposium Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 19:46:50 +0100 Organization: Labo TELE - Univ. Catholique de Louvain - Belgium Reply-To: mertens@dpri.ucl.ac.be TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES How to reconcile the market constraints and the democratic requirements ? Thursday March 20 1997 School of Law Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium Information about the day Within the University of Louvain, the Center for the Philosophy of Law (CPDR) brings together some 20 researchers from different fields to study the changes necessary to adapt the legal system to contemporary society. In the spirit, one team at the Center - the Telecommunications Task Force - examines how market constraints may be reconcilied with the requirements of democratic society. The conference will be of interest to (in alphabetical order) administrators, diplomats, lawyers (practising in both the public and private sectors), members of the public, students and university researchers. Additional information may be obtained by contacting Dimitri Mertens Phone: +32 10 47 88 74 (Monday to Friday, 2 to 3 PM MET) Fax: +32 10 47 86 01 E-mail: Mertens@dpri.ucl.ac.be or by visiting the Symposium Web site at http://www.drt.ucl.ac.be/Faculte/cpdr/tele2402/index_e.html With the support of Belgacom the Belgian telecommunications Company. Program Morning 8h30 Accueil 8h45 Introduction G. Horsmans, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Universite catholique de Louvain Universal service (In french and in english) 9h An American Perspective Fr. Bar, Stanford University 9h40 A European perspective Mme Beres, European Parliament, memeber of the Information Society Information 10h20 Pause 10h40 Debate The Regulatory Authorities (In english) 11h50 A comparative perspective: Australia, Europe, New Zealand, The United States C. Scott, London School of Economics 12h30 Lunch Afternoon Opening the Markets to Competition (In english) 14h A European Perspective M. Haag, European Commission (DG IV) 14h40 The Alliances among Telecom Operators P. Larouche, University of Maastricht 15h20 Pause 15h40 An American Perspective Y. Benkler, New York University 16h20 Debate on Competition and the Regulatory Authorities With the participation of S. Rose-Ackerman, Yale University 18h End Registration form to be sent by fax to +32 10 47 86 01 or by mail to Center for the Philosophy of the Law Place Montesquieu 2 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium before Friday march 14th, 1997 Name _____________________________________________ Profession _____________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________ Telephone/Fax _____________________________________________ [ ] will take part to the symposium [ ] send an order for the amount of 2500 BEF (*) on account 360-1161284-06 UCL-conference telecommunications law [ ] will take part in the lunch (an additional 500 BEF) (not compulsory) Date and signature: (*) 2000 BEF if the payment is made before March 7th. Free entrance for students and members of universities. Please send a student or professional ID with the registration form. The fee covers the entrance and the documentation. Laurent Schumacher (UCL/FSA/ELEC/TELE) Place du Levant 2, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, BELGIUM Phone: +32 10 47 80 66 E-mail: Schumacher@tele.ucl.ac.be Fax: +32 10 47 20 89 WWW: http://www.tele.ucl.ac.be ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:45:24 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: 300 Telecom Related Sites (forwarded with approval of the earlier poster) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:24:12 EST Reply-To: Computer-assisted Reporting & Research Subject: Fwd: 300 telecom related sites =================== Forwarded Message =================== Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:14:10 -0600 From: Gleason Sackman Subject: RESOUR> 300 telecom related sites From: glivings@tia.eia.org http://www.industry.net/c/orgunpro/tia/other1 A directory of over 300 telecom related sites provided by the Telecommunications Industry Association. Forwarded by List Owner -------------------------------------------- Elliott Parker elliott.parker@cmich.edu Journalism Dept. eparker@well.com Central Michigan University Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859 USA ------------------------------ From: james@io.org Subject: Toronto's New Area Code Date: 4 Mar 97 14:21:26 GMT I heard that Bell will soon announce a area code split for Metro Toronto also known as MegaCity Toronto. In Metro we had a vote on combining the 5 cities and 1 borough into a megacity I believe that Bell has put off plans for a 416 split boundry until the province namley Premier Mr. HARRISment decides if he will be a cazr and still combine metro despite the vote. I read in news groups that the split could be along Yonge Street (Hwy 11) also known as the world's longest road!!! Others have sugguested a triple split that would go as follow 416 would be retained in metro south of Eglinton and West of Yonge a new code for south of Eglinton and East of Yonge a new code for parts of metro north of Eglinton Ave. Yonge Street is metro's "Main Street per se" Eglinton Ave. runs along all metro cities and would be a logical location for a split. Many people in the GTA have chosen "416" cell numbers even through they are in the burb's "905'ers" that has reduced the numbers available for metro in general. When is the split happening? Will The "New Bell" let us know!!!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The newspapers around here say he is going to push through the 'megacity' idea regardless of what anyone else wants ... a true politician/public servant. It would be great if everyone just revolted; quit paying taxes, quit obeying any of the megacity laws, etc ... everyone just said take us all to jail and somehow deal with it as best you can ... I am assuming of course that none of the small surrounding communities would have any say-so whatsoever in the government of the megacity. If it turns out at all like Chicago a few judges and their lawyer friends just appoint some of their cronies to handle it all. No one actually bothers to vote any longer; it is considered an insult to our intelligence since the public servants do whatever they want anyway. If this guy in Canada gets his way, is there any court of appeal or way to go over him or is his word the final one? PAT] ------------------------------ From: hanuman@clark.net (John Many Jars) Subject: Sprint, Contracts, Trustworthiness Date: 4 Mar 1997 17:03:59 GMT Organization: Hanumanji The {Washington Post} has published an article available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-02/28/064L-022897-idx.html about the latest Sprint situation and the furor following it. Basically, Sprint Spectrum (the local PCS 1900 carrier in DC/Baltimore) offered business and student customers an awfully good deal: either $7.50 or $10.00/month for service, with handset replacement insurance included in the monthly charge. in return, customers were required to sign a one-year contract (not usually required for service). A lot of these contract users are up in arms because Sprint apparently changed their policy recently. Though the users are bound by their contract, with high costs to cancel, Sprint has now decided that they (the customers) need to pay $4/month for handset replacement insurance, and changed the terms of the insurance as well. In a decision that brings back memories of "Fridays Free", the method used to inform customers was a letter (dated February 14, but most customers didn't receive the letter until the week of February 23) informing them that if they didn't respond by March 1, their rates would increase by $4 a month, the cost of handset replacement insurance. for some of the customers, this represented a monthly increase of 50%! Granted, that $10/month is a *great* price for service, and an additional $4 is still cheap service, but it seems like Sprint is treating these contracts as applying only to the users and not to them. for some users (students, for example) that 40% increase in price can be pretty hefty, and the policy of "mail in this coupon immediately or we'll start charging you" seems kind of sneaky as well. In the Post's article (dated 2/28), it appears that Sprint has backed down somewhat from their original decision. They will allow customers still under contract to continue receiving service and insurance at the contract price, but the customer must call in and protest the rate increase. jmj [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't that precious! Sprint 'will allow' the customer to abide by the terms of the contract Sprint signed with them. Is that something like me saying I will allow my creditors to continue sending me bills each month until I pay them? Tell me this: when the customer calls in to protest, is he expected to contact that same deadbeat the Friday Free customers tried to call but never could reach? ... that would be the perfect way for Sprint to handle it; force the customer to contact one person at the company who has always 'stepped away from his desk' or who 'has been in meet- ings all day ...' they could set up a dummy voicemail box to take his messages and have someone zap the messages every day or so. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Federal Trade Commission or the FCC has not slapped Sprint very hard and closed their doors, but we know most public serpents can be bought off if the money is right, and Lord knows Sprint has enough of that to keep lots of lawyers and lobbyists fat and well-fed. You have given instructions to your accounts payable department to put a total freeze on all payments to Sprint haven't you? And when they call asking about getting the money on your account, defy them go legal with it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: Looks Like IBM Will Have a Problem With Area Code 240 Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 10:26:59 -0500 Organization: Evergreen Software Bellcore has a page (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/240.html) listed to show the test number for area code 240 - the overlay area code here in Maryland for AC 301 - to see if it works from a specific area. Since 240 isn't even set up to be in effect until May, the number, which will be 240-999-8378, doesn't work, of course. Only problem was when I tried dialing it to see if that was a working number from here in 301 country. We are still on seven-digit dialing here (when 240 goes through, ALL local calls will be 10 digits), so I tried just dialing the short part of the number. Merely dialing 999-8378 sits on dead silence for 1/2 a minute before timing out to a recording saying "Your Call Did Not Go Through". Calling 301-999-8378 gets a recording saying the number is wrong. "Your call can not be completed as dialed." I wanted to see if maybe "999" is being coded as an area code; sure enough, dialing 999-555-1212 doesn't "click" until the tenth digit, and goes to a recording saying the number is wrong. But, when I tried dialing the regular number as listed, I got a surprise. When I dialed 240-9998, the phone system clicked, and I got shunted to a recording (probably from a PBX, as follows:) "You have reached a non-working number at IBM, Gaithersburg Maryland. Please check your number and try again, or call your operator for assistance." (I note, also, that the recording did not include a SIT tone, as is often used even with private non-valid number announcements.) Well, it's obvious that this particular number doesn't work. But it implies that IBM has other numbers in the 240 prefix that DO work. And they are probably going to have some problems when people confuse their exchange with the new area code. Or, as the case may be, that Bell Atlantic requires they switch their PBX to a new prefix. I was unaware that there is a 240 exchange in this (301) area code. I am surprised that Bell Atlantic didn't try to get an area code that wasn't in use here as an exchange, or made sure any such exchange had everyone moved off at least a year in advance to reduce the possibility of confusion. I believe that having an exchange which is the same as any area code which is near to the area in use is only asking for trouble. For example, the area codes that are local to me in Silver Spring, MD are 301, 410 (Columbia, MD), 202 (DC), 703(Virginia). Also, because they are touched by parts of this area code, there should not be a 304(WV), or 610(PA) exchange. I'd even recommend, since it is one state over, not to have 302(DE), 804(VA), or 750 (VA) exchanges, for example. But it seems odd that some exchange that isn't in use here wasn't chosen for the new area code. And the phone book is no help anymore, they no longer list prefix locations. Which brings up a whole new (and unrelated article) that I'll have to write sometime. Paul Robinson Evergreen Software Http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/9876/areacodes.htm ------------------------------ From: sicherman@lucent.com (Col. G.L. Sicherman) Subject: V & H to Latitude and Longitude Date: 5 Mar 1997 14:59:27 GMT Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation Recently I wanted to convert some Bell Labs "V&H" coordinates to latitude and longitude. A careful search through the Telecomm- unications Archives turned up a C program for converting in the other direction, and many pleas for what I was looking for. One poster even offered money! Since I work for Bell Labs, I had no trouble getting a copy of Erik Grimmelmann's legendary memorandum. (Don't get your hopes up - Bell Labs has no intention of releasing it to the public!) Thus armed, I hacked up the following C program, which ought to compile on any C platform. Its input and output agree with the output and input of ll_to_vh (as hacked by Tom Libert), and the comments summarize the math as explained by Grimmelmann. Enjoy! /* * vh2ll.c - convert V&H to latitude and longitude. * Col. G. L. Sicherman. 1997-03-01. * After E. K. Grimmelmann. * * TO COMPILE: * cc -o vh2ll vh2ll.c -lm * * USAGE: * vh2ll [-m] [v h] * * -m show degrees, minutes, and seconds instead of * degrees with decimals. * * If you don't specify coordinates, reads pairs from the * standard input. Normally v and h are integers, but they * need not be. * * Output values are north latitude and west longitude. * * NOTES: * V&H is a system of coordinates (V and H) for describing * locations of rate centers in the United States. The * projection, devised by J. K. Donald, is an "elliptical," * or "doubly equidistant" projection, scaled down by a factor * of 0.003 to balance errors. * * The foci of the projection, from which distances are * measured accurately (except for the scale correction), * are at 37d 42m 14.69s N, 82d 39m 15.27s W (in Floyd Co., * Ky.) and 41d 02m 55.53s N, 112d 03m 39.35 W (in Webster * Co., Utah). They are just 0.4 radians apart. * * Here is the transformation from latitude and longitude to V&H: * First project the earth from its ellipsoidal surface * to a sphere. This alters the latitude; the coefficients * bi in the program are the coefficients of the polynomial * approximation for the inverse transformation. (The * function is odd, so the coefficients are for the linear * term, the cubic term, and so on.) Also subtract 52 degrees * from the longitude. * * For the rest, compute the arc distances of the given point * to the reference points, and transform them to the coordinate * system in which the line through the reference points is the * X-axis and the origin is the eastern reference point. * The solution is * h = (square of distance to E - square of distance to W * + square of distance between E and W) / * twice distance between E and W; * v = square root of absolute value of (square of * distance to E - square of h). * Reduce by three-tenths of a percent, rotate by 76.597497 * degrees, and add 6363.235 to V and 2250.7 to H. * * To go the other way, as this program does, undo the final translation, * rotation, and scaling. The z-value Pz of the point on the x-y-z sphere * satisfies the quadratic Azz+Bz+c=0, where * A = (ExWz-EzWx)^2 + (EyWzx-EzWy)^2 + (ExWy-EyWx)^2; * B = -2[(Ex cos(arc to W) - Wx cos(arc to E))(ExWz-EzWx) - * (Ey cos(arc to W) -Wy cos(arc to E))(EyWz-EzWy)]; * C = (Ex cos(arc to W) - Wx cos(arc to E))^2 + * (Ey cos(arc to W) - Wy cos(arc to E))^2 - * (ExWy - EyWx)^2. * Solve with the quadratic formula. The latitude is simply the * arc sine of Pz. Px and Py satisfy * ExPx + EyPy + EzPz = cos(arc to E); * WxPx + WyPy + WzPz = cos(arc to W). * Substitute Pz's value, and solve linearly to get Px and Py. * The longitude is the arc tangent of Px/Py. * Finally, this latitude and longitude are spherical; use the * inverse polynomial approximation on the latitude to get the * ellipsoidal earth latitude, and add 52 degrees to the longitude. */ #include #include #include #ifndef M_PI #define M_PI 3.14159265358979323846 #endif static int mflag; static void usage() { fprintf(stderr, "usage: vh2ll [-m] [v h]\n"); fprintf(stderr, "-m\tprint degrees, minutes, and seconds\n"); exit(1); } /* orthogonal translation values */ #define TRANSV 6363.235 #define TRANSH 2250.7 /* cosine and sine of rotation */ #define ROTC 0.23179040 #define ROTS 0.97276575 /* radius of earth in sqrt(0.1)-mile units, minus 0.3 percent */ #define RADIUS 12481.103 /* spherical coordinates of eastern reference point */ #define EX 0.40426992 #define EY 0.68210848 #define EZ 0.60933887 /* spherical coordinates of western reference point */ #define WX 0.65517646 #define WY 0.37733790 #define WZ 0.65449210 /* spherical coordinates of V-H coordinate system */ #define PX -0.555977821730048699 #define PY -0.345728488161089920 #define PZ 0.755883902605524030 /* GX = ExWz - EzWx; GY = EyWz - EzWy */ #define GX 0.216507961908834992 #define GY -0.134633014879368199 /* A = (ExWz-EzWx)^2 + (EyWz-EzWy)^2 + (ExWy-EyWx)^2 */ #define A 0.151646645621077297 /* Q = ExWy-EyWx; Q2 = Q*Q */ #define Q -0.294355056616412800 #define Q2 0.0866448993556515751 static void vh2ll(v, h) double v, h; { int i, latdeg, latmin, londeg, lonmin, latsec, lonsec; double t1, t2, vhat, hhat, fx, fy; double e, w; /* distances to E and W reference points */ double b, c, disc, z, x, y, delta, lat, lat2, lon; double earthlat, earthlon; static double bi[7] = { 1.00567724920722457, -0.00344230425560210245, 0.000713971534527667990, -0.0000777240053499279217, 0.00000673180367053244284, -0.000000742595338885741395, 0.0000000905058919926194134 }; t1 = (v - TRANSV) / RADIUS; t2 = (h - TRANSH) / RADIUS; vhat = ROTC*t2 - ROTS*t1; hhat = ROTS*t2 + ROTC*t1; e = cos(sqrt(vhat*vhat + hhat*hhat)); w = cos(sqrt(vhat*vhat + (hhat-0.4)*(hhat-0.4))); fx = EY*w - WY*e; fy = EX*w - WX*e; b = fx*GX + fy*GY; c = fx*fx + fy*fy - Q2; disc = b*b - A*c; /* discriminant */ if (disc==0.0) { /* It's right on the E-W axis */ z = b/A; x = (GX*z - fx)/Q; y = (fy - GY*z)/Q; } else { delta = sqrt(disc); z = (b + delta)/A; x = (GX*z - fx)/Q; y = (fy - GY*z)/Q; if (vhat * (PX*x + PY*y + PZ*z) < 0) { /* wrong direction */ z = (b - delta)/A; x = (GX*z - fx)/Q; y = (fy - GY*z)/Q; } } lat = asin(z); /* * Use polynomial approximation for inverse mapping * (sphere to spheroid): */ lat2 = lat*lat; earthlat = 0; for (i=6; i>=0; i--) earthlat = (earthlat + bi[i]) * (i? lat2: lat); earthlat *= 180/M_PI; /* * Adjust longitude by 52 degrees: */ lon = atan2(x, y) * 180/M_PI; earthlon = lon + 52; if (mflag) { latdeg = earthlat; latmin = (earthlat - latdeg) * 60; latsec = (((earthlat - latdeg) * 60) - latmin) * 60 + 0.5; londeg = earthlon; lonmin = (earthlon - londeg) * 60; lonsec = (((earthlon - londeg) * 60) - lonmin) * 60 + 0.5; printf("%02dd %02dm %02ds %02dd %02dm %02ds\n", latdeg, latmin, latsec, londeg, lonmin, lonsec); } else printf("%lf %lf\n", earthlat, earthlon); } main(argc, argv) int argc; char **argv; { double v, h; while (--argc) if ('-'==**++argv) switch(*++*argv) { case 'm': mflag = 1; break; default: usage(); } else break; switch(argc) { case 0: while (2==scanf(" %lf %lf", &v, &h)) vh2ll(v, h); break; case 2: if (!isdigit(argv[0][0])) usage(); /* sanity */ if (!isdigit(argv[1][0])) usage(); v = atof(argv[0]); h = atof(argv[1]); vh2ll(v, h); break; default: usage(); } exit(0); } Col. G. L. Sicherman sicherman@lucent.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 05:40:51 PST From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Eric Florack) Subject: Possible Internet Scam Got the following from a friend of mine who is an ISP. Normally, I take such notes with much in the way of salt substitute. However, he's proven trusty with information he's sent me in the past. So, I'll forward this to you advisedly. I get the impression from talking to this guy that the scam is not limited to adult sites. /E --------- There is a new InterNet scam that involes some "adult" sites that promise "free pictures". The user logs in and is told to download some "special viewer software" or something like that. What the viewer software does is, when executed, turns off the modem speaker, disconnects from AugLink (or whatever server) and redials and connects you with an overseas phone call to Europe - In the cases we have heard of to a server in the former Soviet Union state of Muldavia. The company that is running this scam is in cahoots with the phone company over there to split the income from these calls. This is NOT a rumor - some of our users have been nabbed by this scam, and it is not completely certain you can have the charges removed from your phone bill. I will update this with of list of the site(s) that are doing this - In the meantime, use your judgment in downloading any suspicious sounding "special software". Just check it out, and pass it on perhaps to anyone that may have a need for this knowledge, as your mailing list is larger than mine : ) =-=-=- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We touched on this one before here in the Digest. The news on television today brings still another scam of interest: college degrees by email from "Loyola State University of Illinois". The lady running this one had a web page promising a college degree in twenty-seven days or less. You get credit for 'life experiences' and these 'college credits' along with a couple thousand dollars will get you a Bachelor's degree. A few thousand more and you can have a Masters or a Doctorate. The web page told you where to submit your 'transcripts' for approval. The 'Bursars Office' and the 'University Chancellor' could be reached via a mail drop in Illinois (I think it is the same fraud-hive which runs the voicemail on an 800 number with business opportunities; remember them, down in Edwardsville, IL?). The mail drop was then forwarding the mail to the woman running this scam at her home in (naturally!) South Florida. There is a legitimate 'Loyola University' -- a Jesuit institution of high regard -- here in Chicago and they were simply furious to find out about the diploma mill running on the Internet using their name when the Postal Inspectors raided the operation at the end of last week. There is also a 'University of Illinois' of course, and an 'Illinois State University' operating legitimatly here. Anyway, in a stunning blow for academic freedom the feds closed the "Loyola State University of Illinois' diploma mill a few days ago. You may have seen the web page before the authorities pulled the plug, seized the computer and all its files. It is refreshing to have them act out their hostility toward the net community on someone other than the crafty pedophiles for a change. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #57 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 6 04:03:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id EAA25089; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:03:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:03:24 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703060903.EAA25089@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #58 TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Mar 97 04:03:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 58 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson President Carter's Call-In and Old 900-NNXs (Mark J. Cuccia) USR 56k Modems and CODECs (Eric Ewanco) Book Review: "The AltaVista Search Revolution" by Seltzer/Ray (Rob Slade) INC Proposals to Redo the NANP (David W. Tamkin) Ameritech and AT&T Announce Agreement (Jeffrey Rhodes) LSU Safety Arrested In Phonecard Scandal (William Van Hefner) Destiny Telecom Raided (Tad Cook) Residential and Small Business Telecom (Tara D. Mahon) Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Robert A. Rosenberg) 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: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 10:26:38 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: President Carter's Call-In and Old 900-NNXs It was twenty years ago, on Saturday 5 March 1977, that then-president Jimmy Carter had his live three-hour call-in radio program over the Columbia Broadcasting System, moderated by Walter Cronkite. IIRC, it aired from 3:00 to 6:00 pm (EST). I don't remember if the program was sponsored or if it ran 'sustained', but later on during his term, Carter had a few other live radio programs of telephone conversations with citizens, but those were carried by the government's non-commercial NPR network. And those NPR broadcasts were arranged where if one desired to speak on the phone live on the radio with Carter, they had to mail in requests in advance, and only those selected were called on the day of broadcast. The original CBS Radio Network airing used a _FREE_ 900 telephone number to call up to speak on the radio with Carter. The number was 900-242-1611. It was answered by producers/screeners of CBS News either at the offices in Washington, or at the White House itself. Cronkite introduced the callers to Carter. Many people attempting to call Carter forgot to dial (a possible '1+' used to initiate toll and ten-digit calls from many areas, and) the special area code '900' before dialing the seven-digit number, 242-1611. Wherever in the US (and Canada?) a 242 prefix existed in a geographical area code, whoever had 242-1611 (if 1611 was actually assigned) were getting call after call asking if they were Carter, Cronkite, or the White House. Also, back in the 1970's, The Bell System (AT&T Long-Lines and the local Bell and independent operating companies) used 900 service for such national 'mass-calling' purposes. The first time I ever knew of it actually being used was to call Carter and Cronkite in 1977. Later on, I found out that during the 1970's, the 900-NNX codes were assigned to _specific_ inbound terminating localities. 900-242 was assigned to Washington DC. Beginning in the 1980's, 900 service became more of a pay-per-call service for 'info' services, and even though AT&T and Trans-Canada (now Stentor) were the only providers of 900 service, the 900-NXX codes didn't have any geographic meaning anymore. By the mid-to-late 1980's, Bellcore began to assign 900-NXX codes to specific competitive carriers or info(?) providers. The 900-NXX codes which in the early 1980's had been used by AT&T and Trans-Canada (Telecom-Canada) were 'grandfathtered' in and continued to be assigned to them. Presently, carrier/entity/provider portability doesn't exist among 900 numbers (nor 500 numbers), although the FCC is looking into such portability at some time in the future, which would be similar to 800/888/etc. toll-free portability. Here is a list of _OLD_ 900-NNX _geographic_ assignments, which came from the "Distance Dialing Reference Guide", circa 1977/78. Please note that the NPA codes indicated are what code was used for that location _at_that_time! Many of these NPA's have had subsequent splits or overlays, and such references are not shown in this listing, as it is 'historical' as of the late 1970's. Note that 900-242 is assigned for inbound terminating 'mass-calling' trunks to Washington DC. 900-220 Indianapolis IN (317) 900-222 Sacramento CA (916) 900-230 Tampa FL (813) 900-240 Jacksonville FL (904) 900-242 Washington DC (202) 900-243 Alberquerque NM (505) 900-247 Fresno CA (209) 900-250 Lansing MI (517) 900-260 Phoenix AZ (602) 900-263 Philadelphia PA (215) 900-270 Grand Rapids MI (616) 900-280 Harrisburg PA (717) 900-290 Escambia MI (906) 900-330 Ft.Myers FL (813) 900-333 Pittsburgh PA (412) 900-340 Tallahassee FL (904) 900-370 Akron OH (216) 900-381 Charlotte NC (704) 900-390 Macon GA (912) 900-421 Seattle WA (206) 900-434 Fargo ND (701) 900-441 Spokane WA (509) 900-450 Orlando FL (305) 900-478 San Francisco CA (415) 900-481 Baltimore MD (301) 900-490 Ft.Lauderdale FL (305) 900-520 Los Angeles CA (213) 900-521 Los Angeles CA (213) 900-540 Atlanta GA (404) 900-550 Miami FL (305) 900-555 Directory? Other 900 special service? 900-570 San Diego CA (714) 900-576 Kansas City MO (816) 900-578 Cleveland OH (216) 900-591 Chicago IL (312) 900-620 Greensboro NC (919) 900-630 Denver CO (303) 900-639 Denver CO (303) 900-645 Hamilton ON (416) 900-670 Quebec PQ (418) 900-690 Portland OR (503) 900-697 London ON (519) 900-749 Cincinnati OH (513) 900-750 Ottawa ON (613) 900-751 Tacoma WA (206) 900-762 Oakland CA (415) 900-770 Columbia SC (803) 900-790 Montreal PQ (514) 900-840 Hartford CT (203) 900-842 Bakersfield CA (805) 900-850 Detroit MI (313) 900-860 New Haven CT (203) 900-870 Toronto ON (416) 900-880 Tucson AZ (602) 900-890 Cheyenne WY (307) 900-921 Charleston WV (304) 900-924 Milwaukee WI (414) 900-925 Eau Claire WI (715) 900-928 Madison WI (608) 900-930 West Palm Beach FL (305) 900-931 Boston MA (617) 900-936 Florence SC (803) 900-939 Covington KY (606) 900-977 Santa Ana CA (714) 900-985 New York NY (212) 900-993 Dallas TX (214) 900-996 Ft.Worth TX (817) 900-999 New York NY (212) 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: Eric Ewanco Subject: USR 56k Modems and CODECs Date: 05 Mar 1997 11:32:57 -0500 Organization: Xyplex, Inc. I'm surprised that there isn't a discussion here on 56 kbps POTS modem technology. US Robotics has just released code for their X2 56k technology and the Usenet group comp.dcom.modems is abuzz with discussion. I have a specific issue in regard to this to bring up on this mailing list, however. For those who are unfamiliar with this technology, I refer you to USR's white paper . Basically, it relies on a connection which is analog on only one end; it takes advantage of the reduced quantization noise when the upstream modem can control PCM signalling directly. The 56k transfer rate is ONLY in the downstream (from the ISP) direction, and the ISP connection must be fully digital (T1 or PRI). There is one additional stipulation: There must not be any analog-to-digital conversions (e.g. multiple CODECs) along the path (for example, PBXs, or SLCs). Otherwise the whole advantage is lost, and 56k technology does not work. The modems probe during negotiation to see if there is any A/D conversion, and if so, they record the event, abandon X2 and fall back to V.34+ or lower. Well, after eagerly awaiting X2 code since the time it was announced in October, and having downloaded the code and enabled it this weekend, I discover that -- guess what? I'm a loser: my attempts to connect via X2 via my home line (NPA/NXX 508-872) yield this error. I decided to call my NYNEX repair line to discuss with them the multiple CODEC matter, to see if there was anything they could do. NYNEX had been advertising to me that I was ISDN capable, and I reasoned that if I could get ISDN, and if my CO was fully digital (which it is), why shouldn't I be able to use X2? (NB: I have never had my line qualified. This was just an enclosure in my bill.) Surprisingly, the technician who answered actually had a clue about what I was asking. He was competent to discuss modem issues, and he had heard (though vaguely) about USR's 56k technology (he was exceedingly skeptical about its capability to deliver). It took me a while though to convince him that I was talking POTS, not ISDN. I got him to test the line for me, and from that test he gave me the following information: 1) My line is working at 100% capacity 2) My line is 4 miles (21,200 ft) of copper 3) There is no SLC involved. His judgment was that the 4 miles of copper were the impediment; when I asked him about where the multiple CODECs might be, he said that there were "enhancers" (based on the description, I'd call them repeaters) along the line to handle some sort of signal quality issue with touch-tone. Can anyone confirm that these "enhancers" necessarily involve additional CODECs? Can anyone suggest any other reason why there might be an A/D converter? I note from NYNEX's web page that ISDN requires a local loop shorter than 3.5 miles (18,000 ft?), so it looks like I'm just over. Eric Ewanco eje@world.std.com Framingham, MA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 10:31:34 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The AltaVista Search Revolution" by Seltzer/Ray/Ray BKAVSRVL.RVW 961115 "The AltaVista Search Revolution", Richard Seltzer/Eric J. Ray/Deborah S. Ray, 1997, 0-07-882235-1, U$24.95 %A Richard Seltzer seltzer@samizdat.com richard.seltzer@ljo.dec.com %A Eric J. Ray ejray@raycomm.com %A Deborah S. Ray debray@raycomm.com %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-882235-1 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$24.95 905-430-5000 +1-800-565-5758 +1-905-430-5134 fax: 905-430-5020 %P 274 %T "The AltaVista Search Revolution" The word "the" is used 187,110,494 times on the Web: you can add another 27,587,905 if you add "The". The most common real word is "information". Canada is cited more frequently than California. Welcome to AltaVista. While some may cavil about various subjective considerations, to date I have not found an Internet search engine that can match AltaVista for flexibility, speed, or comprehensive coverage. Digital can be justifiably proud of AltaVista (or, more properly, AltaVista Search Public Service), even if they tend to overhype it from time to time. The first five chapters provide an introduction to AltaVista and a great many useful tips and pointers. (Chapter two even has a canned form that you can paste into your own Web pages.) Unfortunately, the screenshots are all taken from graphical browsers, and Lynx users may find the entry fields a bit more difficult to deal with. (Not to mention the fact that there are at least two different text-only interfaces.) Chapter six has suggested searches for a variety of topics: I found the list unhelpful, but novice users will probably find it to be a lot of fun. Chapter seven provides a history of the development of AltaVista. The trivia in my first paragraph comes from Appendix A, the thousand most common words on the Web. For anyone using (rather than merely surfing) the Web, this book is a valuable guide to an indispensable tool. For anyone else, there is still a lot of really interesting stuff. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKAVSRVL.RVW 961115 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: Tue, 4 Mar 97 16:26:00 CST From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: INC proposals to redo the NANP Organization: TIPFKAG [World-Wide Access, Chicago, Illinois 60606-2804] In Tad Cook was good enough to share something that appeared on March 4 in The Orange County Register, Calif., Life on the Line Column By Stephen Lynch, The Orange County Register, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mr. Lynch told us about the INC: > The Industry Numbering Committee, a group representing every major > American telecommunications company, is thinking ahead to 2025, when, > by some estimates, the one-plus-area-code-plus-seven-digit-numbering > system we know and love will exhaust itself. This was one of the listed possibilities: > Another proposal would divide the nation into eight regions, the > number of which you would dial first. So instead of 1-714-555-7929, > you'd dial 6-714-555-7929, with six being the region code for the > Southwest. Under such a system, local calls would be a 10-digit dial, > but the same area codes can be used in multiple regions. How could local calls be dialed with ten digits unless they were terminated by timeout or [dare I use the word] the octothorpe? It seems to be that NPA-NXX-XXXX could easily match the first ten digits of R-NPA-NXX-XXXX. Or is the proposal that we dial NPA-NXX-NXXX within our region and 1+R-NPA-NXX-XXXX to other regions? If we discount that and figure that it will take eleven digits to dial locally, I gather that "eight" regions means 2 through 9; perhaps 1+ might be reserved as a second way of dialing within one's region, but that would be of benefit only for pulse dialing. (Why can't one just dial one's own region number instead of 1? Why get into a bad habit that won't work while you're traveling?) Heck, we might as well use 1 to designate a region as well and get nine (instead of just eight) times as many numbers as we can have now. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 12:40:17 -0800 From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Ameritech and AT&T Announce Agreement Ameritech and AT&T jointly released an agreement that among other things "resolved a series of lawsuits involving claims under a Mutual Credit Card Honoring Agreement." Maybe Ameritech will discontinue the practice of double long distance billing for the first month that both AT&T and Ameritech agree to begin separate customer invoicing for local and long distance service, too! AT&T has to give back to Ameritech any monies wrongfully collected by the double billing and the customer has to get credit from Ameritech, which for some people (PAT included), makes AT&T appear to be uncooperative. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is a good thing they finally got their mutual act straightened out. Frankly, the phone war here between Ameritech and AT&T was beginning to get on a lot of people's nerves ... people in sort of high places. I think both companies received a lot of pressure to make things work. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 17:19:20 -0800 From: William Van Hefner Subject: LSU Safety Arrested In Phonecard Scandal BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- An LSU starting safety, suspended last month amid reports that he and other players used a coach's long distance telephone code, was arrested Tuesday, the school said. Greg Hill, 20, was suspended indefinitely from the team in February for ``behavior inconsistent with the principles and philosophies of our football program,'' LSU coach Gerry DiNardo said in a news release. ``I will discuss with him his future with the LSU football program only after he has handled all matters with the legal system and the LSU Dean of Students,'' DiNardo said. The university said last month that it was investigating the apparent use of a coach's code to make long-distance calls. The Times-Picayune newspaper identified Hill as the player who obtained the code. The newspaper also reported that Hill allegedly gave the number to three other players who used it, one of whom was All-American running back Kevin Faulk. Tuesday's announcement of Hill's arrest and booking with ``access device fraud'' was the first time the university had publicly identified any player being investigated. Earlier, the university said the other three players were not disciplined and will be forced to refund the money for their calls. The other players were unaware that it was an unauthorized code, officials said. Hill was a starting strong safety last year and is a two-year letterman. He started 11 of 12 games last season and was fourth on the team with 79 tackles. Hill was booked into the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. No bond was set immediately. WIlliam Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.thedigest.com ------------------------------ Subject: Destiny Telecom Raided Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 20:19:38 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) State raids pre-paid phone card company, seizes assets OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Law enforcement officials have shut down a national pre-paid phone card business on accusations owners were running a pyramid scheme that duped thousands of investors. Destiny Telecomm Inc. promised impossible riches to its investors, state and local prosecutors charged in a $20 million lawsuit against the company. Investigators raided Destiny's Oakland headquarters Thursday, carting away files but making no arrests. On Wednesday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Sandra Margulies had issued a temporary restraining order which authorized the search warrant. The order also froze Destiny's assets and put a receiver in place to guard them. Margulies' order was based on a civil complaint filed by the state Attorney General's office and the District Attorney's offices in Alameda and Monterey counties alleging that Destiny is violating California's misleading advertising and unfair competition statutes. Deputy Attorney General Albert Shelden said law enforcement officials believe Destiny, an 18-month old company that sells long-distance pre-paid phone cards and has distributors nationwide, is operating "an illegal endless-chain scheme." Shelden said the civil complaint alleges that marketing employees at Digital are compensated according to their ability to get new marketing employees to buy their way into the company, not according to sales of products or services. Shelden said attorneys general in at least two other states -- North Carolina and Michigan -- have filed similar civil complaints against Destiny and additional states are also investigating the company. Margulies will hold another hearing on March 13 on law enforcement officials' bid to get a preliminary injunction against Destiny. Destiny president Randy Jeffers, who founded the fast-growing company in 1995, denied he runs an illegal recruiting operation. "For anyone to refer to (Destiny) as a pyramid scheme is tantamount to similarly branding Amway, Mary Kay or Avon," he said. Destiny has branched out from the phone car business and now sells long distance phone service, cellular phones, laptop computers and recently clothing and food products. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 97 12:41:41 +0000 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Residential and Small Business Telecom Hi Pat and List, Insight has now published three studies on Residential and Small Business Telecom over the past several years, and our research has continually found an overwhelming lack of service/products geared to the special needs of the small business customer. Below is a press release announcing our findings and a link to our web site where folks can read an excerpt of the report. Since many of the TELECOM Digest members are small business owners and solo entrepreneurs themselves, it will be interesting to hear the list comments! I recall the Friday's Free thread from last year ... Regards, Tara D. Mahon The Insight Research Corporation ----------------- SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE $60 BILLION TO SPEND, BUT TELCOS HAVE NO RESPECT, SAYS INSIGHT RESEARCH LIVINGSTON, NJ. March 5, 1997: Small businesses just can't get no respect from the giant telephone companies, but with their phone bills growing at more than 11% per year, small businesses represent an enormous opportunity, says a new report from Insight Research. Glossy brochureware and discount pricing offers bombard the small business owner, but such primitive marketing tactics typically won't convince these savvy entrepreneurs. With competition in local and long distance markets forcing carriers to re-examine their entire marketing operations, now is the perfect time to address the unmet market needs of nearly 21 million small businesses. According to the 1,000 interviews conducted for Insight's Residential and Small Business Telecom study, the small business customer is grossly underserved by the telcos, with little to no services created to solve their unique problems. This lack of service is due in part to old assumptions about small business. Small businesses are not cost sensitive, but revenue sensitive, says the report. Small businesses are not slow to adopt, nor slow to be sold, nor technologically naive. Today's small businesses are heavy users of advanced telecom tools and they're willing to pay for improved service features if they perceive a significant business value. "Small businesses are the fastest growing part of our economy, and they have real money to spend -- over $60 billion for telecom products and services in 1997 alone," explains Robert Rosenberg, president of Insight Research. "But the carriers tend to lump small businesses in with residential consumers or categorize them as 'mini' big businesses. They're neither. And they won't respond to services created for someone else." For this market research report, Insight collected 15,000 pieces of data about small businesses and their employees, geographic areas of operation, equipment complements, communications traffic volume, information movement, and opinions on services, prices, and possible applications. While Insight found that small businesses are more willing to try new solutions than large organizations, they are equally quick to discard solutions which do not meet their requirements. Significant business opportunities and recommendations on how to market to the small business customer are published in Residential and Small Business Telecom, now available from Insight Research for $3,495. Insight Research, based in Livingston, NJ, is a leading provider of telecommunications market research and analysis. Insight can be reached via the web at http://www.insight-corp.com, and an excerpt of this study is available on the res96.html page. For more information on this study, please contact: Tara D. Mahon, The Insight Research Corporation, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Livingston, NJ 07039-1023, phone 201-605-1400, fax 201-605-1440, internet: tara@insight-corp.com ------------------------------ From: hal9001@panix.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) Subject: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 17:00:23 -0500 Organization: RAR Programming Systems Ltd. The intent of *70 is to turn off Call-Waiting for the current out-going call. Up until this week I've only had one line (which has Call-Waiting). Thus all my Fax and ISP phone numbers have started with *70W. I've just had the second wire on my RJ14 jacks activated as a second line (dedicated to my Computer and its Fax Modem). Since I do not plan to use it as an incoming voice line, I did not order Call-Waiting on that line. Now I get an stupid intercept on the line whenever I try to dial out using a number I forgot to remove the *70W from. The way I look at it, dialing *70 says I want no Call-Waiting during the current call, I HAVE NO Call-Waiting AT ALL on the line, so there is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone just like on a Call-Waiting Line (I asked for it to be turned off and it IS off). Can anyone explain this stupidity? It is not as if I were attempting to use some feature that would only work if I had the option activated on my line (*69 Call Return or something like that). I'm asking to turn off an optional feature which was never Active on the line in the first place (its like using *82 to turn off All-Call-Blocking on a Per-Call-Blocking line - the result without entering it is the same as you would get if you needed to and did enter it so *82 is allowed to make sure that it is off). Thank you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are welcome. I am glad we could help you get that off your chest. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #58 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 9 00:26:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA28844; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:26:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 00:26:34 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703090526.AAA28844@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #59 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Mar 97 00:26:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 59 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 900 Prefixes From 1970s (Greg Monti) Dividing Manhattan's 212 Area Code (Greg Monti) Please Help - Fraud Victim (Sarah Liz) NYPSC Sets Hearing Date for 212/917 (John Cropper) Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (J. Oppenheimer) Book Review: "How to Access Federal Government on the Internet" (Rob Slade) 416 to be Overlaid in Early 2000 (John Cropper) America Online Offline (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 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, 08 Mar 1997 20:44:26 -0500 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: 900 Prefixes From 1970s On 3/5, Mark J. Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote: > Here is a list of _OLD_ 900-NNX _geographic_ assignments, which came > from the "Distance Dialing Reference Guide", circa 1977/78. Please note > that the NPA codes indicated are what code was used for that location > _at_that_time! ... Curiously, some of these 900 prefixes are numerically identical to the "choke" radio and TV station call-in prefixes used locally within these metropolitan areas. The high-volume choke prefix is, of course, within the local area code and is not a 900 number. However, the two appear to be numerically identical in some cases. Dialing 900-333-1234 and 412-333-1234 would connect you to unrelated customers, but they would both be in Pittsburgh. A choke prefix is a special routing code that local telcos sometimes require broadcasters to use for call-in contest and request lines. The contestant at home (and 5,000 of his neighbors), call what appears to be a 7-digit local call. At each central office, a small random sample of the calls to that number are actually passed through trunk circuits to the CO serving the radio station. A handful of those ever get through and/or are answered. The majority of calls are "choked off" at the originating central office and are given an immediate busy signal without ever tying up a trunk to the radio station's CO. Examples: > 900-242 Washington DC (202) Here's one which does not match the choke prefix (which is 202-432-XXXX). > 900-333 Pittsburgh PA (412) Choke prefix was (and maybe still is) 412-333-XXXX. The station at 92.9 FM once had the contest line 412-333-9313. > 900-481 Baltimore MD (301) Choke prefix was at the time 301-481-XXXX (now 410-481-XXXX). > 900-520 Los Angeles CA (213) Choke prefix at the time was 213-520-XXXX. > 900-570 San Diego CA (714) Choke prefix at the time was 714-570-XXXX. > 900-591 Chicago IL (312) Choke prefix at the time was 312-591-XXXX. I think WLS-AM's contest line was 312-591-8900. > 900-931 Boston MA (617) Choke prefix was (and maybe still is) 617-931-XXXX. > 900-985 New York NY (212) > 900-999 New York NY (212) Choke prefixes were 212-985-XXXX and 212-955-XXXX. One matched. One not. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 20:44:44 -0500 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: Dividing Manhattan's 212 Area Code The recent discussion about splitting vs. overlaying Manhattan's area code 212 with the new code 646 got me to run a little research project to see how feasible splitting Manhattan would be. I ran a report from the shareware program "NPA" which lists the area codes and prefixes of the US and Canada. It lists each prefix with a latitude and longitude (earth coordinates, not V&H table coordinates; the NPA database has them down to 1/100 degree). This was using the 1995 edition of NPA, which is a little out of date, but we're doing a rough analysis here. I sorted the list by latitude and longitude. I assumed that any prefixes with the same numerical latitude and longitude were in the same central office. This is probably not completely accurate but that isn't necessary. (There two freak 212 prefixes which are not in Manhattan: 212-936 the recorded weather report, located in Downtown Brooklyn; and 212-817, which is used by Fordham University in the Bronx along with 718-817. These two are not counted in the CO and prefix counts below.) Using the above method, I counted 17 central offices in Manhattan, listed below from north to south. Central office names are my own devising, the official Nynex names are probably different: 200th Street-Inwood: 6 prefixes 170th Street-Washington Heights: 10 (includes WAS [927] prefix) 140th Street: 10 Morningside Heights: 19 Harlem: 15 (includes HAR [427] prefix) Lexington (upper east side): 27 (includes LE5 [535]) West 73rd Street (upper west side): 16 Plaza (northeast midtown): 63 (includes PLA [752]) West 50th Street (northwest midtown): 63 Midtown (central): 41 Murray Hill (southeast midtown): 135 (includes MUR [687]) Pennsylvania (southwest midtown): 32 (includes PEN [736]) Lower East Side-East Village: 27 (includes GRE [473]) Chelsea-West Village: 23 (includes CHE [243]) Wall Street (financial district central): 44 (includes WAL [925]) Financial District (west): 84 Financial District (east): 50 That's 661 prfixes in 1995; I am sure there are more now. Once I got over the concept of what a central office with 135 prefixes in it might look like, I tested for possible dividing lines. The NPA database does not include a description of the dividing lines between central offices so I guessed. - Split at 59th Street (the southern edge of Central Park): This would give us 101 prefixes north of the line and 560 prefixes to the south. Not workable. - Split at roughly 42nd Street, as suggested in a Nynex press release: I figured this would add three more central offices (West 50th, Midtown central and Plaza) to the north side of the line, and would result in 270 prefixes to the north, 391 to the south. Maybe workable. - Split at roughly 25th Street (Chelsea and Village south of line, midtown north of line): 433 north, 228 south. Lopsided. - Split at roughly Canal or Houston Street: 483 prefixes to the north, 178 to the south. Ditto. - Split at 5th Avenue, also suggested in a Nynex press release (assumes entire financial district out to the western shore would be defined as being east of the line, which it mostly is; upper east side and Harlem would be east of line): 445 east of line, 216 west. Lopsided. - Split at 5th Avenue and 59th Street, with financial district assumed to be east of line: 403 prefixes south and east, 258 north and west. Maybe workable. - Put the five midtown central offices, which contain 334 prefixes, in one area code, while the areas north and south of that, totaling 327 prefixes, would get a second code. Divides evenly, but makes one of the two codes non-contiguous. Someday, that Murray Hill central office will need an area code of its own. Anyone else with too much time on their hands: feel free to slice and dice. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ From: Sarah Liz Subject: Please Help - Fraud Victim Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 10:40:13 -0800 Organization: aracnet.com -- Portland's loudest electrons Reply-To: sarahliz@teleport.com Your newsgroup was suggested to me by a friend as a possible source of advice on my situation. Story: One day I came home from work to find a FedEx tag on my doorknob concerning a package I had not ordered. I called FedEx, learned it was from AT&T Wireless, refused it, thought no more of it. Shrug. Later that evening I received a call from AT&T Wireless asking why I'd refused their cellphones. The ensuing conversation revealed that someone using my name, home address, SSN, unlisted telephone number, and something very close to my birthdate had ordered a cellular account and two phones. The rep read to me the alternate address and phone number given; they were unfamiliar to me but I have since tracked them in a reverse-listing phone book as belonging to a (presumably) legit business in my city. AT&T had their salesperson call the individual at the alternate number where a person answered, said they were me, and insisted there must have been a mistake, they really wanted the phones. The salesperson requested a fax of a driver's license and Soc Sec card. Never heard from the person again. A week later I receive a call from a very nice Sprint PCS salesperson asking if he can help me further with my purchase of phones. Same routine, except UPS was going to be tried this time. The alternate phone number given this time was completely different (I do not have this one copied down). Assumption: They got my information by stealing mail. Assumption: They won't stop till they get what they want using my information. Assumption: They have done this before -- they have some idea of what questions to expect from companies. Assumption: They are STUPID. A smart crook would never have had me in the loop until the bill arrived. What I have done: Placed fraud alerts at the major credit reporting agencies. Filed a police report in my city after being routed through 3 police jurisdictions, each of whom claimed it was another jurisdiction's problem, and obtained a case number to give to other authorities. (Note that the police maintain a crime was not even committed since I refused the package. I guess mail stealing ain't a crime around here.) Moved my mail delivery to my post office box. Called VoiceStream and AirTouch to warn them about possible fraud attempts in my name. What I want: To stop this person from obtaining cellular merchandise and airtime OR ANYTHING ELSE in my name. To avoid being billed for their activities. To prevent this from happening again with another crook. To keep my credit rating good. And I do not want to suffer the considerable trouble of changing my phone number or #SSN or residence. I might do the first or even the second if I thought it was the only prudent course of action...but I want the *crook* to suffer. I want any inconvenience, liability and other troubles to be the crook's, not mine. I want to find out who this person is, if possible, and be able to prove it to the police and/or the fraud departments. I want this person to be sorry they ever came within ten feet of my mailbox. Do any of you have any advice on what steps I should take next? My friend says you guys are very knowledgeable and creative. Thank you very much. Sarah Liz cheshire@aracnet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pass alng your ideas to Sarah and see if you can find a way to help her stop the problem. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: NYPSC Sets Hearing Date For 212/917 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 16:25:28 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CASE 96-C-1158 -Proceeding on Motion of the Commission, Pursuant to Section 97(2) of the Public Service Law, to Evaluate the Options for Making Additional Central Office and/or Area Codes Available in the 212 and 917 Area Codes of New York City. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE + ___________________________________ (Issued March 5, 1997) TAKE NOTICE that an administrative conference will be held before Administrative Law Judge Joel A. Linsider on Tuesday, March 25, 1997 beginning at 10:30 a.m. at the Commission's New York City offices, One Penn Plaza, 8th floor. The principal purposes of the conference are to identify the active parties and major issues in the proceeding and to consider the process and schedule best suited to bringing the proceeding to a timely conclusion. Among other things, parties should be prepared to identify specifically any issues of fact that might warrant evidentiary hearings, as distinct from legislative-type hearings on questions of policy. It is anticipated that the conference will consider only procedural matters, and parties need not and should not address themselves to the substantive issues except to the extent needed to identify them. It is also anticipated that this proceeding will encompass a comprehensive public outreach and education component, designed to inform the public about the issues under consideration and to solicit their views. The schedule for those events will shortly be announced, and this conference, therefore, should not be seen as an opportunity for general public comment on the matters at hand. To expedite the conference, parties are requested to submit, by March 17, 1997, written statements of their views on the procedural concerns noted above. Ten copies of such statements should be submitted to the undersigned at Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223-1350. Submission of such a statement, however, is not a prerequisite to participation in the conference. JOHN C. CRARY Secretary ---------------------------- John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 09:03:45 -0500 Organization: ICB Toll Free News Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net FYI. The Wall Street Journal -- March 7, 1997 Advertising Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear an 888 Prefix Invasion By SALLY GOLL BEATTY Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL An easy-to-remember phone number made 1-800-FLOWERS a household name. But now the flower-delivery company has a big problem: What happens if somebody else gets hold of the new toll-free prefix created last year and opens up 1-888-FLOWERS? Toll-free numbers are blooming into a big battle for businesses and phone companies, and now advertisers are jumping into the fray. The Association of National Advertisers, a big trade group, is pushing the government to quash an idea to auction off "vanity numbers" in the new 888 exchange. The advertisers' fear: chaos when two different companies own the same number-one with an 800 prefix and the other with an 888 prefix. A letter from the trade group's executive vice president, Daniel Jaffe, to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) warns of "enormous potential for consumer confusion" and a black market for speculators who could snap up 888 numbers and then sell them to the owners of the 800 lookalike. "If we're not careful, we'll get telephone bandits. They'll take other people's telephone numbers and hold them up. It's a stickup," says Mr. Jaffe. The phone industry created the 888 prefix last year, with the pool of 7.71 million available 800 numbers quickly running out. In January the Clinton administration's new budget proposed raising $700 million by auctioning off 888 numbers -- an idea that had also cropped up last year but withered amid opposition by business groups. The Federal Communications Commission, which would administer the auction if it is approved by Congress, says such a sale is simply an equitable way to distribute something in short supply. "Auctions are a good way to assign scarce resources," an FCC staffer says. While the fight brews, advertisers are already worrying that confusion about the 888 numbers is making it hard to plan ad campaigns and marketing materials. More than 3.3 million numbers with the 888 code are already in use -- but AT&T said last year that only 19% of consumers it surveyed are aware of the new code. "The primary issue is confusion for our potential guests," says Bill Poe, vice president in charge of corporate systems for Choice Hotels International, which owns the Quality Inn, Comfort Inn and EconoLodge chains. "If they're trying to reach one of the affinity [800] numbers that we have been advertising, they might dial 888 and get some other company. That's going to be very confusing for guests, and potentially very irritating." The fight raises thorny issues of fairness. Taxpayers could certainly use the $700 million the auction could raise. But advertisers argue that the government would be taking away something they worked hard to build. "The only reason these numbers have value is because of the money and sweat businesses such as 1-800-FLOWERS made in their 1-800 numbers," says Chris McCann, a co-founder of 1-800-FLOWERS. "You can't just duplicate our franchise and give it to someone else." At AT&T, the director of government affairs, James Spurlock, also argues that the auction would be hard on small businesses. He worries about "small and midsize companies that have invested a lot of money into promoting toll-free numbers. If they had to compete with larger interests in an auction, they'd have no chance. They'd be out of the ballgame immediately." While the wrangling over the auction continues, the FCC has agreed not to allocate nearly 400,000 888 numbers that look like 800 vanity numbers. But don't expect the world of toll-free numbers to get less confusing anytime soon. The phone industry expects the pool of available 888 numbers to dry up over the next year. It is already planning a third toll-free code, 877, which would be introduced in April 1998. ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher - http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com 1 800 THE EXPERT, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If each time a new toll-free code is installed (as with 888 at present) these folks who are so afraid that their work of how many ever years is going to be lost that they need to have major parts of the new code blocked out in order to prevent the possibility of phone-number bandits obtaining the number then it should be easy to see we will never get done with opening new toll free codes. A million numbers here and a few hundred thousand numbers there, made unavailable because the executives of a motel chain do not want their customers to be confused or disgruntled. Whatever happened to the concept that some people are just plain dumb; some will *never* understand how to dial the phone correctly, and there is little that can be done for them. At some point one has to draw the line and say nothing more can be done for the dumbos of the world. Now many months into area 847 there are still a large number of people who do not understand to dial a '1' at the start of a north suburban Chicago number, driving the subscribers of the VIRginia-7 exchange batty. The {Chicago Tribune's} Mike Royko has a seven-digit number beginning 312-222 which is the same as a 1-800 number used by thousands of callers daily to AT&T. He complains that people in the Chicago area are always dialing his number because they are too ignor- ant to know they have to dial 1-800 first. His solution? He wants AT&T to change their number. Numerous subscribers to 312-773 numbers and 773-847 numbers feel Ameritech should pick some other area codes so they won't be hassled so much by people trying to reach area 773 and 847. I think at some point the 'FLOWERS' people and the motel reservations people and whatnot are going to have to bite the bullet on this and tell their customers 'dial the entire number we have given you and do so accurately; you will then reach us. Dial it in some different way or without the leading '1' or the '800' and you will get a wrong number or no number at all ... sorry, there is nothing more we can do for you.' At some point Judith, you have to quit worrying about covering every single base for every single dumbo in the world. Now obviously if a person or company obtains a very similar number with the specific intent to defraud another company or cause confusion among customers, that can be dealt with as an issue of its own. I could see that happening. But for the general public and the general use of 888 numbers, I think you have to tell the public to learn how to dial correctly or else stay off the phone and quite bothering all the other folks with their incessant wrong numbers, etc. At the place I work, I quite often need to refer phone calls to a number 773-693-xxxx and at least one a day calls me back a few seconds later to tell me I gave them a wrong number. Lately I refuse to get into telling them they have to dial '1' first. I just tell them it is the correct number; to keep trying it and dial their operator if they don't know how to place calls to different area codes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 13:57:22 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "How to Access Federal Government on the Internet" BKHAFGOI.RVW 961110 "How to Access the Federal Government on the Internet", Bruce Maxwell, 1996, 1-56802-185-2, U$28.95 %A Bruce Maxwell bmaxwell@netcom.com %C 1414 22nd Street N.W., Wasington, DC 20037 %D 1996 %G 1-56802-185-2 %I Congressional Quarterly Inc. %O U$28.95 +1-800-638-1710 +1-202-822-1475 fax +1-202-887-6706 %O 202-822-1423 fax 202-822-6583 jdavey@cqalert.com %P 455 %S Washington Online %T "How to Access the Federal Government on the Internet, 2nd ed." For those interested in (the U.S.) government, and access to its information, Maxwell has provided a very useful compendium of addresses. As he admits, this is not an exhaustive list to U.S. federal government systems available through the Internet, but it definitely gives a good, broad starting field. University and other sites with a specialized interest in the government are listed, although strictly political organizations are rare. For example, the "Queer Resources Directory" is included, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation is not. The reader is expected to be reasonably familiar with the Internet use: the information given in the introduction is too brief to be helpful to a neophyte. The listings themselves, however, give clear "vital statistics" on access methods, and a detailed and useful write-up for each site. All of that would be extremely valuable for those interested in government and access to information, but since the feds have fingers in just about every pie, there is much more. The various departments provide information on agriculture, business, computers, demographics, education, energy, environment, foreign affairs, medicine, history, employment, law, technology, and transportation. Government sites often provide the most informative content to be found in the net. Maxwell has added to this with a very useful index: I didn't really expect to find anything under computer viruses but was pleasantly surprised to note an entry for the NIST Computer Security Archive with addresses for Web, gopher and ftp access. For the avid U.S. government watcher, an essential. For the serious Internet information gatherer, regardless of nationality, a very useful resource. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995, 1996 BKHAFGOI.RVW 961110 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 416 to be Overlaid in Early 2000 Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 18:57:37 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net From the Toronto Star... Bell set to ring in second area code for Metro Now 416 running out of numbers By Robert Brehl - Toronto Star Business Reporter Your fingers will soon be doing a little extra walking in Metro because so many people are using the phone. Dramatic growth will force Bell Canada to add another area code to Metro on top of 416. That means all local calls will be 10 digits within three years. People who have 416 numbers now will not see them change. Instead, the new area code will be given to those ordering new lines, said Bell spokesperson Marilyn Koen. Bell will know the three digits in the new area code before summer, she said. It was almost 3 1/2 years ago that the 416 area was split, with regions outside Metro getting a 905 area code. That move was made because the phone company was running out of numbers. Now, with the explosion of fax machines, Internet connections, pagers and cellular phones, even the smaller 416 area is running out of numbers. ``Early in the year 2000 we have to bring in a new area code,'' Koen said. ``It's caused by growth in telecom use among all types of services - wired, wireless and paging.'' The phone company announced the change yesterday. It said it will add another area code to the Montreal area, too. The changes will have no effect on phone rates or on the size of free local calling areas, Koen said. At present, local calls between Metro and the 905 area code are 10-digit. The new area code for Metro will be an ``overlay,'' which means you could have area code 416 and your next-door neighbor could have the new area code. In fact, if you order a second line for your home, you could end up with two different area codes just as right now you could end up with two different exchange numbers for the first three digits, Koen said. Bell surveyed customers before rejecting the idea of splitting Metro down Yonge St., keeping one side 416 and giving the other the new area code. Customers ``told us they wanted to keep their existing 416 area code,'' Koen said. Telecommunications analysts predict 10-digit calling for all local calls may cause some customers anxiety. ``In the U.S. there has been huge public uproar with people complaining about having a different area code than their neighbor,'' said Ian Angus, president of Angus TeleManagement. ``But we're running out of phone numbers. We've got to bite the bullet.'' The new area code plan for all phone service providers has received approval from Ottawa, Koen said. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: America Online Offline Date: 7 Mar 1997 16:25:59 GMT Organization: University of South Florida [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lauren Weinstein is a charter subscriber to this Digest, having joined the mailing list in August, 1981 with a handful of other early netters. In 1983 when the 'Bell System' as such went out of business, Lauren sent in a very nice poem set to the very popular tune of that day called 'American Pie'. His version has become a sort of classic which is printed here in the Digest from time to time, and can be located in the Telecom Archives by anyone who has not already seen it. His version is called 'The Day the Bell System Died'. Now it appears there are competing versions to the song Lauren first presented here in 1983. Jay Ashworth will tell the rest of the story .... PAT] ------------------ In homage to Lauren, who's interpretation of this piece _still_ brings a tear to my eye every time I sing it, I thought I'd cross post this piece seen on rec.humor.funny, which takes a slightly different approach. As is so often the case with parody, you have to try it once before you can sing it; the scansion limps a bit; but it doesn't impair the humor. Cheers, -- jra [ Article crossposted from rec.humor.funny ] [ Author was Bruce Purcell ] [ Posted on Wed, 5 Mar 97 12:20:01 EST ] This showed up in my e-mail. Don't have the original author, but whoever it is should go into songwriting. [To the tune of "American Pie"] A long, long, time ago I can still remember when I dialed up their help desk lines. And I knew if I had the chance They could make my modem dance with chats and GIFs and silly pick-up lines. But Help Desk phone calls made me shiver with every busy they'd deliver. Bad news on the front page A 19-hour outrage. I can't remember if I cried when I realized that Steve Case had lied. But something touched me deep inside The day the service died. So bye bye to Amer'ca Online Drove my modem to a domain and it's working just fine. And good old geeks are cheering users offline Saying this'll be the day that they die. This'll be the day that they die. Did you write the book of TOS Will you send your password to PWD-BOSS If an IM tells you so. And will you believe the Motley Fool When he tells you that the service rules And can you teach me how to Web real slow? Well I know you sold the service short Cause I saw your quarterly report. Steve Case sold off his stock It fell just like a rock. It was a crazy, costly high-tech play As they slashed away at what subscribers pay And half their users went away the day the service died. So bye bye to Amer'ca Online Drove my modem to a domain and it's working just fine And good old geeks are cheering users offline Saying this'll be the day that they die. This'll be the day that they die. Well for two days we've been on our own And dial-ins click on a rolling phone But that's not how it used to be When the mogul came to Virginia court With an OS icon and a browser port And a desktop that looked like Apple III. And while Jim Clark was looking down The mogul stole his thorny crown The browser war was turned. Mozilla...was spurned. And while Steve left users out to bond With hosts unable to respond 6 million newbies all were conned the day the service died. So bye bye to Amer'ca Online Drove my modem to a domain and it's working just fine And good old geeks are cheering users offline Saying this'll be the day that they die. This'll be the day that they die. Da Chronic ducked their software guards And stole a million credit cards To use accounts he'd gotten free. And so Steve Case went to the FBI and he told Boardwatch* a little lie That hackers wanted child pornography * But while Steve Case was looking down The hackers pulled his e-mail down They put it on the net. He can't be trusted yet! And while user cynicism climbs At sign-on ads and welcome rhymes They scan their e-mail for "Good Times" the day the service died. So bye bye to Amer'ca Online Drove my modem to a domain and it's working just fine And good old geeks are cheering users offline Saying this'll be the day that they die. This'll be the day that they die. Helter-skelter billing needs a melter The lawyers filed a class-action shelter Eight million in lawyer's fees. But it looks like some attorney jibe an hour if they resubscribe. To a service marketed for free Well I KNOW you're raking in the bucks Cause I'm reading alt.aol-sucks. "Until we bless the suit The settlement is moot." "If AOL treats you like the Borg Then visit aolsucks.org Before some router pulls the cord..." the day the service died. So bye bye to Amer'ca Online Drove my modem to a domain and it's working just fine And good old geeks are cheering users offline Saying this'll be the day that they die. This'll be the day that they die. Bill Razzouk, the head-to-be sold off his home in Tennessee And headed for a 4-month end. Was he sad or just incensed when Case offered him his thirty cents. Billing is the devil's only friend. But as I read him on the page My hands were clenched in fists of rage. No "Welcome" born in hell could ring that chatroom bell. And as chat freaks cried into the night CompuServe read their last rites. I saw Earthlink laughing with delight the day the service died. So bye bye to Amer'ca Online Drove my modem to a domain and it's working just fine And good old geeks are cheering users offline Saying this'll be the day that they die. This'll be the day that they die. I met a girl in Lobby 9 And I asked her if she'd stay on-line. But she just frowned and looked away. And I went back to the Member Lounge To see what loyalty I could scrounge But Room Host said the members went away... And on the net the modems scream At faster speeds and data streams. And not a tear was spoken. The hourly fees were broken. And the three men that I hated most Ted, and Steve, and Razzouk's ghost They couldn't dial up the host The day the service died. -------------------------- Selected by Jim Griffith. MAIL your joke to funny@clari.net. This newsgroup is sponsored by ClariNet Communications Corp. Read about The Internet Joke Book -- the best of RHF at http://www.clari.net/inetjoke.html --------------------------- 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 #59 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 9 02:35:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA07187; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 02:35:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 02:35:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703090735.CAA07187@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #60 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Mar 97 02:35:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 60 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Steven K. Smith) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Lee Winson) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Almaden) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Linc Madison) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Stan Schwartz) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (R. Van Valkenburgh) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Paul Smith) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (L. Weinstein) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (M. Sanchez) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (J. Henderson) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (G. Hlavenka) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (D. de Souza) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Bob Goudreau) Re: President Carter's Call-In and Old 900-NNXs (Garrett Wollman) Re: President Carter's Call-In and Old 900-NNXs (Dale Neiburg) Re: 900-NNX Geographic Assignments (Bill Levant) 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: NETSmith@IBM.net (Steven K. Smith) Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 14:42:59 GMT Organization: NETSmith Reply-To: NETSmith@IBM.net hal9001@panix.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) wrote: > The intent of *70 is to turn off Call-Waiting for the current > out-going call. Up until this week I've only had one line (which has > Call-Waiting). Thus all my Fax and ISP phone numbers have started > with *70W. I've just had the second wire on my RJ14 jacks activated as > a second line (dedicated to my Computer and its Fax Modem). Since I do > not plan to use it as an incoming voice line, I did not order > Call-Waiting on that line. Now I get an stupid intercept on the line > whenever I try to dial out using a number I forgot to remove the *70W > from. > The way I look at it, dialing *70 says I want no Call-Waiting during > the current call, I HAVE NO Call-Waiting AT ALL on the line, so there > is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone just > like on a Call-Waiting Line (I asked for it to be turned off and it IS > off). Can anyone explain this stupidity? It is not as if I were > attempting to use some feature that would only work if I had the > option activated on my line (*69 Call Return or something like > that). I'm asking to turn off an optional feature which was never > Active on the line in the first place (its like using *82 to turn off > All-Call-Blocking on a Per-Call-Blocking line - the result without > entering it is the same as you would get if you needed to and did > enter it so *82 is allowed to make sure that it is off). I'm sure that others can give you the wherewithall wrt CO limitations, but I'd just like to point out that I had a similar problem, with baroque variations involving hunt groups and my use of line switches; after fussing about (unsuccsefully) trying to get something compatible set up, I found out it didn't make any real difference for the fax/modem. The fact is that there's really no need to suppress CW for modem use (and I couldn't for faxing) -- the latest protocols (V.34, etc.) can live with the interruptions caused by CW signalling. They just treat it as a(nother) hiccup on the line, and go right on. So, don't worry about it. Regards, Steven K. Smith NETSmith@IBM.net ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: 8 Mar 1997 03:08:33 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > The way I look at it, dialing *70 says I want no Call-Waiting during > the current call, I HAVE NO Call-Waiting AT ALL on the line, so there > is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone just > like on a Call-Waiting Line (I asked for it to be turned off and it IS off) Yes, there is a good reason not to accept. It represents a wrong number for someone who doesn't have caller-ID. Perhaps a person dialed *70 when intending to dial another code -- this way the caller knows they made a mistake right away. ------------------------------ From: Almaden Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 11:25:41 -0800 Organization: scruz-net Reply-To: AL@viscous.com Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > The way I look at it, dialing *70 says I want no Call-Waiting during > the current call, I HAVE NO Call-Waiting AT ALL on the line, so there > is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone just > like on a Call-Waiting Line (I asked for it to be turned off and it IS > off). If you drive the wrong way on a one way street do you expect to see a full working set of traffic and parking signs facing you? Similarly if you dial *70 on a line without call-waiting I would expect and hope that you would receive an error message -- this lets you know that your assumption that the line has CW is in error, an important fact for the user to know. I find it very disapointing and scary that they turned this off in response to your request. What ever hapened to the concept of 'universal service'. ------------------------------ From: Telecom Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 14:13:12 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , hal9001@panix.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) wrote: > The intent of *70 is to turn off Call-Waiting for the current > out-going call. [entered numbers for the modem as *70W..., now has a line > without Call Waiting] Now I get an stupid intercept on the line > whenever I try to dial out using a number I forgot to remove the *70W > from. Well, don't forget that the original plan was that *67 would simply toggle caller ID delivery, with nothing to indicate the direction in which you were toggling. If you dialed *67 on a line that sends the caller ID data by default, it would have DISABLED it; if you dialed *67 from a line with per-line blocking, it would have ENABLED sending your caller ID data. They based this plan on some focus group study that showed that people found it confusing to have two codes, and wanted to have a single code. That is an example of research that shouldn't have even been done in the first place, or if it was done, the researchers should have sat the subjects down in the debriefing and explained to them, "You think you prefer to have just one code, but you're wrong. You don't really prefer that, unless you're really much stupider than one would expect of someone capable of dressing him/herself in the morning." Asking people what they prefer when they are completely ignorant of the ramifications of the choice is just plain silly. This same mentality also shows in the states that prohibit dialing "1+" on local calls. Requiring the "1+" on toll calls serves a valid purpose, preventing customers from placing an unwanted toll call without realizing that it's toll. However, forbidding the "1+" on local calls serves no purpose whatsoever, except to frustrate people who just want the call to go through. The other thing you have to remember about *70 specifically, though, is that not all areas that have Call Waiting support Cancel Call Waiting, and in some areas that do support CCW, it's an additional feature with an additional monthly charge. (I've only heard of this absurdity from GTE areas, which also often use 70# instead of *70.) Thus, there is a certain argument to be made in favor of having some way of indicating that you have requested a feature (Cancel Call Waiting) that is not available on your line. On the whole, though, I agree with you -- *70 should only route to intercept on a line that has CW but not CCW. ** 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: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 00:27:01 -0500 In TD v17, #58, hal9001@panix.com wrote: > ...there is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone > just like on a Call-Waiting Line (I asked for it to be turned off and it IS > off). Can anyone explain this stupidity? It is not as if I were > attempting to use some feature that would only work if I had the > option activated on my line... Actually, in some areas (Bell Atlantic/NJ being one of them), *70 Call Waiting Block is a separate optional feature. BA/NJ gets $.50/month for it in addition to the standard call waiting charge. If you don't want to pay for it, you aren't able to block call waiting. NYNEX probably just charges $.50 more for call waiting and bundles it in. Everyone has to get their nickles and dimes somewhere. When I was on BellSouth, their charge for CO-based voice mail was low, but they got an extra $.50/month for the stutter dialtone notification of messages waiting. Stan ------------------------------ From: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh) Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 18:48:35 GMT Organization: auburn.campus.MCI.net Reply-To: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net > The intent of *70 is to turn off Call-Waiting for the current > out-going call. > The way I look at it, dialing *70 says I want no Call-Waiting during > the current call, I HAVE NO Call-Waiting AT ALL on the line, so there > is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone . . . > [snip] I agree. But maybe we should be thankfull that the local telco hasn't decided to offer the disable call waiting feature as one of those optional features that you can get when not subscribed for $0.25 per call. ------------------------------ From: SWWV53D@prodigy.com (Paul Smith) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 8 Mar 1997 13:13:16 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Banning cellular phones in cars because they may distract drivers is crazy. How about banning the eating of fast food meals while driving too? After all it is really hard to eat a big Mac while steering. How about banning smoking while driving? I wouldn't want anybody taking their eyes off the road to light a cigar. Banning all conversations while driving would also help. Drivers need to focus on driving. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 20:38 PST From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: NY Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving > From: Curtis R. Anderson > According to a brief announcement heard on WKBW-TV during the six p.m. > news, the New York legislature is considering a bill which would ban > the driver's use of handheld cellular phones while the vehicle is > being operated. Greetings. All the recent bruhaha on this topic is the result of a single study. Not only did the authors of the study point out that their results were the same for handheld and "no-hands" cell phones, but they also went to great lengths to emphasize that they did not feel their results should be used as evidence to attempt banning of in-motion car cell phone use. In fact, it has been pointed out that much in-motion vehicle use has beneficial effects, such as the reporting of accidents and traffic problems, and other events that enhance safety in significant ways. Also, at least according to the info I've heard, insurance companies interviewed on this topic have no immediate plans to raise premiums for car cell phone users, mainly because there is no statistical evidence indicating that *overall* accident rates are higher for such users. Statistics can be tricky things. The authors of the study tried to be clear about them; it would be unfortunate if their results were misinterpreted by the legislative process. --Lauren-- Moderator, PRIVACY Forum www.vortex.com ------------------------------ From: Mariana Sanchez Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:01:00 -0300 Hi Pat and all of you! I've read the article that Curtis R. Anderson wrote about the subject. Here in Argentina, this rule exists: it is forbidden to use your cellular phone when your are driving, except if you use a free hands gadget. Actually, very few people pay attention to this rule, and stadistics still says that a great percentage of car accidents (in the city) are caused for the distraction of drivers when using cellular phones. As a result, car retailers, insurance companies and cellular phones retailers offer free hands accesories at lower prices or for free. Regards, Mariana Sanchez ------------------------------ From: javier@YoyoDyne.ORG (Javier Henderson) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 7 Mar 1997 18:53:50 GMT > It almost makes one wonder about folks who get cellular phones in > their cars for safety and convenience. Even if the bill does not pass, > one can expect insurance companies to raise liability premiums for > cars with cellular phones. I first had a similar thought, but then I decided not to worry about this. I, like most people these days, have a portable phone, as opposed to a permanently-mounted unit, so if I'm ever asked by the insurance co. whether my car has a phone installed or not, I can safely answer "no". As for whether it's safe to use a cell phone while driving, this has been the subject of endless debates over numerous Internet fora, but I personally try to avoid it. I have noticed many people changing lanes erratically while talking, and witnessed one accident where the guy in front of me ran a red light, while holding a phone to his ear, and caused a four car pile up. Javier Henderson http://www.kjsl.com/~javier ------------------------------ From: cgordon@worldnet.att.net (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 7 Mar 1997 03:08:56 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services They're talking about similar legislation in Illinois. HOWEVER, there's a leap of logic that seems to be universally made: The bills are concerned with HANDHELD phones. This is usually mentioned once, and then the rest of the article/news story/whatever simply refers to cellular phones in general. I have no problem with banning the use of handheld cellular phones while driving. I think it's a good idea, albeit somewhat sad that we find it necessary to legislate common sense. I doubt that we're going to see any attempt to ban handsfree cellular while driving. I run a small business, and spend a lot of time on the road. In fact, my office phone automatically forwards on busy/not answered to my cellular number. I use a Motorola flip with the 3W handsfree car kit. The quality of the call is good enough that Cellular One's voice dialing works fine handsfree (well, no worse than it does handheld :-). This gives me complete mobility, and yet talking on the phone -- w/handsfree -- while driving is practical and no more distracting than talking to a passenger. (Note that a passenger can also be a distraction, but I'm not aware of any pending legislation to ban them.) Gordon S. Hlavenka O- cgordon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: DVIEI1@jcpenney.com (Demien Vieira de Souza) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:22:48 -0600 Subject: RE: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving In Brazil (that is where I am from), a person is prohibited from placing calls while they are driving a vehicle. This does not keep them from having a phone, placing a call while the car is being operated, or a passenger using it. Whether the law is obeyed, it is a different issue. I believe it is a good law. Cars are dangerous, and especially here in Texas, drivers tend to be very rude on the freeways, and tend to have huge trucks. They should be concentrating on the driving, and not on the phone. Calls from from a moving vehicle by the driver should be allowed in an emergency situation though, which would require several definitions of what an emergency actually is ... (As a comparison, what will separate a 911 call from a 311 call?) I have seen some companies that make cellular phones that have a microphone and speakers that are separate from the actual set, allowing you to talk and listen without handling the phone, which probably would be OK. You would still have to dial though, and whether that compares to changing the radio station or looking for a new CD/tape, or even eating fast food from a drive-through, would have to be determined. From my experience, US car insurance companies will raise their rates for just about any reason. Cordially, Demian Vieira de Souza - Comm Analyst JCPenney Communications Systems 12700 Park Central Place M/C 6009 Dallas, TX 75252, USA Office:(972)591-7361 FAX:(972)531-7361/591-6721 Internet: DVIEI1@JCPENNEY.COM / PROFS ID: DVIEI1 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite correct about insurance companies and their rate setting philosophy. Any reason will do for an increase. A few years ago here in Illinois, one of the major insurance companies got sued in a class action because they were charging women more for some particular medical coverage than they were charging men for the same thing. Their contention was they had underwriting and claims experience to support this. The court ruled the other way and said women and men should pay the same premium. Well now, do you think the insurance company obeyed the court order by reducing what women had been paying? No, in fact what they did was *raise* the rates for men to equal the women's rate. Their response was 'all the court ordered us to do was equalize the prem- iums paid by each gender. You did not think *we* were going to take a hit on this did you? ...' Let the public pay for it. Then they had the nerve to send out a letter to the men explaining the raise in their premiums by claiming the court ordered them to raise the rate men were paying. All the court ordered was that the rates be equal. An old joke from the net a number of years ago was "define the term 'insurance premiums' ..." and the answer was those were what you paid each month to give you legal standing to sue the insurance company whenever you wanted to collect on a claim you had filed. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:23:20 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Curtis R. Anderson wrote: > According to a brief announcement heard on WKBW-TV during the six p.m. > news, the New York legislature is considering a bill which would ban > the driver's use of handheld cellular phones while the vehicle is > being operated. > The Legislature is using those studies which suggest high accident > risk while the driver is talking on a cellular phone. No doubt the legislature's interest was stimulated by the University of Toronto study on cell phone use by drivers, which has gotten quite a bit of publicity of late (and has been discussed to death in the rec.autos.driving newsgroup). Before the legislators go ahead and ban the use only of handheld mobile phones by drivers (as is already done in various countries such as Israel, Switzerland and Australia), they might also want to pay attention to the part of the study that found that hands-free phones did *not* compile any better of a safety record than did their hand-held counterparts. I don't know if it would be good public policy to give people a false sense of security by indirectly encouraging hands-free units. Of course, a total ban on any mobile phone use by drivers would be very difficult to enforce against cars with hands-free units; a driver who got pulled over could always hang up and claim that he was talking to himself, or singing with the radio, etc. > It almost makes one wonder about folks who get cellular phones in > their cars for safety and convenience. Even if the bill does not pass, > one can expect insurance companies to raise liability premiums for > cars with cellular phones. This might be true, but from what I've seen, very few folks get dedicated "car phones" anymore. As mobile phone technology has improved over the past decade, self-contained hand-held units seem to have become the norm, even for units bought primarily as car breakdown insurance. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: President Carter's Call-In and Old 900-NNXs Date: 6 Mar 1997 14:37:02 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Mark J. Cuccia gave a list of old geographic 900-NXXen, including: > 900-931 Boston MA (617) This is really quite a curious coincidence, since the ``choke'' exchange, then as now, is 617-931. Similarly for > 900-790 Montreal PQ (514) Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: President Carter's Call-in and Old 900-NNXs Date: Fri, 07 Mar 97 07:45:00 PST In TELECOM Digest V17, #58, Mark Cuccia wrote: > I don't remember if the program was sponsored or if it ran 'sustained', > but later on during his term, Carter had a few other live radio programs > of telephone conversations with citizens, but those were carried by the > government's non-commercial NPR network. And those NPR broadcasts were > arranged where if one desired to speak on the phone live on the radio > with Carter, they had to mail in requests in advance, and only those > selected were called on the day of broadcast. It's a minor point ... but this is a common misconception. NPR is owned by a trust fund, which in turn is wholly owned by its member stations. NPR is not "the government's", any more than CBS is. NPR does still get a tiny amount of money from the federal government -- last time I checked it was about 1% of the budget. I don't know why, since I doubt that the money is enough to pay for its required extra bookkeeping. Disclaimer: I am employed by NPR. Opinions expressed are my own. If NPR wants them, it will have to pay me extra.... ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:27:32 EST Subject: Re: 900-NNX Geographic Assignments Some random thoughts as a follow-up to Mark Cuccia's post in issue #58, regarding the original use of 900-NNX to provide nationwide toll-free "choke" exchange service: It appears that at least some of the 900-NNX combinations match the LEC's own NPA-NNX "choke" service assignments for the same city. For example, when I was a kid (after the days of crank phones, but still in the good old crossbar days), all of the Philadelphia radio stations had contest/request lines beginning with 215-263. 900-263, on the other hand (according to Mark) was assigned to 900-service trunks terminating in Philadephia. In Pittsburgh, it was always 412-333-XXXX, and 900-333 was apparently assigned to Pittsburgh; in Baltimore 301-481-XXXX (now 410-481-XXXX) and 900-481. Some don't appear to match ... Washington DC uses 202-432-XXXX, but 900-432 was apparently NOT assigned to DC; New York had 212-955-XXXX, but 900-955 does not appear on Mark's list. I also remember that at some point during my misspent youth, WABC/New York changed its call-in number from 212-955-9988 to 212-955-9222 (-WABC); the intercept on the old number read back a different NNX (not 955), but I forget which. At least in Philadelphia, the "choke" exchange was actually served out of a "regular" exchange; there, it was 215-564. You could reach 215-564-XXXX by dialing 215-263-XXXX and the call would go through, but it generally didn't work the other way around ... you would ALWAYS get a busy signal. Judging from the ring and answer tones, this was a crossbar office. Originally, all of the 215-263 numbers assigned were in the ranges 263-6XXX, 263-7XXX and 263-8XXX.; at some point, they rearranged things (probably when they replaced the crossbar switch with ESS) and started to assign "overlapping" numbers, and 564-XXXX and 263-XXXX ceased to be even partially interchangeable. Before that happened, though, if you called a non-working number, the intercept message seemed to be keyed to the "range" dialed (e.g. 564-6XXX gets a "263" intercept; 263-1XXX gets a "564" intercept), regardless of what you actually dialed. I spent a lot of time trying to "call in and win" back then, with a seemingly disproportionate success rate (and no Mitnick tricks). The "choke" prefix was served from Center CIty Philadelphia, a different CO from the one serving my parents' house. If I called the "choke" number from home (our CO was one of the last to be converted from crossbar to ESS) one of three things would generally happen: 1) Connect, about 4 seconds after the last digit, followed *immediately* by a LOUD busy signal, which I believe originated from the local CO, since it came on too quickly, and with too few intermediate "clicks" for the call to have reached the distant CO and returned a busy; 2) Connect, about 4 seconds after the last digit, followed by about five seconds of silence, followed by a few clicks, and a somewhat fainter busy signal (which sounded like the call had actually reached the distant CO and returned a busy); or 3) Connect, as in number 2, except instead of the faint busy, a somewhat muted ringing tone ... and hopefully, the money/records/tickets. Interestingly, at about the same time, my parents installed a second and a third line; the second was on the same NNX as the first; the third line was on a newly-activated NNX with an ESS switch. On the first two lines, we had similar levels of success; on the third, we got a "reorder" (fast busy) fully 80% of the time, meaning that the call never even got out of the local switch. Needless to say, we didn't use that one for contest calls a whole lot. Of course, then Bell of Pennsylvania converted the whole CO to ESS, and put us out of the contest-winning business. Darn. Almost talked the parents into getting an FX from a crossbar office. **sigh** For many years, I have believed that our success with the call-ins was attributable to the fact (?) that the crossbar office equipment was somewhat less sophisticated than the ESS, and that the crossbar switch allowed more calls to actually reach the "choke" exchange than the ESS did. Does anyone out there have a comment, explanation or similar experience to report? Finally, the woman I was seeing at that point was the relief switchboard operator at a local discount department store, which had a 555 cord board and 16 CO trunks, all in sequence (215-NNX-1700 to -1715). She used to plug all 16 lines in, open all 16 keys, and dial out to the radio station on all 16 lines simultaneously. Problem "A" -- if you hear a ringing tone in the headset, which of the 16 lines is it? Problem "B" -- given the mechanics of "choke" exchanges, she was probably competing with herself for the limited number of interoffice trunks on which calls to 215-263-XXXX could be routed. Problem "C" -- the company went out of business shortly thereafter. I don't *think* it was her fault. :-) Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you had to do in that case was go down the line of cord pairs on the switchboard and quickly close the key on each pair for just a second to see if the ringing sound was gone and just busy signals were heard. When you lost your audible ringing after closing and re-opening several keys one at a time, you knew which line it was. En masse, yank down all the other cords from the board and concentrate on the one you had which got through. Another gimmick of night-shift PBX operators who were bored at three in the morning was an early version of what children like to do now to be pesky: if their phone has three-way calling they will hook two other numbers together at random then sit silently and listen to the confusion as the two called-parties each accuse the other of placing the call which woke them up from sleep. But in the days of cordboards and free calls to directory assistance it went like this: PBX operator plugs in one cord pair to a trunk line and dials 216 then closes the key. Another pair is plugged in and the number 312 is dialed. Still a third pair is plugged in and 212 was the number, each time closing the key after dialing just three digits. Maybe if enough time remained before the earliest lines timed-out, add a couple more pairs dialing 213 on one and 415 on the other. Now, open all keys and dial across all five or six pairs '555-1212'. Within a few seconds you had directory assistance operators in Cleveland, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco all responding and questioning one another on 'what city please?'. Each would take that question from the others as a request to know what city/area they had reached, and as Chicago would respond with that phrase the others would say 'no, you reached Los Angeles/Cleveland/New York, etc ... and that would in turn set off another round as the statement 'you have reached Los Angeles' would be casually heard by the one on the east coast as 'have I reached Los Angeles?' ... no, she would say, this is New York, and that would start round three. Finally after a few seconds of this one of the operators would tell the others to shut up for a minute and they would all think about this peculiar connection and decide that apparently there was some sort of equipment malfunction going on. If you got more than four or five -- maybe six -- connections all up through your headset-in-common (that is, more than that on the PBX operator's talking path) you had too many people talking at once and it got too confusing. Far better to play this little joke with at most three or four directory assistance operators. Of course, long- distance directory assistance used to be totally free. Now it becomes a bit expensive to play even if you could find an old cordboard around somewhere. In those days also, there was no pesky problem of caller-id and/or 911 to reach emergency authorities. The game would work just as well with (on one pair) POlice-5 and (on another pair) FIre-7 then on both pairs at the same time, 1313. As the fire dispatcher and police dispatcher answered each other's call, the quick-witted PBX operator would have added to the pot (by dialing across the ringing on the two open lines before either answered) on one pair MOhawk-47 and on another pair RAndolph-61 then with both keys open '200' so now you had the Chicago Transit Authority overnight duty office on the line talking to the Commonwealth Edison overnight duty office with the police and fire departments on the line with them. Invariably at least one or more of them was convinced the city was involved in some major calamity at that time of night if all these people were calling at one time. Perhaps a major fire had started and police were asking Transit to reroute the busses and Edison to cut the power ... but they too after a few seconds of accusing each other of making the call would stop to think about it and realize they had been taken. The best the kids can do now-days is if they have a two line phone with three-way calling on each line and a 'conference' button on the phone instrument then I presume with some effort and practice they can bring up four parties all at one time or even five parties if they themselves wish to speak up and pretend to be just another of the victims. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #60 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 9 03:24:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA09821; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 03:24:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 03:24:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703090824.DAA09821@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #61 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Mar 97 03:24:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 61 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toronto's New Area Code (David Leibold) Re: Toronto's New Area Code (Andrew Mitchell) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Dave Grabowski) Re: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month (gregnyc27@aol.com) Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? (Mark J. Cuccia) Slammed Again! (Robert Bononno) Tele-Consumer Hotline (Scott Morton) Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! (Diamond Dave) Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! (Victor Escobar) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (Tom Crofford) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Craig Macbride) 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: djcl@interlog.com (David Leibold) Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code Date: 8 Mar 1997 17:37:41 -0500 Organization: InterLog Internet Services (416) 975-2655 info@interlog.com In article , wrote: > I heard that Bell will soon announce a area code split for Metro > Toronto also known as MegaCity Toronto. In Metro we had a vote on > combining the 5 cities and 1 borough into a megacity {The Toronto Star} had a front page story on it today (6 Mar 1997). It was on their website (www.thestar.ca) but will likely disappear with the next day's edition. Bell Canada is planning an overlay code within the existing 416 territory (i.e. Metro Toronto). Thus, a place could have lines of two different area codes, just as they can have two different exchange (NXX) numbers. Mandatory 10-digit dialing for local calls is to be implemented. > I believe that Bell has put off plans for a 416 split boundry until > the province namley Premier Mr. HARRISment decides if he will be a > czar and still combine metro despite the vote. There isn't any evidence that the political doings about the Toronto "megacity" had much to do with the 416 NPA relief of Bell Canada. But then again, stranger things have happened ... > I read in news groups that the split could be along Yonge Street (Hwy > 11) also known as the world's longest road!!! That plan was rejected ... as was the notion of a "wireless" overlay (put cell and page folks in the new area code, leave conventional service in 416). It appears that Bell did not consider a London, UK style split -- inner Toronto (the City of Toronto proper) would retain 416, outer areas of Metro would get the new code. > Many people in the GTA have chosen "416" cell numbers even through > they are in the burb's "905'ers" that has reduced the numbers > available for metro in general. When is the split happening? New area code in 416 will likely be in effect by 2000 ... Bell is probably concerned about getting 1998's Montreal 514/450 split out of the way first, though. > Will The "New Bell" let us know!!!! Are you going to be informed? YOU WILL ... (apologies to AT&T). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The newspapers around here say he is > going to push through the 'megacity' idea regardless of what anyone [. . clip . .] > the public servants do whatever they want anyway. If this guy in > Canada gets his way, is there any court of appeal or way to go over > him or is his word the final one? PAT] Guess Mike Harris, the Ontario Premier, and his henchmen are about to force the issue, though they may retreat on some other issues (such as plans to dump more welfare funding onto Ontario municipalities). Municipalities are generally considered to be a creation of the province, thus the Ontario government theoretically can diddle the boundaries and local governments at will. But not without invoking some backlash. BTW all six municipalities within Metro Toronto voted overwhelmingly against the megacity concept in Monday's referendum ... though there are concerns regarding the accuracy of the voting because of the various methods used. But that is something of a victory for the anti-amalgamation forces, and a demonstration of considerable opposition to the merger plans. djcl@interlog.com --> http://www.interlog.com/~djcl/ ------------------------------ From: Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 08:42:20 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: amitchell@sympatico.ca james@io.org wrote: > I heard that Bell will soon announce a area code split for Metro > Toronto also known as MegaCity Toronto. In Metro we had a vote on > combining the 5 cities and 1 borough into a megacity > I believe that Bell has put off plans for a 416 split boundry until > the province namley Premier Mr. HARRISment decides if he will be a > cazr and still combine metro despite the vote. > Many people in the GTA have chosen "416" cell numbers even through > they are in the burb's "905'ers" that has reduced the numbers > available for metro in general. When is the split happening? The new NPA for Metropolitan Toronto, to be introduced in 2000 will not result in a split. The implementation will involve an overlay of the existing 416 NPA. Bell released this in a media blurb. There is no indication that the decision has anything whatsoever to do with what Mike Harris has planned for Metro. Andrew Mitchell mailto:amitchell@sympatico.ca ------------------------------ From: grabowsk@netcom.com (Dave Grabowski) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 13:47:06 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.SuperNews.com On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 22:19:11 -0500, Curtis R. Anderson wrote: > According to a brief announcement heard on WKBW-TV during the six p.m. > news, the New York legislature is considering a bill which would ban > the driver's use of handheld cellular phones while the vehicle is > being operated. > The Legislature is using those studies which suggest high accident > risk while the driver is talking on a cellular phone. > It almost makes one wonder about folks who get cellular phones in > their cars for safety and convenience. Even if the bill does not pass, > one can expect insurance companies to raise liability premiums for > cars with cellular phones. What's next -- a ban on the driver's use of the radio? I guess it would promote carpooling. "Well, if you ride with me, we can listen to the news." Insurance charges for cars with radios? An extra premium for folks with CD players? Dave (in NJ - the highest insurance rates in the nation) ------------------------------ From: gregnyc27@aol.com Subject: Re: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month Date: 8 Mar 1997 14:47:39 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Speaking of NYNEX, I have come across a peculiar situation when I ordered phone service upon moving into my new apartment in Manhattan. Phone installers show up. They tell me that the feeder box for this block is in the next building, and "the superintendent hates the phone company, so we may not be able to get access to the feeder box to hook up your line". I spoke to my co-op board and the installation foreman for this area at NYNEX. The truth of the matter is that NYNEX never purchased the space in the building that this feeder box occupies, and thus have decided that NYNEX will no longer have access to the box, and have instructed their superintendent not to admit them. NYNEX's attitude is that they will try to get in when they can and hook up my line, but it may be weeks or months before they can get phone service to me. I find this situation ridiculous. In legal terms, if the feeder box has been there for a while (as I'm sure it has been, if it indeed serves the entire block), NYNEX should be suing the building for an easement based on the legal principle of adverse possession, and in the meanwhile they should be able to obtain an injunction permitting access to their equipment until the situation is resolved. Instead, their position is that they are installing a new feeder box in a different building, which will take six months to a year due to asbestos abatement, etc. I am wondering what my options are here. I sincerely doubt that the phone company is permitted to refuse to provide service simply because they screwed up on installing their infrastructure. Should I complain to the PSC, and is there any statutory/regulatory framework which addresses this issue? Somehow, I think others in NYNEX-land have already come across this issue before. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 13:37:08 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? In TELECOM Digest, Paul Robinson wrote: > Bellcore has a page (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/240.html) listed to > show the test number for area code 240 - the overlay area code here in > Maryland for AC 301 - to see if it works from a specific area. Since > 240 isn't even set up to be in effect until May, the number, which > will be 240-999-8378, doesn't work, of course. > Only problem was when I tried dialing it to see if that was a working > number from here in 301 country. We are still on seven-digit dialing > here (when 240 goes through, ALL local calls will be 10 digits), so I > tried just dialing the short part of the number. Merely dialing > 999-8378 sits on dead silence for 1/2 a minute before timing out to a > recording saying "Your Call Did Not Go Through". Calling 301-999-8378 > gets a recording saying the number is wrong. "Your call can not be > completed as dialed." > But, when I tried dialing the regular number as listed, I got a > surprise. When I dialed 240-9998, the phone system clicked, and I got > shunted to a recording (probably from a PBX, as follows:) > "You have reached a non-working number at IBM, Gaithersburg Maryland. > Please check your number and try again, or call your operator for > assistance." (I note, also, that the recording did not include a SIT > tone, as is often used even with private non-valid number announcements.) > Well, it's obvious that this particular number doesn't work. But it > implies that IBM has other numbers in the 240 prefix that DO work. > And they are probably going to have some problems when people confuse > their exchange with the new area code. Or, as the case may be, that > Bell Atlantic requires they switch their PBX to a new prefix. > I was unaware that there is a 240 exchange in this (301) area code. I > am surprised that Bell Atlantic didn't try to get an area code that > wasn't in use here as an exchange, or made sure any such exchange had > everyone moved off at least a year in advance to reduce the > possibility of confusion. I believe that having an exchange which is > the same as any area code which is near to the area in use is only > asking for trouble. > For example, the area codes that are local to me in Silver Spring, MD > are 301, 410 (Columbia, MD), 202 (DC), 703(Virginia). Also, because > they are touched by parts of this area code, there should not be a > 304(WV), or 610(PA) exchange. I'd even recommend, since it is one > state over, not to have 302(DE), 804(VA), or 757 (VA) exchanges, for > example. The new overlay NPA codes for Maryland 'officially' go into effect on the 1st of June, 1997. IIRC, _MANDATORY_ ten-digit (local) dialing takes effect in Maryland one month earlier on the 1st of May, 1997. I think that Maryland is presently 'permissive' seven and ten-digit local dialing. In an overlay situation (with associated _mandatory_ ten-digit local dialing), it doesn't matter if a prefix and an NPA code are the same. In a seven-digit dialing situation, there can be (and are) seven-digit numbers of the format 240-240X. Therefore, it follows that there can be _ten_ digit numbers of the format 240-240-xxxx, if mandatory ten-digit local dialing were in place. With _mandatory_ ten-digit local dialing, It will also be _possible_ to have the following prefixes: 240-202, 240-302, 240-240, 240-301, 240-410, 240-443, 240-703, etc. 301-202, 301-302, 301-240, 301-301, 301-410, 301-443, 301-703, etc. 410-202, 410-302, 410-240, 410-301, 410-410, 410-443, 410-703, etc. 443-202, 443-302, 443-240, 443-301, 443-410, 443-443, 443-703, etc. As for the potential problems dialing to IBM's (301)-240-xxxx PBX lines, I don't think that will be a problem where wrong numbers and misdialings constantly reach particular unintended parties (read: _people_). Oh, there _will_ be misdialings, but I think that most of them will go to telco intercept and 'vacant-code' recordings. Begin- ning 1 May 1997, Someone trying to seven-digit dial to numbers in IBM's PBX as 240-xxxx would then 'stop' at the seventh-digits. Local dialing will be _mandatory_ ten-digits by that time, and about ten-to-thirty seconds after dialing the seventh-digit, the central office switch will 'time-out' to a 'partial-dial' ("your call did not go through") recording. _All_ local calls to IBM (and anyone else in Maryland) will _have_ to be dialed as 301-240-xxxx, in the _full_ ten-digits. IMO, in the long-run, NPA _overlays_ with associated _mandatory_ ten-digit dialing for all calls including local, makes more sense. The use of the '1+', however, is still being debated, and IMO should indicate to put the call through, regardless of local/toll status (any possible billing would be based only on the calling and called NPA-NXX codes), while _absence_ of a '1+' should indicate to put the call through _only_ if the called NPA-NXX is 'local' or 'free'. 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: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 10:38:33 -0500 From: rb28@is4.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Slammed Again! Organization: Techline Well, it's happened again. That's twice in less than a year. This time I was slammed by none other than AT&T, a company I used to use as my long-distance provider. AT&T calls at least once every 3 months, trying to convince me to switch to their service. I always say NO. Some AT&T telemarketer called (must have been early February, because I was apparently switched on 2/26/97) and started promoting the service. I hung up the phone. Hmmm. Does hanging up now constitute assent? Seems as if in this topsy-turvy world, no means yes. Now, the really annoying part is that I had placed a *restriction* on my lines with NYNEX and was under the impression that it required my specific permission (to NYNEX) to switch my long-distance provider. Can anyone tell me what the hell is going on here? This is getting out of hand. Robert Bononno - rb28@is4.nyu.edu - CIS:73670,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 18:37:55 -0800 From: Scott Morton Reply-To: tch@teleconsumer.org Organization: Tele-Consumer Hotline Subject: Tele-Consumer Hotline **TELE-CONSUMER HOTLINE ON-LINE** The Tele-Consumer Hotline is an independent and impartial education service that provides information to help consumers better understand the broad new array of communications products and services. The Tele-Consumer Hotline also offers an interactive 'Ask the Experts' section, that allows consumers to ask specific questions about telephone products and services. This is *not* an automated process. Each request is read and replied to individually by the experienced and trained staff at the Tele-Consumer Hotline. All of this information is provided free of charge and consumer privacy is always respected. The Hotline has served more than half a million consumers since it began operations in 1984. Information is available in both Spanish and English and the website has been designed to be accessible for persons with vision impairments. Topics include: o Choosing a long distance company o Slamming o Calling Cards o Assistive Technologies for people with disabilities o Telecommunications Relay Services The Hotline publications offered on the website are also available free of charge to consumers who send a self addressed, stamped envelope with the name of the publication(s) requested to: Tele-Consumer Hotline P.O. Box 27207 Washington, DC 20005 We appreciate feedback about our site and any suggestions as to how to improve our services. If you or your organization would be interested in providing a link to the Tele-Consumer Hotline site or have any questions about our services, please contact the webmaster at . Thank you. Scott Morton Hotline Counselor Tele-Consumer Hotline (202) 347-7208 ------------------------------------- The Tele-Consumer Hotline was jointly founded by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), the nation's largest consumer advocacy organization, and the Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC), the oldest and largest public interest communications group. In addition to CFA and TRAC, the Hotline's nonprofit board of directors includes representatives from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Consumer Action (CA) and the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (VCCC). Financial and technical support from AT&T, Bell Atlantic, MCI, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, SBC and Sprint enable the Hotline to provide its services and publications to residential consumers without charge. ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 14:04:43 GMT Organization: Diamond Mine Dave Levenson wrote: > It's bad enough that Caller*ID service, even at this late date, only > delivers the calling number on about 30% of all inbound calls here. That's one of many bad things about Bell Atlantic's Caller ID service. I recently moved from one side of my town (Fredericksburg, VA) to the otherside, but kept the same phone number. I had caller ID on one of my phone lines (my BBS line) and wanted it continued after the move. But, after the move, BA turned it off when they disconnected service at the old location. It took two phone calls to Repair Service and one call to Resident Accounts for them to turn it back on. AND -- they wanted me to pay an "installation fee" when it was THEIR mistake of turning it off in the first place. I talked them out of doing that! Side note: I don't see why they are charging the consumer $7.50 for caller ID deluxe (name and number delivery) when the equipment and software are already in the switch, and all they do is activate it via a computer in a remote town (for me its either Washington DC or Richmond, VA) Side note #2: I still do NOT get people who call in long distance who have AT&T as their carrier on the caller ID box (it says "out of area" though MCI and Sprint are passing that info on. Is it an AT&T problem or a Bell Atlantic problem?? Thanks, Dave Perrussel Assistant webmaster - "thedirectory" of Internet Service Providers http://www.thedirectory.org ------------------------------ From: barrett@freedomnet.com (Victor Escobar) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic: Chutzpah! Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 21:33:16 GMT Organization: INTERNET AMERICA On Tue, 4 Mar 97 18:10:18 EST, Dave Levenson wrote: > It's bad enough that Caller*ID service, even at this late date, only > delivers the calling number on about 30% of all inbound calls here. Yeah, I get the dreaded UNAVAILABLE on most of my calls. When asked if my friends used *67 to block their number, they said `Of course not, because you know it already!' And forget about displaying the number outside of my area code. > I told her that I would not spend an additional cent on Caller*ID > until it started delivering caller identification on far more than the > 30% of calls on which it currently works. She insisted that it works > on `most calls' today. Next thing you know they'll institute an English language surcharge. Victor Escobar Internet Consultant ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs Date: 8 Mar 1997 21:32:52 GMT Organization: BBN Corp. In article , eje@xap.xyplex.com says: > Well, after eagerly awaiting X2 code since the time it was announced > in October, and having downloaded the code and enabled it this > weekend, I discover that -- guess what? I'm a loser: my attempts to > connect via X2 via my home line (NPA/NXX 508-872) yield this error. That's the Framingham 5ESS, no problems there. BUT ... > 1) My line is working at 100% capacity > 2) My line is 4 miles (21,200 ft) of copper > 3) There is no SLC involved. This is very common. NYNEX loves long loops. Four miles of wire is typical for urban and suburban areas. It is not what X2 was designed for. > His judgment was that the 4 miles of copper were the impediment; when > I asked him about where the multiple CODECs might be, he said that > there were "enhancers" (based on the description, I'd call them > repeaters) along the line to handle some sort of signal quality issue > with touch-tone. I doubt there are active "enhancers". Most likely they're just loading coils. Standard telco practice is that whenever a local loop exceeds 18kf, 88 millihenry coils are inserted in series every 6 kf. This turns the loop into a 4 kHz low-pass filter with rather linear response below that number, and thus much less loss *for voice*. It doesn't gronk ordinary modems too badly, since they're below 4 kHz. But X2 and K56 are based not on voice-grade channels, but upon the actual behavior of unloaded copper pairs going into digital switches. Very different. > I note from NYNEX's web page that ISDN requires a local loop shorter > than 3.5 miles (18,000 ft?), so it looks like I'm just over. Alas, that's true. NYNEX does NOT provide repeaters, either, under its regular ISDN tariffs. (Many other telcos do.) Your only hope for ISDN is to locate a SLC within 18kf and get wired to it. Your only hope for X2 is to locate a SLC within 18kf and get wired to it, AND to have them use "integrated" mode, where there's no codec at the CO end. Since they more often use "universal" mode, even that avenue is probably closed, at least for the time being. What you need is local telco competition, and not "resale" or even "unbundled local loop". NYNEX apparentlly uses bad local loops as a competitive weapon, to prevent competitors from wanting to use it to compete. Maybe AT&T's Fixed Wireless or a CATV-based solution will help. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com BBN Corp., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 23:33:58 -0800 From: Tom Crofford Reply-To: tomc@xeta.com Organization: XETA Corporation Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs I'd like to understand why the x2 technology limits the D-A translations to one. According to USR's white paper, they must find 92 of the possible 256 binary PCM values that can be used between the ISP and your modem. If this is the method of operation, I think 92 or 256 are possible with more than one D-A translation. Tom Crofford tomc@xeta.com ------------------------------ From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: 9 Mar 1997 07:32:27 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Judith Oppenheimer writes: > "The primary issue is confusion for our potential guests," says Bill > Poe, vice president in charge of corporate systems for Choice Hotels > International, which owns the Quality Inn, Comfort Inn and EconoLodge > chains. "If they're trying to reach one of the affinity [800] numbers > that we have been advertising, they might dial 888 and get some other > company. That's going to be very confusing for guests, and potentially > very irritating." Similarly, if they are trying to dial a number in New York and put an LA area code in front of it, they'll not get through to the party they wish to get through to! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > Whatever happened to the concept that some people are just plain dumb; > some will *never* understand how to dial the phone correctly, and > there is little that can be done for them. More importantly, some people just don't know yet and will learn, if anybody bothers to tell them. In countries where toll-free and local-charge long distance numbers have a variety of prefixes, there is little confusion. People know they have to record the whole number and dial the whole number correctly. The problem the US has is the people who think that any toll-free number must start with 800. Once they realise that that is not the case, most of them should be able to cope with actually taking notice of remembering the whole number. If not then, the Editor's point as follows is spot on: > At some point one has to draw the line and say nothing more can be done > for the dumbos of the world. Of all the things going on in the US telephone system, the addition of new toll-free codes is one of the least difficult to understand or cope with. Craig Macbride URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #61 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 11 07:36:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA00668; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:36:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:36:29 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703111236.HAA00668@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #62 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Mar 97 07:36:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Old 900-NNX Prefixes and Local "Choke" Prefixes (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Choke Prefixes (was 900-NNX Geographic Assignments) (Stanley Cline) Re: More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes (Dave Close) Need Suggestions on Cleaning up US/International Phone Lists (Rick Strobel) Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? (John Cropper) "Watson, Come Here. I Want You!" (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 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 Mar 1997 14:34:40 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Old 900-NNX Prefixes and Local "Choke" Prefixes Several people have mentioned that _some_ (but not all) of the 1970's era _geographic_ 900-NNX code assignments used the same numerical NNX for the local "choke" prefix. Greg Monti quotes the two 900-NNX codes for New York City (NPA 212) from the list, and compares 212-985 and 212-955, 'One matched. One not'. But isn't (wasn't) 212-999 also a local 'choke' prefix in the New York City area? Or could it now be 718-999? I remember _attempting_ to place collect calls (from payphones in New Orleans) to New York City's local "Dial-a-Joke" back in my High School days in the 1970's, and the number was 212-999-3838. The operator would always REFUSE to place collect calls to ANY 212-999-xxxx number. I was told that there was a note in the operator's position bulletin stating that numbers with the 212-999 prefix were, while not 'free', were not to be 'billable' (as a third-party _billing_ number or to be called collect). I also seem to remember other 'dial-a-something' high-volume incoming services in New York City back then with 212-999-xxxx numbers. The old 900-NNX list (as others mention) doesn't _completely_ correspond to many of the "POTS" geographic NPA-NNX 'choke' codes used in each city. In the list I posted, 900-260 terminated in Phoenix AZ (NPA 602). The listing I posted was from late 1977 or early 1978. I don't know for certain, but I think that (602)-260 was/is the Phoenix AZ local "choke" prefix. However, in 1979, New Orleans started up a local "choke" prefix for calling radio station 'high-volume' contest/request/talk lines. It was (still is) (504)-260, the same NNX used by Phoenix AZ as their incoming 900-NNX. (Also note that in the 1970's list, New Orleans did _not_ have an incoming 900-NNX code). Depending on the type of interface the radio station uses (i.e. if it is on a 'basic' multi-line hunt key system vs. a PBX), you can sometimes bypass the "choke" translations and dial directly to a 'geographic' local telephone number to reach the radio or TV station call-in line. The way the "choke" code is used for most of the New Orleans area relies on routing through one of two "choke" code _tandems_. All (504)-260-xxxx numbers route to either the "Mid-City" central office (504-48x) or "Main-1AESS" office (504-52x/59x/etc). Every office has (limited) 260 trunks over to "Mid-City" or "Main-1A". The dialed 260-xxxx number is translated in "Main-1A" or "Mid-City", to some local NXX-XXXX number in the actual geographic neighberhood where the radio/TV station is physically located. The last four digits of the translated number do _NOT_ necessarily correspond to the 260's last four digits. The call then routes to that geographic neighberhood central office switch, and the translated 'geographic' number usually has 'rotary' or multi-line hunt. Of course, most radio stations are physically located in the Central Business District, which is served by the "Main" office, and there is usually one switch less to route through. So, if you can determine the translated number (such as having a DJ-friend or one of the radio station's 'board-op's' call _you_ from their talk lines, if you have Caller-ID or can get a 'quote-back on *69/1169), you can then usually _bypass_ the "choke" routing and translation, and dial _directly_ to the first (or hunted) 'geographic POTS' numbers of the radio or TV station's call-in lines. Some radio/TV stations might use a PBX, even for their talk/contest/request call-in lines. "Choke" routing and translation arrangements for PBX's will vary, and you might not be able to successfully 'directly' dial the translated number into their PBX and reach the call-in talk/request/contest line. In such non-successful situations, you _always_ seem to reach their PBX busy or re-order signal. Now, as for the old (circa 1970's) 900 service, on the Saturday afternoon twenty years ago when Carter had his call-in, I did try to reach 900-242-1611. I wasn't at home at the time of the broadcast, so I tried calling from payphones. Back then, there was no such thing as a COCOT (private payphone). All payphones were those owned by the telephone company (those really WERE the good old days ). At the time, New Orleans' area payphones were not "loop-start dialtone-first" -- you _HAD_ to drop a local coin-rate deposit into the payphone to get dialtone (i.e. "ground-start coin-first". And Louisiana was still at a nickel (5-cents) for local calls until January 1979. So, after dropping in my nickel, getting dialtone, and then dialing 1-900-242-1611, I was connected to the TSPS office. My nickel was returned, and then a Bell System operator came on the line, "Operator, may I help you?" (no 'branding' necessary, as all operators were those of the "one telephone company"). Since I understood the Carter Call-in to be free to the caller, I asked for my call to be completed. She would say something about needing to check the coin-rate to 900-242, but then she said something like "Oh, you're trying to call the President's radio call-in. One moment please, and I'll try to complete your call." Of course, I always got the "All circuits are busy now. Please try your call again later." A 'switch-ID' of 504-2L or something was mentioned at the recording, so I was being 'blocked' right at the New Orleans 'toll' switch. In the Area Code historical and chronological information in the Telecom Archives, 900 was 'reserved/assigned' to 'mass-calling' purposes circa 1970/71. The first time I ever saw it was around 1975/76 in a numerical list of area codes, supplied to me by South Central Bell. All it said was "900 Mass-Calling". I could never seem to get a definitive explanation of WHAT that meant from my requests of an operator or the business office. I did try actual random dialing of 1-900-NNX-XXXX numbers (mostly from payphones) at the time (in the mid 1970's, and prior to the first Carter call-in). Most of the time, after my nickel would come back, I would receive a recording, either "your call cannot be completed as dialed", "your call did not go through", or "all circuits are busy now". Every now and then, after my nickel came back, an operator would come on the line, and request something like $3.00 to $5.00 for the first three minutes. I would always tell her that I didn't have enough change on me at the moment. Maybe I had stumbled upon a 'valid' 900-NNX code (one of the 'geographically assigned' codes indicated on the list I posted), and the rate quoted was what the coin first three minutes was to the 'translated' NPA for that location. Around 1980 or so, AT&T (and Trans-Canada) began to reformat 900 to be national "Dial-It" pay-per-call info-services. There was a MUCH smaller list of 900-NXX codes in use for national "Dial-It". Some of the 900-NNX codes indicated on the list I posted had been 'withdrawn' around 1980, and now that Bellcore assigns 900-NXX codes to requesting carriers/entities/info-providers, some old circa-1970's 900-NNX codes might now be used by other (non-AT&T or non-Stentor) entities. Also, in the early 1980's, local prefix 976 was activated in most area codes and parts of the US (and now Canada) for _local_ "Dial-It" pay-per-call info-services. But for the most part, radio/TV and other 'local' mass-calling lines continue to use the 'traditional/local' choke prefixes, which don't carry the rate stigma that 976 does. Of course, local calls to radio/TV station "choke" numbers from payphones do carry the local coin rate, local measured rate or message units probably apply to such non-coin local lines, as any possible tariffed toll charges would apply when calling a "choke-prefix" number from outside of that city's local calling area. One final comment ... in my earlier posting, I mentioned that there were instances of people not dialing the (1)-900 before 242-1611 during the 1977 Carter call-in. People in the local areas who had 242-1611 in each area code were getting call-after-call of people asking them if they were the White House, President Carter or Walter Cronkite. There is a 242 prefix in the 504 area code, in New Orleans, and the people in the New Orleans East area with (504)-242-1611 were shown on local TV news that night in a taped news segment, getting such misdialed calls. Prior to 1982 or so, Toll-Free Inward WATS 800 had a _rigid_ geographic numbering and routing pattern. All inTRA-state (and in Canada, inTRA-province) toll-free 800 customers were assigned numbers of the 800-NN2-xxxx format. All sixty-four NN2's were available for re-use, from state-to-state (and province-to-province). It was possible to have multiple customers with an indentical 800-NN2-xxxx number, each within their own state, for inTRA-state inward toll-free service. So, I wonder how many customers who had inTRA-state (only) toll-free service with the number 800-242-1611 in their respective states were receiving numerous calls that Saturday in March 1977, where the caller was trying to reach the Carter call-in. Since the 900 number was arranged to be free to the caller, some people might have thought the call-in was _800_-242-1611, and since the '8' is just one (rotary dial) finger-hole or touchtone button away from the '9', some of those wrong-number calls might have been actual slips of the finger rather than the caller thinking that the call-in number was _800_ instead of _900_. 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: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Choke Prefixes (was 900-NNX Geographic Assignments) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 05:03:59 GMT Organization: C3 Services Co., Chatt., TN Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:27:32 EST, Wlevant@aol.com wrote: > It appears that at least some of the 900-NNX combinations match the > LEC's own NPA-NNX "choke" service assignments for the same city. At least not in Atlanta; the current choke prefix seems to be [404|770]-741 (area code not required in 404/770 area) , but the 900 NNX is 540. 540 may have been used in the past, but I don't think so. > At least in Philadelphia, the "choke" exchange was actually served > out of a "regular" exchange; there, it was 215-564. You could reach In Chattanooga, the choke prefix [423-642, 0xxx and 9xxx only; the other numbers now serve some PBX and Centrex groups] feeds numerous CO's, including at least one that is *not* operated by BellSouth, but is in the local calling area. The prefix is set up out of the Downtown #5ESS, with remote-call-fwd to another (non-pub) number. The two cellular carriers here (GTE and BellSouth Mobility) have pointed their star-numbers for radio stations, etc. to the *choke* numbers *rather than* to a standard number; calls from cellular customers are lumped with other calls from the CO serving the carrier's MTSO. (For GTE, the Downtown CO; for BSMobility, the Airport/Brainerd CO) There doesn't appear to be any "choke" capability in the MTSOs themselves, meaning that both air channels and MTSO->LEC trunks are still tied up handling calls -- most of them to reorder busies. (With SS7 capability coming to MTSOs, at least the MTSO->LEC problem should go away.) I worry that a flood of calls from cellphone customers could jam cell sites and block other calls (not 911, as 911 takes precedence over other calls), even possibly from *other* cell sites. The constant advertising of star-codes for radio contests doesn't help much, either. > 3) Connect, as in number 2, except instead of the faint busy, a somewhat > muted ringing tone ... and hopefully, the money/records/tickets. Even in the fully-#5E/DMS Chattanooga area, answered calls to the choke prefixes appear to be somewhat muted compared to other calls -- apparently a direct result of the way remote-call-fwd is set up. (I'd go so far as to say I don't think BellSouth even uses SS7 to route the choke numbers' RCF, i.e., the calls go SS7 to the 642 CO, but MF is used from the 642 CO to the radio station's CO. Of course, I don't know this for sure.) > was somewhat less sophisticated than the ESS, and that the crossbar > switch allowed more calls to actually reach the "choke" exchange than > the ESS did. Does anyone out there have a comment, explanation or > similar experience to report? Could be either the way the XB was set up vs. the ESS, or the fact that the ESS would have a faster "response time" than the XB (electronic much faster than mechanical.) When my area converted from an XB to a #5E back in '87, the chance of getting through to a contest-line was *slightly* less, but when SS7 was introduced in the local network (late 1991), the chances dropped down to virtually nil. (The 423-642 [then 615-642] choke NNX was served out of a #1AESS until around 1991, then was converted to a #5E.) TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > The best the kids can do now-days is if they have a two line phone > with three-way calling on each line and a 'conference' button on the > phone instrument then I presume with some effort and practice they > can bring up four parties all at one time or even five parties if The volume on such a connection tends to be less than optimal. :( Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba C3 Services Company, 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: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: More Public Meetings Set On Proposed 209 Area Code Changes Date: 9 Mar 1997 22:00:26 -0800 Organization: Network Intensive The Stockton Record Originally published Friday, March 7, 1997 Public put on hold in area-code debate Industry debates dialing up new number for Valley By Bill Cook Record Staff Writer MODESTO -- The telephone industry disconnected public and press Thursday as representatives from San Joaquin County and its cities and dozens of other entities argued over keeping the 209 telephone area code. Citizens and reporters were barred from the session in a Modesto motel by members of a telecommunications-industry panel. The panel ultimately will recommend to the California Public Utilities Commission whether the 209 code should be replaced in the upper or lower San Joaquin Valley. Riding on the PUC's decision are hundreds of thousands of business and residential phone numbers in San Joaquin County alone. A new area code would mean substantial costs to reprogram computer telephone databases, reprint letterhead and business cards, and make other changes. In October, the industry-panel members said that although no decision had been made, their initial proposal had the area generally north of the Madera County line retaining 209. Since then, there have been reports of heavy pressure from Fresno County and other southern areas for reversing this plan. In recent weeks, a letter-writing campaign from residents and businesses in the north has begun. About 3.9 million telephone lines are in use in both zones, with 52 percent in the northern area, said Pacific Bell representative Michael Heenan. In barring observers from Thursday's meeting, Bruce Bennett, director of the California Code Administration industry panel, explained: "We've found that letting the press and public in impedes progress as far as people frankly giving us their views." Bennett's assistant, H. Douglas Hescox, California Area Code Relief coordinator, said: "With the press attending, there's always a lot of posturing," Some three dozen officials from the state and San Joaquin, Amador, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Mariposa counties were scheduled to attend the session, although their names were not immediately available. Bennett indicated that the attendees included elected officials -- city council members, county supervisors, school trustees -- and appointed representatives -- city managers, county administrators and chambers of commerce officials. Bennett dismissed arguments that the public has an inherent right to know what its elected representatives are saying on its behalf on any issue. He said a court reporter had been hired to record the 2 1/2-hour discussion and that anyone interested in what was said could buy a copy of the transcript. He said it should be done in a week but that he did not know what the cost might be. A similar private meeting with government representatives from Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties will be held March 27 in Fresno. Hescox said he does not think the closed-door session violates the Brown Act, a state law passed to discourage secrecy in government. He stressed that no votes were to be taken at the Modesto or Fresno meetings. However, another meeting of government representatives from the entire area is be held April 9 in Merced, and printed memos say a vote is to be taken at that time. The meeting is not listed as public. The memos say in part: "Since the ... meeting in April will be the only meeting at which voting will take place, if you cannot attend, please send a representative (proxy) empowered to participate in decision-making." Bennett insisted that his panel will consider opinions from the general public as well as those of the government representatives. He said the public is being kept informed through a series of public meetings and through advertising. Additional public meetings are scheduled for March 27 in Fresno -- an evening session after the private meeting in the afternoon -- for April 17 in Visalia and for April 18 in Modesto. 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: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Need Suggestions on Cleaning up Phone Number Lists Date: Tue, 11 Mar 97 08:57:34 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. How can I make sense out of these lists of international phone numbers? The data entry is inconsistent. Some numbers are prepended with 011- others are not. I can't tell what country each number is for, it's usually not included with the database. How can I figure out the country for each phone number? The main problem is that country codes can be one, two or three digits. Are there some rules for this, i.e. the first two digits of a three digit country code would never be the same as the country code that is ONLY two digits. Once you have the country code figured out, are there any rules for how many digits should be in a phone number for that country? Like in the US, all phone numbers have 10 digits. This would be most important for the major European and Asian countries since that's where most of the businesses are located that we're trying to reach. I understand that from the US you don't dial the zero in the city code. For example 011-44-071- would not be the right way to dial a UK number, instead you'd dial 011-44-71-. Another tip is that you can put a # at the end of the number to signal the switches that you've dialed all the digits you're going to dial so it can begin processing the call. Ideally, I'd like to find a source where I could download a table of information that I could use to build this type of program in Access. Any ideas on where I could get such data either free, or cheap, or maybe even reasonably priced? I have a similar problem with US phone number lists. What Id like to find is a data source that would list all the US area codes, or NPA/NXX codes. Including all the new ones. Using this data I'd build a scrubber that would check and correct any numbers that may have had area code changes. As part of the data Id like to have time zone and city/state info. Im going to get info on an offering called Zip-Phones from Pareto Corporation. I dont know if its a product or a service, or if its reasonably priced. It seems like this kind of data ought to be downloadable from the net for free or next to free. Anyone have any ideas, comments or suggestions on this matter? Thanks in advance. Rick Strobel | | InfoTime Fax Communications | Fax-on-Demand | 502-426-4279 | & | 502-426-3721 fax | Fax Broadcast | rstrobel@infotime.com | Services | http://www.infotime.com | | ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: IBM Problem With Area Code 240? Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 10:06:17 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > In TELECOM Digest, Paul Robinson wrote: >> Bellcore has a page (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/240.html) listed to >> show the test number for area code 240 - the overlay area code here in >> Maryland for AC 301 - to see if it works from a specific area. Since >> 240 isn't even set up to be in effect until May, the number, which >> will be 240-999-8378, doesn't work, of course. >> Only problem was when I tried dialing it to see if that was a working >> number from here in 301 country. We are still on seven-digit dialing >> here (when 240 goes through, ALL local calls will be 10 digits), so I >> tried just dialing the short part of the number. Merely dialing >> 999-8378 sits on dead silence for 1/2 a minute before timing out to a >> recording saying "Your Call Did Not Go Through". Calling 301-999-8378 >> gets a recording saying the number is wrong. "Your call can not be >> completed as dialed." >> But, when I tried dialing the regular number as listed, I got a >> surprise. When I dialed 240-9998, the phone system clicked, and I got >> shunted to a recording (probably from a PBX, as follows:) >> "You have reached a non-working number at IBM, Gaithersburg Maryland. >> Please check your number and try again, or call your operator for >> assistance." (I note, also, that the recording did not include a SIT >> tone, as is often used even with private non-valid number announcements.) >> Well, it's obvious that this particular number doesn't work. But it >> implies that IBM has other numbers in the 240 prefix that DO work. >> And they are probably going to have some problems when people confuse >> their exchange with the new area code. Or, as the case may be, that >> Bell Atlantic requires they switch their PBX to a new prefix. > As for the potential problems dialing to IBM's (301)-240-xxxx PBX > lines, I don't think that will be a problem where wrong numbers and > misdialings constantly reach particular unintended parties (read: > _people_). Oh, there _will_ be misdialings, but I think that most of > them will go to telco intercept and 'vacant-code' recordings. Begin- > ning 1 May 1997, Someone trying to seven-digit dial to numbers in > IBM's PBX as 240-xxxx would then 'stop' at the seventh-digits. Local > dialing will be _mandatory_ ten-digits by that time, and about > ten-to-thirty seconds after dialing the seventh-digit, the central > office switch will 'time-out' to a 'partial-dial' ("your call did not > go through") recording. _All_ local calls to IBM (and anyone else in > Maryland) will _have_ to be dialed as 301-240-xxxx, in the _full_ > ten-digits. Hold on ... 301 is in a PERMISSIVE 10-digit situation NOW. All areas of 301 should be in the process of finialization for mandatory 10D HNPA-L on 5/1, but permissive 10D **should** work now. A call to Bell Atlantic, alerting them to the fact that your switch will NOT permit "ten-number number dialing" (use THEIR terminology, it sometimes helps) is strongly advised. If/when you do make the call, try to get a timetable from them as to 'repair time'. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:02:07 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: "Watson, Come Here. I Want You!" The words "Watson, come here. I want you!" were said by Alexander Graham Bell on 10 March 1876, 121 years ago. Interestingly, no operator nor central office was involved, nor any telephone number, nor 'exchange names'. So Dr. Bell couldn't have reached a 'wrong number'. 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There have been numerous cartoons on this at one time or another claiming otherwise such as one showing Alex Bell listening to a message coming out of his earpiece saying the number he was trying to reach was not in service, and one which told him to deposit ten cents for the first five minutes, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #62 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 11 09:10:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA06565; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:10:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:10:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703111410.JAA06565@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #63 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Mar 97 09:10:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 63 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (David Fraser) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Nils Andersson) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (J. Oppenheimer) People's Stupidity (was Marketers With 800 Numbers Fears) (Joseph Singer) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (David Richards) Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs (Eric Ewanco) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (M. Deignan) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (John Weeks III) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Dick DeYoung) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (lr@digex.net) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Nils Andersson) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Ed Ellers) Re: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan (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 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: David Fraser Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:18:26 -0800 Organization: NBTel Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > The phone industry created the 888 prefix last year, with the pool of > 7.71 million available 800 numbers quickly running out. In January > the Clinton administration's new budget proposed raising $700 million > by auctioning off 888 numbers -- an idea that had also cropped up last > year but withered amid opposition by business groups. > The Federal Communications Commission, which would administer the > auction if it is approved by Congress, says such a sale is simply an > equitable way to distribute something in short supply. "Auctions are > a good way to assign scarce resources," an FCC staffer says. Hmmm, what about good ol' Canada. Don't we share this 888 code? Seems to me we just went through an expensive PR campaign telling Canadians all about 888. Let's see ... Canada has approximately 10% the population of the US. So do we get $70 million? Regards, Dave Fraser (jdfraser@nbtel.nb.ca) ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: 10 Mar 1997 18:38:11 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , Judith Oppenheimer writes: > But don't expect the world of toll-free numbers to get less confusing > anytime soon. The phone industry expects the pool of available 888 > numbers to dry up over the next year. It is already planning a third > toll-free code, 877, which would be introduced in April 1998. The best long-term solution (other than letting people hang themselves, which has a lot to say for itself) is to use a larger chunk of 88X space, thus toll free numbers would be e.g 888+, 887+,. 886+ etc. Then, the advertisers could think of the last EIGHT digits as their number, and could advertise TOLL FREE 88 TAKEOVER or whatever. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 14:05:25 -0500 From: J. Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion craig@rmit.edu.au wrote: (Craig MacBride) wrote: > The problem the US has is the people who think that any toll-free > number must start with 800. Yes, Craig, that is the essence of the brand. Exactly the primary argument for separate toll-free domains (800 for commercial, 888 for pagers, etc.) The 800 brand serves businesses best because it's the most responsive and reliable consumer response trigger. Which generates more carrier traffic revenue. And obviously, consumers love it. That's not a "problem", it's an achievement. A rare everybody-wins success. It's not only a US brand, but a global one. Why do you think the ITU insisted on 800 for the global toll-free (universal freephone) code? Responding to comments by TELECOM Digest Editor: Pat, first, your argument is based on the presumption that toll-free numbers are the same in value (or lack thereof) as other telephone numbers. Also, that all toll-free numbers are equal to each other. Finally, even with local portability coming to fruition, that those numbers are equal to each other. Misguided, and with all due respect, erroneous in the real world. The real issue is ownership. Users, carriers, and government, treat numbers as property. Valuable property. Portability law already grants control of that "property" to users - you. So who do you want owning your "property"? Carriers? Government? or You? Judith ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher - http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com 1 800 THE EXPERT, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 22:29:21 -0800 From: Joseph Singer Subject: People's Stupidity (was Marketers With 800 Numbers Fears) TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > Whatever happened to the concept that some people are just plain dumb; > some will *never* understand how to dial the phone correctly, and > there is little that can be done for them. At some point one has to > draw the line and say nothing more can be done for the dumbos of the > world. Now many months into area 847 there are still a large number > of people who do not understand to dial a '1' at the start of a north > suburban Chicago number, driving the subscribers of the VIRginia-7 > exchange batty. [snip] > Numerous subscribers to 312-773 numbers and 773-847 numbers feel > Ameritech should pick some other area codes so they won't be hassled > so much by people trying to reach area 773 and 847. Wouldn't it have been a lot wiser for Ameritech to protect those codes and *not* use 847 or 773 as NPAs? I thought when NPAs were assigned especially the new codes that are similar to CO prefixes that one of the things that was to be considered was not assigning codes that were the same as a prefix in either the old or the new code? I'll grant you that a simple thing like following dialing instructions should be something that most people should be able to do, but experience shows that people don't always behave in the way that you'd think they would. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington, USA dov@accessone.com http://www.accessone.com/~dov/ PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem is we do not have the luxury of 'protecting' certain codes any longer. We have precious few three digit combinations around here which are not in use one or more places in the several area codes in northern Illinois. Exactly who should be protected? Why them and not some other exchange? Debates about where to draw area code lines, whether to overlay or use geographic areas in assigning codes, and which codes to use could and frequently do go on endlessly. No one is ever satisfied. I doubt that most of the new area codes in the past two years would have been assigned (as of yet) if the haggling had been allowed to continue in each community. It is true that people do not always behave 'in the way you'd think they would'; so exactly where is the line to be drawn between trying to anticipate and accomodate people's behavior versus the rest of the world getting tied up in technological knots as a result? Protecting codes was a wonderful thing back in the 1950's, and some people are unaware that in those days not only were area codes always of the 'one or zero as the middle digit' variety, telcos did not even assign the same prefixes or exchanges *in adjoining states*. Really! That is, if area code 312 had prefix 222, then area codes touching it on any side (i.e. 414, 815, 219) did *not* have '222'. Why? So that people could dial across area code boundaries (if they lived on a state line for example) using only seven digits. Whiting, Indiana had 219-659 so therefore 312 had no 659 until finally about 1983 or so it was assigned to Cellular One Chicago as their very first cellphone exchange. When 'seven digit community dialing' had to be mostly elim- inated -- number combinations were just getting too tight -- people fussed and fretted about how it was a trick by telco to increase the number of long-distance calls we would have to make. People did not like losing four-digit community dialing either, but somehow they came around. My thinking now is an independent agency should assign all telephone numbers, period. Do not bother to ask anyone what they think about the number they were given; just hand out the numbers on request without allowing any picking or choosing. If Mrs. Luddite gets frustrated and never can seem to reach her neighbors because she refuses to follow simple dialing instructions, that's tough. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs Date: 9 Mar 1997 09:38:10 GMT Organization: Ripco Communications Inc. In article , Tom Crofford wrote: > I'd like to understand why the x2 technology limits the D-A translations > to one. According to USR's white paper, they must find 92 of the > possible 256 binary PCM values that can be used between the ISP and your > modem. > If this is the method of operation, I think 92 or 256 are possible with > more than one D-A translation. I'm no electrical engineer, but have much experience with ISDN and modems, so I'll try to explain the difficulty. If the ISP has a channelized T1 or ISDN line at their end terminating directly into a DSP, and the connection into the switch is digital and the telco trunk is digital, then the entire circuit EXCEPT for the "home run" from the switch to the modem is digital. Thus the ISP can send digital data down the line and know it will stay clean right up until it hits the CODEC at the switch that feeds the end user. The D-A conversion there and the analog loop to the user will introduce some uncertaintity, so the user's analog modem and the digital hardware at the ISP negotiate to determine what the digital data "looks like" after the conversion to analog. If a second conversion is done (analog modems on each end, an ISP with a 'line side' channelized T1, etc), then the extra noise and encoding errors are enough to keep them from finding symbols that are still recognizable after the two conversions. 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: Eric Ewanco Subject: Re: USR 56k Modems and CODECs Date: 09 Mar 1997 14:00:20 -0500 Organization: Xyplex, Inc. Tom Crofford writes: > I'd like to understand why the x2 technology limits the D-A translations > to one. According to USR's white paper, they must find 92 of the > possible 256 binary PCM values that can be used between the ISP and your > modem. > If this is the method of operation, I think 92 or 256 are possible with > more than one D-A translation. It's not so much that they limit the number of D-A translations to one as they limit the number of A-D translations to zero, because, presumably, of the bandpass filter that narrows the frequency response to 3500 Hz. The consequence of this of course is that you can only have one D-A conversion, since if you have more than one, you'd need a concomitant A-D conversion. The key restriction is that there can't be any A/D conversions because it introduces too much signal corruption. Eric Ewanco eje@world.std.com Software Engineer, Xyplex Networks Littleton, Mass. ------------------------------ From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 9 Mar 1997 09:26:22 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Paul Smith wrote: > Banning cellular phones in cars because they may distract drivers is > crazy. How about banning the eating of fast food meals while driving > too? After all it is really hard to eat a big Mac while steering. > How about banning smoking while driving? I wouldn't want anybody > taking their eyes off the road to light a cigar. Banning all > conversations while driving would also help. Drivers need to focus on > driving. Better yet ... How about we ban >women drivers, SWWV53D@prodigy.com (Paul Smith) wrote: > Banning cellular phones in cars because they may distract drivers is > crazy. How about banning the eating of fast food meals while driving > too? After all it is really hard to eat a big Mac while steering. It already is illegal -- it is called "inattentive driving". Many states are considering an explicit ban on handheld cellular phones for drivers since it forces them to take one hand off of the wheel. Wisconsin already has such a ban in place -- however, a driver is permitted to use a cellular phone that has both auto-dial and a hands-free mode. Back in the good old days of IMTS phones, I had one customer who owned a sand and gravel operation. He used the phone to take and place calls when he was at a jobsite with no telephones. One day while driving down the road, he looked down to dial a phone number (this was a rotary dial IMTS phone). When he finished dialing, he looked up, just in time to see a stopped car five feet in front of his bumper. A driver was stopped in the driving lane to make a left turn. My customer never had time to step on the breaks, and hit the stopped car full force at 60+ MPH. He was banged up badly, and was never quite the same mentally. The driver he hit, a middle aged woman with several children, was paralyzed. John A. Weeks III (612) 891-2382 jweeks@visi.com Newave Communications FAX 953-4289 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks ------------------------------ From: deyoung@frontiernet.net (Dick DeYoung) Subject: Re: NY Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 14:26:07 GMT Organization: Frontier Internet Rochester N.Y. (716)-777-SURF On Thu, 6 Mar 97 20:38 PST, lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) wrote: >> From: Curtis R. Anderson >> According to a brief announcement heard on WKBW-TV during the six p.m. >> news, the New York legislature is considering a bill which would ban >> the driver's use of handheld cellular phones while the vehicle is >> being operated. > Greetings. All the recent bruhaha on this topic is the result of a > single study. Not only did the authors of the study point out that > their results were the same for handheld and "no-hands" cell phones, > but they also went to great lengths to emphasize that they did not > feel their results should be used as evidence to attempt banning of > in-motion car cell phone use. > Statistics can be tricky things. The authors of the study tried to be > clear about them; it would be unfortunate if their results were > misinterpreted by the legislative process. This is nothing more than political posturing from a NY Senator of the minority party in the Senate. ------------------------------ From: lr@access5.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 10 Mar 1997 20:14:38 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank Curtis R. Anderson (gleepy@intelligencia.com) wrote: > The Legislature is using those studies which suggest high accident > risk while the driver is talking on a cellular phone. Of course the study showed that hands-free wasn't any better safety wise than held-held phones. ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: 10 Mar 1997 18:47:45 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , vanvalk@auburn. campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh) writes: >> The way I look at it, dialing *70 says I want no Call-Waiting during >> the current call, I HAVE NO Call-Waiting AT ALL on the line, so there >> is no reason NOT TO ACCEPT the *70 and just return a dial tone . . . > I agree. But maybe we should be thankful that the local telco hasn't > decided to offer the disable call waiting feature as one of those > optional features that you can get when not subscribed for $0.25 per > call. Actually, GTE does charge for the disable call waiting. The logical next step would be to charge a buck a month for NOT bombing out on a non-CW/nonDCW line when *70 is dialled. (actually 70# with GTE, necessary to distinguish that you are in GTE territory and you have to remember who is in charge). They never thought of that one, YET. (And yes, I had the same original problem with my line bombing when I got a dedicated fax/modem line). Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 16:05:51 -0500 From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line R. Van Valkenburgh (vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net) wrote: > I agree. But maybe we should be thankful that the local telco > hasn't decided to offer the disable call waiting feature as one of > those optional features that you can get when not subscribed for > $0.25 per call. If you think that's bad, here's a really ridiculous one. Ever notice how some phone companies' directories contained a notice saying that the directory remained the property of the telco, and no cover not provided by the telco could be attached to the directory? I'd always assumed that this was to make sure that the ads on the back cover would remain visible, but a look in a Louisville phone book from the 1950s provided the answer. It turns out that Southern Bell (and perhaps other RBOCs at the time) would *rent* a plastic cover to you! The covers were available in the same decorator colors as Western Electric telephones, and rented for ten cents a month each. So by their logic, putting another cover on "their" directory was as heinous as buying your own extension phones. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 11:14:44 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , ulmo@Q.Net wrote: > [personal experiences and views of splits/overlays in NYC/LA/etc.] One example I found quite interesting of failing to list the area code on a sign where it was clearly needed was a road sign on Interstate 280 in Palo Alto, California. Palo Alto is in Santa Clara County, most of which, including the county seat of San Jose, is in area code 408, but Palo Alto and a few other communities (Los Altos, Mountain View) are in area code 415, soon to be area code 650. The sign said something like "CARPOOL INFO 297-xxxx", but that number, dialed from the location where the sign was posted, would not reach the county transit agency; the sign needed to specify the area code. Of course, there is a bit of an excuse of newness involved. After all, this was in the mid- to late 1980's, so Palo Alto had been in a different area code from San Jose for less than thirty years. ** 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" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: WMAQ Radio (670-AM in Chicago) is heard all over the midwest and certainly quite strongly in the five or six area codes making up northern Illinois/Indiana. For years they have run their 'cellular opinion poll' sponsored by Cellular One. They ask some simple-minded question usually about politics and invite listeners to respond 'from your cellular phone by dialing 'star Y for yes, or star N for no'. "From other phones you can reach us at 591-67-YES or 591-67-NO." This only worked from area 312 however. After 847 and 630 were cut in several months ago (to say nothing of 219 and 815 which have been around for years) I called the producer of that little segment which airs several times each day and suggested maybe they ought to begin using an area code. "Oh," he said, "I had never thought about that; gosh maybe that would be a good idea." Starting a day or so later they were doing it. Rather than caving in to people, try and educate them to provide their number correctly and dial other numbers correctly. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #63 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 13 08:57:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA26725; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 08:57:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 08:57:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703131357.IAA26725@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #64 TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Mar 97 08:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 64 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Directories (was Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting) (Stan Cline) Book Review: "Real World Networking With NT 4" by Holderby (Rob Slade) Sprint PCS (Tad Cook) NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Michael J. Kuras) South Carolina Rejects Rural Status for GTE (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Troubleshooting TCP/IP" by Miller (Rob Slade) Participants Needed for Internet Telephony Trial (Quintillion Comm) Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Michael N. Marcus) U.S. Bells Seen Joining Teleglobe in Call Plan (Chris Farrar) 1-800-Comp-usa Screws up Call Waiting (Keith Knipschild) Bellsouth Says Atlanta May Get Two New Area Codes (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: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Phone Directories (was Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Line) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:28:54 GMT Organization: C3 Services Co., Chatt., TN Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Sun, 09 Mar 1997 16:05:51 -0500, Ed Ellers wrote: > If you think that's bad, here's a really ridiculous one. Ever notice > how some phone companies' directories contained a notice saying that > the directory remained the property of the telco, and no cover not > provided by the telco could be attached to the directory? I'd always Oddly enough, some *still* do -- even though those directories are distributed via bulk mail, to customers of BellSouth. It's plain DUMB to say such a thing to a customer of an ex-Bell LEC! Even worse, the local-prefix listing for some of the indep telcos around here DOES NOT list most Tennessee-side cellular or pager prefixes, or new NXXs dating back to *1991*, as local calls! (If 1+423 *is* dialed on such calls, they are not charged.) Better *not* base your PBX programming on that list! In the north Georgia area, two of the independent telcos -- Chickamauga/Fail Telephone and ALLTEL -- now distribute their directories across the north Georgia area, to their own customers, to customers of the other, competing "publisher", to customers of other indeps (Ringgold and Trenton, mainly) and to customers of BellSouth. The directories have combined listings for the northwest Georgia area, as well as *business* listings for the Tennessee nearby area (Chattanooga.) Yet the Chattanooga directory itself (distributed to BellSouth's customers only) has listings for *all* of the indeps' areas! * Trenton - gets own telco, and ALLTEL's [note that most of Trenton is a toll call to Chattanooga, and *certainly* to Chickamauga, LaFayette, and Ringgold!] * Chickamauga/Fail - gets own telco and ALLTEL's -- BellSouth upon request, or from a BellSouth customer :-) * LaFayette [ALLTEL] - gets own telco and Chickamauga's * Ringgold - gets own telco, ALLTEL's, Chickamauga's, and also Dalton [interLATA toll-free only on AT&T and DeltaCom] "talking yellow pages" (non-telco) * BellSouth NW GA (me) - *own telco* Chattanooga, as well as Chickamauga's and ALLTEL's Needless to say, I'm awash in phone books, all of which have listings for Chickamauga, LaFayette, Ringgold, and the Ft. Oglethorpe [BellSouth] area!! What's really strange is that the BellSouth phone book for Chattanooga *still* doesn't have listings for the "metro area" EAS, which includes the Cleveland, Dayton, and Jasper areas. (HOWEVER, directories for these areas are free to customers for which those areas are local calls, or covered under Area+ or RegionServ, optional EAS plans.) I've been told the main reason they *haven't* been included is because such calls are TOLL CALLS from their GEORGIA customers -- a small minority of the local calling area -- and would invite confusion. > assumed that this was to make sure that the ads on the back cover > would remain visible, but a look in a Louisville phone book from the > 1950s provided the answer. I found even more nostalgia from a *1997* [Chickamauga] phone book -- mention of "the mobile operator" [is IMTS still around?], Zenith and Enterprise and WX numbers, and such old stuff! Even funnier, it says "To call anyone in Georgia" dial 1+, but *doesn't* mention OUT-OF-STATE calls, or the availability of equal access from the Chickamauga area! But in the back cover of the SAME phone book -- ads for (telco's resale) long distance service, and internet access! Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! dba C3 Services Company, 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: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:22:17 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Real World Networking With NT 4" by Holderby BKRWNWNT.RVW 961121 "Real World Networking with NT 4", William Holderby, 1996, 1-557610-055-3, U$39.99/C$55.99 %A William Holderby holder@acadiacom.net %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1996 %G 1-557610-055-3 %I Coriolis %O U$39.99/C$55.99 800-410-0192 602-483-0192 fax: 602-483-0193 %O sbounds@coriolis.com anne_tull@coriolis.com %P 550 %T "Real World Networking with NT 4" The introduction promises that this book is for the person who does not have a background with either the Windows NT operating system or networking. By and large, it delivers. The text is practical and straightforward, while identifying most of the areas a network administrator would have to deal with in establishing an NT network or server. One could not say it is complete. That would be a very difficult task, given the wide range of networking options covered by NT. The book does provide a good overview, and a good deal of operating information at the button punching level. The chapter on security, for example, covers the functions and provisions of the various security options, but really does not address the issue of network security as such. One reasonably important area that is missing is that of hardware. Since NT can run on multiple hardware platforms, it might be objected that it would be hard to know where to stop once begun. However, the lack of this information, particularly in regard to installation, does compromise the book's usefulness. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKRWNWNT.RVW 961121 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint PCS Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:43:54 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Sprint PCS' $10 Billion Investment in 65 Cities about to Pay Off By Dennis Pearce, The Wichita Eagle, Kan. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 11--Sprint PCS has spent $10 billion to bring digital wireless telephones to Wichita and 64 other cities across the United States by the middle of the year. Wichita is among the first 30 cities in the United States to go on line with the new system because Sprint and area zoning authorities worked so well together, Tom Mateer, area vice president of the Westwood-based company, said Monday. "We were able to get our cell sites acquired and constructed earlier than at other sites," Mateer said at the new Sprint PCS store at 3101 N. Rock Road. There are about 30 employees locally. Sprint spent $4.5 million to build the CD-quality network and another $4.9 million to buy the Wichita license. The digital telephone operates on a higher frequency than do cellular systems, so while the quality of tone is better, it doesn't go as far. Therefore more antennae are needed than with cellular telephones. Sprint has installed the antennae in new locations and on existing structures. Sprint is counting heavily on the new technology and its brand name to "deliver to consumers the promise of wireless communications," Mateer said. "By that I mean we're going to give them unsurpassed quality and improved reliability, with fewer blocked or dropped calls, and better security." He said it's impossible to use a radio scanner to eavesdrop on a digital telephone call, unless the snooper has sophisticated knowledge and expensive equipment. With Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and British Princess Diana in the news over their supposedly private conversations being overheard, "people are aware that anyone can listen in on those (cellular) conversations," Mateer said. "If you're trying to conduct some sensitive business transactions, or even your personal conversation, no one wants somebody listening in. So privacy is very important." As is beating "cloning," he said. "Anyone who has had their number stolen over the air and had it used by someone fraudulently knows what a hassle it is to have a $6,000 phone bill and have to go through the process of getting that corrected." Sprint offers three plans: $27 a month for 60 minutes, $57 a month for 180 minutes and $107 a month for 420 minutes. Extra time is priced at peak and non-peak rates. For the next 60 days, Sprint is offering half-price deals on all three packages for the first year. The coverage area includes Wichita, Newton, Andover, Augusta, El Dorado, Derby and Mulvane. The company will expand its coverage this year to include Wellington and Hutchinson. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:11:02 -0500 From: mkuras@ccs.neu.edu (Michael J Kuras) Subject: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Busy tones are a way of life for computer users, and NYNEX has pulled a beauty of a blunder trying to help us out. Not only has NYNEX been blitzing the Boston area with TV & radio spots espousing the vitues of *66, they've gone one step further: when you get a busy tone, a friendly voice automatically breaks in and tells me that the number I'm calling is busy (really? no kidding?) and would I like to spend $.50 to have it redialed for me? It's a really nice gesture except for one problem: the busy tones are cut off too quickly for my modem to recognize them and hang up. It just sits there. So I called NYNEX and (after waiting on hold until they were good and ready to deal with me) asked them to remove this feature. She cheerily said "Sure. That'll take 24 hours." Fine. 24 hours is ridiculous, but I don't complain. T+24 hours: I dialed in again, got a busy signal, plus that familiar voice, "The number you dialed is busy..." I called NYNEX back and politely asked why it hasn't been removed. (hold hold hold...) "Well sir, ever since They turned this feature on every modem user in the region has called in asking to get it removed. The Repair Department is swamped. They'll try to get to it as soon as they can. Maybe tomorrow." Let's recap: (1) a computerized operator breaks in every time I get a busy signal. (2) It prevents mine and apparently all other modems from functioning properly. (3) They're too busy to turn it off. (4) (and this really ticks me off) They didn't implement a *xx feature to let users turn it off on a per-call basis! Is NYNEX *so* incompetant that no one there thought this thing through? (well ... YES!) michael j kuras www.ccs.neu.edu/~mkuras mkuras@ccs.neu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: South Carolina Rejects Rural Status for GTE Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:29:44 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) South Carolina Regulators Reject 'Rural' Status for GTE By Leroy Chapman Jr., The State, Columbia, S.C. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 12--State regulators opened the door Tuesday for long-distance giant AT&T to begin competing as a local service provider in markets now dominated by General Telephone. The state Public Service Commission denied a request by GTE to be classified as a rural service provider. The commissioners then ordered GTE to sell wholesale local service to AT&T for 18.66 percent below retail. By denying the request to classify GTE as a rural phone service provider, the PSC headed off a bid by GTE to delay, and possibly exempt itself from, competition. By ordering GTE to sell wholesale service to AT&T, the commission ensured that competition will probably begin in GTE markets within a few months. "We would have a hard time explaining how the largest telephone company in the country is rural," said Commissioner C. Dukes Scott, whose district includes Columbia. Stan Bugner, a GTE spokesman, said he was disappointed at the company's not being classified as a rural provider. "We felt there would've been some advantage to the commission and customers if we had maintained our rural exemption," Bugner said. Tuesday's decision means that AT&T, the largest company that has expressed interest in becoming a local service competitor in South Carolina, can compete for 1.1 million customers in the state. GTE has about 160,000 local service customers along the Grand Strand and in the Pee Dee. BellSouth, which was ordered by the PSC last week to sell service and parts of its network to AT&T, has one million customers statewide. Last month, GTE and AT&T went to arbitration with the PSC to resolve issues the companies couldn't agree on related to AT&T's entry into local service. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 broke local phone service monopolies and allows long-distance, cable and wireless communications companies to get into each other's businesses. The intent of the act is to lower prices through competition. AT&T can enter GTE's market by buying wholesale service from GTE and reselling it, buying parts of GTE's network and reassembling it, or building its own network. AT&T plans eventually to do all three. But, the state Consumer Affairs Division has criticized the PSC for not allowing deeper wholesale discounts that may facilitate competition. AT&T will be able to buy local service from GTE now priced at $15.96 per month per residential customer for $12.98. Then, AT&T can resell the service, adding its billing and marketing overhead. Whatever is left is profit. Elliott Elam, the consumer affairs attorney that keeps an eye on utilities' pricing, says that because the discounts aren't bigger, consumers won't see much savings. "It's just more of the same," Elam said. AT&T echoed Elam's disappointment. "This rate is not going to allow new entrants to come in and offer lower prices unless they are willing to take a loss on business," AT&T spokesman David Arneke said. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:39:43 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Troubleshooting TCP/IP" by Miller BKTRBLIP.RVW 961115 "Troubleshooting TCP/IP", Mark A. Miller, 1996, 1-558551-450-3, U$49.95/C$68.00 %A Mark A. Miller mark@diginet.com %C 115 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011-4195 %D 1996 %G 1-558551-450-3 %I M&T Books %O U$49.95/C$68.00 +1-212-886-9378 fax: 212-633-0748, 212-807-6654 %O 76712.2644@compuserve.com http://www.mandt.com fburke@fsb.superlink.net %P 772 %T "Troubleshooting TCP/IP, 2nd ed." Miller's book is a very solid, real and complete guide to TCP/IP network troubleshooting. Clear and cogent background material looks not only at the Internet protocols themselves, but also vendor specifics. Chapters look at the protocols layer by layer, in a logical fashion, supported by example sniffer and other logs to demonstrate how to diagnose and identify problems. A final chapter looks at IPv6 and the coming changes. A set of appendices provide, among other things, useful resources, vendor contacts, and a listing of Internet parameters. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKTRBLIP.RVW 961115 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Quintillion Communications Subject: Participants Needed for Internet Telephony Trial Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:19:32 -0500 Organization: Quintillion Communications PARTICIPANTS FROM OUTSIDE THE USA NEEDED FOR INTERNET TELEPHONY MARKET RESEARCH TRIAL Quintillion Communications is seeking participants for an Internet Telephony trial which will begin March 31, 1997. The trial is scheduled to last until May 31, 1997. Quintillion will provide free internet phone calls* to the USA during the trial period. Trial participants must live outside the USA and be willing to make calls using their computer to regular telephones in the USA via the service. Participants will also be expected to: 1. install the internet telephony software supplied by Quintillion 2. have access to the internet 3. answer Quintillion surveys 4. sign a non-disclosure agreement If you are interested in participating in this trial, please apply by March 21 at http://www.quintillion.com/trial We will confirm participation by March 26, and if selected, you will be provided with instructions for downloading the software and using the service by March 31. *Some restrictions may apply. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:32:06 -0500 From: Michael N. Marcus Reply-To: michael@ablecomm.com Organization: Able Communications, Inc. Subject: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Does anyone remember talking on the "beep" line? When I was a student at Lehigh Univ. in Bethlehem, PA in the late 60s, a common method of flirting and hopefully getting dates, was to call your own number to get a busy signal, and then talk to other people between the beeps. Apparently, several or many callers were connected simultaneously to a "beep bus," and they could have interrupted conversations like "I'm BEEP Steve BEEP at BEEP Lehigh BEEP. I BEEP play BEEP football. BEEP Wanna BEEP go BEEP to BEEP a BEEP party? BEEP." A reply could be "Hi BEEP this BEEP is BEEP Suzie BEEP at BEEP Cedarcrest BEEP. I'm BEEP a BEEP blonde BEEP cheerleader BEEP. Call BEEP me BEEP at BEEP 233 BEEP 4479 BEEP." I have no idea how this was discovered, but it was passed-on to each incoming freshman class. Does anyone know how many callers could be connected simultaneously to one beep bus? Does it exist on modern CO switches? Is this "feature" still in use at colleges? Did any of you find a date or spouse this way? Michael N. Marcus Able Communications, Inc. www.ablecomm.com michael@ablecomm.com ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: U.S. Bells Seen Joining Teleglobe in Call Plan Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:58:34 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca U.S. Bells Seen Joining Teleglobe in Call Plan NEW YORK (Reuter) - Three regional Bells phone companies, salivating over the potential of the huge U.S. long-distance market, are arming themselves with an international calling capability through Canada's Teleglobe Inc., sources close to the deal say. Teleglobe has contracts with Ameritech Corp., Bell-South Corp., and Bell Atlantic Corp. that start with calling cards but are expected to expand to full international calling, sorces close to the deals said yesterday. Chicago-based Ameritech will annoucne international calling card services using Teleglobe today, the sources said. The deals wiht the other two Bells will not be annoucned for several months, the sources added. Ameritech will offer subscribers to its calling card the ability to call home or anywhere else from around the world. These calls are billed to the home phone. The cards also would allow collect calling from abroad. None of the companies involved would comment yesterday. 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 ------------------------------ From: Keith Knipschild Subject: 1-800-Comp-USA Screws up Call Waiting Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:15:21 -0500 I was calling 1-800-Comp-USA (1-800-266-7872) today, and listened to the prerecorded info. There is an option #2 to connect to my local Store, which I thought was pretty cool ... But that's not the info; I was UNABLE to Recieve any Call Waiting calls while I was connected to this 800 number. Plus I could not even get another DIAL TONE to make a conferenece call (three-way calling). What causes this? Is it a national thing? Keith@unix.asb.com == SLIP-PPP Internet Address Keith@asb.com == BBS Internet Address Http://www.asb.com/usr/keith == WWW Page URL Address Knipper@compuserve.com == Compuserve Internet Address Knipper@worldnet.att.net == ATT WorldNet Internet Address Fknipsch@suffolk.lib.ny.us == My Free Internet Shell Account 70302,2701 == CompuServe Address N2NJS@KC2FD.NY.USA.NA == Ham Radio AX25 Packet Address [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually custom calling features such as call-waiting and three-way calling are not available when you place a call until the call has supervised (if it stays within your local central office) or at least until it leaves your office on its way to the destination. The theory behind disallowing call-waiting for (what should be) an interval of a few seconds when you place a call is that the call-waiting tone would otherwise disrupt your dialing, and I suppose it could also mess up the supervision attempt somehow. To test this out, take one phone off hook and dial just a digit or two, then use another line to call that number. You will get a busy signal until after the (first phone being used) has finished dialing, the line 'clicks' and the call goes on its way to wherever. Dial that number again and now the call waiting is restored. Likewise, you cannot set up a three way call in the middle of dialing a number. This leads me to believe that for some reason the 800 number you were dialing is not correctly 'supervising'; your local central office does not seem to feel the distant end ever answered the line; consequently it is unwilling to give you back your custom calling features. Whether this is an overall problem with the Compu-USA number nationally or some malfunction in your local central office will have to be detirmined. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Bellsouth Says Atlanta May Get Two New Area Codes Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:32:56 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) BellSouth Seeks at Least One New Area Code for Atlanta By Michael E. Kanell, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 12--BellSouth Corp. said it will to file a formal warning today that at least one new area code will be needed in metro Atlanta. Although the first filing will have few details, the company might wind up asking for two new area codes -- perhaps covering the 404 area that centers on Atlanta, as well as 770, which covers the rapid growth north of I-285. "This would be the first notice," said Public Service Commission spokesman Shawn Davis. "Up to now, there has been nothing official." BellSouth, which confirmed last week that at least one new code would be needed, said it will provide data that demonstrated the increased demand on the phone system after it meets with telecommunications industry members over the next several weeks. The company said it is still compiling that information. In 1995, when the 404 area code was divided and 770 created, BellSouth predicted an eight-year hiatus before residents and businesses would again need to cope with the cost and inconvenience of a new area code. BellSouth officials now say they were simply too conservative about telecommunications growth that has included pagers and wireless phones, as well as second lines for fax machines, computers and teenagers. The syndrome is national, said Ken Branson, media manager for Bellcore, the New Jersey engineering firm that manages the nation's area codes. Area codes were introduced in 1947, and the first 144 codes lasted until 1995. Since then, the nation has added 51 area codes, leaving fewer than 600 possibilities, he said. Area codes cannot begin with either 1 or 0. And an area code can't be a number such as 911 and 411 -- three-digit numbers that can be dialed to complete a call. Each area code can handle 7.92 million telephone numbers, Branson said. "The arithmetic is inexorable. There are 7.92 million of those puppies, and when they are gone, they are gone." While BellSouth is unable to provide statistics, its filing indicates that the 770 area code will approach saturation next year. Options are many for implementing one or two new area codes. For example, 770 might be split and a new code added. Or a new code (or codes) could be added in 770 (and perhaps in 404, too) that would only be given to new listings. That way no one would be forced to change area code. The latter option, however, would force everyone in the affected area to dial at least 10 numbers to call anyone. Speculation about what area codes might be given to metro Atlanta is premature, Branson said. "They can call us and ask us to reserve a number. They have not done that yet. And we would not assign a number until we saw a final plan." Bellcore has become familiar with the resistance to area codes, objections based on a combination of cost, convenience, snobbery and habit, Branson said. "We know it's inconvenient. It is probably less inconvenient than not making phone calls." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #64 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Mar 15 08:38:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA11801; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 08:38:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 08:38:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703151338.IAA11801@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #65 TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Mar 97 08:37:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 65 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson North Carolina Area Codes (Jim Jacobs) Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: Industrial Strength Web" (Rob Slade) Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA and Call Waiting) (Mark Cuccia) Re: 1-800-Comp-USA Screws up Call Waiting (W. Halverson) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Diamond Dave) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Ian Angus) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Lee Winson) Another 800 Pay Number (Col. G.L. Sicherman) 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: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 01:01:26 -0500 From: Jim Jacobs Subject: North Carolina Area Codes BellSouth Says North Carolina Area Codes To Double Communications Industry Presents Implementation Options To NCUC RALEIGH, N.C., March 13 /PRNewswire/ -- North Carolina must add three new area codes before the end of next year to meet the demand for telecommunications services, the industry said today. In a letter to the North Carolina Utilities Commission, BellSouth presented the industry's assessment of the need for new codes and options for how they could be implemented. BellSouth sent the letter on the industry's behalf because it is the state administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, the mechanism by which numbers are allocated in the U.S. and Canada. BellCore, a communications research consortium, is the national administrator under the authority of the Federal Communications Commission. The Utilities Commission has oversight responsibility for implementation of new area codes. Across the state, demand has been increasing for communications services. Industry forecasts predict the demand will continue to increase, particularly with the onset of local competition. All three current area codes are running out of prefix codes, the three- digit combinations that are the first part of a seven-digit telephone number. With only 800 prefix codes available per area code, the 704 and 910 area codes will be exhausted in January 1999. The 919 area code will be exhausted in November 1999. Consequently, the industry must take the steps necessary today to assure numbers will be available in the future to meet customers' needs. Discussions within the industry have included local telephone companies, wireless companies, interexchange companies, and companies who plan to compete in the local market. They began discussing the need for new area codes in late 1996 and held two industry-wide meetings in January and February to expand those discussions and attempt to settle on an implementation plan. When a single plan could not be selected, the industry agreed to ask the Utilities Commission for guidance. The Commission is being asked to consider two methods for implementing new area codes in North Carolina, each with advantages and disadvantages. The first is called an overlay. Under this method, a new area code would be assigned to the same geographic area covered by each of the three existing area codes. Current customers would keep their existing area code and seven- digit number. New lines would be assigned to the new area codes. All calls would be dialed using 10 digits, including local calls that are seven-digits today. The second method is called a split, the method used when 910 was created along calling zone, or LATA, boundaries. Under this method, the area served by each of the existing area codes would be divided into two new geographic areas. One of the areas would retain its existing area code, while the other would receive a new area code. Customers in the new area would keep their existing seven-digit number, but would have a new area code. A split would be designed to balance the need to provide adequate capacity for future growth in each area code, with the desire to minimize disruption to customers and the state. An example of the split method, presented at the industry meeting in January, would assign: -- 704 to the Charlotte exchange and surrounding communities; -- 910 to, the Greensboro LATA; -- 919 to the Raleigh LATA and exchanges in Johnston and Chatham counties currently served by 910; -- a new area code to the Asheville LATA and portions of the Charlotte LATA outside the Charlotte area; -- a new area code to the Rocky Mount LATA and portions of Carteret and Pamlico counties now served by 919; and -- a new area code to the Wilmington and Fayetteville LATAs, with the exception of the parts of Johnston, Chatham, Carteret and Pamlico counties served by 919. The letter to the Utilities Commission included five changes to this proposal, which were suggested by different companies. The industry has proposed that a plan be approved by June 1, 1997, and new numbers announced by July 1, 1997. The first new area code would go into service around Dec. 15, 1998. The numbers themselves must be assigned by BellCore submission of an approved plan. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:54:30 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: Industrial Strength Web" BKW3JI14.RVW 961116 "World Wide Web Journal: Building an Industrial Strength Web", Rohit Khare, 1996, 1-56592-211-5, U$24.95/C$35.95 %E Rohit Khare khare@w3.org %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-211-5 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 250 %T "World Wide Web Journal: Building an Industrial Strength Web" This issue looks at, and celebrates, new developments that enhance the ability, and flexibility, of the Web to deal with varied, difficult, and challenging problems. HTTP, the HyperText Transfer Protocol foundation for the Web, has just reached version 1.1. (Yes, while Netscape and Internet Explorer are at 3.0, and HTML is at 3.2, the basics take a little longer to develop.) This will provide more effective use of network resources. PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is announced as the new "recommended" standard for images, replacing GIF. The work on the PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) 1.1 rating system is also reported. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKW3JI14.RVW 961116 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, 13 Mar 1997 11:40:08 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA and Call Waiting) Keith Knipschild wrote: > I was calling 1-800-Comp-USA (1-800-266-7872) today, and listened to > the prerecorded info. There is an option #2 to connect to my local > Store, which I thought was pretty cool ... > But that's not the info; I was UNABLE to Recieve any Call Waiting > calls while I was connected to this 800 number. > Plus I could not even get another DIAL TONE to make a conferenece > call (three-way calling). > What causes this? Is it a national thing? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually custom calling features such > as call-waiting and three-way calling are not available when you > place a call until the call has supervised (if it stays within your > local central office) or at least until it leaves your office on > its way to the destination. The theory behind disallowing call-waiting > for (what should be) an interval of a few seconds when you place a > call is that the call-waiting tone would otherwise disrupt your > dialing. > Likewise, you cannot set up a three way call in the middle > of dialing a number. This leads me to believe that for some reason > the 800 number you were dialing is not correctly 'supervising'; your > local central office does not seem to feel the distant end ever > answered the line; consequently it is unwilling to give you back your > custom calling features. Whether this is an overall problem with the > Compu-USA number nationally or some malfunction in your local central > office will have to be detirmined. PAT] Actually, supervising is when the _called_ party returns an answer condition, including billing. Since the called number is an 800 number, the 'suping' for billing would be when 800-COMP-USA's billing would begin by their 800-service provider long distance. I don't know for sure about Call-Waiting these days ... years ago (prior to SS7), you could get a CW-beep on an incoming call, once you had finished dialing _and_ your own central office had 'clicked' you to the outgoing trunk of your outgoing call's set-up. These days, with SS7 signaling, it could be possible that you've 'busied' out your line from any incoming CW-beeps _until_ the called party has answered and 'suped'. I do know that 3-way flashing (in #1AESS exchanges) is disabled _until_ the called party has answered _and_ 'suped' for billing. I don't think that there is a real problem here. It is mentioned that when calling 800-COMP-USA, you have an option to press-2 to connect to your local store. The called 800-COMP-USA number just doesn't 'supe' until you are connected to some _particular_ party or option. It could be a special arrangement that COMP-USA set up with their long-distance company or 800 provider for customer-defined routing options. AT&T began such customized routing option features back in the early-to-mid 1980's for their 800 customers, when the CCIS#6 method of signaling was more fully implemented. I think there were such marketing terms as AT&T Megacom 800 and the like for such routing options. Also, remember that via _many_ carriers (particularly AT&T), if the called end doesn't 'supe' for (possible) billing, you have _no_ forward voicepath. This causes problems when reaching live intercept operators which still exist for rural areas, including in Canada. She will come on the line asking "Special Operator, what number did you dial?" Since you aren't (supposed) to be billed for reaching live intercept operators, it doesn't 'supe'. But you aren't going to be able to be _heard_ by the special intercept operator. Also, non-suping calls (such as reaching busy signals and _particularly_ unanswered rings) placed via long-distance carriers and also locally, from or to digital offices (5ESS, DMS, etc) will 'time-out' after a minute or two. Via AT&T on long-distance, you reach the "Your party is not answering. We're sorry, but your call will be disconnected now. Please try your call again later". Other long distance carriers and local digital switches will time you out to a 'reorder' (fast busy) signal. And then AT&T has those (IMO _intrusive_) services such as "True Messages" and "International Redial" available from certain types of originating lines or call situations. On a non-suping connection, "True Messages" comes in _right_away_ if the called line is busy (but without you hearing an audible busy signal) with "The line is busy. Would you like to leave a message? (for a charge) press #123. The pound button is located ... " On calls which ring for so many rings, "True Messages" cuts out the audible ringing with "AT&T is still trying to complete your call. Would you like to leave a message? (for a charge) press #123 ... " Since many autodialer systems need audible busy to disconnect and redial (as was mentioned in an earlier post), and on 'unanswered after so many rings' calls, since more people have answering machines or forward to voicemail, some of these 'message' services can be more troublesome than the convenience they were intended to provide ... _AND_ they are also _revenue-enhancers_ for the telco/carrier. But "True Messages" has been troublesome in auto-intercept-with-number-referral situations from the called-end LEC: (CALLED-END LEC)- "The number you have reached, NPA-NXX-XXXX, has been changed. The _new_ number is" (audio from called-end LEC disable by AT&T)- "Your party hasn't answered, and AT&T is still trying to complete your call. Would you like to leave a message?"..... (Back to called-end LEC)- "Please make a note of it. Repeat. NPA-NXX-XXXX has changed ... " AT&T's International Redial is something similar. There was no extra charge for it, and I had it for a couple of months. But I've had to have it disabled from my outgoing AT&T handled calls from home. Presently, LEC-provided CLASS feature "Repeat Dial" (*66/1166) works _only_ within the LATA, where proper SS7 is available. But AT&T has "Internatinal Redial", which is similar, but not an SS7 CLASS feature. And it only works on calls to points _outside_ of the US. Most of my 'non-US' calls are to Canada. It is rare to get a busy signal these days on calls to Canada, as most of the Stentor LEC's provide voicemail. But if on an AT&T call to a non-US point one were to get a busy signal (actually, a busy _condition_, as "International Redial" does _not_ let you actually _hear_ an audible busy signal), a recording comes on asking you if you would like AT&T International Redial to take care of the call for you, by entering *234 anytime. ("The star button is located ... ) For about thirty minutes, AT&T will actually try to internally call that party. When (if) they answer during that thirty minute interval, AT&T plays a recording (in a language that the caller has chosen from a touchtone menu) asking the called party to hold, as an caller from the United States is trying to reach them. At the same time, AT&T is trying to ring the caller back. (I wonder what shows up on their Caller-ID box?). I never really had a successful opportunity to try International Redial. I know that there were some people in Canada that I called which do not have an answering machine nor voicemail. AT&T doesn't actually disconnect a non-suping (unanswered) call until about 90 seconds (sometimes two full minutes) have elapsed. But on _unanswered_ rings, "International Redial" would start cutting in with prompts after about three rings. _I_ found those prompts intrusive. And I considered dropping "International Redial" after being told by AT&T that "International Redial" prompting couldn't be restricted to only _busy_ calls but not unanswered ringing. When I first had "International Redial", I was getting the time-of-day and day-of-week in the called location. However, some people were answering and I couldn't hear them at first until the time/day voice cut-off! And since most of my calls were to Canada with time-zone and standard/daylight time being mostly in-sync with the US, I found the time/day announcement intrusive. AT&T _was_ able to keep the redial prompts of "International Redial" but drop the time/day announcement from my service. But what made me have "International Redial" completely removed from my line was a recent call to Canada, where I received a Bell-Canada auto-intercept with new-number-referral. Since that didn't 'supe', I experienced a condition described above. I was receiving the beginning of the intercept recording, but then got the "International Redial" prompt from AT&T, which _obliterated_ Bell-Canada's "the new number is, NPA-NXX-XXXX". Until AT&T can straighten out the SS7 messages to differentiate 'intercept' from 'ring-ring-ring' from actual 'busy', I won't have "International Redial" on my line. 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: bkron@netcom.com (W Halverson) Subject: Re: 1-800-Comp-USA Screws up Call Waiting Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:18:20 GMT Keith Knipschild writes: > But that's not the info; I was UNABLE to Recieve any Call Waiting > calls while I was connected to this 800 number. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually custom calling features such > as call-waiting and three-way calling are not available when you > place a call until the call has supervised (if it stays within your > local central office) or at least until it leaves your office on > its way to the destination. It used to be that once the call left the local CO, the call was considered "supervised" as far as custom-calling features go. But now, with the advent of SS7, supervision spans CO's. So even if you're calling a distant CO (even overseas in most cases), your local CO won't release the line until the distant party has, in fact, answered the phone. In your case, the system you dialed into is not CompUSA's but, rather, AT&T's -- it is a feature of their switch. It is configured not to supervise until you get connected to a human. ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:58:56 GMT Organization: Diamond Mine Michael N. Marcus wrote: > Does anyone remember talking on the "beep" line? > When I was a student at Lehigh Univ. in Bethlehem, PA in the late 60s, a > common method of flirting and hopefully getting dates, was to call your > own number to get a busy signal, and then talk to other people between > the beeps. > I have no idea how this was discovered, but it was passed-on to each > incoming freshman class. Does anyone know how many callers could be > connected simultaneously to one beep bus? Does it exist on modern CO > switches? Is this "feature" still in use at colleges? Did any of you > find a date or spouse this way? I bet it was either on old CO or and old PBX that put all the "busy" lines all on the same line. Out of curiousity, what time range (what year) did you attend the school? (Trying to find which generation of CO/PBX equipment you're talking about) I very much doubt today that is possible since modern equipment handles this very differently. (Which is a shame since all modern ESS/DMS systems are so generic and predictable - takes the fun out of going to a town you have never been to and checking out their phone system to see how it differs from home.) P.S. I remember that many old CO switches offered the "return ring" when you dialed you own number, got a busy signal, and hung up - your phone rang and it made a nice intercom. I wonder if this is possible with modern ESS/DMS equipment? I heard that telcos are doing this, but for a charge??? (why? Some independents still do this - for free!) Comments? Like to hear them. Dave Perrussel Assistant Webmaster - "thedirectory" of Internet Providers and Web Presence providers URL: http://www.thedirectory.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are there any exchanges left where a call to a busy line sometimes gets one or two rings and *then* it cuts over to a busy signal? I thought those were all gone years ago. We had one very ancient central office in Chicago until sometime in the early 1970s which would do that (Chicago-Wabash) which likewise was unable to return coins in a payphone on an uncompleted call with- out the assistance of a special 'trunk operator' the local operator had to summon on the line. I just recently noticed that the prefix for my cellular phone (847-727) is like that. When I dial a number on 847-727 (always a cell phone) and the line is busy it will ring once before cutting to a busy signal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ian Angus Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:39:45 -0500 Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group Michael N. Marcus wrote: > Does anyone remember talking on the "beep" line? > When I was a student at Lehigh Univ. in Bethlehem, PA in the late 60s, > a common method of flirting and hopefully getting dates, was to call > your own number to get a busy signal, and then talk to other people > between the beeps. When I was a kid in Vancouver in the 1950s, a newspaper article reported that this technique was being used by prostitutes to get dates. I don't know if that was true, but, as a result of the article, dozens of students from Trafalgar Public School (and probably others) used this form of busy signal communication for several weeks. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: 13 Mar 1997 20:10:33 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS I think such "BEEP lines" were common in a lot of cities; we had them in Philadelphia. I suspect such "common talk lines" were an accident fault in the switching office which allowed significant crosstalk to filter around, allowing a conversation to be had. Sometimes it was from an intercept recording to fail to come on. Sometimes it was a line that should've been routed to intercept but wasn't. Perhaps it was an equipment failure that merely hung a call when certain digits were dialed. When this happened and people got "hung in space", kids would figure out the dialing sequence and start using it. Word would spread until the problem was traced and fixed, at least until another one would crop up. ------------------------------ From: sicherman@lucent.com (Col. G.L. Sicherman) Subject: Another 800 Pay Number Date: 13 Mar 1997 18:48:16 GMT Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation From an article by Steve Giegerich in the Asbury Park Press, 1997-03-12: ... AOL's failure to anticipate the demand caused by its decision to charge a flat $19.95-per-month service may have inconvenienced others. But not [Paul] Eschelbach, who spent December and January crusing the World Wide Web, jabbering away in chat rooms and e-mailing to his heart's content. Eschelbach ... attributes his luck to a tip received when he, too, kept hitting the busy signal barrier. The tip was an 800 telephone number. That night, Eschelbach punched the 800 number into his keyboard and held his breath as the computer dialed. Seconds later - voila! - he was online. Every day and every night for nearly two months, Eschelbach used that number. Never did it fail to put him through. Then, last month, came the payoff. For America Online, that is. A payoff in the amount of more than $1,000 charged to a credit card used by Eschelbach for his AOL account. Thinking a mistake had been made - in America the 800 numbers are synonymous with free - Eschelbach contacted the Internet provider by telephone. When he reached a person, he learned what AOL had neglected to tell him electronically each time he'd signed on via his computer: the 800 number was not toll-free. ... An AOL representative told Eschelbach the warning can be found in the fine print of the service contract. ... Col. G. L. Sicherman sicherman@lucent.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here again, you *are* getting the call for 'free' where telco is concerned; the charges are being paid by the recipient of the call; in this case AOL. The online service is charging the cost to the caller. Compuserve has always done the same thing with a couple of 800 numbers. The fee is rather reasonable as those things go; I think Compuserve gets 12-15 dollars per hour for the use of their 800 number dialup. This is not a situation where telecom administrators need to worry about charges appearing on their phone account as would be the case with the 800 numbers which connect to phone sex services, etc. Both CIS and AOL apply the charges to the individual member of their service. I really do not feel very sorry for this fellow; from my earliest days as a member of Compuserve (I started used it about 1980, maybe seventeen years ago) I knew about the 800 number as one method of access if it was needed. I think mainly CIS provides theirs dating back several years ago when the Compuserve Network itself was not as widely developed with indials in almost every town in the USA. There might still be a few cases where local CIS members need to use 800 as the least expensive (for them) method of access. For a number of years now, Compuserve has provided me with a limited amount of free access as an Information Provider and I can tell you that access via the 800 number is *not* allowed when on my 'free' CIS account. That would be adding insult to injury would it not; using a free CIS account and asking CIS to pay the phone charges as well. Really, I cannot get to sympathetic or worked up for Mr. Eschelbach. What did he think, that for $19.95 he got unlimited access and that AOL would pay his phone charges also? But with AOL subscribers, it is hard to tell how their minds function sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #65 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Mar 15 09:15:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA14131; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:15:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:15:27 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703151415.JAA14131@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #66 TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Mar 97 09:15:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 66 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "The 7 Keys to Effective Web Sites" by Sachs/Stair (Rob Slade) North Carolina to Get Three New Area Codes in 1998 (Bob Goudreau) Telecoms Newsline Now on the Web (Peter Judge) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Java How to Program" by Deitel/Deitel (Rob Slade) Is Lucent Technologies Trying to Shut Down Small Business Division (T Betz) Updated GSM List 03/07/97 (Jurgen Morhofer) Man Waits 20 Years, Dies Before Getting Phone Service (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:16:39 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The 7 Keys to Effective Web Sites" by Sachs/Stair BK7KTEWS.RVW 961116 "The 7 Keys to Effective Web Sites", David Sachs/Henry Stair, 1997, 0-13-490087-1, U$26.95/C$37.95 %A David Sachs dsachs@ibm.net %A Henry Stair stair@mycroft.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-490087-1 %I Prentice Hall %O U$26.95/C$37.95 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 318 %T "The 7 Keys to Effective Web Sites" Most Web books contain pages and pages of screen shots, simply filling space. At first glance, this one appears to be different. The authors do point out that you are the one who has to define "effective". But it is telling that the first "key" is "visually appealing". The seven points covered are all to be taken seriously, and the brief introductory content behind each does have some valid ideas. However, it becomes difficult to see what the pages and pages of screen shots tacked on to the explanations have to say in support of the points. So, in the end, we are again left with pages and pages of screen shots. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BK7KTEWS.RVW 961116 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:54:06 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: North Carolina to Get Three New Area Codes in 1998 Today's (3/14) issue of Raleigh's _The_News_&_Observer_ contained a front-page article describing how North Carolina telcos are asking the state PUC for a ruling on how three new NPAs will be added next year (to NC's existing three area codes). As is usual for this sort of event in late 1990s America, some telcos prefer geographic splits and others want overlays. (The article apparently left no room for a combination of splits and overlays; it implied that either all three existing NPAs would be split or else that each of the three would receive its own overlay.) Also as usual, the PUC has already issued a knee-jerk reaction against overlays and 10D dialing, so IMHO, it seems likely that we'll get splits this time around. The article included a map showing how each of the three current NPAs (704 in the west, 910 in the center, and 919 in the east) might be split. The lines are drawn in the obvious places: -- 704 shrinks to the immediate Charlotte metro area, leaving most of the land area of western NC in a new NPA; -- 919 shrinks to the immediate "Research Triangle" (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) metro area, leaving most of the land area of eastern NC in another new NPA; -- 910 is divided in two NPAs of fairly equal land area. The northern piece includes the "Piedmont Triad" (Greensboro, Winston- Salem, High Point) metro area, plus points north up to the Virginia state line; the southern piece includes south-central cities such as Fayetteville, and the southeastern coastal zone including Wilmington. Apparently, unlike the other two NPA's split schemes, there's still some contention about which part of 910 gets to keep the old NPA. To me it seems obvious that the Triad metro area should win; none of the cities in the southern part of 910 come close in size or in the amount of business activity. Of course, given that 910 itself was split off from 919 only a bit more than three years ago, I can understand both sides' goal of avoiding getting socked with Yet Another Area Code Change in so short an interval. North Carolina will thus end up tripling its count of area codes (from two to six) in less than five years. If the split plan is adopted, the only areas which will exit the 1990s with the same phone numbers that they entered the decade with will be the Charlotte metro area (using the rump of 704) and the Research Triangle metro area (the twice-reduced rump of 919). Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 19:14:09 +0000 From: Peter Judge Subject: Telecoms Newsline Now on the Web Dear Pat, Many thanks for the excellent work on TELECOM Digest. It's continually useful and interesting. You've given a mention before to Telecoms Newsline, the e-mail news service I edit - it would be very nice if you could mention our new Web site - thanks: Telecoms Newsline now on the Web Telecoms Newsline, the independent news service on the telecoms market, sponsored by Hewlett-Packard, is now available on the Web, at http://www.telecomsnewsline.com The Telecoms Newsline fortnightly e-mail bulletin has been published for two years. Now it will also appear on the Web, with the back issues available as a searchable archive. We also have links to telecoms related information (as well as a few words from our sponsor, of course). Please visit and let us know what you think. If you have suggestions for additions or alterations, please let us know. If you know of good sites we should link to, please tells us. Your feedback can help us develop this service to make it as useful as possible to you. To subscribe to Telecoms Newsline send mail to with 'subscribe hp' in the message body. Peter Judge Phone/Fax +44 181 671 4842 e-mail:peter@pjudge.demon.co.uk, peter@owp.co.uk Out of date homepage: http://www.pjudge.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:52:07 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Michael N. Marcus wrote: > Does anyone remember talking on the "beep" line? > When I was a student at Lehigh Univ. in Bethlehem, PA in the late 60s, a > common method of flirting and hopefully getting dates, was to call your > own number to get a busy signal, and then talk to other people between > the beeps. When I was 14 (1966) we used to do this on the Ski Report line in Seattle. This was a recorded message that played the snow report for the ski areas near Seattle over and over. During the period between the end and beginning of the message one could yell and be heard by folks on all of the other dial-in lines. There seemed to be a lot of cross-talk. The standard protocol was to yell "ANY GIRLS ON THE LINE-CALL EA4-9901". We called this "service" the Hot Line. I had just purchased an old bakelite rotary dial phone by mail order from Lafayette Electronics and installed it in my bedroom, which was in the basement of my parent's house, accessable only from the outside. I could get into all sorts of mischief because it was like my own apartment. I met a lot of intersting people, but the one I remember most was Charlene and her roommate. They lived somewhere in south Seattle, and were 19. I had a deep voice and could keep a somewhat intelligent conversation going, so they didn't mind talking to this kid of 14 or 15. Eventually we would talk for hours on the phone. One morning I woke up and found I had fallen asleep, and Charlene had too. Both our phones were off the hook all night, and I could hear her breathing at the other end. In 1971 and 1972 I had a job selling cable TV hookups door to door, and I realized at one point that I was going to be in Charlene's old neighborhood. I looked her up, and she was still there. I called her and she remembered me, and I went over to see her for the first time. I was now 19 and she was probably 24. I found an attractive and engaging young woman, and it was fun to finally meet her in person after those several years. (At this same job I was working with a very attractive woman named Judy who was in her mid-20s. She went on to fame and great fortune as JZ Knight, the woman who "channels" RAMTHA, the 20,000 year old warrior-spirit! Judy is another story to be told at another time.) Back to the ski report line, after they found that access to the recording was being clogged by all these kids, they shortened the time between the end and the beginning of the recording. This meant that we had to become much more skilled at yelling out our message quickly. We also tried the dialtone conference feature, but that only connected us with others in our same exchange, whereas the ski line worked for anyone anywhere who called that number. Eventually the ski line didn't work at all anymore. They did some modification to the equipment to get rid of crosstalk. The busy tone conference feature only worked in the old offices where there was a physical busy tone generator. These days it all in the magic of the bits and bytes in the digital CO. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:57:21 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Java How to Program" by Deitel/Deitel BKJAVAHP.RVW 961116 "Java How to Program", H. M. Deitel/P. J. Deitel, 1997, 0-13-263401-5 %A H. M. Deitel deitel@deitel.com %A P. J. Deitel deitel@deitel.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-263401-5 %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 1050 %T "Java How to Program" Among the teachers I hang out with, "Deitel" is known as *the* C programming text. The author's build on that success with a similar format and style (and an almost identical preface, as far as I can see) in presenting Java. The result is definitely presentable, with clear and organized material. A summary, list of new terminology, list of common errors, and a list of good programming practices accompany each chapter. In addition, there are two sets of exercises: one with the answers provided, and one without. As with the earlier C book, some of the early exercises are trivial, but the later chapters improve a great deal. An instructor's manual is available separately. The coverage of object-orientation is interesting. It is split into two chapters, "Objected-Based Programming", dealing primarily with data abstraction, and "Object-Oriented Programming", which looks at inheritance and polymorphism. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKJAVAHP.RVW 961116 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Is Lucent Technologies Trying to Shut Down Small Business Division? Date: 13 Mar 1997 11:40:44 -0500 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Unsolicited Commercial Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com I can't believe the trouble I'm having just trying to get four extensions moved from one floor to another. We lease a Merlin Plus, full up. We have four extensions we aren't using. We want to move them into a previously-unused space. I called Lucent. A tech came out Tuesday. He said, no problem, I'll get a quote to you by the end of the week. A woman named Jane called today, said "you'll need additional equipment". I said, "I need four extensions moved! You don't know what you are talking about. I want to talk to the tech I spoke with Tuesday." She said, "He might not have time to call you." End of conversation. I'm contemplating running the damned four-pair myself (though I really don't have the time to do it), just to get the job done! I thought the whole point of Lucent's spinoff was to become a more competitive company. Have they decided to dump the market segnment I'm in? They are sure behaving like it. We're preparing to install a new system, three times the size of the present system, in an adjacent building we are renovating. Is it any wonder that Lucent Technologies is last on my list of bidders? Tom Betz (914) 375-1510 Want to send me email? First, read this page: [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Check out the final article in this issue entitled 'Man Waits 20 Years For Phone Service Then Dies'. Some might think it was an American telco. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:16:50 +0100 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM List 03/07/97 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. And if you're already on the Web, take a look at my commercial site: http://deltos.net/globaltel I really would appreciate your business! (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date 03-07-1997. Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Albania AMC 276 01 Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 342 6000 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 415 7236 Austria Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 1 79701 max.mobil. 232 03 Int + 43 676 2000 Azerbaidjan Azercell Int + 994 12 98 28 23 Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557 Belgium * Belgacom 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4912 Mobistar 206 10 Bosnia Cronet 218 01 PTT Bosnia 218 19 Botswana Brunei DSTCom 528 11 Jabatan Telekom 528 01 Bulgaria Citron 284 01 Int + 359 88 500031 Cambodia CamGSM Cameroon PTT Cameroon Cellnet 624 01 Chile China Guangdong MCC 460 00 Beijing Wireless China Unicom 460 01 Zhuhai Comms DGT MPT Jiaxing PTT Tjianjin Toll Croatia HR Cronet 219 01 Int + 385 14550772 Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588 Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha 230 02 Int + 42 2 6701 6701 Radio Mobil 230 01 Int + 42 603 603 603 Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 8020 2100 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 8020 2020 Egypt Arento Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 6 397130 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 6 399966 Ritabell Ethiopia ETA 636 01 Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 Telecom 244 91 Int + 358 800 17000 Alands Mobil France France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Fr.Polynesia Tikiphone 547 20 Georgia Superphone Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 288 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 Ghana Franci Walker Ltd ScanCom Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 753 504548 Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1191 Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 882 512 Guernsey Telecom 234 55 Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613 Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 Guinea Int'l Wireless Hong Kong HK Hutchison 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2803 8450 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 1 270 4120 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 303 100 Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 800 6330 India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345 Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 RPG MAA 404 41 Usha Martin Modi Telstra Sterling Cellular Mobile Telecom Airtouch BPL USWest Koshiki Bharti Telenet Birla Comm Cellular Comms TATA Escotel JT Mobiles Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int=A0+ 62 778 455 455 PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881 PT Kartika Excelcom 510 11 Iraq Iraq Telecom 418 ?? Iran T.C.I. 432 11 Int + 98 2 18706341 Celcom Kish Free Zone Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 38888 Digifone 272 02 Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00 * Telecel 612 * Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51 Japan Jordan JMTS 416 01 Kenya Kenya Telecom Kuwait MTCNet 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 La Reunion * SRR 647 10 Laos Lao Shinawatra 457 01 Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 256 2191 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 Cellis 415 01 Lesotho Vodacom 651 01 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Omnitel 246 01 Bite GSM 246 02 Int + 370 2 232323 Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 Lybia Orbit Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Macedonia PTT Makedonija 294 01 Malawi TNL 650 01 Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Binariang 502 12 Sapura Digital 502 17 Malta Advanced 278 ?? Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius Cellplus 617 01 Int + 230 4335100 Monaco France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Office des Telephones Mongolia MobiCom Mozambique Telecom de Mocambique Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106 Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 54 500100 New Caledonia Mobilis 546 01 New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 Nigeria EMIS Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 78 15 00 Oman * General Telecoms 422 02 Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Int + 92 51 273971-7 Philippines Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720 Islacom 515 01 Int + 63 2 813 8618 Poland Plus GSM 260 01 ERA GSM 260 02 Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 791 4474 Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int +974-325333/400620 Romania MobiTel 226 ?? MobilRom 226 ?? Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 San Marino Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 SaudiArabia Saudi Telecom Seychelles SEZ SEYCEL 633 01 Serbia Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 Slovenia * Mobitel 293 41 * Digitel 293 ?? South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 445 6001 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain Airtel 214 01 Int + 34 07 123000 Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 09 100909 Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland PTT Switzerland 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 Syria SYR MOBILE 417 09 Taiwan LDTA 466 92 Int + 886 2 321 1962=20 Tanzania * Tritel Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Tunisia Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 800 211 0211 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Int + 971 4004 101 Uganda Celtel Cellular 641 01 Vatican Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Vietnam MTSC 452 01 Zaire Zimbabwe * NET*ONE 648 01 Sincerely, Jurgen Morhofer Tel:+39-6-780-8093 GlobalTel Fax:+39-6-780-8777 If you would like to send a FREE fax anywhere in the world, go to our Web-site at: http://deltos.net/globaltel and click on the "Fax for free" button. ------------------------------ Subject: Man Waits 20 Years, Dies Before Getting Phone Service Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:46:44 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Man waits 20 years for phone line but dies before getting it BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) -- Romanians are used to waiting a long time for a telephone. But 20 years for a dialtone was too long for Constantin Coltea. Coltea, who died last year, applied for a telephone line in 1977. The state telephone company, Romtelecom, responded this month, according to the Evenimentul Zilei daily. In its letter, Romtelecom told Coltea to confirm within 15 days that he still wanted the line or his request would be dropped. Coltea's 81-year-old widow, Caliopi, said she no longer can afford it, living on a $14 monthly pension. Lidia Toboc, a Romtelecom spokeswoman, could not confirm Coltea's case, but said there were two cases a year ago involving applicants who waited 15 years for their service. Since then, she said, "our management has been trying to resolve long-delayed applications." Bribes of up to several hundred dollars are common in Romania to get a line installed more swiftly. The government plans to privatize 30 percent of the phone company. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #66 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 17 07:57:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA27475; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:57:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:57:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703171257.HAA27475@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #67 TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Mar 97 07:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 67 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC to Approve Merger (Mike King) Book Review: "Mastering Windows NT Server 4" (Rob Slade) The Value of Phone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer) Workers Rally for Destiny Tellcomm (Tad Cook) US West Discourages Complaints to PUC (Tad Cook) Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (Robert Bononno) 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: NEWS: PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 22:54:48 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 18:14:00 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC to Reject Proposed Decision and Approve Merger Without Conditions FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry Solomon, SBC (210) 351-3990 (888) 363-2747 (pager) Lou Saviano, PacTel (415) 394-3744 PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC to Reject Proposed Decision and Approve Merger Without Conditions Preliminary Ruling Ignores Benefits the Merger Will Bring to Californians SAN FRANCISCO - In a hearing today before the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Telesis and SBC Communications urged commissioners to reject a proposed decision by two administrative law judges and approve the two companies' merger without conditions. The proposed decision, released Feb. 21, would approve the merger, but with a number of unreasonable conditions, including penalties exceeding $750 million, and without crediting the companies for the hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits that would flow to Californians as a result of the merger. The CPUC commissioners may either reject or amend the proposed decision, or write an alternate decision. The CPUC has said it intends to make a decision on the merger by March 31. "If the commission follows the precedent it has set in deciding other mergers, the Pacific Telesis-SBC merger should be approved without onerous conditions and penalties," said Dick Odgers, executive vice president and general counsel for Pacific Telesis. "We're hopeful the CPUC will reject the proposed decision outright. It does not reflect the evidence presented or the forward-thinking decisions the CPUC has made recently which recognize and encourage increased competition in the California telecommunications market." At today's hearing, the companies said if the CPUC determines that any customer payments should be mandated in this case, then it should, in calculating the amount to be shared with customers, recognize: *The $100 million annually that would be added to the California economy by the companies creating at least 1,000 new jobs. *The $200 million to $400 million ripple effect on the state's economy from the merged companies establishing four new headquarters in California. *The $50 million the companies would give to create a Community Technology Fund, designed to bring telecommunications services to the underserved throughout California. The hundreds of millions of dollars in savings for California consumers over the next five years expected from the combined companies increasing competition and offering more competitive prices in the wireless and long-distance markets. "In addition to ignoring CPUC precedent, the proposed decision grossly overestimates the economic benefits to Pacific Bell that will arise from the merger," Odgers said. The companies said the proposed decision should be rejected because it: * Estimates cost savings and other benefits to the company over 10 years, which is not consistent with the 5 year period the CPUC has previously used in estimating benefits in the telecom industry. The companies argue that a shorter time period is essential given the difficulty of predicting cost savings in the face of fast-paced changes in the industry and the intense competition that exists in all of Pacific Bell's markets. * Applies a 10 percent "inflation factor" per year for 5 years to the financial penalty, even though inflation has been around 3 percent for the past several years. Asserts that $118 million in potential costs savings from the company's not-yet-established long-distance business and other competitive businesses should be provided to customers. *The proposed decision fails to recognize that the long-distance market is competitive and outside the commission's jurisdiction for sharing benefits with customers. In any event, any potential costs savings in this area will flow through automatically to customers through more competitive prices. * Adds a grab-bag of other conditions, most not requested by any of the parties, some of which are unlawful and all of which would result in state regulators micromanaging the merged company, and limiting its ability to invest and grow. * Fails to recognize the tremendous public support the merger has received from a broad-base of more than 100 California consumer groups and the Communications Workers of America, which represents nearly 30,000 Pacific Bell employees. * Fails to give the companies credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of benefits that will flow through to Californians as a result of the merger. "The proposed decision fails to consider many of the real benefits that the merger will bring to Californians -- more jobs, a more competitive marketplace and more investment in California's communities," said Jim Ellis, SBC's senior executive vice president and general counsel. "We urge the CPUC to embrace the approach supported by CPUC precedent and endorsed by more than 100 California community groups. This approach would provide greater and longer-lasting benefits to California's economy and those underserved by telecommunications." Odgers said, "The proposed decision ignores the benefits the merger could bring to California and provides no incentive for companies to work with California community groups on initiatives which stand to benefit millions of people throughout the state." 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. Another subsidiary, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, has begun offering new wireless personal communications services (PCS) in the San Diego and Las Vegas areas, and will expand service in California and Nevada throughout 1997. SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) is one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies and one of the nation's largest wireless providers. Through its subsidiaries, SBC provides 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:30:02 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Mastering Windows NT Server 4" BKMNTSV4.RVW 961117 "Mastering Windows NT Server 4", Mark Minasi/Christa Anderson/Elizabeth Creegan, 1996, 0-7821-1920-4, U$49.99 %A Mark Minasi mark@mmco.com %A Christa Anderson %A Elizabeth Creegan %C 1151 Marina Village Parkway, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1996 %G 0-7821-1920-4 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$49.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 info@sybex.com %P 1150 %T "Mastering Windows NT Server 4, 3rd ed." You have to review them, but I must admit that I tend to try and avoid proprietary networking books because they tend to be rehashes with little added information. I was, therefore, delighted to learn two new points in the first dozen pages of this book. I tend to avoid proprietary books because they are terminally boring. This one is readable. I tend to avoid proprietary networking books because they usually simply copy the documentation. This book suggests the best and most practical solution, not just the official party line. The authors have put together a very complete and helpful guide here. I tend also to avoid books with lots of promotion and hype, but you might want to make an exception for this one. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKMNTSV4.RVW 961117 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:00:49 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: The Value of Phone Numbers Reprinted with permission from Telemedia News & Views. Their web site - http://www.teamtelemedia.com - is just getting online. Keep an eye on as it develops - their print publication is exemplary. Judith San Francisco, CA, March, 1997 (TELEMEDIA NEWS AND VIEWS) In an article carrying the headline 'Speculators Invest in Telephone Numbers' the Sunday Times of London reported a brisk market for so-called 'Golden Telephone Numbers.' In the U.S. we call them 'vanity numbers'. They rely on telephone keypads with letters as well as numbers, enabling callers to spell out words when dialing. According to The Times, the going price for popular numbers on the secondary market can easily exceed $16,000+ U.S. BT, the incumbent domestic carrier in the UK, believes that by 2000 roughly 80 percent of all telephones in the UK will have letters on their dialing pads. In anticipation of that day, speculators have already 'bought up a host of numbers which spell out business names, in the hope that the company will want to acquire the number in the future.' The newspaper provided two examples: 'RADIO1' is not worth over $16,000 U.S., while 'DIRECT', which is owned by an insurance company called Direct Line -- is said to be worth $160,000 U.S. ------------------- ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com ------------------------------ Subject: Workers Rally for Destiny Tellcomm Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:27:15 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Workers Rally to Save Destiny Tellcomm in Oakland, Calif. By Boni Brewer, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News OAKLAND, Calif.--Mar. 12--Several hundred Destiny Tellcomm employees Tuesday rallied in front of Alameda County's Administration Building to protest what they said are unfounded allegations by prosecutors who contend the company operates an illegal pyramid scheme. Employees said the firm operates no differently than Mary Kay, Shaklee or other multi-level marketing companies. They said they believe that Destiny is being targeted only because of its huge success and rapid growth. "We're just being picked on," said Richard Downing of Livermore, senior director of Planet Destiny, the firm's retail outlet that sells pre-paid long-distance calling cards, jackets, sweatshirts, sunglasses and other products. "We're the biggest. We're growing faster than anyone else," Downing said. Most of Tuesday's protesters work at Destiny's headquarters near the Oakland Airport, which employs more than 400 people. Destiny also has more than 500,000 independent sales representatives across the country. Law enforcement officials raided Destiny's offices Feb. 27 and seized many of the company's assets, alleging its sales structure violated state law. Destiny logistics manager Jack Jonker of Walnut Creek said the firm offers legitimate products at competitive prices and is not a pyramid scheme. "It's network marketing of a good product with a very useful function," Jonker said. "We are a legitimate company that does something for the community, creates jobs and helps (independent sales representatives) across the country help themselves." "It's growing because of the success of pre-paid long-distance phone cards and because Destiny is more than just a marketing firm." Jonker pointed to donations by Destiny's foundation to sports programs for the disabled and other charities. "It's a company that comes from the heart." Dell Montesdeoca of Castro Valley, Planet Destiny's store manager, said the firm gave him a good job after he was laid off from the defense industry. "I'm the single parent of a 9-year-old little boy and I don't need this right now," said Montesdeoca, who is among employees fearing that Destiny will be forced to move its headquarters and its jobs out of California. "We are not going to let this happen." Katy Mendenhall of Livermore said the firm, which started in 1995, has nearly tripled in size since she started working there last April. "There's been tremendous growth that you don't see a lot, " said Mendenhall, who heads up the Destiny department that develops training materials for sales representatives and designs the phone cards. "It's a great program and retail sales plan. It's a matter of (the authorities) not understanding." Destiny officials are scheduled to be in Alameda County Superior Court on Thursday, but attorney Dan Siegel said he's hopeful that a settlement can be reached before then. He said the state attorney general proposes to impose conditions on the firm that are more onerous than in other states and a sales structure more onerous than those imposed on companies such as Amway. The state's lawsuit seeks $1.6 million in civil penalties. The court has frozen some of the firm's assets. While Destiny can pay its employees and some bills, it cannot pay sales commission checks that amount to between $300,000 and $500,000 per day. "Our jobs are at stake and there are incredible people working for this company," Mendenhall said. ------------------------------ Subject: US West Discourages Complaints to PUC Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:33:05 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U S West Tries to Discourage Customers from Complaining to Regulators By Cynthia Flash, The News Tribune, Tacoma, Wash. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 12--U S West is trying to decrease the number of complaints against it by discouraging customers from calling state regulators -- and instead encouraging them to call the company president. At least that's what comes through in a Feb. 20 letter to all telephone employees in the company's 14-state service area. "If your customer requests the telephone number of a Public Utility Commission (PUC) and declines your attempts to resolve the complaint, you should offer to immediately connect the customer to the President's Customer Advocacy Office at 1-800-246-8156, with an assurance that this group will provide more immediate attention to the problem," said the letter signed by seven U S West vice presidents. "If your customer declines the offer and continues to request the PUC's telephone number, you should provide the number," the letter continues. U S West has been under fire for the last two years for increased customer service complaints. Hundreds of customers have filed complaints with Washington's Utilities and Transportation Commission -- and the commission has ordered U S West to improve its service record. Commission spokesman Marilyn Meehan said Tuesday the number of complaints against U S West has decreased steadily since July, except for January when complaints went up. Although the total of complaints filed so far this year is fewer than last year, the numbers are still unacceptable, she said. Meehan said the numbers may be down because U S West is being more realistic when telling customers when phones will be installed, people are less willing to file a complaint with the commission, or company service representatives are handling the calls better. U S West spokeswoman Carey Macdonald said the company has had a "customer advocacy office" to deal with customer complaints for about 15 years. Recently, however, the office received the more prestigious name of "President's Customer Advocacy Office." Macdonald said the office is available for customers who are unsatisfied with the response they receive from their local customer service representative and ask to speak to a "higher authority." The office handles about 3,000 calls a month from throughout the company's 14-state region. "It's to give it a heightened focus, a heightened importance, to indicate the importance of the effort to everyone out in the field," Macdonald said. She said the company sent the letter to employees to remind them of U S West's customer service guidelines. The letter advises employees that they first must "take responsibility" for resolving the customer's complaint immediately and within their own work unit. If the front-line employees are unable to resolve the complaint, they are to refer the customer to the next management level. If the customer is still dissatisfied, U S West employees are advised to connect the customer to the President's Customer Advocacy Office, the letter says. "As we work to make life better for our customers, the above complaint-handling policy demonstrates that our company is committed to taking immediate action to address customer dissatisfaction as quickly, efficiently, and effectively as possible," it says. Macdonald said that while U S West tries to discourage people from calling their utility regulators, she believes many of the people who call the President's Customer Advocacy Office also complain to their public utilities commissions. Lacey resident Fred Stripp is one example. U S West sent him through the customer service route outlined in the letter. When U S West was unable to provide him with a telephone line to his new home on Sept. 3, he went up the chain of command. A month later, on Oct. 4, he was connected with someone in the president's office, he said. For weeks, the person assigned to him told Stripp U S West was working on solving a hardware problem to bring phone service to his new subdivision. Finally, on Dec. 20, he got his phone -- after U S West added 50 telephone lines to serve nearby residents. Stripp, who also filed a complaint with the UTC, said the U S West employees were polite and "lent a sympathetic ear. I think they genuinely tried, but I had a feeling they were compartmentalized. I think they were up against something they couldn't control. "It was one of the most frustrating experiences I'd ever had," he said. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:53:09 -0500 From: rb28@is4.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response Organization: Techline Someone asked me about NYNEX's response to being slammed by AT&T. Basically NYNEX said, er, um, uh, that it couldn't have happened. I have two phone numbers. I was slammed last year by Heartline. At the time I specifically requested that NYNEX put a freeze on *both* numbers. And they told me they had. When I called right after the AT&T mishap, they told me there was a freeze only on *one* number. They said they would correct the situation at once. When I told them that both numbers had been switched to AT&T, the operator said that couldn't have happened. Well, it did happen. Another weird thing is that AT&T said they couldn't give me any idea of the number or cost of calls made until just before the bills go out. The operator insisted she had no usage information on those numbers. She also said that because I had been a former customer of theirs (which I was several years ago), they continue to maintain a record on me. I never knew about this practice in the industry. Ironically, I received a letter from Heartline indicating that they had been notified of an informal complaint about them (by me) to the FCC and that they were going to call me to investigate. I wonder if I should even talk to them? Robert Bononno - rb28@is4.nyu.edu - CIS:73670,1570 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had an interesting experience with AT&T over the weekend. They sent me a check for eighty dollars, as a bribe to get me to sign up with them. But get this: several months ago they had placed me in collection **on the very same number** they are now offering to pay me to return to them. Readers may recall my mention a couple times in the past about the fiasco which resulted when AT&T decided to pull their billing arrangements away from the local telco Ameritech, and how mixed up the billing was the first month following the conversion. AT&T's response to the billing mixup was to simply place a large number of customers with the Gulf Coast Collection Agency in Houston. I ignored GC and just kissed AT&T goodbye, giving the lines in particular to other carriers. So the check over the weekend was quite interesting to say the least. When I try to dial 10288 plus a long distance number on the line in question (which AT&T sent me a check on) I still get the 'access to the AT&T network is denied' message. I guess I will cash the check and tell them go ahead and put that line on their network ... grin ... and see how they choose to handle it. The letter which arrived with the check touted their 'one rate' (fifteen cents per minute) program and promised 'no gimmicks and no games'. I suppose if they try to put that number back on their service, it will bounce around for a while through their collection department which has a 'hold' on it for the earlier alleged non-payment. Meanwhile, I will have cashed their check. Has anyone else gotten a check from AT&T for a line which the company earlier had cut off from service? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #67 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 17 09:09:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA02213; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:09:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:09:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703171409.JAA02213@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #68 TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Mar 97 09:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 68 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "The Art of Electronic Publishing" by Ressler (Rob Slade) BellSouth Mobility DCS to Expand Service/GA&SC (Mike King) New Policy Document Available Online (Mike King) Destiny Telecomm Update From NC (Charles Sheppherd) NCS and GETS - Area Code 710? (Pete Simpson) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Steve McDonald) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Seymour Dupa) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Lee Winson) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Michael J. Kuras) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Nicholas Marino) Re: Another 800 Pay Number (Bill Turner) Re: Anotehr 800 Pay Number (David E. Bernholdt) Re: Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA) (Art Kamlet) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Seymour Dupa) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Bruce Bergman) 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, 15 Mar 1997 17:32:15 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Art of Electronic Publishing" by Ressler BKAEPIAB.RVW 961117 "The Art of Electronic Publishing", Sandy Ressler, 1997, 0-13-488172-9, U$39.95/C$53.95 %A Sandy Ressler %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-488172-9 %I Prentice Hall %O U$39.95/C$53.95 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 450 %T "The Art of Electronic Publishing" Ressler insists that this is not just another book about the World Wide Web. This assertion is true, but it is difficult to say what the book *is* about. There are smatterings of all kinds of stuff generally having to do with publication, printing, and publishing/printing technology. Most of these topics are covered in too little detail to be useful, although they might make interesting reading. Perhaps this would make a good introductory overview of publication technology. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKAEPIAB.RVW 961117 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: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Mobility DCS to Expand Service/GA&SC Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 22:48:00 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:13:21 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Mobility DCS to Expand Service to Eastern Georgia and South Carolina Cities ATLANTA - BellSouth Mobility DCS announced today that it will expand its digital PCS (Personal Communications Services) network to include Augusta, Brunswick and Savannah in Georgia, as well as Aiken and Hilton Head in South Carolina. The company acquired the 10 megahertz licenses to provide digital wireless services in the Augusta, Brunswick and Savannah BTAs (Basic Trading Areas) in the FCC's recent D- and E-block spectrum auctions. "We are pleased to be able to bring the latest in wireless technology to the more than one million consumers in these cities," said Eric F. Ensor, president of BellSouth Mobility DCS. "The expanded coverage area will also benefit our existing customers in the Carolinas and Eastern Tennessee by increasing the already large regional service area where they pay a low per minute rate for all calls." BellSouth Mobility DCS launched its PCS network in July 1996 in the Carolinas and Eastern Tennessee MTAs (Major Trading Areas) - an area of more than 12 million people -- and currently has more than 70,000 customers. The company's network uses a wireless technology known as GSM -- Global Systems for Mobile communication -- a proven, worldwide standard in digital technology used by more than 30 million customers in more than 110 countries. The completely digital technology provides customers mobile communications with better clarity and less static than existing analog cellular systems, as well as sophisticated encryption for more secure conversations, automatic Caller Line ID, and built-in paging and text messaging capability. "Our customers have reacted extremely positively to the enhanced features and capabilities we can offer with GSM technology," added Ensor. "We will be able to build our network and begin offering this advanced service in these new markets very quickly." Antenna site selection and construction will begin immediately and some markets are expected to be operational by late 1997. BellSouth Mobility DCS is a subsidiary of BellSouth Corporation, the world's wireless leader. The company operates a digital communications network in the Carolinas with partners DukeNet, a subsidiary of Duke Power; CaroNet, a subsidiary of Carolina Power & Light; Cook Inlet PCS, Inc.; and 30 independent telephone companies; and in Eastern Tennessee. BellSouth Corporation is a $17.9 billion communications company providing telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and publishing, video, Internet and information services to more than 27 million customers in 18 countries worldwide. -------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: New Policy Document Online Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 22:52:11 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 18:18:04 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: New Policy Document The BellSouth Public Policy Page now has a new component: A "Myths vs Facts" chapter that effectively dispels each of the made-up charges being leveled by the long-distance oligopoly at America's local telephone companies, operators of the world's best telecommunications networks. Read it for the truth about "access charges" and how they've managed to help keep local phone service affordable for 95 percent of American households. http://www.bellsouthcorp.com/issues/myth.html ----------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:17:19 -0800 From: sheppard@dtiinc.com (Charles Sheppherd) Subject: Destiny Telecomm Update From NC Agreement was signed on Jan 23 1997 between NC AG office and Destiny Telecomm for it to do business in this state. Please check also with MI. WE like to read your information, but at least keep it up to date. When I read something that I know is not complete, I often wonder how much there information may not be complete. We are alive and well in NC and just thought you needed to know, if you care. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I like to be fair and try to give coverage when possible about firms which are/were under investigation but still in business. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:18:59 EST From: Pete Simpson Subject: NCS and GETS - Area Code 710? Hi Pat -- Don't know if you have seen the National Communications System (NCS) homepage at www.ncs.gov, but it's worth a look. Particularly the page , which describes the Government Emergency Telephone System, accessable through a "universal access number" from "a standard desk set, STU-III, facsimile, modem, or cellular phone". "Once the caller has been authenticated as a valid user, the call is identified as an NS/EP call and receives enhanced routing and priority treatment." Access is controlled by PIN. Sounds an awful lot like what people have been getting when they dial the "mysterious" area code 710. Not proof, certainly, but a reasonable explanation, I think. Regards, Peter Simpson, KA1AXY Linux! Peter_Simpson@3mail.3com.com 3Com Corporation The free Unix (508) 229-1531 voice Southborough, MA 01772 for the 386 (508) 460-8952 fax ------------------------------ From: Steve McDonald Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 15 Mar 97 15:32:40 GMT Michael J Kuras wrote in article ... > Busy tones are a way of life for computer users, and NYNEX has pulled > a beauty of a blunder trying to help us out. Not only has NYNEX been > blitzing the Boston area with TV & radio spots espousing the vitues of > *66, they've gone one step further: when you get a busy tone, a > friendly voice automatically breaks in and tells me that the number > I'm calling is busy (really? no kidding?) and would I like to spend > $.50 to have it redialed for me? > It's a really nice gesture except for one problem: the busy tones are > cut off too quickly for my modem to recognize them and hang up. It > just sits there. So I called NYNEX and (after waiting on hold until > they were good and ready to deal with me) asked them to remove this > feature. She cheerily said "Sure. That'll take 24 hours." Fine. 24 > hours is ridiculous, but I don't complain. > T+24 hours: I dialed in again, got a busy signal, plus that familiar > voice, "The number you dialed is busy..." I called NYNEX back and > politely asked why it hasn't been removed. (hold hold hold...) "Well > sir, ever since They turned this feature on every modem user in the > region has called in asking to get it removed. The Repair Department > is swamped. They'll try to get to it as soon as they can. Maybe > tomorrow." > Let's recap: (1) a computerized operator breaks in every time I get a > busy signal. (2) It prevents mine and apparently all other modems > from functioning properly. (3) They're too busy to turn it off. (4) > (and this really ticks me off) They didn't implement a *xx feature to > let users turn it off on a per-call basis! Bell Canada or "The New Bell" as they call themself's have such a scheme. If the line is busy a message says a similar message at the end of the message. It says it costs 50 cents a call, but by the time people press the option they would have been charged without hearing the 50 cent per call charge. I have told Bell to remove ALL Pay-per-call options from my line, and have had no problems. I also have been told since I have requested all pay-per-calls options to be removed from my lines any new options will not appear unless I request it. Now in Canada we have great long distance savings plans. Companies like ACC offer 35% of all calls anywhere anytime. ATT offers 25% anytime anywhere without a minimum. And Sprint Canada rates are cheaper than Sprint US. We can call anywhere in Canada for CDN $0.15 and the US for CDN $0.22 anytime of day. This is cheaper than the US $0.15 if you calculate foreign exchange rates. ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 15 Mar 1997 18:15:24 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. In comp.dcom.telecom Michael J Kuras wrote: [snip] > Is NYNEX *so* incompetant ... Seems you've answered your own question. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 16 Mar 1997 20:14:37 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS I suspect leaving the audio message on busy signals is not a repair service issue, but rather an administrative/management issue. They're obviously doing it to pitch the new service, so people will spend 50c. Somebody in the Marketing/Advertising Department dreamed this up to sell. I suspect the approval of the marketing people will be necessary before the audio recording is pulled. Chalk up another to competition and money making. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:13:35 -0500 From: mkuras@ccs.neu.edu (Michael J. Kuras) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University > Let's recap: (1) a computerized operator breaks in every time I get a > busy signal. (2) It prevents mine and apparently all other modems > from functioning properly. (3) They're too busy to turn it off. (4) > (and this really ticks me off) They didn't implement a *xx feature to > let users turn it off on a per-call basis! (To the Canadian readers who suggested I try *02, it doesn't work in NYNEX-land. Thanks anyway.) Update: after four days of no repair and unresponsive customer service, I finally complained enough to get a hold of a NYNEX manager. Despite the claims of the six other operators to which I've spoken who said they've been inundated with complaints about this "feature", and that the repair department is completely swamped with orders to turn it off, this manager said she'd never heard about it before. It's not a problem, according to her. Furthermore, she swears that it is *impossible* to block this feature from my line. Every NYNEX user will get this feature and there's nothing that can be done to stop it. No *xx code, no CO blocking, nothing. My modem's redial feature is useless. I now have to sit there and manually redial until I connect. This completely unacceptable. Is NYNEX correct in claiming that this feature is impossible to block? What courses of action are available to me? Keep calling customer service? The PUC? Mercenaries? There must be something that can be done. michael j kuras www.ccs.neu.edu/home/mkuras mkuras@ccs.neu.edu ------------------------------ From: Nicholas Marino Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 17 Mar 1997 03:27:24 GMT My pet peeve with my local phone co., Bell Atlantic, and probably a lot of others, is the hard sell you get when you dial information and are asked if you would like them to connect you for 65 cents. Unless you agree to spend an additional 65 cents for the call, you have to keep the phone on-hook for at least 5 seconds before you can make another call. I don't know about you, but when I'm trying to remember a phone number, every second counts! I have had to re-dial information (after getting a pen and paper this time) to get the number again. These services are BIG MONEY to the local phone companies. Hey -- aren't they restricted from being in the information business? ------------------------------ From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Another 800 Pay Number Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:03:28 -0500 Organization: Amateur Radio Station WB4ALM Reply-To: wb4alm@gte.net I have no sympathy for Mr. Eschelbach. I used to use AOL as an E-mail address, and I cannot recall a single place that you could find the 800 number that did not also identify the per hour charge for using it. I take exception to the generalized statement of "But with AOL subscribers, it is hard to tell how their minds function sometimes." Many people on AOL are there because it provides access to information needed that is -NOT- provided elsewhere. But I do agree with the statement in context to Mr. Eschelbach. With a small question on the use of the phrase "mind function". This assumes his mind CAN function. /s/ Bill Turner, wb4alm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are correct about certain features on AOL not being available elsewhere. They have lots of Business Opportunity spams/scams, chain letters to help you Make Money Fast, and FBI agents posing as very cute young boys trying to get into your (and each other's) pants among other things. They have employees who steal customer credit card numbers; they have an endless supply of crackers on line at all hours. Ah, and of course! How could I almost forget: they have their Terms of Service and Guides who are always willing to throw their weight around and show you who is boss. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bernhold@npac.syr.edu (David E. Bernholdt) Subject: Re: Another 800 Pay Number Date: 15 Mar 1997 22:57:16 GMT Organization: NPAC, Syracuse Univ., Syracuse, NY, USA In article , Col. G.L. Sicherman wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here again, you *are* getting the call > for 'free' where telco is concerned; the charges are being paid by the > recipient of the call; in this case AOL. The online service is charging > the cost to the caller. Indeed, my ISP, which also happens to be a small long distance company, has an 800 number for which they charge $6/hr. I consider this quite a reasonable way to access the Internet when I'm on the road, as the other alternatives are to charge the long distance call to my calling card or to the hotel room, both of which cost far more than ten cents per minute. More interestingly, this ISP also has an 800 number for which they do _not_ charge which they use to offer service as a "local" call in some areas where they don't have a large enough customer base to install a full POP. This is how I'm logged on right now. When I realized they would be providing my local service that way, I had a very careful conversation with the manager of the service to be sure it was not the for-fee 800 number. Of course I'm an honest guy and have no wish to abuse their service or give them reason to discontinue either form of 800-number access, I have not tried to use the "local access" number when I'm on the road. And I'm smart enough not to use the "long distance access" number when I'm at home :-) David E. Bernholdt | Email: bernhold@npac.syr.edu Northeast Parallel Architectures Center | Phone: +1 315 443 3857 111 College Place, Syracuse University | Fax: +1 315 443 1973 Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 | URL: http://www.npac.syr.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They would be better off offering just the one single 800 number, and then rebating or crediting the charges for use of it to selected customers who had no other choice. As it is, they have to hope that honest customers like yourself will not abuse the 'local access' number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA and Call Waiting) Date: 16 Mar 1997 13:00:46 -0500 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > But "True Messages" has been troublesome in > auto-intercept-with-number-referral situations from the called-end LEC: > (CALLED-END LEC)- > "The number you have reached, NPA-NXX-XXXX, has been changed. The _new_ > number is" > (audio from called-end LEC disable by AT&T)- > "Your party hasn't answered, and AT&T is still trying to complete your > call. Would you like to leave a message?"... I'm not sure I understand the complete scenario. Are you saying the 800 number had been translated by AT&T's SCP into some destination number which has been changed? If so, there is a sync problem between the AT&T SCP database and the LEC providing the local service. These things ned to be synced properly. But telling the caller what the old and new destination numbers are won't get the problem fixed, nor will it get the caller to the SCP where "Press 1 now" choices can be made to, perhaps, route elsewhere. If the person who subscribes to this particular 800 number tries calling and keeps getting "trting to complete your call" messages, he wil be on AT&T in an instant, and doesn't AT&T measure these ineffective attempts anyway, and try to resolve them even if the 800 subscriber hasn't yet complained? As a general rule I think it is not necessarily good for callers to know the destination number to which a particular 800 number gets routed, and that could change from minute to minute anyway, and for 900 number calls it would positively bankrupt the 900 provider if the numbers were dialable. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: 15 Mar 1997 18:13:17 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. In the early 1960's, dialing an unused Ameritech exchange would return a 'vacant code' tone. We nick-named it 'huey tone', because it was raspy and went from low to high to low. There must have been a problem with it one time, because when I dialed a vacant code, I could barley hear the tone, but a lot of kids were on this 'party line'. We could sit and chat for hours (or just listen), with people comming and going. As with all good things in life, this too came to an end. Someone must have reported it, because one day the tone was working and we couldn't talk over it anymore. On another note, this brings to mind 'tie lines'. These were numbers that would answer when called, and seem to do nothing (go dead). They must have had the busy detect line disconnected, so everyone got connected to it instesd of getting a busy signal. It was long distance to call from A to C, but a local call from A to B, and B to C. A tie line number in B was found. Arrangements were made for a person in A and another in C to call the number in B at a given time. They got 'tied' together and talked at a local rate. John ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: 15 Mar 1997 17:06:30 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Lee Winson wrote: > I suspect such "common talk lines" were an accident fault in the > switching office which allowed significant crosstalk to filter around, > allowing a conversation to be had. Sometimes it was from an intercept > recording to fail to come on. Sometimes it was a line that should've > been routed to intercept but wasn't. Perhaps it was an equipment > failure that merely hung a call when certain digits were dialed. For some reason I've always been under the impression that common signaling such as ringing and busy signals are/were provided via a signal generator. That crosstalk might have just been the fact that callers were being dumped onto the same port when it tripped to busy or intercept. > When this happened and people got "hung in space", kids would figure out > the dialing sequence and start using it. Word would spread until the > problem was traced and fixed, at least until another one would crop up. In North Providence, RI parts of the town were served by the PAwtucket (722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728 and 729) exchanges which was a major griping point because the midsection on town used 353 and 354 which was local calling through most of the state while the PA exchanges charged toll for anything past a limited point. In any case, by dialing an invalid number you'd get dumped to the siren on the #5xbar and after it timed out you'd be able to talk to other folks who knew of this interesting feature. Alas, that all ended when they cut to the #5ess which had it's share of problems initially. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com Boston has the combat zone, Providence *IS* an erogenous zone. ------------------------------ From: bbergman@westworld.NOSPAM.com (Bruce Bergman) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 01:57:51 GMT Reply-To: bbergman@westworld.NOSPAM.com Yes, I have done this and when I was working at C.O.E. Construction in the '80s -- the waning days of AE Steppers at GTE, and Maintenance found connector banks tied up by people doing this, I got assigned the job of installing series capacitor networks to split the busytone feeds into five seperate feeds per shelf. After retrofitting, you could only talk between the two connectors on that capacitor, which reduced the odds of a conversation greatly. As people would do this, there were many connector banks where six or seven of the connectors would be tied up trying to talk over the busy, and at ten connectors per 100 line residential connector bank, it would lock up the whole bank. People would get dumped to 'reorder' (fast busy) after the fifth digit dialed, as the fifth selector could not find an available connector. It only got worse when they discovered business hunting banks had 15 to 30 (some large level-hunting banks had 60) connectors per 100 lines. This wasn't much of a problem in the late evening, but during business hours was another story entirely! Sorry to say that it can't be done anymore, as most tones now are generated on your line card at the switch. And most older equipment such as colleges with electromechanical PBX's either have been changed to electronic or have been retrofitted, because when people do this it ties up the lines for legitimate users. **** NEW .SIG - ALTERED RETURN ADDRESS - READ!! **** Bruce Bergman, P. O. Box 394, Woodland Hills CA. 91365-0394 (USA) NOTICE : Address Altered to Avoid Spammers - remove the NOSPAM WARNING: No Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail. Send it and your account is toast. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #68 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 18 08:39:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA17053; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:39:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:39:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703181339.IAA17053@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #69 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Mar 97 08:39:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 69 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Service in Mexico (Tad Cook) Calling USA from Mexico (Jeff Shaver) The Definitive Story on New Domains (Thom Stark) Book Review: "Internet Protocols Handbook", by Roberts (Rob Slade) Balancing Out Incoming 800 Traffic Between Offices (David Katz) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Peter Morgan) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Hendrik Rood) For Sale: PBX Phone System (Gent Cav) For Sale: Merlin Plus 820D + 16 Phones (Steve Bagdon) 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: Phone Service in Mexico Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:39:39 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AT&T and MCI Position to Enter the Mexican Long-Distance Market By Paul de la Garza, Chicago Tribune Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News MEXICO CITY--Mar. 17--For the past eight months, auto parts distributor Miguel Perez Saavedra has had to use a pay phone to do business because Mexico's lone telephone company, Telmex, has failed to reconnect his line. Without notice and without explanation, Perez said, his telephone was disconnected. After six visits to the Telmex offices, and about 30 hours of his time, the phone back at the shop is still dead. "They have no interest in solving your problems," Perez, 58, said the other day outside a company branch south of the city. "One person blames the other. The other person blames someone else." Probably not for long. For the first time in 50 years, Perez and millions of other phone customers who see Telmex as a costly and mediocre monopoly have an opportunity to vote for change. In January, Mexico opened long-distance service to competitors, and nine companies, including AT&T Corp. and MCI Communications Corp., are stepping all over each other for a piece of the $4 billion-a-year pie. By 2000, analysts expect that figure to triple. In Round 1 of competition, which affects Mexico's 60 largest markets including Monterrey, Guadalajara and Mexico City, customers have until June to submit ballots. Customers eligible for conversion this year amount to about 70 percent of Telmex's 8.8 million client base. According to industry officials, telephone customers across the country should have an opportunity to vote by the turn of the century, and after years of neglect, first by a government-owned monopoly and now by a privately owned one, many can't wait to cast their vote. Like Perez, 27-year-old Olga Ivete Gonzalez said she planned to switch to a new long-distance carrier. She, too, was at the Telmex offices trying to get her telephone reconnected. She said she had paid her bill in Mexico City for a telephone line she has outside town, but that Telmex had told her there was no way to alert the branch office there. "For me, Telmex is not the greatest," said Gonzalez, a cashier who goes home on weekends. "I pay my bill here, and they'll receive my payment, but I have to report the problem in Toluca? It doesn't make any sense." People like Perez and Gonzalez are exactly the type of customers the competition is pursuing aggressively. The telecommunications giants, which call repeatedly, offer to come to the house to explain the new rates and to pick up the ballot. Some even come equipped with CDs, T-shirts and baseball caps. The number of long-distance calls between the United States and Mexico is second only to the number of long-distance calls between the United States and Canada, and with the stakes so high, charges of dirty tricks abound. Just this month, Mexico's postal service reportedly issued a warning to its carriers after one of its employees allegedly sold a duffel bag full of blank ballots to one of the competitors. In another case, representatives from two competing companies got into a confrontation on the street. They apparently ran into each other as they solicited business door-to-door. Telmex, or Telefonos de Mexico, which has spent more than $12 billion upgrading its network since the government sold it to Mexico's richest man in 1990, says it has the advantage over the others because it's home-bred. (Never mind that it's one of the most actively traded stocks on Wall Street.) In television spots, Telmex appeals to Mexico's celebrated sense of nationalism, urging its customers to support the native company, not one run by gringos. The strategy, early government figures show, has netted mixed results. In Monterrey, for example, which has 530,177 telephone lines, about 45 percent of people who cast ballots chose Telmex; 40 percent chose Alestra, a partnership of AT&T and two large Mexican firms; and 14 percent chose Avantel, a joint venture between MCI and Mexico's largest financial group. At the same time, however, roughly 65 percent of customers in Monterrey did not vote, which means Telmex keeps their business. Some folks on Wall Street are not surprised, but they point out that the voting has just begun, and that the number of people switching may not necessarily translate into bigger revenues for the winning company. Although scores of people have a horror story about Telmex, analysts -- and some customers -- say the company has made progress after Carlos Slim Helu, with partners SBC Communications Inc. and France Telecom, paid $1.8 billion for a controlling stake in Telmex from the government in 1990. With money coming in from shares that are now traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Slim's group pumped billions of dollars into fiber optics and new telephone lines and expanded telephone service for thousands of small towns. Which is why, Telmex says, it is poised to provide the best local and long-distance service in Mexico. Then there's the matter of convenience. Unlike the United States, where customers get one bill for local and long-distance calls, customers who switch here will get two separate ones. Customers accustomed to paying in cash, and in person, won't be able to pay for a competitor's long-distance bill at Telmex, already notorious for long lines. Ray Ligouri, a telecommunications analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York, said that Telmex under its new owners deserved credit for providing better service than Telmex did when it was government owned, but that it still had a ways to go. He also praised Telmex for adhering to the Jan. 1 deadline on open competition, which allowed it to get a jump on six of its eight competitors. "Telmex is doing a good job in protecting what it has," he said. Still, Ligouri said that by the time the counting is done this year, he expects Telmex to lose 15 percent of the market share and eventually up to 50 percent. He said Avantel and Alestra are beginning to do a better job of reaching consumers, setting up booths at shopping malls, for example. But more important, Ligouri said, AT&T and MCI will be in a better position to snatch up business from calls made to Mexico from the United States and vice versa. Telmex, however, hopes to dash those hopes, too. Earlier this month, Sprint Corp. and Telmex announced they had formed a joint venture to market long-distance service to Hispanic markets in the United States. Daniel Crawford, operations director for Avantel, said that in the next five years the company expects to spend $2 billion on building a 12,000-mile fiber-optic network across Mexico. Early news reports gave Avantel the advantage over Alestra because its telecommunications network was ahead of schedule, but Crawford said AT&T's name recognition has posed a formidable challenge. Nonetheless, Crawford said, "we're very pleased with the results. The balloting was the start of the process, not the end." At Alestra, spokesman Guillermo Munoz de Baena said the reason the company is running so strongly is because AT&T has a proven track record. The difference between Alestra and the others, he said, is quality. The company plans to invest about $1 billion in its network by 2000, Munoz said. "Every day something new comes out," he said, "and the future is limitless." Even if Telmex loses a big chunk of the long-distance business, it won't be crying poor mouth. Though outside companies have been allowed to provide local service since 1990, no one has stepped up because of the enormous cost of laying the groundwork. As a result, the companies will be playing piggyback on Telmex's network. The competition, Crawford said, will end up paying Telmex a fee of about 5.3 cents per minute to use the lines. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 22:45:46 -0600 From: Jeff Shaver Reply-To: jshaver@navix.net Subject: Calling USA From Mexico I'm going to be studying in Puebla, Mexico this summer and I have never used the telephone network there before. I have checked with AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and Frontier, but their calling card rates for calls to the US seem rather high. Does anyone know of any other companies with better deals? I have heard that simply using coins in the payphones is comparable in cost to using a calling card. If this is so, is it reliable? Call-back services will probably not be an option. Thanks for your help! Jeff Shaver jshaver@navix.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:09:30 -0800 From: Thom Stark Subject: The Definitive Story on New Domains Murphy really *does* rule the computing universe. Just as I completed work on what I immodestly think is *the* definitive story on the IAHC proposal to expand the Internet's Top Level Domain namespace, the bean counters at Cardinal Business Media pulled the plug on Internetwork magazine, which commissioned me to write it. And I mean the very day I submitted the story. That means it will never be printed on dead trees. However, since my contract with Internetwork specifically gives me the right to publish it on my Web site, you can read the unedited, exhaustively-hyperlinked story I call "The New Domain Name Game at: While you're there, you also may want to take a look at my third (and last) Web Technologies column (also originally scheduled for the now-cancelled April Internetwork issue) entitled "Numbering the Beast" at: As always, there is NO charge for this service and there is NO advertising on my Web site. Regards, Thom Stark Email: thomst@netcom.com URL: http://www.dnai.com/~thomst finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key (510) 526-9600 voice STARK REALITIES fax (510) 526-9063 POB 457 El Cerrito, CA ZIP 94530-0457 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:22:21 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet Protocols Handbook", by Roberts BKINTPRT.RVW 961118 "Internet Protocols Handbook", Dave Roberts, 1996, 1-883577-88-8, U$39.99/C$55.99 %A Dave Roberts dave@droberts.com %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1996 %G 1-883577-88-8 %I Coriolis %O U$39.99/C$55.99 800-410-0192 +1-602-483-0192 fax: +1-602-483-0193 %P 448 %T "Internet Protocols Handbook" This is a reference book listing dozens of the lower level Internet protocols. Roberts attempts to standardize the view of each by giving basic identifying information, and providing tables of technical details. RFCs (Requests For Comments), the official Internet standards, are included on a CD-ROM. While the material is clear enough in most cases, examples would help in some instances. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINTPRT.RVW 961118 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:29:12 -0800 From: David Katz Subject: Balancing Out Incoming 800 Traffic Between Offices I received your name from "Stuff Software". We are a 32 office cosmetic surgery group with an office soon-to-be-opened in Canada. We currently do a significant amount of national marketing and have one "800" number that we use in all our marketing materials. Here is the problem. AT&T routes all calls to our "800" number based on the area code and exchange of the calling party. Our goal is to even out the calls that we get. Example - We have an office in Orlando and one in Tampa. We assign area codes and prefixes for each off so that they presummably get the same number of calls generated from our national ads. Ideally we want each office to get approximately the same number of calls. Is there software that will allow us to measure population and area codes/exchanges so that we can accomplish this task? Please let me know if you can help us or if there is a forum or newsgroup that this question can be posted to. For your convenience, please e-mail me or call me at (800) 662-4284. Thank you in advance for any information you can provide. David Katz Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Stuff Software has been a regular financial supporter of this Digest for quite some time and I encourage readers to check out their link on the telecom web page. Go to http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives and click on the page listing sponsors for details. Readers with solutions for Mr. Katz are requested to write him directly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Morgan Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:23:27 GMT In message J. Oppenheimer writes: > It's not only a US brand, but a global one. Why do you think the > ITU insisted on 800 for the global toll-free (universal freephone) > code? I don't know what codes are for "freephone" and which are "premium" now in Holland, but there seemed to be a number which were close to one another, and none, AFAICR, had 800 in them :-( It may appear global to you, but in the UK at least, for quite a few years, BT kept 0800 for itself, and Mercury (the first, and still major competitor) was stuck with 0500. We have the wierd situation of initially there being: 0800 +6 digits (and the unusual 0800 1111 for Childline to allow children to report abuse/neglect/emergencies) but now have 0800 +6 (BT) and 0800 +7 (several other carriers) with Mercury still tied to 0500 +6 [ and 0800 1111 remains] Meanwhile, some "national" rate charged numbers have been set up, BT managed to get 0990 while Mercury has the unmemorable 0541. We have some "regional" rate charged numbers -- I cannot recall any of the many codes, but they're all pretty silly. We also have some "local" rate charged numbers :- BT 0345 Mercury 0645 Energis 0845 The long term plan was for 08xxx to be for special services, freephone calls, national/local rate charged calls, and information. Right this minute we have some "900" style numbers like 0898, which is meant to be protected by PIN so children shouldn't be able to use them, some "information" numbers, which are cheaper, but we also have some other number like 0897 which is approx US$2.25/minute. I think Mercury is 0660, which can be confused for BT's 0990 - look at 0990 111 111 and then 0660 111 111 :-( Close to 0800 (free) is 0802 (60c/minute) [for cellular phones]. The UK numbering scheme is, and has been, chaotic for years, so if someone in authority at least copies some aspects of your system, I'd be happier !! :-) I think that the use of "800" and "888" is much better, and I see that the updated "San Francisco Lodging Guide" includes both, so foreigners, such as myself, will be kept aware. Peter Morgan, UK. ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:33:27 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses Reply-To: hrood@xs4all.nl Judith Oppenheimer enlightened me about: > The phone industry created the 888 prefix last year, with the pool of > 7.71 million available 800 numbers quickly running out. In January > the Clinton administration's new budget proposed raising $700 million > by auctioning off 888 numbers -- an idea that had also cropped up last > year but withered amid opposition by business groups. I was surprised by the auctioning of numbers. It might be of interest to you that in contrast to this USA policy, most countries in the European Union has taken up in their draft policy directives for the liberalisation of the telephone industry, that there is no auctioning allowed for (vanity) numbers (contrary to auctioning spectrum). When scarcity arises the numbering plan must be expanded, which is a decision of the government appointed numbering regulatory authority, which can not be appealed. Most EU-countries are rewriting there laws this year and adopt this line. Especially the European Commission is very cautious about number-auctions because they do not like governments starting to use artificial scarcity in their numbering plans to become an additional "tax-raising" source. It might be of interest that in the Netherlands and Norway, you can not get vanity numbers (alfanumeric handsets are not quite common here) but you can get short "golden numbers" (four digits) for 800-services instead of the standard numbers (seven digits). Of course the monthly rentals of golden numbers are much higher (around a factor of thousand). This is another way to let the market work out the item, and an alternative to auctioning. A Singapore Telecom official once told me at a conference that auctioning of vanity numbers is a normal procedure in Singapore by the opening of every new number block. The money raised in this way is given to charity funds, not to the government! These are just some examples on how these issues are dealt with, in other parts of the world. Hendrik Rood ir. Hendrik Rood Consultant Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ From: Gent Cav Subject: For Sale: PBX Phone System Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:02:53 -0500 Organization: NHCO, Inc. - Metro2000, Inc. - WebTown.Net Reply-To: gent@nhco.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually I do not print 'for sale' messages in the Digest unless they seem to be of special interest to readers and are not 'too commercial' in nature. Today I got the two which follow in the mail and thought some people might be interested. PAT] Tie Communications 1648 Key Phone System 4 Trunk Lines (incoming) upgradeable to 16 48 Extension Lines ( 40 standart line 2500 series, 8 executive sets) RS-232 Management port for programming and SMDR Power Supply Manuals Looking for reasonable offers. Gent Cav gent@nhco.com (603) 656-4120 300 Bedford Street Manchester, NH 03101 ------------------------------ From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: For Sale: Merlin Plus 820D + 16 Phones Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:31:36 -0400 Organization: Rust Net - High Speed Internet in Detroit 810-642-2276 After buying a house, I looked for a phone system. As usual, never ask for something, you'll get it. I got hold of the system *cheap*, and though I'd make a fair attempt at selling it, before blowing my next few weekends installing it. Think of all the trouble I'll save myself if I sell it. It appears to be a fully configured Merlin Plus 820D, with 16 phones. Merlin 820D, fully configured, all cards present 8 lines 20 extensions paging music-on-hold memory module. (2) BIS-34 (2) SP-34 (2) HFAI-10 (5) BIS-10 (1 DOA) (4) 5-buttons (1) SP-10(?) * 8-line/2-power AT&T surge protector * bases, wall mounts, etc * Powermat (for external paging speakers) * SAA - have to look it up * cabling, handsets, cords, phone templates, etc Anybody want to make me a fair offer, and free up my next few weekends? :-) Steve B. bagdon@rust.net (h) USFMDDKT@ibmmail.com (w) http://www.rust.net/~bagdon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #69 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 18 09:21:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA19889; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:21:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:21:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703181421.JAA19889@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #70 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Mar 97 09:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 70 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson MCI Ups the Cost of a Call (Dave Stott) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Lee Winson) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Jim Willis) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (Kevin C. Almeroth) Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder (David Lesher) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Bob Goudreau) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Nils Andersson) US West Looks to Lawmakers for Rate Boost (Tad Cook) Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving (Hillary Gorman) Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line (Hillary Gorman) I Got Slammed Also (Steven H. Lichter) Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (John Cropper) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Martin McCormick) 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: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:17:37 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: MCI Ups the Cost of a Call In the March 14th edition of the {Wall Street Journal}, there is a "Notice to MCI Customers" (pg C14), stating that MCI Preferred(r) and Preferred Maximizer Business Interstate Inbound Services will increase by 3.3%, that non-operator assisted Business Calling Card Surcharges will increase by $0.05, and that MCI Prism Plus(r) domestic, non-operator assisted Business Calling Card Surcharges will increase by $0.15. Not really noteworthy *except* that the ad goes on to say: "These increases result from the FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which required the FCC to ensure fair compensation for all calls made from pay phones. As a result of the _FCC action_ (sic), carriers are required to pay pay-phone providers for calls completed on their pay phones." I suppose if the fees for all calling card calls are spread across those originating at pay phones, this covers the $0.35 per call to MCI 800 numbers. What I find especially interesting is that the ad makes it appear that the FCC is responsible for the rate increase, when in fact, MCI has chosen this particular route for offsetting those additional expenses, instead of other, more direct fee schedules (such as only surcharging from pay phones). Dave Stott McKenzie Telecommunications Group ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 17 Mar 1997 23:16:13 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per N. Marino's complaint of premium service offering from directory assistance ... > These services are BIG MONEY to the local phone companies. Hey -- > aren't they restricted from being in the information business? My answer: Welcome to the wonderful world of competition. The old staid telephone company is becoming unregulated, which means it can seek out to make money any way it can. If that means inconvenience to you, the customer, too bad. It's no different when I call my bank with a simple question and have to listen to their pitch for a zillion different services before they ansewr my question. Generally, I like and support the concept of competition. But it must be remembered (and most people don't!) that competition has some serious disadvantages, too, and a regulated monopoly had some good points. What is best for the customer in a utility service like telephones remains to be seen. ------------------------------ From: Jim Willis Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 18 Mar 1997 02:51:00 GMT Organization: Cyberion Networking Corp. This must have been dreamed up by the telcos together as Bell Canada has this, though when my Dad called the customer service they turned it off. The *02 will turn it off and on. There is a code in the switch ... NYNEX just is not listening! Jim Willis > They're obviously doing it to pitch the new service, so people will > spend 50c. Somebody in the Marketing/Advertising Department dreamed > this up to sell. > I suspect the approval of the marketing people will be necessary before > the audio recording is pulled. > Chalk up another to competition and money making. ------------------------------ From: kevin@cc.gatech.edu (Kevin C. Almeroth) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Date: 17 Mar 1997 15:28:43 -0500 Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech Michael J. Kuras wrote: > Furthermore, she swears that it is *impossible* to block this feature > from my line. Every NYNEX user will get this feature and there's > nothing that can be done to stop it. No *xx code, no CO blocking, > nothing. My modem's redial feature is useless. I now have to sit > there and manually redial until I connect. Sounds like a good plan by Nynex to me. Let's see, could it be that their purpose is to make modem use less convenient. Wait, now does that make their network behave more like a voice-only network. Maybe the old customer use models aren't worthless after all! Kevin Almeroth ------------------------------ From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: NYNEX's *Latest* Blunder Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:09:16 GMT Nicholas Marino writes: > My pet peeve with my local phone co., Bell Atlantic, and probably a > lot of others, is the hard sell you get when you dial information and > are asked if you would like them to connect you for 65 cents. Unless > you agree to spend an additional 65 cents for the call, you have to > keep the phone on-hook for at least 5 seconds before you can make > another call. I believe you can require that be blocked on your line. A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:38:46 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion J. Oppenheimer wrote: > craig@rmit.edu.au wrote: (Craig MacBride) wrote: >> The problem the US has is the people who think that any toll-free >> number must start with 800. > Yes, Craig, that is the essence of the brand. Exactly the primary > argument for separate toll-free domains (800 for commercial, 888 for > pagers, etc.) But this argument (not a very good one anyway, IMHO) has already been lost: there are now many "commercial" toll free numbers in NPA 888, and there are still lots of personal toll-free numbers in NPA 800. Separating the two domains into distinct NPAs at this point would be infeasible. > The 800 brand serves businesses best because it's the most responsive > and reliable consumer response trigger. Which generates more carrier > traffic revenue. And obviously, consumers love it. > That's not a "problem", it's an achievement. A rare everybody-wins > success. So why the apparent objection to repeating this successful achievement for new toll-free NPAs such as 888, 877, etc? > The real issue is ownership. Users, carriers, and government, treat > numbers as property. Valuable property. Portability law already grants > control of that "property" to users - you. > So who do you want owning your "property"? Carriers? Government? or > You? Judith, I don't think that the rest of us mind establishing a given 800 number's owner's "property" rights to that number (call it 800-abc-defg). But you go far beyond that, by asserting that said owner should also be awarded (for free!) new rights, namely to the numbers 888-abc-defg, 877-abd-defg, etc. I have no problem with letting an 800 number owner keep his actual property. Indeed, your claims of concern for property rights protection ring quite hollow in the case of what you call "non-commercial" 800 numbers: you proposed confiscating such "property" from their owners and forcing a switch to an 888 number. But those who wish to have their property rights respected must also respect the fact that they have *no* such rights over *other* phone numbers. Additionally, I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of how a company is going to lose business from its 800-abc-defg number just because another company starts using 888-abc-defg. If anything, it's the new kid on the block (the 888 number holder) who runs the risk, when simpletons who believe that "toll-free implies 800" mistakenly dial 800-abc-defg instead of the 888 number. But how likely is a mistake in the *other* direction (e.g., somebody dials 1-888-FLOWERS instead of 1-800-FLOWERS)? As Pat has already pointed out, the presence of a few "dumbos" is not a good reason to piss away an otherwise-useful portion of our numbering space. People are now quite familiar with the concept of new area codes; now they're getting used to the concept of new toll-free area codes as well. I don't think that 877, 866, etc. are going to be nearly has hard to deal with as 888 was at first. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: 18 Mar 1997 09:42:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , J. Oppenheimer writes: > Yes, Craig, that is the essence of the brand. Exactly the primary > argument for separate toll-free domains (800 for commercial, 888 for > pagers, etc.) I agree that segregating the toll-free prefixes depending on use MIGHT be a good idea, but there are several problems. Firstly, it is a little too late. Secondly, the logic is fuzzy, no fault of the poster as the underlying distinctions are fuzzy. A small business could conceivably have a "commercial" number that in fact went to a pager when no other live option was available. There is a continuum of uses from an airline with a 24 hour reservations number to a single person with a pager, and they overlap in mysterious ways. Coming up with useful distinctions that will stick seems tough. 800 is NOT a "brand" in the legal sense. It may have SOME of the same properties, such as being identified as "toll-free" by most people in North America (also used in the UK, Singapore, HongKong and some other countries, including the Universal International Freephone country code 800). However, teaching the public that 88x is also toll free (or 88x where x=some subset) does not seem overly onerous, it will come almost automatically as more people advertise "call toll-free 888-FORTUNE etc ). Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Subject: US West Looks to Lawmakers for Rate Boost Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 03:38:18 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U S West looks to lawmakers for rate boost By CHARLES E. BEGGS Associated Press Writer SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- A bill that could boost U S West telephone bills by as much as 55 percent amounts to an end run around state regulators who are likely to reject the proposal, legislators were told Tuesday. "This is the most anti-consumer legislation I have ever seen," said Bob Jenks, executive director of the Citizens' Utility Board, a utility watchdog group. The rate increase still is pending before the Oregon Public Utility Commission. But commission member Roger Hamilton testified Tuesday that the measure "has potential to cause consumers great harm" and ought to be shelved. The commission has concluded the company's proposal would raise the cost of basic residential service to about $20 a month. The House telecommunications subcommittee is considering HB3021, which U S West describes as an effort to update Oregon laws to bring them into line with changes in federal law. Chuck Lenard, U S West vice president for Oregon, said the intent of the bill is to allow basic service rates to increase to about $16 a month, over three to four years. "There are misunderstandings about the bill," Leonard said. U S West serves 90 percent of Oregon's telephone customers, and serves 25 million customers in 14 western states. The company is pushing similar legislation in Washington state, against tough odds. Utility commissioners there turned down a U S West proposal last year that could have raised monthly basic rates to as much as $26. A related measure pending in the North Dakota Legislature would do away with price restrictions on local phone service. Long-distance telephone companies and other competitors are looking to make inroads in local telephone service markets as the result of a 1996 federal law forcing local monopoly telephone carriers to open their lines to competitors. Lenard said the laws must allow for the changing competitive climate in the industry. Ten companies are competing so far for local service in Oregon, he said, and 38 others have applied for approval to compete. But critics of the bill said it would give phone companies too much latitude and the state too little power to curb rate increases. U S West contends rates for basic service are priced below cost, forcing the company to charge more for such services as long distance and Internet connections. The bill would give the PUC little power to challenge the company's accounting of costs, opponents contend. Jenks, the Citizens Utility Board director, said that having failed to convince state regulators that increases are justified, U S West is asking legislatures to become rate-making bodies. The proposed legislation "should be named the incumbent monopoly protection act of 1997," said John Glassock, a spokesman for the American Association of Retired Persons. "Its provisions protect the incumbent monopoly while opening the door to higher prices and poorer service quality" for residential customers, Glasscock said. ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: New York Wants to Ban Cellular Phone Use While Driving Date: 17 Mar 1997 16:17:20 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In , Michael P. Deignan wrote: > Better yet ... How about we ban >women drivers Ever been behind a woman running late for work? The vanity mirror is > down, the lipstick and blush is going on ... Her eyes are everywhere > except ON THE ROAD! > Ban women drivers! Keep them in the passenger seat, where they belong! Hmm. I don't know where you're from (the NIC says "No match for "IDEAMATION.COM".) but I've lived/commuted in Philadelphia, San Francisco, and DC areas, and I've seen PLENTY of men using lip balm, hair mousse, and even eyeliner, not to mention shaving in the mirror while driving. How about we just ban >sexists< and off-topic posts? hillary "banning myself, now..." gorman hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth! ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Dialing *70 on Non-Call-Waiting Equipped Line Date: 17 Mar 1997 16:22:22 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In , Steven K. Smith wrote: > fax/modem. The fact is that there's really no need to suppress CW for > modem use (and I couldn't for faxing) -- the latest protocols (V.34, > etc.) can live with the interruptions caused by CW signalling. They > just treat it as a(nother) hiccup on the line, and go right on. So, > don't worry about it. If it works for you, cool. A lot of modems won't handle it at all, though, so I really wouldn't recommend people with call waiting dial into their ISP w/o *70 unless they've done a bunch of tests first ... hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth! ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: I Got Slammed Also Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:01:17 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Here is a good one. It appears I got slammed by Wiltel and was billed by U.S. Billing, Inc. I have a PIC block with my local carrier PacBell and in January switched to GTE Long Distance for out of Franchise, being a retired GTE Employee and the rates being very good, even better then others I had looked at. All went well, PacBell changed the PIC for me to GTE, that is a fact, and still is. It appears that in the Long Distance system is where the trouble started. LDDS/WorldCom's network is one that GTE is using and GTE send the data to them, but for some reason WorldCom left my numbers as an Open PIC, and Wiltel which also appears to use the network picked me up and started billing me a 3 1/2 times my rate and no discount at all. When I tried to reach them over the weekend it appears they are not open then, and the hours are Central time. When I did reach USBI I reached someone that told me I must have used an access code to make these calls if I was not on the network. I wanted to talk to a supervisor and was told that is what they would tell me also, they finally transfered me, and the phone rang for 25 minutes and no one ever did pick it up; some customer relations. I again called back, and this time I must have got someone at USBI that either know what was going on and know what to do and even seemed to care, they called Wiltel for me and got things going to try and fix the problem, they also called GTE and PacBell. So it looks like you can check your LD carrier by the 700 number and think you have it when in fact may have been picked up on another system. PacBell's code for GTE was correct, but I still was switch. What is going to happen next. Just think what happens when local service go open, you could have you local carrier changed and you may not even know it. *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. **Permission is specifically WITHHELD for the collection of this address for any e-mail unrelated to the subject of this article.** ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:20:05 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Robert Bononno wrote: > Someone asked me about NYNEX's response to being slammed by > AT&T. Basically NYNEX said, er, um, uh, that it couldn't have > happened. I have two phone numbers. I was slammed last year by > Heartline. At the time I specifically requested that NYNEX put a > freeze on *both* numbers. And they told me they had. When I called > right after the AT&T mishap, they told me there was a freeze only on > *one* number. They said they would correct the situation at once. When > I told them that both numbers had been switched to AT&T, the operator > said that couldn't have happened. Well, it did happen. Here's a thought: If your mail delivery is questionable (i.e. someone could be stealing your postal mail, which is known to happen), then it IS possible that the party in question could potentially intercept a check from an IXC, "sign" it over to themselves, and leave you holding the bag. No only do they get free cash that you wouldn't have known about, but they also change *YOUR* LD service. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: Martin McCormick Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: 17 Mar 1997 22:04:37 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK We had exactly the same thing at Oklahoma State University in 1970. I think it was an artifact of the #5 crossbar switch we had. I also remember an article in the "Daily Oklahoman" in the seventies about a "beep" line in Lawton, Oklahoma and how school kids used it in exactly the same way. There was a lot of flirting and craziness on our beep line. It was a sort of wired CB and was much like CB radio is today with many strange folks that seemed to come out of the woodwork at all hours of the day and night. A conversation might go like: (beeps every second), Are there any frats on the line? Yes. Want to fight? I want to beat the ---- out of some frat b------s! Female voice. Don't you guys have anything better to do? Ya' Who are you? And so it would go for hours. Sometimes, somebody would get mad or just want to harass everybody and play a loud radio in to the phone or would start playing music on their Touch Tone dials or making some other obnoxious noises. This was usually met with more noise or curses. I think Southwestern Bell did something to stop the beep line in the mid seventies. The busy signal changed slightly and after that, no more beep line. This was long before we got electronic switching, so whatever was done was some form of rewiring in the switch which prevented any crosstalk between channels connecting to the busy signal. There were at least three exchanges in use in the seventies, 372, 377, and 624, but they all terminated in the same switch so it didn't matter which exchange you were on. you could still get the beep line. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #70 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 20 00:57:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA22571; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:57:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:57:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703200557.AAA22571@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #71 TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Mar 97 00:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 71 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Secrets of the Super Net Searchers" by Basch (Rob Slade) LERG Errors? (Steve Kass) Slammed by American Business Alliance (Mark Wold) Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (Stanley Cline) Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (Alan Boritz) Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (Robert Bononno) 888 Auction - It's Back! (Judith Oppenheimer) Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? (Steven V. Christensen) In Defense of AOL and its Good Features (Bill Turner) What's This Scam? (Lizanne Hurst) AT&T and Those Checks They Send Out (R.V. Head) Re: Another 800 Pay Number (Nils Anderson) Re: Another 800 Pay Number (Stuart Zimmerman) Who Will Rent Me a GSM SIM Card (John R. Covert) Programmer Needed (Dan Gauthier) For Sale: ATT KSU System (Dave Vigliotti) 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: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:25:53 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Secrets of the Super Net Searchers" by Basch BKSOTSNS.RVW 961114 "Secrets of the Super Net Searchers", Reva Basch, 1996, 0-910965-22-6, U$29.95 %A Reva Basch %C 462 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897-2126 %D 1996 %G 0-910965-22-6 %I Pemberton Press Books/Online Inc. %O U$29.95 800-248-8466 +1-203-761-1466 fax: +1-203-761-1444 online@well.com %P 350 %T "Secrets of the Super Net Searchers" Basch has interviewed thirty five net users. The interviews are presented as such. Therefore, while the interviews themselves may be of interest, the book is hardly as useful a resource as the likes of "Finding it on the Internet" (cf. BKFNDINT.RVW). I don't know all of those interviewed, but I do recognize a number of names from works I have reviewed. Two of the names are quite respectable. A rather larger number, however, belong to those who have turned out books whose value is questionable. Overall, you are not going to find any secrets here. You get the same advice on searching that you find anywhere else. In one sense, the advice is balanced because you have more than one view. In another, trying to find the balance can take a lot of time since the perspective of one interviewee contradicts that of another. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKSOTSNS.RVW 961114 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 ------------------------------ Subject: LERG Errors? From: Steve Kass Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:46:10 -0500 Reply-To: skass@icosa.drew.edu Organization: Drew University My company has written a traffic analysis and costing program for telecom resellers, and obviously we make significant use of Bellcore's LERG tables. There are, unfortunately, errors in the LERG, from small (St. Kitts and Nevis is misspelled as St. Litts and Nevis), to more serious (the V&H coordinates for some places in South Dakota put them in the Gulf of Mexico). These errors are from last September's LERG tables, and I haven't checked a more recent issue. As for the latter error, can I assume that every telco in the country is billing some calls incorrectly because they use the LERG V&H coordinates to calculate rates for some types of calls? In this case there are intrastate SD calls with calculated mileages of over 2000 miles (try Brookings to Sioux Falls). And can anyone tell me if there's someone at Bellcore I can call to recommend that the errors be corrected? And how does Bellcore compile the LERG data? In other words, what is the likely source of errors such as this? It's not hard to find the big errors at all - just pull the V&H data from each state into a spreadsheet and graph the switches' locations. If there's a dot outside of the state, there's a problem. Two other LERG questions: There are generally no posted switches for Canadian NPA-NXXs, but there are a few: three in NPA 514, for example. Any explanation? And in NPA 809, is there a resource to let me identify the country associated with a particular NXX? Steve Kass All Trades Computing skass@icosa.drew.edu 212-532-8038 ------------------------------ From: Mark Wold Subject: Slammed by American Business Alliance Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:19:37 -0600 Organization: Electro Link Network, Inc., Elburn, IL, USA Reply-To: mark@elnet.com Out of the blue, every other long distance call we started making was getting 'all circuits busy'. so I call 1-700-555-4141 and find that I'm on AT&T. We call Ameritech and they show a change to American Business Alliance, an AT&T reseller. We track down these people and register a complaint and a trouble call since we can't dial half the calls we want. They are also known as 'The Phone Company'. They say they have a verification firm which indicates that I authorized the switch on 12/13/96 which took place on 03/11/97. I never authorized anything. So they call back today and have produced a tape of a phone call to our number with somebody claiming to be me. It's not me and the conversation never happened. I don't know what or who to believe. Either the verification firm called a wrong number and somebody played the game as me, or the tape was created as a fake. Fortunately, Ameritech was able to get us back on our real carrier within an hour. Anybody else out there ever deal with these folks? They are based somewhere in Pennsylvania. Mark ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:27:23 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:53:09 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom Pat wrote: > their check. Has anyone else gotten a check from AT&T for a line > which the company earlier had cut off from service? PAT Strangely enough -- yes. I disconnected my "second" line in January (actually, I let the bill slip by as I have been out of work) and not only have I received a check *and* one of those "switch for software" things again, but AT&T continues to have my 500 number in service [I received a letter TODAY -- nearly three months later -- stating that they had FINALLY heard from BellSouth that the number was disconnected]. I've also received a couple of mailings, one of those about AT&T's relay services. (I had used the Georgia Relay Service a couple of times; that may explain that.) As for the hanging 500 number, I'm moving to Atlanta in about a week, and I'll probably retain the 500. (AT&T will provide my LD service there, too.) I called BellSouth to tell them that *FINALLY* I was paying the $140 I still owe them, and they said they would not require a deposit from me again, since I had otherwise had "good credit" with them. (A couple of bills had been paid a bit late, and I was disconnected once for four hours!) (OTOH, Georgia Power is forcing me to pay a $120 deposit, and now the apartment complex I'll be at wants more money from me, as a result of a rather mixed credit history. Of course, I'll get those back with interest -- eventually :( ) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Unofficial MindSpring Fan ** mailto:scline@mindspring.com mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From: line changed so I get NO SPAM! See http://www.vix.com/spam/ ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:04:12 -0500 In article appeared: > Robert Bononno wrote: >> Someone asked me about NYNEX's response to being slammed by >> AT&T. Basically NYNEX said, er, um, uh, that it couldn't have >> happened. I have two phone numbers. I was slammed last year by >> Heartline. At the time I specifically requested that NYNEX put a >> freeze on *both* numbers. And they told me they had. When I called >> right after the AT&T mishap, they told me there was a freeze only on >> *one* number. They said they would correct the situation at once. When >> I told them that both numbers had been switched to AT&T, the operator >> said that couldn't have happened. Well, it did happen. > Here's a thought: > If your mail delivery is questionable (i.e. someone could be stealing > your postal mail, which is known to happen), then it IS possible that > the party in question could potentially intercept a check from an IXC, > "sign" it over to themselves, and leave you holding the bag. > No only do they get free cash that you wouldn't have known about, but > they also change *YOUR* LD service. They don't need to steal your mail to change your PIXC. My boss's brother-in-law signed up for an MCI calling card a while ago, using his address (with permission, he travels a lot for business). MCI slammed my boss's home phone, based on the calling card order. What the morons at MCI didn't notice (and Bell Atlantic didn't challenge) was that the name on the calling card didn't match the name on the account for the contact phone. I had him file a PUC complaint against Bell Atlantic, and MCI paid for the PIXC change. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:57:18 -0500 From: rb28@is4.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response Organization: Techline In article , jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net wrote: > If your mail delivery is questionable (i.e. someone could be stealing > your postal mail, which is known to happen), then it IS possible that > the party in question could potentially intercept a check from an IXC, > "sign" it over to themselves, and leave you holding the bag. > No only do they get free cash that you wouldn't have known about, but > they also change *YOUR* LD service. Could be, at least in theory. (For example, Heartline claimed I had signed something approving the switch. In that case the signature, which they sent me, is an obvious forgery.) But AT&T never claimed I had signed anything or even approved anything. Neither AT&T nor NYNEX seemed to have any idea how this might have happened. Amazing, isn't it? Robert Bononno - rb28@is4.nyu.edu - CIS:73670,1570 ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: 888 Auction - It's Back! Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:24:36 -0500 Organization: ICB Toll Free News Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com 888 AUCTION - IT'S BACK! The auction of toll-free vanity numbers, first proposed by Congress last year, is back, slipped obscurely into the 1998 Budget Proposal. And it's rumored to be green-lighted. Full text at http://www.icbtollfree.com, "Industry News & Analysis." ICB Toll Free News has been redesigned. Please let me know if you find any links not working, copy or format glitches, etc. Also if there are any links you'd recommend we include. Thank you, Judith Oppenheimer ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com ------------------------------ From: Steven V. Christensen Subject: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? Date: 18 Mar 1997 17:52:15 GMT Organization: pobox.com In article in comp.dcom.telecom, Steven H. Lichter wrote: [thread deleted] > *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** > > NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, > Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent > to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the > amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. This is off-topic, but have you (or anyone) been able to apply the above-mentioned penalty to spammers? Regards, Steven From the desk of: Steven Christensen N9XJY Internet: chrissv@pobox.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting that you ask, because I was going to inquire about the very same thing. Until last year, and even at the start of this year, I *always* edited out all the 'no spam' and other notations people were putting in their mailing address and signature lines. I just thought it was in poor taste to have those as part of the Digest. But it got to be so bad with spammers writing to so many of the readers here that many folks complained to me and I started leaving in the obstacles designed to make automated spamming a bit more difficult. Now lately I have been leaving in all the notices and warnings and dummy site names, etc although personally I still cringe a little at doing so. So how has it been going with you people who put those things in your messages? Has the spam and junk mail subsided at all? Are those idiots with their business opportunities and other worthless mail getting the hint at all? If the junk has continued, have you successfully been able to enforce your various 'contracts'? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Turner, WB4ALM Subject: In Defense of AOL and its Good Features Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:15:47 -0500 Organization: Amateur Radio Station WB4ALM Reply-To: wb4alm@gte.net > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are correct about certain > features on AOL not being available elsewhere. They have lots of > Business Opportunity spams/scams, chain letters to help you Make Money > Fast, and FBI agents posing as very cute young boys trying to get into > your (and each other's) pants among other things. They have employees > who steal customer credit card numbers; they have an endless supply of > crackers on line at all hours. Ah, and of course! How could I almost > forget: they have their Terms of Service and Guides who are always > willing to throw their weight around and show you who is boss. PAT] While I understand the Tounge-in-check, I'm not sure that all of your readers do. The features that I was referring to are the offerings of a number of businesses that provide special services, such as American Express and the ARRP, not to mention the small computer businesses that have support "forums" on or via AOL. Unfortunatly the other items also occur, but to my knowledge they occur at or from virtually every Internet Service Provider in the country. Enuf said. Now back to the program which was in progress before this interuption. /s/ Bill Turner, wb4alm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Certainly some ISPs are better than others and some seem to attract more troublesome and/or dimwitted users than others. AOL is however, just frankly outrageous. Yes, AOL does have a few things not found elsewhere that are good, but I think overall the bad outweighs the good. My belief is that if Compuserve (to name one example) really made a strong marketing push to convert the better quality AOL customers over to CIS, inc- luding some of the better forums on AOL, quite a few would jump ship in a minute and head for the much higher quality CIS. Ditto many of the ISPs; if they really went after the better quality AOL customer and made them a good offer, I'll bet a lot of them would quit AOL without hesitation. I suspect many AOL subscribers just stay there by 'default'; that is, perhaps they are fairly new to the online scene, have never had other services make a pitch directed specifically at them, and do not really know where else to go. I guess my biggest complaint about AOL would be that Steve Case seems perfectly willing and eager to give accounts to government agents such as FBI and Customs Service for no other reason than to just deliberatly try to stir up trouble and entrap people by sending them kiddie porn, etc and then rushing off to arrest them as soon as they accept it. Maybe he is not 'perfectly willing and eager' ... maybe they have something on him also and are using his company as a tool in their dirty business; I really don't know, but I will say if I were an ISP I certainly would not want government agents on my system hassling my users and spying on them or trying to make criminals out of them. The whole thing is repugnant and very ugly. I dunno, using that system -- and I rarely do any more -- just gives me the creeps. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:11:52 EST From: lh00@lehigh.edu (Lizanne Hurst) Subject: What's This Scam? I'm hoping a kind TELECOM Digest reader can shed light on what we suspect is some kind of scam. Our students have reported three consecutive rashes of incoming calls since January. A man rings in on an outside call, identifies himself as a telephone repair person, and asks the student to hold on while he "checks the line." He instructs the student to hang up after seven minutes, and says he will then ring back to confirm the line is functional. We try to educate our user community to be conscious of potential fraud, and the effort seems to be paying off because most of the students hung up immediately. One student we spoke to, however, followed the caller's instructions. After she waited the seven minutes and hung up, she was then called back by another man making sexually explicit suggestions. What's the angle here? I've been reviewing our bills carefully and have found no unusual charges or calling patterns. Are the students assenting to some ungodly charge by hanging on, and it just hasn't shown up on our bills yet? Or is the caller somehow trying to appropriate our dial tone? I'm not sure how they can pull that off, since they're coming in to our PBX via one-way DID trunks. Any clues would be greatly appreciated! Lizanne Hurst Information Resources Lehigh University 610.758.5014 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Continue stressing to your students and employees that no one, but no one is authorized to deal with anyone 'from the phone company' except personnel in your own depart- ment. They should continue hanging up when those calls come in, and in the event they feel the call might be legitimate their only response should be, "I will transfer you to the phone administrator's office; they can help you with line testing/repairs, etc." PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T and Those Checks They Send Out From: rvhead@juno.com (R.V. Head) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:41:24 EST TELECOM Digest Editor noted: >. Readers may recall my > mention a couple times in the past about the fiasco which resulted > when AT&T decided to pull their billing arrangements away from the > local telco Ameritech, and how mixed up the billing was the first > month following the conversion. AT&T's response to the billing mixup > was to simply place a large number of customers with the Gulf Coast > Collection Agency in Houston. I ignored GC and just kissed AT&T > goodbye, giving the lines in particular to other carriers. So the > check over the weekend was quite interesting to say the least. When > I try to dial 10288 plus a long distance number on the line in > question (which AT&T sent me a check on) I still get the 'access to > the AT&T network is denied' message. I guess I will cash the check > and tell them go ahead and put that line on their network ... grin ... > and see how they choose to handle it. The letter which arrived with > the check touted their 'one rate' (fifteen cents per minute) program > and promised 'no gimmicks and no games'. I suppose if they try to > put that number back on their service, it will bounce around for a > while through their collection department which has a 'hold' on it > for the earlier alleged non-payment. Meanwhile, I will have cashed > their check. Has anyone else gotten a check from AT&T for a line > which the company earlier had cut off from service? PAT] Yes. A couple of years ago, one of my lines was hooked to AT&T for Intra-LATA calls, without my knowledge or assent. I had been happily paying MCI several hundred dollars every month, along with my South Central Bell bill (They offered LEC Billing, and AT&T did not, at that time in my area of Louisville, Kentucky). Some time passes, I keep getting letters from AT&T, but throw them away unread, as I was getting a REALLY good deal from MCI, and I wasn't interested in changing carriers. Several months later, my Really Good Deal from MCI expired, and the next time I got a check from AT&T, I cashed it. A few days later I tried to make a call on that line and got the Net Denied message. Thinking this was exceedingly odd, I called AT&T to find out what was wrong, and they told me I owed them $68.42 from a year earlier. I had to speak to three or four levels of progressively-less-helpful flunkies before I found one who told me of the Intra-LATA mixup, which was news to me - I hadn't noticed. She said I could Western Union them the money and they'd turn it back on as soon as they received my payment. As soon as I hung up, I called MCI and asked them what they'd pay me to come back. They gave me another good deal (though not as good as the one before), plus a hundred bucks. Since that time, I've moved to a different state and have signed up with AT&T's dime-a-minute, any time all the time plan. Not a word has been said about that $68.42. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I made things a bit fuzzier for them. I used their check along with a couple of old 'Pay to the Order of the Telephone Company' vouchers (also from AT&T) I had laying around to pay my phone bill a couple days ago. We'll see what happens in a few days. I trust they won't try to slam my other two lines in the process, but who knows ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Another 800 Pay Number Date: 18 Mar 1997 01:05:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , sicherman@lucent.com (Col. G.L. Sicherman) writes: > Then, last month, came the payoff. For America Online, that is. A > payoff in the amount of more than $1,000 charged to a credit card used > by Eschelbach for his AOL account. Get a grip! Firstly, the charge for the 800 is quite clearly stated in several places. Secondly, common sense should tell you that nobody is going to give you unlimited 800 service free. Thirdly, AOL will let you check you billing at any time, the items are at least essentially up-to-the-minute. I have used AOL a lot, including from overseas locations (most are charged 10c a minute, as the US 800 number), which is pretty reasonable. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:56:25 -0500 From: Stuart Zimmerman Reply-To: f_save@snet.net Organization: Fone Saver Subject: Re: Another 800 Pay Number In article , David E. Bernholdt wrote: > Indeed, my ISP, which also happens to be a small long distance > company, has an 800 number for which they charge $6/hr. > More interestingly, this ISP also has an 800 number for which they do > _not_ charge which they use to offer service as a "local" call in some > areas where they don't have a large enough customer base to install a > full POP. > Of course I'm an honest guy and have no wish to abuse their service > or give them reason to discontinue either form of 800-number access, I > have not tried to use the "local access" number when I'm on the road. To which Pat responded: > They would be better off offering just > the one single 800 number, and then rebating or crediting the charges > for use of it to selected customers who had no other choice. As it is, > they have to hope that honest customers like yourself will not abuse > the 'local access' number. PAT] The ISP probably only allows access to their "local access" 800 number from those exchanges where they wish to permit local access and block it from the rest of the country. (It is a simple matter to have an 800 number set up with access from only certain exchanges within an area code, or certain area codes. Other callers get a recording saying that the 800 number is not available from your area.) That is probably why they have a second 800 number available for national access. If the ISP is not smart enough to set it up this way, I would look for a new ISP, because they will not survive long. Stuart Zimmerman Fone Saver, LLC "Helping Consumers and Businesses Save on Long Distance" Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 97 22:47:17 EST From: John R. Covert Subject: Who Will Rent Me a GSM SIM Card What reliable commercial firms are there out there who will rent me, at reasonable prices, a GSM SIM card for my Motorola 7200 for occasional travel from the U.S. to GSM equipped countries? /john ------------------------------ From: Dan Gauthier Subject: Programmer Needed Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:38:05 -0600 Organization: Tellus Technologies Tellus Technologies has a (relatively) short-term software development project for a call processing application. The application will run under Windows-NT. The development environment and the skill set required is Visual C++, SQL Server 6.5, and TAPI. If you are interested in this project, e-mail me with your qualifications and I will provide you additional information. Dan Gauthier, President - Tellus Technologies ------------------------------ From: dvigliot@sprynet.com (Dave Vigliotti) Subject: For Sale: ATT KSU System Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:15:11 GMT Organization: Sprynet News Service ATT Spirit System 308, with (4) 6 button phones and (1) 24 button phone. Looking for good price. email me at dvigliot@sprynet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #71 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 21 09:09:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA22915; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:09:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:09:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703211409.JAA22915@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #72 TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Mar 97 09:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 72 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cell Phone Code Cracked (Monty Solomon) Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Ray Sarna) Book Review: "Cellular Digital Packet Data" by Sreetharan/Kumar (Rob Slade) Book Review: "Information Superhighways Revisited" by Egan (Rob Slade) Re: Who Will Rent Me a GSM SIM Card (Henry Baker) Re: Who Will Rent Me a GSM SIM Card (nilsphone@aol.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at 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: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 01:32:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cell Phone Code Cracked Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:13:01 -0500 From: John Young Subject: Cell Phone Code Cracked For details of the crack see the cryptographers' press release at: http://www.counterpane.com/cmea.html The New York Times, March 20, 1997, pp. A1, D2. Code Set Up to Shield Privacy Of Cellular Calls Is Breached By John Markoff San Francisco, March 19 -- A team of well-known computer security experts will announce on Thursday that they have cracked a key part of the electronic code meant to protect the privacy of calls made with the new, digital generation of cellular telephones. The announcement, intended as a public warning, means that -- despite their greater potential for privacy protection -- the new cellular telephones, which transmit streams of digital information in code similar to computer data, may in practice be little more secure from eavesdropping than the analog cellular phones, which send voice as electronic patterns mimicking sound waves, that have been in use the last 15 years. It was such eavesdropping, for example, that caused trouble for Newt Gingrich when a Florida couple listened to his cellular phone conversation in December about the Congressional ethics inquiry. Now that digital wireless networks are coming into use around the nation, the breaking of the digital code by the team of two computer security consultants and a university researcher confirms fears about privacy that were raised five years ago when the communications industry agreed under Government pressure to adopt a watered-down privacy technology. Several telecommunications industry officials said the pressure came from the National Security Agency, which feared that stronger encryption technology might allow criminals or terrorists to conspire with impunity by cellular phones. But independent security experts now say that the code is easy enough to crack that anyone with sufficient technical skills could make and sell a monitoring device that would be as easy to use as a police scanner is. Such a device would enable a listener to scan hundreds of wireless channels to listen in randomly on any digital call within a radius ranging from 1,000 feet to a number of miles. Or, as with current cellular technology, if a specific person was the target of an eavesdropper, the device could be programmed to listen for any nearby digital call to that person's telephone number. Other possible transgressions would include using the device to automatically harvest all calling card or credit-card data transmitted with nearby digital wireless phones. And, because of a loophole in the Communications Act of 1934, making and selling such devices would not be illegal, though actually using one would technically be against the law. These monitoring devices are not yet available, but security experts said that a thriving gray market was certain to develop. And with technical details of the security system already circulating on the Internet instructions for cracking it will almost certainly make their way into the computer underground, where code breaking and eavesdropping are pursued for fun and profit. Technical details of the security system were supposed to be a closely guarded secret, known only to a tight circle of industry engineers. But the researchers performed their work based on technical documents that were leaked from within the communications industry and disseminated over the Internet late last year. "The industry design process is at fault," said David Wagner, a University of California at Berkeley researcher who was a member of the team that broke the code. "We can use this as a lesson, and save ourselves from more serious vulnerabilities in the future." Communications industry technical experts, made aware of the security flaw earlier this year, have been meeting to determine whether it is too late to improve the system's privacy protections. Already the digital technology is in use in metropolitan areas, including New York and Washington, where either the local cellular networks have been modified to support digital technology or where new so called wireless personal communications services are being offered. "We're already in the process of correcting this flaw," said Chris Carroll, an engineer at GTE Laboratories, who is chairman of the industry committee that oversees privacy standards for cellular phones. But Greg Rose, a software designer for the Qualcomm Inc. a leader in digital cellular systems said that fixing the flaw would be "a nightmare." Tightening the security system, Mr. Rose said, would involve modifying software already used in the computerized network switching equipment that routes wireless digital telephone calls, as well as the software within individual phones. Currently, about 45 million Americans have cellular phones, though most of them so far are based on an older analog standard that offers no communications privacy. But cellular companies are gradually converting their networks to the new digital standard, and the new personal communications services networks going into operation around the country also employ the digital encryption system. Nearly a million P.C.S. phones have been sold in the United States, according to cellular industry figures. Besides Mr. Wagner, the other researchers who cracked the code were Bruce Schneier and John Kelsey of Counterpane Systems, a Minneapolis consulting firm. Mr. Schneier is the author of a standard textbook on cryptography. The new digital wireless security system, which was designed by cellular telephone industry engineers was never intended to stop the most determined wiretappers. But because digital calls are transmitted in a format corresponding to the one's and zero's of computer language, they are more difficult to eavesdrop on than conventional analog calls, which are transmitted in electronic patterns. And digital calls protected with encryption technology -- basically a mathematical formula in the software that scrambles the signal -- would be all the harder for a third party to listen to surreptitiously. Because the encryption system that the industry adopted in 1992 was deliberately made less secure than many experts had recommended at the time, privacy rights advocates have been warning since that the code could be broken too easily. An announcement Thursday that the code has indeed been cracked would seem to bear out those concerns. "This should serve as a wake-up call," said James X. Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a public interest group. "This shows that Government's effort to control encryption technology is now hindering the voice communications industry as well as the data and electronic communication realm." Industry executives acknowledged that steps must be taken to address the problem. "We need strict laws that say it is illegal to manufacture or to modify a device which is designed to perpetrate the illegal interception of P.C.S. telephone calls," said Thomas E. Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, a Washington-based trade group. Mr. Wheeler said the weaker privacy technology had been adopted not just to appease the Government but because makers of wireless communications hardware and software wanted to embrace a technical standard that would meet export regulations. Those rules, based on national security considerations, sharply curtail the potency of American-made encryption technology. The three computer researchers who broke the code belong to an informal group of technologists who believe strongly that powerful data-scrambling technologies are essential to protect individual privacy in the information age. These technologists, who planned to release their findings in a news release on Thursday, argue that the best way to insure that the strongest security codes are developed is to conduct the work in a public forum. And so they are sharply critical of the current industry standard setting process which has made a trade secret of the underlying mathematical formulas used to create the security codes. "Our work shows clearly why you don't do this behind closed doors," Mr. Schneier said. "I'm angry at the cell phone industry because when they changed to the new technology, they had a chance to protect privacy and they failed." Mr. Carroll, head of the industry's privacy committee, said it planned to revise the process for reviewing proposed technical standards. ------------------------------ From: lpuadm.nospam@leonardo.net (Ray Sarna) Subject: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 17:04:30 GMT Organization: Leonardo Internet Hi. I'm searching for XDSL regional info. Can you please help by adding to the "public" info base by posting your answer to this very brief request? Where are the Beta tests? Where are the Active Installs? -- for XDSL. I'm aware of the Bell-Atlantic test (3 isp's including B-A, Clark.Net, CAIS.Net). It's 1.5 Mb down, 64 Kb up...at US $60-70/mo, everything included. The ADSL equipment is Westell. Their test is residential, primarily. Also in the Baltimore/Wn area is cicat.com, now offering 384 and 768 Kbs HDSL to their T-1 customers. Pricing wasn't shared with me. They're dedicated to ISDN, so might their customers want to switch en masse? UUNet is testing IDSL 128 Kb symmetric in the Bay Area, but I heard nothing about the users' results. Their pricing will be US $140+/mo, including ISP connect charges, plus I think the user needs to buy the equipment. Plz correct me if I'm wrong. The IDSL equipment is Ascend. Commercial focus. USWest will roll out both the IDSL and SHDSL. They're just about to install 2 beta tests, neither open to the general public. Their pricing for IDSL is undecided, but they're looking at the competitors to frame their entry pricing. The equipment will be Pair Gain. There's a chance they'll add a higher bandwidth XDSL later. Commercial focus. I've just learned of Ameritech's test in Wheaton, IL. It's a 6 mo test, providing symmetric 1.5 Mb on Alcatel equipment. IBM is the ISP. Here's what their website says: Q: How will ADSL services be priced? How will the prices compare with other high-speed access services like ISDN and cable modems. A: While rates have not been determined, any ADSL-based services Ameritech decides to offer will be priced to be extremely competitive with, if not less expensive than, cable modems. (This is damn smart, imho.) And, as to ultimate speeds, they say: A: While Ameritech is still evaluating the technology, we could offer ADSL from Ameritech's network to the customer at downstream speeds of between 768 kbps and 6 mbps, and upstream from the customer to Ameritech's network at speeds of between 160 kbps and 640 kbps. Global Internet Services (www.iglobal.net) offers from 64Kb to 2Mb with Netspeed equipment, near/in? Dallas, TX at stunning (imho...offputting and insulting) prices (If these don't invite serious ISP competition, I'll eat my hat): ADSL RATES Plus Tax THROUGH-PUT MONTHLY SETUP 64K Bits $199.95 $449.95 128K Bits 349.95 449.95 256K Bits 449.95 449.95 512K Bits 525.95 525.95 640K Bits 599.95 599.95 1M Bits 799.95 799.95 1.5M Bits 899.95 899.95 2M Bits 999.95 999.95 Netspeed Speed Runner Adapter with Router ** 1295.00 They give a 15% discount on the above schedule, if you ask, I think. There's a test at Northland Tel.Co. What are the spec's on that? There's a "test"? at Sask Tel. What are the spec's on that? I was told, "they were trying 6 mbit/sec downstream. Not sure on upstream." Their website is useless, imho. Nothing there but a sea of text without logic, and last updated news March, 1996! I guess they're not on the internet yet. ;-) CADvision is now delivering 2 Mb downstream, 1 Mb upstream. They have a time cap of 40 hours a week. Plans are to have the entire city of Calgary available for service by end of May. That's Paradyne equipment, with capacity to send 2.+ down and 1.0 up. Stampeding ahead of the crowd?? ;-) They're to be congratulated on their aggressive pricing and service provisioning. From www.cadvision.com: pricing for CADVision 2000k dialup in CA Dollars, obviously, is as follows: Deposit Fee for Modem: Waived if you are a CADVision dialup customer Setup: $99 (includes ethernet card) Pay one Annual Fee: $349 (equals $29 per month, includes modem) Pay by Month: $39 (one year contract, includes modem, requires VISA#) Current Customer Credit: Up to half of monthly or annual fee If you pay upfront for one year, the cost for 2000k dialup is $29/month. If you choose the monthly payment plan, the cost is $39/month. From the cadvision website: Date March 17...from www.cadvision.com FEEDBACK FROM USERS Many of our customers have asked for references for the CADVision 2000k. We have received many positive responses from the customers who now use 2000k. With their permission, we have published their comments in this newsletter: "The significance of high speed ADSL service in Calgary cannot be overestimated: CADVision's foresight in offering this service at such an astonishingly low price means true business applications via the Internet are finally available to any organization with a PC computer." "The advent of CADVision's inexpensive ADSL service has essentially changed the way we do business on the Internet. For the first time, our smaller clients are able to effectively move their corporate processes between themselves, their clients, and their suppliers throughout the Internet as though they owned their own private Wide Area Network. This represents nothing less than a revolution in business technology, and is a sure sign the Internet has finally matured into the essential business tool long predicted." Telus is the Alberta Province-wide telco, and I've been told, "they are very slow to offer new service, and they charge way too much." No other details; nothing on their website, other than they're the 3rd largest telco in CA. Big Deal! That was yesterday. Where's the info on the xdsl program? Up in CA, BCTel's entry into ADSL will roll out this summer. It's the non-commercial standard, 1.5 down and 64 K up. From their webpage, their description of their offering is "a high-speed (1.5 megabits per second) downstream channel, a medium-speed (64 kilobits per second) upstream channel..." If 64 Kbs is "medium-speed" up there, I'm looking forward to Cadvision helping them redefine that ridiculous observation. They'll want CA $75/mo plus monthly rental on their $1000 router. What else is happening in CA? Any others up there in refrigerator-land? Any news on EU? Asia? We're searching for first tier telco's and independent ISP's who will soon or do now offer XDSL. Please, *please* post one or two you know of. Postings to comp.dcom.xdsl can be seen by all of us. I'll welcome private messages if you've complaints you'd like not to tell the world. TIA, Ray "Gaudia" Sarna ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:56:58 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Cellular Digital Packet Data" by Sreetharan/Kumar BKCDPD.RVW 961119 "Cellular Digital Packet Data", Muthuthamby Sreetharan/Rajiv Kumar, 1996, 0-89006-709-0, U$89.00 %A Muthuthamby Sreetharan %A Rajiv Kumar %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1996 %G 0-89006-709-0 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$89.00 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: 617-769-6334 artech@world.std.com %P 315 %S Mobile Communications Series %T "Cellular Digital Packet Data" It's strange that the AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone System or Analog Mobile Phone System; what everyone knows as cell phones) network had been around for a dozen years before the idea for cellular digital packet data (CDPD) was patented. I guess everyone had been waiting for the other guys to come up with a full scale digital cellular network. CDPD is *not* digital cellular, but rather the use of the analog net for the transfer of digital data in a more efficient manner than simply hooking a modem to a cell phone. Chapter two of the book looks at, and compares, the whole range of digital cellular, PCS (Personal Communication Services), and satellite networks. I hope the good folks at Artech won't be offended, but while their titles are undoubtedly important, they tend to be, well, boring. Sreetharan and Kumar are to be commended for ensuring that, while they never sacrifice accuracy or necessary technical detail, the book is not only readable, but quite fascinating in places. It is heavy, and occasionally acronyms are used before they are defined. The bulk of the book contains detailed descriptions of the architecture, physical layer (airlink), link layer, subnetwork protocols, radio resource management, mobility factors, network management, and deployment. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKCDPD.RVW 961119 ====================== 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:59:22 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Information Superhighways Revisited" by Egan BKISREOM.RVW 961119 "Information Superhighways Revisited", Bruce L. Egan, 1996, 0-89006-903-4, U$69.00 %A Bruce L. Egan %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1996 %G 0-89006-903-4 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$69.00 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: 617-769-6334 artech@world.std.com %P 368 %T "Information Superhighways Revisited: The Economics of Multimedia" After the rash of recent "blue sky" offerings about the informmercial supercliche, it is nice to see a thoroughly informed and realistically analytical book about high bandwidth networks. This work is still tied closely to US regulations and their proposed (or should it be "promised") National Information Infrastructure, but it is possibly illustrative for other countries. This volume does look practically at current and developing technologies. Economics and especially the legislative and public policy factors are a primary emphasis. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKISREOM.RVW 961119 ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Who Will Rent Me a GSM SIM Card Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:26:46 GMT In article , John R. Covert wrote: > What reliable commercial firms are there out there who will rent me, > at reasonable prices, a GSM SIM card for my Motorola 7200 for > occasional travel from the U.S. to GSM equipped countries? There's a company that has been set up specifically for this purpose. I don't recall the name, but a web search on GSM should turn up the GSM MOU organization, and if you contact them, they should be able to tell you. ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Who Will Rent Me a GSM SIM Card Date: 20 Mar 1997 19:38:59 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , John R. Covert writes: > What reliable commercial firms are there out there who will rent me, > at reasonable prices, a GSM SIM card for my Motorola 7200 for > occasional travel from the U.S. to GSM equipped countries? AT&T will do it (through Vodaphone UK, but they do not say that), but you might not consider USD 2.50 per minute reasonable. Other than that, try the local telco in the country visited. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #72 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 23 23:43:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA14778; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 23:43:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 23:43:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703240443.XAA14778@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #73 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Mar 97 23:43:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 73 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ISP Offering Unlimited Access via 800/888 - How?? (Robert Holloman, Jr.) Book Review: "Understanding Networking Technology" by Norris (Rob Slade) Changes to *69 (Monty Solomon) Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line (Justin Hamilton) Seeking Telecom Manufacturers (Dave Carpenter) Modem to Modem Flow Control (Paul C. Diem) Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion (Eric Truman) Re: Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA) (Reggie Ratcliff) Russian Cellphone User Needs Help (Borodin Vladimir) Re: New Internet Domain Names (Mark S. Brader) PTT Telecom Netherlands to Build National Internet (Piet van Oostrum) Fast Busy Signal (Scott Pakiser) Re: Call Waiting Caller ID Usability Surprises (Steve Crow) Looking for an 800 carrier for Canada to US (Michael Keen) Last Laugh! NC's New NPA's and Mayberry (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Last Laugh! NC's New NPA's and Mayberry (Carl Moore) Re: Last Laugh! NC's New NPA's and Mayberry (Bob Goudreau) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at 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: Robert Holloman, Jr. Subject: ISP Offering Unlimited Access via 800/888 - How?? Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:42:50 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: holloman@mindspring.com I just noticed on US Robotic's ISP list (http://x2.usr.com/connectnow/index.html) there's an ISP called The Grid (http://www.thegrid.net) offering unlimited, non-surcharged, toll-free 800 access for a flat-rate of $24.95 per month. I've seen another ISP planning to do the same. This sounds too good to be true. Anyone had any experience with them? How the heck can they possible afford to offer unlimited 800 service? Every ISP I've seen (CompuServe, Concentric, MindSpring, etc., etc.) charges $5 to $10 extra per hour for such. If this is true, that's great for folks in rural areas with limited or no local ISP's. It'll also mean x2 is now available to the entire country, at least to those whose local loops support it. I can get x2 on long distance and 800/888 calls, but not to my local POP, probably due to something in the local-call routing. My modem reports "unspecified negotiation failure." People on nonintegrated SLiC's or analog switches usually get "multiple codecs" for the x2 status. Right now I'm too satisfied will my ISP in general to consider leaving, but that could change if The Grid or such turns out to be just as good. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 14:28:23 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Understanding Networking Technology" by Norris BKUNNTTC.RVW 961119 "Understanding Networking Technology", Mark Norris, 1996, 0-89006-879-8, U$49.00 %A Mark Norris m.norris@axion.bt.co.uk %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1996 %G 0-89006-879-8 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$49.00 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: 617-769-6334 artech@world.std.com %P 241 %T "Understanding Networking Technology: Concepts, Terms, and Trends" I must admit I was a bit surprised to open a book with that title and find that it was a glossary. On second thought, however, why not? (According to psycholinguistics, language *is* understanding.) Norris has put more than a bare definition into many of the entries, and the result is similar to a smaller and less complete version of Shnier's "Dictionary of PC Hardware and Data Communications Terms" (cf. BKPCHDCT.RVW). There is a concluding essay on trends in information technology. There are errors. I suspect Norris mixed up ABI (Application Binary Interface) and API (Application Programming Interface). Kermit is *not* public domain, and *not* slow (unless you can't be bothered to find the proper parameters) although it is robust. Some choices are odd: I have no idea what dithering has to do with networking, and would rather have seen the space devoted to more details of Manchester encoding. The definition of virus is no good, although the explanation of a worm is. There are a number of acronym expansions that I was not aware of (ping, daemon), but I rather think many of them are "after the fact" contructions, like veronica. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKUNNTTC.RVW 961119 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: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 02:40:18 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Changes to *69 Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM In the Greater Boston area, *69 will now tell you the number of the last phone that called you (when available), along with the date and time, and provide you with the option to complete the call to that phone number if it is local (or regional). Long distance numbers will be provided but they will have to be dialed manually. This is a new feature. Use of *69 costs $0.50 per use up to a max of $4.50 unless you subscribe to the service on a monthly basis for $2.25. Besides the *69 fee, there is no additional charge over the usual cost of the call when using the automatic connect. The fee structure hasn't changed. # Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01703-2486 # monty@roscom.com ------------------------------ From: JHamilton@Mindspring.Com (Justin Hamilton) Subject: Re: Nostalgia For "Beep" Line Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:49:32 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: JHamilton@Mindspring.Com On a slightly different note (or should that be tone? :) I remember a few years back a couple of "scams" were discovered on the British Telephone system. In one case you could dial "The Speak Clock" and get the current time. The national number for this free service was (and may still be) 8081. However, in the town where I lived, just dialing 80 was enough to connect you. Someone somewhere discovered that if you used one of the newer push button (Yes, rotary pay phones have only been replaced in the last 10 years or so) phones and pressed 9 just as you heard the line connect then the display would show a credit of 56 UKP (About $80 by today's standards). At this point you could press the "Follow on call" button and use this credit to make your calls. Another trick I heard of while I was at college (And this may or may not have been doable here in the U.S.) was to go to one of these new push button phones, use a regular Touch-Tone dialer to dial the number you wanted to call, and as soon as it starts ringing type in 999 on the keypad. 999 is the emergency services number, and is a free call (makes sense). What this was doing was telling the phone to switch off the billing and let the call go on. Without pressing 999 the phone would normally switch off after about 60 seconds. Strange that so much "stuff" can be learned at college :) Justin Hamilton JHamilton@Mindspring.Com http://www.mindspring.com/~tmenet - Checkout Pictures of our new born baby daughter http://www.dishnetwork.com/ - "DeathStar" THE 500 Channel Satellite System to Kill Cable ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 07:53:55 -0800 From: Dave Carpenter Subject: Seeking Telecom Manufacturers I've visited your Telecom Digest web page. A very helpful resource. I'm looking for links to these manufacturers: - Erickson (spelling?) - Alcatel I can't seem to find references to these telecom mfgrs. I find something called Alcatel Networks, but nothing about their switch products. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Dave Carpenter "It's never done THAT before..." Have Voice Will Travel Providing voices over the 'net for all types of media. ------------------------------ From: Paul C. Diem Subject: Modem to Modem Flow Control Date: 23 Mar 1997 04:39:28 GMT Organization: Fox Valley Internet Can someone explain how modems implement flow control between each other? For example, let's say I have modem A with a serial port speed of 115200 which dials into modem B with a serial port speed of 19200 and connects with a carrier of 28800. The system connected to modem A starts blasting data to modem A at 115200, modem A starts sending data to modem B at 28800, modem B starts sending data to the system connected to modem B at 19200. Soon system B stops data flow (either via hardware or XON/XOFF). How does modem B tell modem A to stop sending data and later tell it to start sending again? Paul C. Diem pcdiem@FoxValley.net ------------------------------ From: Eric Subject: Re: Marketers With 800 Numbers Fear 888 Prefix Invasion Date: 23 Mar 1997 19:22:02 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet I can understand how 800/FLOWERS, for example, might want to be able to deny 888/FLOWERS on the market. But reality dictates that this is impossible for every company to do or there would be no more toll free numbers very soon. Maybe a compromise would be that 800 number owners (not 888, 877, etc...) have the right of first refusal on a similar number in a new toll free NPA. If they decide not to take it then it would be placed back in the pool for general assignment. If they do pick it they don't get the number for free they have to pay for it just like any other toll free number. Many companies have more than one toll free number. For example 800/NXX-XXXX could be the voice number and 888/NXX-XXXX could be the toll free fax line. This couldn't be done for 888 owners as there probably already are 800 numbers that correspond so brand name confusion is implied the moment you accept an 888 number. A hospital in Memphis got swamped with calls asking for Motorola's new cellular phone. When the callers were told they had reached the wrong number they often said, "Couldn't you just sell me the phone?" Turned out Motorola had 888/STAR-TAC and the hospital had the corresponding 800 number. Obviously Motorola has no claim on that 800 number. So they shouldn't be able to claim 877/STAR-TAC, 866, etc ... Just a thought, Eric trumanjs@primenet.com ------------------------------ From: Reggie.Ratcliff@Sciatl.COM Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 10:04:00 EST Subject: Re: Answer Supervision (was Re: 1-800-COMP-USA and Call Wait) I'm curious as how they can get away with playing a message and not giving answer supervision. Maybe the rules have changed, or maybe they don't apply to carriers. Several years back after the FCC's DID answer supervision ruling, we had to start shipping separate versions of our small CO/PBX nationally and internationally. Bill von Alven at the FCC insisted that any part 68 products sold in the US could not give any information other than call progress tones without returning answer supervision, and must not allow the customer to modify them so that they could. (Therefore we couldn't have a secret parameter that our international customers could set, since some of them required no answer supervision on some calls.) ------------------------------ From: Borodin Vladimir Subject: Russian Cellphone User Needs Help Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 07:45:46 +0300 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have received a half-dozen messages in the past few days from this person and a couple other cellphone users in Russia asking for programming assistance with Motorola cell phones. Most of the messages were similar to the one which follows. I explained to him about shorting the battery on some Motorola phones and I explained that the newest 'EE-3' series from Motorola do it all right from the keypad using FCN 00 ** TESTMODE STO; that is, Function followed by two zeros, two asterisks, the word 'testmode' spelled out on the keypad (83786633) and the Store key. No battery shorting is required. Still, he seems to have more questions, as do others in Russia about their cellphones. Perhaps interested readers will contact Vladimir directly and offer assistance. Now some of the questions from Russia are about Nokia phones. PAT] ------------------- i connect the batarey midlle wire to CEL midlle wire(in standard position it is not contacts) it is codes : 001 054, then 3001111, 992 102.......................... if i push any key it is work like standart commands EXP:if i push #01 or #1 it is C1 or C01. But nothing hepened can you help me. &2 question . mY FREND PRESENT ME BIg cELLULAR "NOKIA TALKMAN" i dont know what can i do with it. on the front side it is an com port like Joistic( .:::::::.) Help please! ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.com (Mark S. Brader) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 97 05:03:26 EST Subject: Re: New Internet Domain Names I've just been catching up on some back issues of comp.dcom.telecom that our defective newsfeed dropped. I was surprised to see that this exchange in volume 17 issue 37 between Greg Monti and Michael Deignan: >> 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? attracted no further comment whatever. It certainly is a lucrative business that can attract 85,000 payments of $100 and make the total come out to $85,000,000! Mark Brader SoftQuad Inc. msb@sq.com Toronto ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: PTT Telecom Netherlands to Build National Internet Date: 23 Mar 1997 16:10:44 +0100 Organization: Universiteit Utrecht, Dept. of Computer Science PTT Telecom Netherlands announced recently that they are going to build a national Internet, accessible by local phone calls for every telephone subscriber. The network will be based on ATM. It will offer basic Internet services, like email for Dfl 5 ($2.50) per month (free for the first 6 months). It will also allow an easy gateway to ISP's for those who want more than the basic package. I suppose you don't have to call a separate phone number for the ISP, because there will be local access points for the whole net. Later they will also offer ADSL service. See: http://www.kpn.com/news/nunu.cgi?_act=show&_db=externuk&_pfmt=uk_standalone&e_id=19970318_1 Piet van Oostrum URL: http://www.cs.ruu.nl/~piet [PGP] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 09:35:54 -0800 From: Scott Pakiser Reply-To: pakiser@earthlink.net Subject: Fast Busy Signal We had a problem connecting to one long distance number (a "fast busy signal" the carrier called it). We contacted the carrier and they rerouted it within the hour. My question is: Is this a sign that the carrier's network is either too small or unreliable? What exactly is a fast busy signal? It seemed strange that only one number was affected. It is the first time to have a problem with the carrier, but we don't want it to happen again. Scott Pakiser ------------------------------ From: Steve Crow Subject: Re: Call Waiting Caller ID Usability Surprises Date: 23 Mar 1997 02:02:57 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Here's a technical feasable solution. If your local telephone carrier has installed user-accessible NID's (Network Interface Devices) with the test jacks inside, your inside wiring will run out of one of those test jacks. If you can run a section of wire (with the RJ-11/14 connectors) from the test jack inside your house to the CID unit, and another such piece back out to the NID where it will be coupled with the existing wiring, this will allow the unit to handle all those phones. Example (fixed-width font required:) Current config: =================|| ^Telco || Wiring ---------- | || | Test jack>> | ++ | < | | |CID| To phone ctl'd by CID +----------------> | | To other phones New config: in-----out ------|CID|---- =================|| |-------------| ^Telco || || || Wiring -----||--- || | || || | || Test jack>> | ++--| | < Subject: Looking For an 800 Carrier For Canada to US Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 16:59:14 -0500 Organization: Repeat-O-Type Mfg. Corp. Reply-To: mkeen@repeatotype.com Hi, I'm looking for an LD carrier interested in carrying my 800 traffic from Canada to New Jersey. I have no interest in changing carriers for my domestic (US) 800 or outbound traffic. I also am not willing to assign RESP ORG status away from the current domestic carrier or use a separate 800 number for Canadian origin calls. I am currently paying 53 cents/minute for these calls which is unreasonable, but I've had a hard time finding a cheaper carrier willing to meet my needs. I bill between $75 and $200 monthly on these calls (at 53 cents). If someone is interested in the business, please email me. Oh, one other thing ... I cannot use MCI or Westinghouse or a reseller of MCI or Westinghouse, because these carriers handle the domestic traffic and it would be impossible to split the billing between my current domestic reseller and any potential new carrier. Sincerely, Michael Keen mkeen@repeatotype.com ======================================================= Repeat-O-Type Mfg. Corp. Phone: (201) 696-3330 665 State Highway 23 Fax: (201) 694-7287 Wayne, NJ 07470-6892 http://www.repeatotype.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 10:33:12 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Last Laugh! NC's New NPA's and Mayberry With the recent news in TELECOM Digest regarding the proposed new area codes for North Carolina, does anyone know what area code Mayberry is in? And whatever area code they are in right now, will they be part of the area splitting off to a new area code? BTW, did Mayberry ever get dial telephones? Throughout the entire eight year run of "The Andy Griffith Show" (CBS-TV, 1960-68) and the three year run of its sequel "Mayberry RFD" (CBS-TV, 1968-71), the town of Mayberry was served strictly by a (common-battery) manual exchange. I have the Andy Griffith 'Mayberry reunion' special which aired in 1985 on videotape, but haven't viewed it lately to see if there were dial telephones in Mayberry by 1985. The telephone operator in the Mayberry manual exchange always seemed to have been a never-seen-nor-heard lady named "Sarah". And she seemed to work that switchboard round-the-clock, 24-hours a day, seven-days a week. "Sarah" sure seemed to get around, as the same name was used for the telephone operator for the towns of Hooterville and Pixley (in a never mentioned state), in "Petticoat Junction" (CBS-TV, 1963-70) and its spin-off "Green Acres" (CBS-TV, 1965-71). BTW, "The Beverly Hillbillies" (CBS-TV, 1962-71) had some 'interlocking' episodes with "Petticoat Junction" and "Green Acres". I remember a "Beverly Hillbillies" episode where Granny wanted Pacific (Bell) Telephone & Telegraph to install a party line on a _magneto_ manual exchange for the her and the Clampetts, but was told that all telephones in Beverly Hills were dial, and _absolutely_nobody_ had a party line there neither! Granny wanted to crank up her phone and then lift the receiver to say "Hello, Central!", and she also wanted to 'snoop' on Mrs. Drysdale and the other neighbors! And who can forget the continuing problems that Oliver and Lisa Douglas had with the Hooterville Telephone Company on "Green Acres" (the only working phone being at the top of a pole outside their bedroom window), and Oliver's complaints to the state regulatory agency, which culminated in his actually becoming the _owner_and_operator_ of this broken down magneto rural independent telco! In one episode, Oliver was upset when his tractor broke down, and he couldn't get a call through to the tractor's manufacturing company in Fargo ND, because the Hooterville operator didn't have a 'Fargo-hole' on her switchboard! 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: Sun, 23 Mar 97 11:44:52 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Last Laugh! NC's New NPA's and Mayberry I looked up a 1994 zipcode directory and believe it or not, I find Mayberry Rfd, station of Mount Airy. Mount Airy is zipcode 27030, with its PO in Surry Co. So try area code 910 for it right now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:01:00 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! NC's New NPA's and Mayberry > I looked up a 1994 zipcode directory and believe it or not, I find > Mayberry Rfd, station of Mount Airy. > Mount Airy is zipcode 27030, with its PO in Surry Co. > So try area code 910 for it right now. Mount Airy is in fact that town upon which Andy Griffith admits he based the fictional Mayberry. Frances Bavier, the actress who played "Aunt Bea" retired to Mount Airy in the 1970s and died there a few years ago. The town has a minor tourist industry based on its Mayberry identity, so I'm not at all surprised if this has resulted in a postal route using that name. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #73 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 24 00:43:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA19047; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 00:43:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 00:43:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703240543.AAA19047@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #74 TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Mar 97 00:43:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 74 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dealing With Spam (North Coast Communications) Cyberpromo Got Hacked (Darren Kruger) Most Effective Response to Spam (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? (David Clayton) Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? (Andrew C. Green) Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? (Eric Dittman) Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? (Keith Jacobs) Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto (David Sternlight) Cellular List -> Now Wire (Listserv) 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, 22 Mar 97 14:19:00 EST From: North Coast Communications <0005082894@mcimail.com> Subject: Dealing With Spam PAT recently asked whether the various "anti-spam" tactics were working. I was fortunately free of this plague (for the most part) the last few years, in spite of posting to USE(LESS)NET. However, since Christmas there has been a virtual flood of junk mail. I wrote the following two letters, which I send to the offender with copies to the ISP involved. I also attach a copy of the original message. This seems to be working for me at least. I have not had to go beyond the second letter. Michael Fumich ***Text of first letter*** PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY & AVOID LITIGATION OR PROSECUTION! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please ->IMMEDIATELY<- remove the following addresses from your records, and send no further unsolicited commercial E-Mail: [List of company addresses deleted] We have started a file on you concerning this matter. Further Internet "SPAM" sent by you to our personel or company will result in, and will not be limited to, the following: 1.) Complaints being filed with your Internet Service Provider. 2.) Complaints being filed with the Federal Trade Commission. 3.) Complaints being filed with your states Attorney General, Consumer Fraud Division, or any other Law Enforcement agency with an interest or jurisdiction. 4.) A Civil suit (including Small Claims) filed agaist you to recoup our expense in this matter, including punitive damages where permitted by law. The type of activity you are engaging in (unsolicited E-Mail), has DIRECT costs to the RECEIVER of the message including download time, storage time on the host, phone expense, administrative time sorting etc. This is not like unsolicited postal mail, which can be simply opened and thrown away. It is not necessary for you to reply to this letter. I am sure an astute businessperson such as yourself can see the logic of the above. Michael Fumich, President North Coast Communications ***End of text of first letter*** ***Text of second letter*** Hello! I recently wrote you regarding Internet "SPAM" being sent from your site, and provided you with a list of addresses for deletion from your mailing list(s). Since that time additional "SPAM" has arrived from you. As I explained in that letter, unsolicited, commercial E-Mail is NOT WELCOME at the following address's and will be dealt with severely. [List of company addresses deleted] There ARE options available to the victims of your abuse. Company policy here is to report these matters to the senders ISP, State Attorney General Consumer Fraud Division, The Federal Trade Commission, as well as to file Civil Suit. I have also heard of (but do not endorse) the following options sometimes used when the Internet community has become upset with individual spammers. OTHER OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO DEAL WITH INTERNET "SPAMMERS" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1.) Operating from a Post Office Box? Postal regulations dictate that the Post Office release the -> ACTUAL STREET ADDRESS <- of any business using a Post Office Box for the purpose of "soliciting business with the public". This applies to private "mail drop" services as well. (ie: Mailbox Etc.) 2.) Toll-Free Number Huh? Sometimes these get posted to "hacker" newsgroups. The 14 year olds on alt.2600 & alt.phrack really do a number on these! (And they DO know about ANI, so don't expect to get the home telephone numbers of many of your tormentors!). Ask Jeff "Spam King" Slaton of Albuquerque NM about his experience with this. Reports were his LDI "800" number bill reached over $100,000, after hackers made a "project" out of him! Not that the spammers REGULAR telephone number is safe from flames or abuse. Ask a hacker sometime about the meaning of the term "social engineering". You would be amazed at what some of these young genius can accomplish! I ask you once again, NICELY, please remove our address(s) from your records. We are NOT interested in your products or "services". I really prefer the "you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" approach. However I am fully prepared for war if that is your wish! Michael Fumich, President, North Coast Communications ***End of text of second letter*** Michael Fumich :+) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Add to the list of somewhat unethical (but none the less, fun) tactics against spammers the information which follows in the next message. It appears cyberpromo got hacked pretty bad. Come to think of it, I wonder why no one has pulled that dirty trick on cyberpromo which involves sending them all those packets of inquiry causing their system to get overloaded trying to respond and thus be unable to send out email, etc. You know, the thing that happened to a couple of legit ISPs. I'll bet an attack like that was directed at Spamford would go on for weeks and months at a time. I wonder why no one has done it yet? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:39:24 PST From: Darren Kruger Subject: Cyberpromo Got Hacked I found this on alt.2600 and thought you might be interested. I have removed some of the contents for brevity. Also, I've heard that Cyperpromo's web page also got hacked, but I can not confirm this. ------- start of forwarded message ------- From: bjlamber@unity.ncsu.edu (Bradford Justin Lambert) Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.news,news.misc Subject: Fight Spam: Cyberpromos PW File Date: 19 Mar 1997 07:16:20 GMT Organization: North Carolina State University Lines: 1580 Message-ID: <5go3s4$7ot@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cc04du.unity.ncsu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] This is a hacked account. Don't bother sending email. The owner of this account has nothing to do with any of this, other than the use of his account. Those of you who have had to put up with Sanford Wallace, Nancynet/Sallynet, Softcell and Jeff Slayton should appreciate this. For how long have we been forced to tolerate their flood of unsolicited email? How often has "take me off the list" been ignored? Or only was good for that customers list? It has indeed been annoying. Nobody else was fighting back, much. So I decided to kick them, and their clients in the balls. The following is a copy of Cyberpromos password file. After that is an extended dossier of who REALLY owns nancynet/sallynet (not gladys crocker, thats for sure). I hope they are useful. Please note that in the cyberpromo password file, there are a whooole bunch of phone numbers in their gecos field. Feel free to call up the scumbags at their offices and homes and give them an extended peice of your mind. Cyberpromos root password is 8130pe He's sure to change it, so if you ever wanted a reason to go get crack from ftp.cert.org:/pub/tools, now is a good time. This won't end. Ever. Myself and others will continue to expose spam operations weaknesses, vulnerabilities and expose them to the public until they realize that this is more annoying than junk faxes, which is what that fat festering pile of shit Sanford Wallace used to do before this. To those who think that spam is a good idea: think again. That is, unless you enjoy getting abusive calls from people at 3 am. So without further ranting, I present to you: Scumbags Exposed. [long passwd file removed for brevity] aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand... Nancynet.com Dossier/Client list Nancynet is a Spam site owned by a man named Zack Everett. Zack is apparently the head honcho, then Steve A. Ralph Huntington is another employee. Paula is his girlfriend and/or sales lackey. Zack and Paula own of 2 or more cats. What's more, Zack isn't really that good with voicemail passwords. Here's a fun way to keep an eye on Mr. Everett for at least however long this lasts. 1: Call 415-440-2987. 2: When the message begins playing, hit 0. 3: At the password prompt, hit 1234. 4: Hit 1 for read new messages, 2 to save a message, 3 to delete. Stay on the line for more options. Yes. 1234. That's his voicemail password. As Rick Moranis pointed out in "Spaceballs", Morons use that combination on their luggage. How appropriate. ---------------------------- The following is misc. information on his clients. [more information deleted. Included some usernames, whois information, and telephone numbers] ------- end of forwarded message ------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My, my, my ... I wish I had thought of it first . I do hope none of my readers get any ugly thoughts after reading messages like this one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Most Effective Method of Dealing Wtih Spam Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 10:05:14 EST You wrote: > Our research indicates that you may be interested in this information. > If this assumption is incorrect, please send a reply with "remove" > in the subject line. You will get no further mailings from us. > We apologize for inconveniencing you. The unsolicited addition of this address to electronic mailing lists is categorically unacceptable. > ******************************************************************** > > Our mission is to provide the highest level of quality and finest > service imaginable to meet the needs and exceed the expectations of > our customers. > Travel Cards $0.175/min. > Debit Cards $0.16/min. > US Interstate rates $0.099/min., Switched Access > $0.0575/min., Dedicated Access > FREE Pagers > Pre-Paid Cellular > Bulletproof Voice Mail > Lowest Intl. rates in the industry > Incredible International CallBack rates too! > E-mail to FAX - FREE trial offer > Affinity programs for Non-profit organizations > > Income opportunies with FREE web pages to help you market the service! > > For complete details check out our web site at: > > http://www.nnsinc.com > > Warmest regards, > > Roger L. Jones, president > NNS, Inc. > 510-933-7700 > 510-933-7727 - FAX > e-mail: rlj@nnsinc.com > http://www.nnsinc.com United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, says that "it shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." A telephone facsimile machine is defined in Section 227(a)(2)(B) as "equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper." By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. Please stop this. You have been put on notice. I have recorded your site name; further UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk mail from your site will force me to follow up under federal law. Please note further that if you got this address from postings in comp.dcom.telecom, Pat Townson, the moderator of that newsgroup, will very likely undertake his own action against you. Postmasters: your systems were used to send this message. If this is contrary to your AUP's, please act accordingly. If it is not, you may wish to take advice on whether not adding such a provision leaves you open to legal exposure. Please note that you may have gotten this message even if it's obvious to me that your machine was used solely as a transit system for the email in question; I mean to cause you to decide that a bit more care in the choice of whose mail to forward would be A Good Thing. Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 "...short of hiring the Unabomber, how can I +1 813 790 7592 jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us get back at them?" --Andy Cramer NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 05:41:48 GMT Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Reply-To: dcstar@@acslink.aone.net.au Steven V. Christensen contributed the following: > In article in comp.dcom.telecom, > Steven H. Lichter wrote: > [thread deleted] >> *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** >> >> NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, >> Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent >> to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the >> amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. > This is off-topic, but have you (or anyone) been able to apply the > above-mentioned penalty to spammers? As well, what is the best way to trip these mugs up and stop them "trawling" your e-mail address, a modified "reply to" address, or other methods? Regards, David **Remove the second "@" from the 'Reply To' (spam stopper!)** David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 15:33:08 -0600 From: Andrew C. Green Organization: Datalogics, Inc. Subject: Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? Our Moderator notes: > [I]t got to be so bad with spammers writing to so many of > the readers here that many folks complained to me and I > started leaving in the obstacles designed to make automated > spamming a bit more difficult. [...] > So how has it been going with you people who put those things > in your messages? Has the spam and junk mail subsided at all? > Are those idiots with their business opportunities and other > worthless mail getting the hint at all? Let's find out, shall we? I've planted a bogus return address in the header of this message, to be used precisely once, right now. I expect that when this TELECOM Digest article is fed to Usenet, its header will be immediately skimmed and compiled for spam lists by a thousand different cretins under a hundred different rocks. (I may be off by a factor of ten or more.) It usually does not take very long for the feedback to begin. Incoming email sent to this "blackhole" address will bounce to our long-suffering postmaster/SysAdmin, who has graciously agreed to keep an eye peeled for anything addressed there. I'll post a summary in a week or two, whenever it looks like the tide has subsided, and let you know what sort of detritus has washed up. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 (my genuine ID is "acg" at the same domain name above) Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1800 Chicago, IL 60606-7301 FAX: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: dittman@hibernia.dseg.ti.com (Eric Dittman) Subject: Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? Date: 23 Mar 1997 18:30:49 GMT Steven V. Christensen (chrissv@pobox.com) wrote: > In article in comp.dcom.telecom, > Steven H. Lichter wrote: >> *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** >> NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, >> Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent >> to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the >> amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. > This is off-topic, but have you (or anyone) been able to apply the > above-mentioned penalty to spammers? I'd like to know if anyone has been able to apply the above-mentioned penalty to junk faxers? There are a couple of junk fax companies here (we were getting quite a few junk faxes at work) and now they've found my two fax lines at home (from the caller-ID log and the empty test faxes). One of the companies has sent a junk fax to one of the lines (the other was busy). There is no name on the fax and the only phone number is the fax number for requesting a quote on a car lease. I sent a reply fax asking them to call me, but I didn't but any of the other information they ask for (like car model). They haven't called me back and I haven't been able to find out who they are yet. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@hibernia.dseg.ti.com (972) 462-4292 Disclaimer: Not even my opinions. I found them by the side of the road. Any unsolicited junk email will be treated as a request for random binaries of not less than 20MB in size. ------------------------------ From: Keith Jacobs Subject: Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:44:25 -0500 Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: Keith Jacobs On 18 Mar 1997, Steven V. Christensen wrote: [legal notice to spammers deleted] > This is off-topic, but have you (or anyone) been able to apply the > above-mentioned penalty to spammers? And on 18 Mar 1997, Our Fearless Editor (TM) wrote: > So how has it been going with you people who put those things in your > messages? Has the spam and junk mail subsided at all? Are those idiots > with their business opportunities and other worthless mail getting the > hint at all? If the junk has continued, have you successfully been > able to enforce your various 'contracts'? Although I don't use legal notices or contracts, I do try to take a few minutes to hunt down the sender of any unsolicited e-mail which arrives in my mailbox. If you already have a working method to fight spammers, you can probably just skip over this message. But if you're wondering how to effectively deal with these "bulk e-mailers," read on. With most of the spam I get, the sender's e-mail address is falsified; either a few letters have been changed (i.e. asdf@spam.com is their real address, but they have sent as adsf@spam.com) or the whole address is bogus. So replying to the spam e-mail usually results in one's reply being bounced back. If the reply address is valid, the address is usually either an auto-reply 'bot (which means even more unsolicited mail in your box if you reply) or a mailbox which is ignored and cleaned out every few days. This is one reason why more and more junk e-mail prevention web sites, like www.junkbusters.com, are suggesting not to reply to spammers via e-mail--it just doesn't help. (Note: I have no affiliation with JunkBusters, besides a common goal to stop junk e-mail.) So, what can you do? Well, I've had success with this method. First I use my e-mail program to view the full headers of the unsolicited e-mail. From that information I find the domain name from where the e-mail originated and I use the UNIX command 'whois' to look up information about that domain. InterNic keeps detailed contact information about the people who run each domain on the Internet, and it is made public through the 'whois' command. If the headers don't reveal the information you need to get in touch with the spammer, try briefly scanning through the mail for a real reply address or a web page which might have contact information. If you don't want to satisfy the spammer by reading his junk mail, just do a search for "@" or "http" and see what turns up. Usually this is as far as I have to go. The last unsolicited e-mail I received, I found contact information about the creator's domain through the 'whois' command and I called him. It turned out he worked from home and his daughter answered the phone. I asked to speak to the spammer and when I requested to be removed from his mailing list, he was fairly surprised. He immediately wanted to know how I was able to get his phone number. I was angry!, of course, at having been spammed. But instead of chewing him out I calmly explained that bulk e-mailing was illegal, that more importantly it was wrong, and that any half-determined one of his thousands of recipients could "retaliate" against him. I pointed out that within ten minutes of receiving his unsolicited e-mail I was talking to his daughter on his home phone line. He was, as you can imagine, shocked. He told me that CyberPromotions had sold him the mailing list and Internet access to bulk e-mail potential customers, and that they had never informed him of the potential risks. He was pretty shaken up at the time, but a few days later he sent me an e-mail thanking me for the information and the warning. JunkBusters, the junk-email prevention web site I mentioned above, also suggests getting the spammer's snail mail address (again from the 'whois' command) and sending them certified mail with either a legal notice (like the one we saw in Steven Lichter's .signature) or a letter informing the sender of why spamming is illegal, ineffective, and just plain wrong. Although I've never tried this method before, I can imagine how effective it would be. As JunkBusters suggests, if even 1% of a spammer's mailing list were to send him certified mail, he could be signing for 1,000 or more pieces of mail per day. Now -that- would prevent junk e-mailing. Keith Jacobs Ernst & Young LLP Management Consulting Practice http://www.ey.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The trouble with sending it to him as certified or registered mail is that it costs you, the sender, a nice bit of change to mail it out. Only the post office would get rich on that sort of retaliation. Far better to have a short chat with the spammer as you did, and let him know that Spamford Wallace is no friend of the net; if anything he is public enemy number two, preceeded only by that old fool Jeff Slaton. Or number three perhaps, if you include whats-his-name, the magazine sales guy operating on Staten Island, NY who does female impersonations. Remember him? It was always a message from a female university student in some foreign country who just had to write and let you know about the wonderful bargains you could get on magazine subs- criptions if you would respond to a fax number in New York. And in case you got any smart ideas about jamming up his fax machine, he supposedly had it set to only accept one sheet of paper and then disconnect. I've not seen much from him lately; perhaps he decided to go out and get a legitmate job somewhere -- but then I should talk, eh? I had to go get one myself back in December and call it quits on 'doing the Digest' full time. So much for Making Money Fast on the Internet. So much for this topic. Let's change the subject in the space remaining in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Sternlight Subject: Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:37:35 -0800 Organization: DSI/USCRPAC Reply-To: david@sternlight.com In connection with a news item today about the cracking of digital cellular phone keypad encoding, ClariNews reports that a senior Commerce Department official said Wednesday the Clinton administration plans to introduce a bill soon that would clearly affirm that encryption users in the US can use any type or strength of encryption technology. (Thanks to ClariNews for the above item -- the article is copyright and the info above represents a fair use abstract). Comment: It is reported that the reason digital cellular encryption was breakable was that the industry deliberately weakened the key length at NSA request. If so, this is a scandal, and the assertion (we'll see what happens) that the administration will introduce such a bill seems to me to be a clear attempt at damage control. Despite the industry's attempt at damage control ("we're already working on a fix" says the trade association), a Qualcomm spokesman says that the fix will be extraordinarily difficult and expensive, and require modifying both everyone's digital cellular phone and the cell site or head end equipment. Qualcomm is the inventor of CDMA and ought to know what they are talking about. I must say that if the assertion is correct about the reasons for the weak keys, I can no longer support any government policy that would make law enforcement's job easier at the expense of the entire population. This is not a police state, and it is high time the FBI, NSA, and CIA faced up to the fact that when the rights of the rest of us are concerned, they must do their job the old fashioned way, and not by seeking shortcuts at the expense of the public's security. David ------------------------------ From: listserv@phx-az.com (Listserv) Subject: Cellular List -> Now Wire Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 03:48:00 GMT Organization: ArizonaONE Data Services ******IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!******* The CELLULAR-LIST has changed its name to WIRELESS! This list is designed more to meet the needs of the wireless telephone user and the industries involved. Therefore to better indicate our mission, the listname was changed to Wireless! If you would like to subscribe to Wireless!, please send an e-mail to: LISTSERV@PHX-AZ.COM SUBSCRIBE Wireless Firstname Lastname Please join our current discussion about AMPS vs. Digital PCS and Digital AMPS Networks ... Our Web Site is under construction, but is located at: http://www.stat.com/catch22/tcom ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #74 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 25 09:09:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA21836; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:09:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:09:36 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703251409.JAA21836@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #75 TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Mar 97 09:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 75 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EIA-553 (AMPS) ESN Allocations (Glenn Shirley) Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Anthony Pelliccio) Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Tony Toews) Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Mike Stump) Reverse Directory - Online? (John Mianowski) Setup Charge per LD Call? (Bill Jenney) Caller Id From Cellular Calls (Chris Farrar) More NYNEX Sillyness (Roy Smith) Slamming by Business Discount Plan (Mike Seebeck) Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (Dave Stott) Re: What's This Scam? (Bill Stevens) Re: What's This Scam? (Edwin Collins) New Papers Available On Line (David E. Colton) Re: Cyberpromo Got Hacked (Bruce Pennypacker) 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: Glenn Shirley Subject: EIA-553 (AMPS) ESN Allocations Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:25:00 -0800 Organization: ADI Limited Reply-To: Glenn.Shirley@sg.adisys.com.au Hi all, I hope someone can help me with the following (vague) question. EIA-553 defines the 32 bit ESN field for a cellular phone as: bits 31 24 23 18 17 0 MFR Code RESERVED Serial Number where RESERVED bits should be zero. Does anyone know if the FCC or EIA has put out a bulletin which now allows the RESERVED bits to be used or if some sort of batch information should be put in the serial number or RESERVED sections. Either an EIA document number (so I can order it) or a web address for an FCC document would be nice. If such a document doesn't exist, is there a de-facto standard for putting batch or version info into the serial number. Regards, Glenn Shirley. ADI Limited, Systems Group Telecommunications Division telephone: +61 9 273 0767 18 Hasler Road .-_|\ facsimile: +61 9 445 1988 Osborne Pk. WA 6017 / \ home: +61 9 367 5607 Australia P_.-._/ mobile: +61 411 243 489 v e-mail: Glenn.Shirley@sg.adisys.com.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:43:11 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Problem With NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers Area Code 760 in southern and eastern California, splitting from 619, took effect in permissive dialing this past Saturday, 22 March 1997. Mandatory dialing with the new 760 NPA begins on 27 September 1997. The San Diego metro area will remain NPA 619. There are _three_ different (non-suping / non-billing) test numbers for checking the routing to the new 760 NPA. Each one routes to a different LEC toll/tandem switch in the area: 760-200-0760 routes to GTE/Contel in Victorville CA (switch ID 619-79-T; this ID might need to be changed to 760-79T). It seems that GTE/Contel has its own toll/tandem switch, even though it is in Pacific Bell's San Diego _LATA_. 760-400-0760 routes to Pacific Bell in San Diego CA (switch ID "San Diego 91-T"). Even though the San Diego area remains NPA 619, the calls to area code 760 locations in the San Diego LATA, directly served out of the Pac*Bell toll/tandem switch, probably continue to route via San Diego. 760-600-0760 routes to GTE in Palm Springs CA (there is no switch ID code, although it does announce "Palm Springs"). BTW, GTE in the Palm Springs area is its own _LATA_, not part of Pac*Bell's San Diego LATA. When I use AT&T (10(10)288)+ to call the 760-200- and 760-600- test numbers, I reach a successful test announcement from the corresponding LEC. When I use _other_ carriers such as MCI (10(10)222)+, Sprint (10(10)333)+, and others with their own (10(1X)XXX)+ codes, I am successful in reaching _all_three_ test numbers, _including_ the Pac*Bell recording for 760-400-. But when I use _AT&T_ to call the (Pac*Bell) test number 760-400-0760, I seem to be failing. I do _not_ get an _AT&T_ rejection recording, but a recorded male voice announcing that my call cannot be completed as dialed. It seems to be a Pac*Bell recording, as the recorded male voice seems to be the same voice announcing a successful test to 760-400-0760 when I dial it via carriers _other_ than AT&T. As of Monday morning (24 March 1997), I am still getting a (Pac*Bell) failure recording when calling 760-400- via AT&T, and other people originating from different parts of the US have told me the same thing as well. Any answers, AT&T? Pac*Bell? An interesting side note to this regards calls from Canada to the US, when placed through the toll services of their (traditional) Stentor-Canada LEC. Over the weekend, I asked two different Canadian telecom contacts to 3-way me to 760-400-0760: One telecom-friend was in Whitehorse YT, served by (BCE's) Northwestel. Up in northern territorial Canada, there is not yet equal access competition. All toll calls are handled and billed by Northwestel - and for toll calls to other parts of Canada, the Stentor LEC's it connects with, usually "Telus" in Alberta (formerly AGT) or (GTE's) BCTel in British Columbia. Calls to Alaska interface directly with (AT&T's) Alascom, and calls to countries outside of the US, it then (presently still) connects with Teleglobe. Calls to the 760-200- and 760-600- test numbers went through okay, however calls to the 760-400- test number failed in Pac*Bell, the same failure _I_ get via AT&T to the 760-400- test number. The other telecom-friend was in Toronto ON. His chosen 'default' toll carrier for calls within Canada and to the US is AT&T-Canada, formerly Unitel. Attempts at all three NPA 760 test numbers failed with 'reorder'. It seems that AT&T-Canada's switch in Toronto didn't have 760 yet loaded in as a valid new area code. When he tried using the 10(1X)XXX+ code for the traditional toll services of his Stentor-LEC, Bell-Canada, he sussessfully reached the 760-200- and 760-600- test numbers, however, the 760-400- test number failed at Pac*Bell, the same as _I_ get via AT&T. This leads me to believe that from Canada, originating via the traditional toll services of the traditional Stentor-LEC, calls to the (continental) US (except Alaska) are thus _still_ routed to AT&T-(US) when the calls reach the US side of the border, just as it had been done for _decades_, prior to competition in either the US or Canada. This is interesting, since the Stentor-LEC's (when providing traditional intra-Canada) toll services are in competition with AT&T-_Canada_, and the Stentor organization now has a business relationship with _MCI_ (US), which includes technical R&D. But then again, back in the 1980's when GTE (or jointly with United Telephone) owned Sprint, the 'traditional' inTER-LATA connections from GTE and United (as traditional independent LEC's) were to _AT&T_, not to Sprint-LD. As for NPA 760, my local #1AESS "Seabrook" switch (504-24x) has had 760 as a valid new NPA for about two months now. The AT&T 504-2T (or now ID'd as "060") toll switch for New Orleans has also had 760 NPA for about two months. The AT&T (Operator) #5ESS OSPS 601-0T in Jackson MS just had NPA 760 loaded in as valid one day last week. I have been able to reach the 760 test numbers for two months now (as 1+; 0+, 800-CALL-ATT, and BSMobility cellular origination for about a week now), and have known about this AT&T->Pac*Bell problem with 760-400- since then. 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: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Date: 24 Mar 1997 20:10:15 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Ray Sarna wrote: > Can you please help by adding to the "public" info base by posting > your answer to this very brief request? > Where are the Beta tests? Where are the Active Installs? -- for XDSL. There was recently an article in the Providence Journal, http://www.projo.com that stated RI's premier ISP is filing with the Public Utilities Commission to become a telecom carrier in order to co-locate it's xDSL equipment in other telecom providers facilities. I happen to know the president of the company and can confirm this is not a test but a real application of xDSL technology, and in Rhode Island of all places. If we waited for Nynex to try it out we'd be old and gray and while I'm on the subject I'm vehemently opposed to the BA/Nynex merger, why combine poor service with anti-competitive behavior? For anyone interested the ISP that's doing xDSL is Intelecom Data Systems or IDS http://www.ids.net Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com Boston has the combat zone, Providence *IS* an erogenous zone. ------------------------------ From: ttoews@agt.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:06:13 GMT Organization: TELUS Communications Inc. lpuadm.nospam@leonardo.net (Ray Sarna) wrote: > There's a "test"? at Sask Tel. What are the spec's on that? I was > told, "they were trying 6 mbit/sec downstream. Not sure on upstream." Not sure of the details but a Ken Ganshirt has indicated that portions of Saskatoon and Regina have ADSL available. It is available at the consumer level. I misremember the speeds he was quoting but "bat-outta-heck" comes to mind. > Their website is useless, imho. Nothing there but a sea of text > without logic, and last updated news March, 1996! I guess they're not > on the internet yet. ;-) Actually the provincal telco's in Alberta (privately owned) and Saskatchewan (govt owned I think) have made Internet access in *every* local calling area throughout the province. Including remote villages way up in the north with a total of 50 or 100 telephones. > Telus is the Alberta Province-wide telco, and I've been told, "they > are very slow to offer new service, and they charge way too much." True they are kinda slow. OTOH they do have Internet access in small towns which otherwise would likely never have had any. > If 64 Kbs is "medium-speed" up there, I'm > looking forward to Cadvision helping them redefine that ridiculous > observation. There are some areas where I'd sure like to see faster things. But then I live in a town of 4000 so I don't expect faster access than 33.6 modem for many years to come. So I think I'll be getting a small satellite dish soon. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant Jack of a few computer related trades and master (or certified) of none. Microsoft Access Hints & Tips: Accounting Systems, Winfax Pro, Reports and Books at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm ------------------------------ From: mrs@Kithrup.COM (Mike Stump) Subject: Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 19:00:26 GMT In article , Ray Sarna wrote: > UUNet is testing IDSL 128 Kb symmetric in the Bay Area, but I heard > nothing about the users' results. Their pricing will be US $140+/mo, You missed a 0, it is $900+ a month for a 128Kb line. Man, are those prices good, I know I'm going to switch to them, it is so affordable now. ------------------------------ From: John Mianowski Subject: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1997 00:04:18 -0500 Organization: Just Me Reply-To: jmianows@ix.netcom.com I'm looking for a reverse telephone directory (i.e., look up directory numbers and find out who owns them). Can somebody point me toward a source? If anyone knows of an online version, that would be ideal. Thanks, JM ------------------------------ From: jenney@niktow.canisius.edu (Bill Jenney) Subject: Setup Charge per LD Call? Date: 25 Mar 1997 10:56:19 GMT Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo, NY 14208 We are considering use of the PSTN for a "signalling" application that would send a high volume of very short (0.1 to 0.2 minutes) messages via LD. With the recent reduction of LD rates below the $.10 level, many/most of these should be billed at only a penny (or 2), given that we would have 6-second billing as a firm requirement from our reseller(s). BUT do these resellers face any "hidden costs" in the form of call setup charges imposed by the IXCs? The concern is that we would produce a system where not everyone is gaining, which is not our intent. Technical comments/thoughts to the newsgroup, w/thanks. Offers from resellers to email only, please -- the Good Guys who moderate might become immoderate. Bill Jenney (E.E., but don't work w/telecom daily) ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Caller Id From Cellular Calls Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:20:15 -0500 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca In the Toronto area, Cantel AT&T is already sending Caller ID on calls made from cell phones, with the default being to block your number. (ie, shows up "PRIVATE NUMBER" on a caller id box.) However if you want your number to go out, dialing *82 and the number in one string allows the number to go out. Recently someone tried calling me on the Bell Mobility network (B side carrier) and they too kept coming up "PRIVATE NAME". As someone with a Caller ID box that does anonymous call rejection (and calls supervise, so there is a cost to the caller) the person had to find a landline to call. When he tried the *82 + number, Bell Mobility intercepted it with a fast busy. Does anyone know the star code to let Caller Id go through on Bell Mobility? 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just a quick mention of an interesting development here in the Chicago area ... Ameritech says 911 service is going to be available to cellular phone users this month. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:03:53 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: More NYNEX Sillyness Organization: New York University School of Medicine I got my phone bill yesterday. On it were 3 calls I made from NYNEX pay phones in Grand Central Station, 2 to one number in Westchester, the 3rd to a different number, also in Westchester, over a span of about 25 minutes, using my AT&T calling card. All three reached answering machines, and I hung up as soon as the machine answered. All three were recorded as being 1 minute long. There's two things that are wierd. First, of the 2 calls to the same number, one was charged at $0.45, the other (the later one) at $0.75. Do they just pick random numbers to charge for the calls? Second, the three calls, while shown in the correct order, and approximately the correct time intervals, are shown at the wrong times. The times on the bill run from about 1:00 PM to 1:30 PM. I made the calls sometime around 6:30 or so in the evening (I remember this clearly, I had just missed my train and had a 45 minute wait for the next one). Again, do they just pick random numbers for the times? Very strange. But given that it's NYNEX, not surprising :-) Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Slamming by Business Discount Plan Date: 24 Mar 1997 23:32:16 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder I work for a company with about 1,600 stores. Lately we have found our LD service being changed in a number of places from MCI to AT&T via a company called Business Discount Plan. The stores that have been slammed were at one time or another an AT&T account. When BDP calls the store they claim they are making a "courtesy call" and are offereing to consolidate the stores telephone bill. They ask the employee if they are authorized to take the call. The employee of couse says yes. They then tell them they are already their long distance providor and is it ok to consolidate the bill. When the employee says yes they trasfer the call to an operator for verification. If the employee listens very carefully to the very fast talking operator who is supposedly checking info like name, address, did they say yes, they might hear a quick reference to a "possible change in long distance carrier". When I have called these employees they had no realization that they had authorized a change of LD provider. How do I know the speil so well? They called our corporate headquarters and ran it against one of our telecom staff. She thought that during the call all she had done was verify information such as address, company name, and so on. She became suspicious during the verification call and wrote down their 800 number. I called the next day and found they had switched the main number to AT&T. AT&T claims they can do nothing about this. We are filing a complaint qwith the FCC. Since BDP is based in CA we are filing a complaint with the CA Attorney Generals Office. Is there anything else we can do to stop this company from slamming our stores from coast to coast? A complaint with the CA Attorney Generals Office. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You should see to it that the local telcos in each case are advised to freeze carrier changes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:11:38 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response In TELECOM Digest #71, Alan Boritz wrote: > They don't need to steal your mail to change your PIXC. My boss's > brother-in-law signed up for an MCI calling card a while ago, using > his address (with permission, he travels a lot for business). MCI > slammed my boss's home phone, based on the calling card order. What > the morons at MCI didn't notice (and Bell Atlantic didn't challenge) > was that the name on the calling card didn't match the name on the > account for the contact phone. I had him file a PUC complaint against > Bell Atlantic, and MCI paid for the PIXC change. When I worked at one of the RBOC's, one thing I learned is that the local exchange company receives tens of thousands of PICx (Primary Interexchange Carrier x) changes per day via EDI or tape from the IXCs. Assuming there is no PIC freeze on the line indicated on the change record, the change is sent downstream through the billing and record systems, then off to the switch to change the PIC field on the line record. No one looks at a name or any other information on the record -- it just happens because the IXCs all have contractual agreements with the LECs to ONLY submit valid changes. It isn't the perfect system, but 99.5% of the time (or so) it works. The real culprits are the blatant slammers. BTW, each time a customer is slammed, the LECs are paid by the slammer for sending through a fraudulent record (at least at the old job). If you think it's bad now, just wait until the CLECs have electronic access to the LECs (or soon to be "wire companies") assignment systems. If you switch your service from Ameritech to CLEC A, and are then slammed by CLEC B, who helps you out? Ameritech won't care, CLEC B says you signed an authorization and CLEC A can't change you back _without_ an authorization. Things should be very interesting in a few years. Dave Stott McKenzie Telecommunications Group ------------------------------ From: Bill Stevens Subject: Re: What's This Scam? Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:45:41 -0800 Organization: This is my personal email account Reply-To: wmstevens@earthlink.net Lizanne Hurst wrote: > I'm hoping a kind TELECOM Digest reader can shed light on what we > suspect is some kind of scam. > Our students have reported three consecutive rashes of incoming calls > since January. A man rings in on an outside call, identifies himself > as a telephone repair person, and asks the student to hold on while he > "checks the line." He instructs the student to hang up after seven > minutes, and says he will then ring back to confirm the line is > functional. > We try to educate our user community to be conscious of potential > fraud, and the effort seems to be paying off because most of the > students hung up immediately. One student we spoke to, however, > followed the caller's instructions. After she waited the seven > minutes and hung up, she was then called back by another man making > sexually explicit suggestions. > What's the angle here? I've been reviewing our bills carefully and > have found no unusual charges or calling patterns. Are the students > assenting to some ungodly charge by hanging on, and it just hasn't > shown up on our bills yet? Or is the caller somehow trying to > appropriate our dial tone? I'm not sure how they can pull that off, > since they're coming in to our PBX via one-way DID trunks. I dare say that the most likely explanation has nothing to do with the phone usage. It seems more likely that sexual predation is being worked out by "testing" for females who are willing to follow bizarre instructions from unknown callers without question. Kinda narrows down the pool of likely victims. What the ultimate objective might be, I haven't a clue. But it sounds dangerous. I'd be very concerned if I were the object of such attention. The caller already knows a) my number, and b) that I am more susceptible to psychological tactics than the other callers who hung up right away ... ------------------------------ From: Edwin Collins Subject: Re: What's This Scam? Date: 25 Mar 1997 05:16:39 GMT Organization: InfiNet Most predators will test for compliance by making an intrusive request. If you comply, they will often escalate to more serious request. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 19:31:59 -0600 From: David E. Colton Subject: New Papers Available On Line Albert Halprin, former Common Carrier Bureau Chief and architect of the existing access charge system has posted on-line two papers dealing with the historical legacy of access charges and the prospects for meaningful reform. The papers were co-authored with a number of state commissioners who assisted in creating the system in the 1980s and have been submitted to the FCC as part of the access reform docket. The papers are available under the "What's New" directory of Albert Halprin's firm's web page, Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Sugrue at http://www.htgs.com. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: Cyberpromo Got Hacked Date: 24 Mar 1997 19:33:19 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Darren Kruger wrote in article ... > Also, I've heard that Cyperpromo's web page also got hacked, but I can > not confirm this. There is an article on the CyberPromo hacking at news.com. Here's the URL for the article: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,9022,00.html Somebody saved the hacked web pages before CyberPromo could fix everything. Check out these links: http://www.mediaeater.com/HACKED/SPAM/SPAM-1/index.html http://www.mediaeater.com/HACKED/SPAM/SPAM-1A/index.html http://www.mediaeater.com/HACKED/SPAM/index.html There's also been some discussion on news.admin.net-abuse.email suggesting that Wallace may have faked this entire incident to make CyberPromo look like a typical up-and-up internet company getting attacked by evil hackers. One comment a number of people have agreed with is that if Wallace actually did determine who did the hacking, as his web site and the news article claim, he would have let the whole world know his/her name and most likely taken them to court. The fact that he hasn't mentioned any details about the name/origin of the so-called "hacker" nor the "appropriate authorities" that were notified of the incident, as well as Wallaces reputitation in general, has a lot of people wondering just how much truth there is to this whole story. Bruce Pennypacker Applied Language Technologies Remove .nospam from my address to e-mail me 215 First Street http://www.altech.com Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #75 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 27 23:49:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA23610; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:49:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:49:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703280449.XAA23610@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #76 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Mar 97 23:49:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 76 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Network and Internetwork Security" by Stallings (Rob Slade) Book Review: "The Online 100" by O'Leary (Rob Slade) Conference: Wireless Telephones and Hearing Aids (BethTAP) Ameritech Complaint (Dan Neumann) Re: Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers (Linc Madison) Re: Problem With NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers (Michael R. Collins) 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Seymour Dupa) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (John Cropper) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Jim Reynolds) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Michael Schuster) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Brian Cox) Re: Reverse Directory - Online? (Jonathan I. Kamens) 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: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:00:20 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Network and Internetwork Security" by Stallings BKNTINSC.RVW 961130 "Network and Internetwork Security", William Stallings, 1995, 0-02-415483-0 %A William Stallings ws@shore.net %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1995 %G 0-02-415483-0 %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 462 %T "Network and Internetwork Security" Once again Stallings has produced the classic textbook in the field. Concentrating primarily on encryption, he gives the concepts, background, and technical detail necessary to understand, develop, and evaluate security for networks. Written in a textbook style, this work does not cover the hands-on minutiae or proprietary sets of commands for specific systems or products. The basics, however, are covered thoroughly and well. Chapter end questions are provided, as well as recommended reading lists and appendices with detail specific to particular technologies. This does not in the least preclude it from being a valuable resource for the developer or manager. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKNTINSC.RVW 961130 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:01:58 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Online 100" by O'Leary BKONL100.RVW 961127 "The Online 100", Mick O'Leary, 1995, 0-910965-14-5, U$22.95 %A Mick O'Leary %C 462 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897-2126 %D 1995 %G 0-910965-14-5 %I Pemberton Press Books/Online Inc. %O U$22.95 +1-800-248-8466 +1-203-761-1466 fax: 203-761-1444 online@well.com %P 256 %T "The Online 100" A review of the 100 "best" (commercial) online databases. Each entry describes the database and contents, as well as noting search capabilities and topics or searches that you might think are included, but aren't. Some interesting trivia is included, alongside contact information and a rough idea of search charges. Major topic areas covered are news, business, company information, law and government, science, medicine, technology, intellectual property, social sciences, and general reference. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKONL100.RVW 961127 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: bethtap@aol.com (BethTAP) Subject: Conference: Wireless Telephones and Hearing Aids Date: 25 Mar 1997 19:47:11 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Department of Communication Arts Technology Assessment Program 800 Florida Ave. NE Washington, DC 20002-3695 (202) 651-5257 (V/TTY) (202) 651-5476 (Fax) http://tap.gallaudet.edu http://commarts.gallaudet.edu Please mark your calendar now for a conference to be held May 8 and 9 at Gallaudet: WIRELESS TELEPHONES AND HEARING AIDS: New Challenges for Audiology This will be the first opportunity to get a comprehensive update on this issue since the Summit conference of January, 1996. This is the Fifth Annual Robert Monzon Memorial Conference, sponsored by the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers at the Lexington Center and Gallaudet University, in association with The League for the Hard of Hearing, and Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. This e-mail includes the full conference program, including speakers and registration information. Please feel free to share this with other interested people. We hope to see you there. -------------------------------------------- The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers at the Lexington Center and Gallaudet University, in association with The League for the Hard of Hearing and Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc., are pleased to present a two-day conference WIRELESS TELEPHONES AND HEARING AIDS: New Challenges for Audiology on May 8-9, 1997 at the Gallaudet University Kellogg Conference Center in Washington, D.C. This is the Fifth Annual Robert Monzon Memorial Conference, featuring eminent audiologists, consumers and representatives from the hearing aid and wireless telecommunication industries. Are you ready for the 21st Century? Come learn about advances in wireless telecommunications and the opportunities and challenges they offer to hearing aid users and their audiologists. Topics include: - Trends in wireless telephones and personal communication - Hearing aid compatibility and assistive devices - Electro-magnetic interference of certain telephones and hearing aids - Research and standards activity directed at this problem - Progress toward solutions PROGRAM: Thursday, May 8 8:00 Registration 9:00 Welcome Katherine Seelman, Director, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 9:10 Robert Monzon Memorial Dedication Jane Madell, Director of Communicative Disorders, Long Island College Hospital Part I. Wireless Telephones and Hearing Aids: It Takes Two to Tango 9:20 Overview Mark Ross 10:00 Types of Wireless Telephone Systems and Implications Judy Harkins 10:40 Break 11:00 Assistive Technology and Hearing Aid Compatibility in Wireless Telephones Larry Eng 11:40 Questions and Answers 12:00 Lunch (Dining Area) Part II. Research and Standards Activities on Digital Wireless Telephone Interference with Hearing Aids 1:00 Wireless Telephone Interference: Searching for Realistic Measurement Methods Harry Teder 1:30 Field Studies of Interference from Digital Wireless Telephones Harry Levitt 2:00 Laboratory Research at the Food and Drug Administration Marlene Skopec 2:30 Research at the Center for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Robert Schlegel 3:00 Break 3:20 Standards: Working Toward a Middle Ground Stephen Berger 4:00 Questions and Answers 5:00 Closing Remarks 7:00 Banquet (Ballroom) Invited Speaker: Michele Farquhar, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission _________________________ Friday, May 9 Part III. Progress on Solutions 9:00 Introduction Michael Buas 9:15 The Australian Experience Denis Byrne 10:35 Break 10:55 R&D Progress and Solutions in Wireless Telephones Panelists from Wireless Telephone Manufacturing Companies: R.E. "Skip" Bryant, Ericsson (to be announced), Motorola (to be announced), Nokia 11:40 R&D Progress and Solutions in Hearing Aids Panelists from Hearing Aid Manufacturing Companies: Thomas Victorian, Starkey Labs Horst Arndt, Unitron Nikolai Bisgaard, Danavox 12:20 Lunch (Dining Area) 1:30 Providing Accessible Wireless Service Panelists from Wireless Telephone Service Companies: Laura Ruby, AT&T Michael Patrick, Pacific Bell (to be announced), Sprint Spectrum 2:15 Consumer Perspectives Brenda Battat Mark Ross Donna Sorkin 3:00 Break 3:20 Policy Issues Panel of Policy Experts: Karen Strauss, National Association of the Deaf Teri Cygnarowicz, Food and Drug Administration Elizabeth Lyles, Federal Communications Commission 4:05 Issues for Audiologists and Hearing Aid Dispensers Barry Freeman Holly Kaplan 4:50 Closing Remarks, Harry Levitt Real-time captioning provided at all sessions. Assistive listening devices and sign language interpreters available. ASHA and AAA CEUs applied for. Registration fee includes continental breakfasts, buffet lunches, refreshments and handout materials. Full Conference - $175 One Day Only - $100 Student Rate - $50 per day Hard of Hearing/Deaf Consumers - $50 per day Accessible guest rooms available at the Gallaudet University Kellogg Conference Center. Please mention your participation in this program to obtain our special discounted rate, guaranteed until April 8, 1997. $89 per night (single) or $99 per night (double), plus tax. Triple and quad rates also available. For reservations contact: GUKCC: V/TTY 202-651-6000 FAX 202-651-6107. For registration/information contact: University Conference Management Gallaudet University 800 Florida Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-3695 TTY/V 202-651-6060/6053 FAX 202-651-6074/6038 E-mail: conference@gallua.gallaudet.edu This Conference Series was made possible by the generous financial support of: Argosy Electronics Oticon Philips Hearing Instruments ReSound Corporation Siemens Hearing Instruments Starkey Labs 3M Hearing Health and The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Dept. Of Ed. Grants #H133E30015, #H133E50002 ------------------------------ From: dneumann@edwpub.com (Dan Neumann) Reply-To: dneumann@edwpub.com (Dan Neumann) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:57:20 -0600 Subject: Ameritech Complaint Organization: Edwardsville Publishing By using Deja News service, I have been able to read MANY complaints about Ameritech. However, so far, no one has filed a class action suit, or explained how to DO ANYTHING to get their attention. If anyone can provide any information or suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. If you respond publicly, please "cc" a private E-Mail reply to dneumann@edwpub.com A few months ago, we moved from one house to another, about two miles apart. Due to a series of errors on the part of Ameritech (Illinois), we were without phone service for TWENTY NINE DAYS. I filed a complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission, but as far as I can tell, all they did was forward the complaint to Ameritech. After weeks and weeks, and more and more phone calls, we finally discovered that Ameritech had been installing new lines about ten miles away, at a similar address. I had provided the EXACT address, and the name of the people who had just moved out of the house on at least two occassions. Ameritech seems to be very good at ignoring any information OR REQUESTS from their customers. I will not go into the details of all the trouble I had trying to get them to re-establish phone service for us at the old house, and other requests. In most instances, they appeared to be quite incompetent. We tried to minimize the use of our cell phone, but the total bill went from the usual amount of $50 to about $150 during that time period. I have requested that Ameritech pay for the difference, but so far, they have totally ignored my request. Don't they have some obligations, by law, to their customers? After all, they are a MONOPOLY. Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something seems very funny here. What about the occupants of the 'similar address about ten miles away' ...? Didn't *they* say anything or complain or question the new phone services being installed in their premises, presumably without any work order, etc? If you think those premises 'ten miles away' were unoccupied -- thus no one to make a complaint about the sudden and unexpected appearance of a phone installer -- then how does one account for the fact that Ameritech -- most telcos in fact -- get a little bit schitzy about being asked to do an installation in a place where there is no apparent sign of any business or residence. They rightfully feel there may be some fraud occuring when they are unable to find some responsible person to admit them to the premises, sign for the work which was done, etc. Since you moved from one house to another, presumably you ordered residence service. Is the 'similar address' also a residence? I am sure if it was a business place -- occupied or not -- the phone installer would have gotten real nervous and called his office. Did he install stuff in a vacant residence, and la-dee-dah just walk off and leave it there? If an occupied residence you mean no one at all protested or questioned it? What is the whole story on this? How did you find out about the 'similar address ten miles away'? And it took 29 days for Ameritech to respond to (a) the certain to be complaints of that location and (b) your complaints? Something indeed is very strange. Tell us a bit more. I've had Ameritech pull down my pairs by accident and take a day or two to make corrections; I've had them working on the pole behind my house and had to call 611 and literally threaten their lives to get them to call the guy on the pole to get his hands off of stuff out there that did not concern him. I've paid them and still had their collectors cut me and demand payment only to have to restore the service and then apologize. But 29 days? An address ten miles away? Personally I find Ameritech a little too much on the ball for my comfort if you get my drift. Tell us please a bit more about your discussions with them. It all sounds quite incredible. I am not saying it is untrue; just difficult to understand. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:53:30 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! On 3/24/97, Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Area Code 760 in southern and eastern California, splitting from 619, > took effect in permissive dialing this past Saturday, 22 March 1997. > Mandatory dialing with the new 760 NPA begins on 27 September 1997. The > San Diego metro area will remain NPA 619. > There are _three_ different (non-suping / non-billing) test numbers for > checking the routing to the new 760 NPA. Each one routes to a different > LEC toll/tandem switch in the area: > 760-200-0760 routes to GTE/Contel in Victorville CA (switch ID 619-79-T; > this ID might need to be changed to 760-79T). It seems that GTE/Contel > has its own toll/tandem switch, even though it is in Pacific Bell's San > Diego _LATA_. Actually, Victorville is in the Los Angeles LATA, not the San Diego LATA. The Palm Springs area is almost surrounded by the Los Angeles LATA, with only a small border to the San Diego LATA, which is approximately San Diego and Imperial Counties. Calling on Sprint from here in Pacific Bell land, I get "You have reached the 760 area code test number in Victorville, California. We are sorry, all circuits are busy. Please try your call again later. 49-8-6-5." > 760-400-0760 routes to Pacific Bell in San Diego CA (switch ID "San > Diego 91-T"). Even though the San Diego area remains NPA 619, the calls > to area code 760 locations in the San Diego LATA, directly served out of > the Pac*Bell toll/tandem switch, probably continue to route via San > Diego. Here in PacBell land on Sprint, I get "We are sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and try your call again." This intercept comes after dialing the full number. Routing to MCI with 10222, I get the correct recording that I have successfully completed a call to the new area code seven-sixty, with the switch ID "San Diego 91-T." The same on AT&T with 10288, but not with Sprint, even with 10333. > 760-600-0760 routes to GTE in Palm Springs CA (there is no switch ID > code, although it does announce "Palm Springs"). BTW, GTE in the Palm > Springs area is its own _LATA_, not part of Pac*Bell's San Diego LATA. "You have reached the 7-6-0 test number in Palm Springs," on Sprint from PacBell. > When I use AT&T (10(10)288)+ to call the 760-200- and 760-600- test > numbers, I reach a successful test announcement from the corresponding > LEC. > When I use _other_ carriers such as MCI (10(10)222)+, Sprint > (10(10)333)+, and others with their own (10(1X)XXX)+ codes, I am > successful in reaching _all_three_ test numbers, _including_ the > Pac*Bell recording for 760-400-. > But when I use _AT&T_ to call the (Pac*Bell) test number 760-400-0760, I > seem to be failing. I do _not_ get an _AT&T_ rejection recording, but a > recorded male voice announcing that my call cannot be completed as > dialed. It seems to be a Pac*Bell recording, as the recorded male voice > seems to be the same voice announcing a successful test to 760-400-0760 > when I dial it via carriers _other_ than AT&T. Odd. I get through fine on AT&T, but not on Sprint. Perhaps there is some very peculiar bug in the system that you can only reach this test number on a carrier that is not your presubscribed choice ... ** 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" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But we know that presubscribed choice or not, a call will not progress past the local central office if the tables are incorrectly loaded at the CO. Before handing off any call to a long distance carrier -- presubscribed or via 10xxx -- the local CO examines what you have dialed and decides whether it is good or not. If the local CO is happy with what you dialed, *then* it is handed off to the long distance carrier. If the CO is not happy with what you dialed, it goes to intercept right at that point and is never given to a carrier. You can prove this occurs by dialing some- thing known to be good that your CO has not yet found out about. You will get bounced. Now try dialing the very same thing via the long distance carrier's direct number and watch it go through just fine. Example: dialing 1-new-AC-xxx-xxxx or 10xxx-1-new-AC-xxx-xxxx gets you sent straight to intercept locally. You then dial 1-800-CALL-ATT followed by the same number and it goes through just fine. Of course that time you in effect bypassed the CO. Now you know it is the CO at fault. Now let's say the local CO has correct and up to date tables. It will hand your call over to the carrier of choice. Maybe the carrier of choice has bum information, so he bounces the call. Maybe the carrier of choice has several switches; some have been loaded correctly while others have not been updated. A caller in New Orleans tries to go through default dialing and his CO is happy with it so it goes to the long distance carrier. But the carrier for some reason does not yet have the information loaded in the switch serving that user. In some other part of the country it does have the information loaded, only maybe in that (other part of the country) a CO is at fault. I think you have to detirmine exactly *who* is giving the intercept in each case. There ought to be a standard which says when a new area code or new exchange is cut in, all telcos, all central offices, all long distance carriers and their switches get the information at the same time. It is a lot like the story in this Digest a couple days ago about the operator who was unable to place a call to Fargo because 'there was no Fargo hole on her switchboard'. Any number of places up and down the line can deny that some exchange or AC exists. The first place you hit that cannot deal with the information given just dumps the call. Objective: find out *who and where* says seven sixty is an invalid choice. You would think though these days with the rapid increase in area codes it would be just as simple or more so for the local CO to just accept whatever it was given and if it did not work out locally simply hand it over to the long distance carrier and say, "here, you try to figure it out ..." PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:52:10 -0400 From: Michael.Collins@squam.org (Michael R. Collins) Subject: Re: Problem With NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers Organization: Collins family/la famille Collins - Toronto In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: [snip] > An interesting side note to this regards calls from Canada to the US, > when placed through the toll services of their (traditional) > Stentor-Canada LEC. [snip] I called each of the three numbers tonight through Bell Canada [from a Toronto number] and through Sprint Canada [using my "calling card" - I think it's a "FonCard" or some similar, ugly spelling]. All three calls though Bell Canada connected with the test recording. Two calls through Sprint Canada ("200" and "600") connected with the test recording. The calls to "400" met with SIT + "Your call cannot be completed as dialed", but it didn't sound like a Sprint Canada recording; must be the Pac*Bell intercept you describe. Michael R. Collins | Michael.Collins@squam.org Toronto, Ontario Canada ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: 25 Mar 1997 15:08:35 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. You mean it's not available *now*? What happens when a user dials 911? In Ameritech/Cleveland, calls are answered by PSAP (Public safety Answering Point). John > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just a quick mention of an interesting > development here in the Chicago area ... Ameritech says 911 service is > going to be available to cellular phone users this month. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At the present time, star-999 will connect the cellular caller to the division of the Illinois State Police which handles expressway duty. 911 goes to a recorded intercept which says, "If your call is an emergency, please hang up and dial the operator. Be prepared to tell the operator your approximate location as best you know it and the nature of your emergency. If your call is not an emergency, dial the seven digit number of the police department you wish to reach." The reason we have not had 911 for cell phones here is the same reason it took *years* to get 911 installed in general across northern Illinois outside the city of Chicago: none of the municipalities could agree on who would take whose calls when telephone exchange lines did not agree with municipal boundary lines. Most of them were afraid that if something went right, the other guy would get the credit while if something went wrong, they'd be the ones to catch hell. In other words, politics as usual. Now telco is saying that with cell towers which are 'clearly within the boundaries of a given community' (meaning it is unlikely anyone picked up by that tower would not be somewhere in the community) could easily pass information to the ground stations to interpret 911 in the context of that local community. In other words, the tower which is right in the center of downtown Skokie could be reasonably certain that a 911 call received was from someone in Skokie; it is doubtful someone three miles away in Evanston would have hit that tower. So even though the tower sends its calls via a landline to (let us say) Schaumburg, Illinois where Ameritech is located, it could tell the switch at that point to use a Skokie FX (foreign exchange) line to dial out to 911, getting the call back to the Skokie Police. The police would get the cellular phone number and the general location of the tower handling the call. There are a huge number of towers in the city of Chicago which by virtue of their location are only going to be dealing with callers actually in the city; ditto the larger suburbs. Of course we have lots of towers around the community boundary lines also; I guess they finally have reached some agreement on who will handle what. How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's location known to the police? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:06:29 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net John Mianowski wrote: > I'm looking for a reverse telephone directory (i.e., look up directory > numbers and find out who owns them). Can somebody point me toward a > source? If anyone knows of an online version, that would be ideal. www.databaseamerica.com Be aware that the data there is at least 7 months old... (August 27, 1996 was the last update) John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: reynolds@ece.vill.edu (Jim Reynolds) Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: 25 Mar 1997 22:01:45 -0500 Organization: Villanova University Check out http://www.555-1212.com. They have a reverse look-up facility available for free over the Web. I believe they distinguish between business and residential numbers, even if the business is listed in the White Pages. Admittedly, it's far from a complete source, but it's the only one I've found thus far. You're limited to the same imformation in phonebooks, and sometimes less -- I've only been able to get one number per household. YMMV. www.whowhere.com used to have a reverse look up as well, but dropped it due to pressue about privacy concerns. Personally, I don't see the problem. No new or previously unpublished data is now available, it's just organized differently (i.e. sorted by phone number instead of name). I'd be interested if any other web-sites offer this search capability, and which services offer it commercially (Lexis?). I'd like to find out what companies are really behind some of these telemarketing schemes ... ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: 25 Mar 1997 14:44:56 -0500 Try http://www.whowhere.com Mike Schuster | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@panix.com | schuster@mem.po.com ------------------------------ From: Brian Cox Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:52:18 -0500 John, Try http://www.555-1212.com/ Regards, Brian ------------------------------ From: jik@cam.ov.com (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Re: Reverse Directory - Online? Date: 25 Mar 1997 16:32:25 GMT Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc. Reply-To: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us In article , John Mianowski writes: > I'm looking for a reverse telephone directory (i.e., look up directory > numbers and find out who owns them). Can somebody point me toward a > source? If anyone knows of an online version, that would be ideal. The Yellow Pages service provided by http://superpages.gte.com GTE SuperPages will let you look up a phone number and find out the business (if any) with which it is associated. I've not been able to find similar functionality on the Web for residential phone numbers; I believe that several sites which used to provide such functionality disabled it because of privacy (and safety) concerns. Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | jik@cam.ov.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #76 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 28 02:57:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA04316; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 02:57:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 02:57:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703280757.CAA04316@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #77 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Mar 97 02:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 77 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A "Firewall" to Keep Out Telecom Regulation (Jack Decker) Pacific Bell Demands MCI Stop its False Advertising (Mike King) Area Code Change Tips? (norgefar@aol.com) Book Review: "Family Internet Companion" by Mautner/Sturm (Rob Slade) Book Review: "New Community Networks" by Schuler (Rob Slade) BellSouth Prepares Launch of Separate Payphone Subsidiary (Mike King) Double Spam: Honest Business People Hurt (Martin McCormick) Telephone Scam (Dewi Daniels) 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: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 17:37:33 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: A "Firewall" to Keep Out Telecom Regulation Here's something I found in an e-mail newsletter (source info at bottom): A "FIREWALL" TO KEEP OUT TELECOM REGULATION Disappointed that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has not done more to spur competition in that industry, some free-market economists are proposing to erect a "firewall" around advanced services, with regulators forbidden to touch anything within it. They say the act did not accomplish full-scale deregulation, and after more than a year, consumers have seen few benefits. Although free to enter each others' businesses, cable and telephone companies have retreated from plans to do so. The 1996 act gave the Federal Communications Commission the power to encourage competition by "forbearing" from enforcing regulations that appear to inhibit progress. Under the firewall plan: * Completely deregulated services would include all forms of Internet access, advanced television services, business data networking, electronic commerce services and other non-traditional services in which existing service providers do not have any overwhelming power as a government-created monopoly in the past. * The provision of services by any provider would be completely deregulated and not subject to price controls of any kind. * Advanced services would be exempt from any future universal-service and interconnection requirements. * Where services are provided over a wireless infrastructure, providers would have the flexibility to use the spectrum however they pleased. Proponents argue that such a plan would create a strong profit incentive which would lure investment and, in the long run, generate more and more telecommunications traffic -- making the final push toward total deregulation that much easier. Source: Lawrence Gasman and Solveig Bernstein (both of the Cato Institute), "A 'Firewall' to Protect Telecom,"Wall Street Journal, March 27, 1997. For Alfred E. Kahn's analysis of "How To Treat The Costs Of Shared Voice And Video Networks In A Post-Regulatory Age" go to http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-264es.html (Extracted from "Policy Digest", National Center For Policy Analysis, Dallas, Texas, http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa) ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Pacific Bell Demands MCI Stop its False Advertising Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:07:36 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:46:49 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Demands MCI Stop its False Advertising FOR MORE INFORMATION: Lou Saviano 415 394-3744 Pacific Bell Demands MCI Stop its False Advertising Ads Accuse Local Phone Companies of Overcharging SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Bell today urged the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to order a halt to a controversial ad campaign by MCI which falsely claims that local phone companies are overcharging customers through "access charges" and urges customers to call the local company and demand refunds. In a complaint filed with the CPUC, Pacific Bell said that MCI's ads falsely state that Pacific Bell is charging more than permitted by law for access fees and that it is charging the access fees directly to consumers. Pacific Bell stated that the MCI ads are absolutely untrue. Pacific Bell's access charges are set by law and are among the lowest in the nation. "These ads are part of a continuing campaign by MCI to try to discredit Pacific Bell in the eyes of its customers," said Lee Bauman, Pacific Bell vice president for local competition. "Pacific Bell has cut its access charges again and again over the last several years, so MCI and other long distance companies pay us half the national average. Instead of paying access charges amounting to 40 percent of the price of a long distance call, as its ad says, MCI pays Pacific Bell less than 20 percent." "MCI's ad is flat-out wrong in Pacific Bell's area, and MCI knows it," Bauman said. Moreover, MCI charges California callers the same price as customers in other states pay, and pockets the extra 20 percent, he said. "For MCI to suggest in its ads that we are 'milking' customers as if they were cows when, in fact, MCI is paying Pacific Bell half the national average in access charges is simply false, and the falsehood is compounded by the fact that MCI is not passing on Pacific Bell's lower access charges to MCI's customers," Bauman said. "If anyone owes you a refund, it's MCI," Bauman said. "If MCI truly believes it has been 'overcharged,' it should file a formal complaint, with the evidence to back it up, rather than simply launch a deceptive advertising blitz backed by no evidence," Bauman said. "In short, MCI should put up or shut up." Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified telecommunications corporation with headquarters in San Francisco. -------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lying and distorting reality is nothing new for MCI. Their founder Jack McGowan was one of the biggest liars around in the early days of the company, back in the early and middle 1970's. I filed a complaint with the FCC against MCI regarding the falsehoods they were spreading with regard to 'Execunet', their first long distance plan now over twenty years ago. They were busy telling all the telecom admins at large companies how Execunet would save them 'twenty or thirty percent' over what they were paying (at that time) 'Ma Bell' for long distance service. Indeed, they were charging less per minute on long distance, but they failed to mention that (in those days) to reach their network you had to dial a local seven digit number which caused the local part of the phone bill to skyrocket as thousands of employees at large companies were instructed by their telecom departments on the 'new dialing procedures' (i.e. use MCI) for long distance calls. If the long distance number you were calling was busy or did not answer, you still paid for a one minute call to the local switch number of MCI. If you had to try five or six times to reach a long distance number you paid for five or six local calls in the process. In cases like Illinois Bell, where local 'message units' were simply tallied and shown as a total on the bill, large companies saw a three or fourfold increase in such local message units at three to five cents each. Of course the bill from telco never said 'this large increase in the number of local message units on your bill is due to the (possibly) several hundred times per day you are now dialing the MCI switch'. Employers just assumed their employees must be making 'a lot more personal calls' if they noticed it at all. MCI reps were trained to parrot that line also to the corporate telecom admins who called with suspicions. MCI was counting on the fact that while long distance calls are 'coin rated' (that is they appear in column after column after column with the number called and the money required for each) the local message units were just lumped as a total so that instead of the telecom admin seeing on the company's phone bill a notation that sixty thousand message units at five cents each were accrued during the month prior and this month there are eighty thousand message units used. That never seemed to phase anyone, but the fact that they could look at the long distance portion of the bill and see it was less than before really impressed the dumbos in the executive suites. My complaint to the FCC, which the Commission required MCI to answer, was that the entire phone bill still had to be paid. Less to MCI but more to the local telco. So who exactly was saving 'twenty or thirty percent'? I also said that under the traditional arrangement (as it was in the sixties and seventies) when one dialed a long distance number, they essentially got a free ride to the nearest AT&T toll switcher; or at least the cost of the local portion was factored in to the overall cost of the call. Not that AT&T was by any means angelic and totally honest with people, but at least we got to pay one fairly reasonable phone bill, and there was no kidding around reducing one set of costs and 'smuggling' the cost back in on the local side of the bill hidden away where only a very astute telecom manager would see it. The FCC ordered MCI to begin including in their advertising a refer- ence -- admittedly in small print -- that 'local call charges to the MCI Point of Presence will be applied by the telco' ... MCI thought that was really rotten of me and complained that it was not their fault they did not have equal access. No, it was not their fault, but the point is they did not have it, and they were not very honest in explaining who was footing the bill for using their 'less expensive' service. MCI got as far as they did in the early days by appealing to the group of people who thought they could 'get one over on Ma Bell' (what a laugh!) and much of their early success was due to the increasing hostility AT&T was facing in those years. Anyway, if you ever see any of those real old ads for Execunet and the tiny little line of print at the bottom making the disclaimer about how 'you do not really save that much by the time you pay off your larger than usual local bill but we would like you to think our service is really saving you money' (they had their own sanitized way of phrasing it of course) that was because of me and a few others who wrote the FCC asking exactly who was kidding whom. PAT] ------------------------------ From: norgefar@aol.com Subject: Area Code Change Tips? Date: 27 Mar 1997 17:37:38 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Would welcome any suggestions on things a Corporation should look for when its exchange(s) are involved in an area code change. Besides the obvious communications to vendors, customers, employees, we have identified the following: A. ISDN numbers using the old area code will cease to work on the DATE that the LEC changes its software for ISDN. near that date, we must reprogram modems to change the # and the SPID to the new area code. B. We will send out broadcast faxes to our own fax machines at other sites telling them to change speed dial keys, etc. I have asked our fax vendors if there is any maintenance support program they have access to that could reprogram these automatically. C. We will change our unix based call accounting system to change the area code. D. We are aware that all cellular phones have a two year period to change to the new area code (phone must be physically turned in and re-programmed). Pagers also have a two year period, but do not require a physical change (although some models might -- just none we are using). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:02:08 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Family Internet Companion" by Mautner/Sturm BKFMINCM.RVW 961126 "Family Internet Companion", Christopher J. Mautner/Chris Noonan Sturm, 1997, 0-13-569500-7, U$34.95/C$48.93 %A Christopher J. Mautner chrism@classroom.net %A Chris Noonan Sturm cnsturm@classroom.org %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-569500-7 %I Prentice Hall %O U$34.95/C$48.93 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %O 800-638-1639 fax 717-393-5752 success@wentworth.com connect@wentworth.com %P 330 %S Classroom Connect %T "Family Internet Companion" The first time I read through the book it appeared to be rather pathetic. The "baby talk" style of the early chapters is not likely to appeal to either children or parents. At the same time, the explanations provided in the initial sections are almost wholly lacking in informational value, and sometimes simplistic to the point of being wrong. On second reading, however, I realized that later parts of the book contain much more that is of value. Nothing startling, and nothing that you couldn't find in one of the better Internet guides (rather less, in fact), but a decent introduction to the net nonetheless. On balance, this guide is probably worth looking at for families getting onto the net. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKFMINCM.RVW 961126 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:32:56 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "New Community Networks" by Schuler BKNCOMNT.RVW 961212 "New Community Networks", Douglas Schuler, 1996, 0-201-59553-2, U$26.85 %A Douglas Schuler douglas@scn.org %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1996 %G 0-201-59553-2 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$26.85 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com %P 528 %T "New Community Networks: Wired for Change" Schuler's overview of community networks, "freenets" (the "Free-Net" spelling is a registered service mark), and information systems has very good coverage of press and media effects and activities, but is less insightful in other areas. The chapters are primarily anecdotal reports of varied projects conducted on local nets. There is some analysis included, but overall it is lacking in depth. There is some mention of negative impacts but little critiquing, and no discussion at all of such topics as the "hidden" types of censorship behind Internet filtering software and Usenet newsgroup selection. The material is not technically challenging. There is, however, a different type of jargon used in the book, and one which can be even less penetrable to the reader. Terms such as "third place" start to occur early in the book with definitions, if there are any, only given later. The lack of entries in the index doesn't help. Nor do the definitions, which don't provide much enlightenment regarding the meanings of the terms in the context of the book, or the significance of the foregoing discussions. This volume does have one overwhelming advantage when placed against the piles of "cyberspace" books currently flooding the market: a thorough grounding in reality. Although I am very critical of its weak areas, all of the content comes from real systems in real settings. While those setting out to implement a community network may find that the books paints the world through a slightly rose coloured monitor, it does, nonetheless, show what can and is being done. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKNCOMNT.RVW 961212 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Prepares Launch of Separate Payphone Subsidiary Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:37:31 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:25:21 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Prepares Launch of Separate Payphone Subsidiary BellSouth Prepares Launch of Separate Payphone Subsidiary HOMEWOOD, ALA. -- BellSouth Public Communications, Inc. is poised to spring into the highly competitive payphone services market April 1 as a separate BellSouth subsidiary, with expectations of capitalizing on newfound regulatory freedoms and BellSouth's rich tradition of service to meet the needs of its customers. BellSouth Public Communications, Inc. is being launched as a corporate entity independent of BellSouth's regulated telephone operations. It will rise from the starting blocks as the nation's largest stand-alone provider of payphone services, operating over 172,000 payphones and serving more than 53,000 payphone location providers in nine Southeastern states. "This is the start of a new and exciting era for BellSouth in the payphone services market," said James B. "Jim" Hawkins, president of BellSouth Public Communications, Inc. "We've created a separate subsidiary for our payphone operations because it best meets the needs of a marketplace that's become more and more competitive. We feel it reflects the focus, resolve and flexibility that will characterize all of BellSouth's approach to serving customers in a highly competitive area of the telecommunications industry. "We look upon it as an opportunity to upgrade our operations, strengthen our technology and expand our service offerings to adapt to the heightened demands of payphone customers in our region. This is good news for our customers, our shareholders, and our employees." Hawkins said that because of regulatory changes set in motion by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, BellSouth needed an organizational structure for its payphone unit that allows a greater degree of flexibility and freedom to meet competitive demands. "A separate subsidiary enables BellSouth Public Communications to enjoy the same business opportunities as other payphone service providers throughout our region," Hawkins said. "Because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we now fall under the same rules, regulations and state jurisdictions as these competitors. The payphone business is extremely competitive, especially in the Southeast, where there are more than 3,000 different certified payphone service providers. Operating on the same level playing field as our competitors will allow BellSouth to offer even greater value to a broader range of customers." Along these lines, Hawkins said, certain tariffed payphone services offered in the past by BellSouth are being "deregulated," and are being replaced by market-priced services. "The FCC requires that all public and semi-public payphone services be deregulated. As a result, payphone service prices in this new fully competitive, deregulated environment will more accurately reflect the actual costs we incur in providing these servi ces. "The manner in which we price and provision these new services is an example of the key business decisions we have to make in order to compete in this new environment." Single-Source Management of Payphone Services Hawkins said his company is still awaiting FCC approval on BellSouth's Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) plan. This plan, filed last November, assures that BellSouth Telecommunications, as a telephone company, will provide telephone line services on a non-discriminatory basis to BellSouth Public Communications and all other independent payphone service providers. After the FCC approves BellSouth's CEI plan, BellSouth Public Communications will be able to provide single-source management of local and long distance services from its payphones. The plan was filed pursuant to the FCC's Payphone Report and Order of September 20, 1996, and the Commission's Order on Reconsideration of November 8, 1996. With FCC approval of this plan, BellSouth will be able to provide value-added service to its payphone location providers by being able to negotiate and contract for long distance services on their behalf. "This green light from the FCC will add yet another dimension to our plans for single-source management of payphone services," Hawkins said. "We'll be able to select and contract for reliable, reasonably priced long distance service from qualified long distance carriers. We share the FCC's concern that end-user customers receive the benefit of fair and reasonable long distance rates when they use payphones." BellSouth Public Communications, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBS Holdings, Inc., which itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of BellSouth Telecommunications. It is headquartered in Homewood, Ala., a suburb of Birmingham, and employs more than 785 people throughout BellSouth's nine-state region. For More Information: David A. Storey BSPC Media Relations (205) 943-2532 ---------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: Martin McCormick Subject: Double Spam: Honest Business People Hurt Date: 26 Mar 1997 18:00:59 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK I had an interesting experience yesterday when I found a fresh slice of Spam in my mailbox. It started out like: From: luckystrike@usa.net Subject: WHO ARE YOUR ANCESTORS? ******************************************************************** Do you know WHO your ancestors are and WHAT they did? I made some remarks about the spammer's ancestors under my breath and sent a copy of the ad to postmaster@usa.net, knowing that it probably was a forgery. There was a toll-free number near the bottom of the ad so I called it, ready to extract blood if I got a live person or take other measures if it turned out to be VoiceMail jail. A woman answered the telephone and said something I never really understood. I asked if this was the correct number for the people doing genealogies? She said something else which was garballed, but it sounded affirmative so I asked if they were the people putting unsolicited advertising on the Internet? She then clearly said that she would let me speak to the people who knew what was going on. After a couple of minutes wait, a lady came on and I asked her the same question. She then began to explain and apologize. She said that their company had signed up with a firm called Emailusa whose representatives stated that the advertising would only be sent to people who had requested it. The lady was very curious as to why everybody was so angry until I explained about how this company had simply mailbombed the whole Internet with no regard at all as to the interests of the recipients. She said that they had gotten lots of calls and her description made me think that most of the callers were ballistic, at best. When I explained to her how this mass-mailing company probably worked, she put me on a speaker phone so that others in the room could listen. This little company had basically been scammed and had paid for the privilege. They were not even aware of what Usenet was and had simply thought the Internet was a good way to gain new customers. The people were as gentle and contrite as one could ever ask and I believe them because she and a man who was also in the room answered every question I asked without any hesitation at all. I honestly think they just got taken. The lady told me that they had previously dealt with another company who did deliver on their promise and they simply thought that Emailusa was the same type of company. We chatted for a couple of minutes and I couldn't help but feel a little sorry for what they were probably having to deal with. Emailusa, on the other hand, has learned how to put a hook on both ends of the line and attach the midpoint of that line to a weed whacker. If you visit their web site, there is no provision for input of any kind. They know what they are doing. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group [TELECOM Digest Editor: This is why attention needs to be given to the *true* spammer -- in most cases organizations like that of Spamford Wallace and the one you cite. We've had documentation before of innocent business people who were new to the Internet -- essentially knowing nothing about it at all -- trusting someone to help them advertise and introduce thier business only to get many hostile replies in return because of the way it was handled. I am not saying there are not a lot of free lance spammers out there; guys who just do it with thier business opportunities and Make Money Fast schemes. They need to be ostracized also, but let's try and take it easy on the small companies who are just finding out about us who entrust charlatans to help them. You are probably right. The people feel horrible about 'the trouble they caused' (which of course they did not cause at all) and we now have just one more group of people with a bad taste in their mouths about their few encounters with the net. Speaking of bad tastes in the mouth: Did anyone else get as infuriated as I about the media's (still ongoing at this hour) treatment and coverage of the San Diego mass suicide affair? Every other sentence by the commentators has been on 'the internet and the web page' which those people operated. As one phrased it on ABC News, 'they believed that by committing suicide they would go to live on another planet and this is all explained on their Web Page ...' Yeah right. This is always followed of course by the local internet expert showing how to log in and read the page those fools put together. Six or eight months ago I said I seriously questioned the wisdom of putting the TELECOM Digest and Archives in web format. But FTP at lcs.mit.edu was (still is) jammed up beyond redemption plus which Bill Pfieffer badgered me continually to do it. So I decided to bite the bullet and go with the flow and now every other story in the media is on how trashy the web is. The news in the {Chicago Sun Times} yesterday (before the mass suicides took over the whole front page) was on the topic of 'prostitution and the net' and how police are making arrests after responding to web page notices and chat room conversations. Of course the web pages of the pedophiles and Nazis get a regular review by the newspapers also. Perhaps you think me very arrogant, but I am sick and tired of telling people I have what *I think* (and that is all I care about any more) is a useful and dignified resource for the net on the World Wide Web only to have people look at me sort of askance and ask if I 'get into' hacking, pedophilia and credit card fraud. Now this bunch of fools with their trip to outer space after they commit suicide 'and it is all explained on the web' takes the cake as far as I am concerned. I am going to seriously consider taking my page down and go back to FTP only like it always was in the past. I understand I have been added to the blocking software that one company puts out anyway on account of the word 'sex' being in a message they saw. Speaking of Bill Pfieffer: his mother passed a couple days ago. Apparently she never did recover from the injuries suffered in the fire they had a few months ago. If you care to correspond with him write to wdp@airwaves.com. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dewi@cableol.co.uk (Dewi Daniels) Subject: Telephone Scam Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:41:33 GMT Dear Pat, I posted the following message to the RISKS Digest two weeks ago, and I've received a number of replies that recommend I should post the same query to the TELECOM Digest. If you think it would be appropriate, could you please post my message to the Digest? Yours sincerely, Dewi Daniels Guildford, England --------------------------------------- We had a nasty shock a couple of days ago, when we received our monthly phone bill from our cable telephone operator, CableTel. The last two days of the billing period, there had been a number of calls to the same number in Guyana, totalling UKP 75, more than doubling our phone bill. On each day, there had been three calls in succession, making a total of six calls. We placed a bar on premium rate and international calls as soon as we received the bill. I'm concerned these calls may have continued to be made during the week that elapsed before we received the bill, so we could be liable for another UKP 250 or more. We got in touch with CableTel, who claim that these calls had originated as premium rate calls to an 'entertainment' line, and that their records showed these calls must have been made from our house. Now, we're sure that nobody made these calls from our house. I was in the USA at the time, and my wife was at work. A married couple, old friends of ours, were staying with us. At the time of the calls, the husband was at home, studying for his Open University degree, and the wife was at work. We had no workmen or other visitors in the house those days. It's not clear yet whether CableTel are going to hold us liable for these charges. It is clear that they suspect our friends. I can't say I blame them for coming to that conclusion, but we have every reason to believe that our friends are perfectly trustworthy, and are sure that the explanation must lie elsewhere. As a software safety engineer, and a regular reader of the RISKS Digest, I'm well aware there may be any number of ways in which these calls could have been charged to our account. I find CableTel's claims that their computer records 'prove' the calls were made from our house to be rather less than satisfying. I don't have any detailed knowledge of telephony or telephone billing systems. I do, however, respect the technical knowledge of my fellow subscribers to this list. Does anyone have any theories as to how these calls could have been charged to our account, or has anyone heard of any similar cases? I'd be very grateful indeed for any suggestions as to how we should proceed in presenting our case to CableTel. Dewi Daniels Guildford, England ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #77 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 30 03:05:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA26499; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:05:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:05:27 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703300805.DAA26499@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #78 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Mar 97 03:05:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 78 Inside This Issue: Happy Easter to All! Suicide, The Net and MCI (John Cropper) 1997 ICFC (Farhad Sabetan) Re: Double Spam: Honest Business People Hurt (Rev. Clayton Walker) Problems With Reverse Telephone Directories (Jonathan I. Kamens) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Alexandre Polozoff) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Hillary Gorman) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Darryl Smith) Experience With Grayson's Surveyor? Please Comment (Chris Suarez) Kansas Files Suit Against MCI Over "Pushy" Telemarketing (John R. Grout) Location of Phone Box in New Construction (Michael Persons) MCI Billing Problems (Valerie Wood) Re: Answer Supervision (Alan Boritz) Re: Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto (Linc Madison) Re: Pacific Bell Demands MCI Stop its False Advertising (Linc Madison) Can Blocked Numbers be Displayed on Caller-ID? (x@com-net.org) 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: Suicide, The Net and MCI Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:34:55 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net When the story on the "Young Web Programmers who committed suicide" broke, the world was shocked ... But morbid curiousity would turn into a nightmare for the ISP who provided domain hosting for the cult, and the netowrk providing THEIR service. Forty hours after the story broke, thousands of hits per minute are STILL being recorded at their site. Worse still, the overwhelming volume slammed the Tennessee DNS provider hosting the site to the point that MCI's links in the southeast were interrupted for forty-five minutes shortly after 5PM EST Thursday evening. I personally suffered some major problems with my provider next door in Kentucky, who himself was isolated for nearly an hour. Calls to MCI revealed that they were indeed aware of the problem, and 'taking steps to correct it'. The process repeated itself again at 8PM EST when the story hit the west coast television stations, but the outage only lasted for a few minutes. Regardless ... a moderately heavy amount of volume basically stormed a small DNS provider, and affected MCI's network service in four adjacent states, proving that the internet is now pretty close to capacity, and bandwidth upgrades at ALL points are sorely needed. Big 'boats' like Sun, Microsoft, and the like can readily handle tens of thousands of hits per minute, but other sites lack even the simple infrastructure from the communications companies *themselves* to even stay afloat should everyone rush to one side of 'their ship'. An internic search of heavensgate.com revels the following info: Chris Knight HEAVENSGATE-DOM 25801 W. PCH Malibu, CA 90265 Domain Name: HEAVENSGATE.COM Administrative Contact, Billing Contact: Knight, Chris CK1370 rep@HEAVENSGATE.COM 310/829-6333 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: craig, holly HC527 holly@DNS.CNAV.COM 615/732-4816 Record last updated on 28-Feb-97. Record created on 19-Apr-96. Domain servers in listed order: DNS.CNAV.COM 206.25.206.16 NS.VALLNET.COM 206.25.206.1 It is unknown whether any of the people shown above were among those found in the aftermath of the incident. NS.VALLNET.COM is Valley Internet services in Tennessee, apparently administrated by Holly Craig (and her husband William) in Dellrose. I was unable to reach them at their contact number for comment on the incident, and/or any background info. One thing is certain: their servers, and MCI will continue to suffer from elevated (morbid) volume until this thing dies down ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The news came over the television here about 8:00 PM and their reference was to 'late this afternoon in California' meaning, I would guess, about 4:00 pm, a couple hours earlier by California time. Already the sick jokes are starting on this one. Every tragedy has to have a few sick jokes go along with it, and this one was making the rounds by fax machine on Friday evening: Name two major milestones in transportation technology which have occured in the past five hundred years. In 1492, Columbus sailed the blue ... In 1997, spaceship rides to Heaven ... In 1978 at the time of the Jim Jones affair, the jokes dealt with 'Kool Aid Communion'. The media certainly has messed up this latest story. When they broke in on the Wheel of Fortune game on ABC with the first report, it was 'in excess of thirty young men ages 18-24, all computer web site programmers ...' Later they decided the count was 39 (which is, admittedly in excess of thirty) but they kept on saying the ages were 18-24 and all of them were male and that all were 'internet programmers on the web'. Finally on Saturday here, they decided that actually 21 were female and 18 were male and that the ages were middle twenties through (in one case) 72! Well, I guess they could not have picked a better weekend for it, this being Easter. Maybe they planned it that way. My wishes for a happy holiday to those of you who celebrate it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: BDACXGR@NJCORP3.BELL-ATL.COM Subject: 1997 ICFC Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:55:06 -0500 15TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FORECASTING CONFERENCE HOSTED BY PACIFIC BELL "Dynamic Market Structures & Evolving Customer Needs: The Role of Demand Analysis & Forecasting" June 24-27, 1997 Sir Francis Drake Hotel San Francisco, CA The International Communications Forecasting Conference is a professional forum for telecommunications forecasters, demand analysts and planners. The ICFC provides opportunity for discussion, presentation, and review of emerging issues as they pertain to telecommunications forecasting and planning, demand analysis, business research and cost analysis. Visit our homepage for up to date Conference information and program material. The 1996 agenda and paper abstracts are also available on our homepage. http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/icfc/home.htm Internationally Known Speakers Peter A. Darbee, Chief Financial Officer and Controller, Pacific Bell, will speak on "Telecommunications: A Wall Street Perspective". Dr. William E. Taylor, Senior Vice President, National Economic Research Associates, Inc., will speak on "Issues Relating to Local Competition" Free Conference Tutorials Dr. John Colias of the M/A/R/C Group on "Telecommunications Forecasting Survey Design and Analysis". Dr. Richard Hoptroff of Right Information Systems on "Neural Networks and Demand Forecasting" Town Meetings "MERGER MANIA" This Town Meeting will be moderated by Robert E. Stoffels and consist of a panel representing several major telecommunications companies who have recently experienced significant mergers. Mr. Stoffels is the former editor of "America's Network" the industry's leading technology-focused trade publication. "INTERNET ECONOMICS" This Town Meeting will be moderated by Padmanabhan Srinagesh, Principal, Charles River Associates Incorporated. Panelists include: Professor Hal Varian, Dean, School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley Professor Lester Taylor, Professor of Economics and Professor of Agriculture and Natural Resource Economics, University of Arizona Craig Partridge, Senior Scientist, BBN Corporation and Adjunct Faculty, Computer Science, Stanford University Milo Medin, Vice President, Networks Systems, @Home Co-Sponsored Seminars offered at special discount prices. Register directly with the Seminar sponsor and indicate you will be attending the ICFC. "Customer Choice: Empirical Methods for Analysis & Forecasting" UC-Berkeley June 23-24, 1997, 510 642-6649 http://elsa.berkeley.edu/eml/icfc.html "Technology Forecasting For Telecom Industry" Technology Futures, Inc. June 22-24, 1997, 800 TEK-FUTR http://www.tfi.com "Business Forecasting on the IBM PC" Business Forecasting Systems, Inc. June 22-24, 1997, 617 484-5050 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/forecastpro Registration The early registration fee is $745 in US dollars before May 23, 1997. After May 23rd the registration fee will be $795 in US dollars. For attendance at both the 1997 ICFC and one of the preconference training seminars the fee is $695 in US dollars if registering before May 23, 1997, and $745 in US dollars after May 23, 1997. Contact Don Gorman for registration and hotel information at: ICFC 1997 Attn: Don Gorman 204 Murray School Road Pottstown, PA 19465 e-mail: don.gorman@worldnet.att.net Telephone: 610-469-0515 Fax: 610-469-6626 If you have questions regarding the Conference contact: Farhad Sabetan e-mail: fxsabet@popper.pactel.com Telephone: 510 823-3547 Fax: 510 866-0957 ------------------------------ From: spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Double Spam: Honest Business People Hurt Date: 29 Mar 1997 00:58:15 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas TELECOM Digest Editor responded to Martin McCormick (martin@osuunx.ucc. okstate.edu): > Speaking of bad tastes in the mouth: Did anyone else get as infuriated > as I about the media's (still ongoing at this hour) treatment and > coverage of the San Diego mass suicide affair? Every other sentence > by the commentators has been on 'the internet and the web page' which > those people operated. As one phrased it on ABC News, 'they believed > that by committing suicide they would go to live on another planet > and this is all explained on their Web Page ...' Yeah right. This > is always followed of course by the local internet expert showing how > to log in and read the page those fools put together. Now we come to find out that the leader, Do, was formerly institutionalized, and his mate, Ti, was a nurse at his place of confinement. In my efforts as a volunteer internet trainer with Austin FreeNet (www.austinfree.net), I've found that a large majority of people think a) all internet address are in the form http://www.xxxx.com. Anything else (for example, gopher://, ftp://, *.edu, and god forbid, *.jp or even *.us) brings "Should I add an http://" or "Should I add a www to the beginning?" My brother has gotten into muds, and I was called upon to explain to one of his friends how to access it. His father called me, asking what I was doing giving them access codes to a teacher's computer network. He had never heard of telnet, and thought instead I was referring to TENET, the Texas Educators NETwork. What I'm trying to get at in all that is that while the public is being forcefed the web, they're not getting the whole story, of which the media can quite often be guilty. What makes me angry is MSNBC, claiming they "unite television and the Internet". That's something that I for one certainly don't want. The TV-x ratings have proven to be a failure, because of the governmental involvement. And their web pages use ‘ for quotation marks, making me, a lynx user, not too happy. > blocking software company puts out anyway on account of the word > 'sex' being in a message they saw. The Austin Public Library, along with Austin Freenet (which provides computers to APL and which I do volunteer internet training for), is going through the battle which many libraries have been going through, most notably Boston, recently installing Cyber Patrol at all its terminals. Apparantly they had been getting many angry parents complaining that their children could be accessing "that smut they read about", and then what took the cake was that someone printed out kiddie porn at several of the stations (I didn't see it, but it was described by one of the librarians as "quite raunchy"), and left it sitting ont he printer. The library staff was worried about liability on their part, due to a Texas law that prohibits facilitating access of pornography to anyone under 17. Then there's the humorous anecdote I'm sure everyone in any way involved with blocking software has heard, where a major software company had a slew of telephone calls from people who couldn't rea their web page, all of whom were using . The culprit was a chili pepper graphic, named hot.gif. The Reverend Clayton Walker spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Sick, Neurotic Note: Another of the jokes going around as a result of this spectacle asks, "Ti and Do had five children. Do you know their names?" (Answer: Ray, Me, Fa, So, and La). And there were other jokes which, if I may be charitable about it, were too, umm, involved for publication in this family-oriented Digest I publish. The least offensive of these had the cult members going as a group to the hospital for the surgical removal of their Secret Parts. The doctors protested that this was a highly unusual request and the cultists insisted with equal vigor that it was mandated by their Scriptures. Finally the doctors agree to perform the operation on each of the men there. Later they go back to their cult headquarters and meet with their leader Do. He asks them if they have followed the scriptural mandate to be circumcised. The men all look at one another incredulously and finally one speaks up saying, "Dammit, I knew we were telling the doctors the wrong word!" .... Enough already. The next conversation about Do should be how much dough you are going to send the Digest for your subscription for this year if you have not done so already. I keep this little ezine going because some readers have made it their business to help me financially. I appreciate receiving letters from readers at my post office box (POB 4621 Skokie, IL 60077) and encourage all of you to stay in touch as often as you can. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jik@cam.ov.com (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Problems With Reverse Telephone Directories Date: 28 Mar 1997 14:30:50 GMT Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc. In article , reynolds@ece.vill.edu (Jim Reynolds) writes: > www.whowhere.com used to have a reverse look up as well, but dropped > it due to pressue about privacy concerns. Personally, I don't see the > problem. No new or previously unpublished data is now available, it's > just organized differently (i.e. sorted by phone number instead of > name). Organizing data differently *can* be functionally equivalent to making new data available. If you're a stalker calling random phone numbers and seeing if young-sounding women answer the phone, in the old days you'd have no way of finding out the address associated with the phone number of such an answeree. Now, you can look up their phone number, get their address, and head right on over. Similarly, if you meet someone in a bar and he/she gives you his/her phone number, in the old days, you'd have to call him/her to meet again. Now, if you're a not-so-upright kind of person, you can look up the phone number and just show up. I think you get the idea. There are *serious* privacy and safety concerns with making it possible for anyone to look up a phone number and get the name and address of the person using that number. Perhaps further discussion of this would be more appropriate in the PRIVACY or RISKS digest, both of which have discussed it extensively in the past. Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | jik@cam.ov.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But using your line of reasoning, if someone just gives out their full name they run the 'risk' of having it looked up in a phone book. Why can't I see a person I wish to harass walking down the street, notice which house they enter, later see the name which appears on the mailbox there, and look up that name and address in a 'regular' phone book? A person with the type of privacy concerns you state does have an option or two: they can be entirely non-pub and they will not appear in a criss-cross. They can be listed under a different name. They can be listed with their name but 'address not listed at customer request ...' and in those cases the criss-cross book usually has a category just under the name of the town with all those listed. For example, check the Haines book or the Donnelly book for Chicago. Mixed in with all the street names listed in alphabetical order is one called 'Chicago, IL' and a few dozen names and phone numbers. In the phone number section of the cross-reference book the numbers have the names but then just a blank where the street address would go. Criss-cross directories serve as a valuable resource for delivery services like UPS and Fed- eral Express. They are good anytime you have a legitimate reason to locate the telephone numbers at a given address. Punish database abusers rather than abolishing the databases. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 06:28:32 -0600 From: Alexandre POLOZOFF Reply-To: alexandre_polozoff@ibm.net Organization: Genius at Work Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago > How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's > location known to the police? PAT] I drove by a brush fire on the interstate in NC a few months back. I called 911 on my cell phone and was connected to a 911 operator that then patched me through to the State Police. With both of them on the line the State PO wanted to know which county I was in. Unfamiliar with the territory all I could give them was a mile marker and a town I had recently passed. He seemed to determine which county it was and terminated the call at that point. As for not dialing 911 for non-emergencies... When living in Austin Texas there was a horrendous noise outside. Looking out there was a tow truck with a car on the hook that stopped infront of my house. The men were trying to get the doors open to let the emergency brake go which was the cause of the noise. I dialed the 7 digit number for the police and he told me to call 911 instead!! This wasn't an emergency because it could've been a legitimate repossession of the vehicle, but it could've been a clever way to steal cars. It seems central dispatching must be moving to 911 centers making it impossible for local precincts to send out officers. Alexandre POLOZOFF http://www.exoweb.com/polozoff/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Chicago Police are horrible about that. They always say call 911, no matter what it is you want to say to them. Then of course the 911 people are always griping and com- plaining about how the public abuses 911 with non-essential stuff. They'll say call the local station, only when you do so to have the local station personnel tell you to call 911 again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: 28 Mar 1997 17:24:44 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous > The reason we have not had 911 for cell phones here is the same reason > it took *years* to get 911 installed in general across northern Illinois > outside the city of Chicago: none of the municipalities could agree > on who would take whose calls when telephone exchange lines did not > agree with municipal boundary lines. Most of them were afraid that > if something went right, the other guy would get the credit while if > something went wrong, they'd be the ones to catch hell. In other words, > politics as usual. > How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's > location known to the police? PAT] Interesting that this should come up right now. I was just talking about this with some friends. There is a city just outside of Philadelphia, PA, called Wyndmoor. There's a cellular tower there that covers parts of Wyndmoor, and parts of Chestnut Hill ... but Chestnut Hill is within Philadelphia city limits, and Wyndmoor is not. My friend Erik worked for Comcast Metrophone last year, and was responsible for figuring out how the 911 calls would be handled. He assigned it so that the Wyndmoor tower routed to the Wyndmoor 911. Then, a former mayor of Philadelphia called 911 from his cell phone in his car in his driveway in Chestnut Hill, and was apparently very angry that his call didn't route to the Philadelphia 911. So they changed it. hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:05:42 +1000 From: Darryl Smith Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Here in Australia things are a bit different. We have a 000 service which is somewhat easier to dial if you need to do it in the dark etc. Anyway here in New South Wales (with Sydney as the capital) we have a better system than appears in the USA. We do not have county (or council) police forces. We have federal police who are rarely seen and state police. Thus the New South Wales police force is one of the largest in the country. The Ambulance service is the same throughout the state and are paid for by the state government. Fire departments are paid for by insurance companies in association with the state government. Thus the local councils have no interest in the 000 emergency service. When you ring the 000 service you are asked normally what service you want (Police, fire, Ambulance) and then talk to a dispatcher for the appropriate service. With mobile calls you are firstly asked where you are and then connected to the appropriate service. I think the perople asking about the location work for the phone company. Recently I needed to call 000 from my mobile, told them I needed the police and my location and they connected me to the local police station. It appears that they don't take note of any cell information even though GSM could tell I was 400 meters from the base station. And to make things even better I really like the fact that all three mobile companies cover the majority of the population. Darryl VK2TDS ------------------------------ From: Chris Suarez Subject: Experience With Grayson's Surveyor? Please Comment Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:01:10 -0600 Organization: W.I.S. Reply-To: w.i.solutions@worldnet.att.net I've been working with the Grayson Surveyor tools (GSM/CDMA-PCS) and have mixed opinions. I would really appreciate a second opinion from someone who has experience with these products. Many thanks in advance. Chris Suarez Wireless Infrastructure Solutions Tampa, Florida ------------------------------ From: j-grout@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Kansas Files Suit Against MCI Over "Pushy" Telemarketing Date: 28 Mar 1997 18:17:09 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu According to press reports, the state of Kansas has filed suit against MCI's over its "pushy sales tactics" during telemarketing calls it placed in 1991. The suit alleges that MCI broke a state law requiring telemarketers to ask a customer's permission to make a sales pitch in the first 30 seconds of a call. Though the maximum penalty is only $5000, it appears (from the report) that a penalty could be assessed for each objectionable call placed within the period at issue. John R. Grout j-grout@uiuc.edu Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: mpp@phydeau.com (Michael Persons) Subject: Location of Phone Box in New Construction Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 06:36:47 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc. Hi folks, I'm part of a group building a condo-style housing development with a little extra involvement with neighbors, while preserving the privacy of your own home (it's called cohousing; if you lament that you've lived somewhere for a while but don't know your neighbors, check out http://www.cohousing.org). We're not doing the building ourselves -- we've hired a contractor to do that. We hope to set up a local area network between the townhouses (34 total) in a star topology converging on the common house (cohousing term for condo clubhouse with a few extras). In order to lay the cable between the houses, we need to dig, so we thought wouldn't it be cool if we could lay the conduit in the same trench as the phone lines. I don't know much about telecom, but I do know that those boxes that sit alongside the road next to new housing contain the phone wires from the houses. We would like to have that box at our common house, which is not right next to the road but in the middle of our development. That way, when they're laying the phone cable they can lay the network conduit too. I may be totally clueless about how this works, but does anyone know if such a thing is possible? (We're in MA so this is Nynex.) What are the rules they use in placing that junction box thingie? Would they be OK with the box being not along the side of the road? Please email as I'm sure this is a pretty specialized topic. Thanks, Mike Persons Commonweal Cohousing Grafton, MA ------------------------------ From: Woodie1@ix.netcom.com (Valerie Wood) Subject: MCI Billing Problems Organization: The Interactive Telephone Company Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 02:00:00 EST To Resellers and Carriers, Has anyone in either of the above categories experienced MCI billing problems? Have you been overbilled by MCI for access or network services? Wrong rate plan? Incorrect rates? If so, please contact me. Thanks, Valerie Wood Phone: 1-201-997-3000 Fax: 201-997-2009 ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Answer Supervision Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 10:27:00 -0500 In article , Reggie.Ratcliff@ Sciatl.COM wrote: > I'm curious as how they can get away with playing a message and not > giving answer supervision. Maybe the rules have changed, or maybe they > don't apply to carriers. Several years back after the FCC's DID answer > supervision ruling, we had to start shipping separate versions of our > small CO/PBX nationally and internationally. Bill von Alven at the FCC > insisted that any part 68 products sold in the US could not give any > information other than call progress tones without returning answer > supervision, and must not allow the customer to modify them so that > they could. Mr. Von Alven was not entirely correct. If you have DID service, you MUST be able to return an "invalid number" intercept recording without answer supervision. That's configurable in the PBX and consistent with most non-FCC tariffs. I had the opportunity to research that issue when I (when working for the City of New York) reached an intercept on an unassigned extension in our own switch, and the rude payphone swallowed up my quarter. Unfortunately, I don't recall where I found it documented (we had the entire NY Tel PSC 900 in our library, so it was easy back then). ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:38:11 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , david@sternlight.com wrote: > [pointer to ClariNews article about a proposed federal law clarifying > that citizens can use "strong encryption" technologies] > Comment: > I must say that if the assertion [that the industry used weaker encryption > at NSA request] is correct, I can no longer support any government policy > that would make law enforcement's job easier at the expense of the entire > population. This is not a police state, and it is high time the FBI, > NSA, and CIA faced up to the fact that when the rights of the rest of > us are concerned, they must do their job the old fashioned way, and > not by seeking shortcuts at the expense of the public's security. I have an idea: why don't we require everyone in the country to give copies of their house keys to the government -- with proper assurances that they will only be used by authorized agents with proper judicial clearance -- since criminals often operate behind locked doors, and it is an impediment to law enforcement to have to physically break down the door. With strong deadbolt technologies, lock-picking may not be practical in real time. For that matter, since automobiles are often used in the commission of serious crimes, let's require everyone to file copies of their car keys under the same terms, and require that every car be designed with a built-in remote ignition shut-off, so that a police officer can simply turn off the car of a fleeing suspect. ** 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: Pacific Bell Demands MCI Stop its False Advertising Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:09:17 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , PAT added: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lying and distorting reality is > nothing new for MCI. [...story about MCI ads "neglecting to mention" the > local call charges when using MCI in the early days...] Another prime example is the "Save up to 44%" ads for 1-800-COLLECT. It turns out that MCI's 1-800-COLLECT rates are up to 44% lower than the rates that AT&T charges IF YOU PAY THE SURCHARGE FOR HAVING THE OPERATOR DIAL THE NUMBER FOR YOU. In other words, they are comparing: (a) 1-800-265-5328 NPA-NXX-XXXX (b) 10288-0# "Operator, I'd like to call NPA-NXX-XXXX, collect" Oh, but if they compared their subscriber-dialed collect rates against AT&T's subscriber-dialed collect rates, it wouldn't sound nearly as impressive. I don't know -- maybe MCI doesn't charge extra for having the operator key the number if you just enter "0" for assistance instead of entering the destination number -- but I still say it's intentionally deceptive advertising, particularly since all of their ads give the example of "dial 1-800-COLLECT, then the area code and number you're calling," or words to that effect. ** 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: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:10:37 -0500 From: X@com.net.org Reply-To: heaven!Data@uunet.uu.net Organization: Spammers Create Unwanted Mail (SCUM) Subject: Can Blocked Numbers be Displayed on Caller-ID? I've searched everywhere I can think of and can't find any info on whether or not there exist caller-id units, or PC software that will display caller-id numbers even if they've been blocked with something like *67. Does anyone know where I can get this kind of hardware or software? Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dear X ... you seem like a person who is unclear on the concept. There is no caller-id box or PC software which will do what you want simply because you cannot get something out of nothing. It is not your display box or PC software which is responding in obedience to the *67 privacy flag sent by the caller; it is the telco central office. You can have any box or software you want; the central office will send it only the word 'private'. There is no way to 'reach back' from your end to the central office and get it to release the calling party's number. If there were, that would defeat the entire purpose of using *67 would it not; and I daresay if you found a way to do this you would have a lot of *very angry* subscribers banging on telco's door demanding a fix to the problem. Your only real recourse is to refuse to accept phone calls from 'private' callers. Answer the phone with a terse announcement that you do not accept such calls (this can be a recorded message if desired) then hang up. A great many of the private callers will in fact dial back a second time transmitting their number in the clear. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #78 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 30 13:35:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA27001; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 13:35:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 13:35:21 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703301835.NAA27001@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #79 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Mar 97 13:35:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 79 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Tad Cook) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Anthony Argyriou) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (morian@pobox.com) Re: Caller ID on Blocked Calls (Ken Levitt) Re: Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers (John R. Levine) Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs (Chris Martin) Re: Slammed by American Business Alliance (J. DeBert) Re: Fast Busy Signal (J. DeBert) Re: ISP Offering Unlimited Access via 800/888 - How?? (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control (Sheldon Laws) Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? (Robert A. Pierce) Re: Can Rev J Flash Rev K on BSP? (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 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: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:17:28 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) PAT wrote: > Now telco is saying that with cell towers which are 'clearly within > the boundaries of a given community' (meaning it is unlikely anyone > picked up by that tower would not be somewhere in the community) could > easily pass information to the ground stations to interpret 911 in the > context of that local community. In other words, the tower which is > right in the center of downtown Skokie could be reasonably certain > that a 911 call received was from someone in Skokie; it is doubtful > someone three miles away in Evanston would have hit that tower. So > even though the tower sends its calls via a landline to (let us say) > Schaumburg, Illinois where Ameritech is located, it could tell the > switch at that point to use a Skokie FX (foreign exchange) line to > dial out to 911, getting the call back to the Skokie Police. The > police would get the cellular phone number and the general location of > the tower handling the call. To do this, some cellular systems are using the Proctor CellLink system. This is a box installed at each cellsite which grabs the ANI of each cellphone call to 911, and passes it over special circuits to the correct PSAP. The system can tell which cellular tower face the call came from, and route it through the 911 tandem to the correct PSAP. For more information on CellLink, contact Proctor & Associates of Redmond, WA via solutions@proctorinc.com or 206-881-7000. They also make a device for PBXs that routes 911 calls from behind the PBX over dedicated trunks to the PSAP or tandem, passing along a unique ANI for each extension, so that they can get an exact location for each extension. Without it they just get an ID for the PBX trunk that it was dialed on. Proctor calls this product PBX ANI. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: Jj34a@aol.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 08:20:25 GMT Organization: DNAI ( Direct Network Access ) Reply-To: Jj34a@aol.com On 25 Mar 1997 15:08:35 GMT, grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) wrote: > You mean it's not available *now*? What happens when a user dials > 911? In Ameritech/Cleveland, calls are answered by PSAP (Public > safety Answering Point). >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just a quick mention of an interesting >> development here in the Chicago area ... Ameritech says 911 service is >> going to be available to cellular phone users this month. PAT] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At the present time, star-999 will {snip} > How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's > location known to the police? PAT] In California, ALL cellular 911 calls go to the California Highway Patrol. If the call is about an emergency not on a state highway, the dispatcher routes it to the appropriate local police dispatcher. Interestingly enough, in a few places, this _is_ the CHP, as they provide local policing under contract in a few areas. Anthony Argyriou formerly Anthony042@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 07:37:35 -0800 From: Morian Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago > How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's > location known to the police? PAT] In our area, we have a 911 service that covers the whole "county". When you dial 911 you get a central 911 office run by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, who say "911, police, fire or abulance?" and would route you to the correct police/fire dept based on your answer (ambulance is dispatched from one office in the GVRD). When you call from your cell, your dialogue would be: 911 - "911, police, fire or ambulance" you - "police" 911 - "For what city please?" You would then be routed to the city police or RCMP responsable for that area. Morian -- morian@pobox.com Finger above address for PGP public key and commercial email policy. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 10:46:16 From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Caller ID on Blocked Calls >> I've searched everywhere I can think of and can't find any info >> on whether or not there exist caller-id units, or PC software >> that will display caller-id numbers even if they've been blocked >> with something like *67. Does anyone know where I can get this >> kind of hardware or software? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dear X ... you seem like a person > who is unclear on the concept. There is no caller-id box or PC > software which will do what you want simply because you cannot > get something out of nothing. There is in fact a way for "X" to get what he/she wants. All it takes is some money. 1. Get an 800/888 number. 2. Route it to an unpublished local number. 3. Pay to have your 800/888 carrier deliver real time ANI as Caller ID. 4. Reject all private calls because they could not have come through the 800/888 number. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well alright, that is one work-around I had not thought about. But strictly speaking, it is ANI and not CID. The results are the same on the display box, but telco's rationale is since you are paying for the call you certainly get to know what it is you are paying for. I got a couple other ntoes from X this morning in which he said the people on the Privacy Digest mailing list were insisting that the caller id data was being sent all the way to the box and that it was up to the box to honor a flag which indicated 'privacy'. This is just not true. Telco sends data telling the box to display the private notation; it does *not* send the number with a flag telling the box not to display it. That would be lunacy, to expect the people with caller id boxes not to be hacking them to get around that situation. On that other mailing list, they are probably getting this confused with the situation you described where the data originates as ANI and is being forwarded. Everyone should be aware that *67 (or whatever variation on it is used in your community) **never** is honored in th case of a call to an 800/888 number. You may *not* prevent the recipient of a toll free call from seeing your number. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 11:36 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Problem with NPA 760 (CA) Test Numbers Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > [ calls to 760 test numbers work better with some IXCs than with others ] >> But when I use _AT&T_ to call the (Pac*Bell) test number 760-400-0760, I >> seem to be failing. I do _not_ get an _AT&T_ rejection recording, but a >> recorded male voice announcing that my call cannot be completed as >> dialed. It seems to be a Pac*Bell recording, as the recorded male voice >> seems to be the same voice announcing a successful test to 760-400-0760 >> when I dial it via carriers _other_ than AT&T. These days, that doesn't tell you who actually rejected the call. With SS#7, an intermediate carrier can send a message back to the originating switch asking that it go to a failure message of some sort. This is most obvious when you dial an international number that's busy and get a regular U.S. busy signal because that busy signal is generated here in the U.S. This is a good thing, it frees trunks from calls that can never complete. Pat sez: > You would think though these days with the rapid increase in area codes > it would be just as simple or more so for the local CO to just accept > whatever it was given and if it did not work out locally simply hand it > over to the long distance carrier and say, "here, you try to figure it > out ..." Local telcos would be happy to do that, but the IXCs won't let them. Trunks and switches are still expensive enough that they want to block a call that cannot complete as early as possible. I admit with the possibility of SS#7 bouncing the call back to the originating switch and freeing up the trunk in a second or so, this is a less compelling argument than it used to be. 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: Chris_Martin Subject: Re: Where to Find the XDSL Beta's and Active Installs Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 07:40:53 -0500 Organization: "NetEdge Systems" Tony Toews wrote: > There are some areas where I'd sure like to see faster things. But > then I live in a town of 4000 so I don't expect faster access than > 33.6 modem for many years to come. So I think I'll be getting a small > satellite dish soon. And how big is Glasgow, Kentucky? The Glasgow Electric Plant board has offered services like Home LAN (via their broadband network), cable TV, internet access, and telephone service. Oh, they offer electric service too;) This project started ten years ago, not ten years from now. It *can* be done in small towns ... Chris Martin martin@NetEdge.com http://www.netedge.com NetEdge Systems PHONE: (919) 991-9253 FAX: (919) 991-9160 P.O. Box 14993, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4993 ------------------------------ From: J. DeBert Subject: Re: Slammed by American Business Alliance Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:05:07 -0800 Organization: hypatia.com Mark Wold wrote: > Out of the blue, every other long distance call we started making was > getting 'all circuits busy'. so I call 1-700-555-4141 and find that > I'm on AT&T. We call Ameritech and they show a change to American > Business Alliance, an AT&T reseller. We track down these people and > register a complaint and a trouble call since we can't dial half the > calls we want. They are also known as 'The Phone Company'. They say > they have a verification firm which indicates that I authorized the > switch on 12/13/96 which took place on 03/11/97. I never authorized > anything. So they call back today and have produced a tape of a phone > call to our number with somebody claiming to be me. It's not me and > the conversation never happened. > I don't know what or who to believe. Either the verification firm > called a wrong number and somebody played the game as me, or the tape > was created as a fake. > Fortunately, Ameritech was able to get us back on our real carrier > within an hour. > Anybody else out there ever deal with these folks? They are based > somewhere in Pennsylvania. About a month ago, someone claiming to be "ATT" called to ask about how well I liked ATT, then passed me off to a person to get some personal information. I declined to give it, because it was too personal, like birthdate, SSN, etc., and because ATT should already have all the info they needed from me. The person was rather determined to get all this information but I firmly declined, so they gave me a number to call to prove that they were indeed who they said they were, and all, and it was not the published ATT service number. I think it was a scam, whether or not these people were associated with ATT. I think the intention was to slam me. With such a lengthy call, they could have recorded it and then cut-and-pasted their own version of me authorizing a switch. ATT already has all sorts of information about me (especially ATT -- formerly Bell -- Security) and they do not need any more, for any reason. These people gave absolutely no indication that they had any of this information, not address, not name, not anything. So I guess the obvious moral is, "Never believe that the caller is who (s)he represents herself to be". onymouse@hypatia.com | I've only one thing to say to spammers: "47USC227". Send NO spam | ------------------------------ From: J. DeBert Subject: Re: Fast Busy Signal Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:11:03 -0800 Organization: hypatia.com Scott Pakiser wrote: > We had a problem connecting to one long distance number (a "fast busy > signal" the carrier called it). We contacted the carrier and they > rerouted it within the hour. My question is: Is this a sign that the > carrier's network is either too small or unreliable? What exactly is > a fast busy signal? > It seemed strange that only one number was affected. It is the first > time to have a problem with the carrier, but we don't want it to > happen again. I'm not too sure about now, but not too long ago a "fast busy", aka "reorder" meant that no trunks were available to the destination or, sometimes, a dialing error. Each had it's own unique "fast busy" sound. Both have been mostly supplanted by voice messages, i.e., "...all circuits are busy..." and "...we are unable to connect your call as dialed...", etc. onymouse@hypatia.com | I've only one thing to say to spammers: "47USC227". Send NO spam | ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: ISP Offering Unlimited Access via 800/888 - How?? Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:22:01 -0500 Organization: ICB Toll Free News Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Wondering the same thing, I've been poking around since last month, checking RespOrg ID's, querying carriers, collecting contracts. Disparate findings are starting to make sense. A co-owner/systems administrator of a small ISP emailed me today, sharing, in part: "We bought into what is shaping up to be a big scam when we contracted with a company to provide us an 888 number for our dial in users at a flat rate per user per month. All parties involved have defaulted on the contracts and the FBI and secret service is involved." I spoke with a larger ISP yesterday, same story. Only this company had done thorough due diligence and follow-up. I have no documentation yet, but was told that RespOrgs involved knew they were being ripped off at least a month ago. Along, of course, with the victim ISPs and subscribers. Which raises all sorts of interesting questions. Judith Oppenheimer Robert, Holloman, Jr. wrote: > I just noticed on US Robotic's ISP list > (http://x2.usr.com/connectnow/index.html) there's an ISP called The > Grid (http://www.thegrid.net) offering unlimited, non-surcharged, > toll-free 800 access for a flat-rate of $24.95 per month. I've seen > another ISP planning to do the same. This sounds too good to be true. > Anyone had any experience with them? How the heck can they possible > afford to offer unlimited 800 service? Every ISP I've seen > (CompuServe, Concentric, MindSpring, etc., etc.) charges $5 to $10 > extra per hour for such. ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could you give us a bit more detail on exactly how the scam or ripoff functioned? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sheldon Laws Subject: Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:38:33 -0800 Paul C. Diem wrote: > Can someone explain how modems implement flow control between each > other? The Clear to Send (CTS) signal tells the other modem that it is ready to get data from the other modem. The Data Set Ready (DSR) signal tells the other modem that it is going to send data. > For example, let's say I have modem A with a serial port speed > of 115200 which dials into modem B with a serial port speed of 19200 This is the speed at which each modem connects and send data to ITS computer. > and connects with a carrier of 28800.this is the speed that both > modems are communicating at with each other. > The system connected to modem A starts blasting data to modem A at > 115200, modem A starts sending data to modem B at 28800, modem B > starts sending data to the system connected to modem B at > 19200. Soon system B stops data flow No. Modem A would stop because modem b would be sending its data to its computer at a slower rate than A. > B's computer would be still getting the data(either > via hardware or XON/XOFF). XON/XOFF is considered software flow control, the software handles the controlling signals. > How does modem B tell modem A to stop sending data and later tell it > to start sending again? With the signals above,(CTS,RTS) if data is > at modem b and the computer is recieving it then modem B will tell > modem A to hold on till it is ready for more as well as modem A will > tell ITS computer to stop sending data to it untill it is ready to > send data to B There are two more signals that are used by the computers connected to each modem. They are (RTS) Request to Send, (DTR) Data Terminal Ready and then the send and recieve signals. the DTR is used by the computer to tell its modem that it is ready to recieve more data (from its modem) and the RTS tells its modem that it is going to send it data. the last signals are the actual send and recieve signals. ------------------------------ From: rapierce@X!pobox.com (Robert A. Pierce) Subject: Re: Does This Warning Really Make a Difference? Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 13:53:19 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Reply-To: rapierce@X!pobox.com The good Andrew C. Green sent these blessings: >> So how has it been going with you people who put those things >> in your messages? Has the spam and junk mail subsided at all? >> Are those idiots with their business opportunities and other >> worthless mail getting the hint at all? > Let's find out, shall we? I've planted a bogus return address in the > header of this message, to be used precisely once, right now. I expect > Incoming email sent to this "blackhole" address will bounce to our > long-suffering postmaster/SysAdmin, who has graciously agreed to keep When I first started modifying my address to "foil spammers," I was changing my user ID instead of the domain. It was pointed out to me that this would cause the mail be delivered to my ISP, and then bounced. I have started modifying the domain name of my email address. This causes the error to affect the sender's, and not the recipient's, ISP. I know of one person who uses "postmaster@localhost" as his reply-to address. I do not know if this works, but it is supposed to send the mail to the spammer's own ISP. If everyone would use the same name in the reply-to field, it would make things harder for the spammers. Something the spammers are doing now is subscribing to mailing lists, and getting the addresses via a "who." One list I am on received a message with over forty addresses in the "to:" field, and a one word message: "subscribe." Robert Pierce My e-mail address is antispam encoded. Remove the X! ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Can Rev J flash Rev K on BSP? Date: 29 Mar 1997 22:24:39 GMT Organization: University of South Florida [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original message on this did not appear in the Digest. PAT] Broth101 (broth@execpc.com) wrote: > In article <332da53e.2496560@news.detroit.mi.ameritech.net>, > mascot@ameritech.net says... >> I liked the way my BSP worked better before I flashed it with Rev K. >> Is it possible to Flash the BSP with an older Revision, ala Rev J? > FWIW, we just got ISDN yesterday and the BSP's performance > improved *slightly* when we went from J to K. I went from > a 33.6 to ISDN, everything is hooked up right & running at > two channels... but if this speed is better than 56K, I'm > a monkey's uncle. > Is ISDN performance *completely* dependent on the speed of > the Net at a given time? I'm curious about your experience > with your BSP's speed. We're real disappointed so far. In general, it's a good idea to remember that the perceived response time of any given system will depend on the most restricted part. The faster your local "last-milee" lin becomes, the more you'll notice the limitations in the rest of the net. In many cases, the net throughput can in fact be less thatn 128Kbps, and occasionally, less than 64K. Much of the bog in the net as we know it today comes from the _vast_ lack of locality of reference in the peering amongst the major backbone providers. Mail from my commercial Mindspring account going to my free account on the local freenet has to go via New Jersey, because the two networks involved only touch at MAE EAST, in Pennsauken. This is inane and moronic, but it's a side effect of commercialism. All that extra traffic may well account for 50% or more than the backbone loading, and setting up more regional peering points would solve the problem ... but they don't seem to be inclined to _do_ that, much. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 "...short of hiring the Unabomber, how can I +1 813 790 7592 jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us get back at them?" --Andy Cramer NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #79 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 1 09:04:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA04568; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:04:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:04:44 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704011404.JAA04568@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #80 TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Apr 97 09:04:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 80 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Child Safety on the Internet" by Distefano (Rob Slade) Re: Ameritech Complaint (Dan A. Neumann) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Stanley Cline) Re: Problems With Reverse Telephone Directories (Thomas Cain) Re: Problems With Reverse Telephone Directories (Richard Enteman) Re: ISP Offering Unlimited Access via 800/888 - How?? (Judith Oppenheimer) FCC Releases Staff Working Paper on Internet Policy (Monty Solomon) List of All *nn Features (x@net.com.org) Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control (David Clayton) Berkeley Spring Courses in Communications Tech (course@berkeley.edu) 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, 31 Mar 1997 14:11:49 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Child Safety on the Internet" by Distefano BKCHSFIN.RVW 961128 "Child Safety on the Internet", Vince Distefano, 1997, 0-13-569468-X, U$34.95/C$48.93 %A Vince Distefano %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-569468-X %I Prentice Hall %O U$34.95/C$48.93 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 296 %S Classroom Connect %T "Child Safety on the Internet" This volume contains a helpful and generally realistic set of resources. It talks primarily about the dangers, but does note that the risks are not as bad as some of the hype. The book does, for once, look at other "dangers" besides pornography, and has a reasonable chapter on netiquette. Online service protection options, content rating systems, and protective/support groups are discussed. In addition, there are suggestions and advice for "after the fact" detecting and policing. There are some gaps in the book. The fact that there are weaknesses, inaccuracies and misleading statements in the (now infamous) Rimm study/Time special is dismissed as "not important". The subtle censorship of Internet filter software is not discussed. (One of the filter programs on the accompanying CD-ROM blocks non-pornography or violence related terms which are germane only to discussions of certain political leanings. Filter developers will not even confirm the dictionary of words used, with some slight justification.) Most filter packages do not allow parents to tune or manage the terms to be included or excluded. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKCHSFIN.RVW 961128 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:47:34 -0600 From: dan@storz.com (Dan A. Neumann) Subject: Re: Ameritech Complaint Pat: The memo I faxed to the office of the Vice-President of Ameritech was seven printed pages long. I will try to present relivant information in a more condensed form: I will not detail all the MANY calls I was forced to make in order to establish temporary phone service at the old house, in order to have Ameritech active a "forward" message when the "old" number was called, etc. There were several problems in addition to the fact that we were without phone service for 29 days, and Ameritech's approach to all these problems were the same ... make excuses, ignore my requests, and ignore the information we provided. In late Dec. 1996, we were moving from one house to another existing house, about two miles apart. Since the second house had been inhabited, with phone service, only three months earlier, I expected the phone to be activated immediately. When I called, I was told "our computer shows that an inside service call will be necessary". When I pointed out that all the internal phone lines were already installed, they said "all we can do is go by what the computer says". AND I got the SAME answer when I gave them the new address: ### North XYZ Street. "Our computer says ### XYZ, but sometimes they don't match exactly". I then provided them with the name and phone number of the people who had just moved out of the house we bought, thinking this would "clear up" any ambiguity. Due to the holidays, the first appointment available was a week later, on a Friday afternoon. We sat around waiting for them for six hours, then called. We were told that the serviceman had been there, but he found a problem which would require support from their Engineering Dept.; no further information would be available until Monday. Monday, I called. NO information. Tuesday I called, and was told that no line connections were available; they would have to install a new line. If you would like a description of the DOZENS of calls I had to make during the following weeks, please let me know how to send you a private E-Mail. I will "spare" your readers these details. However, it should be noted that on at least one other occasion, I emphasized the address again and emphasized the fact that there had been phone service at that house only three months earlier. One day, my wife was told they were working on our lines that day. She happened to be home during the day, and told them that NO Ameritech trucks were in the area. 29 days after my first phone call, on a Saturday morning, an Ameritech repairman knocked on the door. My wife was home. He asked her if this was "The Neumanns at ### XYZ Street"; she said "yes". He told her that for the past couple weeks, Ameritech had been installing new lines for ### XYZ DRIVE. This is located in a subdivision 10 miles away, but for some reason, it is still considered part of the same town! He said that an entire crew, including engineers, had worked until 10 pm the previous night, in freezing temperatures! There is something basically wrong with the way Ameritech handles problems reported by customers. The most arrogant of the bunch appears to be the contact I made at the office of the Vice President. After I FAXed him a request for reimbursement of cell phone calls we were forced to make (my wife has to contact her customers each morning before leaving the house), he has failed to respond to my FAX and to "follow-up" phone calls. It appears the Illinois Commerce Commission is unwilling to do anything on my behalf, except they forwarded my original complaint to Ameritech. Even though the Utility Commission in Michigan or Wisconsin recently sued their phone provider on behalf of their customers who were without service for 24 HOURS, the I.C.C. seemed rather unconcerned about an Illinois resident who was without a phone for 29 DAYS. Do you have any further suggestions? Thanks!! Dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it still seems pretty incredible things could have gotten that far out of control. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 14:04:22 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On 28 Mar 1997 17:24:44 GMT, Hillary Gorman wrote: > this with some friends. There is a city just outside of > Philadelphia, PA, called Wyndmoor. There's a cellular tower there that > covers parts of > 911. Then, a former mayor of Philadelphia called 911 from his cell > phone in his car in his driveway in Chestnut Hill, and was apparently > very angry that his call didn't route to the Philadelphia 911. So they > changed it. In the Chattanooga area, there is a cell tower about 1/6 mile west of the Walker/Catoosa County, GA line. BellSouth Mobility was routing calls received by that cell site to the *Walker* County 911 center, even though it seems that more of *Catoosa* County was covered by the tower. The tower also is just outside the city of Fort Oglethorpe, which covers parts of BOTH counties. Needless to say, I complained to BellSouth -- that they should either a) route calls from that site to Catoosa County, or b) route them to Fort Oglethorpe for forwarding if out of city limits. I don't know what became of that. (It's not all that bad, though, because there have been various forwarding/mutual-aid agreements between the telcos, Walker County, and Catoosa County for years -- mainly because the city of Fort Oglethorpe straddles the county line, Fort Oglethorpe's volunteer fire department *also* covers most of rural Walker County [and at one time, even provided fire service in a few areas of TENNESSEE!], and that the sae ambulance service -- that of a public hospital -- serves areas in both counties.) Walker County had E-911 before Catoosa, *but* 911 would work from either county [the CO for western Catoosa is in Walker]; a Walker County 911 dispatcher could -- and still does -- route calls to Catoosa if needed. At one point, 911 calls from Catoosa would hop the state line to Chattanooga!) On a sectorized cell site, it _may_ be possible to determine jurisdiction from the sector the mobile is in (and route accordingly), but the Fort Oglethorpe site isn't sectorized. To make matters worse, there are numerous cell sites of both CellOne and BellSouth sitting within a mile or two of the Tennessee/Georgia line -- THAT results in repeated transfers if the cell site is in a different STATE than the caller. PCS may have less trouble with jurisdictional vs. cell-coverage boundaries, especially in urban areas where cells may be smaller. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Unofficial MindSpring Fan ** mailto:scline@mindspring.com mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From: line changed so I get NO SPAM! See http://www.vix.com/spam/ ------------------------------ From: tacain@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (Thomas Cain) Subject: Re: Problems With Reverse Telephone Directories Date: 31 Mar 1997 14:32:35 GMT Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA Jonathan I. Kamens (jik@cam.ov.com) wrote: > In article , reynolds@ece.vill.edu > (Jim Reynolds) writes: >> www.whowhere.com used to have a reverse look up as well, but dropped >> it due to pressue about privacy concerns. Personally, I don't see the >> problem. No new or previously unpublished data is now available, it's >> just organized differently (i.e. sorted by phone number instead of >> name). > Organizing data differently *can* be functionally equivalent to making > new data available. > If you're a stalker calling random phone numbers and seeing if > young-sounding women answer the phone, in the old days you'd have no > way of finding out the address associated with the phone number of such > an answeree. Now, you can look up their phone number, get their > address, and head right on over. > Similarly, if you meet someone in a bar and he/she gives you his/her > phone number, in the old days, you'd have to call him/her to meet > again. Now, if you're a not-so-upright kind of person, you can look up > the phone number and just show up. In 'the old days' I worked in a library; about 25 years ago. Back then you had to go to the great effort of looking up the phone number in the City Directory to get the associated name and address. So, the only thing that has changed is the addition of more efficient searching made possible by automation. Maybe the other thing that has changed is now more people are aware of this service. Tom Cain Voice: +1.972.477.8192 DSC Communications Corporation M/S 122 FAX: +1.972.519.3563 1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075 Internet: tacain@spd.dsccc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nothing ought to be made illegal simply because a computer makes the compilation of data easier than it had been the past. Cross-reference (or criss-cross) directories have been around for fifty years or more. In the past, very few people knew of their existence; thus we has privacy based on obscurity. The computer has simply made the job easier for legal or illegal purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 20:42:27 PST From: Richard Enteman Subject: Re: Problems With Reverse Telephone Directories > I think you get the idea. There are *serious* > privacy and safety concerns with making it possible for anyone to > look up a phone number and get the name and address of the person > using that number. All this info is easily available on inexpensive CD and one can do reverse searches with them. Since one can buy these CD phone books for as little as $20 why not let the information on the net? Is the $20 price tag is going to stop stalkers? -r Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: icb@juno.com (Judith Oppenheimer) Subject: Re: ISP Offering Unlimited Access via 800/888 - How?? Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:21:08 EST > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could you give us a bit more detail > on exactly how the scam or ripoff functioned? PAT] Pat, again let me preface this by saying that I have, as yet, no documentation in hand, although I'm told it exists ... Nonetheless, I'm bringing the story out sans documentation - something I've never done - in order to warn other ISPs and subscribers from getting screwed. The larger ISP I mentioned has done a tremendous amount of investi- gation, including eventually visiting a local HQ of the company selling the flat-rate log-on 800 -- which address he said turned out to be an empty shack. He informed me as follows: The scam company simply procured toll-free numbers as needed from the carrier(s), at some basic 25 cent per minute rate - it didn't matter, since it had no intention of paying the bills. It then sold use of these numbers packaged as this revolutionary new flat-rate unlimited log-on to unsuspecting large and small ISPs, with bogus contracts and all. (The contracts generally require a $5,000 fee up front, plus $6 per subscriber per month.) So it collects all this start-up ISP money and routes the numbers -- for three months -- at which point the numbers are disconnected by the carrier for non-payment. The scam company defaults and hits the road, and sets up in new cities under different names. And does it again. Not exactly rocket science. BTW, at least one smaller ISP told me he might be able to stay in business, and not default with his subscribers, if he can find a five cents or less per minute 800 number to replace the bogus one. If anyone can help him, please let me know, and I'll pass the info along. Judith Oppenheimer ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:06:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Releases Staff Working Paper on Internet Policy Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:32:04 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: FCC Releases staff Working Paper on Internet policy =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:44:40 -0600 From: Kevin Werbach Subject: FCC Releases staff Working Paper on Internet policy News Release -- March 27, 1997 DIGITAL TORNADO: THE INTERNET AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY FCC Staff Working Paper on Internet Policy The FCC's Office of Plans and Policy (OPP) today released a staff working paper analyzing the implications of the Internet for the FCC and telecommunications policy. OPP Working Paper No. 29, "Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy," was written by Kevin Werbach, Counsel for New Technology Policy. OPP periodically issues working papers on emerging areas in communications; these papers represent individual views and are not an official statement by the FCC or any FCC commissioner. "Digital Tornado" represents the first comprehensive assessment of the questions the Internet poses for traditional communications policy. A central theme running through the paper is that the FCC, and other government agencies, should seek to limit regulation of Internet services. In framing his approach, Werbach states: "Because it is not tied to traditional models or regulatory environments, the Internet holds the potential to dramatically change the communications landscape. The Internet creates new forms of competition, valuable services for end users, and benefits to the economy. Government policy approaches toward the Internet should therefore start from two premises: avoid unnecessary regulation, and question the applicability of traditional rules." After providing an analytical framework to understand the forces driving Internet growth, and describing the Internet's development and architecture, the paper addresses three primary areas: CATEGORY DIFFICULTIES Policy and legal questions arising from the fact that Internet- based services do not fit easily into the existing classifications for communications services under federal law or FCC regulations. PRICING AND USAGE Policy questions arising from the economics of Internet access, including assertions by local telephone companies that current Internet pricing structures result in network congestion, and arguments by Internet service providers that telephone companies have not upgraded their networks to facilitate efficient transport of data services. AVAILABILITY OF BANDWIDTH Regulatory and technical issues affecting the deployment of technologies promising to enable high-speed Internet access to the home and to businesses, including the implications for the Internet of the FCC's role in promoting universal service. The paper is available on the FCC World Wide Web site, . The file is available for online viewing in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format at , or for downloading in WordPerfect format at . Copies may also be purchased from International Transcription Services, Inc., 1919 M Street, NW, Room 246, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 857-3800. -FCC- News media contact: Meribeth McCarrick or David Fiske at 202/418-0500. Office of Plans and Policy contact: Kevin Werbach at 202/418-1597. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 10:12:34 -0500 From: x@net.com.org Reply-To: heaven!Data@uunet.uu.net Organization: Spammers Create Unwanted Mail (SCUM) Subject: List of All *nn Features Is there a list somewhere that explains what all of the available *nn features are on typical phone systems. For instance, I know about *60, *67, *69, *57, *81. Is there something that lists what *1 - *99 is? ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 03:57:56 GMT Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Reply-To: dcstar@@acslink.aone.net.au Sheldon Laws contributed the following: > Paul C. Diem wrote: >> Can someone explain how modems implement flow control between each >> other? > The Clear to Send (CTS) signal tells the other modem that it is ready > to get data from the other modem. The Data Set Ready (DSR) signal > tells the other modem that it is going to send data. Or is this question about how modems actually do flow control between themselves, not the DTE equipment side stuff? Regards, David. **Remove the second "@" from the 'Reply To' (spam stopper!)** David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. ------------------------------ From: course@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: Berkeley Spring Courses in Communications Tech Date: 31 Mar 1997 22:52:06 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley UC Berkeley Extension Announces Spring Short Courses in Communications and Networking Technologies "SONET/ATM-Based Broadband Networks: Systems, Architectures, and Designs" ...with Professor H. Jonathan Chao, Polytechnic University, New York May 5-7, 1997 San Francisco "Simulation of an ATM-Based Network" ...with William E. Stephens and Christopher Ward, ATM Networking Group, David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton May 21-23, 1997 San Francisco "Global System of Mobile Communications (GSM)" ...with Vijay K. Garg, Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs April 24-25, 1997 San Francisco "Applications of CDMA to Wireless Communications" ...with Vijay K. Garg and Joseph E. Wilkes, Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs May 19-20, 1997 San Francisco "Wireless and Personal Communications Systems" ...with Vijay K. Garg, Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs. May 21-23, 1997 San Francisco "High-Speed LAN Alternatives" ...with Rich Seifert, chairman and standards editor for the 802.3 Full Duplex/Flow Control Task Group. May 12-13, 1997 San Francisco Further information: mail to course@unx.berkeley.edu Please ask for "communications short courses" or specify the specific course(s) of interest to you, and enclose your postal address and/or fax number. You can also check our short courses web page at http://www.unex.berkeley.edu:4243/eng ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #80 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 3 00:21:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA01579; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:21:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:21:30 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704030521.AAA01579@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #81 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Apr 97 00:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 81 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger (Mike King) Book Review: "Broadband Telecommunications Technology" (Rob Slade) NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits (John Cropper) Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (John Cropper) Re: Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto (Steve Smith) The Zimmermann Telegram (Monty Solomon) 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: SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:30:03 PST [No fool!] ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 08:15:49 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger RELATED DOCUMENTS: * Additional Merger Information FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 1, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry L. Solomon (415) 394-2950 or (210) 351-3990 solomonl@corp.sbc.com SBC Communications Completes Pacific Telesis Merger Company Poised to Meet Exploding Global Growth; New Company Pledges More Than $50 Million to Help Underserved in California SAN ANTONIO -- SBC Communications Inc . said it completed its merger involving Pacific Telesis Group following yesterday's ruling by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approving the merger, action by the two companies' boards of directors and the subsequent filing of articles of merger effective today. The merger creates a company with a market value of $47.9 billion and annual revenues of $23.5 billion, and a formidable new player in the increasingly competitive telecommunications industry. The $16.5 billion merger ranks as the third largest ever completed in U.S. history, surpassed only by RJR Nabisco-Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts (1989) and Walt Disney-Capital Cities/ABC (1996). The new SBC will serve the nation's most populous states -- California and Texas -- as well as seven of the country's top 10 markets, and 16 of the top 50, and selected markets outside the U.S., including Mexico, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, France, South Africa and Israel. The combined company serves over 31 million access lines in high-growth areas and reaches more than 87 million potential wireless customers across the country. "Growth prospects for our business are outstanding," said Edward E. Whitacre Jr., chairman and chief executive officer. "Exploding demand for Internet access and high-speed data services, strong growth in wireless services, increased demand for basic wireline service, and tremendous opportunities in long-distance and in markets outside the United States -- all point to an exciting future for the new SBC. This historic merger unites two great companies to seize these opportunities for our customers, employees and shareowners." SBC's Board of Directors will consist of: Edward E. Whitacre Jr.; Philip J. Quigley; Clarence C. Barksdale, vice chairman, Board of Trustees, Washington University; James E. Barnes, chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer, MAPCO, Inc.; August A. Busch III, chairman of the board and president, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.; Royce S. Caldwell, president, Southwestern Bell Operations; Ruben R. Cardenas, partner, Cardenas, Whitis & Stephen, L.L. P.; William P. Clark, chief executive officer, Clark Companies; Martin K. Eby Jr., chairman of the board and chief executive officer and president, The Eby Corporation; Herman E. Gallegos, independent management consultant; Jess T. Hay, chairman, Texas Foundation for Higher Education, HCB Enterprises Inc; Admiral Bobby R. Inman, United States Navy, retired; Charles F. Knight, chairman, president and chief executive officer, Emerson Electric Co.; Mary S. Metz, dean, University Extension, University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Haskell M. Monroe Jr., professor of history, The University of Missouri-Columbia; S. Donley Ritchey, managing partner, Alpine Partners; Richard M. Rosenberg, chairman of the board and CEO (Retired), BankAmerica Corporation; Ing. Carlos Slim Helu, chairman of the board, Grupo Carso, S.A. de C.V.; and Patricia P. Upton, president and chief executive officer, Aromatique, Inc. SBC Advisory Board members include: Gilbert F. Amelio, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Apple Computer, Inc.; Jack S. Blanton, chairman, Houston Endowment, Inc. and president and chief executive officer, Eddy Refining Company; Tom C. Frost, senior chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. and Toni Rembe, partner in the law firm of Pillsbury Madison and Sutro. The combined company will offer products and services under some of the strongest brands in the industry. The Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell brands will continue to be used in California and Nevada, the Southwestern Bell brand in Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Kansas, and the Cellular One brand in Illinois, Massachusetts, Baltimore, Washington, D.C. and New York. Locations served include attractive and growing markets such as Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The combined company has nearly 110,000 employees, operating cash flow of nearly $10 billion, net income of more than $3 billion and a market value of over $47.9 billion. "This merger better positions SBC to be the telecommunications provider of choice at a time when all markets are opening to competition," said Phil Quigley, SBC vice chairman. "We're ready to enter the long-distance business to give consumers from San Antonio to San Francisco more competitive prices and honest, quality customer service -- which is what people expect from us." Whitacre added, "Our strong leadership, hometown presence and significant investment in the communities we serve, along with our customer-focused employee team, will be the keys to our success as competition heats up." SBC's proven strength in product development, marketing and sales, and solid international investments, complement Pacific Telesis' efficiency in process management and cost containment, Whitacre said. Consumers will benefit from the merger through the integration of the two companies' resources and skills which will promote competition and enhance the development of new, competitively priced telecommunications, entertainment, information and interactive products and services. SBC Communications has modified its logo to incorporate the well-known starburst from the Pacific Telesis Group logo. While the corporate headquarters will be in San Antonio, Texas, the company will maintain headquarters of Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell in California and Nevada. The combined company will create at least 1,000 jobs in California over what would have been the case if the merger had not occurred. Also, four new company headquarters will be located in California: Internet; international; long distance; and administration. As part of the merger approval process, Pacific Bell committed to provide $50 million over the next 10 years to fund efforts to expand telecommuncations services to the state's underserved. This commitment, which builds on SBC's well documented record of community support, was endorsed by a broad coalition of more than 100 California community and consumer groups. The merger is the latest in a series of bold moves by SBC since its formation as an independent company in 1984. The 1987 acquisition of Metromedia put SBC squarely at the forefront of wireless communications just before that segment of the telecommunications industry began growing rapidly. Today, SBC, one of the largest wireless communications companies in the world, is acknowledged to be among the best managed, and has the best market penetration rate in the industry, approaching 11 percent. In 1990, SBC bought a substantial stake in Telefonos de Mexico (Telmex), an investment that has more than doubled in value since and continues to grow along with the Mexican economy. Some of the strategic advantages of the combined company pertain directly to international business -- especially Latin American and Asian markets. More than 50 percent of all international calls to Mexico and 20 percent of all international calls to Asia, originate in locations where the newly combined company has network facilities. The merger involves an exchange of stock with current Pacific Telesis stockholders receiving SBC stock. Each Pacific Telesis shareowner will receive .73145 shares of SBC for each share of Pacific Telesis they own. For example, a Pacific Telesis shareowner holding 1,000 shares of stock will receive 731.45 shares of SBC stock. After the tax-free exchange, approximately 66 percent of the combined company's stock will be retained by SBC shareowners and 34 percent held by Pacific Telesis investors. Pacific Telesis Group is now a subsidiary of SBC Communications. Previously, the merger received approval from shareholders of both SBC and Pacific Telesis, and was cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nevada Public Service Commission, and received support from California Governor Pete Wilson and the California Trade and Commerce Agency, and the Communications Workers of America. Earlier this year, SBC was ranked America's "most admired" telecommunications company by Fortune magazine for the second consecutive year. SBC Communications Inc. is now the nation's second largest telecommunications company and a leading company in the global telecom industry. Through its subsidiaries, it provides innovative communications 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) and Pacific Telesis Group reported combined 1996 revenues of $23.5 billion. --------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 10:51:53 EST From: Rob Slade Subject:Book Review: "Broadband Telecommunications Technology" by Lee/Kang BKBBTLTC.RVW 961201 "Broadband Telecommunications Technology", Byeong Gi Lee/Minho Kang/Jonghee Lee, 1996, 0-89006-866-6, U$89.00 %A Byeong Gi Lee %A Minho Kang %A Jonghee Lee %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1996 %G 0-89006-866-6 %I Artech House/Horizon %O U$89.00 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: 617-769-6334 artech@world.std.com %P 658 %T "Broadband Telecommunications Technology, 2nd ed." This work is an overview of many high speed telecommunications technologies, particularly in regard to "to the curb" situations. Because of the breadth of coverage, it is hard to define or determine a specific area of topic of primary emphasis. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKBBTLTC.RVW 961201 ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:26:41 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net April 2: The NJ BPU has partially reversed portions of the 201 and 908 NPA splits, allowing cellular users to retain their 201/908 NXXs. While this will prove more convenient for cellular users, it is expected to shave 3-6 months of the life of the reconfigured 201 & 908 NPA, and will create discontiguous pockets of 908 and 201 NXXs within certain 732 and 973 cities. Should 609 end up being a split, expect cellular phones to be grandfathered in as well with THAT split ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 18:38:18 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net From the Tallahassee Democrat... Signals are switched in battle for 904 area code Tallahassee and Big Bend residents may have to change those familiar numbers after all. By Gary Fineout DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER Just when you thought it was safe for your business cards, fax lines and phone numbers, the battle over North Florida's area code has returned. Tallahassee and Big Bend residents may wind up losing the 904 area code after all. That's because national groups and federal regulators have questioned a proposal to split Tallahassee, Jacksonville and Daytona Beach into three different area codes. Florida's Public Service Commission, the panel that regulates utilities, voted Tuesday to review its January decision to keep Tallahassee, Pensacola and Panama City in the 904 area code. "That's a surprise," said Tallahassee Mayor Scott Maddox. "I thought this issue was decided. I will urge them to keep 904. If you look at the expense to our local businesses, as well as state and local government, it will be tremendous." The PSC will hold a hearing on April 16 when commissioners could stick with their earlier decision or order a new area code for Tallahassee. "Once we have heard that new evidence, our options are wide open," said PSC Chairman Julia Johnson. "I thought it necessary to the extent we had received information, we should see and hear what their concerns might be." A new area code is needed for North Florida because the 904 area code will run out of 7.6 million possible numbers in 1998 due to growth in the number of telephones, cellular phones, fax machines and computers. BellSouth Telecommunications wanted a new area code selected for North Florida last year. But disputes over which region would receive the new code forced the issue before commissioners. While most phone companies favored keeping 904 for Jacksonville and switching the Panhandle, state officials predicted changing Tallahassee's area code would cost taxpayers $2.48 million. Commissioners voted 3-2 to keep the Panhandle in 904, while assigning a new area code to the Jacksonville area and an additional area code to Daytona Beach. The decision to create two new area codes is what has been questioned by those at the federal level. The problem is that as more and more states scramble to add new area codes, national groups responsible for handing out area codes are trying to stick to a process that conserves the remaining numbers. What has been proposed in Florida also has been proposed in Utah and California, causing one advisory group to write to the Federal Communications Commission to tell them of the looming problems. That advisory group, the North American Numbering Council, wrote to PSC officials and pointed out that giving 386 to Daytona Beach and 234 to Jacksonville didn't follow industry guidelines. While the area code for Daytona Beach would last more than 30 years, Tallahassee and Jacksonville will run out of numbers by 2006. Industry guidelines call for area codes adjoining each other to run out of numbers at roughly the same time. Plus, with the continued proliferation of telecommunications services, there is a desire to make sure new area codes are handed out only when truly needed. Utah and California regulators, like those in Florida, have proposed creating area codes that would last 30 years. "The gist of the letters is that you're not using the codes in an efficient manner," said Stan Greer, carrier-service supervisor for the PSC. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: sgs@access.digex.net (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Administration to Confirm Domestic Crypto Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 23:55:49 GMT Organization: Agincourt Computing In article , david@sternlight.com wrote: > In connection with a news item today about the cracking of digital > cellular phone keypad encoding, ClariNews reports that a senior > Commerce Department official said Wednesday the Clinton administration > plans to introduce a bill soon that would clearly affirm that > encryption users in the US can use any type or strength of encryption > technology. We need to read it *very* carefully ... > (Thanks to ClariNews for the above item -- the article is copyright > and the info above represents a fair use abstract). > Comment: > It is reported that the reason digital cellular encryption was > breakable was that the industry deliberately weakened the key length > at NSA request. If so, this is a scandal, and the assertion (we'll see > what happens) that the administration will introduce such a bill seems > to me to be a clear attempt at damage control. > Despite the industry's attempt at damage control ("we're already > working on a fix" says the trade association), a Qualcomm spokesman > says that the fix will be extraordinarily difficult and expensive, and > require modifying both everyone's digital cellular phone and the cell > site or head end equipment. Qualcomm is the inventor of CDMA and ought > to know what they are talking about. The cellphone industry has consistantly sought legal remedies for things that they should have fixed in their own technology. This is no different. Remember the "cloning" fuss? > I must say that if the assertion is correct about the reasons for the > weak keys, I can no longer support any government policy that would > make law enforcement's job easier at the expense of the entire > population. This is not a police state, and it is high time the FBI, > NSA, and CIA faced up to the fact that when the rights of the rest of > us are concerned, they must do their job the old fashioned way, and > not by seeking shortcuts at the expense of the public's security. It's been obvious for a long time that the Powers that Be have been resisting cellphone security because (in theory) it cuts down on their opportunity to do legal, warrantless phone taps. If they have a warrant, they can simply put their taps in at the switch. The encryption applies only to the RF portion of the link. I say "in theory", because in practice, it turns out to be much harder than it looks. Here in the Washington, DC area, drug dealers are using a combination of pagers, cellphones, and public telephones. When these "insecure" media are combined with rapidly shifting slang and codewords, they give the effect of a secure communications system. (source -- Washington Post article a couple of weeks ago) As to making things easier for law enforcement, the argument came up a year or so ago, "If your daughter were kidnapped, wouldn't you want the police to be able to break the kidnappers' encrypted communication?" My answer is "Yes. And I would also be willing and eager to take a pair of Visegrips and crush the finger joints, one by one, of anybody I suspected of holding out information". We have laws against torture. Several thousand years of bad experience shows us that they're necessary. I suspect that communications security is in the same class. The "fixes" to make things a bit easier for law enforcement seem to muck up the rest of the system for everybody else. The US Government's ham-fisted attempts at "infowar" (tapping Japanese communications during trade negotiations and computer breakins at the European Parliamant) do not give me a warm fuzzy feeling about either the Government's intentions or its competence. Steve Smith sgs@access.digex.net Agincourt Computing +1 (301) 681 7395 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:25:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Zimmermann Telegram Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:04:45 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: The Zimmermann Telegram =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From: Dave Del Torto [SMTP:ddt@pgp.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 1997 12:00 PM To: telegram-request@pgp.com Subject: The Zimmermann Telegram Ladies, Gentlemen & Cryptographers, I'm pleased to announce the imminent release of the premier issue of the new "Zimmermann Telegram" newsletter. The Zimmermann Telegram will be a regularly-published, paper-based, English-language technical update newsletter from PGP's engineering staff, and will cover a variety of cryptographic and other lighthearted topics which we may otherwise be restricted from discussing via electronic media. The newsletter will be sent, in compliance with US law, by regular postal mail to anyone interested in technical information about PGP -- anywhere in the world. If you are now developing PGP-related freeware, shareware, commercial or academic cryptographic software, or you plan in future to become a registered PGP Developer or PGP World Partner (those programs are currently under construction and will be formally announced later) or if you are just interested in technical information about cryptography, we think you'll enjoy reading our newsletter. In the premier issue, along with important updates regarding changes to the PGP packet format, CRC security problems and new extensions to the PGP key format which are not available through any other medium, you'll learn about the significance of the "Zimmermann Telegram" name. Meanwhile, visit this page: . Scheduled to be mailed imminently, the premier issue will be sent free to anyone who provides us with a postal mail address. After that, regular subscriptions will require a modest fee (to be announced) to cover our mailing costs, but we've committed to offering a limited number of free one-year subscriptions to interested members of the cryptography community. To request your free subscription, please send email to me at: In the body of your request, please include the form below (items between the cut-lines ONLY, and preferably PGP-signed), and replace the lines with your complete postal mail address info as indicated. We'll put an HTML subscription form on our website, but for the premier issue, we're managing the subscription process via email. Thank you for your patience as we deploy rapidly. :) ............................. form begins here ............................. The Zimmermann Telegram PGP's Technical Newsletter - Premier Issue & One-Year Free Subscription Request - Subscription Information (Premier Issue): name (optional, but appreciated) title (optional) organization/dept (optional, as appropriate) street address mailstop (optional) city/state/province zip-/postal-code country Free Subscription Category: (please [x] only one) [ ] academic [ ] public library [ ] media maven [ ] human-rights/privacy activist [ ] corporate security [ ] impoverished cypherpunk [ ] software analyst [ ] law enforcement [ ] freedom-fighter [ ] intelligence agency [ ] freeware developer .............................. form ends here .............................. Privacy Lock: If you are concerned about the privacy of your personal information when sent over unsecured public networks, please feel free to encrypt your subscription request to my key, which can be found at: . Pretty Good Privacy Inc will take all reasonable precautions to protect this information and will not use it for any other purpose without first asking your permission. Also, PGP will not sell or give the information to another entity and will store the list securely between mailings. Please feel free to circulate/forward this message (with PGP-signature) among your friends and colleagues (remember: the free subscription offer expires on 30 April 1997). We look forward to your comments on The Zimmermann Telegram and thank you for your continued support of PGP. dave Dave Del Torto +1.415.524.6231 tel Senior Technical Evangelist +1.415.572.1932 fax Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. http://www.pgp.com web X-PGP header key ........................ "The Zimmermann Telegram" ........................ Copyright (c) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. All Rights Reserved. PGP and Pretty Good Privacy are registered trademarks of Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. Permission is granted to the reader to reproduce and distribute exact copies of this document, in physical or electronic form, on a non-commercial basis (i.e., at no direct or indirect charge). This document has been made available in hard copy on a subscription basis and is available in public libraries in the United States. Accordingly, and solely for purposes of U.S. Export Control laws and regulations (but not copyright or other intellectual property laws), this document is considered in the "public domain." The information in this document is of an exploratory or experimental nature. As such, it is subject to change without notice and is provided "AS IS." No guarantee is made that it is free of errors or that it will meet your requirements. While we welcome your feedback on this document, we are unable to provide any technical support for its contents. ............................................................................ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPmail 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM0ANsaHBOF9KrwDlAQG0bAQA17mtcxR860pFRPPdcw4LYL1pEecEoTXW tzBCq0M84aKgv9qamZQeOkyHaxXkHGgyChaHwlsea3Q46avFvJrJfHysz/YGrvy1 qIIDrEQCqVU6emLuOvziiNLefNcj0qv2YLAfLuSy78sCTfOtfmX6IrXf7D3PDwhP oICHxH1iR4E= =gI03 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #81 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 3 02:58:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA12733; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 02:58:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 02:58:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704030758.CAA12733@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #82 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Apr 97 02:58:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 82 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: List of All *nn Features (John Gilbert) SBC / PacTel Merge - SBC Releases NPA Info (John Cropper) Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (Al Hays) Book Review: "Comprehensive Networking Glossary & Acronym Guide" (R Slade) New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex (Robert Allender) Internet Telephone: Voice Modem v. Sound Card For 486SX (Paul L. Hudson) Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing (Jeff Regan) Re: Answer Supervision (vances@motivity.ca) Re: Suicide, The Net and MCI (Mark Ganzer) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Peter Morgan) 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: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: List of All *nn Features Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 18:38:23 -0600 Organization: Motorola LMPS In article , heaven!Data@uunet. uu.net wrote: > Is there a list somewhere that explains what all of the available > *nn features are on typical phone systems. For instance, I know > about *60, *67, *69, *57, *81. Is there something that lists what > *1 - *99 is? A repost from last year: These are the * codes as listed by Belcore. CODE SERVICE ASSIGNMENT ____ _____________________________________________________________ *00 INWARD VOICE ACTIVATED SERVICES (ENGLISH) *01 INWARD VOICE ACTIVATED SERVICES (FRENCH) *02 UNASSIGNED *03 UNASSIGNED *04 UNASSIGNED *05 UNASSIGNED *06 UNASSIGNED *07 UNASSIGNED *08 UNASSIGNED *09 UNASSIGNED *1X UNASSIGNED1 *2X RESERVED FOR EXPANSION TO A THREE-DIGIT NUMERIC FORMAT (*2XX) *3X RESERVED FOR EXPANSION TO A THREE-DIGIT NUMERIC FORMAT (*3XX) *40 UNASSIGNED *41 UNASSIGNED *42 UNASSIGNED *43 UNASSIGNED *44 VOICE ACTIVATED DIALING *45 VOICE DIALING EXTENDED DIAL TONE *46 UNASSIGNED *47 UNASSIGNED *48 UNASSIGNED *49 LONG DISTANCE SIGNAL *50 VOICE ACTIVATED NETWORK CONTROL *51 WHO CALLED ME? *52 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - CALL HOLD *53 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - DISTINCTIVE RING B *54 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - DISTINCTIVE RING C *55 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - DISTINCTIVE RING D *56 CHANGE FORWARD-TO NUMBER FOR ISDN CALL FORWARDING *57 CUSTOMER ORIGINATED TRACE *58 ISDN MULTI BUTTON KEY SET (MBKS) MANUAL EXCLUSION ACTIVATION *59 ISDN MULTI BUTTON KEY SET (MBKS) MANUAL EXCLUSION DEACTIVATION *60 SELECTIVE CALL REJECTION ACTIVATION *61 DISTINCTIVE RINGING/CALL WAITING ACTIVATION *62 SELECTIVE CALL WAITING *63 SELECTIVE CALL FORWARDING ACTIVATION *64 SELECTIVE CALL ACCEPTANCE ACTIVATION *65 CALLING NUMBER DELIVERY ACTIVATION *66 AUTOMATIC CALLBACK ACTIVATION *67 CALLING NUMBER DELIVERY BLOCKING/CALLING IDENTITY SUPPRESSION *68 CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE/DON'T ANSWER ACTIVATION *69 AUTOMATIC RECALL ACTIVATION *70 CANCEL CALL WAITING *71 USAGE SENSITIVE THREE-WAY CALLING *72 CALL FORWARDING ACTIVATION *73 CALL FORWARDING DEACTIVATION *74 SPEED CALLING 8 - CHANGE LIST *75 SPEED CALLING 30 - CHANGE LIST *76 ADVANCED CALL WAITING DELUXE *77 ANONYMOUS CALL REJECTION ACTIVATION *78 DO NOT DISTURB ACTIVATION *79 DO NOT DISTURB DEACTIVATION *80 SELECTIVE CALL REJECTION DEACTIVATION *81 DISTINCTIVE RINGING/CALL WAITING DEACTIVATION *82 LINE BLOCKING DEACTIVATION *83 SELECTIVE CALL FORWARDING DEACTIVATION *84 SELECTIVE CALL ACCEPTANCE DEACTIVATION *85 CALLING NUMBER DELIVERY DEACTIVATION *86 AUTOMATIC CALLBACK DEACTIVATION *87 ANONYMOUS CALL REJECTION DEACTIVATION *88 CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE/DON'T ANSWER DEACTIVATION *89 AUTOMATIC RECALL DEACTIVATION *90 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE ACTIVATION *91 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE DEACTIVATION *92 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING DON'T ANSWER ACTIVATION *93 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING DON'T ANSWER DEACTIVATION *94 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *95 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *96 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *97 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *98 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *99 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT VERTICAL SERVICE CODES IN THE *1X RANGE WILL BE ASSIGNED ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER AVAILABLE *XX CODES HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED, I.E., *0X AND *4X THROUGH *93. Steve stevecoleman@delphi.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- | John Gilbert | Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector IL02/2523| | KA4JMC | Private Trunked Systems | |johng@comm.mot.com | 1301 East Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL 60196| --------------------------------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for digging up that item and sending it for reposting. I was curious, and tried all of the ones I do not have on my line; especially the ones not offered (as far as I know) by Ameritech. The results were interesting. On #01 and #02 I got an intercept saying (in these words) "Feature interaction cannot be continued. Please hang up and dial the feature code again. The following tones are for the hearing impaired ..." (followed by modem sounds). Repeated attempts to dial the #01 and #02 codes got the same message. All of the codes intended for DEactivating something resulted in an intercept 'your phone is not equipped for this service' however the associated codes to activate features resulted in either the 'feature interaction cannot be continued' message or in most cases an unusual (for this switch) ringing tone followed by a man's voice on an intercept saying 'the area code or number that you dialed is incorrect. Please check the number and dial again ... the following tones are for the hearing impaired ...' A couple of the codes such as the one for 'voice activated network control' (whatever that is) and 'who called me' just resulted in fast busy or re-order tones. By the way what is 'who called me' and how does it differ from customer activated trace? And exactly what are #01 and #02 for? Can anyone go down the list and explain the less obvious entries? Also, when I tried #49 a couple times it 'clicked' and then just went dead while other times I got the 'area code or number is incorrect' message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: SBC / PacTel Merge - SBC Releases NPA Info Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 19:47:44 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net SBC & Pacific Telesis completed their merger April 1st, and SBC took the wraps off its new web site, including regionalized NPA information: 501/870 split* - http://www.swbell.com/Area/ark/Info/area_code.html 913/785 split* - http://www.swbell.com/Area/kcy/Info/area_code.html 817/940/254 split - http://www.swbell.com/Area/cwt/Info/area_code.html AND - http://www.swbell.com/Area/dfw/Info/817split.html Also, info on 'older' splits was updated and/or revamped: 713/281 split - http://www.swbell.com/Area/hou/Info/area_code.html 214/972 split - http://www.swbell.com/Area/dfw/Info/214split.html No information was yet released on the coming 816 split, although it received a sentence on the 913/785 page. * - indicates that prefix info is not available on the page John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: Al Hays Subject: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:54:38 -0600 Some weeks ago there was a discussion in the Digest regarding the "hidden" promotional deals that you would necessarily have to know about in advance in order to receive them. This weekend I experienced this very phenomenon and did switch from Sprint to AT&T. AT&T's latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free each month for 6 months and AT&T will send a certificate equal to the amount of the LEC's fee for switching LD carriers (typically $5). Therefore, if you use less than 250 minutes there would be no LD charges. After the sixth month the rate goes to their standard 15 cents per minute "One Rate" plan but by then someone else will probably have a better deal or the threat of changing carriers may be enough to hold AT&T fast ... at least to the 10 cents per minute. AT&T called me on one of their marketing sweeps and offered this deal but I balked, stating that I wanted to talk it over with my wife, and could I call back if I decided to accept. The sales agent said "no problem." So I immediately called Sprint (my current carrier) to find out what deals they had to counter with. Their only solution was to offer me $10 credit per month for five months (so if anyone decides not to switch, you might at least get $50 credit from Sprint with this information). When I called AT&T back the new agent who answered the phone had "NO IDEA" what I was talking about and offered me their two standard plans: 15 cents/24 hour or 10 cents/24 hour with $4.95 fee. I explained to her that their marketing department had done their job by getting my attention and that they would now get my business if -she- didn't drop the ball. After a short "consultation" with her manager I was afforded the six month promotional rate as outlined above. Yet another example of how "what you know" can save you, Joe Consumer, some $$$. regs, .al. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:54:38 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Comprehensive Networking Glossary and Acronym Guide" BKCNGAAG.RVW 961201 "Comprehensive Networking Glossary and Acronym Guide", Gary Scott Malkin, 1995, 0-13-319955-X %A Gary Scott Malkin gmalkin@xylogics.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1995 %G 0-13-319955-X %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 200 %T "Comprehensive Networking Glossary and Acronym Guide" This work is a fairly basic data communications glossary. I was rather surprised at the number of terms which were *not* included, and at some very limited definitions of others. On the hand, some jargon was explained much more fully than in other, similar, works. I was glad to see that "cracker" and "hacker" were delineated properly. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKCNGAAG.RVW 961201 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: allender@asiaonline.net (Robert Allender) Subject: New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:02:47 -0500 Dear Pat: Could I ask for help from my fellow subscribers in identifying countries which have not yet switched to the new numbering system for Hong Kong for international audiotex. A new numbering system was instituted 1/1/97, with dual access during a 6 month grace period, but many countries or international carriers are not yet set up to handle it. To help me present a case to Hong Kong Telecom, I need to identify as many of these carriers as possible. If people could dial their international access code, then 852 900 9008 0990, they should hear a greeting "Thank you for calling...". Then just hang up. But if they do not get through to this greeting, I would be very grateful to receive an e-mail (allender@asiaonline.net) letting me know the carrier. I am fairly confident that the old numbering system, 852 1729 0990, works from everywhere. In case anyone in North America is concerned by the 900 prefix, be assured that there is no charge for these calls beyond the normal cost of a call to Hong Kong. Many thanks for the help. Robert Allender RAS Marketing tel: +852 2834-4902 Suite 2, 19 Hennessy Road fax: +852 2834-2983 Hong Kong e-mail: allender@asiaonline.net ------------------------------ From: hl396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Hudson) Subject: Internet Telephone: Voice Modem v. Sound Card for 486SX Date: 2 Apr 1997 22:42:50 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: hl396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Hudson) Hi, I have a bit of a problem. I recently bought two computers, one for myself, and one for my parents to use. One computer is a 5x86 with 12 meg 120 Mhtz, and a 380mb HD. The other machine is an old 486SX at 25 Mhtz with 4meg and an 80 meg HD. I have a soundblaster 16 for the nice machine, but no sound card for the SX I know there are a lot of software packages out there to allow people to use the internet as a telephone. I am planning on working overseas, and I want to set myself and my parents up on the internet so we can talk to each other whenever we want to, and so that I can save myself and my parents money on phone bills. I have been told about two options: 1) Internet software that uses a soundcard and encoded logarythms sent through a regular modem; 2) A voice modem. I am not sure if 2) is an option at all. I don't know much about voice modems. Some people have told me that you cannot use them to communicate through the internet, and that you can only hear one another talk when you call each other by phone. If this is the case, that totally would defeat the purpose of my buying the two machines. I don't want to call my parents and talk while we play Duke Nukem'. If I did, I would still have to pay the high international phone bill. Does anyone know of any software compatible with windows 3.1 that will allow for sending voice through an ISP via a voice modem? 1) is a bit of a problem. I can't seem to find any software that will work on an IBM SX. The SX can use windows 3.1, and I suspect it will not run anything more sophisticated. If I could actually talk to my parents via the internet through the voice modems, then the speed of the SX should not be a problem, I have been told. But if I can't, I'll have to go with option 1). What will I need to do to this SX to soup it up enough to allow for voice transmission? I would like to do all this for under $120 spent on hardware. Would I need to add a larger harddrive? More megs?. I don't want to replace the mother board if I don't have to. If anyone knows if one can use a voice modem to communicate with a machine of such low performance, and knows the software available to do this, please email me. Also, if you know what can be done to the SX for less than $100 to allow voice transmission, please tell me. I would like full duplex transmission, though I would settle for half duplex on the slow machine if it means keeping the price low. Link Hudson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:33:20 GMT From: Jeff Regan Subject: Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing Hi Pat ... recently someone asked me for an easy way to disable call waiting on an incoming call to their data line ... so I dug up an AT command I have been using a for a while now. I might as well see if others can use it too: I have a distingtive ringing device (called a Ring Selector 2 because it will basically detect two different rings of your choice) hooked to a modem on what Bell Canada calls Ident-A-Call service. When I get a regular call with no coded ring, the modem does not answer (but the answering machine can) but when I get the distinctive ring, the modem answers. The program that answers the phone would normally send an 'ATA' command however, I replaced the 'ATA' with the following command: ats6=0x0d1!*70r Basically, the command does this: s6=0 sets the number of seconds to wait before dialing to 0; x0 says blind dial, don't wait for dialtone; d1 (or dt1) switches the modem to dial mode (in this case tone) but then dials the digit 1 (gets around a bug that appeared in my modem where if I didn't dial at least one digit it would look for dialtone even though I had sent the X0 command above. ! says to flash the hook switch; *70 says to dial *70 to the switch (where by the DMS-100 switch will disable the call waiting and reconnect the audio path); R says to go into 'Reverse dialing' or ANSWER mode. So when the computer sends the command after detecting a ring, it picks up the phone, pauses very shortly, flashes the hook switch, gets dialtone, dials *70, and then waits a short time before providing the answer tone. It adds a few seconds the setup of the call, but it means callers to either the data or voice line get a busy signal when the incoming data call is in progress. You don't need Ident-A-Call/distingtive ringing to use this, but I am not sure why someone would have call waiting on a line that it always was being disabled on ... :) METHOD #2: Bell Canada has recently started offering 'Call Waiting Auto Suppression' that basically does the same thing I just did if you are using it in an Ident-A-Call distingtive ring environment ... it does not cost anything, and basically if a call comes into the Ident-A-Call number, it disables call waiting ... interestingly enough if you have 2 Ident-A-Call numbers, one can be set to NOT disable Call Waiting, while the other can be set TO disable call waiting. Method #2 does save on call setup time, and at no additional cost, its worth while giving them a call. Jeff Regan, VE3XJR Internet: JEREGAN@SYMPATICO.CA http: WWW3.SYMPATICO.CA/JEREGAN ------------------------------ From: vances@motivity.ca Subject: Re: Answer Supervision Organization: Motivity Telecom Inc. Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:09:35 GMT In article , Alan Boritz wrote: > Mr. Von Alven was not entirely correct. If you have DID service, you > MUST be able to return an "invalid number" intercept recording without > answer supervision. That's configurable in the PBX and consistent > with most non-FCC tariffs. I had the opportunity to research that It is true that certain voice announcements may legally be played to a caller without answering the call. You may generally play the same announcements as the telephone companies do; "The number you have dialed is not in service", "The number ... has changed to ...", etc. There is a subtle difference in the issue described below: In article , Reggie.Ratcliff@ Sciatl.COM wrote: > ........................ Several years back after the FCC's DID answer > supervision ruling, we had to start shipping separate versions of our > small CO/PBX nationally and internationally. Bill von Alven at the FCC > insisted that any part 68 products sold in the US could not give any > information other than call progress tones without returning answer > supervision, and must not allow the customer to modify them so that > they could. Here the FCC, under pressure from AT&T, ruled that PBX manufacturers could no longer provide equipment for sale in the US which would function in the legal manner described above. It is no longer possible to purchase a PBX which will allow you to treat an incoming DID call with an announcement without supervising. Even worse, calls which are switched through TIE lines to another PBX must immediately supervise, callers pay while the destination telephone rings. This ruling was a travesty. AT&T claimed that they were losing money to fraudulent use of DID lines. The FCC buckled and agreed to punish everyone for the few abusers who AT&T were too lazy to combat individually. They must have been dreaming if they thought this would stop the abusers. You can do far more damage with a Dialogic card and a PC than with a PBX. So while it is still legal to treat an incoming call to a voice recording, it is not legal to manufacture PBX equipment which will allow it. Vance Shipley, Motivity Telecom Inc. 603-305 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 1B9 Tel: +1 519 579 5816, Fax: +1 519 579 5136, vances@motivity.ca Vance Shipley, vances@xenitec.on.ca ------------------------------ From: ganzer@dilbert.nosc.mil (Mark Ganzer) Subject: Re: Suicide, The Net and MCI Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 05:27:24 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to John Cropper (jcropper@ lincs.net): > The media certainly has messed up this latest story. When they > broke in on the Wheel of Fortune game on ABC with the first > report, it was 'in excess of thirty young men ages 18-24, all > computer web site programmers ...' Later they decided the count > was 39 (which is, admittedly in excess of thirty) but they kept > on saying the ages were 18-24 and all of them were male and that > all were 'internet programmers on the web'. Finally on Saturday > here, they decided that actually 21 were female and 18 were male > and that the ages were middle twenties through (in one case) 72! Pat, The initial report of "in excess of thirty young men ages 18-24" was not the fault of the media, but was the initial report released by the San Diego County Sheriff's department, which was based on the reports of the initial deputies on the scene. The identical dress and short-cropped hair of all 39 victims made the deputies initially think they were dealing with all men. I have also been rather disgusted with the press coverage. The story is still front-page here on Easter Sunday, with the latest story being about one of the cult-member's attempts to recruit an 18-year-old Michigan resident. The gist of the article is that James Bolton went to an "Internet chat area" (I presume an Internet Relay Chat channel?) seeking advice for a web site he was building. A reply came from someone named Candlshot who identified that they were with a computer group called Higher Source, which was the business name of the Heaven's Gate cult. The exchange started out as a technical exchange, however the Heaven's Gate member then tried to switch the conversation from computers to a more personal conversation. Looks like we can add "cult recuiting" to the list of evils like pornograhy and pedophilia that "lurk" in the Internet. This Internet-thing is beginninng to look more and more like our society at large :-(. Funny that although the venue may have changed, cult-recruiting tactics stay the same. In 1980, while travelling after my college graduation, I came across a warning posted at the San Franciso Youth Hostel that warned of the recruiting tactics of one of the local groups -- I don't remember whether it was the Hare Krishna's or the Unification Church (the "Moonies"). The bait in this instance was a simple invitation from someone who looked like a fellow traveller to have dinner with them, however the purpose was mainly to get you into the door of their "temple"... Not the official opinion of: Mark Ganzer Naval Command, Control & Ocean Surveillance Center, ganzer@nosc.mil RDT&E Div (NRaD), Code D4123, San Diego, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You say that 'this internet-thing is beginning to look more and more like our society at large ...' and that is just fine with me; I've been a social outcast, a drop out from society for many years now. I'll add the internet to my list of places to avoid. ... I know that some cults can be very manipulative in the way they structure things. One of their favorite tactics is love-bombing, i.e. spending a great deal of time and attention on one person; letting the new person talk and brag about themselves (while listening *very* carefully to their phraseology and syntax to find their weak points, etc). The cult member praises the newcomer for his intelligence, his physical prowress, his abilities and the decisions he has made in the past. No matter, the newcomer could be the dumbest, most screwed- up nineteen year-old kid on God's green earth; the cult member is sure to remind him that he is one tough dude who deserves a lot more respect than he is getting, and new opportunities, etc. Much time is spent caring for them, attending to their needs, making them feel they can trust you and that they are very lucky to have found a new friend who is so caring and concerned and respectful ... ... yeah, you bet. The cult person knows to never say anything which might make the newcomer feel threatened in any way and always try to structure things so the newcomer later feels that whatever happened was *his idea*; that *he* was the one who decided to try out whatever it is that is being offered. The reason it all works so well is the large and growing number of young people in America who live a rather pointless existence. No real opinion on anything, no strongly held beliefs of 'right and wrong', just living in a sort of vacuum but with a suspicion that American society has gotten a lot worse since their parents were kids and will probably get even worse before they die in sixty years or so. The cult person comes along, actually treating them with kindness and respect (or so it would seem at first blush) and the kids jump right on the bandwagon. You mention pedophila 'lurking on the net' and I will suggest that in my discussion in the above paragraphs you could substitute 'pedophile' for 'cult person' with equal results. A Radio Shack salesman once said to me that the most successful sales people never 'sell you' on anything. They let you 'sell yourself'; slowly and gradually they move things around a few degrees at a time until it would appear that 'you thought of it first' (whatever it is) and of course that makes it alright. The successful sales person lets you 'talk him in to selling to you ...' and I suspect successful cult recruiters work much the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Morgan Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 09:18:23 +0100 In message Pat wrote: > How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's > location known to the police? I don't drive, personally, but from reading UK.Telecom, I understand that calls were being directed (in some cases) to arbitrary locations which might have been due to lack of knowledge on behalf of the mobile telco operators knowledge of the UK. We use "999" and more recently have started support of "112" (which is being phased in over Europe). In the last couple of years we've started being able to receive caller ID info. Nowadays I can get a display of numbers of callers who rang but I missed answering, and (with display equipment) a landline can display the number of anyone calling (with some exceptions). In the UK, we still have two analogue networks (Vodafone/Cellnet) with no caller info on phone, GSM networks from the same (around 900 MHz) which have implemented CID (later than landlines) and two other networks (Orange/one2one) on 1800 MHz which use have CID. The latter networks have a higher number of cell towers as coverage is affected more by buildings etc, so they probably have a better idea of where someone is calling from. The emergency services were previously told by intercepting telco operators what the caller's number was. Quite what info they get (especially with regard to location) I don't know. Customer Services for the company I use indicated they "ask the caller". However, in her job, the lady I spoke to would not need any location details, and perhaps those staff who are ready to take emergency calls have more information available on screen. Peter Morgan. N Wales, UK. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #82 ***************************** Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #83 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:09:03 -0500 (EST) From: TELECOM Digest Editor To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Apr 97 08:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 83 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: List of All *XX Codes (Mark J. Cuccia) The Next Toll Free Code: 877 (Greg Monti) Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years" (Rob Slade) Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits (Linc Madison) Oftel and Further UK Numbering Changes (Mark J. Cuccia) IRC Transcript of Interest (Eric Florack) IRS Raids a Cypherpunk (Monty Solomon) 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: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 13:16:40 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: List of All *XX Codes A list of *XX codes was recently posted to the Digest. Earlier this year, I was emailed a list of the *XX codes, which had a few extra *XX codes on it. I was told that the list emailed to me was the most recent *XX code assignment listing from Bellcore NANPA. The following *XX codes were _not_ on the list which recently appeared in the TELECOM Digest: *02 DEACTIVATION/ACTIVATION OF IN-SESSION ACTIVATION (ISA) ON A PER LINE BASIS *03 DEACTIVATION OF IN-SESSION ACTIVATION (ISA) ON A PER CALL BASIS *40 CHANGE FORWARD-TO NUMBER FOR CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING BUSY-LINE *41 SIX-WAY CONFERENCE CALLING ACTIVATION *42 CHANGE FORWARD-TO NUMBER FOR CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING DON'T ANSWER *43 DROP LAST MEMBER OF SIX-WAY CONFERENCE CALL *46 FRENCH VOICE ACTIVATED NETWORK CONTROL *47 OVERRIDE FEATURE AUTHORIZATION *48 OVERRIDE DO NOT DISTURB Please remember that these are the Bellcore NANPA recommended standards. It is up to each local telco or service provider to activate individual services, usually under regulatory tariff. Not all telcos use the same codes. Some services must be activated/deactivated by NX('#') rather than *XX. Some telcos might use different numericals than the ones indicated here, but for the same feature. Rotary dial customers (or older ten-button touchtone phones) can replace the '*' button with the digits '1-1'. Some of the 'less obvious' features might be individual features offered by a Canadian telco, or ISDN-type features. The Bellcore LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide) has a list of the *XX codes and a definition or brief description in its general front section. However, to more fully comprehend some of the capabilities or operations of the 'less obvious' features, it might be necessary to purchase individual Bellcore (or Nortel or Lucent, etc) technical specs. Also, remember that individual cellular systems (as well as PBX and Centrex systems) do use their own */# codes. And private payphones or other 'super' public phones (as well as AOSlime) might have their own */# type codes. Long distance carrier networks also use some */# codes. AT&T uses #123 for "True Messages" and *234 for "International Redial". An interesting code which _might_ still work in some areas is *0 (or 11-0). This was used for 'operator recall on lines with 3-way'. If a line with (monthly) 3-way calling initiated a 0+ (or dial-0) type call, after the called party had answered and 'suped', flashing the switch-hook did _not_ bring back a live operator into the connection, but rather caused the originating local central office to initiate a 3-way dialtone. Lines which did _not_ have 3-way calling would bring a live operator back into the connection upon flashing in the middle of a 0+ (or dial-0) type call. Upon the originating customer flashing on their local loop, the local central office would then send a 'flash' over the trunk to the TSPS/TOPS/OSPS. So, for monthly 3-way customers to 'operator recall flash', when they flashed in the middle of a 0+ type call and heard 3-way dialtone, they could then dial 110 or enter *0, which would cause the central office to 'operator recall flash' over the trunk to the TSPS/TOPS/OSPS. However, 'operator recall flashing' is being discontinued between most local central offices and operator systems - in general - whether or not the line has 3-way. Therefore, *0/110 might not work anymore from all areas. Also, remember that calling _use_ of Speed-Dialing-8 is by entering a single digit 'N' (N= any possible digit '2' through '9'), and then either timing out after 3-to-5 seconds, or 'cancelling' the wait for time-out by entering the touchtone '#'. For _use_ of Speed-Dialing-30, a two-digit code from 20 through 49 would be entered followed by either a '#' or waiting for the time-out. But there were some locations which used '*' or '11' before the Speed-8 single digit 'N' code or Speed-30 two-digit 'NX' (20->49) code. And some local telcos have additional *X(X(X)) codes for 'multi-line' services, such as BellSouth's "Prestige" (TM) service. There is call-hold, call-park, call-pickup, etc. Some of these "Prestige" codes are *X(X/'#'), while others are #X#. Bellcore also has some standards for #XX codes. These are known as "Facility Codes". The only two which I am aware of with a 'universal' assignment or reservation are #56 and #64. The name "Facility" indicates that they are used to indicate the type of bandwidth needed - #56 indicates a 56 KBps data call, and #64 indicates a 64KBps data call. This #XX facility code _must_ be dialed at the very beginning of a call which needed a 'special facility or bandwidth', prior to _any_ other prefixes such as *XX/11XX, 10(1X)XXX, 1/0/01(1)+. As for activation for customer use of facility codes, that would probably depend on a pre-arranged service order. This use of #XX for "facility" is an extension of what was proposed in the 1960's for Bell System "Picturephone" service. If a call was 'audio' telephone _only_, the number was dialed in the usual manner. But if the call were to include _video_ via the special Picturephone network, the number dialed was to be prefixed with the pound (#) button. 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: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 01:08:55 -0500 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 A brief piece on page A1 of the {Wall Street Journal} on April 3, 1997, notes that North America's third toll-free code will go into effect in Spring 1998. It will be 877. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:02:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years" BKW3JI13.RVW 961126 "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years", Rohit Khare, 1996, 1-56592-210-7, U$24.95/C$35.95 %E Rohit Khare khare@w3.org %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-210-7 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 226 %T "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years" This issue combines a retrospective of the Web over the five years of its existence with papers from the 5th International WWW Conference and reports on work in progress. A number of papers look technically at performance and traffic, but there is a strong emphasis on assessment and polling. There are surveys of use, and surveys of surveys. Work in progress reports on objects, lexical analysis of HTML and SGML, and extended log file formats. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKW3JI13.RVW 961126 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:42:33 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs. net wrote: > April 2: > The NJ BPU has partially reversed portions of the 201 and 908 NPA > splits, allowing cellular users to retain their 201/908 NXXs. While > this will prove more convenient for cellular users, it is expected to > shave 3-6 months of the life of the reconfigured 201 & 908 NPA, and > will create discontiguous pockets of 908 and 201 NXXs within certain > 732 and 973 cities. > Should 609 end up being a split, expect cellular phones to be > grandfathered in as well with THAT split ... Oh, we couldn't POSSIBLY have a "wireless only" overlay, because that would discriminate AGAINST cellular users, but it's perfectly fine to discriminate against everyone else to the ADVANTAGE of cellular users. Just great. This also means that you'll have exactly the situation that cell companies claim they've wanted to AVOID -- all numbers in Xtown are in area code XXX, except the cellular numbers, which are in some other area code. ** 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, 04 Apr 1997 10:16:12 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Oftel and Further UK Numbering Changes Oftel, the UK's regulatory agency, which is also telecom standards body and telecom numbering administrator, has a new URL for its homepage: http://www.oftel.gov.uk I found this while looking for Oftel's latest Numbering Bulletin (from their homepage), which is No.30, dated January 1997. http://www.oftel.gov.uk/numbers/bul30.htm Oftel also has two updated numbering documents available, both dated in January: The National Numbering Scheme http://www.oftel.gov.uk/nnsjan97/numsch97.htm National Numbering Conventions - Consultation on Revisions http://www.oftel.gov.uk/nnconv97/nnconv1.htm (Part A) http://www.oftel.gov.uk/nnconv97/nnconv2.htm (Part B) In the National Numbering Scheme document, there are links to _maps_ of the current and proposed area code numbering for: London, Belfast and Northern Ireland, Cardiff and Wales, Portsmouth and Southampton. It appears that in the year 2000, London _will_ merge its (0)171 and (0)181 area codes into a single (0)20 area code. The local numbers will expand from seven to _eight_ digits. Current seven-digit numbers will have a '7' or '8' tacked on to the front of the existing seven-digit number, the digit being matched with the existing (0)171 or (0)181, while also changing the area code to (0)20. Similar plans and other proposals are being made for the other UK cities or regions listed above. More details are available from Oftel's webpages. 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: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 06:19:14 PST Subject: IRC Transcript of Interest ganzer@dilbert.nosc.mil (Mark Ganzer) says in #82 ------------&<--------------Snip > I have also been rather disgusted with the press coverage. The > story is still front-page here on Easter Sunday, with the latest story > being about one of the cult-member's attempts to recruit an 18-year-old > Michigan resident. The gist of the article is that James Bolton went to > an "Internet chat area" (I presume an Internet Relay Chat channel?) <<<< Yes, it was IRC. Here's a copy of a note I got in one of my newsgroups (I forget which) a few days ago. Apparently, this conversation occurred on an IRC server he is a regular on. CabdlShot is/was a member of the Heaven's Gate group ... "HigherSource' was their contracting org. Session Start: Mon Dec 16 00:23:04 1996 Hello Hi. I think I might be able to help you Really? What's better? Animated Gifs or Shockwave ? Both have their attributes which mak them good for use, but if we had our pick we would choose AGifs Why? Simply put, cost. Shockwave requires running software on a server machine, and it is expensive. AGifs, though, are simply downloaded and treated like a graphic. Much, much cheaper. Thanks...I guess that answers my question. No problem. Do you have a web site? If you do, I would like to look at it. Are you there? Sorry, I'm here...I was talking on another channel. Oh, that's okay. I thought I lost you though. No, I don't have a site up for view yet, only a start of one. If you want to, you can check it out...it is home1.gte.net/giovanni Just a moment. That is a very impressive start. Are you self taught? Yeah, mostly. I use web editors here and there, but it's the creativity, right? That's a good attitude. Do you like working with computers? Hello? Sorry...I got caught up again. No problem. How old are you? Like the nick implies, I'm 18 years of age. ;) Ah, I see. Sorry if I'm fairly inadept at this, but we normally use IRC for business. We all start somewhere.Heh heh Yes, we do. Do you like working with computers and the Internet? Yes, I do...I've been playing on the computer with basic and HTML since I was 5 or 6. Gosh, I'm old! ;) Age is nothing. I guess...I wish EVERYONE thought that way. Are you looking for work? Always! Why, you got any? Well, we are always looking for associates. Who is we? You have a company, too? Yes. We use the name Higher Source Contract Enterprises for our busines purposes What is the url? Sorry about that. It's www.cris.com/~font. Do you like what you see? Holy crap...the graphics on here alone are worth money...did you go to school for this? Not exactly. As I was saying, if you're interested in work, we may be able to accomodate. Where are you located? California. Whoa...that is kinda far. Well, if you agreed to work with us, we would like to have you here with us, but we could accomodate you where you live. Where do you live? In the COLD state of Michigan. ;) Actually, if you could no relocate, we are looking for associates in that area. Well, I couldn't relocate. That is understandable. However, you can still meet our needs. Do you live with family or friends? Actually, this is a conversation we should be having over the telephone. May I have your number so I may call you? Um...well...no. You know how it is...you don't give out your number over the Net, besides... I just met you. You will not succedd unless you trust. Do you trust me enough to give me a set of numbers? No, i'm afraid I don't. Sorry...how about this...I'll call you? I couldn't talk long, but we could get something done No, I'm afraid that we cannot really have calls coming in at this time. Well, you can email me That would be feasable. Your address? xxxxxxxx@xxx.net Thank you. I'm sorry that you are not more trusting. If we have need of you, we will send you mail. I'm trusting, I just know the rules on here If you must follow rules.. Dude, I don't have time for this. If you were serious, you'd understand my reluctance. Beside it seems as if you guys do far better work than I. we would teach you what you would need to know, and make you far more productive than you expect yourself to be. but I'm afraid I must go. It has been a pleasure. Take care. Session Close: Mon Dec 16 03:01:34 1996 Pat responds: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You say that 'this internet-thing is > beginning to look more and more like our society at large ...' and > that is just fine with me; I've been a social outcast, a drop out from > society for many years now. I'll add the internet to my list of places > to avoid. ... Uh-oh ... > You mention pedophila 'lurking on the net' and I will suggest that in > my discussion in the above paragraphs you could substitute 'pedophile' > for 'cult person' with equal results. A Radio Shack salesman once > said to me that the most successful sales people never 'sell you' on > anything. They let you 'sell yourself'; slowly and gradually they > move things around a few degrees at a time until it would appear that > 'you thought of it first' (whatever it is) and of course that makes > it alright. The successful sales person lets you 'talk him in to > selling to you ...' and I suspect successful cult recruiters work > much the same way. PAT] Which, of course raises an interesting question: Who was their computer salesman? All this aside, I'm going to go off-topic for a second. Soapbox mode=On I've become quite disturbed by the hangers on to this case. If you watch the UU traffic, and some of the activity on my BBS, you should see the number of people who are attaching the deaths to their particular personal crusade. Examples include anti-religion types are blaming it all on the idea that they were (supposedly) religious. (Given the translation of 'Cult', from the Latin 'Cultus', I wish we would find some other word to describe such groups.) Homosexuals, meanwhile, are suggesting that the leader was a homosexual and all this is because of bigotry against homosexuals. Etc etc etc. What kind of society have we built where everything that occurrs to anyone, is the fault of someone else? At what point do we say: 'It's their own damn fault'? Soapbox mode= Off. /E ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:13:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IRS Raids a Cypherpunk Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:39:21 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: IRS raids a cypherpunk [I've attached some excerpts from the article. Check out the URL below for the whole thing. --Declan] ******** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,800,00.html The Netly News Network April 3, 1997 IRS raids a cypherpunk by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) Jim Bell's first mistake was publishing an essay describing how disgruntled citizens could kill off Federal government agents by using anonymous betting pools and digital cash. His second mistake was informing the IRS that the agency had no legal authority to tax him. About twenty armed IRS agents and other Federal police swarmed into Bell's home in Washington state on Tuesday morning, hunting for evidence that Bell's "Assassination Politics" essay had come to fruition. They expropriated Bell's three computer systems, two guns and even a solitary mouse cable. The Feds were taking no chances: Since Bell's voluminous Net postings mentioned tax collectors, agents from the BATF, FBI, DEA, and local police forces joined the raid. [...] The raid stemmed from a six-month tussle between Bell and the IRS, which began in November 1996 when the 38-year old computer engineer demanded a hefty tax refund and threatened to convene his own "common-law court" if it was refused. That grabbed the Feds' attention. (So did the actions of the "Multnomah County Common Law Court," which apparently met in January to convict IRS agents and Attorney General Janet Reno of "theft by deception.") In February, IRS agents seized Bell's 1986 Honda as payment for back taxes -- and found inside it a printout of his "Assassination Politics" essay. " [...] And it was, ultimately, a Federal magistrate who signed the search warrant on 9:02 am on March 28 at the request of the IRS. Jeffrey Gordon, an inspector in the IRS' Internal Security Division, details in an 10-page affidavit how he traced Bell's use of allegedly fraudulent Social Security Numbers, how he learned that Bell had been arrested in 1989 for "manufacturing a controlled substance," how he found out that Bell possessed the home addresses of a handful of IRS agents. Gordon's conclusion: Bell planned "to overthrow the government." The IRS investigator says in his affidavit that Bell's "essay details an illegal scheme by Bell which involves plans to assassinate IRS and other government officals... I believe that Bell has begun taking steps to carry out his Assassination Politics plan." [...] Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #83 ***************************** Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #84 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:47:23 -0500 (EST) From: TELECOM Digest Editor TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Apr 97 08:47:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 84 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits (Michael Keen) Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control (Jeffrey Rhodes) Rep. Rick White to Hold Online Town Hall Meeting on 4/10 (Monty Solomon) Re: Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing (Rene Hollan) Carribean/Pacific Area Codes Spammers Might Use (David Richardson) CPUC Changes One NPA, Delays Another (John Cropper) Virginia SCC Set Hearing Date For 703 Relief (John Cropper) Re: Slammed by American Business Alliance (Steve Smith) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at 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: Michael Keen Subject: Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 16:00:56 -0500 Organization: Repeat-O-Type Mfg. Corp. Reply-To: mkeen@repeatotype.com John Cropper wrote: > The NJ BPU has partially reversed portions of the 201 and 908 NPA > splits, allowing cellular users to retain their 201/908 NXXs. Does anyone else see the incredible irony here? When the BPU was asked over and over why couldn't the cell phones get the new area and the landlines be left in their existing codes, they claimed that the FCC rules prevented them from doing a "technology split". "The Record" of Hackensack cites 1,000,000 as the number of cell phones in the 201 area. There are probably at least another million pagers. Separating these two services alone would've given a couple of extra years to the existing area codes. Sincerely, Michael Keen mkeen@repeatotype.com Repeat-O-Type Mfg. Corp. Phone: (201) 696-3330 665 State Highway 23 Fax: (201) 694-7287 Wayne, NJ 07470-6892 http://www.repeatotype.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 16:36:01 -0800 From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control > Can someone explain how modems implement flow control between each > other? For example, let's say I have modem A with a serial port speed > of 115200 which dials into modem B with a serial port speed of 19200 > and connects with a carrier of 28800. The system connected to modem A > starts blasting data to modem A at 115200, modem A starts sending data > to modem B at 28800, modem B starts sending data to the system > connected to modem B at 19200. Soon system B stops data flow (either > via hardware or XON/XOFF). How does modem B tell modem A to stop > sending data and later tell it to start sending again? I saw some posts on this subject, but I don't think I saw a good answer. I was hoping someone could explain flow control alot better than I can, but I'll take a try. I think the answer to the question lies in the fact that when the modems initially connect and negotiate what speed they will use, modem B will force the connection to 19,200 or less. If this is correct, there is no need for modem-to-modem flow control. If the modems are both V.34 modems, the connection rate could be 28,800 because V.34 uses some kind of HDLC protocol where information is encoded in packets or frames (I think). This provides flow control since only so many packets or frames can be sent without being acknowledged. Again, there is no need for any kind of XON/XOFF thing between modems. I think I read that PPP protocol connections to an Internet Service Provider are better if you turn off the flow control and error correction of ARQ, since this only thrashes with the same PPP functions at a higher layer? Maybe someone will correct my misconceptions, but in general, I think today's protocols and modems provide modem-to-modem flow control without XON/XOFFs. Of course, hardware RTS/CTS flow control between each PC and its modem is needed to run 115,200 into a modem in the first place, and this is needed to deliver data at a higher DTE rate than the transmission rate so that compression techniques will offer any benefit. Theoretically, V.42 can give >28,800 bps with compression, but only when much >28,800 bps are delivered by the DTE. Jeffrey Rhodes ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:34:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Rep. Rick White to Hold Online Town Hall Meeting on 4/10 Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: From: shabbir@democracy.net Subject: Rep. Rick White to hold online town hall meeting on 4/10! Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 23:44:05 -0500 Reply-To: vtw-announce@vtw.org ========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls _________________________________________________________________________ Update No.3 http:/www.democracy.net/ April 3 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - Join Internet Caucus Co-Founder Rick White (R-WA) Live Online April 10. - Background on Rep. White - Upcoming Events - About democracy.net ___________________________________________________________________________ JOIN INTERNET CAUCUS-CO FOUNDER REP. RICK WHITE (R-WA) LIVE ONLINE! Representative Rick White (R-WA), co-founder of the Congressional Internet Caucus and leader on Internet policy issues, will be the guest at democracy.net's first live, interactive 'town hall meeting' on Thursday April 10 at 8:30 pm ET (5:30 pm PST). The town hall meeting, moderated by Wired Magazine's Todd Lappin, will be completely virtual. The discussion will be cybercast live via RealAudio, and listeners can join a simultaneous interactive chat discussion and pose questions to Rep. White. This is a unique opportunity for Internet users to discuss current Internet issues, including efforts to reform US Encryption policy, the future of the Communications Decency Act, the activities of the Congressional Internet Caucus, and others. Details on the event, including instructions on how you can submit questions in advance, are attached below. INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE * Interactive Town Hall Meeting with Rep. Rick White (R-WA) * DATE: Thursday, April 10, 1997 TIME: 5:30 pm PST / 8:30 pm EST LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net In advance of the town hall meeting, please visit http://www.democracy.net and fill out the form to ask Rep. White a question. We will collect the questions and forward them to the moderator on the day of the event, and will make every effort to ensure that questions from constituents are asked first. 1. Attend and ask Rep. White a question! Please mark this date in your calendar: Thursday April 10, 5:30PM PST at http://democracy.net/ 2. Get your friends and co-workers to join the discussion Members of Congress love to hear from their constituents. If you have friends that live in the district, please forward this invitation and encourage them to attend. BACKGROUND Congressman Rick White, 43, is serving his second term representing the people of the First Congressional District of Washington state, which includes parts of Seattle, Redmond, and surrounding areas. In 1995, White gained national attention through his work on the Internet and high-technology issues. He was one of a handful of members selected to develop the final Telecommunications Act of 1996. As the founder of the Congressional Internet Caucus, he has worked to educate members of Congress about the Internet and to create a more open, participatory government through the use of technology. Additional Information can be found at the following locations: * Rep. Rick White's Home Page -- http://www.house.gov/white/ * democracy.net Page -- http://www.democracy.net/ UPCOMING EVENTS Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Internet policy leader from Silicon Valley, will be the guest at democracy.net's interactive 'town hall meeting' on Wednesday April 16 at 8:30 pm ET (5:30 pm PST). Visit http://www.democracy.net for more details. ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET The democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive, Public Access Networks, the Democracy Network, and DIGEX Internet. More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ End update no.3 04/03/1997 ------------------------------ From: Rene & Quinn Hollan Subject: Re: Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 20:46:41 -0500 Organization: Hollan Consulting Jeff Regan wrote: [description of disabling call waiting for INCOMING data calls snipped] Good idea. I always wondered about the utility of call waiting on a distinctive ringing-enabled line where one of the distinctive ringing patterns signalled data or FAX calls. > Bell Canada has recently started offering 'Call Waiting Auto Suppression' > that basically does the same thing I just did if you are using it in an > Ident-A-Call distingtive ring environment ... it does not cost anything, > and basically if a call comes into the Ident-A-Call number, it disables > call waiting ... interestingly enough if you have 2 Ident-A-Call numbers, > one can be set to NOT disable Call Waiting, while the other can be set TO > disable call waiting. Figures that there would be a telco solution to the problem. However, it is incomplete. Consider incoming FAX calls that go through a FAX switch on a line that isn't enabled with distinctive ringing. The FAX switch answers all calls, looks for FAX CNG "beep-beep" tones, and either rings its FAX port, or phone port depending on whether the CNG tones are heard. How can the FAX disable call waiting? Looks like there's a market for a box that (1) answers, (2) flashes, (3) disables call waiting, and (4) connects through (or an excuse to add yet another "feature" to FAX machines). Of course, the utility of a call-waiting "beep" for an incoming FAX call is, itself, questionable ("Oh wait, I've got another call... CLICK... Damn, another FAX trying to barge in"). This brings up an idea for another telco-provided feature: distinctive ringing numbers that appear BUSY if the main number is in use, so FAX or data calls (for example), don't interrupt voice calls, but still get routed based on ringing pattern. In Liberty, Rene S. Hollan, Hollan Consulting Liberty, Property, Reciprocity ------------------------------ From: David Richardson Subject: Carribean/Pacific Area Codes Spammers Might Use Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:27:08 -0600 Organization: No junk email allowed, particularly commercial/"adult" material. Reply-To: davidwr_at_geocities.com@127.0.0.1 Posted to three newsgroups related to net-abuse to help abuse-recipients spot international-call schemes like the one that came from Montserrat earlier this year (see news.admin.net-abuse.email). Followups to comp.dcom.telecom. Taken from http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html#all on 4/3/97. These area codes came from the 809 split. 264 : Anguilla 268 : Antigua and Barbuda 242 : Bahamas 246 : Barbados 441 : Bermuda 284 : British Virgin Islands 345 : Cayman Islands 767 : Dominica 473 : Grenada 876 : Jamaica 664 : Montserrat 787 : Puerto Rico 869 : St. Kitts and Nevis 758 : St. Lucia 784 : St. Vincent/Grenadines 868 : Trinidad and Tobago 649 : Turks & Caicos 340 : US Virgin Islands And some new ones: 670 : CNMI (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, formerly country code 670) 671 : Guam (formerly country code 671) Background: Some unscrupulous businesses ask customers to call an international number, usually a +011 number but sometimes a non-US/Canada number in the North American Numbering Plan (until recently, 809). They put the customer on hold and run up high toll charges. The kicker is that the phone company gives part of the phone charges back to the unscrupulous business, in much the same way 1-900 numbers work in North America. Generally, the calling party is unaware of the high costs involved. There has been at least one case of a bulk-email ad using the new Carribean area codes. David = davidwr = Austin = Unsolicited email Richardson = @ geocities.com = TX USA = prohibited *** From: and Reply-To: MAY BE BOGUS TO PREVENT UNWANTED EMAIL *** ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: CPUC Changes One NPA, Delays Another Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:14:05 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net From the California PUC: CPUC CHANGES DIXON'S AREA CODE AND DELAYS 415 CODE SPLIT The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today approved a request by Pacific Bell to change the City of Dixon's area code from the newly assigned 530 code to the 707 code. The Commission also approved a one day delay of the 415/650 area code split from Friday, August 1, to Saturday, August 2 so that the change would not disrupt phone service during a work day if there are complications with phone companies' equipment. Currently Dixon is in the 916 area code. It was slated to be changed to the 530 code when 916 splits in November. Changing Dixon's code to 707, which will happen on October 4, permits the city to be in the same area code as the county Dixon is in - Solano County. The CPUC approved the change because Dixon has stronger ties with Solano County than communities which will be in the 530 code. The two prefixes in the Dixon exchange are not duplicated in the 707 area code which means consumers will not have to change their numbers when placed in that code. Also the Dixon exchange is very small so changing it to 707 will not shorten the life of that area code. The change of Dixon's code is one of three requests Pacific Bell has made regarding the 916/530 split. The other two - to move El Dorado Hills from 530 to 916, and to move Lincoln, Newcastle, and Pleasant Grove from 530 to 916 - will be decided by the Commission in the near future. -###- John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Virginia SCC Set Hearing Date For 703 Relief Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 19:31:12 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net SCC SETS HEARINGS REGARDING NEW NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA CODE RICHMOND -- Northern Virginians in the 703 area code will have an opportunity to tell the State Corporation Commission (SCC) how they would prefer to have a new area code installed by 1999. The SCC will hold two public hearings in Annandale on Monday, June 23. It is estimated the supply of available telephone numbers in the 703 area code will run out by late 1999. The SCC has been asked to consider two area code relief plans because the various telecommunications companies could not reach consensus on a plan. One plan divides the current 703 area code region in half. Generally, the Arlington and Alexandria exchanges would keep the 703 area code. All other exchanges would switch to a new, yet to be assigned, area code. The other plan is called an "overlay," meaning the same geographic area would have two area codes. All existing phone numbers would keep the 703 area code. All new requests for telephone numbers would be assigned to the new area code. The "overlay" method would require 10-digit dialing for all calls. SCC Senior Hearing Examiner Glenn P. Richardson will receive public comments at two sessions, one at 3:30 p.m. and the other at 7 p.m. Both sessions will be at the Ernst Community Cultural Center Building on the Annandale Campus of Northern Virginia Community College. The address is 8333 Little River Turnpike. Anyone wishing to comment should arrive early and sign in with the Commission bailiff. Written comments may be submitted to the Clerk of the Commission, Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, VA 23218. All correspondence must be received by June 23, 1997 and refer to case number PUC960161. ### John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: sgs@access.digex.net (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Slammed by American Business Alliance Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 00:10:19 GMT Organization: Agincourt Computing In article , J. DeBert wrote: > About a month ago, someone claiming to be "ATT" called to ask about > how well I liked ATT, then passed me off to a person to get some > personal information. I declined to give it, because it was too > personal, like birthdate, SSN, etc., and because ATT should already > have all the info they needed from me. The person was rather > determined to get all this information but I firmly declined, so they > gave me a number to call to prove that they were indeed who they said > they were, and all, and it was not the published ATT service number. > I think it was a scam, whether or not these people were associated > with ATT. I think the intention was to slam me. With such a lengthy > call, they could have recorded it and then cut-and-pasted their own > version of me authorizing a switch. About once a week, I get a call on my business line from someone at "AT&T ". The first time it happened, I strung along for quite a while until I realized it was a scam. Since then, when I get a call from "AT&T ", I ask "Are you, personally, an employee of AT&T?" When the answer comes back "No, but ..." I give the caller a brief ethics lecture and hang up. AT&T people have called a couple of times. They don't mumble. Steve Smith sgs@access.digex.net Agincourt Computing +1 (301) 681 7395 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #84 ***************************** Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #85 Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 09:13:28 -0400 (EDT) From: TELECOM Digest Editor TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 Apr 97 09:13:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 85 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network (Marty Tennant) Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing (Stan Schwartz) Re: New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex (Richard Cox) Re: List of All *nn Features (Dave Luscher) Re: List of All *XX Codes (Stan Schwartz) Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (B.J. Guillot) Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (Al Hays) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (Joseph Singer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at 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, 05 Apr 1997 17:55:36 -0800 From: Marty Tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm) Subject: Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network The Advanced Intelligent Network advances the concept of the public switched network as a computer, raising anti-trust issues, as you will see below. I am attaching a copy of my objections to the BellSouth MCI interconnection agreement. Since the items in question were part of their negotiated agreement, and not an arbitrated item, my objections are valid. I urge all network activists to review interconnection agreements that have not yet been approved by your state PSC's. Most of them will have provisions like this. You can object and ask that these provisions be removed. If you are an individual, you need to state that these provisions are not in the public interest. If you are a telecommunications carrier, you can use the discriminatory and public interest arguments. I will be glad to share more information with those prepared to take on these industry giants as they prepare to create a new cozy club for monopolists. ++++++++++++++ BEFORE THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION MCI METRO PETITION FOR ) ARBITRATION UNDER THE ) DOCKET NO. 6865-U TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996) OBJECTION OF LOW TECH DESIGNS, INC. TO PROVISIONS IN MCI AND BELLSOUTH INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT Low Tech Designs, Inc. ("LTD") hereby states it's objection to portions of the agreement between MCI Metro (MCIm) and BellSouth Telecommunications Inc. (BST). LTD contends that this agreement discriminates against LTD, a new entrant telecommunications carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity of telecommunications subscribers in the State of Georgia. Sec 252(e)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides for State commission rejection of portions of an interconnection agreement: Quoting below: GROUNDS FOR REJECTION- The State commission may only reject-- (A) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that -- (i) the agreement (or portion thereof) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement or portion is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity; or (B) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by arbitration under subsection (b) if it finds that the agreement does not meet the requirements of section 251, including the regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to section 251, or the standards set forth in subsection (d) of this section. Specifically, LTD objects to certain provisions contained within Attachment III, Section 7., Local Switching, that provide MCIm all AIN triggers as part of an unbundled local switching port. In that section, on page 18, Sec.7.2.1.15, the agreement states: "BellSouth shall offer all Local Switching features that are Technically Feasible and provide feature offerings at parity to those provided to itself or any other party. Such feature offerings shall include but are not limited to: (page 19) 7.2.1.15.6 Advanced intelligent network triggers supporting MCIm and BellSouth service applications, in BellSouth's SCPs. BellSouth shall offer to MCIm all AIN triggers currently available to BellSouth for offering AIN-based services in accordance with applicable Bellcore technical references: 7.2.1.15.6.1 thru 7.2.1.15.6 Off-Hook Immediate, Off-Hook Delay, Termination Attempt, 3/6/10, Feature Code Dialing, Custom Dialing Plan(s) including 555 services; and; 72.1.15.7 When the following triggers are supported by BellSouth, BellSouth shall make said triggers available to MCIm: 7.2.1.15.7.1 thru 7.2.1.15.7.4 Private EAMF Trunk, Shared Interoffice Trunk (EAMF, SS7), N11, Automatic Route Selection." LTD believes that this "all AIN triggers to the unbundled switching port or dialtone provider" provision of this agreement raises serious anti-trust tying issues, is not in the public interest, discriminatory to other telecommunications carriers and should be rejected. LTD believes that this provision will have the same negative effect that would result from consumers being restricted to obtaining computer software solely from their personal computer hardware supplier. Consumer choice will be restricted to those AIN applications that current dominant industry participants deem appropriate, stifling innovation and the opportunity to obtain Advanced Intelligent Network solutions from a variety of sources. LTD has raised this same issue in Ga. PSC Docket 7270-U, LTD Petition for Arbitration with BST, and has produced evidence from the Tennessee Attorney General's Consumer Advocate Division that addresses the same anti-trust and public interest issues raised by LTD. A copy of the evidence from the Tennessee Attorney General's Office is provided as part of this filing as Attachment "A". Not only would this portion of the agreement not be in the public interest, but it would discriminate against LTD, a new entrant telecommunications carrier which is not a party to this agreement. LTD, and any other potential competitor to MCI, would be placed in a situation where it would be required to duplicate all MCIm AIN applications provided to MCIm customers before it would be able to compete against MCIm in the provisioning of dialtone and AIN services to those same customers. This would be the equivalent of requiring a small software company to duplicate all of IBM's application software installed on a users IBM PC before being able to offer a complementary or competitive software application to IBM PC users. This is clearly discriminatory to other telecommunications carriers and not in the public interest. For these reasons, this portion of the agreement between MCIm and BST should be rejected. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL, 1997. ________________________ James M. Tennant - President 1204 Saville St. Low Tech Designs, Inc. Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 ---------------- marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm), 1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice, (803) 527-7783 fax ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:55:38 -0500 I moved from a BellSouth area into an Alltel Carolinas service area about two months ago, and I'm slowly learning how to deal with the non-RBOC world. One thing I've discussed in the Digest before is that the Charlotte, NC local calling area includes (among other things) the area in NPA 803 served by the Fort Mill Telephone Company of Fort Mill, SC. This is home to the former Heritage USA complex, as well as the former home of Jim and Tammy Bakker. When I lived in BellSouth-land (about a mile from where I live now), I could dial 1-803-54X-XXXX or 803-54X-XXXX to reach Fort Mill, and either would be included in my flat rate Charlotte service. In Alltel (which seems to lease some services from BellSouth), if I dial 1-803-54X-XXXX, I am greeted by a recording (by Jane Barbie (sp.?), the pre-divestiture AT&T recording lady) telling me that the number I'm trying to call is part of Alltel's regional calling plan and does not require a '1'. I'm then told to hang up and dial again without the '1', and while I'm at it, why not call customer service and ask them about signing up for the expanded regional calling plan. Jeez! They know where I'm calling, why not just connect the call??!! As far as leasing services from BellSouth, when I dial 0 or 411 I am greeted by a BellSouth operator. In the case of 411, I get the same BellSouth automated attendant, but I don't get the automated call completion option (which I don't miss). Alltel is also using the same Octel voice mail system that I used with BellSouth, although Alltel's seems to have enabled a few more features than BellSouth did. One thing I AM missing is the Complete Choice plan, where I could have every service BellSouth offered for $28 including local service. Ah well. More on my non-RBOC user status as the months pass. Stan (stan@vnet.net) All spam will be returned in kind. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When the Bakker's and Heritage USA were in business, the complex was sufficiently large enough that it was mostly in BellSouth territory but extended partly over into Fort Mill Telephone Company territory. Bakker wanted service entirely from Bell South on a centrex, however the Fort Mill Telephone Company sued to force that portion of Heritage USA which was in their territory to be serviced by Fort Mill. I think the one large hotel was involved. The way it wound up was BellSouth did have a centrex there for everything and several centrex extensions terminated on the switchboard of the hotel, however Fort Mill also terminated several direct lines on the hotel switchboard as well. When calling someone staying at the hotel it was possible to either dial the main listed number for Heritage USA and ask the operator for the hotel (and in turn, the hotel oper- ator for the desired room number) or you could dial the BellSouth centrex extension number for the hotel (and then ask the hotel oper- ator for the desired room number) or you could dial the Fort Mill number for the hotel which landed directly on the switchboard. For the sake of convenience, I seem to recall that all gateways into the hotel switchboard were '5000'. That is, it was extension 5000 (as the start of a hunt group on the Heritage USA centrex) and it was xxx-5000 as the start of a hunt group from Fort Mill. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:01:59 EST From: richard@mandarin.com (Richard D.G. Cox) Subject: Re: New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex allender@asiaonline.net (Robert Allender) said: > A new numbering system was instituted 1/1/97, with dual access during > a 6 month grace period, but many countries or international carriers > are not yet set up to handle it. It's not just a question of being "set up" to handle it. First off, the numbers are 14 (internationally-significant) digits long which is 2 more than the limit that applied up to Time-T (31-12-1996). Not all countries have updated their systems to handle the longer numbers: but furthermore, because so few parts of the world are using numbers with 12+ (I-S) digits, very many countries will take the view that there is no economic case for the expenditure involved. And the same goes for private switchboards (generically known as "CPE"). As I understand it *, only Finland and Hong Kong have planned to increase their digit length, although Germany/Austria/Luxembourg were already slightly over the limit (at 13 I-S digits) for their DDI numbers, before the rules were changed. Until there is a cogent case for countries to upgrade, it will be a brave man^H^H person that extends their numbering length past 12 I-S digits, where a viable alternative exists. In Hong Kong, the only number ranges that appear to be in use are 1x, 2x, 30, 7, 8x, and 9x. Why, therefore, the need for longer numbers in the Colony? But there are other issues to consider. If, currently, there is sufficient headroom in the accounting rate for the audiotex service providers to be paid for the services they provide, all well and good. But if there is the possibility that there will at any time be a higher payment required, then international telcos will want to understand the implications of this before they open access to those ranges on their switches. Not least of which is the question of FRAUD! Here in the UK, as well as in several other countries, there is a major problem with telecomms fraud ... and Hong Kong audiotex services have been identified as a frequent destination of the fraudulent calls. The German phone company, Deutsche Telekom, has already blocked direct-dial access to several audiotex number ranges, and other countries may well follow suit! The present position in the UK for the number quoted, is that calls over BT succeed, while calls over Mercury are consistently failing. There are a number of other carriers, and it has not been possible to test them all. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, PENARTH, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG, UK Telephone: +44 97 3311 1111; Fax: +44 97 3311 1100 ------------------------------ From: luscher@dcsnet.com (Dave Luscher) Subject: Re: List of All *nn Features Organization: Daac Systems - Internet Access Date: 5 Apr 97 17:34:36 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for digging up that item and > sending it for reposting. I was curious, and tried all of the ones > I do not have on my line; especially the ones not offered (as far as > I know) by Ameritech. The results were interesting. On #01 and #02 > I got an intercept saying (in these words) "Feature interaction cannot > be continued. Please hang up and dial the feature code again. The > following tones are for the hearing impaired ..." (followed by modem > sounds). Repeated attempts to dial the #01 and #02 codes got the > same message. All of the codes intended for DEactivating something > resulted in an intercept 'your phone is not equipped for this service' > however the associated codes to activate features resulted in either > the 'feature interaction cannot be continued' message or in most > cases an unusual (for this switch) ringing tone followed by a man's > voice on an intercept saying 'the area code or number that you dialed > is incorrect. Please check the number and dial again ... the following > tones are for the hearing impaired ...' A couple of the codes such > as the one for 'voice activated network control' (whatever that is) > and 'who called me' just resulted in fast busy or re-order tones. By > the way what is 'who called me' and how does it differ from customer > activated trace? And exactly what are #01 and #02 for? Can anyone > go down the list and explain the less obvious entries? Also, when > I tried #49 a couple times it 'clicked' and then just went dead while > other times I got the 'area code or number is incorrect' message. PAT] Pat: Here in Bell Canada land the phone book has the following to say about *57 (Customer Originated Call Trace): "Call Trace should ONLY be used in serious situations when you wish to take legal action against the caller. If you are receiving many harassing or threatening calls and use Call Trace, you should be ready to contact the police and have the caller charged. Bell Canada will release the traced number ONLY on presentation of proper legal authorization and ONLY TO THE POLICE." ($5 bucks a shot $10 monthly price cap). Apparently it will trace through a call blocked number. Who Called Me is a new feature here that will (I believe) read back the number of the last person who called you - assuming it wasn't blocked. I could be totaly wrong on this one. *49 here turns off Bell's annoying feature of changing the ringing pattern if the call is a long distance call. *49 will permanently disabled it until re-enabled. They introduced this "feature" without much notice to the public. It really screwed up a call director box I have that works on the distinctive ring feature (Ident-A-Call) until I figure out what they had done. Cheers! Dave Luscher email: luscher@dcsnet.com Daac Systems phone: (905) 841-4147 ext. 10 Aurora, Ontario, Canada http://www.dcsnet.com ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: List of All *nn Codes Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:37:28 -0500 Just to add my two cents into the mix, when I was with BellSouth, I was able to use *47 in order to vary the number of seconds (or number of rings, depending on the central office) before my incoming calls were NAT to voice mail. Stan (stan@vnet.net) All spam will be returned in kind. ------------------------------ From: bgfax@blkbox.com (B.J. Guillot) Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: 5 Apr 1997 10:20:55 GMT Organization: Tranquility Base Reply-To: bgfax@blkbox.com (B.J. Guillot) In , Al Hays writes: > latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per > minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no > circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free > When I called AT&T back the new agent who answered the phone had "NO > IDEA" what I was talking about and offered me their two standard > plans: 15 cents/24 hour or 10 cents/24 hour with $4.95 fee. I > explained to her that their marketing department had done their job by > getting my attention and that they would now get my business if -she- > didn't drop the ball. After a short "consultation" with her manager I > was afforded the six month promotional rate as outlined above. AT&T did something similar to me. A few months ago, I switched to Sprint. AT&T called me back, offered the 10 cents 24/hours a day, no monthly fees. I get my first bill and I'm on some kind of 15 cent/minute fee. I call AT&T to complain, and they say, oh yeah, we have a 10 cent/minute 24 hour/day program, but it costs $4.95 a month. "There is absolutely so such program without a monthly fee." They said the best they could do for me was to waive the $4.95 fee for the first two months. After reading your message, I'm going to call them back tomorrow and demand to talk to a supervisor, since know I know for sure that I was not "making it up" about no monthly fee. Command line driven fax software http://www.blkbox.com/~bgfax/ Regards, B.J. Guillot ... Houston, Texas USA I don't believe in coffee ------------------------------ From: Al Hays Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 11:13:24 -0600 >> Some weeks ago there was a discussion in the Digest regarding the >> "hidden" promotional deals that you would necessarily have to know >> about in advance in order to receive them. This weekend I experienced >> this very phenomenon and did switch from Sprint to AT&T. AT&T's >> latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per >> minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no >> circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free >> each month for 6 months and AT&T will send a certificate equal to the >> amount of the LEC's fee for switching LD carriers (typically $5). >> Re your heads up on that new AT&T promotion: >> I called the usual AT&T customer service number on my bill & they >> couldn't give me the 250 min free on their system. Do you still have the >> callback number for the AT&T telemarketing department? Their system >> should allow the 250 min/mo. The number given to me was 800-225-7466. The strange thing was that the operator who answered asked me "what extension?" Ofcourse I didn't have an extension number and I simply explained that this was the number that the telemarketer gave me to call back to change my LD carrier to AT&T. Subsequently, I've had two close friends who have called this number and switched to the same plan. Hope this helps. regs, .al. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 09:19:57 -0800 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split John Cropper quoted an article: > BellSouth Telecommunications wanted a new area code selected for North > Florida last year. But disputes over which region would receive the > new code forced the issue before commissioners. While most phone > companies favored keeping 904 for Jacksonville and switching the > Panhandle, state officials predicted changing Tallahassee's area code > would cost taxpayers $2.48 million. This begs the question why so many places are absolutely opposed to putting an overlay into an area rather than continuing to do a geographical split to give numbering relief. Using an overlay there is no expense (that I can see) to the people involved i.e. businesses, cell phone customers, re-programming, stationery, etc. You have to of course modify how you refer to your phone number rather than just saying the phone number is XXX-XXXX you have to say the phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Eventually we're all going to have to have even more numbers than we do even with the "relief" that we're getting and eventually you're not going to be able to make any kind of rational split of an area so why not just accept the inevitable and use overlays? Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington, USA mailto:dov@oz.net http://oz.net/~dov http://www.mirabilis.com/460262 [www ICQ pager] PO Box 23135, Seattle, WA 98102 USA +1 206 325 5862 FAX ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #85 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 8 00:42:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA06595; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:42:04 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704080442.AAA06595@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #86 Status: R TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Apr 97 00:42:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 86 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Another Technical Glitch Here (TELECOM Digest Editor) BA Favors Overlay of 215, 610 (John Cropper) Ex-USSR Country Codes Profile (Dave Leibold) NYS PSC Slaps ATT for "Slamming" (Danny Burstein) The Final Cellular Straw (John Higdon) New Telecom Banner Exchange (Judith Oppenheimer) Colombian Seminar in PCS - Looking For Speakers (Mario Castano-Gonzalez) PUC Hearings in Pa. Now Underway (Carl Moore) Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control (John Eichler) Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control (James Carlson) 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, 7 Apr 1997 23:32:09 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Another Technical Glitch Here Since Sunday, the web version of TELECOM Digest has been unavailable due to a 'write system full, cannot write' condition on massis. I have been unable to get anyone's attention to this as of late Monday night but hope that sometime Tuesday the condition will be corrected. Anything at all going to the archives gets rejected and a zero-length file written in its place. Attempts to post the Sunday issue of the Digest resulted in the entire thing getting blown away as messages were rewritten will all empty files and the 'cannot write' message getting tossed at me a few hundred times as each file was getting (supposedly) posted. Hopefully the WWW version will be back soon, but this depends on getting someone at LCS/MIT to clean up the mess. PAT ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: BA Favors Overlay of 215, 610 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 18:13:36 -0400 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Area Code "Overlay" Easiest, Most Economical For Customers in 215 and 610, Bell Atlantic Tells PUC "Geographic Split" Plan by AT&T, MCI And Sprint Forces Over One Million Pennsylvanians to Change Phone Numbers April 4, 1997 PHILADELPHIA - Adding a new area code using the "overlay" method would let all Southeastern Pennsylvanians keep the telephone number they have today when new area codes are added in the near future, according to Bell Atlantic. An alternative proposal by large out-of-state long distance companies would force more than one million Pennsylvanians to change their phone numbers causing tremendous inconvenience and expense for telephone customers. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) will hold Public Input Meetings April 7-9 in the Philadelphia area to present the options available today to add two new area codes in the 215 and 610 areas. Bell Atlantic favors an "overlay" which would introduce two new area codes with the same boundaries as the existing 215 and 610 area codes. With overlays, no customers will have to change their telephone numbers. No business will have to incur the expense of advertising a new number, changing stationery, or ordering new signs for delivery trucks and storefronts. "We believe existing area code boundaries should stay the same, so that Southeastern Pennsylvania customers can keep their current phone numbers," said Daniel J. Whelan, president and CEO, Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania. "Changing boundaries cuts up established neighborhoods, fragmenting both communities and business districts, as well as causing over a million customers to change their phone numbers." AT&T, MCI and Sprint favor a "geographic split" which would divide each of the areas covered by the 610 and 215 area codes roughly in half. Phone customers in one half would keep the existing area code and those in the other half would be assigned the new area code. Approximately 1.4 million customers would have to change area codes if Delaware and Montgomery Counties keep the 610 area code. Another 1.1 million customers would have to change phone numbers if Chester, Berks, Lehigh and Northampton Counties keep the 610 area code. The entire Philadelphia area would be disrupted by a geographic split of the 215 area code. Center City, North Philadelphia, West Philadelphia and South Philadelphia would keep 215. Several hundred thousand customers in Northwest and Northeast Philadelphia, along with portions of Montgomery County and Bucks County now in the 215 area code, would get a new area code. "The resulting confusion and fragmentation caused by these geographic splits will tear at the very fabric of our communities. Dividing towns, cities, counties -- even neighborhoods -- and giving a different area code to each side is neither socially nor economically fair to the people of Southeastern Pennsylvania," said Whelan. Whelan noted that residents in Southeastern Pennsylvania experienced a split only three years ago when the 610 area code was carved out of the 215 area. "The split advocated by AT&T, MCI and Sprint forces over a million Southeastern Pennsylvanians to change phone numbers just to make it easier for them to compete in the local phone market," he said. "We don't believe that these customers want to go through another split. We need to act soon to provide new phone numbers to meet increased demand," he said. "But let's make sure that Pennsylvania households and businesses emerge the winners." Bell Atlantic Corp. (NYSE: BEL) is at the forefront of the new communications, entertainment and information industry. In the mid-Atlantic region, the company is the premier provider of local telecommunications and advanced services. Globally, it is one of the largest investors in the high-growth wireless communication marketplace. Bell Atlantic also owns a substantial interest in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand and is actively developing high-growth national and international business opportunities in all phases of the industry. (JC Note: What BA isn't telling us is that 10-digit dialing would most likely would become mandatory in the affected overlay areas. If the PA PUC was smart, they'd mandate 10D dialing statewide NOW, and remove one barrier to area code relief ...) John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 23:23:49 EDT From: Dave Leibold Subject: Ex-USSR Country Codes Profile Ex-USSR Country Codes Profile 4 April 1997 Below is a summary of the country codes that have formed in the wake of the USSR dissolution, along with some updated findings and reports. Additional or corrected information on any of these nations would be welcome (c/o dleibold@else.net). * Kyrgyz Republic country code 996 will take effect, at least in Canada, effective 1 May 1997, according to CRTC Telecom Order 97-464, based on Stentor Tariff Notice 433. There is no indication whether there will be a permissive dialing period involved or for how long such a permissive operation would remain. * Country code 992 was reported as a recent assignment for Tajikistan, which will be moving from country code 7 at some unknown time. * Uzbekistan has its own country code assignment, but I have no information if this is in service yet or what implementation dates have been set. * Kazakstan does not have a known separate country code assignment at present. It remains in country code 7 for the time being. * Russia seems destined to keep country code 7. * Recent news reports speak of some agreements forming between Russia and Belarus. While there is no outright reunification yet, there is expected to be much closer ties between the two nations. Whether this will lead to a reunification of telephone codes remains to be seen. 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. 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) 992 Tajikistan ??? ??? Announced 1996-7? 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 1 May 1997 ??? ref: Stentor Canada/CRTC 998 Uzbekistan ??? ??? Announced 1996? (ITU) Details courtesy Toby Nixon, ITU, Stentor (Canada), CRTC (Canada), TELECOM Digest (including information collected for the country code listings). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:26:24 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS PSC Slaps ATT For "Slamming" Among other things, the PSC ordered ATT to "cease ... switching customers to it without legitimate authorization." STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of New York on March 5, 1997 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John F. O'Mara, Chairman Eugene W. Zeltmann Thomas J. Dunleavy CASE 97-C-0229 -In the Matter of Slamming Complaints Received Against AT&T Communications of New York. ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE (Issued and effective March 21, 1997) BY THE COMMISSION: AT&T Communications of New York (AT&T) holds a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to resell all forms of telephone service in New York State. During the period from January 1, 1994, through January 31, 1997, the Consumer Services Division received 5,284 complaints related to slamming, of which 588, or 11%, were against AT&T. Sixty-six percent of the AT&T complaints, or 389, were received between January 1, 1996, through January 31, 1997. An analysis of the complaints received by the PSC against AT&T on a month-by-month basis from January 1996 to January 1997 indicates that the number of complaints has significantly increased by 143 percent from 1995. We reviewed a ten percent random sampling of slamming complaints against AT&T and found that they fell into three categories: letters of authorization (LOAs) with errors, no LOA's, and incomplete records of contact. In 71% of the cases, service had clearly been switched without authorization. In the 29% remaining, reasonable doubt exists due to the fact that not enough information is available at present to determine if the service agreement forms that AT&T claims to have are authentic or not. Whether the company or its sales and marketing agents or any subcontractors submit requests for carrier changes, the company bears the burden of ensuring that its new customers have knowingly and voluntarily chosen to switch to AT&T's service, for ultimately, the company will bear the penalty should any unauthorized switches occur. Currently, all companies are obliged to follow the Federal Communications Commission's rules and procedures regarding customer transfers and verifications of change request orders. In addition, all telecommunications companies operating in the State of New York must comport with the Public Service Law, regulations pursuant to the Public Service Law, and orders of this Commission. While on a monthly basis the number of slamming complaints against AT&T may be small, relative to AT&T's size, in the aggregate, the number of complaints are significant. An analysis of the complaints against the company suggests that AT&T has been utilizing questionable marketing practices. Thus, although the ratio of complaints to customers is small, because no customer should experience this practice, action against AT&T is warranted. AT&T is hereby on notice that we continue to receive a high level of slamming complaints against it from consumers. Accordingly, AT&T is directed to cease submitting carrier change requests for its service without legitimate authorization. AT&T must also submit to the Commission, within thirty days of this order, its plans to reduce and eliminate slamming complaints at the Commission. The Commission orders: +_____________________ 1. AT&T Communications of New York is directed to cease submitting carrier change request orders or switching customers to it without legitimate authorization. 1 2. AT&T Communications of New York shall submit within thirty days of this order ten copies of specific plans to reduce and eliminate slamming complaints. 3. Staff will review AT&T Communications of New York's plans to reduce and eliminate slamming complaints and report to the Commission. 4. This proceeding is continued. By the Commission, (SIGNED) JOHN C. CRARY Secretary _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:10:35 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: The Final Cellular Straw As we all know, the aging cellular network in this country (using AMPS) has absolutely no security built into it. Cloning is a way of life. In the past year, cellular equipment providers have produced a system that they hailed as a breakthrough in fraud detection/prevention: RF fingerprinting. Simply, this is a system that detects and stores details about a legitimate user's cellular phone's transmitter. On the theory that no two transmitters would create the same profile, the system compares the fingerprint of a phone attempting to make or receive a call with the stored profile. If they don't match, the call is dumped. After months of using my handheld Motorola exclusively in its car adaptor, I needed to use it has a handheld. Important, expected calls never got through. Why? It turns out (verified by GTE Mobilnet's control center) that my handheld was rejected by the fingerprint detector which was expecting to see the car transceiver. Although the cellular industry is notorious for inconveniencing customers in the name of preventing fraud, this is the ultimate outrage. As far as I am concerned, any procedure that errs on the side of the denial of service to a legitimate customer is unacceptable. Since GTE did not agree with me, I am no longer a customer. I have, this day, activated a Pacific Bell PCS phone. Say what you want, but at least Pacific Bell knows that people depend upon telephone service and does not go out of its way to throw banana peels in front of customers who expect to be able to rely on communications. There are no doubt others who feel this way. 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/ | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The best cellular service I have ever experienced without exception is Frontier. Admittedly, they just resell other carriers (in my case, Ameritech) but their pricing is very good, no contracts are required, and you can use any cellphone you want. The one catch is, you have to be a customer of theirs otherwise in order to be a cellular customer. I have an 800 number of theirs, and one of my phones at home is defaulted to them for long distance calls. Ameritech's rates are pretty good to start with, and Frontier gets a rather deep discounted 'corporate' rate which they pass along to their customers. Basically, I think their cellular service is intended as a lure to get you to sign up for their long distance. I pay ten dollars per month and 35/18 per minute on calls. It is month-by-month, and all you have to do is give them the ESN of the phone you want to use (and, obviously, know how to program it). The rate you will pay depends on the deal they have cut with the 'B' (in most cases) carrier in your community. I have to admit that in some cases a result Frontier is higher than what I pay here, but they will still be lower than what you would pay the 'B' carrier in your community. If you are somewhere in Ameritech's five or six state territory you would get the same rates I am paying, and good Ameritech service at a discount. Remember, you have to default a line to them for long distance and/or subscribe to their 'Call Home America' 800 service which is also a pretty good deal in order to qualify for cellular. Since they give a $25 credit to existing customers who make referrals to them, if you feel so inclined, tell them I mentioned it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 11:55:22 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: New Telecom Banner Exchange ICB Toll Free News has launched The Telecom Reciprocator, a telecom-only banner site. Also launched is a business banner program for biz-to-biz sites that want exposure to a telecom readership. Both can be found at http://www.icbtollfree.com, click on index link "Join ICB's Telecom Banner Program" or "Join ICB's Business Banner Program." New articles under "Industry News & Analysis" include our assessment and advice regarding 877 ("REPLICATION: TO BE OR NOT TO BE is not the question"), and new articles about 800 dial-up internet access. And finally, last week Starting Point viewers voted ICB Toll Free News a Starting Point News 'Hot Site'! We thank all who voted for us. Judith Oppenheimer Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com ------------------------------ From: Mario A. Castano-Gonzalez Subject: Colombian Seminar in PCS - Looking For Speakers Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:39:01 -0500 Hello ... We at CINTEL are organizing our second ANNUAL SEMINAR IN PCS to be held June 18 - 19 in Bogota, Colombia. Our aim is to help to understand these new services, technologies and regulation to the Colombian companies that will start offering PCS in our country in September, 1999. Last year's seminar was focused in technology (GSM, IS-136, IS-95). This year we are deeply interested in analyzing how has been carried out the deployment of the services, including marketing strategies. We think that the experience in USA and in Chile will be of special value to the attendance. That is why we are interested in to contacting some speakers from US service providers that are now offering PCS and that would like to share their experiences with us in a 45' conference. We are expecting 100+ attendants from the government, private and public telcos and universities, 5 official sponsors from the industry, and we will also have a commercial exhibition. All of you that might be interested in participating please contact me at the addresses provided. Regards, Mario A. Castano Director, Planning Office Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones - CINTEL Av 9 118-85 Bogota Colombia Tels: +57 1 620 8307 - 620 8137 Fax: +57 1 214 4121 Email: m.a.castano@ieee.org ----------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 16:32:23 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: PUC Hearings in Pa. Now Underway It's the lead story on KYW news-radio (Philadelphia) that the Pa. PUC is commencing hearings on relief for 215 & 610. Same proposals as in many other places: geographic splits or overlays. (I recall hearing in the Digest that 412 already has area code 724 approved as a coming overlay.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John Cropper mentions this in detail in another message in this issue. Do you think they will make the right decisions, or give in to pressure from special interests? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Eichler Subject: Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:35:56 -0500 I might be able to add a little something to what Jeffrey Rhodes wrote. There are two rates which must be considered when talking about modem communications. One is the rate at which the computer itself feeds/accepts data to/from the modem. The other is the rate at which the modems actually talk between themselves. Concerning the first rate. The values of 2.4K, 4.8K, 7.2K, 9.6K, 19.2K, 38.4K, 115.2K etc. are based upon the data rates of serial ports on most computers. There are set recommended frequencies that are usually used to clock the UART (Universal Asynchronous Receive Transmit) chips. These rates are simply the rates at which the modem's DSP communicates with the computer itself. It makes no difference which rate is chosen as long as your computer is capable of accepting data at the designated rate. There are two primary considerations with regards to this. First, a buffered UART must be used (such as the 16550) because many of the newer operating systems are not capable of responding to I/O requests rapidly enough so the input in particular must be buffered from the modem until the OS can get around to reading it in. The 16550 can buffer 16 bytes of input (and output) and thus a computer can read in several bytes in a burst-type mode. To coordinate the flow between the computer and the modem this is where flow control is normally used. There are a couple of primary ways this is accomplished. One is by embedding certain codes (xon/xoff) within the byte stream feed to/from the modem. The others are using hardware signals such as the DTR/DSR pair or the CTS/RTS pair. Second, if data compression is used (i.e., that provided by the modems themselves), the actual data rate between the computer and the modem can effectively be 3 or 4 times the rate at which data is transmitted by the modem. For example, assumming that two modems are communicating at 14.4K bps with compression implemented, the sending and receiving computers might have to transmit/receive at 4 times this rate (i.e., 57.6K bps) to fully utilize the transmission channel. This puts a burden on the computers to be able to keep up with the faster rate. This also is why one should set the transmission speed to/from the modem at a much higher rate if they are going to turn on data compression within their modems. Now the rate at which the modems talk between themselves is, as Jeffrey states, usually determined by the modems themselves. Most modern modems implement a 'fall-back' scheme at which they negotiate between themselves which is the rate to be used. Generally they first try at the highest rate possible and if this rate won't work, they go to the next lower rate and try that. (It may be noted that some modem protocols actually will dynamically adjust the rate of transmission depending on line quality and error rates encountered.) These rates are the transfer rates defined by the ITU in its various standards. Although it is possible with many modems to specify that a particular connection speed should be used, it is usually better to let the modems determine it themselves particularly over a public switched telephone network. Just specify the highest rate at which the modem can operate as the starting point. The main area of confusion when talking about speeds is usually extrapolating the modem transmission rate from the computer to/from modem rates. The clocking of the UARTs transmitting data between a computer and a modem is completely asynchronous from the speed at which the modems communicate between themselves. (This is not true for binary synchronous communications which is a horse of a different color and generally not used by most folks.) Don't get the speeds mixed up. Just make sure that the computer that is being used to talk to the modem has a higher rate specified than the modem is capable of receiving data at. For transmitting data it doesn't matter since the modem will just transmit meaningless info just to keep the connection alive. But for receiving, note the comments made above. I hope this might clear up a little of the confusion in this thread. John Eichler ------------------------------ From: James Carlson Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 09:47:59 EDT Subject: Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control > there is no need for modem-to-modem flow control. If the modems are > both V.34 modems, the connection rate could be 28,800 because V.34 > uses some kind of HDLC protocol where information is encoded in > packets or frames (I think). This provides flow control since only so > many packets or frames can be sent without being acknowledged. Again, > there is no need for any kind of XON/XOFF thing between modems. Pretty close. All high-speed (>=9600bps) modems use synchronous links between the modems. On top of this, they use LAP-M (which is an HDLC-based protocol) and V.42 or V.14 to adapt asynchronous traffic to the modem's synchronous interface. The LAP-M protocol is basically a reliable transport protocol which uses retransmission timers and sequence numbers to achieve reliability. In this protocol, flow control is done by having the receiver indicate that it's willing to receive more data, and not necessarily by a "flow off" message as with XON/XOFF. (Though, confusingly, V.42 does provide a way to carry RS-232 signals end-to-end. Sigh!) > I think I read that PPP protocol connections to an Internet Service > Provider are better if you turn off the flow control and error > correction of ARQ, since this only thrashes with the same PPP > functions at a higher layer? PPP does not do flow control or error correction at all. TCP, which is one of many, many protocols which can run over PPP, does do both flow and congestion control. Use of error control protocols on top of one another is generally a bad idea if the error recovery time of the lower level is similar to the normal round-trip-time. This does mean that it's *sometimes* a bad idea to run TCP over a PPP link with error control turned on. Unfortunately, no solid rule can be made, and leaving error control on in the modems *usually* does no harm. > Maybe someone will correct my misconceptions, but in general, I think > today's protocols and modems provide modem-to-modem flow control > without XON/XOFFs. Of course, hardware RTS/CTS flow control between > each PC and its modem is needed to run 115,200 into a modem in the > first place, and this is needed to deliver data at a higher DTE rate > than the transmission rate so that compression techniques will offer > any benefit. Theoretically, V.42 can give >28,800 bps with > compression, but only when much >28,800 bps are delivered by the DTE. Right. Note, though, that 28.8Kbps at the modem link level (DCE) is a synchronous data rate, and 115.2Kbps on the DTE is an asynchronous data rate. The two are not directly comparable. 28.8Kbps DCE is about 3600cps (not including overhead). 115.2Kbps DTE is 11520cps (assuming 8 bits, no parity, one stop bit). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #86 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 8 02:26:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA12517; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:26:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704080626.CAA12517@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #87 Status: R TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Apr 97 02:26:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 87 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CIR Editorial on Broadband Access (Monty Solomon) Re: Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (Goobah Goobah) Re: Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing (Steven Lichter) Fort Mill, SC Telephone Anomalies (was: Alltel Blocks 1+10D) (S. Schwartz) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (John Cropper) Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 (John Cropper) Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 (Judith Oppenheimer) Silly Me! Forgot to Give the Number ... (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 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, 7 Apr 1997 01:04:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CIR Editorial on Broadband Access Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI Begin forwarded message: Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:52:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Nolan Subject: CIR Editorial on Broadband Access "Why I Like Hybrid Fiber Coax Networks" by Lawrence Gasman President Communications Industry Researchers, Inc., Charlottesville, Va. A few months back my company put out a press release saying that we thought that in the long run broadband access technology would look a lot more like the cable modem/hybrid fiber coax architecture than the Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) architecture. The press release was issued to promote a new report we had produced on business opportunities in the Internet infrastructure and produced something of a furor. Several clients called to say that we were severely underestimating the capabilities of DSL technology and we even received some hate mail from someone who thought we were making propaganda for the cable companies and who wrote to tell us how evil they were. The current fascination with DSL technology, which supports data rates of a few Mbps for delivery to homes or businesses over existing copper is quite understandable. Such speeds are an order of magnitude greater than ISDN promises and because the infrastructure is there already, xDSL appears to have more short term potential than highly fiberized architectures. What is more some vendors are claiming that the current generation of DSL in the form of Asymmetric DSL (ADSL) will eventually give way to a higher speed version, Very high-speed DSL (VDSL). Finally, and perhaps this is most important factor, there is a considerable commitment by both the vendor and the service provider community to DSL. In particular, some of the major telephone companies have formed a consortium to define a common approach to DSL and this consortium has awarded its first contract. All of this is very important and suggests that DSL will play an major role in pushing up the average rate at which users access the Internet and intranets; something incidentally we never denied in our press release. But DSL has important limitations; the most important of which is cost. The current figures usually cited are around $1,000 per termination for ADSL, although everyone expects the price to come down within a few years as the result of both mass production and experience curve effects. It is the hope of the telephone company consortium that their banding together will help accelerate this cost decline. But it is unclear just how far DSL can fall in price. Many experts believe that DSL can be brought down to one fourth of its current cost within a few years. This is possible =97 Ethernet interfaces are about one tenth of what they cost originally. But DSL also has to contend with other limitations. It operates only over relatively short distances -- remember this is copper we are talking about here. And it does not work at all when there are loading coils in the loop, so these must be defused. But ultimately there may be another limitation to DSL, in the form of data rates. This certainly is not an issue now -- I would be personally willing to sell my soul to get Internet access to my PC at 3 Mbps -- but it could become one sooner than we think. It is true that VDSL promises data rates up to 50 Mbps, but it remains an open question as to whether such a technology could be commercialized successfully over the existing physical infrastructure. It is also true that some experts regard the data bottleneck as occurring not in the access infrastructure itself, but at the desktop, where PCS as currently not really built to talk to networks at very high speeds. However, this will change as the client server model becomes ubiquitous and it is assumed from the get go that PCs will spend much of their time running applications that are stored somewhere other than their now hard drives. As the network becomes the computer, access to WANs will have to begin to approximate to the speeds at which information is transferred into and out of CPUs. For high MIPS machines, such speeds are potentially in the Gbps range. Something that DSL in any of its many avatars cannot promise. This transformation could occur faster than many people expect. I remember buying my first 386 machine and thinking I would never need anything more powerful to do my work. But software developers pushed 386s to the limit, and then 486s, and then . . . Well you get the picture. Something similar could happen to broadband access technology as new "broadband" content emerges on the Internet. If this analysis is correct then only a fiber, or semifiber solution will suffice. In many cases this solution could be fiber-to-the-curb or even the long promised fiber-to-the-home. Indeed one large Bell company says that it will use these approaches for new builds, although it will use DSL and hybrid fiber-coax (HFC) solutions in other areas. Although the future of HFC is by no means certain, it does seem to offer an attractive path forward. Although the available bandwidth on HFC is shared, HFC is highly scaleable. The network can be redesigned so that fewer people share the pipe. Or more channels can be devoted to data services. Or wave division multiplexing can be employed to bring more data in over the same channel. Like DSL, HFC is probably just an interim technology. But because of its scalability, it may be a little less interim than DSL. And that is why I like HFC. Robert Nolan Marketing Director Communications Industry Researchers (617) 484-2077 WWW: "www.cir-inc.com" Mail: 4 Francis St. =09 2nd Floor Belmont, MA 02178 ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network Date: 7 Apr 1997 04:57:04 -0400 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Marty Tennant wrote: > The Advanced Intelligent Network advances the concept of the public > switched network as a computer, raising anti-trust issues, as you will > see below. > I am attaching a copy of my objections to the BellSouth MCI > interconnection agreement. Since the items in question were part of > their negotiated agreement, and not an arbitrated item, my objections > are valid. [big snip] As someone else actively developing third-party AIN applications, I can't for the life of me understand what you find objectionable about the BellSouth-MCI agreement. BellSouth, as far as I can tell, has agreed to sell MCI AIN trigger provisioning. Why could you possibly object to that? It's damned near impossible to get a LEC to sell unbundled AIN service of any type, even though the interconnection rules would appear to require that they do so. This is a welcome first step -- among other things, this means that BellSouth will have to work through the issues of service translation at their IXC gateway STPs, global title translation for "foreign" AIN services -- that is, running in someone else's SCP -- access to SSP trigger state from gatewayed SS7 networks, etc. Almost nobody has experience with this in the field today, despite a lot of pious talk from the standards bodies and the Bellcore instructors about how it "ought" to work, and this seems like a definite step in the right direction. If I've misunderstood some aspect of the agreement or your objection to it, I'd like to know. However, it sounds to me more like you're irritated that MCI managed to close a deal with BellSouth before you did. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com ------------------------------ From: Goobah Goobah Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 05:12:41 -0500 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: goobah@innocent.com Al Hays wrote: >> Some weeks ago there was a discussion in the Digest regarding the >> "hidden" promotional deals that you would necessarily have to know >> about in advance in order to receive them. This weekend I experienced >> this very phenomenon and did switch from Sprint to AT&T. AT&T's >> latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per >> minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no >> circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free >> each month for 6 months and AT&T will send a certificate equal to the >> amount of the LEC's fee for switching LD carriers (typically $5). >> Re your heads up on that new AT&T promotion: >> I called the usual AT&T customer service number on my bill & they >> couldn't give me the 250 min free on their system. Do you still have the >> callback number for the AT&T telemarketing department? Their system >> should allow the 250 min/mo. > The number given to me was 800-225-7466. The strange thing was that > the operator who answered asked me "what extension?" Ofcourse I > didn't have an extension number and I simply explained that this was > the number that the telemarketer gave me to call back to change my LD > carrier to AT&T. Subsequently, I've had two close friends who have > called this number and switched to the same plan. Hope this helps. Incidently, my job is to handle many of your calls TO the "telemarketing department" ... What you need to know is that when you're calling back the number outbound telemarketers give you, you are calling a TOTALLY different department. There's no way to reach those people that call you, unless you request the specific name and phone number of the vendor who represents AT&T. Anyway, the people you DO end up calling may be restricted as to what they can give you, so sometimes the offers they can give you differ from the outbound telemarketers. Also, the six month promotion for ten cents per minute does not always include an extra 250 minutes per month for six months. Not everyone gets the same deal. It's not logical to give something like that away to someone who doesn't make much long distance in the first place ... or someone who just wants to abuse the system. Furthermore, AT&T will not always cover the switching fee in every offer. Besides, it's not AT&T that issues the FEE ... it's your local telephone company! Anyone who has worked in outbound telemarketing, especially for AT&T, understands how the system is set up. If your job is to call people ... that's what you'll do all day ... no calls come into your phone. So, realize this: When a telemarketer calls you, and gives you a number to call if you change your mind, it probably isn't the same place that called YOU. The world isn't that small ... Oh...and about AT&T One Rate Plus -- ten cents per minute 24/7 w/$4.95 monthly fee. The waiver of that fee is nothing customers nor AT&T representatives have control over. If we can't waive our own monthly fees as AT&T employees ... we can't waive anyone elses. Enrollment into that plan with a six or two month waiver has been discontinued in most call centers. Remember, promos don't last forever ... they have certain enrollment dates and whatnot ... and that is all proprietary information. And if there's no way for AT&T to bring back promos if they're already expired ... we're regulated by the FCC, remember? It's just like coming up to Foley's after missing a Red Apple Sale and trying to persuade them to bring it back JUST for today ... just for you. But for any of you who like the idea of ten cents per minute for the first six months, and then going to another plan automatically in month seven, (you're not obligated to stay on the plan in month seven so if you're NOT lazy call us up and see what other plans might benefit you) that promotion is still there. You can either choose automatic enrollment in AT&T One Rate or AT&T Simple Rate after the six months; there is no automatic enrollment into the AT&T One Rate Plus Plan. But I must remind you, for the millionth time that promotional deals aren't open for enrollment whenever you'd like them to be, so I'm not sure how long this deal will last. Thank You. Goobah P.S. Don't forget that inbound and outbound offers do not always match. So ... don't blame us if the offer given to you by someone who called you was better than what you could get when you called the inbound centers. Eat it while it's hot! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:33:28 PDT From: Steven Lichter Subject: Re: Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When the Bakker's and Heritage USA were > in business, the complex was sufficiently large enough that it was > mostly in BellSouth territory but extended partly over into Fort Mill > Telephone Company territory. Bakker wanted service entirely from Bell > South on a centrex, however the Fort Mill Telephone Company sued to > force that portion of Heritage USA which was in their territory to be Some years ago, about 30 years, RCA Defense Systems located in Van Nuys, Calif. and wanted a specific type of service installed. They contacted Pacific Telephone who said sorry about that. They were on the border between Pacific Telephone and California Water & Telephone; you know Drip & Tinkle (Now GTE). Well they sure wanted the business and did all they could to get it. That included moving the Centrex into CWT service territory which still was part of the RCA plant. To Say the least Pacific Telephone was not very happy about losing a large customer, but there was nothing that could be done since it was on their plant and their wire. I can't see how Southern Bell could have said anything or even won the case, but then who know about the courts. *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Fort Mill, SC Telephone Anomalies (was: Alltel Blocks 1+10D) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 19:35:54 -0400 In TD v17 #85, Pat wrote: > Bakker wanted service entirely from Bell South on a centrex, however > the Fort Mill Telephone Company sued to force that portion of Heritage > USA which was in their territory to be serviced by Fort Mill. I think > the one large hotel was involved." The one large hotel is now known as the Raddisson Grand Resort, and it just started serving alcohol a few months ago (to the dismay of some former Heritage USA members.) Very close to this area is the Paramount Carowinds theme park. It straddles the NC/SC border and during the course of a visit to the park, one crosses the border quite a few times. On the North Carolina side of the park, the pay phones are BellSouth owned, and are in the 704 NPA. On the South Carolina side, the pay phones are owned by FMTC, and are in NPA 803. In some cases, the different phones are as close as 50 feet from one another. The last time I tried it (last summer), I believe it was a local call from the NC side to a Fort Mill number, but long distance from the SC side to Charlotte. Does anyone know if this park is actually served by two physically separate central offices? Another wrinkle was thrown in today. What do I do if I need Fort Mill directory assistance? Well, that depends on the BellSouth DA operator (Alltel also leases this service from BellSouth). If I dial '411' from home, I get the BellSouth automated attendant, which I have to get through to ask a live operator for Fort Mill. Most of the time, the operator will cooperate and say "Hold for that directory" and transfer me to (I assume) to a FMTC DA operator. Today, however, I got an operator who told me "Hold for that number" and transferred me to a recording of "803-555-1212". Calling that number, I get the "AT&T Directory Link" prompt and then get to speak with someone who has no clue as to where Fort Mill is, but is willing to give me outdated directory information (unintentionally, I'm sure). I hoped that this was an isolated incident and I called 411 again. The operator dutifully transferred me to FMTC's directory assistance. Sighs of relief all around ;-) Stan (all spam will be returned in kind) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Didn't Paramount Carowinds take over some of the properly formerly beloning to Bakker's organization? I thought I read somewhere that Paramount was on land that formerly was part of Heritage. At the time Heritage was operating, one of the telephony trade publications -- it might have been {Telephony Magazine} or it might have been Harry Newton -- published a very detailed and interesting article on the phone network at Heritage and discussed in detail the squabble between Fort Mill Tel and Southern Bell over who would provide what service, and where. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 18:20:03 EDT From: richard@mandarin.com (Richard D.G. Cox) Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split In-Reply-To: <199704061313.JAA20696@massis.lcs.mit.edu> Joseph Singer said: > This begs the question why so many places are absolutely opposed to > putting an overlay into an area rather than continuing to do a > geographical split to give numbering relief. Using an overlay there > is no expense (that I can see) to the people involved i.e. businesses, > cell phone customers, re-programming, stationery, etc. It is not their choice -- overlays have been prohibited by (I believe) the FCC, until the year 2000, ro ensure fair local-loop competition. The same has happened in the UK -- overlays were initially proposed, but firmly rejected by users. We are now doing what the US should be doing, namely allocating 8-digit local number schemes (with shorter area codes) to our larger metropolitan areas such as London, Cardiff, Belfast etc. Overlays mean that the customers of the incumbent telco will dial each other with seven digits, but have to dial a full national number for calls to customers served by new operators -- thus giving the invalid impression that such calls are non-local. It is time that the US decided to bite the bullet and accept that the present number format, which has served them well for many years, has now passed its sell-by date. The format demanded by today's network is 1-XY ZNNN xxxx (where Y#0/1). This can be handled by all switches out of area without structural changes (only the routes need to be set up as 1-XYZ, separately for all valid values of Z). Local switches would of course need to be programmed for the eight digit schemes. The same approach taken to 800 numbers -- put them all on 88 ZNNN xxxx -- would obviate all the problems you are having with replicating the 800 vanity numbers on 888 and 877, and so extinguishing the supply too soon. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, PENARTH, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG, UK Telephone: +44 97 3311 1111; Fax: +44 97 3311 1100 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 10:24:02 -0400 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Joseph Singer wrote: > John Cropper quoted an article: >> BellSouth Telecommunications wanted a new area code selected for North >> Florida last year. But disputes over which region would receive the >> new code forced the issue before commissioners. While most phone >> companies favored keeping 904 for Jacksonville and switching the >> Panhandle, state officials predicted changing Tallahassee's area code >> would cost taxpayers $2.48 million. > This begs the question why so many places are absolutely opposed to > putting an overlay into an area rather than continuing to do a > geographical split to give numbering relief. Using an overlay there > is no expense (that I can see) to the people involved i.e. businesses, > cell phone customers, re-programming, stationery, etc. You have to of > course modify how you refer to your phone number rather than just > saying the phone number is XXX-XXXX you have to say the phone number > is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Eventually we're all going to have to have even more > numbers than we do even with the "relief" that we're getting and > eventually you're not going to be able to make any kind of rational > split of an area so why not just accept the inevitable and use > overlays? The really humorous part is that Miami (305) and Ft. Lauderdale (954) will BOTH need overlays within the next 18 months, and 813 will need some form of relief within 24 months. Overlaying 904 NOW would be a step in the right direction, despite the fact that elderly residents would be forced to dial ten digits (a point mentioned by AT&T in opposing an overlay). John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When AT&T complains that 'elderly residents would be forced to dial ten digits' what they really mean is new customers of AT&T (local service) would be forced to dial ten digits and they are going to have a hard enough time getting people to switch local telcos without requiring new dialing proced- ures in the process. The old people can be damned! That is not AT&T's concern at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 10:28:53 -0400 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Greg Monti wrote: > A brief piece on page A1 of the {Wall Street Journal} on April 3, > 1997, notes that North America's third toll-free code will go into > effect in Spring 1998. It will be 877. Ironically, this code will only last about two or three years as well if the foolish companies scrambling to get their 800 numbers duplicated in 888 do the same in 877 ... Ask Judith Oppenheimer what a mess the 888 duplication has been to date ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: True, but scramble they will. They'll keep on worrying and fretting about the people (admittedly a large number) who do not know how to dial numbers correctly and who are possibly going to wind up with some competitor. My 800 number has lately been getting a bunch of calls from some foreign speaking person looking for an insurance company he saw advertised on television with the 888 'edition' of my number. No matter what I say he won't listen to me. I certainly would not wish him off on the insurance company either if he is as argumentative and ignorant with them as he is with me. I dunno, maybe 800-FLOWERS would like to talk to him for awhile. ... Judith Oppenheimer will now respond. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 12:11:20 -0400 Organization: ICB Toll Free News Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com See article, 04/04/97 - "REPLICATION: TO BE OR NOT TO BE is not the question.", at ICB Toll Free News, http://www.icbtollfree.com, for our thoughts and advice on 877. Also, look for updates on the 800 flat-rate dial-up problems -- both those that don't exist (scam), and those that do (AOL). Judith Oppenheimer ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7