From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 17 23:00:50 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA20697; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 23:00:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 23:00:50 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712180400.XAA20697@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #351
TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Dec 97 22:59:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 351
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "Net Lessons", Laura Parker Roerden (Rob Slade)
Inherent Drawbacks in 56K Analog (was Re: Noisy Analog Lines) (D.Richards)
Re: Noisy Analog Lines (Leigh Koven)
Two-Line Phone With Message-Waiting Indicator? (J.D. Baldwin)
Re: How to Test Coax Cable (RG6)? (Thaddeus Cox)
Hassle With Nokia-2160 and Cellular Modem (minarcik)
Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? (Bill Garfield)
Re: Misdialing 911 from Hotels? (Chris Moffett)
Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? (Bill Ranck)
Internet Telephony Competitor Enters Regular LD Market (Old Bear)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: Rob Slade <Rob.Slade@sprint.ca>
Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:39:22 -0800
Subject: Book Review: "Net Lessons", Laura Parker Roerden
BKNETLSN.RVW 940428
"Net Lessons", Laura Parker Roerden, 1997, 1-56592-291-3,
U$24.95/C$35.95
%A Laura Parker Roerden
i%C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472
%D 1997
%G 1-56592-291-3
%I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104
%O nuts@ora.com
%P 306
%T "Net Lessons: Web-Based Projects For Your Classroom"
Doing Internet training, you will find lots of books (and people) that
tell you to promote the Internet to the audience because you can use
the net to find out everything you want to know about volcanoes.
Trouble is, most people don't want to know all that much about
volcanoes (or any other single topic).
("So what about this book?" Patience, patience.)
As a card-carrying (RAVC, mostly) member of the computer antivirus
research community, I, like my colleagues, see endless postings with
queries along the lines of, "So, can you tell me everything about
computer viruses?" These questions, for some unfathomable reason,
seem to show up in great flurries around October or February.
("The book?" Yes, yes, I'm coming to that.)
Let me say that I am, first and foremost, a teacher. I have waded
through dozens of tomes on technology directed at the education
market. Most of them are of poor quality, lacking in understanding of
the basics of that which they presume to teach, long on enthusiasm,
and very short on useful information. So, I was delighted to see "Net
Lessons" from O'Reilly. These are the people who can make a good book
out of the use of the net by real estate agents.
I was a tad startled to find that the CD-ROM included with the book
was an America Online starter kit.
This book is lacking in the basics of the technology, long on
enthusiasm, and short on useful information.
"Not so!", its defenders will cry. "This is a compilation of unit
plans! Nothing is of more value to teachers!" Yes, it *is* a
compilation of unit plans. Some of them may be of value to you if you
are in a bind for time, and your class is already familiar with the
net.
Those queries for help? Almost every unit plan involves a "Call for
Collaborators". Most of them are simply collaborative work on a large
scale, using email penpals. Internet Research resources are skimpy,
perhaps one per unit. Some of the units have no appreciable net
involvement: "Letters to Felix" throws in email sharing of stories as
an afterthought, and doesn't say whom you would share them with.
The early chapters of the book laud the Web, but cite "success
stories" that use email. The plans will require lots of outside
preparation in a variety of fields, and the use of the Internet is
hardly central to any. (Some may object to that statement, since
email plays a central role in a great many plans. Yes, email is used,
but it could be replaced by mail, and dozens of plans are really only
variations on the "write to your penpals about.." theme.)
Sorry, this is not the ultimate net education book. Maybe, though, it
simply isn't possible. The Internet is the ultimate discovery
learning resource. It doesn't do well on worksheets.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNETLSN.RVW 940428
rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html
Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards)
Subject: Inherent Drawbacks in 56K Analog (was Re: Noisy Analog Lines)
Date: 16 Dec 1997 21:19:00 GMT
Organization: Ripco Communications Inc.
In article <telecom17.349.3@telecom-digest.org>, Lee Miller
<lwmiller@ricochet.net> wrote:
> For those interested in more background, I'm trying to resolve a telephone
> line related decrease in modem speed.
> Specifically, I bought a new 56Flex modem and hooked it up to my pc
> and pots line. No real trouble with anything. I've never seen 56K,
> but nearly always see 46K. The best I've seen is 48K a few times.
The way 56K (X2 or K56flex) works is a 'trick', one that had been
brought up years ago (at least twice in my memory) but dismissed as
too complex, especially back when 14.4K modems were the "highest speed
technically feasible".
The 'trick' depends on the line being pure digital from the Central
Office through to the ISP, with the only A->D translation being where
your line enters the CO switch. a line that doesn't meet these
conditions cannot do the trick, so the modem drops back to the
28.8/33.6 speeds.
> Given what I've seen posted, what I'm getting seems about as good as
> one can reasonably expect. I'm happy with things, then comes the
> problem. I move the pc and modem to another house, turn it on and
> bingo, it's back in business, except now the maximum rate is 28.8.
> What followed was literally weeks of trying every change and
> combination of changes imaginable. Till it was all said and done I
> tried all of the following:
...
> * Naturally, I've tried the phone company and they've tested the line for
> noise and say it is "normal for a voice grade analog line". I've asked
> if I could get an upgrade to a modem line or whatever they call their
> "data grade analog line" and politely told that the choices are a pots
> line or an ISDN line. However the new 56 flex modems don't work with
> ISDN, so it seems the only choice is pots, and the telco considers its
> noise level "normal".
While I do not know of any ISDN devices that can themselves call in to a
K56flex server, there are two options to get high speeds over ISDN:
1) Many ISDN TAs come with a POTS (phone) jack, into which you can plug
your "56k" modem. The one A->D conversion would then be done in the TA.
2) Many ISPs will allow you to make an ISDN "Data Over Voice Bearer Service"
(DOVBS or DOSBS) call and pay just the regular 'modem' monthly rate. This
is _much_ better than "56k analog" in that you will _always_ get a full 56k
speed in both directions.
...
> * I also tried the USR line test which said both lines were X2 capable,
> * and I tried the Ascend line test which showed one line downloads much
> slower than the original (big suprise)
Interesting -- that the USR test says the line is X2 capable would suggest
that there isn't a second translation (A->D->A->D) on the circuit.
> * The last thing I investigated was the subscriber line concentrator issue
> since it seems to have the potential for reducing modem speed. The new
> line is a straight run, whereas the original line (the fast one) is on an
> SLC. Just the opposite of what I was expecting.
>
> * During my SLC investigation I found that the new line is approx 8,000
> feet whereas the original is approximately 17,000 feet (per the telco),
> but again the opposite of what I was expecting.
------------------------------
From: Leigh Koven <leighk@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: Noisy Analog Lines
Date: 16 Dec 1997 13:22:59 -0500
Organization: CyberComm Online Services
Lee Miller <lwmiller@ricochet.net> wrote:
> At this point, I've tried everything I could think of or heard of.
> Nothing changed the situation. The maximum rate at the new site and
> line is 28.8 and the original line remains 46-48Kbps.
> The only other thing I've seen is the above advice posted by Ascend on
> their web site. It does seem to focus on line noise for an analog
> line with a 56 Flex modem. However, I need some expert advice as to
> whether it might provide some real benefit of whether it would just
> provide another long series of calls to the telco that result in no
> real difference.
> Also, if you know of something else to try that I missed, feel free to
> tell me or point me at other options for getting a pc with 56 Flex
> modem known to work at 48K on one line to work at something better
> than 28.8 on a new line at a different house.
While I'm no expert on the subject, this sounds _exactly_ like a
problem we had when we had a PRI line installed here last week. We're
an ISP in Toms River, NJ, and I would dial into our PRI line (in
Lakewood, which was then run over fiber to our office in T.R.) from my
house (also in Lakewood, same CO as the PRI line). I could get 49k
connects to our T.R. PRI line, but only 33.3 connects on the Lakewood
line. After going crazy for a week checking and re-checking settings
on our hardware, we called Bell Atlantic and they sent a repair crew
out (three guys, one of which did the work, and two others
watched).
It looked like _something_ was messed up in the Lakewood CO, and while
they'll never admit it, it looks like there was an analog loop
somewhere in the line. 56k modems work on the premise that there's
only a single digital to analog connection in your connection. If
there's more than one, then your connect speed go down the toilet and
you end up with regular v.34+ connects. At any rate, you might want
to explain your situation to your ISP, and maybe they can pressure
your local telco to check for analog loops in the CO.
Once the problem was fixed, I ended up getting 52k connects, so
obviously they did _something_ :)
Leigh Koven leighk@cybercomm.net
CyberComm Online Services http://www.cybercomm.net
(732) 818-3333 telnet://cybercomm.net
Tech Support/Inquiries should be sent to: systems@cybercomm.net
------------------------------
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Two-Line Phone With Message-Waiting Indicator?
Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis.
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:59:18 GMT
OK, I've searched in every consumer electronics store (and departments
of larger stores) I can find. I've searched the web. I've searched
archives of these groups (and others). And I can't find a decent
two-line telephone with a light to indicate that my phone-company-hosted
voice mail has a message waiting. (This is the service that gives a
"stuttered" dial tone when there's a message waiting. Apparently
there are telephones that sense this state and light an LED to alert
the user that there is VM waiting.)
The closest I came was the Lucent 882, which at $185 is a bit more
telephone than I had in mind. It includes all manner of bells and
whistles I don't need (e.g., built-in CallerID, appointment reminders,
a 200-name/number alphanumeric directory in memory). The $185 isn't
coming out of my pocket, but I still hate to waste my employer's money
only slightly less than I hate to waste my own.
So here I am, asking about this. Someone out there has to have a
recommendation for a decent, reliable, two-line (it doesn't *have* to
be two-line, that's just a preference) telephone with this feature.
And I can't be alone in my search for such a beast. So if you have
helpful info, please mail *and* post, since Netcom's news reliability
lately is about equivalent to Netcom's news reliability of six months
ago.
Thanks in advance.
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:31:20 PST
From: Thaddeus Cox <coxt@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: How to Test Coax Cable (RG6)?
When installing or troubleshooting RG-58 (thinnet) coax cable, I find
that I can terminate both ends of the the cable and test mid points
with an ohmmeter. If any point on the cable reads 50 ohms between the
center conductor and the outside shielding conductor, that means that
there is an open between that point and one end of the cable. (There
should be a 50 ohm terminator on each end. Because they are in effect
wired in parallel, the total load shown on the meter at any point on
the cable should be approximately 25 ohms). If you have only one
terminator connected and are crimping a new connector to the end of
the cable you should see 25 ohms at that connector if it is properly
crimped. Try bending and flexing the connection and see if the 25 ohm
reading stays constant. If you get intermittant (or constant) zero
ohm readings you have a short, infinite ohm reading means an open.
By the way, in my experience the actual ohm reading varies by about 10%.
Thaddeus Cox @ The Oregon Institute of Technology
email: coxt@oit.edu tadc@europa.com ICQ: 1112222
------------------------------
From: minarcik <minarcik@gate.net>
Subject: Hassle With Nokia-2160 and Cellular Modem
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:27:22 -0500
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.
Having a real bad time trying to hook up a NEC Versa 6030 laptop's
cellular modem with my Nokia-2160, although all the hardware, cables,
etc. seem fine!
Can anybody help me with the W-95 software settings? Do I need an
initialization string somewhere? How can I "unghost" the "use cellular
protocol" option in my modem settings? HELP!
Popeye
------------------------------
From: wdg@hal-pc.org (Bill Garfield)
Subject: Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels?
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 04:29:18 GMT
Organization: You only wish you were this organized
Reply-To: wdg@hal-pc.org
One PBX system commonly found in hotels is built by MITEL and I know
from firsthand experience that it is very easy to significantly reduce
(perhaps eliminate altogether) 9-1-1 misdials in a MITEL PBX. Duck
Soup Simple Recipe follows:
1. Create a single line answer point (a RAD perhaps with an intercept
message on it, informing the caller of their error) - we'll call it
ext. 9999 for simplicity.
2. Build a route in the ARS tables for your legitimate 9-1-1 traffic
but do it with "Leading digits 911" with "Unknown" digits to follow.
You'll see why in a minute. ^^^^^^^
3. Set your interdigit timer in station Class Of Service to 5 secs.
4. Define the following ten0 "System Speecall" table entries:
9110 -->> 9999
9111 -->> 9999
9112 -->> 9999
9113 -->> 9999
9114 -->> 9999
9115 -->> 9999
9116 -->> 9999
9117 -->> 9999
9118 -->> 9999
9119 -->> 9999
Done!
Now anyone who dials 9-1-1-X (xxxxxxxxxxx) will immediately have their
call intercepted upon dialing the 4th digit and sent to the RAD
announcement. The legitimate 9-1-1 call should not have any digits
following, and so upon expiration of the inter-digit timer, will take
the route assigned for "9-1-1-unknown". By having "unknown" digits to
follow we force 9-1-1 to wait 5 secs for any more digits (which would
be a misdial).. Upon seeing no more digits the ARS table assumes it's
a legitimate 9-1-1 call and sends it out.
Problem solved.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:53:14 -0600
From: Chris Moffett <chris.moffett@wcom.com>
Subject: Re: Misdialing 911 from Hotels
Almost every hotel I know of uses a call accounting system of some
kind to track and bill calls made by guests. Most of these systems
can also be set up with some kind of "alert" call type. When I ran a
hotel telecom department we set all 911 calls up as alert. The system
would beep until an operator acknowldged the alert and then the system
would display the call information at the bottom of the screen for
several days. The staff knew to contact the room any time a 911 call
was placed. If it was a valid call, the hotel staff would react and
if it was not a valid call the operator would contact the 911 center
to update them on the situation.
------------------------------
From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck)
Subject: Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels?
Date: 14 Dec 1997 16:22:41 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
Jan Ceuleers (ceuleerj@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be) wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If police are that concerned,
>> ... on the other hand I see an incredible number of
>> foreign people in Skokie (mainly from Russia and middle east areas)
>> who -- it is true -- do not know how to operate a telephone correctly
>> and get wrong numbers or no connection at all.
> This is quite an offensive statement to make. Those people may not know
> their way around the NANP, but that certainly can't be equated to not
> knowing how to operate a telephone correctly! I'm sure that's not what
> you meant to say.
This reminds me of a time when I was the "foreign visitor" who
apparently didn't know how to operate a phone.
I was at a hotel in Paris a few years ago. According to the desk
clerk, I should have been able to direct dial outside calls, but every
time I tried I ended up talking to the clerk at the hotel switchboard.
After several days, and several attempts, with the clerk seemingly
convinced that I was some sort of idiot, I asked him to come up to the
room and try it himself. He could not get anywhere except the
switchboard either. It was then he discovered that the phone in my
room had a stuck key which prevented it from dialing normally, but did
not prevent the phone from working otherwise. I felt somewhat foolish
for not having noticed the stuck key myself, but it wasn't that I
couldn't dial a phone. It did require a fairly close examination to
see it.
*****************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center *
*****************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:38:16 -0500
From: The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject: Internet Telephony competitor Enters Regular LD Market
As summarized in {Edupage}, December 16, 1997:
QWEST'S INTERNET TELEPHONY OFFERS 7.5-CENT LONG-DISTANCE CALLS
Qwest Communications will be using Internet technology -- which
it says is more efficient than the aging switching networking
owned by its long-distance phone rivals -- to offer long-distance
calls at any time of day or night for just 7.5 cents a minute.
The service will be rolled out to 25 cities by summer 1998 and
125 cities by the end of the year.
Industry analyst Brian Adamik says: "We are seeing breakthroughs
every couple of months. Consumers may soon find they can no
longer tell whether a call is going over the Internet."
source: Wall Street Journal
December 15, 1997
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #351
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 18 01:07:12 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id BAA28790; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 01:07:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 01:07:12 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712180607.BAA28790@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #352
TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Dec 97 01:07:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 352
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Warning of FBI Wiretap 'Wish List (Monty Solomon)
ISDN Basic Rate Phone Question (Lawrence Rachman)
NPA 504 to Remain for New Orleans LATA (Mark J. Cuccia)
Journal Special Edition - Car Phones (Colin R. Leech)
Book Review: "Internetworking Over ATM", Dorling/Freedman (Rob Slade)
Second Telephone Line Fee to Rise to $1.50 in Jan 98 (Keith Knipschild)
More Integretel Billing Fraud (Tom Betz)
Telecom Scam-Spam (clive1@dvorak.amd.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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 97 08:44:42 -0500
Subject: Warning of FBI Wiretap 'Wish List
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Excerpt from ACLU News 12-14-97
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warning of FBI Wiretap 'Wish List,'
ACLU Urges FCC To Place
Digital Telephony Plans on Hold
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, December 12, 1997
WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the
Federal Communications Commission to delay implementation of a massive
law enforcement wiretapping scheme, saying that the FBI was attempting
to strong-arm the telecommunications industry into adopting
surveillance capabilities well beyond what the law allows.
The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act -- also
known as CALEA or "digital telephony" -- requires telecommunications
carriers and manufacturers to build wiretap capabilities into the
nation's communication systems. Under the law, industry is required to
implement this plan by October 24, 1998.
But in comments submitted to the FCC today, the ACLU, the Electronic
Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation
urged the Commission to use its authority to delay implementation
until October 24, 2000.
"We believe that the FBI has placed a choke hold on the industry
process and as a result pressured industry into devising technical
standards that exceed CALEA's scope by providing unprecedented FBI
surveillance capabilities not contemplated by the Congress," the
comments assert.
The groups said that the FBI has devised a "wish list" of capabilities
for surveillance that go far beyond what current law allows. For
instance, in October the FBI called for standards that require every
cell phone to provide location information of users to police -- in
effect, turning the telephone into a homing device.
"The FBI should not be in the business of drawing up the blueprints
for our nation's telecommunications systems," said ACLU Associate
Director Barry Steinhardt. "That's like getting a Peeping Tom to
design window shades."
While the FCC request for public comment addressed only narrow and
largely procedural issues, the ACLU said in its comments today that
the agency must force the FBI to spell out its capacity requirements
and thoroughly review all of the proposed technical standards before
any discussion can proceed about implementing the law.
At present, Steinhardt said, "neither the public, nor the
telecommunications industry are in a position to comprehend the scope
of the capacity and surveillance requirements sought by the FBI."
In the three years since CALEA was passed, Steinhardt noted, the FBI
has repeatedly failed to clarify the actual and maximum capacity
technical needs, including an accurate estimate of the number of
anticipated communications interceptions. The Bureau has now said that
it intends to divulge its capacity requirements in a "final" notice in
January 1998.
But, even assuming that the requirements will be realistically and
accurately spelled out, the information comes too late in the process,
said David Sobel, Legal Counsel for EPIC. "The Bureau's refusal to
provide the actual capacity requirements denies any possibility of
meaningful public oversight by Congress, the industry and the
public. In addition, it will be impossible for industry to adopt
technical standards under the current deadline of October 25, 1998."
"EPIC, along with EFF and the ACLU, vigorously opposed enactment of
CALEA in 1994 as an unprecedented expansion of government surveillance
authority," Sobel added. "Developments since the law was passed have
only confirmed those fears."
The comments filed with the FCC can be found at
http://www.aclu.org/congress/lg121297a.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:37:22 -0500
From: Lawrence Rachman <lr@compuserve.com>
Subject: ISDN Basic Rate Phone Question
My company is in the process of developing a product that acts as an
'exchange' to an ISDN phone. One of the things we have discovered is
that *SOME* ISDN phones go into a power-down state when idle,
permitting our hardware to detect an off-hook condition at the
physical layer (INFO 0 --= > INFO 1). *OTHER* ISDN phones seem to stay
in the physical layer off-hook condition continually (INFO 1), even
when not in use. Both types of phones communicate via the D-channel
for passing more detailed transition information, as you'd expect.
Since our product is battery-powered, we're somewhat dismayed to
realize that we may have to continually monitor the D-channel to
determine hookswitch status.
Has anyone out there had experience with this? Are there a lot of the
'always alive' phones out there, or is this some sort of anomaly that
can be configured away in the phone?
Thanks in advance,
Lawrence Rachman, WA2BUX
lr@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:06:11 -0600
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: NPA 504 to Remain for New Orleans LATA
On Wednesday 17 December 1997, the Louisiana Public Service Commission
held their vote on the recommendation of relief for the 504 Area Code.
The option which was voted on was the 'basic' split of 504, along LATA
lines. Other options included:
- an overlay of 504;
- a 3-way split of 504 (the possibilities of boundaries were never
completely described);
- a split where the _immediate_ New Orleans metro area would be in one
code, while the remainder of what is now 504 would be in a different
code;
- and a split where the "northshore" or "Florida Parishes" (that
part of the New Orleans LATA north of Lake Pontchartrain) and the
Baton Rouge LATA would be in one code, while the remainder of the New
Orleans LATA including (southshore) New Orleans metro, the "River
Parishes", and "Cajun" communities (Houma, Thibodeaux, Morgan City,
and those communities of LATELCO in Lafourche Parish) would be in
another code.
In all of the 'split' options, there was concern as to which area
would keep NPA 504, and which area (or areas in the 3-way split
option) would have to change to a new code.
The overlay option was rejected by many due to the "burden" of
mandatory ten-digit local dialing.
The simultaneous 3-way split option was rejected by some since there
would have to be some "burdensome" ten-digit local (or LOS/Area-Plus)
dialing within certain "communities-of-interest".
So, in Wednesday's vote regarding the (basic) LATA-split option, the
two commissioners which represent areas in/near New Orleans metro
voted to keep the New Orleans LATA as NPA 504 (Baton Rouge LATA being
forced to change to a new NPA), while the two commissioners which
represent areas in/near Baton Rouge metro voted to keep the Baton
Rouge LATA as NPA 504 (New Orleans LATA being forced to change to a
new NPA). The commissioner which represents Shreveport and northern
Louisiana (all in 318, and a distance away from Baton Rouge and New
Orleans) was to be the tie-breaker vote.
Since Shreveport (IMO) has more of a community-of-interest with Baton
Rouge (being the state capital) and virtually _no_ community-of-
interest with New Orleans, many thought the north Louisiana
commissioner would vote to let Baton Rouge keep 504 thus forcing New
Orleans (a much larger and better worldwide-known metro area) to
change its area code. Surprisingly, he voted for New Orleans to keep
NPA 504!
The new NPA code's numericals for the Baton Rouge LATA have not been
announced. Local news mentioned that it might be made public in late
January or early February. Barring any appeals or litigation, he
permissive dialing will probably start in March 1998, with the new NPA
code being mandatory in September 1998. (Many other new NPAs in
BellSouth territory, such as 256 Alabama, 843 South Carolina, and the
two North Carolina NPAs of 828 and 252 are following the same dates
for permissive/mandatory dialing).
The 'smaller' 504 NPA (New Orleans LATA) will probably need further
relief circa 2002. At least people who will have to change from 504 to
a different area code in 2002 will not be changing from a new 1998
code! Who knows ... maybe an overlay will be adopted by that time!
In other area code news, Bellcore's NANPA webpage has announced that
727 will be the new _overlay_ NPA for the GTE-Florida territory of
813, in the Tampa Bay area. While Bellcore's site doesn't give any
date (nor test number), local online news reported that local
ten-digit dialing becomes permissive in March 1998, mandatory
ten-digit local dialing starts four months later, and new 727-NXX
codes become activated in early October 1998.
And some of us have been informed that NPA 305 in Florida is to be
overlaid in Summer 1998, with 786 (spells out "SUN"). From the local
online news article, it seems that this will (initially) be a
"concentrated" overlay. Only the Miami and Dade-County metro area will
be required to go to mandatory ten-digit local dialing. It seems that
the Florida Keys and Monroe County will continue to have seven-digit
local dialing and be served exclusively with NPA 305. The online news
articles stated that it might be fifteen years before "the Keys" will
need additional NPA relief. IMO, since the "Keys" are a heavy tourist
area, and with _potential_ local telco competition, they will use up
any additional 305-NXX codes possibly reserved for them within five
years, thus they will have to participate in the Florida mainland's
overlay 786 NPA along with mandatory ten-digit local dialing _much_
earlier than anticipated.
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: ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech)
Subject: Journal Special Edition - Car Phones
Date: 18 Dec 1997 03:52:23 GMT
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Reply-To: ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech)
Reposted from the UTSG mailing list:
From: "Nicholas Ward" <nicw@psychology.leeds.ac.uk>
Organization: Dept. of Psychology
To: IAAP-TRAFFIC@RUG.NL, UTSG@mailbase.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:00:05 GMT
Subject: (Fwd) Re: special edition
SPECIAL EDITION:
Car Phones
The INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VEHICLE DESIGN (IJVD) is inviting
manuscript submissions for a Special Edition on the topic of
CAR PHONES. The IJVD publishes papers on topics related to the
social and environmental impact of vehicle and component design. Car
phones are now a common equipment feature for vehicles. This Special
Edition will cover a range of issues relevant to the design and
operation of car phones from the perspective of different
stakeholders. Original manuscripts are invited from academia,
government and industry are invited on the following topics.
* Car Phone Design and Usability (new designs, design guidelines and
evaluation of usability)
* Market Surveys (what forms of phone are in use, for what purposes
and by whom)
* Legislation (what are the laws governing use of car phones and
liability)
* Safety (what evidence is there for increased accident risk with
car phones from simulation, field and database evidence)
* Behaviour (how is the driving and the communication behaviour of
the driver affected by car phones).
Expressions of interest for submissions should summarised as an
abstract and forwarded to the Guest Editors:
IJVD (Car Phone)
co/ Nicholas J. Ward and Andrew Parkes
School of Psychology
University of Leeds, LS2 9JT
England.
fax: +44 (0)113 233 5749
The abstracts will be sorted for relevance to the Special Edition.
Authors will be sent publication guidelines for the preparation of
full manuscripts. Completed manuscripts will be peer reviewed.
The deadline for abstracts is Feb 2nd, 1998. Guidlines for full
manuscripts will be sent March 7th, 1998. Completed manuscripts must
be submitted by August 3rd, 1998. The review process and finalisation
of manuscripts will be completed by November 1st, 1998. The Special
Edition will be published in 1999.
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crleech@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
------------------------------
From: Rob Slade <Rob.Slade@sprint.ca>
Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:12:06 -0800
Subject: Book Review: "Internetworking over ATM", Dorling/Freedman
Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca
BKINOVAT.RVW 970422
"Internetworking over ATM", Brian Dorling/Daniel Freedman/Chris
Metz/Jaap Burger, 1996, 0-13-612384-8, U$46.99
%A Brian Dorling
%A Daniel Freedman
%A Chris Metz
%A Jaap Burger
%C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
%D 1996
%G 0-13-612384-8
%I Prentice Hall
%O U$46.99 +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131
%O betsy_carey@prenhall.com
%P 260
%T "Internetworking over ATM: An Introduction"
The preface states that readers of this book should already be
familiar with ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Model). Quite true. This
work is by no means an introduction; it is a highly technical
reference for those wanting to use multiple protocols over ATM, or
wanting to use ATM in a multi-protocol environment. There is a heavy
emphasis on the use of ATM with TCP/IP.
Chapters one, two, and three deal with concepts and benefits of ATM,
itself, LAN emulation, and multi-protocol over ATM. Other topics
covered include APPN (Advanced Peer-to-Peer Network) support, Internet
Protocol, PNNI (Private Network-to-Network Interface), switched
virtual networking, and the future of the Internet Protocol and IPv6.
Occasional IBM works in the past have concentrated heavily on IBM
products. That is not the case here, as it provides a solid, and
generic, technical base.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINOVAT.RVW 970422
------------------------------
From: Keith Knipschild <Keith@unix.asb.com>
Subject: Second Telephone Line Fee to Rise to $1.50 in Jan 98
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:55:35 -0500
Whatever,the reason, all homeowners with more than a single phone line
should get ready to pay an extra $1.50 a month next, year, and: more
in coming years, under rules passed spring Federal Communications
Commission.
Every phone fine carries a called a subscriber line charge." That fee
will stay at.$3.50 per month for the first phone line in a home, but on
Jan 1, it will increase to $5 a month for every additional line
Residences that have two or more lines on the same account will
see the higher charge on their January bills, but Bell Atlantic said
it probably take the company till March to identify consumers who have
multiple lines on separate bills.
The charge for each extra line will Increase to $6 a month as of
Jan. 1, 1999, and by the year 2000 it could go as high as $9 a month
based on a formula set by the FCC. But the FCC expects that the charge
nationally will average $7.60 a month.
Bell Atlantic, which serves New York State, probably will keep the
extra-line charge to around $8, said Frank Gumper, vice president of
long-range public policy.
The rule changes came in May, when the FCC overhauled the system
through which long-distance companies pay local phone companies for
the portion of calls carried on the local company's network.
Some have labeled the increase in the subscriber-line charge a "modem
tax" because consumers often buy second lines to hook computers to the
Internet, but the FCC has said it sees the increase as a way to stop
unnecessarily subsidizing homeowners' extra phone lines.
As of Jan. 1, the per-line charge for businesses will increase from
$5.92 a month to $7.77 a month in New York State.
Although experts disagree on just how much residential phone service
is being subsidized by revenues from business lines and other sources,
the industry group United States Telephone Association estimates that,
without subsidies, residential phone service would cost about $35 a
month on average, lower in urban and suburban areas.
Bell Atlantic Corp. said about 30 percent of its customers will be
affected by the change in subscriber-line charges.
The increases in subscriber-line charges probably will turn some
consumers away from having additional phone lines, particularly if the
rate goes to $9 a month, said Ron Cowles, research and development
manager for Northern Business Information a unit of the Gartner Group.
"That's a fairly sizable increase," Cowles said. He estimated that
demand for second lines, which has grown at the rate of about 20
percent a year, will slow to 1 percent to 3 percent a year with the
new charges.
Meanwhile, the FCC is considering scaling back subsidies at least for
the first six months of next year that would provide schools,
libraries and rural healthcare facilities with discounted hookups to
the Internet.
The FCC expects to vote soon on an order providing $625 million in
subsidies to schools and libraries and $50 million for rural
health-care providers for the first half of 1998, FCC Chairman Bill
Kennard said yesterday.
Enjoy,
Keith
<=================================================>
Keith@unix.asb.com == SLIP-PPP Internet Address
Http://www.asb.com/usr/keith == WWW Page URL Address
Http://www.asb.com/usr/keith/video == New Release Video Dates
N2NJS@amsat.org == HAM Radio AMSAT EMail
N2NJS@KC2FD.NY.USA.NA == Ham Radio AX25 Packet
<=================================================>
------------------------------
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: More Integretel billing fraud
Date: 17 Dec 1997 05:29:58 GMT
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email
Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com
I had an interesting case at work yesterday.
The CFO passed along the company phone bill to me, asking if I could
get it reduced. We recently installed 12 new lines, and he was aghast
at the BA installation charges, even though they came to less than
$150 per line, including considerable inside cabling to advance the
demarc. I figure that, since the lines weren't really usable well
into December, I'll manage to get a small token credit out of BA, and
little more.
But the back page was very interesting ... it carried billing dated
Oct 11 from Integretel for two separate voice-mail services totalling
$39.95 for a line that we didn't even order until October 17th!
Of course, I brought it it BA's attention immediately, and called
Integretel to have the services removed and the billing credited --
but how the heck could even a sleazy organization like Integretel (an
oxymoronic name if I ever heard one) have the balls to bill for
"services" a phone number that hadn't even been ordered on the billing
date?
The mind boggles.
|We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist |
|for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? First, read this page: |
|it's time we tried education.| <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz>| I mock up my reactive mind twice daily. |
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In fairness to Integretel this time
around, I doubt they were billing *your company*; they were billing
*the number* which very possibly up through the end of October may have
been assigned to someone else and that person may or may not have used
the service being billed. Assume the line had been in service somewhere
until, let's say, the start of October. One of the last calls made
by the previous subscriber was to the service which billed via
Integretel. That information provider submitted the billing to
Integretel later in the month. Integretel sent their billing tape
to your telco early in November. Your telco's accounting department
put it into the system. By that point the subscriber had discontinued
service. The billing hit the system and bounced as a result, going
into a suspense account pending a clerk's manual review of what to
do with it. Telco accounting clerk gets around to looking at it
along with a few thousand other misapplied/unidentified charges in
the system for that month. Telco clerk sees the number is working
but plant has not yet sent through the paperwork showing the line
is in service which is why it bounced out of the computer in the
first place. Clerk resubmits it and this time it goes through fine.
The information providers for stuff like 900/976, Integretel, etc
do not get telco's database; they just submit their bills saying
'bill this to xxx-xxxx' and 99 percent of the time it works fine
since usually customers do not make those calls, get their number
changed (or disconnected), and the number get re-assigned within
the same sixty days or so, to say nothing of the telco accounting
clerk in charge of working/clearing out the suspense ledger somehow
getting around to investigating it and reissuing the charge on
the same number rather than locating the previous customer and
applying it to *their* new number, etc.
I had the same sort of thing happen to me once, around 1974 or so.
I had a new number turned on, but after turning it on, plant never
got around to sending the paperwork to accounting. I had that
line for about six or eight months and never saw a bill on it.
Since it was under the old-style 'unlimited callpack' plan here,
there never would be a reason for a bill to come out unless there
somehow was a coin-rated call. Then one day, some *damnable*
phreak somewhere in these United States made a phraud call and
I got billed. He might have made up a false credit card number
or billed me third-party and the operator never verified it or
whatever. In due course, that charge hit the Illinois Bell billing
system and finding nowhere to rest in peace it went in suspense
where some droid with thirty years of experience handling this
sort of thing knew just what to do. Dial the number and see that
in fact it is ringing; call a clerk in the frames and see if it
is listed as working with them; ask that clerk why the hell you
could not send the paperwork over eight months ago; get the
paperwork; *set it up for billing each month* and issue a bill.
In the mail I finally get a bill for service for the past eight
months plus the next month in advance as always ... :) and for
an added treat, that fraud long distance call was on there also.
The service rep graciously removed the fraud charge but not much
else, although she did give me a couple months to pay the rest.
She said to me with a smirk in her voice, "You knew what was going on
didn't you ... I'm not going to write it off ..." and I told her if I
ever catch the phreak who dumped that coin-rated call on me -- thus
causing accounting to have something to wring their hands over -- I'll
personally chop off his dialing finger. :) Oh, eventually the frame
auditors (the people who took accounting records and physically walked
in the frames and one by one matched wire pairs with paper records)
would have caught it also -- sort of like the outside auditors who
match up the contents of outside television cable junction boxes (and
associated premium channel blocks) today -- but they only did that
every two or three years.
I'd not blame Integretel for 'fraud' this time; just a careless but
eager-beaver telco clerk anxious to keep the suspense ledger cleaned
out. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 97 17:49:29 CST
From: clive1@dvorak.amd.com
Subject: Telecom scam-spam
Hi Pat,
I just received a rather blatant piece of scam-spam which I thought
you'd be interested in. I just coined the term "scam-spam" to refer
to spam mail which is sent with the intent of perpetrating a scam, as
opposed to advertising some product or service (no matter how
worthless).
If I read my country code list correctly, 678 points to the Republic
of Vanuatu. Is this a known haven for this sort of scam?
Clive Dawson
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Return-Path: <veronica@juno.net>
Received: from amdint.amd.com by dvorak.amd.com (4.1/AMDSN-1.18)
id AA02014; Wed, 17 Dec 97 12:04:34 CST
Received: from amdext.amd.com (amdext.amd.com [139.95.251.1])
by amdint.amd.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AMD) with ESMTP id KAA23712;
Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:04:35 -0800 (PST)
From: veronica@juno.net
Received: from fm3.facility.pipex.com (fm3.facility.pipex.com [194.131.104.13])
by amdext.amd.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AMD) with SMTP id KAA20389;
Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from juno.net [32.100.111.49]
by fm3.facility.pipex.com with smtp (Exim 1.59 #22)
id 0xiLyb-0004lJ-00; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:05:40 +0000
To: veronica@juno.net
Subject: Please call me
Message-Id: <E0xiLyb-0004lJ-00@fm3.facility.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:05:40 +0000
Hi, My name is Veronica
I just got home from work, and i am very depressed
I need someone to talk to, Iam just looking for a friend
Please call me 011-678-72304
Thank You
------- End of forwarded message -------
TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A scam all the way. Rotten to the
core. But I guess you knew that already. PAT]
[
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #352
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 18 22:03:24 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id WAA16615; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:03:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:03:24 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712190303.WAA16615@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #353
TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Dec 97 22:03:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 353
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
AOL Victorious Over Spammer (Tad Cook)
Book Review: "All About Internet Mail", Lee David Jaffe (Rob Slade)
UCLA Short Course: Integrated Circuit Design for Wireless (Bill Goodin)
Ameritech Share Repurchase (Chuck Tyrrell)
MCI Stalls, Stonewalls, Refuses to Refund Credit Balance (Elena Beach)
Cellular Service on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina (Chris Farrar)
Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge (Aaron Woolfson)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (John Levine)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Tim Gorman)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (PB Schechter)
Last Laugh! New Yorker Cartoon (Neal McLain)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: AOL Victorious Over Spammer
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:36:05 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
AOL Victorious in Battle Against Spammer -- AOL Files Suit Against
Another Junk E-mailer, Squeaky Clean Marketing
DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 18, 1997--America Online won a
significant victory in its battle against spam when Over the Air
Equipment Inc., a junk e-mailer that advertised pornographic Web
sites, surrendered in its fight against AOL and agreed to an
injunction barring it from sending unsolicited e-mail to AOL members.
`Spammers have little regard for the people who receive their
solicitations -- a problem that's only magnified when a child is on
the receiving end of an objectionable piece of junk e-mail,` said AOL
chairman and CEO Steve Case. `That's why we're going to continue to
use every tool at our disposal to fight against spam and work toward a
long-term solution to this problem, which affects all Internet users.`
Over the Air Equipment, which until recently was sending AOL members
hundreds of thousands of junk e-mails a day advertising its
pornographic Web sites, agreed to a court order which prohibits the
company from ever sending unsolicited e-mail to AOL members
again. Over the Air Equipment also agreed to pay AOL a substantial,
but undisclosed, sum of money in damages.
America Online will apply the damages paid in this suit toward
supporting industry-wide safety education initiatives aimed at young
people and their parents. These initiatives will be a part of a
nationwide 1998 back-to-school awareness campaign announced at the
December 1997 Internet Online Summit: Focus on Children.
AOL hailed the action as a significant win in its war against junk
e-mail. `This is not just a victory for AOL members, but a victory
for every Internet user,` said George Vradenburg, general counsel at
America Online. `The successful resolution of this lawsuit sends a
pointed message to junk e-mailers that they will be held responsible
for their actions.`
The AOL suit, which was filed Oct. 2, 1997, accused Over the Air
Equipment of using deceptive practices, including falsifying e-mail
transmission data, to avoid AOL's mail controls and to repeatedly
transmit vast quantities of unsolicited e-mail to AOL members. E-mail
sent to AOL members from Over the Air Equipment included a link to
their cyber-stripper offerings on the Web.
The Las Vegas-based Over the Air Equipment agreed to drop its
challenge to a preliminary injunction issued on Oct. 31, 1997 by a
federal court (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia).
When the preliminary injunction was issued, the judge found that AOL's
efforts to block junk e-mail, including its efforts to obtain a court
order against Over the Air Equipment, were in the public interest and
that there was a substantial likelihood that AOL would prevail on its
claims of trespass and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
against Over the Air Equipment.
`What is clear as we conclude this case is that the law is on our side
-- and we're going to continue to pursue cases until the message is
felt throughout cyberspace that the days of no accountability to
individuals and families that use the Internet and the companies that
help them do it are over,` said Vradenburg.
AOL files an anti-spam suit against Squeaky Clean Marketing.
On the heels of its victory against Over the Air Equipment, the
company also announced that it has filed another suit against a junk
e-mailer. This lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County,
Va., alleges that Squeaky Clean Marketing and Cyber Services, both
based in Dallas, Ga., ignored repeated requests by AOL to stop sending
unsolicited junk e-mail to AOL members.
AOL charges the Squeaky Clean Marketing and Cyber Services have sent
millions of pieces of junk e-mail to AOL members resulting in thousands
of AOL member complaints.
E-mails from Squeaky Clean Marketing and Cyber Services peddle
everything from baldness cures to get-rich-quick schemes. The
companies even sell do-it-yourself spamming software to enable other
`entrepreneurs` to bombard AOL members with unsolicited junk e-mail.
AOL's suit also charged that both Squeaky Clean Marketing and Cyber
Services are employing deceptive mailing practices to evade AOL's junk
mail filters, including falsifying e-mail headers and relaying e-mails
through third party computer networks to further camouflage the true
source of the e-mails.
In addition, AOL's suit alleged that neither company has honored AOL
member requests to be taken off their mailing lists.
`Squeaky Clean Marketing is anything but squeaky clean,` said
Vradenburg. `This company and its affiliate, Cyber Services, refuses
to operate in a truthful and honest way. They hawk apparently useless
products and pyramid schemes which seem to be designed to dupe
unsuspecting recipients of their junk e-mails.
`They refuse to respect the privacy of our members and they trample on
our e-mail system as if they are entitled to use AOL e-mail resources
to operate their business. We will pursue this suit as vigorously as
we pursued our case against Over the Air Equipment and we feel
confident that we will enjoy a similar outcome.` AOL's anti-spam
campaign: litigation, technology tools, member education
In addition to the suits already detailed, in mid-October, the company
filed suit against another junk e-mailer, Prime Data Worldnet Systems
Inc. Like Over the Air Equipment, Squeaky Clean Marketing and Cyber
Services, Prime Data uses deceptive means of transmission to defeat
AOL's mail controls and send thousands of unsolicited e-mails to AOL
members.
In addition, Prime Data's mass mailing to AOL members advertised
computer software products designed to enable other Internet users to
transmit their own junk e-mail to AOL and its members.
In February, ruling on an AOL-filed suit, a federal court in
Philadelphia ordered CyberPromotions, Inc., a notorious spamming
operation, to cease using fictitious and unregistered domain addresses
to send unsolicited e-mail to AOL member addresses.
The court also ordered CyberPromotions to comply promptly with AOL
members' requests for removal from its mailing lists, through the
e-mail reply command.
Other recent steps in AOL's continuing campaign against spam include
the expansion of its Mail Controls(TM) features, enabling members to
choose which specific Internet addresses and domains to block -- or
accept -- mail from and the launch of an online area (Keyword: Junk
Mail) devoted to educating members about unsolicited bulk e-mail, with
tips for protecting users from annoying junk e-mail.
AOL is also blocking, wherever possible, unwanted junk e-mail coming
its system.
America Online Inc., (NYSE: AOL) based in Dulles, Va., is the world's
leading Internet online service, with over 10 million members
worldwide.
AOL, founded in 1985, offers its subscribers a wide variety of
interactive services including electronic mail, Instant Message
features, entertainment, reference, financial information, computing
support, interactive magazines and newspapers, as well as easy access
to all the services of the Internet.
CONTACT: America Online
Tricia Primrose, 703/265-1746
URL: http://www.businesswire.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think turn-about is fair play, so
perhaps a few ISPs will start suing AOL to force it to get its own
members under control in the same way. I am getting loads of junk
email daily and quite a bit says it is from AOL. Suing AOL isn't
exactly what Steve Case had in mind of course; its as though his
members could do nothing wrong where spam is concerned.
By the way, is Steve Case still providing the feds free accounts and
special software with all sorts of tricks in it so that FBI agents/
postal inspectors/agents from US Customs/assorted and sundry others of
that ilk can snoop through users' email, sit in unnoticed in chat
rooms (both public and private), send naughty pictures of little boys
while hiding their true identity and otherwise ride roughshod over
whatever modicum of constitutional rights is supposed to exist online?
Just asking is all ... PAT]
------------------------------
From: Rob Slade <Rob.Slade@sprint.ca>
Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:34:03 -0800
Subject: Book Review: "All About Internet Mail", Lee David Jaffe
Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca
BKALINML.RVW 970402
"All About Internet Mail", Lee David Jaffe, 1997, 1-882208-20-X,
U$34.00
%A Lee David Jaffe
%C 2137 Oregon St., Berkeley, CA 94705
%D 1997
%G 1-882208-20-X
%I Library Solutions Institute and Press
%O U$34.00 510-841-2933 510-841-2636 fax: 510-841-2926
%O charlotte@library-solutions.com http://www.library-solutions.com
%P 150
%T "All About Internet Mail"
For the beginner, this book does provide an introduction to email (and
also Usenet news) -- but not much more. There are a wide variety of
topics addressed, including the creation of aliases, the use of
prepared text in messages, and problems you might encounter using
telnet to connect to your home system. The details of how to use
those features are largely absent. Or, since more than twenty pages
of chapter two are devoted to a reprinting of help screens from a
variety of programs, the details are not discussed where it would be
most helpful, in the discussion of the functions, themselves.
Basically, this tells the reader, "This can be done, if you can figure
out how by yourself."
The introduction suggests that the book has many tips for the
experienced user, as well. Speaking as an experienced user, I would
say that the book fails to deliver. There are few uses mentioned
beyond the most basic. Attachments are mentioned (without much
warning about the need for similarity of mail agents), but not
unencoding. Listserv file retrieval is mentioned, but not the more
general mail servers such as MIT's RTFM or ftp-by-mail. (There are
also numerous errors which are unimportant to use but technically
annoying: Usenet is defined incorrectly, the relation between high-
speed modems and SLIP is wrong, and, I'm sorry to say, "help" is not a
standard UNIX command.)
The listing of LISTSERV and Listproc commands is a potentially helpful
reference which is seldom included.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKALINML.RVW 970402
rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html
Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course: Integrated Circuit Design for Wireless
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:22:09 -0800
On March 25-27, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Integrated Circuit Design for Wireless Transceivers", on the UCLA
campus in Los Angeles.
> The instructors are Prof. Asad Abidi and Prof. Behzad Razavi,
Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA.
The field of RF and wireless electronics is growing rapidly. From
cellular phones to satellite television, RF design has become an
active field for research and development after lying dormant for many
years. This course provides a systematic treatment of RF electronics
with emphasis on monolithic implementation in VLSI technologies.
Beginning with basic concepts and background knowledge from
communication and microwave disciplines, the course deals with the
design of transceiver architectures and their building blocks:
low-noise amplifiers and mixers, oscillators and synthesizers, power
amplifiers, and filters. In addition to a methodical study of design
issues and techniques, the course presents numerous examples of
state-of-the-art work in the field. The material is complemented by
several case studies of complete transceiver systems.
The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials.
These materials are for participants only, and are not sold
separately.
For more information and a complete course description, please contact
Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
From: Chuck Tyrrell <Chuck_Tyrrell@attcapital.com>
Subject: Ameritech Share Repurchase
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 07:50:29 -0500
Pat,
I thought that the readers of the Digest would find this of interest.
Ameritech is "investing" $2 billion in repurchasing its own shares. I
just wish that they would instead put some of the money into repairing
and/or replacing some of the OLD copper outside plant. Over the years
I have had many problems with phone service and every time it was
caused by the poor condition of the copper plant. After they get my
service restored we see the Ameritch trucks in the area for the next
several weeks as they restore service on someone else's copper thet
they robbed to restore my service, which caused someone else to be out
of service ... and so on and so on ...
Chuck Tyrrell
---------------------
Wednesday December 17, 8:07 pm Eastern Time
FOCUS-Ameritech sets $2.0 billion buyback
CHICAGO, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Ameritech Corp. (NYSE:AIT - news; NYSE:ATI -
news) said on Wednesday it will buy back $2 billion of its common stock,
which it said was the largest stock repurchase ever launched by a U.S.
telecommunications company.
Ameritech also approved a two-for-one stock split, its fourth in 11
years, and a 6.2 percent increase in its dividend.
``I think, taken together, the overall impact has to leave (investors)
with a very positive view about the future of Ameritech,'' Chief
Financial Officer Oren Shaffer said in a telephone interview.
Ameritech shares rose $3.125 to $81.125 a share in consolidated trading
on the New York Stock Exchange.
Shaffer added that Ameritech's fourth quarter earnings are expected to
continue the trend of double-digit percentage earnings growth.
``We're very comfortable that the fourth quarter will continue that
trend,'' Shaffer added.
According to research firm First Call, the mean earnings estimate for
the quarter is $1.10 a share, compared with year-ago earnings of $1.
Under the stock repurchase plan, Ameritech is authorized to buy up to $2
billion of its shares on the open market from time to time, starting in
January 1998. At the current value, that represents about 4.7 percent of
its outstanding shares.
Shaffer added that the share repurchase will be funded with internally
generated cash and some debt.
Brown Brothers Harriman analyst Robert Wilkes said the share buyback was
a positive sign for Ameritech. ``It suggests that they think their stock
is a good value,'' he added.
He added that Ameritech has strong cash flows and can afford the stock
buyback.
Since the authorization is for up to $2 billion of its shares, Ameritech
is also leaving itself open to making acquisitions or investments. Most
recently, Ameritech has bid for a $3.2 billion stake in Denmark's Tele
Danmark(TLDb.CO).
Ameritech said the two-for-one stock split follows a similar action in
1993 when its stock was also trading around $80 a share.
``Since 1993, we've basically doubled the value of the company,''
Shaffer said.
Ameritech said the increased quarterly dividend is 60 cents a share,
compared with 56.5 cents previously. Adjusted for the stock split, the
dividend will be 30 cents a share, payable on Feb. 2 to shareholders of
record on Dec. 31.
Ameritech has raised its dividend every year since its stock began
trading in 1983.
``We consider the dividend as a part of (investors') return, and the
increase send a strong signal about the future and growth of the
company,'' Shaffer said.
(--Patricia Commins, Chicago Equities Desk (312) 408-8787,
------------------------------
From: Elena Beach <elenab@interport.net>
Subject: MCI Stalls, Stonewalls, and Refuses to Refund Credit Balance
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 02:37:39 -0500
Organization: castillo
Reply-To: castillo.org@interport.net
According to all my MCI statements since September, I have had a
credit balance due to their accounting snafu's compelling me to
overpay on my account.
Although I finally canceled MCI service on 14 November 1997, and
although THEIR OWN ACCOUNTING STATEMENT OF MY ACCOUNT shows a credit
balance, MCI has been stonewalling, stalling and giving me a run
around, in effect, refusing to return MY MONEY.
I suspect that I am not the only one who has gone through this
rigamarole with MCI. If you/someone you know shares this experience,
please contact me ASAP. While the individual amounts may be relatively
small (currently whittled down to $260 since August, 1997 in my case),
the aggregate total may be HUGE. If this, or a variation, has happened
to you in your dealings with MCI, please contact me immediately.
------------------------------
From: Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Celluar Service on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:03:09 -0500
Organization: Bell Solutions
Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca
Does anone know who the A and B side carriers for Hilton Head South
Carolina are?
I have relatives with a Bell Mobility (Canada "B" side) cell phone who
winter in HH and are having problems making calls. Being 900 miles
from them, it is hard to find out exactly what the problem is.
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: telone@shout.net (Aaron Woolfson)
Subject: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
Date: 17 Dec 1997 22:24:28 GMT
Organization: Shouting Ground Technologies, Inc.
It has always amazed me. There is something to be said for some
company which is going to put into force marketing efforts to get
7.5 cents per minute *internet* telephone conversations (TCP/IP
connections) between people. Never mind what it would do to fax.
I guess I won't be putting my money in Qwest any time soon ...
There is a very fundamental difference between the manner in which PCM
encoded voice is transmitted and the way TCP/IP packets make it from
one place to another. PCM encoded voice has a very definite reason
for using a set bandwidth. The 8,000 frames of 8bits each which
travel the distance between point A and B must have a reasonable
assurance that they will make it in *sequential* order with very
little drift ... in the tens of Pulses per Million ... or else a
telephone conversation would sound like nothing except static.
TCP/IP packets are sort of like playing billiards ... one ball hits
another and hits another and things all sort of move across the table
in a chaotic, somewhat organized manner until the balls get in the
right holes. Why would you want to send voice in such a manner? I
don't know.
Perhaps just a publicity effort by a company jumping on the bandwagon
of those who think that "Internet" will make the price of a stock go
infinitely higher in this "W"orld "W"ide "W"ar for bandwidth.
Aaron Woolfson
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 1997 15:56:59 -0000
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> The local loop was built with the INVESTOR'S money, not the public.
AT&T and its subsidiaries did indeed raise a lot of money over the
years. I believe that you'll find the bulk of it was in bonds which
were paid off using money received from the ratepayers. (That's a
perfectly reasonable way to fund capital investment, typical of most
large businesses.) The stock they sold was attractive to investors
mostly because of the large and steady $8/share dividend that they
paid through good years and bad, including all through the depression,
also paid from ratepayer money.
> Your monthly bill will pay over time for [ the equipment that serves you ].
Exactly. It looks like we agree.
> The amount of return on the stockholder's investment is regulated
> by law. If a plain private company offers a popular product, it can
> make a big profit. The phone company cannot. However, the phone
> company is still at risk for loss of investment. ...
Uh, huh. They what's all that yelling and screaming I hear about
wanting to get compensated for stranded investment? Telco monopoly
regulation allowed, even required, telcos to raise rates to make up
for losses.
It's true, the occasional tiny and very badly managed telco may have
gone bust over the years, but the medium and large ones, guaranteed a
return on their investment, were at no risk of default, which was
reflected in the very low interest rates they were able to pay on
their bonds, lower than anyone else except the government.
There's nothing sinister or underhanded about this -- we decided that
we wanted a well-funded, well-capitalized phone system, and we set up
a regulatory environment that made that happen. But please, let's not
rewrite history and claim that the phone system was built with risk
capital, because it wasn't.
There's reasonable issues about CLEC skimming, and how to properly
fund universal service. But the answer isn't just to let the ILECs
take the huge system they built with monopoly ratepayer money and use
it to crush any competition.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
------------------------------
From: Tim Gorman <tg6124@topmail1.sbc.com>
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:06:47 -0600
In Telecom Nbr 348, Michael Hayworth (msh1@airmail.net) wrote:
> Lee Winson wrote:
>> After reading the MCI sleaze post I had a thought: To be truly fair in
>> local telephone competition, let's make it TRUE competition. Let each
>> player build their own local loop plant and central office facilities.
> Yeah, and just so we make it really fair, let's make sure we guarantee
> each new competitor a huge customer base and give them a guaranteed
> profit.
Then let's also saddle all the new competitors with the expenses
associated with the embedded infrastructure such as maintenance,
depreciation, and write-offs of no longer useful investment. *That*
would make it fair - and it would also make it impossible for startup
companies to ever become viable.
Why do so many people seem to be able to understand that the telephone
system in this country was developed as under the auspices of a social
contract between government and what were considered to be natural
monopolies at the time? That contract no longer applies. For new
competitors today to look back at the phone system a decade ago and
complain about not being part of the social contract a decade ago
gains nothing and is really quite meaningless in the context of
today. Such complaints are only emotional arguments useful in trying
to persuade others to support a viewpoint not soundly based in
legalities and economics.
<<SNIP a lot of stuff about all of the RBOC's hard lives over the years.>>
> There's nothing difficult, impressive or particularly admirable about
> being willing to do all this stuff when you're guaranteed a profit for
> doing it. I'll be glad to sit in my corporate office and hire some poor
> guy to run cable to Uncle Fester's cave up in the Ozarks, if that's one of
> the requirements that comes with a huge guaranteed profit.
No one was guaranteed a profit on Uncle Fester's service. You are
trying to use a specific to prove a generality. It doesn't work.
BTW, what do you consider to be a HUGE, guaranteed profit? My guess is
that not very many people will consider the allowed rate of return
most of the RBOC's were allowed to be *huge*.
> To stick with that analogy, if you want to require CLECs to accept
> customers in all areas of the city, that seems reasonable. Bell's former
> monopoly has already required them to run cable to those areas. But if
> they're not guaranteed a monopoly, you can't require them to run cable
> to Uncle Fester instead of to my much-more-profitable door.
Really? You truly feel that the government can't require that someone
serve Uncle Fester? I suggest you discuss the philosophy of "carrier
of last resort" with your local PUC. I would venture to say that if
local competition results in areas with no service that the local PUC
will *force* someone to serve them.
> We've paid for all this physical plant for years, due to the RBOC
> monopolies -
No, the investors in the RBOC's paid for the plant. YOU paid for the
service you received. The public doesn't own all of the railroad cars
in this country, they don't own all of the Greyhound buses in this
country, nor do they own all of the airplanes in this country. Yet
each of these were natural monopolies at one time and had rates set by
government regulators. You paid for the service provided by each of
these, you didn't buy the operating plant. The investors in the
companies paid for the resources used to provide the services. The
investors own the company and its infrastructure.
> and a pretty poor plant it is, since there's been no motivation for them
> to run fiber instead of copper, or to build out facilities that can
> actually sustain a 56K modem call.
Changing out the amount of infrastructure associated with local
service in this country will be measured in decades, if not
longer. Fiber in the distribution plant has not been economically
viable let alone technologically viable for nearly long enough for
this to occur. It would require a miracle of monumental proportions
for anything else to happen. BTW, 56Kb modem technology has only been
available for a couple of years. A massive network-wide upgrade to
support 56Kb technology in the distribution plant in a year or two
would require a miracle on the level of creation itself. Expecting
such an occurrence only shows a misunderstanding of the financial
makeup of the industry.
> Now, Bell is going to have to compete, and instead of going out and
> figuring out ways to actually make customers *want* to do business with
> them, they're going to whine and gripe and drag their feet all they can.
What seems like dragging feet to you is prudent and conservative
management to the investors in the RBOC's. While you can easily
dismiss the investors with a viewpoint that the existing
infrastructure is publicly owned, legally it is not possible for the
Public Utility Commissions and even the federal government to do
so. Decisions made by the RBOC's have to be made in light of
maintaining the investors rate of return as well as their
investment. While the competitors may want free use of existing
facilities, ala your publicly owned infrastructure philosophy, the
regulators know this would constitute an illegal "taking" of the
investors property. This results in a tension between the two
competing parties. While you frame it as feet-dragging, the other side
has a totally different viewpoint.
Tim Gorman
SWBT
(I speak only for myself)
------------------------------
From: pb@Colorado.EDU (PB Schechter)
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
Date: 18 Dec 1997 17:53:38 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
I have followed, with some interest, this thread. There are three
alternatives that are proposed: (1) Let CLECs use ILECs' loops (and,
presumably, pay for the privilege) ; (2) Let CLECs build their own
loops; and (3) let the government own the loops, and anyone (CLEC or
ILEC) use them (and, presumably, pay for the privilege).
I have proposed a fourth solution: let *customers* own their local
loops. In a nutshell, I argue that customer ownership of the local loop
will have the following advantages:
1) There will be no interconnection problems (such as when ILECs
provide poor, or no, service to CLECs), because CLECs will not be
"renting" the loop from ILECs;
2) There will be no problem of allocating the non-traffic sensitive
(local loop) cost of the local loop among a variety of services (on a
traffic sensitive basis), because *customer* will do that allocation
themselves, when they decide what loop to purchase (see point 5,
below). This is similar to the way customers allocate the fixed cost
of a car, or of a computer, among different uses by deciding what kind
of car, or computer, to buy.
3) There will be significantly reduced cost of entry, because a CLEC
will only need to buy switches and interoffice trunks, to be facilities
based;
4) There will be little danger of predatory pricing or cream skimming,
because the cost of service will be approximately the same everywhere
(since it is largely a difference in loop length that contributes to
a difference in service cost);
5) There will likely be a competitive loop construction industry, so
that people who want copper loops can buy copper, while people who want
fiber loops can buy fiber, etc.
I will not make long arguments for this proposal here, but anyone
interested can read a draft (that is slightly outdated) of my paper
on this subject at http://morse.colorado.edu/~pb/own.pdf (it's in pdf,
so you'll need the Acrobat reader). (My paper also considers some of
the potential problems with customer ownership of the local loop. I
say this so that those of you who flame from the hip can, perhaps, read
the paper before you summarily castigate the idea.)
PB Schechter
pb@colorado.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:04:51 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@compuserve.com>
Subject: Last Laugh! New Yorker Cartoon
Cartoon in the current issue of {The New Yorker}:
Lawyer to female client: "I've just talked to his lawyer, and he's
agreeable -- you keep the Hamptons place and he keeps 212."
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #353
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 23 08:57:05 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA13206; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:57:05 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:57:05 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712231357.IAA13206@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #354
TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Dec 97 00:47:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 354
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
AT&T "Just4Me" Market Trial (PSTN + Internet) (oldbear@arctos.com)
Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Dr. Ram Samudrala)
From the 1961 Northwest Territories Phone Book (David Leibold)
Canadian Residence Rate Increases, and Other CRTC Rulings (David Leibold)
More "Hell Atlantic" Bull-Pucky (Scott Levine)
How is Spam Email Fed Into the System? (A.E. Siegman)
Telecom Update (Canada) #113, December 22, 1997 (Angus TeleManagement)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 23:11:27 -0500
From: The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject: AT&T "Just4Me" market trial (PSTN + Internet)
Pat:
I received a mailer this week from AT&T announcing a trial project of
a new service which they call "Just4Me". The service integrates
the internet (or at least the web) with the AT&T switched network and
allows setting up conference calls via a web-based graphic interface.
Quoting from the AT&T literature:
AT&T Just4Me Project Overview
AT&T is entering into a market trial for exciting new AT&T consumer
calling capabilities that enable you to personally tailor your AT&T
calling experience. This project combines the power and quality of
the AT&T Voice Network with the innovation of the Internet in a way
that greatly enhances your daily communications.
You can use the features of the AT&T Just4Me project to call your
friends and family, using your computer and a telephone. Once
connected, you can talk about the Web pages you share with them and
even surf the Web together. You also have the ability to store
frequently called phone numbers and launch individual and group
calls quickly.
Your calling experience will be graphically personalized and you
will have greater flexibility in sharing and interacting with
individuals and communities of interest. You will be able to
communicate and collaborate - Online and in Real Time!
AT&T Click2Dial
The AT&T Click2Dial feature provides you with the ability to
launch and control calls during an active Internet connection.
The feature enables you to use your computer and the Internet to
initiate a phone call over the AT&T Voice Network to up to six
people. A call management window provides you a visual display
of all call activities: who is connected, call duration, session
information, etc.
AT&T Click2Dial+Share
The AT&T Click2Dial+Share feature provides you with all the
convenience of the AT&T Click2Dial feature, plus the ability to
share a co-browsing experience. With this feature, information
that you find of interest on the Web can be shared visually among
the participants on the call to
Exchange ideas
Jointly plan community activities
(school, little league, scouts, fairs)
Jointly plan family outings or entertainment
Simply show off the snapshots from your last vacation or
favorite family photos located on your personal home page.
To co-browse, the caller, serving as the leader, simply surfs the
internet; call participants will see each web page the leader
visits. The caller can pass 'leadership' of the web-browsing to
another participant at any time.
My Phone Book
Every AT&T Just4Me member will have a personal, secure Phone Book
accessible from the Internet. Within My Phone Book you can quickly
and easily establish, organize, and manage your own calling
communities of interest. For instance, you can list all the members
you'd like to keep in touch from your garden club, your child's
soccer league, your distributed relatives or friends, etc. By
simply highlighting individuals from within these lists, calls are
initiated.
AT&T notes that throughout the duration of the AT&T Just4Me market
trial, membership will be limited to "by invitation only" in order to
facilitate a controlled test environment. As trial assumptions are
tested, AT&T says that the invitation list may be extended. If you
would like to be included within the mailing list, there is a way to
sign up on the AT&T web page at URL: < http://www.just4me.att.net >.
I am not sure whether or not this product will generate significant
interest. While it has some nice possibilities, it may be more of a
"let's test the waters" to see how the switched voice network can
be repositioned in the world of the internet.
AT&T also has some tie-ins with other vendors of related products
such as digital imaging and page hosting.
Cheers,
The Old Bear
------------------------------
From: Dr. Ram Samudrala <ram.samudrala@stanford.nojunkemail>
Subject: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 21 Dec 1997 10:54:38 GMT
Organization: Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University
Reply-To: expt@alanine.ram.org
I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. I've had two
friends who were burned (and after posting this on misc.legal.moderated,
I've found a lot more) after receiving large phone bills where they
dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
charged for it nonetheless. All three of us moved to the area at the
same time, and we all requested phone books, but none of us got them.
Apparently the phone book contains this information (about what
three-digit-prefixes are toll-free), but none of the other junk they
got from PB (which is quite a bit) contained this information.
I consider this deceptive (the lack of distinction between toll calls
and non-toll calls, and the lack of clear statement by PB about what
constitutes a local call and what doesn't), and I'd like to force PB
to change. Basically, this is what I'd like PB to do (one of these
will do, but more than one will be good):
1. In the initial statement that confirms the service request, they
should list what three-digit-prefixes are toll-free for the current
number.
2. In every bill, where they write "zone 1 and zone 2 calls are free"
(or some similar statements), they should say what three-digit-prefixes
belong in zone 1 and zone 2.
3. They should change the phone system to better enable distinction
between toll calls and toll free calls. Here's an ideal system which
worked in MD under Bell Atlantic:
From Rockvlle, MD (301) xxx-xxxx:
To Rockville - non toll call - same area code - (301) xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxxx.
To some parts of Virginia - non toll call - different area code -
(703) xxx-xxxx
To DC - non toll call - different area code - (202) xxx-xxxx
To Frederick - toll call - same area code - 1 (301) xxx-xxxx
To other parts of Virginia - toll call - different area code -
1 (703) xxx-xxx
So even though you have different area codes from MD to DC, and MD to
VA, you can dial from MD to DC and MD to VA using ONLY 10 digits when
it is a toll free call. You have no idea how useful this is when
given a number in VA -- you could just dial it (without a one) and see
if you connect or not.
I am currently arguing with the CPUC about this and I plan to take
this all the way to make PB do one of the above three things. Since
my mind is already made up to fight this, I'd appreciate any
ammunition you can provide. Once I exhaust my appeals process with
CPUC, I would like to take PB to court over this -- can I do that, and
how should I proceed?
The bottom line is that if I had a choice of not using PB and another
local service, I'd not be with PB right now.
Ram
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:28:48 EST
From: David Leibold <aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: From the 1961 Northwest Territories Phone Book
I recently had the opportunity to look through a 1961 Northwest
Territories phone book as published for CN Telecommunications
(forerunner of Northwestel, which ultimately became a BCE (Bell Canada
Enterprises) division). The National Library of Canada holdings
suggest this is the earliest edition of that directory, though earlier
listings could have been published.
Beyond the nice colour cover, there were listings for Yellowknife,
Fort Simpson, Hay River and Inuvik.
CN Telecommunications published an announcement that complete
"telegraph-telephone and teletype fixed service" would be provided
approximately 1 October 1961 from Yellowknife, Fort Providence, Rae, Hay
River and Fort Simpson, to all points in Canada or U.S.A. CNT also offered
fixed radio link telephone service in those days.
Yellowknife exchange was manual, with the old ##R# number format (e.g.
45R2). Hay River, Fort Simpson and Inuvik numbers were 4-digit without
NNX, presumably dial offices. DDD and ANC would have to wait for many
years.
Inuvik customers were also advised to "report trouble to L. Erickson of
Northern Canada Power Commission." -- not to be confused with L.M.
Ericsson :-).
Inuvik party line ringing depended on the last digit of the number:
last digit ring cadence
---------- ------------
1 or 6 1 long
2 or 7 2 long
3 or 8 1 long 1 short
4 or 9 1 long 2 short
5 or 0 3 short
However, the Inuvik numbers listed in the book only had the final digits
of 0, 1, 2, 5 or 6.
The listings also contained a few Edmonton and Vancouver listings,
intended for businesses that deal with Northwest Territories customers.
David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:02:08 EST
From: David Leibold <aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Reply-To: David Leibold <aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Canadian Residence Rate Increases, and Other CRTC Rulings
The Canadian regulator, CRTC, announced on Thursday 18th December 1997
higher local residential service rates, deregulation of some services
and various regulatory steps towards local service competition.
Most Canadian telephone customers will be hit with local rate increases
for 1998. The increases of monthly rates will be "capped" as follows (by
telco/territory, in CAD$):
BC Tel (British Columbia) +2.84
Bell Canada (Ontario, Quebec) +2.57
Newtel (Newfoundland) +2.50
Island Tel (Prince Edward Isl.) +2.05
MT&T (Nova Scotia) +2.00
Telus (Alberta) +1.10
MTS (Manitoba) +0.35
NBTel (New Brunswick) 0.00
This decision apparently did not deal with Northwestel (Northwest
Territories, Yukon) or Saskatchewan residential rates, nor with various
independent companies' local rates, though these have been or could be
dealt with separately.
In seeking local residential rate increases, the original telcos claim
that such rates are below costs and subsidised from elsewhere, such as
long distance or business rates. With phone costs cut by use of new
technologies, telco staff reductions, and numerous previously-approved
service charges (or charge increases), plus the impending arrival of local
service competitors, these might be the last of the big Canadian local
phone rate increases.
Details can be found on the CRTC website http://www.crtc.gc.ca (should be
specifically available off the "What's New" section at
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/whatsnew.htm).
David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca
---------------
[From CRTC News Release]
December 18, 1997
FURTHER STEPS TOWARDS A COMPETITIVE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKET
OTTAWA-HULL ; The CRTC today announced a series of decisions
which constitute another stepping stone towards a competitive Canadian
telecommunications market. These decisions, taken together, will
result in increased consumer choices in long distance services as well
as local telephone services. The four decisions:
1. implement an interim telephone price cap rate to come into effect
on 1 January 1998 (Telecom Decision CRTC 97-18 [[1]TEXT]
[[2]WORD6.0]);
2. establish the deregulation of discount toll and 800/888 rates for
long distance services offered by most Stentor member companies,
and for high speed private line services (Telecom Decision CRTC
97-19 [TEXT [3]Part 1, [4]Part 2 and [5]Part 3] [[6]WORD6.0] &
97-20 [TEXT [7]Part 1 and [8]Part 2] [[9]WORD6.0]);
3. introduce new rules for the regulation of Quebec-Telephone and
Telebec, in order to allow them to be subject to the same
competition framework as the Stentor member companies (Telecom
Decision CRTC 97-21 [TEXT [10]Part 1 and [11]Part 2]
[[12]WORD6.0]);
4. establish the [13]scope of contribution for Alternate Providers of
Long Distance Services (APLDS).
At the same time, the Commission launches two public processes that
are necessary to close the loop on the competitive environment. These
processes :
1. will try to identify the best possible means to ensure the
provision of quality telephone service at affordable rates in
distant and sparsely populated areas (Telecom Public Notice CRTC
[14]97-42).
2. will try to establish a contribution regime for independent
telephone companies in Ontario and Quebec (Telecom Public Notice
CRTC [15]97-41).
- 30 -
Contact: CRTC Communications Branch, Ottawa, K1A 0N2
Tel: (819) 997-0313, TDD: (819) 994-0423, Fax: (819)
994-0218
Copies of today's documents are available through our Internet site
(http://www.crtc.gc.ca) or by contacting the public examination room
of any CRTC office. These documents are available in alternative
format upon request.
City Telephone TDD Fax
Halifax (902) 426-7997 (902) 426-6997 (902) 426-2721
Montreal (514) 283-6607 (514) 283-8316 (514) 283-3689
Ottawa-Hull (819) 997-2429 (819) 994-0423 (819) 994-0218
Winnipeg (204) 983-6306 (204) 983-8274 (204) 983-6317
Vancouver (604) 666-2111 (604) 666-0778 (604) 666-8322
References
1. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9718_0.txt
2. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/original/telecom/bil/decision/1997/d97-18.doc
3. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9719_0.txt
4. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9719_1.txt
5. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9719_2.txt
6. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/original/telecom/bil/decision/1997/d97-19.doc
7. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9720_0.txt
8. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9720_1.txt
9. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/original/telecom/bil/decision/1997/d97-20.doc
10. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9721_0.txt
11. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1997/d9721_1.txt
12. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/original/telecom/bil/decision/1997/d97-21.doc
13. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/RELEASES/1997/l971218e.htm
14. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1997/p9742_0.txt
15. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1997/p9741_0.txt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:10:35 -0500
From: Scott Levine <slevine@individual.com>
Subject: More "Hell Atlantic" Bull-Pucky
With several calls into Bell Atlantic (aka Hell Atlantic), no
resolution to the following problem has occurred.
The problem starts with two numbers in Cambridge, MA (current area
code 617, and stays 617 after split) trying to call an MCI provided
DID number (313-xxxx) in Burlington, MA (current area code 617, and
moving to area code 781 after split). One number in Cambridge is a
residential line the other is a business line and both are served from
the same CO though different exchanges (492 and 864 respectively).
Bell Atlantic (both repair and executive offices) say that it is
"normal and right" for these Cambridge numbers to have to be forced to
dial the "new" calling pattern (10 digit dialing) in order to get a
call to go through to an MCI provided exchange, but okay for them to
dial an existing Burlington exchange (273) by dialing just seven
digits. Other CO's in the Boston area can still dial both with just
seven digits. The area code split is scheduled to "finally" take
effect on February 1, 1998. But I am not holding my breath since this
date was twice pushed into the future.
Are there others in the Boston area (or other areas) that have
experinced the same type of problem?
Scott Levine
Individual Inc.
781-313-5221
------------------------------
From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A.E. Siegman)
Subject: How is Spam Email Fed Into the System?
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:37:14 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
For the benefit of those of us who may understand how the Internet
works -- sort of -- but are fuzzy on the details, could some more
informed expert explain how a spammer feeds one million identical email
messages into the Internet, and what happens thereafter? Do you
really just hit the Send key with a million addresses in the To: line?
At what point does this start to get disaggregated into individual
messages?
Behind this question of course is a more motivated question: Could
there be -- technically, and also realistically -- some kind of
controls that could block, or at least check and verify, mass mailings
near the source? What would be the practical and also political
implications of this?
For example, I'm sure there are legitimate mass mailings by
organizations to members, corporations to customers, and so on.
Anyone have any idea how widespread these are? What fraction of the
mass emailings on the Internet -- or of the total email traffic on the
net -- is presently spam and what fraction is "legitimate", i.e.,
non-spam mass mailings?
(Please note: This is not a request or proposal for controls on the
net -- I know what kind of hot potato that is, and I understand that
even distinguishing "spam" from "non-spam" is not a trivial task. I'd
just like to have a better technical understanding of what goes on in
all this.)
An email cc to siegman@ee.stanford.edu will be appreciated.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not exactly an expert on bulk
or mass mailings, although I do sent out several thousand pieces
of email each day. You do not 'put all the names on the 'To:' line'
as this would (a) force each recipient to wade through screen after
screen of names before getting to the message itself and (b) it would
reveal the name of each person on the list to all the other people
on the list; a usually undesirable thing. Ditto with putting the
names on the cc: line -- every name is visible to everyone else,
whether they want to capture the data or not. I put 'all the names'
(on the telecom list of several thousand names) on the bcc: line so
that none of them are revealed to anyone else. Actually, I don't
do that either, but that is the general idea. What really happens
is I put a single alias 'name' on the bcc: line and the :include:
script says to look for a certain file which contains all the names
and email addresses, line after line, in a file several thousand
lines in length. Sendmail goes to find that file, and the general
idea is 'while there are still lines to be read in this file, keep
on reading them one at a time and putting them one after another
in the bcc ... if there are no more lines to be read then start
sending out the mail.'
I hear your next question coming already: if I place on the bcc:
line an alias which goes to :include: and is directed to a file
with a bunch of names, then why couldn't anyone send mail to that
alias-name@lcs.mit.edu and spam-mail to my list behind my back?
Well, first of all you have to *know* what the alias is, and I do
not give out that information; no list manager does. But you say,
I know how to read mail headers and no matter what the 'From:' and
"To:" lines say, the 'From ' on the very top line never lies; and
it is going to help me attack your mailing list.
The hell you say! If I am a 'trusted user' (Unix parlance for a person
with the ability and permission to manipulate the headers) then the
'From ' line on the top will read how I tell it to read. So let's say
you decide to visit the sendmail socket on this machine, wade through
all the collection of aliases and names that point in all directions
and *finally* figure out the alias I use so you can send unauthorized
mail to my list you still are not going to get anywhere.
But you say you know some poorly documented sneaky commands in
sendmail which allow you to show up at my sendmail socket and
query for details. Oh ... you must be referring to VRFY and EXPD,
two commands you can issue (after saying HELO of course) that when
followed by an argument (as in EXPD whatever-he-calls-it) will
dump the list right out the door to your waiting disk drive.
Most sysadmins have long since disabled those commands, but even
if they have not, there are additional security precautions taken
by those of who did not drop out of a tree or hatch from an egg
yesterday. My list is well-hidden away under a different name
entirely in a directory which is read/write to user only. When it
is time to mail an issue of the Digest, I have a script which does
this:
mv secret.filename where :include: said.it.will.be.found
sort -t@ +1 secret.filename > real.list.name
(where :include: will be telling sendmail to look)
chmod o+r real.list.name
(so sendmail running as user 'nobody' can read it)
Now we diddle up a subject, from, and to line, and pipe
it to cat - current.mailing /usr/lib/sendmail -f top.from.line
Off it goes, grabbing those names one by one and adding
them to the bcc. Presently the whole thing is in the mailq
and is being processed.
But as soon as sendmail has loaded the bcc and started to
mail the issue out, all the above reverses. That is, the
mailing list which had been sitting open is quickly
renamed back to the secret name; the file is moved to its
hiding place, and chmodded back to user read/write only.
So theoretically the list is exposed for the five minutes or so that
sendmail is busy collecting up the bcc names. If someone came along
at just that time to the sendmail socket and asked some improper
and irreverant questions, they'd get the list, assuming things like
EXPD are still done around here; I do not think they are.
Now that is how I do it; of course I don't have a million names to
deal with. But so far as I know, you can put any source you want
as the thing to :include:. I suppose every day I could run a script
to go around and collect email addresses from everywhere and append
them to the bottom of a file from which sendmail was constantly
plucking from the top, mailing them out as fast as it could while
I kept adding more and more to the file at the bottom.
In the past but not recently I'd have trouble with the list having too
many names for one large, unwieldy file, so the file would be broken
into several smaller files with the final 'name' in each being an
:include: pointing to the next file in the series. Then I would have
the script sleep for a short time and allow things to get sort of
cleaned out. I had to do that or sendmail would 'choke'; the buffer
would get overwritten and lose a lot of the entries, etc.
I don't think spammers send out a million copies *all at one time*.
I believe the process goes on forever with one script constantly
finding addresses and putting them somewhere where the mail program
expects to find them and the mail program mailing 'just one letter'
but with an infinite, never-ending stream of bcc's and while the
file exists (which is forever) then keep going there and getting the
next address, etc.
By the way, the reason I do 'sort -t@ +1' in the process of handing
the list over to sendmail is because I believe it optimizes the
process. What I am doing is putting everyone at a given site close
together (sorting at the first character following '@') and it is
my belief that sendmail likes this because it does not have to 'look
so long and hard' to resolve subsequent addresses at the same site
in the same mailing. The first occurrance of a site in a mailing may
cause sendmail to have to go away and look for a resolution; a process
that if repeated will delay the mailing. If all 67 of the readers
at @aol.com are clustered together, sendmail might have to go look
for it the first time, but for the second and subsequent names
@aol.com it says 'oh, I know where that is! :) ...' and it grabs
the whole bunch at one time and send it across. If it sees another
name@aol.com several hundred transactions later, it may have
forgotten already about the first one and have to go look it up
again. If there is more than one invocation of sendmail running
at the same time (for example, two or three issues of the Digest
being mailed a few minutes apart), then the resolving done by
one helps the others speed along as well. One sendmail may go off
looking for a site and be gone thirty seconds; it finds it and
has it in a buffer. Another sendmail comes along, sees what the
first one found and uses the information. Then maybe later it
goes away to look for something and when it returns the first
sendmail sees the resolution that was done and benefits from it
without having to go do the same thing itself. Everyone has
their own ideas on how to sort large mailing lists for fastest
and most efficient processing. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:14:40 -0500
From: Angus TeleManagement <angus@angustel.ca>
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #113, December 22, 1997
************************************************************
* *
* TELECOM UPDATE *
* Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin *
* http://www.angustel.ca *
* Number 113: December 22, 1997 *
* *
* Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by *
* generous financial support from: *
* *
* Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ *
* City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ *
* Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ *
* fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ *
* Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ *
* *
************************************************************
IN THIS ISSUE:
** We're Taking a Holiday
** Another CRTC Decision Blitz
Decision 97-18 (Interim Price Caps)
Decision 97-19 (Telco LD Forbearance)
Decision 97-20 (Partial Forbearance on Private Lines)
Decision 97-21 and Order 97-1837 (Quebec-Telephone and
Telebec)
Letter Decision on Contribution Charges
** AT&T Canada Protests LD Forbearance
** Stentor Simplifies, Cuts LD Rates
** CRTC Okays Third-Country Routing and Switched Hubbing
** UBI Interactive TV Consortium Dissolves
** Stentor Seeks Registration of Internet Providers
** Telesat Told to Cut Rates 7%
** MetroNet Defines Service Areas
** High Cost Serving Areas
** Independent Telcos' Contribution Regime
** Satellite Multimedia Program Launched
** WTO Trade Deal Implementation Delayed
** McKenna Joins Bruncor Board
** Don't Lose Track of 1997!
============================================================
WE'RE TAKING A HOLIDAY: Telecom Update is taking a winter
break; our next issue will be posted January 5. We wish all
readers a successful and rewarding New Year.
ANOTHER CRTC DECISION BLITZ: On December 18, the CRTC
announced a series of decisions "which constitute another
stepping stone towards a competitive Canadian
telecommunications market." For links to all decisions:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/RELEASES/1997/r71218ee.htm
** Decision 97-18 (Interim Price Caps): Stentor telcos may
raise local rates January 1 by amounts ranging from $.00
(NBTel) to $2.84 (BC Tel) per month. Increases are lower
than the telcos requested.
** Decision 97-19 (Telco LD Forbearance): Stentor discount
toll and 800/888 rates are deregulated. Basic toll rates
may not rise overall, and may not be route de-averaged.
** Decision 97-20 (Partial Forbearance on Private Lines):
Stentor telcos high capacity private lines are
deregulated on major intercity routes.
** Decision 97-21 and Order 97-1837 (Quebec-Telephone and
Telebec): On January 1, 1998, these Quebec telcos rate
bases will be split into utility/competitive segments.
Local rates may rise by $3.25 (QuebecTel) and $3.40
(Telebec), with further increases of $3.00 in January
1999.
** In a letter decision, the Commission reversed its
previous order to apply contribution charges differently
for originating and terminating traffic. The 2% DAL
surcharge currently used in calculating contribution fees
will continue for the time being.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/RELEASES/1997/L971218e.htm
AT&T CANADA PROTESTS LD FORBEARANCE: AT&T Canada Long
Distance Services says the CRTC's deregulation of telco long
distance makes it "much more difficult for competition to
grow and thrive." AT&T says it is seriously considering an
appeal.
STENTOR SIMPLIFIES, CUTS LD RATES: Two days before the CRTC
announced deregulation of telco long distance, the Stentor
companies received the okay for Advantage Optimum, which
simplifies and cuts business long distance rates as of
January 1, 1998:
** Base rates are 16-19 cents in-province; 20 cents Canada-
wide; 25 cents U.S. Incoming and outgoing rates are
identical. Volume discounts range to 25%; contract
discounts, to 18%.
CRTC OKAYS THIRD-COUNTRY ROUTING AND SWITCHED HUBBING: In a
letter decision issued December 19, amending Decision 97-10,
the CRTC orders Teleglobe to delete references prohibiting
customers from using leased Teleglobe lines to route traffic
to third countries, retroactive to May 5, 1997.
UBI INTERACTIVE TV CONSORTIUM DISSOLVES: The UBI Consortium,
launched with great fanfare in 1994 as a cable industry path
to the information highway, has been dissolved. The
Consortium, whose leading members were Videotron, Hydro-
Quebec, and Canada Post, spent $80 Million equipping 20,000
Saguenay-region cable subscribers for interactive TV.
STENTOR SEEKS REGISTRATION OF INTERNET PROVIDERS: Stentor
has proposed that all Internet Service Providers be required
to register with the CRTC and declare that their Internet
Access Lines are not being used to provide voice long
distance services. The Canadian Association of Internet
Providers, which opposes the proposal, has been given until
January 28 to reply. For comments by Stentor, AT&T, CAIP, see:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/PROC_REP/TELECOM/1997/PART7/97-37s2.html
TELESAT TOLD TO CUT RATES 7%: CRTC Decision 97-17 requires
Telesat Canada to lower its satellite rates 7% on January 1.
Telesat had asked for a 10.2% increase.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/RELEASES/1997/r71218ef.htm
METRONET DEFINES SERVICE AREAS: MetroNet has provided the
CRTC with serving area maps for Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto,
and Montreal, the cities where it will begin local service
January 1. Local calling areas will be those of incumbent
telcos.
HIGH COST SERVING AREAS: Public Notice 97-42 opens an
examination of issues related to keeping service to high
cost serving areas affordable. Interested parties should
notify the Commission by February 1. Regional hearings will
be held in May/June 1998.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/TELECOM/NOTICE/1997/P9742_0.TXT
INDEPENDENT TELCOS CONTRIBUTION REGIME: Public Notice 97-41
seeks comment on complaints that interconnection fees
charged by Ontario/Quebec independent telcos are blocking
long distance competition. To participate, notify the CRTC
by January 19, 1998.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/TELECOM/NOTICE/1997/P9741_0.TXT
SATELLITE MULTIMEDIA PROGRAM LAUNCHED: Industry Canada has
launched a $10 Million project to develop a satellite
platform for multimedia services. Private partners,
including Bell Canada, Nortel, Spar, and Telesat, will
contribute 25% of the cost.
WTO TRADE DEAL IMPLEMENTATION DELAYED: Implementation of
the World Trade Organization's 70-country agreement to open
up world telecom trade, scheduled for January 1, will be
delayed. The U.S. has declined to sign final documents until
16 other countries that have not ratified declare their
intentions.
MCKENNA JOINS BRUNCOR BOARD: Former New Brunswick Premier
Frank McKenna will join the Board of NBTel's parent company,
Bruncor, on January 31.
DON'T LOSE TRACK OF 1997! Need a quick reminder on a rate
announcement? Trying to date a corporate takeover? As 1997
passes into history, this year's 49 issues of Telecom Update
are still posted on the Web to help you keep a grip on
events this year in Canadian telecommunications.
** For all weekly issues of Telecom Update since September
1995, go to http://www.angustel.ca/update/upindex.html
** To do a keyword search of all issues of Telecom Update,
go to http://www/Architext/AT-updatequery.html
============================================================
HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE
E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca
FAX: 905-686-2655
MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE
Angus TeleManagement Group
8 Old Kingston Road
Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7
===========================================================
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE)
TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There
are two formats available:
1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World
Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point
your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select
TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu.
2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of
charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to
majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message
should contain only the two words: subscribe update
To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail
message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message
should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address]
===========================================================
COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1997 Angus
TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further
information, including permission to reprint or reproduce,
please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext
228.
The information and data included has been obtained from
sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus
TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations
whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy.
Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available
information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on
the subject matter is required, the services of a competent
professional should be obtained.
============================================================
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #354
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 23 21:31:11 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id VAA07429; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:31:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:31:11 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712240231.VAA07429@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #355
TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Dec 97 21:30:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 355
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Wireless Digest (Wireless Guru)
Book List on Global Telecommunications (Robin E. Haberman)
Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway (Gail M. Hall)
Phones in Very Cold Environments (Robert Johnstone)
Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ... (Nathan Duehr)
Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ... (Aaron Leonard)
Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ... (Garrett Wollman)
Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ... (Barry Margolin)
Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ... (Stephen Balbach)
Re: Two-Line Phone With Message-Waiting Indicator? (Michelle Durbin)
Re: Two-Line Phone With Message-Waiting Indicator? (Bob Keller)
Whatever Happened to ... (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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: pbdevine@NOSPAM.aol.com (Wireless Guru)
Subject: Wireless Digest - December, 1997
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:43:22 GMT
Organization: University of California at San Diego
THE DIGITAL WIRELESS DIGEST
December 1997
WSJ: TDMA Sounds like "Marbles in your Mouth."
The Wall Street Journal and PCS Week are leading the reports of the
demise of AT&T Wireless' (TDMA) digital phone service. "AT&T
experienced quality problems" says the WSJ. And quoting an AT&T
customer, "It sounds like you've got marbles in your mouth." PCS
reports analysts are blaming TDMA: "Robert Rosenberg, president of New
Jersey- based Insight Research, blamed AT&T's troubles on the TDMA
standard, which many customers have described as having poorer voice
quality than other standards. Rosenberg said AT&T was "caught holding
the bag with TDMA. Nortel admitted that two years ago."
..EVEN READERS DIGEST IS GETTING INTO THE ACT...
Lowell Ponte, science editor for Readers Digest, reports on his
syndicated radio show that CDMA is "superior to TDMA."
..OUR MAN IN MONTREAL...
The American Embassy in Canada is reporting that the largest
cellular companies in Canada, Bell Mobility and Clearnet, are using
CDMA. The embassy predicts 20 percent to 30 percent growth in the
wireless digital market in Canada for the forseeable future.
..DITTO IN MEXICO...
Where Iusacell, Mexico's largest independent phone company, is
choosing CDMA for its cellular standard., because, said a piece in
the Los Angeles Daily News, it didn't want to get stuck with
"second-rate, Third World Technology."
For more related Articles and Postings, please go to the forum at
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Pbdevine/diginews.html">Digital Wireless
Phone Digest</A>
and
<A HREF="http://www.cdg.org">CDMA Development Group</A>
.. What TDMA Really Means...
If you are one of the few people who has yet to see the infamous
cartoon, go to the above address. Better yet, go straight to the
artist's website at
<A HREF="http://www.blarge.net/~margot/tdma.gif">What TDMA Really Means</A>
..DID SISKEL AND EBERT REALLY SAY THIS?
In the new James Bond flick, Bond uses a super-duper new cellular
phone -- that has just been recalled by the factory because of defects
-- it shuts off in the middle of conversations.
It's made by a Swedish company called Ericsson -- which, I read, is
one of five major sponsors of the Bond flick...
You know, this never happened when Bond used only the English-made
products issued by Q.
..GSM FRAUDULENT?
PCS Week reports that seven GSM wireless salespeople in South Carolina
and a few users are suing BellSouth Corp for misleading them "into
thinking its PCS network had superior quality to cellular service as
well as a comparable footprint." But. said their lawyer, "while
working for the global system for mobile communications (GSM)
operator, they weren't even making their draw of $16,000 per
year. They couldn't make money because the network was not there."
"The salespeople, charge in the suit--filed Nov. 12 in Forsyth County,
N.C., Superior Court--that the BellSouth subsidiary fraudulently
misrepresented its capacity to deliver clear, reliable phone service
throughout its publicized coverage area."
******************************************************
Send Comments and Postings to:
Michael P. McCarthy
1807 Maple St.
Wilmington, DE, 19805
302-996-2691
MickMCart@bigfoot.com
------------------------------
From: robineh@ibm.net (Robin E. Haberman)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 97 16:32:07
Reply-To: robineh@ibm.net
Subject: Book List on Global Telecommunications
The following is a list of books on International Telecommunications
Infrastructure and Policy.
Global Connections, International Telecommunications
Infrastructure and Policy. by Heather E. Hudson. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, ITO a division of International Thomson Publishing
Inc. 1997, 576 pages, ISBN 0-442-02362-6,
$57.50 (h) for orders http://www.vnt.com or http://www.vnr.com
Global Information and World Communication, by Hamid Mowlana,
second edition, Sage Publications, London - Thousand Oaks - New
Delhi, pages 270. 1997 ISBN 0 7619 5256 X, $75.00 (h)
$29.95 (p)
Global Communications in Transition, The End of Diversity. by
Hamid Mowlana. Sage Publications, London - Thousand Oaks - New
Delhi, pages 233. 1996, ISBN 0-8039-4318-0, under $30.00 (p)
International Communication and Globalization. Edited by
Ali Mohammadi, Sage Publications, London - Thousand Oaks - New
Delhi, pages 228. 1997,ISBN 0 7619 5553 4, $75.00 (h)
$29.95 (p)
Telecommunications in Transition, Policies, Services and
Technologies in the European Community. Edited by Charles
Steinfield, Johannes M. Bauer and Laurence Caby.
Sage Publications, London - Thousand Oaks - New Delhi,
pages 307. 1994, ISBN 0-8039-4606-6, under $30.00 (p)
The New Telecommunications, a political economy of network
evolution. by Robin Mansell. Sage Publications, London -
Thousand Oaks - New Delhi, pages 260. 1993 ISBN 0-8039-8535-5,
under $30.00 (p)
The Politics of World Communications, Communication and Human
Values. by Cees J. Hamelink. Sage Publications, London -
Thousand Oaks - New Delhi, pages 337. 1994
ISBN 0 8039 7822 7, $75.00 (h) $28.50 (p)
Ph: 1-805-499-9774 (for orders) or http://www.sagepub.com
Robin E. Haberman <robineh@ibm.net>
------------------------------
From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall)
Subject: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:17:53 GMT
Organization: APK Net, Ltd.
On 7 Dec 1997 01:44:08 GMT, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) posted to
comp.dcom.telecom about "Telecom on the New York City Subway System?":
> Per the recent post describing the telephone system in Toronto's
> subway system, I was wondering if anyone knew about the New York City
> subway system's phone system?
> For instance, before radios, they had telephones at frequent intervals
> within all the tunnels in case of train breakdown. Are those phones
> still there and working? (Tunnel vandalism is a problem.) Have
> phones in out of the way places been upgrade from plain rotary to
> dial?
This reminds me of a question my husband and I had on a recent trip to
the Washington, DC, area. In Maryland not far from Silver Spring we
saw signs urging people to call in to report anyone in trouble on the
freeway. Yet we did not see call boxes anywhere along that highway.
This would mean that people would have to leave the freeway to find a
phone or the authorities were depending on a significant number of
drivers having cell phones in their cars.
Yet along the Pennsylvania Turnpike we saw call boxes at regular
intervals all along the highway. Apparently these were installed long
before cell phones were available.
I wonder what percentage of drivers these days have cell phones in
their cars. I would think a significant number of them would need to
have them to make it worthwhile for authorities to post signs asking
drivers to call in and report people in trouble. Otherwise, it seems
that it would be a good idea to install call boxes on freeways if 80
percent or more of the people did not have cell phones.
Gail M. Hall
gmhall@apk.net
------------------------------
From: Robert Johnstone <johnstoneNO-SPAM@catlover.com>
Subject: Phones in Very Cold Environments
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 22:32:40 -0800
Organization: American Infometrics
I am wondering if there is a telephone that will holdup in -20 degrees
Fahrenheit (in an ice cream storage warehouse.) Is there a rubber
phone? Normal type of phones break in just a few days and the cords
don't last that long.
Thanks,
Robert
--
$$$ Please remove NO-SPAM from my return address to reply $$$
\\\|///
\\ - - //
( @ @ )
----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo-----------
Robert G. Johnstone Sr.
Modesto, California, U.S.A.
ICQ # 3265967
AOL Instant Messenger = RJCatlover
------------------------------
From: Nathan Duehr <nduehr@cfer.com>
Subject: Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:53:23 -0700
Organization: ConferTech International
I guess the fact that they're reportedly using Lucent technology to do
the voice over IP won't sway you in your resolve that it's a bad idea
technically? No one guarantees that it's going to sound good at 7.5
cents/min, but it's a gimmick to get business, just like any other
industry.
You don't believe you can really get a car loan for a reasonable
length of time for 2.9% APR either, now do you? Caveat emptor, right?
As far as TCP/IP being like billiards, I wholeheartedly disagree.
Open a TCP connection to another machine and the protocol gets very
upset if packets come in out of order ... ACK/NAK still exists in
TCP/IP, or can be added to the Application layer if you don't trust
the protocol to do it.
If packets wandered around like billiard balls, I seriously doubt
anyone would have ever been successful at building a "traceroute"
command for UNIX systems ... would they?
Oh yeah, FAX actually works better over IP telephony than voice does,
because fax machines can deal with latency, whereas the average human
doesn't like the "echo'ey" sound of phone lines with long end to end
return times. Echo cancellers get involved heavily when you start
doing teleconferencing applications and such, especially over networks
like ATM.
Nathan N. Duehr
Software Engineer, Frontier ConferTech
(800) 525-8244 x3444
------------------------------
From: aaron@cisco.com (Aaron Leonard)
Subject: Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
Date: 23 Dec 1997 00:36:46 GMT
Organization: cisco Systems
Reply-To: Aaron@cisco.com
In article <telecom17.353.7@telecom-digest.org>, telone@shout.net
(Aaron Woolfson) writes:
> It has always amazed me. There is something to be said for some
> company which is going to put into force marketing efforts to get
> 7.5 cents per minute *internet* telephone conversations (TCP/IP
> connections) between people.
Voice over IP is *never* TCP, always UDP.
> Never mind what it would do to fax.
Voice over IP can be a big *win* for fax. Since fax is digital
anyway, if the codecs can detect fax, then they can run the fax
transmission as native digital over the WAN fabric, yielding bandwidth
savings *and* reliability improvements.
> I guess I won't be putting my money in Qwest any time soon ...
> There is a very fundamental difference between the manner in which PCM
> encoded voice is transmitted and the way TCP/IP packets make it from
> one place to another. PCM encoded voice has a very definite reason
> for using a set bandwidth. The 8,000 frames of 8bits each which
> travel the distance between point A and B must have a reasonable
> assurance that they will make it in *sequential* order with very
> little drift ... in the tens of Pulses per Million ... or else a
> telephone conversation would sound like nothing except static.
It's not an issue of PCM vs. "TCP/IP". PCM is a method of digitally
encoding an analog signal. IP is a method of transmitting digital
data. Therefore one can transmit a PCM-encoded signal via IP. In
fact, this is what Qwest is doing (if I read between the lines of
their press release correctly.)
> TCP/IP packets are sort of like playing billiards ... one ball hits
> another and hits another and things all sort of move across the table
> in a chaotic, somewhat organized manner until the balls get in the
> right holes. Why would you want to send voice in such a manner? I
> don't know.
The primary reason why one would want to send voice over an IP fabric
would be to save bandwidth (and hence money).
> Perhaps just a publicity effort by a company jumping on the bandwagon
> of those who think that "Internet" will make the price of a stock go
> infinitely higher in this "W"orld "W"ide "W"ar for bandwidth.
I don't see any sign that Qwest is planning on sending its voice
traffic over "the Internet", but rather over their own IP network.
Therefore they would be (in principle) capable of engineering their
network fabric so as to deliver toll quality voice. Of course, we
will see how that fares.
I wonder myself where their cost savings (vs. circuit-switched voice)
will arise if they're really doing 64Kbps PCM encoding. A 64Kbps
isochronous stream over a packet-switched fabric would eat up more,
not less, bandwidth than over a circuit-switched one, due to the
packetization overhead. So maybe they're looking at gains purely via
silence suppression?
In any case, it will be interesting to watch as IP and telephony
collide. It looks as though Vint Cerf's motto of "IP on everything"
is being met by the corollary: "... and everything on IP".
Aaron (Leonard)
------------------------------
From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
Date: 22 Dec 1997 14:03:50 -0500
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
In article <telecom17.353.7@telecom-digest.org>, Aaron Woolfson
<telone@shout.net> wrote:
> one place to another. PCM encoded voice has a very definite reason
> for using a set bandwidth. The 8,000 frames of 8bits each which
> travel the distance between point A and B must have a reasonable
> assurance that they will make it in *sequential* order with very
> little drift ... in the tens of Pulses per Million ... or else a
> telephone conversation would sound like nothing except static.
Nonsense. All you need is a little buffering in the end-stations.
The amount of buffering required depends on the jitter in the network.
Since the amount of playback delay acceptable in a real-time
conversation is limited, there is of course a real limit to the amount
of jitter which can be successfully overcome, but that value is
nowhere near zero, more robust audio encodings can increase it
substantially. A far cry from ``nothing but static''. (Indeed, we've
not only known how to do this, but used it successfully in operational
networks, for more than a decade.)
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:11:50 GMT
In article <telecom17.353.7@telecom-digest.org>, Aaron Woolfson
<telone@shout.net> wrote:
> TCP/IP packets are sort of like playing billiards ... one ball hits
> another and hits another and things all sort of move across the table
> in a chaotic, somewhat organized manner until the balls get in the
> right holes. Why would you want to send voice in such a manner? I
> don't know.
This is a very incorrect description of how TCP/IP packets are transmitted.
TCP/IP packets are forwarded from router to router, much the same way
in which telephone switches forward their data. The difference is
that a TCP/IP router is allowed to delay or drop packets if it gets
overloaded; phone switches are configured so that all the switches
along the path ensure that they can handle the load before the
connection is established. TCP/IP handles the packet drops by having
the sender retransmit if necessary. If a connection between phone
switches fails and an alternate path can't be found that has available
resources, you get cut off; if a connection between routers fails,
traffic will be shunted to an alternate path, and you may get poorer
performance (since this path is now handling extra traffic) but you
probably won't get cut off.
Finally, there is work in progress to add appropriate features to
TCP/IP to provide dedicated bandwidth to applications. See RSVP, the
Resource Reservation Protocol, for instance. The expectation is that
Internet telephony won't be "real" until this is deployed. However,
even in the interim, upgrading the ISP backbones to gigabit speeds, as
is being done using Qwest's facilities, should make current Internet
telephony applications bearable.
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>
Please don't send technical questions directly to me, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
From: stephen@clark.net (Stephen Balbach)
Subject: Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
Date: 23 Dec 1997 02:14:48 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Balt/DC, mail all-info@clark.net
In article <telecom17.353.7@telecom-digest.org>, Aaron Woolfson
<telone@shout.net> wrote:
> It has always amazed me. There is something to be said for some
> company which is going to put into force marketing efforts to get
> 7.5 cents per minute *internet* telephone conversations (TCP/IP
> connections) between people. Never mind what it would do to fax.
> I guess I won't be putting my money in Qwest any time soon ...
> There is a very fundamental difference between the manner in which PCM
> encoded voice is transmitted and the way TCP/IP packets make it from
> one place to another. PCM encoded voice has a very definite reason
> for using a set bandwidth. The 8,000 frames of 8bits each which
> travel the distance between point A and B must have a reasonable
> assurance that they will make it in *sequential* order with very
> little drift ... in the tens of Pulses per Million ... or else a
> telephone conversation would sound like nothing except static.
> TCP/IP packets are sort of like playing billiards ... one ball hits
> another and hits another and things all sort of move across the table
> in a chaotic, somewhat organized manner until the balls get in the
> right holes. Why would you want to send voice in such a manner? I
> don't know.
This analogy is inaccurate. TCP/IP occurs in flows, in todays modern
internet, along fairly static paths. There is little wasted bandwidth
except in retransmissions due to lack of bandwidth (packet loss and
latency). In fact, TCP/IP uses exactly as much bandwidth as is needed
-- unlike circuit switching which is very wasteful, nailing up
bandwidth needed or not. Thus, TCP/IP is more effecient and less
costly.
Stephen Balbach
VP, ClarkNet A Member of the Verio Group (www.verio.net)
info@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Michelle Durbin <mdurbin@hihello.com>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Phone With Message-Waiting Indicator?
Date: 22 Dec 1997 14:44:33 GMT
Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service
You may be interested in the Lucent 951. It's only one-line, but it
has a lot of nice features:
- Message waiting light - works with phone company voicemail w/ stutter
dial tone
- Speakerphone
- Line-in use indicator
- Speed dial & auto redial
- Hold, mute, flash
We offer this phone for $79.95. Our item # is 5914.
Best Regards,
Michelle Durbin
Hello Direct
800-444-3556
xpressit@hihello.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:23:55 -0500
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Phone With Message-Waiting Indicator?
In TELECOM Digest V17 #351, J.D. Baldwin <baldwin@netcom.com> wrote,
regarding a search for a two-line phone with message waiting indicator:
> The closest I came was the Lucent 882, which at $185 is a bit more
> telephone than I had in mind. It includes all manner of bells and
> whistles I don't need (e.g., built-in CallerID, appointment reminders,
> a 200-name/number alphanumeric directory in memory). The $185 isn't
> coming out of my pocket, but I still hate to waste my employer's money
> only slightly less than I hate to waste my own.
I have the AT&T 882, which I assume is the same as the Lucent 882, and
while that is a tad pricey, I do like it. Most of those bells and
whistles are very useful to me. I've never used the appointment
reminders as an alarm or anything, but it is often handy to have a
full-month-size calendar show up in the LCD window at the touch of a
button while I'm on the phone. The caller ID function allows me to
scroll through the list of previous incoming calls, and then dial one
back at the touch of a button. The alphanumeric phone directory is
also great ... the way they have it set up, I can enter multiple phone
number (office, home, pager, etc.) for a single entry, and then point
and shoot at the one I want to dial. The built-in speaker phone seems
to work well. About the only feature I've ever wished it has that it
does not -- I would like to be able to store a caller-id capture
directly into the directory. I don't remember what I paid for mine
(I've had it at least a couple years), but all-in-all, I think I'd be
willing to pay $185 for it today.
Bob Keller (KY3R)
rjk@telcomlaw.com
www.his.com/~rjk/
------------------------------
From: Bill Levant <Wlevant@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 20:29:31 EST
Subject: Whatever Happened to....
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
... Spamford, Cyberpromo and the aptly-nicknamed "Spambone"?
Last I heard, Spammy was going to create his own national
spam-friendly backbone, with interconnections to the civilized world
at "unspecified peering points". Without interconnection, of course,
the spammers would only be able to spam each other [which is not too
terrible an outcome, if you ask me...]
That was about two months ago. A search of the {NY Times} site
reveals the most recent article containing the words "Cyber" and
"Promotions" was on October 18th, when AGIS pulled the plug on Spammy.
Anyone know what's up? Did he fade into well-deserved obscurity?
Is he buying Worldcom? What gives ?
Bill
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You need to study up on biology. :)
Reptiles, like other cold-blooded creatures go into hibernation in
the winter months. Oh? You don't think that is the reason he has
not been seen or heard around the net lately? Maybe not ... whatever
happened with that telco or long distance carrier or whatever it was
in New England that was supposed to work with him? Is that deal
off now also? I've not seen any change in the volume of luncheon
meat to land in the telecom mailbox from one day to the next. How
many of you are getting the same one I get usually four or five
times per day ... it NEVER has a subject line, comes from various
addresses but with certain common lines in the header of each one.
It tries to sell an email spam program; gold something .... PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #355
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 24 00:32:19 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id AAA18653; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:32:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:32:19 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712240532.AAA18653@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #356
TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Dec 97 00:32:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 356
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll (Mark J. Cuccia)
Toll-Free Cellular For Sale (Judith Oppenheimer)
Intra-LATA, 'Zone 3' per Minute Telephone Rate Info (Rick Davis)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Linc Madison)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (John R. Levine)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Lee Winson)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Steven Lichter)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Nils Anderson)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (J.D. Baldwin)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Anthony Argyriou)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Henry Baker)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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, 23 Dec 1997 21:49:52 EST
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
After feuding with Ameritech for months -- or has it been years --
AT&T has announced that it is suspending its efforts to get into local
phone service effective immediatly.
In an effort to cut costs and ease the financial drain the company has
been plagued with in recent months as well as buoy its stock price,
AT&T has also announced a freeze on hiring and 'consideration to be
given to further reductions in its work force'. Decisions for the
company are now being made by C. Michael Armstrong, a corporate
turn-around artist who became AT AT&T chairman two months ago.
The company will continue to service 'for the time being' existing
local service customers in Illinois and five other states, but will
not expand those efforts.
AT&T has placed the for this business failure squarely on Ameritech,
and the other Baby Bells, saying they have erected numerous barriers
to competition in an effort to hold on to their monopolies. As to be
expected, Ameritech officials and executives at other Bell telcos have
vigorously denied those charges.
AT&T says it lost four billion dollars on the local service venture,
and even when you don't have a big phone bill to pay every month
<grin> that is still a massive hunk of change.
Armstrong says the attempt to go into local service was a very, very
costly mistake by AT&T. I hope it was not a fatal mistake.
PAT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:23:07 -0600
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll
Ram Samudrala wrote:
> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works.
> I've had two friends who were burned after receiving large phone
> bills where they dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were
> flat rate, but were charged for it nonetheless. All three of us
> moved to the area at the same time, and we all requested phone
> books, but none of us got them. Apparently the phone book contains
> this information (about what three-digit-prefixes are toll-free),
> but none of the other junk they got from PB (which is quite a bit)
> contained this information.
> I consider this deceptive (the lack of distinction between toll calls
> and non-toll calls, and the lack of clear statement by PB about what
> constitutes a local call and what doesn't), and I'd like to force PB
> to change. Basically, this is what I'd like PB to do (one of these
> will do, but more than one will be good):
> 1. In the initial statement that confirms the service request, they
> should list what three-digit-prefixes are toll-free for the current
> number.
> 2. In every bill, where they write "zone 1 and zone 2 calls are free"
> (or some similar statements), they should say what three-digit
> prefixes belong in zone 1 and zone 2.
A list of which NPA-NXX's are local (free) and which other (nearby)
NPA-NXX's are toll or zoned _SHOULD_ always be available in every bill,
IMO. It would have to be updated most likely on a monthly basis, since
presently is constant growth in new assigned (NPA)-NXX codes.
You can always call your local operator or business office, when in
doubt as to if a particular NPA-NXX is local (free) or toll/zoned to
your calling NPA-NXX. If toll/zoned, you should also be able to get the
rates in effect for the particular time-of-day or day-of-week, for
whichever local/toll calling plan you might have.
In California (and certain other urban/metro areas/states of the
Midwest and Northeast), certain local/free calls to a differing (usually
adjacent or nearby metro area) NPA code are dialed with a _mandatory_
1+ before the full ten-digit number! Yet depending on the c/o prefix
part of a (Home-NPA) 'straight' seven-digit number, that call could be
a _TOLL_ call!?
There has been a school of thought in dialing that (Home) NPA calls,
_REGARDLESS_ of their local vs. toll status are to be dialed as
'straight' seven-digits, while 'differing' NPA calls, again _REGARDLESS_
of their local vs. toll status are to be dialed with a _mandatory_ 1+
followed by the full ten-digits. In effect, you lose the capability to
'easily' determine if a call is local or toll, based on whether or not
you are required to dial a 1+ before the number.
> 3. They should change the phone system to better enable distinction
> between toll calls and toll free calls. Here's an ideal system which
> worked in MD under Bell Atlantic:
AGREED!
> From Rockvlle, MD (301) xxx-xxxx:
> To Rockville - non toll call - same area code -
> (301) xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxxx.
Well, Maryland has overlay area codes now, along with mandatory local
ten-digit dialing. A local call MUST be dialed as NPA-NXX-xxxx, whether
the NPA is the same as the calling party, or a differing one, even if
(especially if) located in the same geographic region.
> To some parts of Virginia - non toll call - different area code -
> (703) xxx-xxxx
> To DC - non toll call - different area code - (202) xxx-xxxx
> To Frederick - toll call - same area code - 1 (301) xxx-xxxx
> To other parts of Virginia - toll call - different area code -
> 1 (703) xxx-xxxx
> So even though you have different area codes from MD to DC, and MD
> to VA, you can dial from MD to DC and MD to VA using ONLY 10 digits
> when it is a toll free call. You have no idea how useful this is
> when given a number in VA -- you could just dial it (without a one)
> and see if you connect or not.
> I am currently arguing with the CPUC about this and I plan to take
> this all the way to make PB do one of the above three things. Since
> my mind is already made up to fight this, I'd appreciate any
> ammunition you can provide. Once I exhaust my appeals process with
> CPUC, I would like to take PB to court over this -- can I do that, and
> how should I proceed?
I am in favor of _requiring_ a 1+ before dialing ten-digits on any and
all (station billed to calling-line) toll calls. 'Home' NPA toll calls
would have to be dialed as 1+ the 'home' NPA code followed by the
seven-digit number. And ideally, _local_ and free calls to differing
(adjacent or nearby) NPA codes 'should' be made dialable as 'straight'
ten-digits, not requiring a 1+. However, if the digits of the adjacent
area code are also in use as a local c/o code in _YOUR_ area code,
there would be a dialing conflict. Either the 'timing' method would
need to be used (very UNdesirable), _or_ a mandatory 1+ would be
required before dialing (ten-digit) local calls in adjacent NPA's.
In the long run, _OVERLAY_ area codes are going to require ten-digit
local dialing be phased in throughout most (if not all) of North America.
I just hope we don't lose our ability to determine local vs. toll by use
or lack of a 1+.
One extra note ... IMO, while I am in favor of ten-digit local dialing
becoming mandatory, along with overlay area codes, as well as requiring
1+ before ten-digits on _all_ toll calls, I also want to see _LOCAL_
and free calls also _PERMISSIVELY_ dialable (at the _customer's whim)
as 1+ ten-digits.
To sum it up, IMO:
- 'straight' ten-digit dialed calls would connect _only_ if the called
NPA-NXX is local/free to the calling party
- 1+ ten-digit dialed calls would connect in all cases. The calling
party would be billed if there is a toll charge to call that dialed
NPA-NXX, but not be billed if the dialed NPA-NXX is local/free
- Toll/chargeable calls would connect _only_ if the calling party had
dialed a mandatory 1+ before the full ten-digit 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-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:07:09 -0500
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting...
Subject: Toll-Free Cellular For Sale
Toll-Free Cellular is "positioned for sale", according to Greg Carder,
former Director, Sales Operations for the company. The company ran out
of money and couldn't get to the next round of funding without a
national contract. Of ninety-odd employees, three remain and are
seeking a buyer.
Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - http://www.icbtollfree.com
Mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com with your name, company
name and title to activate 15-day FREE Online trial subscription.
Incl. fax number (U.S. only) for FREE Fax Edition trial subscription.
FREE GIFT OFFER: mailto:freegift@icbtollfree.com
------------------------------
Subject: Intra-LATA, 'Zone 3' per Minute Telephone Rate Info
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 97 14:58:11 -0800
From: Rick Davis <rick@productman.com>
I am working on a research project, and I need the intra-LATA, zone 3
per minute telephone rates charged by the LECs in 40 cities (listed
below). I could obviously call each LEC and ask, but I am hoping you
or someone you know can provide this information more efficiently, in
a summary form.
I have listed the cities below-- do you know of a source for this
information?
Zone 3
City, ST, Area Code $0.00/min
--------------------------------------- ---------
Phoenix AZ 602
Anaheim CA 714
San Jose/Silicon Valley CA 408/650/510
Los Angeles CA 213
Oakland/San Francisco CA 415
Sacramento CA 916
San Diego CA 619
Denver CO 303
Miami FL 305
Orlando FL 407
Tampa Bay FL 813
Jacksonville FL 904
Atlanta GA 404/770
Chicago IL 312/773
Indianapolis IN 317
New Orleans LA 504
Boston MA 617
Baltimore MD 410/443
Detroit MI 313
Minneapolis MN 612
Kansas City MO 816
St. Louis MO 314
Charlotte NC 704
East Rutherford NJ 201
New York NY 212/718
Buffalo NY 716
Cleveland OH 216
Cincinnati OH 513
Portland OR 503
Pittsburg PA 412/724
Philadelphia PA 215
Memphis TN 901
Houston TX 281
Arlington TX 817
Dallas TX 972/214
San Antonio TX 210
Salt Lake City UT 801
Seattle WA 206
Milwaukee WI 414
Green Bay WI 920
Rick Davis, President
ProductMan - High Tech Product Marketing
805.569.2473 office 805.569.9581 fax
rick@productman.com
------------------------------
From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:44:21 -0800
Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM
In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org>, expt@alanine.ram.org
wrote:
> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. I've had two
> friends who were burned (and after posting this on misc.legal.moderated,
> I've found a lot more) after receiving large phone bills where they
> dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
> charged for it nonetheless. All three of us moved to the area at the
> same time, and we all requested phone books, but none of us got them.
> Apparently the phone book contains this information (about what
> three-digit-prefixes are toll-free), but none of the other junk they
> got from PB (which is quite a bit) contained this information.
> I consider this deceptive (the lack of distinction between toll calls
> and non-toll calls, and the lack of clear statement by PB about what
> constitutes a local call and what doesn't), and I'd like to force PB
> to change. Basically, this is what I'd like PB to do (one of these
> will do, but more than one will be good):
There is a very clear distinction between Zone 1&2, Zone 3, and Toll.
A local (Zone 1/2) call is anything within twelve rate-miles of your
rate center. A Zone 3 call is anything from 12 to 16 miles, and toll
is anything 17 miles or more. (Those are the normal rules in metro
areas; the rules are different in rural areas and a few special cases.)
Where there is no distinction is in the dialing instructions for the
different categories of call.
> 1. In the initial statement that confirms the service request, they
> should list what three-digit-prefixes are toll-free for the current
> number.
They take the more common-sense approach of telling you to look in the
front of the local telephone directory. All the information you need
is right there. There is a nice little chart that says, "If your
number begins with XXX, then the following prefixes are in your local
calling area, and the following prefixes are in your Zone 3 calling
area and cost extra."
Incidentally, not all of the local numbers to Palo Alto are in area
code 650. There are quite a number of prefixes in 408 that are local
to Palo Alto. However, since it is a different area code, you must
dial 1+408+number for those local calls. There are also several
prefixes in 510 that are local, but again you must dial 1+510+number
because the area code is different.
You see, in California, the rule is very simple: 1+ means "area code
follows." Seven digits just means "same area code." Neither one has
any meaning regarding toll status. Never has, except for possibly a
few isolated exceptions (a small rural independent, perhaps).
> 2. In every bill, where they write "zone 1 and zone 2 calls are free"
> (or some similar statements), they should say what three-digit-prefixes
> belong in zone 1 and zone 2.
There are currently well over 300 prefixes within my Zone 1&2 area, and
I don't even live in Los Angeles. Your Zone 1&2 area includes prefixes
in three different area codes (650, 408, 510). Your suggestion is
prohibitively cumbersome.
> 3. They should change the phone system to better enable distinction
> between toll calls and toll free calls. Here's an ideal system which
> worked in MD under Bell Atlantic:
>
> From Rockvlle, MD (301) xxx-xxxx:
>
> To Rockville - non toll call - same area code - (301) xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxxx.
You can no longer dial that call as only seven digits in Rockville, MD,
by the way. You must dial the full 10-digit number, either 301-xxx-xxxx
or 240-xxx-xxxx, to reach another number in Rockville.
> To some parts of Virginia - non toll call - different area code -
> (703) xxx-xxxx
> To DC - non toll call - different area code - (202) xxx-xxxx
> To Frederick - toll call - same area code - 1 (301) xxx-xxxx
> To other parts of Virginia - toll call - different area code -
> 1 (703) xxx-xxx
>
> So even though you have different area codes from MD to DC, and MD to
> VA, you can dial from MD to DC and MD to VA using ONLY 10 digits when
> it is a toll free call. You have no idea how useful this is when
> given a number in VA -- you could just dial it (without a one) and see
> if you connect or not.
This is not up to Pacific Bell. This is entirely a matter for the
CPUC. In order for Pacific Bell to implement this plan, it would
require a CPUC order.
Furthermore, there is a fundamental problem: there are already places
in California that cannot have permissive dialing of 7 digits for
local calls in the same area code with 10 digits (without 1+) for local
calls to nearby area codes. For instance, in three months, 408-925
will be local to some portions of area code 925. I'm sure there are
also examples in the Los Angeles area. Thus, the only way that you
can have toll alerting in California is to first go to full 1+10D on
all calls (local or toll, same area code or different), and THEN
introduce 10D (without 1+) for local calls.
Up until the introduction of prefixes with 1 or 0 as the middle digit
in the Bay Area, I could place any call in North America just by dialing
area code + number, which was, in fact, the published instructions.
There were even a few pathological cases of switch techs routing any
call dialed 1+ to an error recording, since the published instructions
did not say to dial 1+. Much of area code 408 didn't require 1+ until
shortly before the "new format" area codes came into use in 1995.
> I am currently arguing with the CPUC about this and I plan to take
> this all the way to make PB do one of the above three things. Since
> my mind is already made up to fight this, I'd appreciate any
> ammunition you can provide. Once I exhaust my appeals process with
> CPUC, I would like to take PB to court over this -- can I do that, and
> how should I proceed?
You certainly *could* take Pacific Bell to court, but you might have a
difficult time finding an attorney to represent you, because you don't
have a snowball's prayer of winning. Pacific Bell would claim, quite
rightly, that it simply followed the rules of California law as set
forth by the CPUC and that therefore your case is without merit. Indeed,
the odds are very good that your case would be dismissed without so much
as a hearing. Of course, since this *is* California, I should mention
that I am not an attorney, so my comments should not be construed as
professional legal advice.
> The bottom line is that if I had a choice of not using PB and another
> local service, I'd not be with PB right now.
The dialing plan offered by the competitors is the same. California is
a "non-toll-alerting" state. Part of the reason for that fact is that
the definition of "local" depends on your class of service. If you have
unmeasured service, all of your Zone 1&2 calls are untimed and included
in your basic monthly charge; you pay extra for all Zone 3 and Toll calls.
However, if you have measured service, your Zone 1&2 and Zone 3 calls all
count against a monthly allowance that is included in your basic monthly
charge; you pay extra for Zone 1&2 and Zone 3 calls that exceed your
monthly allowance, and for all Toll calls. Essentially, to carry the
toll alerting philosophy to its logical conclusion, the switch would have
to keep a running tally of your bill each month, and as soon as you used
up your monthly allowance of Zone 1&2 and Zone 3 calls, you would have to
dial 1+10D for *ALL* calls.
(In case anyone is wondering why it's "Zone 1&2" and "Zone 3," there
were three separate zones until about 1990 (+/-), at which time Zone 1
and Zone 2 were fused into Zone 1&2.)
The bottom line is, Pacific Bell screwed up in not getting your phone
books to you in a timely manner (and not suggesting that you find a
Lucky supermarket, most of which have directories available at or near
the customer service counter). Beyond that, they did nothing deceptive
or wrong.
** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind **
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com
URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits
>> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" <<
------------------------------
Date: 23 Dec 1997 23:28:47 -0000
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org is written:
> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. [ Had an
> incorrect idea of how phone dialing works, didn't know he was making
> toll calls, believes he's been defrauded. ]
Large urbanized states including New York, New Jersey, and California
have never used 1+ to indicate toll calls. You dial 1+ before calls
to different area codes, to indicate that ten digits follow,
regardless of how the calls will be billed. Calls within your area
code can be dialed with seven digits, again regardless of how they
will be billed. This dialing plan has been around since the advent
of N9X area codes. Before that, you didn't have to dial 1 at all.
Those of us who use our telephone to call people with whom we wish to
speak find that this system serves our needs quite well, since it
allows us to complete the calls we make quickly and efficiciently
without having to memorize long lists of dialing rules for every
possible three-digit prefix.
Please don't expect state regulators to screw up a well settled and
well defined dialing plan. If you don't want to make toll calls,
don't make toll calls. If it's important to you to know in advance
whether a call will be local or toll, dial the operator and ask.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 24 Dec 1997 00:43:49 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
> dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
> charged for it nonetheless. All three of us moved to the area at the
> same time, and we all requested phone books, but none of us got them.
....
> I consider this deceptive (the lack of distinction between toll calls
....
I don't think it is reasonable to expect any changes to the dialing
system, as it used nationwide.
Where I work in area code 609, (New Jersey) a 7-digit number could be
local, regional long distance (carried by Bell), or cross LATA long
distance (carried by a national company). And there are 1+ac+7d
numbers into Pennsylvania that are local. A lot of times people won't
call me from Pennsy because they think it's long distance when it's
actually local.
Local/toll dialing patterns vary tremendously depending on how dense
the area codes and historical local calling areas are.
The traditional reference source is the front section of the telephone
directory. In your particular case, PacBell's failure to send you a
telephone directory as you requested may give you some leverage.
You used to be able to dial the operator and ask if a call is local.
Bell Atlantic offers an 800 number where you can check an areacode
and exchange first. Maybe PacBell does too.
------------------------------
From: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 23 Dec 1997 18:18:07 -0800
Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company
Dr. Ram Samudrala (ram.samudrala@stanford.nojunkemail) wrote:
> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. I've had two
> friends who were burned (and after posting this on misc.legal.moderated,
> I've found a lot more) after receiving large phone bills where they
> dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
> charged for it nonetheless. All three of us moved to the area at the
> same time, and we all requested phone books, but none of us got them.
> Apparently the phone book contains this information (about what
> three-digit-prefixes are toll-free), but none of the other junk they
> got from PB (which is quite a bit) contained this information.
When you get phone service, in most cases you should have gotten a local
directory when they came out, or in a day or so. I also believe that in
Calif. most local calls are within 6-10 miles, with the exception in some
areas that have few people in them or community of interest zones. After
that they are zone 2-5.
What do you want PacBell to do, bring back 1 plus (SATT Access) for any
call that is not local, how about step switches, must simplier to work on
and a lot more fun, maybe outlaw touch tone. Be real!!!!
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 Macintosh computers.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:16:52 -0500
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org>, Dr. Ram Samudrala
<ram.samudrala@stanford.nojunkemail> writes:
A lot of complaining ...
Stop sniveling. In California, there has traditionally been no
distinction between toll and non-toll calls as far as dialling. Also,
the BellCore standards as of 1995-01-01 states that seven-digit
dialing shall always work within the area code, and 1+ac+seven digits
and 0+ac+seven digits shall always work. (Note that this allows but
does NOT require that a local telco implements ac+seven for e.g. a
non-toll call.)
If you did not get a phone book, you could have called them back and
requested one, or picked one up at a phone store.
If you REALLY care, the operator will tell you if a call is toll or
non-toll.
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis.
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:28:56 GMT
In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org>, Dr. Ram Samudrala
<expt@alanine.ram.org> wrote:
> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. I've had two
> friends who were burned (and after posting this on misc.legal.moderated,
> I've found a lot more) after receiving large phone bills where they
> dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
> charged for it nonetheless. All three of us moved to the area at the
> same time, and we all requested phone books, but none of us got them.
> Apparently the phone book contains this information (about what
> three-digit-prefixes are toll-free), but none of the other junk they
> got from PB (which is quite a bit) contained this information.
We Ameritech victims (customers) *laugh* at your pathetic Pacific
Bell travails. I called Ameritech and *asked* for a list of all
prefixes local to my number. It took multiple tries to communicate
what it was I wanted, I didn't get it for over a week (apparently
the telephone company doesn't have the technology to send a page
via this newfangled "fax" machine you may have heard of), and when
I got it, it was incorrect.
Ameritech is sort of infamous around here for changing the rules
without significant attempts to notify its customers. Thus, if you
use an ISP, you might get a nasty $500+ surprise in your next
telephone bill.
What the hell is the technical impediment to requiring 1-xxx- before
the seven-digit number for toll calls, and only seven digits for local
calls, anyway? (Exclusive, of course, of "local" calls outside one's
own area code.) There seems to be no good technical reason for this,
only a revenue reason for it. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if it
were discovered that Ameritech is running analyses to determine who
is dialing what exchanges the most for the longest calls, and basing
their rate changes on those. Grrrrrrrr.
And while I'm at it, I'm still mad as hell at Ameritech for spamming
my voice-mail box, which *I* pay for. Double-grrrrrrrrr.
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you had that problem,
although things vary depending on who you talk to there. At one point
I asked the same thing about a couple of exchanges which were
unfamiliar to me and after a bit of discussion the rep volunteered
to send me a page from a manual she had for her own reference. I
got in the mail a few days later two photocopied pages, one each
for Chicago-Rogers Park (which is in 773 directly south of me) and
one for Evanston/Skokie/Morton Grove, IL. I used it to help someone
program a toll-restrictor on a phone in a public area. PAT]
------------------------------
From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:25:08 GMT
Organization: Alpha Geotechnical
Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com
On 21 Dec 1997 10:54:38 GMT, Dr. Ram Samudrala
<ram.samudrala@stanford.nojunkemail> wrote:
> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. I've had two
> friends who were burned (and after posting this on misc.legal.moderated,
> I've found a lot more) after receiving large phone bills where they
> dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
> charged for it nonetheless. All three of us moved to the area at the
> same time, and we all requested phone books, but none of us got them.
> Apparently the phone book contains this information (about what
> three-digit-prefixes are toll-free), but none of the other junk they
> got from PB (which is quite a bit) contained this information.
Phone books are available in most major grocery stores in the Bay
Area. It is not Pac Bell's job to do _your_ homework for you.
I personally prefer _not_ having 1+7d dialing, because I don't have
to keep up with the ever expanding list of which exchanges in 3
different area codes (510, 415, 650) are local, and which are not.
> I consider this deceptive (the lack of distinction between toll calls
> and non-toll calls, and the lack of clear statement by PB about what
> constitutes a local call and what doesn't),
Publishing this information in the phone book is more than sufficient
"clear statement" of this information.
>and I'd like to force PB to change. Basically, this is what I'd
>like PB to do (one of these will do, but more than one will be good):
Here's the heart of the matter - you are powerhungry, driven by
resentment at _your_ failure to do your own research.
> 1. In the initial statement that confirms the service request, they
> should list what three-digit-prefixes are toll-free for the current
> number.
This actually sounds good - but it's in the phone book, and you can
pick up a phone book at most Lucky's and Safeways in the area.
You could also call PacBell to complain about not receiving a
phone book.
> 2. In every bill, where they write "zone 1 and zone 2 calls are free"
> (or some similar statements), they should say what three-digit-prefixes
> belong in zone 1 and zone 2.
And make the 7 page bill expand to 12 pages? NO THANKS!
> 3. They should change the phone system to better enable distinction
> between toll calls and toll free calls. Here's an ideal system which
> worked in MD under Bell Atlantic:
[snip 1+7/10 toll scheme description]
NO. I don't want to have to try to remember which prefixes are local
and which aren't, and I don't want to have to redial lots of calls. I
know approximately which cities are local and which aren't (though
I've been surprised to find some calls local which I didn't realise
were), and I usually know where I'm calling.
> I am currently arguing with the CPUC about this and I plan to take
> this all the way to make PB do one of the above three things. Since
> my mind is already made up to fight this, I'd appreciate any
I am going to send in a letter to the CPUC to request that NO change
be made in regards to your complaint, that it is baseless, and that
the changes would impose more hardship than they would alleviate.
> ammunition you can provide. Once I exhaust my appeals process with
> CPUC, I would like to take PB to court over this -- can I do that, and
> how should I proceed?
My advice: GIVE UP. You were too lazy to complain about not
getting a phone book, too lazy to go to the store to get one, and
too lazy to do your own research! Quit whining, learn your lesson,
and get on with life.
> The bottom line is that if I had a choice of not using PB and another
> local service, I'd not be with PB right now.
You really expect better, clearer directions from the competition?
Like MCI or SPRINT? LOL!!!
Anthony Argyriou
http://www.alphageo.com
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:50:54 GMT
In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org>, expt@alanine.ram.org
wrote:
> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. I've had two
> friends who were burned (and after posting this on misc.legal.moderated,
> I've found a lot more) after receiving large phone bills where they
> dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
> charged for it nonetheless....
It's easy: In Los Angeles, _everything_ is a toll call, except to a
neighbor on either side of you. :-) :-)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Ram, it appears the jury has found
you guilty on all counts. There are a dozen more letters I did not
include in this issue, but they all said the same thing as the half-
dozen or so I printed above. Had there been at least one -- just one --
which spoke in agreement with you I would have included it. Most of
the readers here consider me to be fair in that way. But not one
person wrote to express agreement. Having been found guilty, punish-
ment will be imposed over the next three days or so. On each day you
will be required to be merry and overindulge in food and drink
throughout the day and evening. Hannukah and Christmas fall one day
apart this year due to flukes in the Jewish and solar calendars so I
can at this point simply close this issue with a single benediction to
all readers -- including you, Ram: have a wonderful (you fill in the
blank) ... seriously, to each and every reader, have a very happy
holiday. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #356
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 25 15:20:26 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id PAA01230; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 15:20:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 15:20:26 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712252020.PAA01230@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #357
TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Dec 97 15:20:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 357
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Dr. Ram Samudrala)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (John David Galt)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Michael Hayworth)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (john99@writeme.com)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Orin Eman)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Jon Solomon)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (John R. Levine)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Adam H. Kerman)
Toll Alerting (Roger Fajman)
1+7D Dialing in Alabama (Bryan Bethea)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (Jack Daniel)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (Travis Dixon)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (L. Raphael)
Sprint Billing Problems (Nirav Gosalia)
New US-China Fiber Cable (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Re: Wireless Digest - December, 1997 (Henry Baker)
Re: Wireless Digest - December, 1997 (Ryan Tucker)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: Dr. Ram Samudrala <ram.samudrala@stanford.nojunkemail>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 24 Dec 1997 14:20:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University
Reply-To: expt@alanine.ram.org
Thanks for all the responses. As I've said, my mind is made up, and I
will be taking this as far as it goes. I just wanted to clarify a few
things:
1. To the few people who engaged in ad hominems about me: /I/ didn't
have to deal with this (but after these postings, I now know several
people who ran up large bills). So any comments made about me
personally wrong. My motivation in doing this is to see what I can do
to convince PB to change (given my previous luck in dealing with
government bureacracies and forcing them to change, I figure PB should
be easier).
2. To the moderator: I thought there was at least one letter that was
in agreement with me, but I received several over e-mail. I can post
them with the permission of the author if you really want. <-:
3. I said one of these three things will do:
A. In the initial statement that confirms the service request, they
should list what three-digit-prefixes are toll-free for the current
number.
B. In every bill, where they write "zone 1 and zone 2 calls are free"
(or some similar statements), they should say what three-digit-prefixes
belong in zone 1 and zone 2.
C. They should change the phone system to better enable distinction
between toll calls and toll free calls.
Given how much junk PB prints in a bill, I think (1) is fairly
tractable. (2) is more cumbersome, but also doable. I did a small
calculation and came to the conclusion that 800 prefixes can be
included (using the small type that PB uses in the back of a page) in
less than half-a-page.
It seems to me that most resistance is against (C). Fine. I fully
understand the need in the future to require ALL dialing to be
11-digits. I like this, but this also mean better warnings need to be
put in place to what constitutes a toll call and what does not.
In the initial confirmation of service letter, they don't even say you
should look in the phone book. The least they could've done is this.
Ram
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
---Eleanor Roosevelt
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Ram, read on a bit further in today's
issue. There are a few more responses you might be interested in. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jdg@but-i-dont-like-spam.boxmail.com (John David Galt)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 25 Dec 1997 04:57:34 GMT
Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society
Quoth Linc Madison <Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM>:
> In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org>, expt@alanine.ram.org
> wrote:
[snip]
>> 1. In the initial statement that confirms the service request, they
>> should list what three-digit-prefixes are toll-free for the current
>> number.
> They take the more common-sense approach of telling you to look in the
> front of the local telephone directory. All the information you need
> is right there. There is a nice little chart that says, "If your
> number begins with XXX, then the following prefixes are in your local
> calling area, and the following prefixes are in your Zone 3 calling
> area and cost extra."
I have only one that: Pacific Bell's information is not complete. In
particular, they have an unstated policy of not listing any cellular
prefixes. If your friend gives you a cellular number and you look up
the prefix in a PB directory, it won't be listed; what's worse, the
book tells you that "If a prefix isn't listed here, it is in another
Service Area."
The listing also omits some choke exchanges (for instance, the 808
prefix in area codes 408/415/510/650/707).
It's understandable that the book may fail to list prefixes created
since it went to press. But I think it's unacceptable that PB doesn't
list prefixes it knows about. It means you have to guess, and may
wind up getting fooled as the original poster did.
As far as "toll alerting": Most people in California don't want it.
But politics aside, the problem is going away: California's area codes
are splitting so much that pretty soon there won't be any home-NPA
toll calls.
John David Galt
------------------------------
From: Michael Hayworth <msh1@airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:14:15 -0600
Organization: Innovative TeleSolutions
Lee Winson wrote:
> I don't think it is reasonable to expect any changes to the dialing
> system, as it used nationwide.
Not anywhere near nationwide. In fact, I'm amazed reading this thread
that in CA, NY & NJ dialing rules make no distinction between a toll
and a non-toll call.
In most of the rest of the country, 1+ dialing is always required for
a toll call. If you can dial it without a 1+, it's a free call.
And some of the posts in this message (probably from CA, where I hear
they have reasonable intrastate LD rates) sound like they don't care
whether a call is toll or not. Since it costs me (in Fort Worth) a
heck of a lot more to call San Antonio than San Francisco, and even
more for an intra-LATA LD call than an extra-LATA instrastate call,
you bet I care whether a short-haul call is toll or not.
Michael Hayworth
VP Technology
Innovative TeleSolutions
------------------------------
From: john99@+DELETE+THIS+writeme.com
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 17:37:49 -0800
Organization: John's Place
On 21 Dec 1997 10:54:38 GMT, Dr. Ram Samudrala <ram.samudrala@stanford.
nojunkemail> wrote about "Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell":
> The bottom line is that if I had a choice of not using PB and another
> local service, I'd not be with PB right now.
You do have a choice, take a look at this:
http://www.mci.com/aboutus/products/local/CA2.shtml
Of course MCI will be leasing the lines from PacBell and reselling
them to you, but now you have a middle man!
==--==**==--==**==--==**==--==**==--==**==--==**==--==**==--==**==--==
Spam stopping measures in place. In order to reply by E-mail please
remove the +DELETE+THIS+ section of my E-mail address.
------------------------------
From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 24 Dec 1997 19:00:53 GMT
Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C
hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) writes:
> In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org>, expt@alanine.ram.org
> wrote:
>> I have a problem with the way Pacific Bell (PB) works. I've had two
>> friends who were burned (and after posting this on misc.legal.moderated,
>> I've found a lot more) after receiving large phone bills where they
>> dialed 7 digit numbers, and their numbers were flat rate, but were
>> charged for it nonetheless....
> It's easy: In Los Angeles, _everything_ is a toll call, except to a
> neighbor on either side of you. :-) :-)
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Ram, it appears the jury has found
> you guilty on all counts. There are a dozen more letters I did not
> include in this issue, but they all said the same thing as the half-
> dozen or so I printed above. Had there been at least one -- just one --
Well, in the Seattle area of WA, US Worst/the utilities commission
chose 1+ is long distance, or it doesn't go thru.
Since last time I asked, they wouldn't/couldn't PIC the local toll
calls to AT&T, and I refuse to pay their rates, this is a decided
benefit to me.
For the casual user, it takes far less time to dial/redial than
to go searching thru lists in the phone book.
So, here is 'just one' that would prefer the 1+ dialing if I'm going
to be charged.
Orin
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:43:52 EST
From: Jon Solomon <jsol@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
You think you have it bad; Connecticut has 1+area code+number for all
toll calls, and 7-digits for local calls regardless of which area code
you are using.
It means that some 203 numbers can't be reassigned to 860 from
Hartford to Meriden because they are both local to Middletown. I
suspect someone wrote this hairy program which tells which prefixes go
where.
jsol
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'jsol' was the founder and original
moderator of this Digest at the time of its beginning in 1981. PAT]
------------------------------
From: John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:10:23 -0500
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY
>> allows us to complete the calls we make quickly and efficiciently
>> without having to memorize long lists of dialing rules for every
>> possible three-digit prefix.
> I don't have to -- I dial 10D and never get charged a toll.
Hmmn. Are you saying that you never, ever, call anyone in parts of
301 or 703 that aren't local to DC? If that's not what you're saying,
how do you do so?
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl
Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
------------------------------
From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 24 Dec 1997 00:03:41 -0600
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
In article <telecom17.356.10@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest
Editor noted:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you had that problem,
> although things vary depending on who you talk to there. At one point
> I asked the same thing about a couple of exchanges which were
> unfamiliar to me and after a bit of discussion the rep volunteered
> to send me a page from a manual she had for her own reference.
Pat, as a public service to those of us who subscribe to Ameritech,
could you please publish a list of helpful and knowledgeable employees,
together with their phone numbers?
I can't imagine it would be too lengthy.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Feeble Attempt at Humor: I had them all
written down on the cover of a matchbook but when the matches were
used I guess I must have thrown it away by accident. This sort of
reminds me of the companies which have questionairres to fill in
about their products and services. When you come to the part about
listing any complaints you may have, they give you a little box
about one inch square to write in. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Roger Fajman <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 13:35:35 EST
Subject: Toll Alerting
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Ram, it appears the jury has found
> you guilty on all counts. There are a dozen more letters I did not
> include in this issue, but they all said the same thing as the half-
> dozen or so I printed above. Had there been at least one -- just one --
> which spoke in agreement with you I would have included it.
Well, I didn't write before because it's a topic that's been beaten to
death many times. However, since you made the statement above, I'll
throw in my two cents. I was born and raised in California, so I am
used to the non-toll alerting dialing system there. I now live in the
Washington, D.C. area, which has always had (for over 30 years,
anyway), a toll alerting system. Having lived with both, I much
prefer the toll alerting system in Washington.
When I was living with my parents in California, if I didn't know a
prefix, I had to look it up to be sure I wasn't making a toll call
inadvertently and running up a big charge. On my own phone, I will
probably make the call anyway, even if it's toll, but whether it is or
not might have some effect on how long I talk. When I go back to
California and stay with my sister, it's always a pain when I want to
make a call in the area. I don't want to charge a toll call to my
sister's phone. However, she has unlimited local service, so it's a
waste of money for me to make a local call on my credit card. So
again, I have to look up any prefix that I don't already know about.
I also like the much larger local calling area in Washington.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A sign I saw taped to the wall next
to someone's desk recently said, "Blessed are the brief, for they
shall have lower phone bills." Someone suggested to me in private
email that a valuable new service telco could offer would be where
you place your call and every five minutes the operator would cut
in on the line and tell you to 'can the BS and get back to work'.
Maybe just add it on everyone's line unless you call the business
office and ask to have it removed from your line. :) PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:21:42 -0600
From: Bryan Bethea <bbethea@frontier.gulf.net>
Reply-To: bbethea@frontier.gulf.net
Subject: 1+7D Dialing in Alabama
Frontier Communications of the South inserted a piece into this
month's billings about discountinuing 7D long distance for its Alabama
customers in NPA 334. The insert states that it is now necessary to
dial 1+7D to continue to utilize Frontier's intraLATA extended calling
service. This service allows Frontier customers in Atmore to save a
few cents when calling BellSouth customers in the Mobile, AL LATA.
My questions:
1. There are multiple exchanges in Mobile that are also currently
active area codes throughout North America (660, 405, 415, 473, etc.)
Wouldn't a time-out condition exist with 7D or 1+7D dialing? Frontier's
switching equipment can not possibly determine where someone is trying
to call without timing out.
2. Wasn't 1+7D supposed to disappear prior to 1995 when interchangeable
NPAs were introduced, never to be seen again?
Note: Frontier's Walnut Hill, Florida customers are also in the Mobile,
AL LATA but do not have access to the local calling plan because of 7D
local dialing between Walnut Hill and Pensacola, Florida, which has MANY
of the same assigned NXX codes as Mobile.
Any comments?
Bryan Bethea
Projects Manager - Touch 1 Communications
HOME: WORK:
Tel: +1 850 327-4758 +1 334 446-2577
Fax: +1 850 327-6803 +1 334 368-1778
8020 South Highway 99 100 Brookwood Road
Walnut Hill, FL 32568 Atmore, AL 36502
bbethea@frontier.gulf.net bbethea@touch1.com
------------------------------
From: Jack Daniel <jdaniel@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:41:12 -0800
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Reply-To: jdaniel@earthlink.net
Gail M. Hall wrote:
> On 7 Dec 1997 01:44:08 GMT, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) posted to
> comp.dcom.telecom about "Telecom on the New York City Subway System?":
>> Per the recent post describing the telephone system in Toronto's
>> subway system, I was wondering if anyone knew about the New York City
>> subway system's phone system?
>> For instance, before radios, they had telephones at frequent intervals
>> within all the tunnels in case of train breakdown. Are those phones
>> still there and working? (Tunnel vandalism is a problem.) Have
>> phones in out of the way places been upgrade from plain rotary to
>> dial?
> This reminds me of a question my husband and I had on a recent trip to
> the Washington, DC, area. In Maryland not far from Silver Spring we
> saw signs urging people to call in to report anyone in trouble on the
> freeway. Yet we did not see call boxes anywhere along that highway.
> This would mean that people would have to leave the freeway to find a
> phone or the authorities were depending on a significant number of
> drivers having cell phones in their cars.
> Yet along the Pennsylvania Turnpike we saw call boxes at regular
> intervals all along the highway. Apparently these were installed long
> before cell phones were available.
> I wonder what percentage of drivers these days have cell phones in
> their cars. I would think a significant number of them would need to
> have them to make it worthwhile for authorities to post signs asking
> drivers to call in and report people in trouble. Otherwise, it seems
> that it would be a good idea to install call boxes on freeways if 80
> percent or more of the people did not have cell phones.
Most subways now use distributed radio frequency signals throughout
the full length of the tunnels PLUS an emergency call box (that works
by radio, not wires) within the trains themselves. This has minimized
the need for wired emergency telephones along the tracks or tunnels.
I work closely with the company that has manufactured distributed
radio frequency equipment that is used in San Francisco BART, Los
Angeles Metro, NY subway, the English Channel "Chunnel", etc. This is
a very specialized and engineering intensive application for radio
frequency systems.
Here in California we also have wide use of roadside callboxes. Both
wired 'telephone' and radio call boxes are used. The radio call boxes
generally use a specially modified cell phone, but other radio bands
are also used when there is no cellular service within range.
We have a unique way of paying for roadside callboxes and the
technical capabilities of the newer callboxes are much more than most
people assume. I will elaborate on that of anyone is interested.
Jack Daniel
------------------------------
From: travisd@netresponse.com.nospam (Travis Dixon)
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 13:57:06 -0500
Organization: NetResponse
In article <telecom17.355.3@telecom-digest.org>, gmhall@apk.net (Gail M.
Hall) wrote:
> This reminds me of a question my husband and I had on a recent trip to
> the Washington, DC, area. In Maryland not far from Silver Spring we
> saw signs urging people to call in to report anyone in trouble on the
> freeway. Yet we did not see call boxes anywhere along that highway.
> This would mean that people would have to leave the freeway to find a
> phone or the authorities were depending on a significant number of
> drivers having cell phones in their cars.
> I wonder what percentage of drivers these days have cell phones in
> their cars.
In the past year (?) The DC/MD/VA area has been pusing the use of
"#77" from cell phones. The problem has been that folks dial 911 and
what should be a call for VA goes to DC, etc. This is especially a
problem on the Beltway which travels thru all othe areas mentioned
above.
The other problem is that the DC area is number four I believe in
cell-phone use. When there's an accident the 911 lines are usually
flooded with concerned drivers calling in the accident.
So, there's really little need now for call-boxes. In this day of
freaks ant weirdos everywhere I think the common wisdom now is that
it's safer to stay with your car behind locked doors than it is to
walk a mile up the road to a call box.
travis
------------------------------
From: Louis RAPHAEL <raphael@cs.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: 24 Dec 1997 05:27:31 GMT
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Gail M. Hall <gmhall@apk.net> wrote:
>> For instance, before radios, they had telephones at frequent intervals
>> within all the tunnels in case of train breakdown. Are those phones
>> still there and working? (Tunnel vandalism is a problem.) Have
>> phones in out of the way places been upgrade from plain rotary to
>> dial?
Last time I noticed, we had phones along metro tunnels here in
Montreal.
> Yet along the Pennsylvania Turnpike we saw call boxes at regular
> intervals all along the highway. Apparently these were installed long
> before cell phones were available.
The only time I've seen those systematically installed is on the road
that passes through the La Verendrye park, where there is one every 10
km (which means that you're never farther than 5 km from one), and not
much else apart from trees for maybe 200 km. They seem to work by
means of microwave-transmission towers, which I'm guessing also serve
as cell-towers and as relay sites for phone service into populated
areas further north. They're "public phones" - but without coins. If I
remember, you can only use calling/credit cards, or use them to call
emergency numbers. They're operated by Quebec-Telephone.
Louis
------------------------------
From: Nirav_Gosalia@mastercard.com
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 09:52:05 -0600
Subject: Sprint Billing Problems
I have been reading TELECOM Digest for quite some time and have read
some articles about Sprint billing problems. I switched to Sprint on
Sep 30th 1997 and was on their Independence Day Promotion which gave
me 70c / Min. to India. When the bill came, Sprint billed 1.05 $ /
Min. to India. When I called them up and got in touch with their
representative (after a wait of two hours) I was told that I was never
on that promotion ... ?? Also, they had promised to give 60 minutes of
free calls to India. When the bill arrived, free calls had been
restricted to a cap of $10. In addition to this, they billed me for
toll charges of approximatly $5 for the toll free number which they
had given to me free of charge. The calls billed for this service had
never been made as I had never give the toll free number to anybody.
So, I lost $100 approximatly for my switching to Sprint. I immediately
changed my long distance carrier. I will never switch over to Sprint
in the future. It seems that they don't care for the consumers.
Also, their representatives are not at all consumer friendly. Other
long distance companies are a lot better.
Thanks,
Nirav.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And thank *you* for writing. With all
the horror stories which come out of Sprint, I'd think it would make a
great episode or two of 'Tales From the Crypt'. There could be a scene
where all these dead people come back to life and are marching toward
the Sprint headquarters with a crazed look on their faces as they wave
their telephone bills. Instead of calling it 'Night of the Living
Dead' it could be titled 'The Day the Phone Bill Arrived'. As the
zombie-like people enter the Sprint offices the employees try to hide,
changing all their voice mail messages to say they have stepped away
from their desks for a few minutes or are in a meeting all day. But
the zombies ransack the offices and kick in all the doors to the
hiding places and as they do they proceed to stab, strangle, behead
and disembowel all the workers while chanting and waving their phone
bills. PAT]
------------------------------
From: wrf@speed.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Subject: New US-China Fiber Cable
Date: 24 Dec 1997 05:14:11 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu
What would be a reasonable per-minute charge to use some equipment
whose capital cost is $260?
The start of the first direct undersea fiber optic cable between
the USA and China was announced, with completion expected in a few
years. It will be 16,000 miles long, with a capacity of 88Gbps.
That was stated to be equivalent to 967,000 circuits or 4,000,000
voice calls. The projected cost is $1,100,000,000. That would be
$260 per simultaneous voice call.
I know that the load factor will be much less than 100%, and that
landlines, ground facilities, and switches, are expensive, and
that sharks and fishing boats can be destructive. However, isn't
it fun to do the division? Fully used for voice calls, at $1 per
minute, the cable would pay for itself in under 5 hours.
Alternatively, if the cable were rented out at the same price per
bps as a local T-3 connection, it would pay back in a couple of
months.
--- Wm. Randolph U Franklin, WRFUSE at MAB.ECSE.RPI.DELETETHIS.EDU
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Wireless Digest - December, 1997
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:48:21 GMT
In article <telecom17.355.1@telecom-digest.org>, pbdevine@NOSPAM.aol.com
(Wireless Guru) wrote:
> THE DIGITAL WIRELESS DIGEST
> December 1997
> WSJ: TDMA Sounds like "Marbles in your Mouth."
(Based on this poster's 'Organization' line ('University of California
at San Diego'), he may be a Qualcomm shill.)
The voice quality of 'TDMA' has nothing to do with the air interface
protocol the ATT/Ericsson 'TDMA' system, but is the result of a
lower-quality voice encoder/decoder ('vocoder').
The GSM EFR ('Enhanced Full-Rate') vocoder is every bit as good as the
'CDMA' vocoder, and Pacbell Mobile Systems here in California uses
this EFR vocoder on their GSM systems. But both are less than
'wire-line' quality.
I have no connection with any of these vendors or services, but I am
sick of all of the misinformation being spread by 'CDMA' bigots.
------------------------------
From: rtucker+from+199712wk3@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker)
Subject: Re: Wireless Digest - December, 1997
Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199712wk3@katan.ttgcitn.com
Date: 25 Dec 97 00:40:54 GMT
Organization: The Cat Converter Spay and Neuter Shop
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:43:22 GMT, Wireless Guru <pbdevine@NOSPAM.aol.com>
spewed:
> THE DIGITAL WIRELESS DIGEST
> December 1997
Somehow, this posting reminded me of one of those late-night paid
advertisements or the "fake newspaper" things that are sometimes used
for advertising. I can't quite put my finger on exactly why, though.
But, in any case, it was worth a good laugh. -rt
Ryan Tucker <rtucker+199712wk3@ttgcitn.com>
http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #357
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 25 17:07:23 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id RAA07246; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:07:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:07:23 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712252207.RAA07246@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #358
TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Dec 97 17:07:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 358
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Nick)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Jay R. Ashworth)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Danny Burstein)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Art Kamlet)
Re: How is Spam Email Fed Into the System? (Rich Graves)
Re: How is Spam Email Fed Into the System? (John R. Levine)
Re: How is Spam Email Fed Into the System? (Brian Kantor)
Re: Intra-LATA, 'Zone 3' per Minute Telephone Rate Info (Fred Goldstein)
Re: Noisy Analog Lines (Jay R. Ashworth)
Re: Noisy Analog Lines (Fred Clift)
Re: Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll (Paul Orgren)
Re: Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll (Chris Farrar)
Re: Tulsa Bank Error Sends Calls to Wrong Number (Billy Harvey)
Panasonic 616 PBX Phones Wanted (Mark Miller)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: "Nick" <nmarino@NOSPAM.home.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:16:47 -0500
Organization: @Home Network
Isn't it clear by now that local competition is a joke? You can't
expect the entrenched locals to willingly give up their business.
Congress decided that local phone competition was in the best interest
of the nation. The laws they enacted to encourage it have been a
dismal failure. Time for new laws.
TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe it is time for fewer laws
instead of more laws. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 13:50:33 EST
From: Jay R. Ashworth <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Organization: Ashworth & Associates
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:49:52 EST, TELECOM Digest Editor
<ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> After feuding with Ameritech for months -- or has it been years --
> AT&T has announced that it is suspending its efforts to get into local
> phone service effective immediatly.
Is anyone equipped to speculate authoritatively on the implications of
this decision on the availability of the Lucent Wireless Local Loop box
that was much discussed about 6 months ago, to, oh, say, CLECS? :-)
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: 24 Dec 1997 22:56:06 -0500
Organization: mostly unorganized
In <telecom17.356.1@telecom-digest.org> ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
(TELECOM Digest Editor) writes:
> After feuding with Ameritech for months -- or has it been years --
> AT&T has announced that it is suspending its efforts to get into local
> phone service effective immediatly.
[snip]
> AT&T has placed the blame for this business failure squarely on
> Ameritech and the other Baby Bells, saying they have erected numerous
> barriers to competition in an effort to hold on to their monopolies. As
> to be expected, Ameritech officials and executives at other Bell telcos
> have vigorously denied those charges.
I wouldn't be so quick to take their statement at face value. AT&T
(and the other IXCs) have _powerful_ financial incentives involved
here.
Basically, long distance service is a pretty substantial money-maker,
and, for the moment, is pretty much limited to the Big Three.
I don't think it's too much of an exageration to say that the IXCs are
terrified of a well-funded competitor, i.e. the RBOCs.
But under the current regulatory deal, teh RBOCS are forbidden from
entering the LD market unless they've opened up the local market to
the ISXs.
So it's certainly plausable that AT&T, etc., are making sure to find
_lots_ of roadblocks from the RBOCs.
dannyb@panix.com
------------------------------
From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet)
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: 24 Dec 1997 01:01:15 -0500
Organization: InfiNet
Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com
In article <telecom17.356.1@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest Editor
<ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> After feuding with Ameritech for months -- or has it been years --
> AT&T has announced that it is suspending its efforts to get into local
> phone service effective immediatly.
Pat,
I read the announcement, and I read it differently than you did.
The way I read it is that AT&T is getting out of the present method of
getting into local service -- which is to rely on the local Ameritechs
etc to sell its local service to AT&T so AT&T can mark it up, place the
AT&T brand name on it, and sell it retail.
The same week as this announcement AT&T announced its plans to acquire
Teleport, a local service provider. I suspect there are more ways to
skin a cat than to rely on the existing local providers for help.
> AT&T has placed the for this business failure squarely on Ameritech,
> and the other Baby Bells, saying they have erected numerous barriers
> to competition in an effort to hold on to their monopolies. As to be
> expected, Ameritech officials and executives at other Bell telcos have
> vigorously denied those charges.
Now tell me, if AT&T, MCI and Sprint all cry foul, won't the RBOCs
have trouble entering the long distance markets in their territories?
(And with the RBOC mergers, those territories get bigger and bigger.)
So maybe in addition to abandoning a local service strategy that
relies on the incumbent LECs, they also hold them at bay in the long
distance market as well? Looked at this way, seems like a wise
approach, right?
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com
------------------------------
From: Rich Graves <llurch+spamfilter@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: How is Spam Email Fed Into the System?
Date: 23 Dec 1997 14:29:33 -0800
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A.E. Siegman) writes:
> Behind this question of course is a more motivated question: Could
> there be -- technically, and also realistically -- some kind of
> controls that could block, or at least check and verify, mass mailings
> near the source? What would be the practical and also political
> implications of this?
"At" the source SMTP server isn't terribly difficult. A growing number
of ISPs throttle outgoing email, just as they throttle web hits. The
server keeps track of outgoing users (authenticated however dialup
users are authenticated) and only lets X messages go out per hour. At
CTS.com, for example, a special "spamfilter" mail queue handles
traffic over the limit. This assumes that all users go through a
supported SMTP server and that there is a way to identify users by
their IP address -- true of almost all ISPs, but not as true of LANs
like ours. (We just trust our users to be good, or easy to audit if
they're not.)
"Legitimate use" of large lists is a market question. If people want
to run large mailing lists, they need to pay an additional fee. If an
ISP considers the list a public service, they'll waive the fee.
"Near" the source is technically and politically impractical. Either
the source ISP throttles outgoing mail, or it doesn't. It's rather
like IP spoofing that way -- you rely on the responsibility of the
source network.
And if you know the source network to be notoriously irresponsible, you
filter them at the IP level. Stanford's campuswide block list is at
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/itss-ccs/security/filters.html
Rich Graves <rich.graves@stanford.edu> | It is far easier to fight for one's
Voice 650-493-5009 -- Fax 650-723-0908 | principles than to live up to them
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch | -- Alfred Adler (1870-1937)
------------------------------
Date: 23 Dec 1997 23:19:53 -0000
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: How is Spam Email Fed Into the System?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> For the benefit of those of us who may understand how the Internet
> works -- sort of -- but are fuzzy on the details, could some more
> informed expert explain how a spammer feeds one million identical email
> messages into the Internet, and what happens thereafter? Do you
> really just hit the Send key with a million addresses in the To: line?
Back when Cyberpromo et al were in business, they had servers with
dedicated leased lines, and typically used the standard Unix software
tools that people have used all along for real mailing lists. They
send spam directly to the intended victim. From a spam defense point
of view this is good, since the spam comes from an easily identified
and blocked network address.
Nearly all the spam factories have been kicked off, so most spammers
now use specialized slime-drenched programs to do their spamming.
They pump out mail as fast as possible while sticking in lots of
forged headers to try and confuse people about the actual source and
deflect the outraged complaints. Rather than send mail directly to
the recipient, they send batches to innocent mail servers which then
deliver the actual mail. This lets the spammers blast out a message
with the equivalent of 100 Bcc: addresses to an innocent relay, then
let the relay do the delivery. Since they use lots and lots of
relays, and the relays aren't actively involved in the spam, it makes
blocking much harder.
Traditionally, most mail systems on the Internet have been set up to
deliver mail from anyone to anyone, as a courtesy to neighbors who
might be having network problems. But spammers have abused that
courtesy to the point that we're now working on getting public relay
turned off all over the net.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner
http://iecc.com/johnl,
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:30:35 PST
From: Brian Kantor <brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: How is Spam Email Fed Into the System?
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
To oversimplify: the Internet mail protocol does not require that the
list of addresses delivered to be the same as the list in the To: line.
When you send ordinary mail using an ordinary mail system, the two
lists are usually set the same.
But not necessarily. For example, if you have addresses in the To:,
Cc:, and Bcc: fields, the sum of all three will form the delivery
address list. Only the first two appear in the message.
Bulk mail systems simply supply a long list of delivery addresses and
put something much shorter into the To: line.
Practical considerations usually limit the delivery address list to
a few thousand at a time, so messages to huge numbers of people are
sent in batches.
That's all there is to it.
Brian
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Intra-LATA, 'Zone 3' per Minute Telephone Rate Info
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 20:18:56 GMT
In article <telecom17.356.4@telecom-digest.org>, rick@productman.com
says:
> I am working on a research project, and I need the intra-LATA, zone 3
> per minute telephone rates charged by the LECs in 40 cities (listed
> below). I could obviously call each LEC and ask, but I am hoping you
> or someone you know can provide this information more efficiently, in
> a summary form.
"Zone 3" is a PacBell California construct. Leave the state and it
doesn't have the same meaning, if it exists at all (and it's rare).
In most places, there's "local" and there's "toll". Boston has two
zones, New York, Philadelphia and Chicago several, but they don't map
into CA's 13-16 miles.
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
------------------------------
From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Noisy Analog Lines
Date: 23 Dec 1997 17:11:01 GMT
Organization: Ashworth & Associates
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:13:00 -0500, Lee Miller <lwmiller@ricochet.net>
wrote:
> Also, if you know of something else to try that I missed, feel free to
> tell me or point me at other options for getting a pc with 56 Flex
> modem known to work at 48K on one line to work at something better
> than 28.8 on a new line at a different house.
If you can only get 28k8, the problem is almost certainly that there's
more than one D/A conversion in the loop. If you can borrow a
Courier, it will actually tell you this explicitly, though I don't
know how they do it.
My suggestion would be try X2... and that's only partially a bigoted
knee-jerk "I think K-flex sucks" reaction. :-)
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:57:18 -0700
From: Fred Clift <fred@vespa.cs.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Noisy Analog Lines
Organization: Brigham Young University, CS dept
Lee Miller <lwmiller@ricochet.net> writes:
> Also, if you know of something else to try that I missed, feel free to
> tell me or point me at other options for getting a pc with 56 Flex
Hm, well, with newer USworst installations, the junction box at your
house where the line initially enters the residence. You can
disconnect your house wiring from the line at this point and attach
your modem here without all the extra house wiring. I have an 80 year
old house with very old phone wiring in the walls -- I pick up a lot
of noise from the old wiring. Plugging my modem into any jack in the
house, and disconnecting all other devices I end up with 24-26k
connections on my 33.6k modem. When I completely disconnect my houses
wiring from the junction box and attach my modem at this point, I
regularly get 28k and 33.6k connections. I assume that either there
are some old corroded connections in the walls somewhere or that there
is a long stretch of phone line run in parrallel with high voltage
lines.
One of these days, I'll re-wire the whole place ... if I dont sell it
first.
Fred Clift - fred@cs.byu.edu Systems Manager - Computer Science - BYU
Remember: if brute force doesn't work, you're just not using enough.
------------------------------
From: Paul.Orgren@lmco.no.spam.please.com
Subject: Re: Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll
Date: 24 Dec 1997 19:03:38 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Martin TDS
Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
> - 'straight' ten-digit dialed calls would connect _only_ if the called
> NPA-NXX is local/free to the calling party
> - 1+ ten-digit dialed calls would connect in all cases. The calling
> party would be billed if there is a toll charge to call that dialed
> NPA-NXX, but not be billed if the dialed NPA-NXX is local/free
> - Toll/chargeable calls would connect _only_ if the calling party had
> dialed a mandatory 1+ before the full ten-digit number.
I whole-heartedly agree with this (I know it's not a popular view on
this list, so I thought I should put a vote in on this side). I would
hate to be surprised on my phone bill by a large bill for a call I
thought was free. Those people who don't care could just dial all
their calls as 1+.
My views may be influenced by the fact that I've always lived in places
that used "1" as a toll indicator (currently in Northern Virginia, where
we can make 10-digit local calls to Maryland and DC without the "1").
Paul Orgren (remove ".no" through "please" to get my actual address)
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <mds@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 97 02:49:02 -0400
Organization: DIGEX, Inc.
Reply-To: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@access.digex.net>
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:23:07 -0600, Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
> To sum it up, IMO:
> - 'straight' ten-digit dialed calls would connect _only_ if the called
> NPA-NXX is local/free to the calling party
> - 1+ ten-digit dialed calls would connect in all cases. The calling
> party would be billed if there is a toll charge to call that dialed
> NPA-NXX, but not be billed if the dialed NPA-NXX is local/free
> - Toll/chargeable calls would connect _only_ if the calling party had
> dialed a mandatory 1+ before the full ten-digit number.
That is precisely what we have in Montgomery County, Md. (just outside
DC). The ten-digit dialing for local calls has not been a major pain.
And using 1+ for what would otherwise be a local call doesn't send the
call to the LD carrier.
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net,
avogadro@well.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Dialing Procedures - Local vs. Toll
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:22:37 -0500
Organization: Bell Solutions
Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca
Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
> To sum it up, IMO:
> - 'straight' ten-digit dialed calls would connect _only_ if the called
> NPA-NXX is local/free to the calling party
> - 1+ ten-digit dialed calls would connect in all cases. The calling
> party would be billed if there is a toll charge to call that dialed
> NPA-NXX, but not be billed if the dialed NPA-NXX is local/free
> - Toll/chargeable calls would connect _only_ if the calling party had
> dialed a mandatory 1+ before the full ten-digit number.
Except for the middle requirement, that exists today in Bell Canada
territory. They use the simple, and easy, rule that "1+ means this
will cost me money." Thus to dial 976 information type calls, you
dial 1-xxx-976 where xxx the area code where you are. If the ac you
enter isn't the one where you live, the call is intercepted. Before
10 digit dialing for LD, 1-976-xxxx was used. Thus you know you are
going to get hit for extra fees before dialing.
Calls across the area code boundaries between 416 & 905 are simply
dialed ac+number if they are a local call. If it is toll, it aborts
to "You must dial 1 or 0 before the number you are calling ..."
Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a
VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource
PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 21:43:45 CST
Subject: Re: Tulsa Bank Error Sends Calls to Wrong Number
From: Billy Harvey <Billy.Harvey@thrillseeker.net>
Has there ever been any consideration to adding some check digits to
telephone numbers? It wouldn't need to be a complex calculation,
something as simple as, for example, adding two digits at the end
which when added to the complete phone number cause it to add to 0
(mod 100). For example, 1-210-555-1212 would have added 75 added
(1+2+5+5+5+1+2+1+2=25. 100-25=75), causing the new phone number to be
1-210-555-1212-75.
This would eliminate a *lot* of wrong numbers, I would think. Well,
at least 99%.
Billy
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would eliminate those cases where
a number was misdialed, but of course it would not eliminate the
calls from collection agencies for whoever had the number prior to
you. I would cut it down to a single digit at the end by saying that
if the sum was more than nine then add those digits together also
and keep doing so until you got down to a single digit. In your
example then, 75=7+5=12=1+2=3. I'd make the formula a bit more complex
to prevent still more wrong numbers. In your example, any two digits
can be transposed and you will still get the same end result. It would
be better to use the formula used by many credit card companies
which would be like this:
*Multiply* the individual digits by one or two; add all the digits
together and subtract from ten. So the check digit for your example
would be:
1 2 1 0 5 5 5 1 2 1 2
x 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
===============================================
2 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 10+ 5+ 10 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 4 = 41 = 4+1 = 5
or ... 1-210-555-1212-5. Doing it your way, any two digits could
be reversed and nothing would be detected. Doing it as above, it
becomes necessary to reverse two digits in just the right sequence
to still pass muster. This would not really involve a lot of
programming, and there would be no need for the local switch to
pass along the final check digit to another switch. I'd just add
a small bit of code to be inserted after the number was dialed but
before it went anywhere having the switch calculate the above sort
of on the fly. If the check digit was correct, the call would be
passed on with whatever results; ie a completed call, an intercept
if the number was not in service, etc. If the check digit was not
correct the call would be sent to a new intercept saying, "you
have incorrectly dialed the number you are trying to reach. To
avoid disturbing another subscriber, please hang up and dial again
carefully entering each digit." PAT]
------------------------------
From: mgee@netcom.com (Mark Miller)
Subject: Panasonic 616 PBX Phones Wanted
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 19:17:26 GMT
Holiday Greetings All!!
If anyone has a couple of old Panasonic 616 PBX phones laying around I
would like to purchase them. I am trying to set up one at home and am
having fits without a programming phone. Phones can be working or not.
Thanks for your time, and Merry Christmas.
Mark W. Miller | email: mgee@netcom.com
945 Tipsoo Loop N. | miller.mark@portseattle.org
Rainier, WA 98576 | voice/home: 360-446-0725
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #358
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 25 18:21:09 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id SAA11578; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 18:21:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 18:21:09 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712252321.SAA11578@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #359
TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Dec 97 18:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 359
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
The Global Telecom Game: Upcoming Series (Robin E. Haberman)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Louis Raphael)
Using Fax Machine as a Scanner (Chen Lin)
Re: CallerID Info Needed (Kevin J. Brewer)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (John R Levine)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (D. Willingham)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Mike Hayworth)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Gail M. Hall)
Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Tim Gorman)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: robineh@ibm.net (Robin E. Haberman)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 97 18:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: robineh@ibm.net
Subject: The Global Telecom Game: Upcoming Series
The following is an announcement of a four part seminar series on
the Global Telecom Game that will air March 25th via satellite
broadcast to selected locations.
I am a firm believer that information should be shared. The old
idea about holding onto or keeping key information from co-workers as
'job security' is false. Job security is making your company very
successful, and that's done by sharing information. If you think the
information in this series is useful to your organization then show it
to someone. If the company decision-maker drops the ball, and you
still want to be a part of this, then look for a local college or
university that is a "College Member of PBS The Business Channel". If
they are not a member but have a program that this series can fit
into, then show it to them.
Note: the text below is from a PBS mailing recived.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AHEAD OF THE LEARNING CURVEtm, PBS THE BUSINESS CHANNEL
Learn how your organization can profit
from the current changes in the Telecom industry.
We bring the seminar direct to your location
...for an unbelievably low price
The enormous changes taking place in the Telecom industry will affect
every business decision you make - customer service, Electronic Data
Interchange, electronic commerce, training, telecommuting, voice, fax,
the Internet. You owe it to your organization to seek out a clear
"overview" of the forces now re-shaping the Telecom industry.
Mark your calendar for March 25!
Take pan in this interactive seminar series,
The Global Telecom Game:
The Players, The Technologies, The Rules and The Arenas.
PBS The Business Channel, the leader in distance learning, and
Bellcore, the leader in Telecom training, have joined to bring you an
exciting four-part series, The Global Telecom Game: The Players, The
Technologies, The Rules and The Arenas. The first information packed
program, The Players, can be delivered directly to your location via
satellite beginning March 25. It will provide employees throughout your
organization with the intelligence they need to successfully navigate
the new Telecom landscape.
Hosted by noted industry expert Terry Curtis, the first segment, The
Players, lifts the curtain to reveal the powerful investors and
corporations that are jockeying for position - and why the stakes are
so incredibly high for your organization.
Learn how to "Future-Proof" your company's Telecom decisions ...
and how to profit from the business strategies of industry giants.
The Global Telecom Game: The Players is designed for anyone involved in
telecommunications, information technology, finance, or sales and
marketing. Here's what the first two-hour segment will explore:
The Size and Scope of the Market - Understand the dimensions of the key
segments of the Telecom market. Learn why firms are attacking each
other's markets, and how having the latest intelligence on the Telecom
marketplace can lead to increased profits for your organization.
The Changing Patterns of Demand - Discover the strategic imperatives
that create the demand for new Telecom services. Examine case studies
of amazing organizational interdependencies like the one between
Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble and learn how to put these lessons to
work in your organization so you, too, can outperform your competitors.
Industry Structures and Financial - Become familiar with the players,
how big they are, and in what directions they are moving. Terry Curtis
fills in the gaps, identifying what kinds of mergers to watch for, how
far these giant companies will go to gain control over the furture of
Telecom, and how anticipating their moves can help your organization
reap higher profits. He also identifies the up-and-comers (Were you
watching WorldCom three years ago?).
For one investment of $1,495, an unlimited number of employees
can experience the first segment of this four-part series:
The Global Telecom Game: The Players.
For only $1,495, you can schedule as many participants as you wish for
the first segment. The Global Telecom Game! The Players can be
delivered via satellite to any organization with a C-Band, Ku-Band, or
Echostar DBS dish. (Note: if your organization does not have a
satellite dish, keep reading for a special FREE satellite dish offer)
Organizations can access the first segment of the program, The Players,
on the following transmission dates and time:
March 25, April 21 and June 10, from 3-5 p.m., ET.
During live Q&A segments, a special audio bridge will be set up to
allow your employees to talk directly with Terry Curtis.
If you haven't experienced satellite-to-the-workplace training,
you won't believe what you've been missing!
Call 1-888-822-8229 to place your order.
Satellite training is incredibly cost-effective. By eliminating travel
costs, and by keeping time away from the job to an absolute minimum,
you can afford to provide high-quality training to an unlimited number
of employees, rather than just a few. So sign up today for The Global
Telecom Game: The Players to receive the program at your organization.
Sincerely
Ann K Boland, Vice President
P.S. As an Alliance Member with PBS The Business Channel, you'll pay
only $1,195 for the first seminar, The Players...a savings of $300 over
the regular price! To become an Alliance Member, and get a FREE
Echostar direct broadcast satellite dish with standard installation
(a $1,000 value), call Tel: 1-888-822-8229 FAX: 1-703-739-8606.
Visit our Web site: www.pbsbusinesschannel.com
AHEAD OF THE LEARNING CURVE, PBS THE BUSINESS CHANNEL
320 Braddock Place, Alexandria,Va. 22314
----------------
Robin E. Haberman <robineh@ibm.net>
------------------------------
From: Louis Raphael <raphael@cs.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 25 Dec 1997 22:01:08 GMT
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Dr. Ram Samudrala <ram.samudrala@stanford.nojunkemail> wrote:
> 3. They should change the phone system to better enable distinction
> between toll calls and toll free calls. Here's an ideal system which
> worked in MD under Bell Atlantic:
[followed by description of dial-1 for toll]
In general, I agree that toll calls, whenever possible, should have to
be dialed 1+. This isn't always possible, because in some areas, 1+
has come to mean that the call is in a different NPA, and the other
(possibly local) NPAs might have a competing exchange prefix in the
same area (possibly both local). Which leaves the choice: either
mandatory 10-digits dialing on all calls, or 1+ on inter-NPA calls.
In those places where 1+ has lost its meaning as the toll-indicator,
being required on all toll calls, maybe it would be nice if telco were
made to provide a vertical service (*) code, that could be dialed
before a call (like *67, for example), which would cause the call to
go through only if not a toll call (recorded intercept otherwise)? I
think that this would be technically feasible. It would also prevent
mistakes due to changing boundaries (for which there certainly should
be sufficient notification).
As for taking up the issue with the CA-PUC, I tend to think that there
are probably bigger, more important battles, both in the field of
telephony and elsewhere, than this one. I'm sure that if you had called
Pac*Bell business office and asked where you could get this
information, they would have pointed you to the phone book, and told
you where to get one - probably even offered to deliver one. My guess
is that the problem is more of a "cultural" misunderstanding than
anything else - you (like myself) probably come from an area where 1+
is sacro-sanct, which doesn't seem to be the case in California. This
is just the way things are, and considered normal. You moved to a new
environment, where things are not done the same way, you didn't find
out what the difference was, you messed up, and you should probably
expect to pay the [probably not *overly* large] bill, and know better
next time. I seriously doubt that a court case is warranted on this
one. Do save your energy for when you get slammed - then you'll get my
[and others'] sympathy a lot more, I think.
View it this way: if you moved to a country where all calls are toll
(as most of the world), do you think that telco should be expected to
tell you that if you don't ask? My guess is that it would be
considered common knowledge, and that *you* should be asking.
Sometimes, one messes up, and it's one's own fault, not society's, or
one's parents, or telco's. This is one of these times. True, it would
be *nice* of Pac*Bell to put this info on the bill, but I don't think
that legal redress is appropriate if they did not.
Louis
------------------------------
From: Chen Lin <clin@bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Using Fax Machine as a Scanner
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:23:54 -0600
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine
Reply-To: chen_lin@bigfoot.com
It is possible to build a simple device to connect a regular fax
machine and a PC with fax modem together so that the fax machine may
be used as a scanner?
Chen
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Really, there is nothing to be built.
I do what you are asking about now. I have a stand-alone Panasonic
fax machine on a phone line for its own use. I have a computer with
a fax/data modem on another line. I have the fax machine call the
computer and whatever I feed into the fax machine gets stored on
the computer, ready to be redistributed as a graphics file for
whatever purpose. It is a very simple workaround to buying a scanner
when you might only need one for occassional use. Try it out. PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: CallerID Info Needed
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 13:37:32 EST
From: c2xkjb@eng.delcoelect.com (Kevin J. Brewer)
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp., Kokomo, IN USA
Dear Steve,
I hope that such a late response to your request for information is
still relevant.
> I am looking for information on what can be transmitted in the callerID
> data burst, which is sent by the telephone switch between the first and
> second rings.
> I know that there are bits indicating: "privacy, long-distance,
> message-waiting", etc, but I am looking for a more-or-less complete list
> of available data.
The "message-waiting" ('Caller ID on Call Waiting' I assume you
mean) and "privacy" "bits" are described in that which follows, but it
appears to me that "long-distance" can only be determined by comparing
the area code portion of the phone number delivered by Caller ID
against your own.
A "complete list of available data" can possibly be found in the
Bellcore et al. documents listed in the bibliography of the referenced
HTML document.
The following Caller ID message format information is excerpted
from "Caller ID", http://testmark.com/callerid.html, by Michael
W. Slawson of Intertek Testing Services, TestMark Laboratories.
Caller IDentification or Calling Identity Delivery (CID) information
is sent in one of two formats between the 1st and 2nd rings. For
specific message transmission timing, see the referenced HTML
document.
The Single Data Message Format (SDMF) contains the Date, Time, and
calling Number. The Multiple Data Message Format (MDMF) contains the
Date, Time, calling Number, and the Name associated with that Number.
Optionally, the Number or Name field may contain data indicating that
the information is unavailable or has been blocked by the caller. In
such cases, these fields will contain either an "O" or a "P"
representing the strings "Out of area" and "Private" respectively.
Caller ID is a term that encompasses more than one type of caller
identification. Calling Number Delivery (CND) refers to the most
basic type of CID. It is delivered in SDMF and includes the Date
(mm/dd), Time (hh:mm in 24 hour format), and calling Number. Calling
Name Delivery (CNAM) is an enhancement of Calling Number Delivery that
adds the calling name and is sent in MDMF.
Thus, the content of the CID message depends on whether it is in SDMF
or MDMF. A message in SDMF includes a Message Type byte, a Message
Length byte, the actual Message bytes, and a Checksum byte. A message
in MDMF also includes a Message Type byte, a Message Length byte, the
actual Message bytes, and a Checksum byte, but additionally includes
Parameter Type bytes and Parameter Length bytes. Displayable
character bytes in the message are coded in ASCII. The Checksum byte
is the 2s-complement negative of the modulo 256 sum of all of the
other bytes in the message including the Message Type and Message
Length bytes.
The Message Type byte defines whether the message is in SDMF or MDMF.
It will be a binary 00000100 (decimal 4) for SDMF or a binary 10000000
(decimal 128) for MDMF. The Message Length byte indicates the number
of bytes in the message following it with the exception of the
Checksum byte at the end. For SDMF, the minimum length will be 9
characters. The minimum length for MDMF will depend on whether the
customer has subscribed to CNAM service as well as CND. In the case
of CND only, the minimum length will be 13 bytes. If the customer
also has CNAM, then the minimum will be 16 bytes. In all three of the
minimums mentioned, there is no actual calling Number or Name
delivered and the fields will contain either an "O" or a "P".
Character Decimal ASCII Actual
Description Value Value Bits (LSB)
------------------------- ------- ----- ---------------
Message Type (SDMF) 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Message Length (18) 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Date (12/25) 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
53 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Time (15:30) 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
53 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
51 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
48 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Number (606-213-4567) 54 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
48 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
54 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
51 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
52 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
53 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
54 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
55 7 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
Checksum 79 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Figure 2 - A Caller ID message in SDMF
The "/", ":", and "-" delimiters are not actually a part of the CID
message, but are included here for ease of understanding.
Figure 3 shows an example of a minimum message layout for SDMF. The
message contains the Date, Time, and a "P" to indicate that calling
Number delivery has been blocked at the caller's request.
Character Decimal ASCII Actual
Description Value Value Bits (LSB)
------------------------- ------- ----- ---------------
Message Type (SDMF) 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Message Length (9) 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Date (12/25) 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
53 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Time (15:30) 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
53 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
51 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
48 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Private 80 P 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Checksum 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Figure 3 - A minimum message layout in SDMF
Figure 4 shows an example of a message in MDMF that contains both a
number and a name.
Character Decimal ASCII Actual
Description Value Value Bits (LSB)
------------------------- ------- ----- ---------------
Message Type (MDMF) 128 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Message Length (33) 33 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Parameter Type (Date/Time) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Parameter Length (8) 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Date (11/28) 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
56 8 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Time (15:43) 49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
53 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
52 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
51 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Parameter Type (Number) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Parameter Length (10) 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Number (606-224-1359) 54 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
48 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
54 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
50 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
52 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
49 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
51 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
53 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
57 9 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Parameter Type (Name) 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Parameter Length (9) 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Name (Joe Smith) 74 J 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
111 o 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
101 e 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
32 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
83 S 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
109 m 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
105 i 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
116 t 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
104 h 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
Checksum 88 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Figure 4 - A Caller ID message in MDMF
In Figure 4, if the Number or Name had not been included, then
alternate Parameter Types for those fields would have been used to
signify that the data contained in the field indicates the reason for
the absence of the field's expected content.
In such cases, the Parameter Type for the Number field is a binary
00000100 (decimal 4) and the Parameter Type for the Name field is a
binary 00001000 (decimal 8). When a Parameter Type signifies that the
field data indicates the reason for the absence, the Parameter Length
is always 1.
If the reason for absence is that the calling party does not want
their Number/Name displayed, then the field will contain a "P".
If the reason for absence is that the information is simply
unavailable, then the field will contain an "O". The Number/Name may
not be available if the calling party is not served by a central
office capable of relaying the information on through the network.
For information in regard to the location and timing of MDMF message
transmission for Caller ID on Call Waiting or Calling Identity
Delivery on Call Waiting (CIDCW), see the referenced HTML document.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Brewer
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 22:22:36 EST
From: John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
>> Since so many locations today have only one or, at most, two newspapers
>> (usually only one large newspaper) they could very easily be considered to
>> be a natural monopoly.
>> But since the rates aren't set by the government, nor did the
>> government enforce such a monopoly at gunpoint (what do you think
>> would have happened to me had I tried to run my own phone wire
>> in Dallas in the 1950s?),
> The analogy is totally bogus.
>> No, the analogy is perfect. Just what do you think sets the price
>> of a newspaper?
The owners of the paper do, without consulting the government and
without having a guaranteed government-enforced monopoly to prevent
any competitors entering their market.
I'm sorry to have wasted your time -- have fun wherever it is that the
government sets the prices and number of newspapers that are allowed to
publish.
> And I'm still waiting for your answer to the question of how you would
> feel if you received a notice tomorrow that your SBC stock was now only
> worth $10 per share because the government saw fit to allocate half of
> SBC's infrastructure to other competitors because the infrastructure
> is owned by the public at large and not by the investors in the
> company.
I would not be thrilled, but I'm not worried because there's plenty of
true believers like you making sure it'll never happen. If I thought
there were any serious possibility of rational action in the telecom
market, I'd never have bought any LEC stock in the first place.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com,
Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:33:06 -0500
From: we202c3f@aol.com (David Willingham)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
> admittedly 'good help was hard to find', leaving telco and lots of
PAT,
Don't forget the federal government was overseeing the hiring at the
Bell companies in the mid-70's; here in Atlanta they hired new people
off the streets while trained cable techs and installers were still
out having being laid off during the one recession that hit Atlanta.
Also didn't Manhattan have only crossbar and panel, no step?
WE202C3F@aol.com
David Willingham
------------------------------
From: Michael Hayworth <msh1@airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 18:34:08 -0600
Organization: Innovative TeleSolutions
Tim Gorman wrote:
> In Telecom Nbr 348, Michael Hayworth (msh1@airmail.net) wrote:
>> Then let's also saddle all the new competitors with the expenses
>> associated with the embedded infrastructure such as maintenance,
>> depreciation, and write-offs of no longer useful investment. *That*
>> would make it fair - and it would also make it impossible for startup
>> companies to ever become viable.
Those things are a cost of doing business. My business has to deal
with all those things, too. The difference is, for RBOCs, all those
items are included in the approved rate structures that ensure a
profit.
>> There's nothing difficult, impressive or particularly admirable about
>> being willing to do all this stuff when you're guaranteed a profit for
>> doing it. I'll be glad to sit in my corporate office and hire some poor
>> guy to run cable to Uncle Fester's cave up in the Ozarks, if that's one
>> of the requirements that comes with a huge guaranteed profit.
> No one was guaranteed a profit on Uncle Fester's service. You are
> trying to use a specific to prove a generality. It doesn't work.
> BTW, what do you consider to be a HUGE, guaranteed profit? My guess is
> that not very many people will consider the allowed rate of return
> most of the RBOC's were allowed to be *huge*.
They were guaranteed a profit on their entire business -- wiring Uncle
Fester's cabin was part of the cost of getting that profit, just like
any other contractual obligation that makes you money.
And who cares about RATE of return -- profit is measured in total
earnings and earnings per share. Wal-Mart's margin is around 5%, but
it's still huge, by any measure. And nobody has ever *guaranteed*
Wal-Mart anything.
Offer me a 5% margin year after year with no risk on on billions of dollars
of business, and I'll consider it huge, too.
>> We've paid for all this physical plant for years, due to the RBOC
>> monopolies -
> No, the investors in the RBOC's paid for the plant. YOU paid for the
> service you received. The public doesn't own all of the railroad cars
> in this country, they don't own all of the Greyhound buses in this
> country, nor do they own all of the airplanes in this country. Yet
> each of these were natural monopolies at one time and had rates set by
> government regulators. You paid for the service provided by each of
> these, you didn't buy the operating plant. The investors in the
> companies paid for the resources used to provide the services. The
> investors own the company and its infrastructure.
Baloney, we didn't buy the operating plant. If I take my company
public, with all the attendant risks involved in the business world,
then my investors pay for the plant. Their money is at risk, because
my customers can choose to go elsewhere. Not so with a public utility
guaranteed a monopoly. There, the investors are much more akin to
bondholders who pay for streets -- yet we never say the bondholders own
the streets.
If a government entity guarantees a monopoly rates that will provide
them a profit, and the public has neither choice of providers nor
option of rates, then the public has paid for that plant.
>> and a pretty poor plant it is, since there's been no motivation for them
>> to run fiber instead of copper, or to build out facilities that can
>> actually sustain a 56K modem call.
> Changing out the amount of infrastructure associated with local
> service in this country will be measured in decades, if not
> longer. Fiber in the distribution plant has not been economically
> viable let alone technologically viable for nearly long enough for
> this to occur. It would require a miracle of monumental proportions
> for anything else to happen. BTW, 56Kb modem technology has only been
> available for a couple of years. A massive network-wide upgrade to
> support 56Kb technology in the distribution plant in a year or two
> would require a miracle on the level of creation itself. Expecting
> such an occurrence only shows a misunderstanding of the financial
> makeup of the industry.
56K doesn't matter. Pick 9600 bps modems, or 14,400 bps modems, or
28,800 bps modems. The fact is, those modems are designed to work at
their rated speeds over a voice grade line, but in many areas, the
voice quality is so bad, they can't do so.
>> Now, Bell is going to have to compete, and instead of going out and
>> figuring out ways to actually make customers *want* to do business with
>> them, they're going to whine and gripe and drag their feet all they can.
> What seems like dragging feet to you is prudent and conservative
> management to the investors in the RBOC's. While you can easily
> dismiss the investors with a viewpoint that the existing
> infrastructure is publicly owned, legally it is not possible for the
> Public Utility Commissions and even the federal government to do
> so. Decisions made by the RBOC's have to be made in light of
> maintaining the investors rate of return as well as their
> investment. While the competitors may want free use of existing
> facilities, ala your publicly owned infrastructure philosophy, the
> regulators know this would constitute an illegal "taking" of the
> investors property. This results in a tension between the two
> competing parties. While you frame it as feet-dragging, the other side
> has a totally different viewpoint.
Yeah, right. Bell is doing us all a favor by trying to keep competition
out of the local market. They're standing up for truth, justice and
the American way. I knew that was it!
Michael Hayworth
VP, Technology
Innovative TeleSolutions
------------------------------
From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall)
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:17:56 GMT
Organization: APK Net, Ltd.
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:14:21 -0800, Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net> posted
to comp.dcom.telecom about "Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own
Local Loop Plant":
> <nmarino@NOSPAM.home.com> recently wrote in TELECOM Digest:
>> Perhaps if the government had taken control [of the telephone
>> network], we would have a decent telephone 'backbone' and energetic,
>> competitive companies offering services using it. We'll never know.
> Evidently you don't know your telecom history fully as for a time the
> government *did* control the telephone network in the USA.
I'm curious about farmers' lines. When I was a child we lived in the
country in southern Oregon and our phone number was 17F25. I was told
that the F indicated that this was was a "farmers line" and that the
sunscribers were responsible to maintain the line. It's not really
clear to me who actually *owned* the line, though.
I don't remember at which point the phone company took responsibility
for maintaining the line, but I suspect it was some time during WWII
when the Government using volunteers maintained a "Post" and needed
that line to work all the time so the people at the Post could call in
reports about airplanes to "Central." I was just a child during WWII.
<G>
Another interesting thing about our old phone numbers was that the
first two digits indicated which phone line that phone was on, but the
other digits or the letter X indicated what "ring" that number had.
It was kind of related to roman numerals. The "25" in our number
meant two shorts and a long. If your number had an X in it, that
meant two longs. So not all phone numbers were the same length. One
might be 17FX, which meant two longs on the line that was named "17".
A 1 was one short, 2 was two shorts, 3 was three shorts. A 5 was one
long, and X was two longs.
Did other phone companies use the same system for assigning phone
numbers? The time I am referring to was back in the 1940s. We didn't
get away from the "crank" phones where I lived until around 1953 or
thereabouts. I was in college (late '50s) before they started using
7-digit numbers where I lived.
Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net
------------------------------
From: Tim Gorman <tg6124@topmail1.sbc.com>
Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:38:46 -0600
In TELECOM Digest Nbr 353, pb@Colorado.EDU (PB Schechter) wrote:
> In a nutshell, I argue that customer ownership of the local loop
> will have the following advantages: 1) There will be no
> interconnection problems (such as when ILECs provide poor, or no,
> service to CLECs), because CLECs will not be"renting" the loop from
> ILECs;
You make this statement here and make the same statement in your paper
but you provide no detail or backup for such an assumption. There
still has to be an interconnection point between the loop and the
switch. Customer owned facilities don't change this physical
reality. Ownership doesn't change the problems associated with the
interconnection which include speed of provisioning, cost of
provisioning, maintenance on forward and back sides of the
interconnect, ability to meet demand, etc. While existing price
tensions exist between the CLEC's wanting free interconnect and the
incumbents wanting fully allocated costing for interconnect, the same
price tension will exist between customers wanting free interconnect
of customer owned facilities, loop construction companies wanting
fully allocated costing for interconnection, and CLEC's wanting
something in-between.
> 2) There will be no problem of allocating the non-traffic
> sensitive(local loop) cost of the local loop among a variety of
> services (on a traffic sensitive basis), because *customer* will do
> that allocation themselves, when they decide what loop to purchase
> (see point 5,below). This is similar to the way customers allocate the
> fixed cost of a car, or of a computer, among different uses by
> deciding what kind of car, or computer, to buy
This is inherently tied in with your discussion of universal service in
your paper. The discussion in your paper provides a surface discussion of
universal service and dismisses the whole issue with an assumption that
those who cannot afford service will be subsidized by the government
somehow. This is really a copout because it fails to address the situation
where a whole subset of middle class families have very expensive loops
that they would not be able to afford in your scenario. This subset happens
to be much of the agricultural community in this United States. Most of
these areas don't have cable TV service even today. To expect that
government will somehow subsidize their service is not reasonable given
today's political climate.. Exactly the same scenario plays out for much of
the suburban population surrounding cities of under 150,000 population.
They are typically served with long loops or subscriber carrier provided
from urban central office hubs. This makes their service much more
expensive than the typical middle class family could afford. Expecting the
government to subsidize their telephone service is not reasonable, again
given today's political climate.
> .3) There will be significantly reduced cost of entry, because a
> CLEC will only need to buy switches and interoffice trunks, to be
> facilities based;
This is not a supported argument. If customers expect to be reimbursed
for connecting their local loops to a service provider, then the cost
of entry remains as high as it does today. The only difference is
where the cost is coming from.
> 4) There will be little danger of predatory pricing or cream
> skimming, because the cost of service will be approximately the same
> everywhere (since it is largely a difference in loop length that
> contributes to a difference in service cost);
This is, once again, an unsupported assumption. While there may not be
cream skimming as there is today, there will certainly be an economic
incentive to switch owners to locate and interconnect to locations
where the costs are the lowest and the revenues the highest. You do
not consider that in today's economic environment that *rate* of
return on investment is the primary consideration for investors, not
total gross sales.
> 5) There will likely be a competitive loop construction industry, so
> that people who want copper loops can buy copper, while people who
> want fiber loops can buy fiber, etc.
You are being very vague here. Will the competition be between competitors
who have already installed inventory to sell? If so, what is the difference
between that scenario and what we have today? It would appear that the only
difference would be whether people pay their phone bills as an expense
(e.g. like their food bill) or if they finance them as a capital investment
(e.g. like a house). That still doesn't address the issue of
interconnection.
> I will not make long arguments for this proposal here, but anyone
> interested can read a draft (that is slightly outdated) of my paper on
> this subject at http://morse.colorado.edu/~pb/own.pdf (it's in pdf,so
> you'll need the Acrobat reader). (My paper also considers some ofthe
> potential problems with customer ownership of the local loop. I say
> this so that those of you who flame from the hip can, perhaps, read
> the paper before you summarily castigate the idea.)
Your paper has some big holes. You only address joint ownership of
facilities in the context of loop carrier. Yet copper distribution
cable is just as jointly used in that all of the copper pairs are in a
common sheath. Your postulation of co-ops owning such joint facilities
only begs the question of interconnection because such co-ops would
naturally look for the best interconnection deals. This, in turn,
causes the very tension you discuss between new competitors and
incumbents to be formed all over again with the very same results as
you see today.
You also dismiss maintenance of local plant as being basically zero
cost because "neither electrons nor photons cause wear to the wires or
fibers over which they travel". Yet the maintenance of local loops is
one of the highest cost factors of the local loop. This area needs to
be considered in much more detail.
Your paper does not discuss the tax impacts, such as capital gains and
depreciation, of owning an investment such as this. Yet this is liable
to be of tremendous importance in such a proposal, especially to
consumers on the low end of the income scale. Will the capital invest-
ment in telephone plant represent sufficient assets to keep people
from qualifying for *other* government assistance such as welfare?
Your paper doesn't address how private owners will cope with the
various problems associated with burying plant such as right-of-way
purchase, construction permits associated with impediments to public
infrastructure such as highways during contruction or repair. It
doesn't address the issue of private liability associated with the
safe operation of the privately owned infrastructure (e.g. keeping
dangerous foreign voltages from causing harm to others).
Your proposal raises some very interesting discussion points. Yet I
would suggest that it glosses over too many problems with vague
handwaving and inaccurate assumptions to make this a really viable
proposal. It is highly unlikely that telephone plant will ever become
as competitive as you suggest because it simply does not have the
liquidity of an asset like a car or boat nor is each cable pair
installed on an independent basis at the time a request for purchase
is made. Therefore there can be little competitiveness in the
installation of the plant but only in the sale of already established
investment. That is no difference from what we have today.
Michael Hayworth wrote:
> Tim Gorman wrote in message ...
>> In Telecom Nbr 348, Michael Hayworth (msh1@airmail.net) wrote:
>> SNIP<
>> Then let's also saddle all the new competitors with the expenses
>> associated with the embedded infrastructure such as maintenance,
>> depreciation, and write-offs of no longer useful investment. *That*
>> would make it fair - and it would also make it impossible for startup
>> companies to ever become viable.
> Those things are a cost of doing business. My business has to deal
> with all those things, too. The difference is, for RBOCs, all those
> items are included in the approved rate structures that ensure a
> profit.
You are still living in the world of 15 years ago, Michael. There are
no approved rate structures that ensure a profit anymore. Price caps
did away with that. That was one of the landmarks on the way to
competition. And, for the most part, new competitors do NOT have to
live with serving expensive customers under a price cap. I expect
yours does not have to either. That includes the maintenance,
depreciation, and write-offs of the no longer useful investment needed
to serve those customers.
>>> There's nothing difficult, impressive or particularly admirable about
>>> being willing to do all this stuff when you're guaranteed a profit for
>>> doing it. I'll be glad to sit in my corporate office and hire some poor
>>> guy to run cable to Uncle Fester's cave up in the Ozarks, if that's one
>>> of the requirements that comes with a huge guaranteed profit.
>> No one was guaranteed a profit on Uncle Fester's service. You are
>> trying to use a specific to prove a generality. It doesn't work.
>> BTW, what do you consider to be a HUGE, guaranteed profit? My guess is
>> that not very many people will consider the allowed rate of return
>> most of the RBOC's were allowed to be *huge*.
> They were guaranteed a profit on their entire business--wiring Uncle
> Fester's cabin was part of the cost of getting that profit, just like any
> other contractual obligation that makes you money.
They were guaranteed a right to petition the local regulatory body for
rate relief when earnings were insufficient to cover costs, including
paying dividends. Those rate relief hearings required the telephone
companies to present proof of the need for the relief, and that didn't
include just providing willy-nilly expense vouchers which were
automatically approved by the regulators.
> And who cares about RATE of return--profit is measured in total earnings
> and earnings per share. Wal-Mart's margin is around 5%, but it's
> still huge, by any measure. And nobody has ever *guaranteed* Wal-Mart
> anything.
Who cares about rate of return? Are you joking? What do you think
earnings per share is a partial measure of? Total return includes
dividends and capital growth (i.e. did my stock go up in price and by
how much?) as well as some other factors including total investment
per share.
> Offer me a 5% margin year after year with no risk on on billions of
> dollars of business, and I'll consider it huge, too.
You might. Not very many Wall Street investors will. Not when you can
get double digit growth from so many low risk stocks today.
>>> We've paid for all this physical plant for years, due to the RBOC
>>> monopolies -
>> No, the investors in the RBOC's paid for the plant. YOU paid for the
>> service you received. The public doesn't own all of the railroad cars
>> in this country, they don't own all of the Greyhound buses in this
>> country, nor do they own all of the airplanes in this country. Yet
>> each of these were natural monopolies at one time and had rates set by
>> government regulators. You paid for the service provided by each of
>> these, you didn't buy the operating plant. The investors in the
>> companies paid for the resources used to provide the services. The
>> investors own the company and its infrastructure.
> Baloney, we didn't buy the operating plant. If I take my company public,
> with all the attendant risks involved in the business world, then my
> investors pay for the plant. Their money is at risk, because my customers
> can choose to go elsewhere. Not so with a public utility guaranteed a
> monopoly. There, the investors are much more akin to bondholders who pay
> for streets -- yet we never say the bondholders own the streets.
It is not baloney. The telephone companies have been publically traded
for what? 75 years or more? The investors DID pay for the plant. And
they DID take a risk. If nothing else they took a risk that the
regulators would not allow them to earn a rate of return equal to the
inflation rate.
Bond issues to pay for the streets are reimbursed with TAX money, not
with revenues. You are mixing apples and oranges in an emotional plea
that somehow, anyhow, the public owns the telecommunications
infrastructure built up over the past 100 years. It just doesn't wash.
> If a government entity guarantees a monopoly rates that will provide
> them a profit, and the public has neither choice of providers nor
> option of rates, then the public has paid for that plant.
If you will go back and study the charter of any public utility
regulatory commission you will find that they did NOT guarantee any
utility a profit. Their only charter was to allow reasonable earnings
on reasonable and prudent investment. The purpose of the regulators
was to take the place of competition.
That did NOT mean that the telephone companies were ever nationalized
in any way. They were not government agencies and were not supported
by tax money. They operated as any publically traded business and the
owners of the infrastructure are the investors in the companies, not
the public at large.
>> BTW, 56Kb modem technology has only been
>> available for a couple of years. A massive network-wide upgrade to
>> support 56Kb technology in the distribution plant in a year or two
>> would require a miracle on the level of creation itself. Expecting
>> such an occurrence only shows a misunderstanding of the financial
>> makeup of the industry.
> 56K doesn't matter. Pick 9600 bps modems, or 14,400 bps modems, or 28,800
> bps modems. The fact is, those modems are designed to work at their rated
> speeds over a voice grade line, but in many areas, the voice quality is
> so bad, they can't do so.
In many areas the "voice" quality is so bad that 14.4K modems won't
work? I suggest you take this up with the state utility commission. I
will tell you that almost everytime such a complaint has been
forwarded to our PUC, that it has turned out to be a problem in the
house wiring. There is no guarantee that a 28.8kbps modem will
work. The bandwidth necessary for this is not required for voice.
There are lots of subscriber carrier links that will not handle
28.8kbps but handle voice perfectly well.
<snip>
> Yeah, right. Bell is doing us all a favor by trying to keep competition
> out of the local market. They're standing up for truth, justice and the
> American way. I knew that was it!
Uh, huh. That is why the RBOC's have so many signed interconnect
agreements, isn't it? They are trying to keep competition out of the
local market. This one doesn't fly either, except for those who wish
to use embedded facilities for free.
Tim Gorman SWBT
(I speak for myself)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And with these lengthy exchanges
between Tim Gorman and others, let's conclude this thread which will
never really come to a satisfactory answer for everyone. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #359
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 28 08:03:08 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA02324; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 08:03:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 08:03:08 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712281303.IAA02324@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #360
TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Dec 97 08:03:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 360
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Chicago-Area Public Still Waits for Phone Competition Payoff (Tad Cook)
Book Review: Netizens History (Ronda Hauben)
EarlyBird 1 (Monty Solomon)
Checksums on Phone Numbers (Joey Lindstrom)
Lucent 9510 Owners Wanted (Alan Wong)
Local Phone Bill "Cram" Fraud (Lee Winson)
Re: Sprint Billing Problems (ccremer@compuserve.com)
Looking For Win NT Telephony Card - Any Suggestions? (Geoff Glave)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: Chicago-Area Public Still Waits for Phone Competition Payoff
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:06:16 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Chicago-Area Public Still Waits for Phone Competition Payoff
By Jon Van, Chicago Tribune
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Dec. 21--Sometime next year, perhaps when you're able to write 1998 on
a check without thinking twice, Chicago-area phone users will learn if
we're getting yet another area code, and if we'll have to dial 11
digits even to call a next-door neighbor.
Like most metropolitan regions, Chicago began running short of phone
numbers at the start of the decade, largely because of the explosion
in new services such as wireless phones, faxes and computer networking.
But lately, the number squeeze and the area code proliferation intend-
ed to meet it has been fueled mostly by all the companies aspiring to
supply phone service.
The 847 area code, created during 1996's phone number expansion festival,
may run out of numbers by next year's end, experts predict. State
regulators are mulling whether to split that code or to order up an
overlay code for all or part of the region to meet the problem.
Overlay numbers, issued once the existing supply runs out, have the
advantage of allowing current customers to keep their current phone
number. But federal regulations require that if overlay numbers are
used, all local calls in the Chicago region must be made by dialing a
one, the area code and the seven-digit local number.
This is supposed to promote competitive fairness, so that customers of
established phone companies will have just as much difficulty using
their phones as customers of new companies that get new overlay area
code numbers.
By the end of March it's likely that the Illinois Commerce Commission
will decide the immediate area code issue and whether customers must
embrace 11-digit dialing. But just when all this turmoil to
accommodate local competition will provide tangible benefits to
residential users of plain old telephone service is anyone's guess.
"It seems as though most customers are feeling quite a lot of pain to
accommodate competition, but they haven't seen many of the promised
benefits," said Seamus Glynn, an analyst with the Citizens Utility
Board, a consumer advocate group watching the phone number problem.
So far, most of the companies horning in on Ameritech's local phone
business are pitching their services to businesses. That might change
if long-distance firms like AT&T Corp. and MCI Communications Corp.
succeeded in branching out into local markets.
But Ameritech and its would-be competitors are locked in a stand-off
on local service.
Pointing to the influx of smaller competitors, Ameritech contends that
its market is open to competition and that it should be allowed to
offer its customers long-distance service as the federal telecommuni-
cations law of 1996 provides.
But AT&T and MCI contend that legal challenges and technical short-
comings have prevented them from competing for local customers as
planned. Thus, they argue that Ameritech must still be barred from
long-distance service in its five-state territory.
So far, federal officials have bought the long-distance duo's argument
and denied Ameritech and its siblings the ability to offer customers a
full line of local and long-distance service. There is no immediate
end to the deadlock in sight.
Hung up in its home market, Ameritech, which had predicted it would be in
the long-distance business by early last year in Illinois and Michigan, has
shifted gears and says that next year it will begin offering local and
long-distance service to residents of St. Louis -- outside the Ameritech
service territory -- in direct competition with SBC Communications Inc.,
the former Southwestern Bell.
This would mark the first time sibling Bell companies faced off against
each other to compete in their core wireline business.
"Plan A hasn't worked out, so Ameritech has decided to go to Plan B," said
Jeffrey Kagan, an Atlanta-based industry analyst and author of "Winning
Communications Strategies."
"Plan B isn't as attractive as Plan A was, but I think these companies
will at least dabble in it in 1998 to see what they can do. Chicago
will certainly be among the first to see the fruits of whatever
competition comes of it."
But while traditional phone customers haven't seen much from all the
ballyhooed competition, wireless phone customers have seen plenty and
may see more. Rates are falling and service offerings expanding since
AT&T, PrimeCo and, to a limited extent, Nextel Communications
Inc. began offering wireless service in competition with the
traditional cellular service in the region provided by SBC's Cellular
One and Ameritech.
Wireless competition should crank up another notch next summer when
Sprint Corp. launches its personal communications service in
Chicago. In metropolitan markets across the country, wireless
companies seek to continue recruiting people who never before used a
wireless phone, driving down costs.
"I just got a new deal from my carrier," said Robert Rosenberg,
president of Insight Research Corp., a telecommunications market
consultancy based in Livingston, N.J. "My basic rate is about half
what it was two years ago and I get a zillion minutes of talk time."
Rosenberg predicts that by the end of next year, Chicagoans will see
true competition in the residential phone market once new equipment
now being installed helps competitors interconnect their systems
effectively. As Ameritech begins to offer long distance and MCI and
AT&T offer local service, residential customers will at last see some
benefit from all the pain they've endured in the area code mess.
"Phone prices will start falling, and you'll get bothered by even more
phone call solicitations just as you sit down to dinner," predicted
Rosenberg. "The faster prices fall, the more dinnertime interruptions
you can expect."
------------------------------
From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Book Review: Netizens History
Date: 27 Dec 1997 16:00:50 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
The following was posted to Usenet recently by Usenet pioneer Mark Horton
[ Article crossposted from alt.culture.usenet,alt.folklore.computers,
misc.books.technical ]
[ Author was Mark Horton ]
[ Posted on Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:29:03 -0500 ]
Netizens
by Michael and Ronda Hauben
Published by the IEEE Computer Society
Review by Mark Horton
Netizens describes the history of the Internet, focusing especially
on the formation of the Usenet bulletin board system. For me it was
a trip down memory lane. The social and political implications of
opening up communication among a group of academic philosophers was
groundbreaking, and Netizens is there to give us the play-by-play.
The book includes interviews with the founders of Usenet and with the
pioneers who contributed to its character and growth. The story of
how Tom Truscott's summer job at Bell Labs, volleyball, chess, and
"rising at the crack of noon" turned into the seed of Usenet is
inspiring, especially in this age of cost-cutting and disposable
computer software. The authors make good use of an archive of the
first few years of Usenet postings. Those of us who were there
remember much, but the archive is like putting history on videotape.
Quotes from the formative days remind us of the issues of the time,
such as the unwillingness of the ARPANET to talk to Usenet;
censorship; and how the high cost of getting Usenet to Europe was
overcome.
Chapters of the book tell the history of many of the building blocks
of the Internet. The early days of the ARPANET are chronicled, from
the selection of the first four sites in 1968 to the people involved
and how they solved the early problems of the net. Netizens also
tells the story of the UNIX operating system, how it came about, the
key contributors, even how the grep command got its name.
Photos from the 1950s showing computer center machine rooms with IBM
704 components taking up the entire room, key researchers at places
like MIT, computer chess tournaments, and the founders of Usenet add
to the sense of history.
This is an excellent book. The academic style means you'll have to
think to read it. This book is a vital element in any Internet
historian's library.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 14:32:34 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: EarlyBird 1
<http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/971226/tech/stories/satellite_1.html>
Friday December 26 9:52 AM EST
Civilians Now Have "Eye In Sky" With Satellite Launch
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the launching of the world's first
commercial spy satellite, just about anybody with a credit card soon
may enjoy an eye in the sky.
"EarlyBird 1" was designed to pick out features on the ground as small
as three meters (10 feet) across. It was successfully launched
Wednesday atop a Russian rocket by its builder, EarthWatch, of
Longmont, Colo.
The launching, from a military base in eastern Russia, ended the
monopoly of the world's most advanced military and intelligence
services on gathering high-resolution pictures from space.
"The people of the world will soon have easy and inexpensive access to
the most refined representation of our planet ever assembled," Donovan
Hicks, EarthWatch's president, said in a statement.
Currently, the sharpest such commercially available imagery captures
features no smaller than 10 meters (33 feet). Such pictures are sold by
Spot Images of Toulouse, France, as well as by companies in Russia and
the United States.
After a brief on-orbit calibration and commissioning period, the
EarlyBird 1 satellite will begin beaming back images with three-meter
"resolution" that can be purchased, among other ways, through the
Internet by any approved customer.
The imagery may be used in a wide range of applications, including
town planning, mapmaking, mining and giving the media and the public
the chance to scrutinize environmental and military crises.
With three-meter capabilities, cars can be distinguished from trucks,
for example. In imagery taken at 10-meter resolution, neither cars nor
trucks can be identified.
EarthWatch, Spot and firms in India, Israel, Russia and China plan to
launch next-generation satellites in coming years capable of
distinguishing ground objects with a diameter as small as one meter
(39.37 inches).
The Clinton administration opened the door for U.S. companies to enter
the field in 1994, bowing to industry arguments that foreign rivals
would otherwise have a free hand.
But the federal government retains the right to screen foreign customers
and the right to switch off the commercial sensors in times of war or
international tension.
The launch of EarlyBird 1 provided a vivid reminder that the Cold War is
over. It was the first commercial launch from the Svobodny Cosmodrome,
Russia's newest commercial launch site.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:51:37 -0700
From: Joey Lindstrom <joey@lindstrom.com>
Subject: Checksums on Phone Numbers
At 05:07 PM 25/12/97 -0500, Telecom Digest Editor wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would eliminate those cases where
> a number was misdialed, but of course it would not eliminate the
> calls from collection agencies for whoever had the number prior to
> you. I would cut it down to a single digit at the end by saying that
> if the sum was more than nine then add those digits together also
> and keep doing so until you got down to a single digit. In your
> example then, 75=7+5=12=1+2=3. I'd make the formula a bit more complex
> to prevent still more wrong numbers. In your example, any two digits
> can be transposed and you will still get the same end result. It would
> be better to use the formula used by many credit card companies
> which would be like this:
I've a simpler idea. Add the single digit but have it RANDOMLY
ASSIGNED by the telco (or optionally by the user) when service is
first set up. This has several advantages over the checksum and other
methods.
1) For every valid telephone number, there's only one valid "extra"
digit. Think what this will do to telemarketing companies. Nine out
of every ten calls they place won't go anywhere.
The flipside of this is that if you used checksums, the telemarketing
firms could simply run all "valid" numbers through their own checksum
generator at the time of dial to figure out what the proper extra
digit is for any given number ... so every call they made would reach
a valid number (if it's actually in service that is).
2) Calls from collection agencies trying to reach the person who had
the number before you would be reduced, because you've got an
excellent chance that the "extra" digit will be different from the
deadbeat who had the line before. To them, the number went out of
service for a time ... maybe they tried all ten variations ... then
occasional spot checks later, into the time when the number gets
reassigned. It won't eliminate the most persistent ones, but it
should certainly reduce the frequency of such calls.
3) Many harassing/obscene phone calls are done at random by idiots who
don't actually know the person they're calling. So, customers
victimized by this could simply dial the telco and ask for their
"extra" digit to be changed - this is not a telephone number change
and thus shouldn't include the massive charge for a new phone number
that is usually levied, and yet would discourage such random calls.
4) For people that have a second phone line in the house, they could
have them set up so that each has the same base phone number, but each
has a different "extra" digit. This would ease some pressure on the
numbering pool.
This is a fun little exercise, but I think in reality such a scheme
would never be accepted, and I don't think I'd personally support
adding another digit or two to the numbering scheme unless there were
better reasons (ie: expanding the numbering pool).
------------------------------
From: sammy@NOSPAMMEsuper.zippo.com (Alan Wong)
Subject: Lucent 9510 Owners Wanted
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:33:42 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hello,
I'm just writing to see what your views on this phone are. Just
purchased this unit, and to my dismay, it seems to be one of the
"first batch" units with the infamous battery problem. I talked with
Lucent Customer Service and if I was to send it in I would either get
a refurbished unit or "factory serviced" unit. Not the unit that I
bought, figuring that they would repair my brand new unit but a
repaired unit that someone else sent in for service. From what I've
been gathering so far, one of their tech support reps told me that
every other owner of the 9510 models seems to have a problem and has
to send it in for a swap out. He remarked also, that tin one case, the
second unit that was replaced when the customer sent in his, was also
defective and also had to replaced. My questions to you fellow 9510
owners are::
1) Did you happen to return your unit for a replacement and how was
your experience with the service and also your "refurbished" 9510?
2.) What problems did you have?
Here are mine, if anybody can comment on them. One gripe is that when
the battery is empty, the LED display will still show that it's charge
is full. When I need to use the unit, either it can't find the base or
the phone won't turn on the phone at all. If I read the manual
correctly, the LED show display battery low but it hasn't done so in
the 6-7 times that the battery has drained out on me. Another weird
problem is that when it is fully charged, the green light come son,
meaning the battery is charged. If I take this off the base and put it
back on, the red charging light comes on charges for another hour or
so.
I would APPRECAITE any comments, feedback, tips on this particular
subject.
Thanks,
Alan please remove the "NOSPAMME" from my address.
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Local Phone Bill "Cram" Fraud
Date: 27 Dec 1997 17:42:28 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
The {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported that telephone customers are
being hard hit by "cramming", with unexplained charges appearing on
phone bills from companies the subscriber never heard. (Sat, 12/27/97
Page D1.)
As a result of a proliferation of carriers and providers, all kinds of
services are slapped on the monthly bill that consumers don't
understand or know whether they're legitimate. Things such as:
teleconferencing, teleservice, messaging, 800 service, monthly fee,
member fee, monthly "axces" charge.
By law, Bell companies are required to let other companies use their
billing systems for a fee. Bell Atlantic says it is spending $500
million to upgrade its billing system. [Who will pay for
that -- current subscribers, stockholders, or the new companies?]
Putting a stop to the fraud will be tough. There is the jurisdictional
jumble of federal regulatory agencies. The FCC regulates only "common
carriers". Then there are middlemen, who are merely a conduit between
the add-on service providers and the local phone company billing systems.
IMHO, phone companies should have WRITTEN verification from the
subscriber before adding any new services or changing long distance
companies. It is absurb that anyone could march up and add charges to
someone's phone bill. If these new add-on services are so hungry for
business, let them bill through a credit card or bill the consumer
directly.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:30:58 -0500
From: ccremer <ccremer@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Problems
In reply to Nirav Gosalia's 'Sprint Billing Problems' ...
I began using Sprint as my LD provider in 1972 or 1973. This was
before equal access and while the company was still owned -- at least
in part -- by the Southern Pacific railroad. We had to dial an 800
toll-free number and enter a PIN to gain access to the network. We
received a separate billing. Service was fine.
I kept using Sprint through four changes of address and three changes
of phone number. Equal access was implemented and the billing was
integrated with my SW Bell bill. Service was fine.
About three years ago, I became a charter subscriber to the Sprint
Sense dime-a-minute evenings/weekends plan for interstate calls.
Intrastate evening calls were 15 cents/minute. Service was fine.
I moved again last February to a new address and phone number. This
time, the wheels fell off. I dialed 1-700-555-4141 from the new number
and hear d "Welcome to Sprint - blah-blah". Fine. SW Bell knew my
preferred provider from the old number so they set me up at the new
one and I don't have to lift a finger. WRONG! My first bill from
Sprint came in at "list price" so I called customer service and after
letting them know I was a long-time customer who had just moved, I was
assured my information would be corrected. The next bill arrived and
it was at the regular Sprint preferred provider rates - lower than
list price but not as low as Sprint Sense. Since then I've been
PIC-ing 1010-636, Clear Choice Communications, a Var Tec Telecom
company.
Their rate is 20 cents/call plus 10 cents/minute all day every day. If
I talk over 4 minutes, which I usually do, it's cheaper than Sprint
Sense on the evening intrastate calls which make up almost 100% of
my LD use.
------------------------------
Subject: Looking For Win NT Telephony Card - Any Suggestions?
From: geoffrey_glave@mindlink.net (Geoff Glave)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:47:22 GMT
Hi there,
I'm with a small software company and we're looking for an inexpensive
telephone / NT solution to help with evening and weekend tech support
calls.
What we're looking for is some kind of card we can put in our NT
server that answers the phone after hours with a pre-recorded message.
A caller can either leave a message, or press "0" on their keypad if
they require tech support. The card would then dial out on another
port to a cell phone someone on call would be carrying. The call
would then go something like this:
customer ===> server ===> cell phone
There's no sound card in this server now, so ideally the card would
have at least two ports (one in, one out), as well as all the bits and
pieces to play back and record the voicemail (wave?) files. If the
card also had another 33.6 fax / modem port, well so much the better.
We don't have a huge number of customers, so it is unlikely we would have to
deal with two tech support calls at once.
Can anyone out there make any recommendations on products?
Thanks in advance - email replies appreciated.
Geoff Glave
Soft Tracks Enterprises Ltd.
Vancouver, BC Canada
geoffg@softtracks.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #360
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 28 09:23:09 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA06284; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 09:23:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 09:23:09 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712281423.JAA06284@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #361
TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Dec 97 09:23:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 361
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Can Anyone ID This Motorola Product by Description? (Steve Bagdon)
Line-in-use Indicator (For UK) (Jerry Peek)
Toll Notification (Tim McGue)
Re: AT&T "Just4Me" Market Trial (Bill Levant)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Wayne Gucwa)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Barry Bishop)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Lee Winson)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (Force Ten)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (A. Argyriou)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (Dale Neiburg)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (John Nagle)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (Adrian Smith)
Re: Panasonic 616 PBX Phones Wanted (Richard Taylor)
Re: Phones in Very Cold Environments (Frank McNamara)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Fred R. Goldstein)
Re: Using Fax Machine as a Scanner (Michelle Durbin)
Re: Using Fax Machine as a Scanner (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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon)
Subject: Can Anyone ID This Motorola Product by Description?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 09:52:19 -0400
Organization: ISPNews http://ispnews.com
I'm attempting to ID a Motorola cordless phone model by description, and
have had no luck finding info on the web, newsgroups or Motorola web
pages.
While working at a previous place of employement (I have no contacts
there anymore), the desktop support group had Motorola cordless
phones. I believe they were digital, and appeared to be flip-type. The
one feature that set them apart was that they were 'cellular-like' -
there were antennas spread around the facility, and the techs could
carry on a conversation anywhere in the building. I am unsure if
'handoffs' were possible (they didn't talk much while moving), but
being able to place/receive calls from any desk in the building
(millions of square feet) was the big thing. I believe that someone
mentioned that the controlling 'switch' for all of the cordless phones
was switch-independent, just feed the cordless base station dial-tone,
and everything worked. It was just that there were cables leading
everywhere to the antennas.
Can anyone ID this phone/system/etc from just this descriptions. If I
had just a name, I'm hoping I can get with Motorola for some sales/tech
literature. Thanks in advance to anyone who can supply any information.
Steve B.
bagdon@rust.net (h) sbagdon@ford.com (w)
http://www.rust.net/~bagdon
------------------------------
From: Jerry Peek <jpeek@jpeek.com>
Subject: Line-in-use Indicator (For UK)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:53:35 +0000
Organization: gradual student
I live in London. Two other people share the same telephone number
with me and my modem. We'd like to know when the line is in use from
another handset or modem -- so we don't interrupt other peoples'
calls. I've looked for telephone accessories that connect to the
(British Telecom) phone line and turn on an LED when the line is in
use, but I haven't found one.
It seems like the circuit should be simple: when the voltage across
the line goes low, the line is in use. A simple (high-impedance)
transistor switch and an LED should do the job, eh? If the BT ringing
voltage is on the same pair of wires as the voice, the circuit should
be able to handle that too.
Fifteen years ago, I was an electrical engineer ... but I've given
away everything except an old multimeter, and I don't know what parts
are available these days anyway. Can anyone cook up a schematic that
uses standard parts I could get at an electronic supply store? Or do
you know where I can buy this gadget (for BT phone lines)? Thanks!
Jerry Peek, jpeek@jpeek.com, http://www.jpeek.com/~jpeek/
[If jpeek.com refuses your mail (sorry!), use jpeek@ix.netcom.com]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This question comes up so often it
ought to be categorized as 'frequently asked'; in fact I think it
is a few places. There is a detailed file about this in the Telecom
Archives which you might want to consult also. Refer to the archives
at http://telecom-digest.org ... perhaps other readers who have done
this modification will also contact you. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tim_McGue@mastercard.com (Tim McGue)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:34:44 -0600
Subject: Toll Notification
I read and enjoy the TELECOM Digest, but I am not in the telecom
industry. The other day I placed a telephone call on a pay phone and
I only dropped in a quarter (forgetting about the rate increase to
thirty-five cents). A recorded message came on notifying me that the
call would cost thirty-five cents total. I recalled other recordings
I have heard in the past. Each recording notified me of exactly how
much the call, or portion of a call, would cost.
In theory, is something like this possible for my residential service?
When I place a call would it be possible for a recording to come on
and tell me how much the call is costing me? While we're discussing
theory, would it also be possible for the recording to note my carrier,
both for local and long distance?
Thanks in advance,
Tim McGue
------------------------------
From: Bill Levant <Wlevant@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:07:49 EST
Subject: Re : AT&T "Just4Me" market trial
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
AT&T just tried -- unsuccessfully -- to "slam" my home phone, which I
had switched *from* AT&T just three months ago.
Fortunately, Bell Atlantic is running way behind on PIC switches, so I
got the "thanks for selecting AT&T" mailer __before__ the PIC switch
hit, and IMMEDIATELY called BA. I put a PIC freeze on the account,
and so far -- it's been three weeks -- all remains well.
By the way, when I called AT&T to complain, they said that the switch
was authorized by _me__ personally on a telemarketing call. That was,
of course, an out-and-out lie. Revenge of the telemarketers, I
suspect. I tend to be rude to those who call at dinnertime ... and I
__hate__ the ones whose scripts translate "no, I'm not interested" as
"please, twist my arm".
I wonder if visiting AT&T's site will authorize a switch to AT&T?? ;-)
I cancelled my AT&T universal card, too; it used to be a good deal, but
they've gotten decidedly ungenerous lately ...
Bill
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Universal Card has been sold to
some other credit card operation; AT&T no longer owns/operates it.
Or, at least it is about to be sold, I am not sure which. It will
be interesting to see if the new owners honor AT&T's promise of
'no annual fee'. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Wayne Gucwa <gucwa@*planet.net>
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:08:23 -0500
Organization: Planet Access Network Inc.
Nick wrote in his message:
> Isn't it clear by now that local competition is a joke? You can't
> expect the entrenched locals to willingly give up their business.
> Congress decided that local phone competition was in the best interest
> of the nation. The laws they enacted to encourage it have been a
> dismal failure. Time for new laws.
> TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe it is time for fewer laws
> instead of more laws. PAT]
Perhaps, but let's not forget that the Telecom Act was the best
legislation that the LEC's could buy. And nearly every state's PUC
has sided with their major contributor (the LEC) on policy issues
brought to their attention. Ultimately, the result is a status quo
with real competition in long distance (without the LEC's presence),
and virtually no competition in local services.
Of course, profit margins are quite good in local service, so it is to
a LEC's benefit to make local entry via resale anything but easy for
the new entrants; then blame entrants for their stupidity and
inexperience in proper provisioning protocol. How many of us now have
two lines at home, plus a cellular? No wonder we've been through new
area codes every two years in NJ.! And the profits roll in, generally
to the incumbent's favor. The LEC's probably are not terribly
interested in long distance, as the margins are tight already.
(Admittedly, they do want long distance between their now *expanded *
regions since merger-mania finished).
The courts were MUCH more active during the breakup of the Bell system
in setting appropriate rates and monitoring AT&T's behavior in new
entrants like MCI. In this case, we've got a state's rights
Vs. federal law confrontation, with the consumer in the middle.
States control local, the FCC the long distance, and the stalemate
continues while AT&T makes what seems to be an intelligent business
decision for a change.
I'm very interested to see what the (NEW) MCI is going to do, since
they spent a fortune putting switches in several cities to go local.
Perhaps they are the only chance we under-represented will have.
I, for one, will go where price and performance are better, but I
suppose it'll take several more years before we see a choice.
BTW, how about cable competition? Anybody got it yet (other than
satellite)?
Regards,
Wayne
------------------------------
From: Barry Bishop <wezaa@msn.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: 27 Dec 1997 22:33:14 -0800
Interesting, now ask AT&T if they are giving up their "Digital Link"
product. It seems that this product provides local dial tone via a T1
to large customers. While it would appear they want out of the local
business for small customers, they will cream skim and go for the
bucks.
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: 27 Dec 1997 23:08:02 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
There have been several articles about this in both the general and
data processing trade press.
A number of long distance companies are giving up on the local market.
They all blame the Regional Bell companies for not cooperating. What
exactly that means was not made clear.
One issue that troubled me was the frequent use of the word "reselling"
in terms of local service. It seemed to me the new companies basically
wanted to come in, buy service at wholesale, then sell it at retail.
To me, that is not competition, just adding an unnecessary layer of
bureacracy and a middleman. Nor do I see any reason to compel the
RBOCs to participate in that.
Another item in these articles was about private networks. Apparently,
in built up downtown areas, competitors ARE building competing private
networks to serve the business community, and that market has potential
for the new companies.
To me, it seems that we're back to skimming the cream.
------------------------------
From: Force Ten <force010@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 20:26:10 -0800
Organization: Netcom
Reply-To: force010@ix.netcom.com
Jack Daniel wrote:
> We have a unique way of paying for roadside callboxes and the
> technical capabilities of the newer callboxes are much more than most
> people assume. I will elaborate on that of anyone is interested.
Absolutely we are interested! That's what this group is all about.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I sent Jack an email message saying
the same thing. Perhaps we will hear from him soon. PAT]
------------------------------
From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 04:40:56 GMT
Organization: Alpha Geotechnical
Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:41:12 -0800, Jack Daniel <jdaniel@earthlink.
net> wrote:
> Here in California we also have wide use of roadside callboxes. Both
> wired 'telephone' and radio call boxes are used. The radio call boxes
> generally use a specially modified cell phone, but other radio bands
> are also used when there is no cellular service within range.
Are they really "modified" cellulars? I recall a tv news story about
people breaking the boxes open, then re-programming the equipment to
work with pirated ESNs. The main modifications seems to be replacing
the keypad with one button which dials 911. Or did they fix them
after the local cellular thieves discovered the weakness?
Anthony Argyriou
http://www.alphageo.com
------------------------------
From: Dale Neiburg <DNeiburg@npr.org>
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:20:54 -0500
In TELECOM Digest 17:355. Gail M. Hall asked:
[snip!]
> This reminds me of a question my husband and I had on a recent trip to
> the Washington, DC, area. In Maryland not far from Silver Spring we
> saw signs urging people to call in to report anyone in trouble on the
> freeway. Yet we did not see call boxes anywhere along that highway.
> This would mean that people would have to leave the freeway to find a
> phone or the authorities were depending on a significant number of
> drivers having cell phones in their cars.
> Yet along the Pennsylvania Turnpike we saw call boxes at regular
> intervals all along the highway. Apparently these were installed long
> before cell phones were available.
> I wonder what percentage of drivers these days have cell phones in
> their cars.
[snip!]
In the Washington metro area, mobile phone penetration is very high,
though I don't know actual numbers. As an indication:
Until recently, a local radio station got around the cost and delay
nuisance (by the time a driver gets warning of an accident or other
delay, the problem has likely been cleared) of subscribing to a
traffic service by a neat and simple expedient. They had a call-in
request show during rush hours which operated by having commuters call
in on their car phones, tell where they were and report on traffic
conditions there, and request the "oldie" of their choice. I found it
both more timely and more accurate than the commercial services set up
for the purpose.
Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640
"... And I have heard many impudently say, that they have chosen their
Wives, and Wives their Husbands, by dancing. Which plainly proveth
the Wickedness of it."
--Philip Stubbes: The Anatomy of Abuses, 1573
------------------------------
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 18:28:55 GMT
travisd@netresponse.com (Travis Dixon) writes:
> In article <telecom17.355.3@telecom-digest.org>, gmhall@apk.net (Gail M.
> Hall) wrote:
>> This reminds me of a question my husband and I had on a recent trip to
>> the Washington, DC, area. In Maryland not far from Silver Spring we
>> saw signs urging people to call in to report anyone in trouble on the
>> freeway. Yet we did not see call boxes anywhere along that highway.
>> This would mean that people would have to leave the freeway to find a
>> phone or the authorities were depending on a significant number of
>> drivers having cell phones in their cars.
Yes. When the Washington, D.C. beltway first opened, it was
equipped with emergency call boxes. At the time, there was concern
that the Beltway went through remote, unpopulated areas, but that
problem has been solved. The original call boxes were radio-linked
non-voice units, with buttons for fire, police, tow truck, and
ambulance.
John Nagle
------------------------------
From: Adrian C Smith <acs@opensystems.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: 28 Dec 1997 09:40:46 GMT
Organization: Open Systems Design Limited
Gail M. Hall <gmhall@apk.net> wrote in article <telecom17.355.3@
telecom-digest.org>:
> I wonder what percentage of drivers these days have cell phones in
> their cars. I would think a significant number of them would need to
> have them to make it worthwhile for authorities to post signs asking
> drivers to call in and report people in trouble. Otherwise, it seems
> that it would be a good idea to install call boxes on freeways if 80
> percent or more of the people did not have cell phones.
From a UK point of view the figure seems to be around 20% of drivers
have a car or pocket phone -- many provided by the employer -- like the
car.
On our motorways (freeways) emergency phones are located at one-mile
intervals on every part of the road -- and either side. Small markers
every 1/10th mile indicate the direction to the nearest. You can only
contact the emergency services from them; i.e. no normal calls.
------------------------------
From: Richard Taylor <rstaylor@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Panasonic 616 PBX Phones Wanted
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 02:42:59 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: rstaylor@mindspring.com
Mark,
I used to sell and install Panasonic Hybrid Key Systems. It's really
not a PBX. The very first model (KXT-616D) used only single line
sets, even for programming (station 21), all subsequent models
(KXT-6i6H, I believe) required only one proprietary set (station 10)
for programming, the could be any single line device. Although I hate
the fact that the system was made in Japan, I'll have to admit, it was
the most reliable, easy to install/program/use system I ever
sold/installed. Check the model on the KSU (key service unit) and let
me know. I assume you have a manual, if not I could make you a copy.
I probably have an old set lying around. I haven't been in the
interconnect business in 5 years, but I still see the 616 installed
new all the time. You can also buy new sets through many catalogues
for about $110 or on the used market for about 60. Let me know what
your exact requirements are, and I'll try to help you. The 616 makes
a great home system, except for the fact you have to dial 9 or 81, 82
etc. for outside lines. The paging (33) is great too.
I still got a couple of those in service that I still "maintain", but
both have never had a service call for the KSU in ten years. Amazing.
In all the ones I installed, I never had a KSU failure.
Richard Taylor Carrboro, NC
rstaylor@mindspring.com
------------------------------
From: Frank McNamara <onmyown@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Phones in Very Cold Environments
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 03:24:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
In article <telecom17.355.4@telecom-digest.org>, Robert Johnstone
<johnstoneNO-SPAM@catlover.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if there is a telephone that will holdup in -20 degrees
> Fahrenheit (in an ice cream storage warehouse.) Is there a rubber
> phone? Normal type of phones break in just a few days and the cords
> don't last that long.
I have installed phones in a few walk-in freezers. What we tell the
customer is to have their maintainence dept. make up a box with a few
one foot ceiling tiles and install a 20 watt appliance bulb to keep it
warm inside. On the front of the box use some of the clear plastic
strips that warehouses use on their freezer separations . That does
the trick quite nicely and uses stuff they have laying around already.
Frank
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:18:37 GMT
In article <telecom17.354.2@telecom-digest.org>, ram.samudrala@
stanford.nojunkemail says:
> I consider this deceptive (the lack of distinction between toll calls
> and non-toll calls, and the lack of clear statement by PB about what
> constitutes a local call and what doesn't), and I'd like to force PB
> to change.
Not to belabor the topic, but a few interesting side issues do arise.
Until 1994 or so, the PacBell phone books generally listed local
calling areas by exchange, which is a *geographical* area. I have on
file some cute little maps from PacBell directories. Local calls were
listed on an exchange-to-exchange basis; for instance, "San Jose 1"
could call "San Jose 2" and a bunch of other places in Zone 1/2, and
some others in Zone 3. There are also lists of prefix codes, showing
what exchange (and sometimes zone) they're in (for instance, 510 526
in East Bay 1.)
In the 1995+ books, they no longer list this; instead they have big
paragraph-style lists of local prefix codes, within each local area
code, Zone 3 being in boldface. So a new *or unlisted* prefix code is
a mystery. And we know how rapidly codes are being created.
I suspect PacBell follows NYNEX practice of only listing their own
prefix codes in the book. So the hundreds of new CLEC codes are
unlisted. Most ISPs in Boston are on CLEC codes which aren't in the
phone book, so you sort of have to trust the ISP's listing.
Also re: toll barrier dialing, note that "zone" calls are technically
"local", not "toll", but may cost more than toll. In Boston, Zone 3
local (over 8 miles) costs 5.2c/minute all the time, while intra-LATA
"toll" is 5 cents evenings and 4 cents weekends for residence;
business rates are comparable but also based on volume, so even during
the day can be below Zone 3 "local".
I think the right answer nowadays is to make toll barrier a per-line
option, so users can choose it if they want. It would not be hard to
do if there were only, say, two options. Matching toll barrier to
your "free" line class, however, would be *really* tricky in Boston
where there are around 8 line classes with different, somewhat
arbitrary, calling areas.
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
------------------------------
From: Michelle Durbin <mdurbin@hihello.com>
Subject: Re: Using Fax Machine as a Scanner
Date: 26 Dec 1997 18:03:14 GMT
Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service
I've seen some fax machines (I belive they were Panasonic) which have
a serial cable connection which allows them to be used as a scanner.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Using Fax Machine as a Scanner
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:31:04 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Chen Lin <clin@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
> It is possible to build a simple device to connect a regular fax
> machine and a PC with fax modem together so that the fax machine may
> be used as a scanner?
If you don't have a couple of spare phone lines available, use a line
simulator, such as one of the models made by Proctor & Associates.
Their web address is www.proctorinc.com, or you can call them at
425-881-7000. Their email address is solutions@proctorinc.com.
Tad Cook tad@ssc.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #361
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 28 17:44:09 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id RAA07498; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:44:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:44:09 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712282244.RAA07498@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #362
TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Dec 97 17:44:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 362
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Checksums on Phone Numbers (Bill Levant)
Re: Chicago-Area Public Still Waits ... (Bill Levant)
Re: Looking For Win NT Telephony Card - Any Suggestions? (Jay R. Ashworth)
Re: Noisy Analog Lines (Jim Fain)
Re: Noisy Analog Lines (Bill Garfield)
Re: AOL Victorious Over Spammer (Kim Brennan)
Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge (Nathan Stratton)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Darryl Smith)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Dr. Ram Samudrala)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Rahul Dhesi)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Levant <Wlevant@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:56:13 EST
Subject: Checksums on Phone Numbers
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
> 1) For every valid telephone number, there's only one valid "extra"
> digit. Think what this will do to telemarketing companies. Nine out
> of every ten calls they place won't go anywhere.
Right. You've increased the length of everybody's phone number
*without* expanding the numbering space at all. Put another way, 90%
of the telephone numbers possible under the expanded numbering system
won't be available for use.
Makes CLECs who take 10,000 numbers at a POP (pun intended) look
downright thrifty.
Bill
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the intention was to expand the
numbering space your point would be valid. But we are told that to
increase telephone numbers an extra digit or two in the United
States would require massive reprogramming of every switch, if in
fact some could be reprogrammed at all to accomodate the extra
digit. Passing that eighth digit would be difficult as things are
done now.
With the checksum or check digit scheme however, the intent is not
to expand the numbering space -- which will be dealt with instead
by an increasing number of 'area' codes -- but rather to provide
an additional customer convenience in the form of a reduced volume
of 'wrong number' calls. The switch would not pass along the final
digit(s); it would just calculate on the fly what it ought to be
and instruct the caller to dial again if it was wrong. Even if this
was only implemented on toll free 800/888 type calls, where the
recipient has to pay, wrong number or not, it would be very helpful
to those folks who suffer from having a number similar to that of
some large company, etc. Consider the stories printed here about
people taking reservations for hotels :) ...
Thinking about it now though, a better way might be to make it a
voluntary thing with a four digit pin; perhaps like a credit card
pin. After dialing the number of someone using this feature, an
announcement would be heard: 'the number you are calling requires
an additional four digit passcode. Please enter it at this time.'
This would be useful for someone who gets confused frequently with
a hotel number or some other large company. Does anyone remember
the 1970's device called Privcode? It sat on the line at the
subscriber's premises, grabbed the line as soon a a voltage change
indicated the line would be ringing in the next second or two and
gave a little announcement: "please enter your privcode number now."
Codes were three digits in length, and the default was to ring your
answering machine, or to provide the caller with a simulated ring
which went nowhere. Is Privcode still around? I would love to have
one, and am sorry I got rid of the one I had in 1978-79. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Bill Levant <Wlevant@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:56:12 EST
Subject: Re: Chicago-area Public Still Waits...
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
> But federal regulations require that if overlay numbers are
> used, all local calls in the Chicago region must be made by dialing a
> one, the area code and the seven-digit local number.
They just can't write an article without screwing it up, can they?
As a faithful DIGEST reader, I seem to remember that the Feds require
*10* digit dialing -- not *11* digit dialing -- in "overlay" areas,
such as in Maryland, which was discussed at length in a recent
why-do-we-have-to- have-10d-dialing? thread.
---------------
On a related thought, it's coming up on the end of the year --
according to __Spy Magazine__, a year *slightly* less annoying than
most. It will also be (mumble) years (fourteen, I think) since the
great breakup. Since then, the telecom "improvements" brought about
by divestiture (and deregulation) include :
-- Two (or three, or more) different bills each month
from two (or three or more) different providers;
-- Slamming;
-- Cramming;
-- Zillions of new area codes; far too many to remember;
-- LECs who try to sell you something every time you call;
-- Bewildering long distance plans;
-- A precipitous decline in the quality of the LEC repair people;
-- and so on, and so on, and so on...
Now, in fairness, long distance rates are probably lower than ever
(which, to the extent that rates are based upon capacity, may actually
have more to do with the advent of fiber optics than divestiture) even
when one considers the rapidly-rising Federal Line Cost Charge.
But tell me the truth -- do you think that divestiture and deregulation,
overall, have *improved* or *worsened* your telecom life?
The geniuses here in Pennsylvania are now in the process of
deregulating electrical power *generation* (but not transmission or
distribution). The local power monopoly (PECO) was just awarded
multiple billions (that's right, billions) of dollars in so-called
"transition charges" to reimburse its shareholders (over the next five
to ten years) for the company's ill-advised investment in nuclear
plants that will become virtually worthless when the company loses its
monopoly provider status, and cheaper power becomes available.
Transition charges benefit the shareholders, at the expense of the
ratepayers. My question is, what benefit do the ratepayers get from
deregulation? Lower rates once the "transition charges" expire? I'm
not betting on it.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My belief is that for the average
person -- note, NOT a Digest reader, NOT the very large corporate
accounts, etc, just the average user -- degregulation and divestiture
was and continues to be a waste of time. Even for the larger sub-
scribers, quite a bit of it has been a wash; a few gains in one
place and losses in other places. I suppose there are instances,
depending on your exact configuration and traffic patterns where
divestiture has helped, but they are few and far between. Remember
please, when all this began to be in vogue among the public servants
twenty years ago, not one of the servants said 'what can we
do to better serve the public we work for?' There were however a
few public servants who had bees in their bonnet or bugs up other
bodily areas where AT&T/the Bell System was concerned, and there
were lots of members of the public who also were unhappy with the
way Ma Bell did things. I then, and now, support the idea of some
competition in the telecom industry, but *starting from scratch*
and not letting the newcomers pick and chip away at the Bell System
as they were allowed to do.
If you want some interesting reading, go back to the archives and
review issues of this Digest from the last months of 1983 and the
first part of 1984; note what readers here in those days were saying
about the new scheme of things. Sometime around 1987 or so I made
the comment that IMO, divestiture was the worst thing to ever happen
in the industry. I was roundly condemmed by several readers for my
'judge-bashing'. I still don't think it was a very good idea, and
I think some people who were at the opposite extreme of myself back
then have also started to move somewhat toward the middle ground.
There were back then just too many unpredictable things waiting in
the wings; things we are discovering only recently. Sometimes where
utility services -- and telco is a utility -- are concerned, the
concept of a 'natural monopoly' is very valid, and things get
changed around only out of digust with the management of the utility
and not because of the concept itself. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Looking For Win NT Telephony Card - Any Suggestions?
Date: 28 Dec 1997 16:50:55 GMT
Organization: Ashworth & Associates
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:47:22 GMT, Geoff Glave <geoffrey_glave@mindlink.
net> wrote:
> What we're looking for is some kind of card we can put in our NT
> server that answers the phone after hours with a pre-recorded message.
> A caller can either leave a message, or press "0" on their keypad if
> they require tech support. The card would then dial out on another
> port to a cell phone someone on call would be carrying. The call
> would then go something like this:
Hello Direct (whose catalog I can't find in my office right now,
http://www.hello-direct.com) sell a box which parallels your answering
machine -- or it might replace it, it's been a while. It calls your
cell phone so you can listen in on the message, and let's you decide
whether to break in or not. This isn't exactly what you were looking
for, but is it close enough?
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The phone number for Hello Direct is
1-800-HI-HELLO, and I surely wish they were a sponsor here, but to
date they have never made any overtures in that direction. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jimfain*nospam*@bellsouth.net (Jim Fain)
Subject: Re: Noisy Analog Lines
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 13:51:38 GMT
Reply-To: jimfain*nospam*@bellsouth.net
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:57:18 -0700, Fred Clift <fred@vespa.cs.byu.edu>
wrote:
> Lee Miller <lwmiller@ricochet.net> writes:
>> Also, if you know of something else to try that I missed, feel free to
>> tell me or point me at other options for getting a pc with 56 Flex
> Hm, well, with newer USworst installations, the junction box at your
> house where the line initially enters the residence. You can
> disconnect your house wiring from the line at this point and attach
> your modem here without all the extra house wiring. I have an 80 year
> old house with very old phone wiring in the walls -- I pick up a lot
> of noise from the old wiring. Plugging my modem into any jack in the
> house, and disconnecting all other devices I end up with 24-26k
> connections on my 33.6k modem. When I completely disconnect my houses
> wiring from the junction box and attach my modem at this point, I
> regularly get 28k and 33.6k connections. I assume that either there
> are some old corroded connections in the walls somewhere or that there
> is a long stretch of phone line run in parrallel with high voltage
> lines.
From personal experience as a repair tech I can tell you that most
often the interference comes from other phones in the house rather
than the wiring being bad. A person should try unplugging all the
phones in the house before trying to disconnect all the other wires.
If this increases modem speeds then one or more of the phones may have
moderate shorting. This isn't real common but if you have more than
three or four phones hooked up to the line then the effect can be
exagerated.
A solution to this (or the bad inside wire syndrome) is to run an
individual wire to the modem and make an isolation circuit. This can
be done with a cheap $10 Radio Shack part. With it, the rest of the
house is shut off when you use the modem.
Jim (JC) Fain in Charlotte, NC
To send e-mail remove "NOSPAM" from name.
------------------------------
From: wdg@hal-pc.org (Bill Garfield)
Subject: Re: Noisy Analog Lines
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:12:57 GMT
Organization: You only wish you were this organized
Reply-To: wdg@hal-pc.org
On 23 Dec 1997 17:11:01 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
(Jay R. Ashworth) wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:13:00 -0500, Lee Miller <lwmiller@ricochet.net>
> wrote:
>> Also, if you know of something else to try that I missed, feel free to
>> tell me or point me at other options for getting a pc with 56 Flex
>> modem known to work at 48K on one line to work at something better
>> than 28.8 on a new line at a different house.
> If you can only get 28k8, the problem is almost certainly that there's
> more than one D/A conversion in the loop. If you can borrow a
> Courier, it will actually tell you this explicitly, though I don't
> know how they do it.
> My suggestion would be try X2... and that's only partially a bigoted
> knee-jerk "I think K-flex sucks" reaction. :-)
If K56Flex doesn't work (to a K56-enabled provider) it's pretty unlikely
X2 is going to work either (to an X2-enabled provider).
You need a line which at a minimum:
-Has no more than one (1) D-to-A conversion; if you're on a SLC
or Pair Gain device then X2/K56 is not going to happen.
-Has less than 10 db rolloff between 150-300 Hz on the low end;
-Has less than 24 db rolloff between 3450-3750 Hz on the high end;
-Has greater than -50 discreet receive level at 3750 Hz;
-Supports a minimum symbol rate of 3200 sym/sec.
The USR Courier (with current firmware) can give you a nice frequency
response graph and receive level info by breaking into command mode
(+++) and entering the aty16 (sixteen) command while online. The ati6
(eye six) command will give you the symbol rate in a similar manner.
Anyone who knows beans about the PSTN can tell you the above
parameters represent some fairly extraordinary technical limitations
and not every subscriber loop will be able to meet them. Most telcos
only guarantee a bandwidth of 300-3000 Hz.
Once again (as with 28.8 & 33.6) the modem industry has introduced
technology which exceeds the design criteria of the public-switched
telephone network and its capability to reliably deliver that
technology.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 11:07:07 -0500
From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: AOL Victorious Over Spammer
The Editor scribes:
> By the way, is Steve Case still providing the feds free accounts and
> special software with all sorts of tricks in it so that FBI agents/
> postal inspectors/agents from US Customs/assorted and sundry others of
> that ilk can snoop through users' email, sit in unnoticed in chat
> rooms (both public and private), send naughty pictures of little boys
> while hiding their true identity and otherwise ride roughshod over
> whatever modicum of constitutional rights is supposed to exist online?
This is a little like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I
get a ton of bogus email with return addresses that CLAIM to be from
aol.com (but in fact are not).
Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com)
Duo 2300c, Red VW Fox Wagon GL, Black VW Corrado SLC
http://members.aol.com/kim
Duo Information Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo
Questions should include "Duo" in the subject, else they'll be deleted unread
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But if someone in the past has used
physical violence against their spouse, then 'have you stopped beating
your wife?' becomes a valid question.
And sadly, Steve Case and AOL have never had, since the early days of
that service, exactly a sterling reputation. I don't know how long
*you* have been a member there, but let me tell you the years past
have seen lots of mischief originate at aol.com, admittedly by users
as well as staff members and government agents. Users are not all
angels by any means, but AOL's lack of any security at all for many
years was a netwide scandal. 'Screen names' were valid one day and
gone the next, with little or no way to audit or backtrack on who said
what. I can still subscribe there, set up a screen name to pollute the
net with one day and kill the screen name the next, letting complaint
mail bounce all over the place.
It just seems to me Steve Case has always been *too friendly* with
government agents. Now, any responsible ISP will certainly respond to
a subpoena served upon him, a search warrant or wire tap order issued
legitimatly in response to the activities of some one or more
users. But with AOL it seems like instead of starting off with the
premise that they will respect their users' privacy as a default
arrangement, while making it relatively difficult to misbehave in an
undetected way (i.e. those ever-changing screen names) they instead
leave themselves wide open to every jerk who comes along and then
get the FBI to do the job *they* should be doing instead. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 11:22:02 EST
From: Nathan Stratton <nathan@robotics.net>
Subject: Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
aaron@cisco.com (Aaron Leonard) wrote:
> In article <telecom17.353.7@telecom-digest.org>, telone@shout.net
> (Aaron Woolfson) writes:
>> It has always amazed me. There is something to be said for some
>> company which is going to put into force marketing efforts to get
>> 7.5 cents per minute *internet* telephone conversations (TCP/IP
>> connections) between people.
> Voice over IP is *never* TCP, always UDP.
Hmm, does this not create a big problem? Quest is using the new GSR
routers from cisco, and most cisco routers don't switch a large amount
of UDP very well. So if a router is loaded down, it will start
dropping most of the UDP traffic before it thinks about dropping TCP.
Nathan Stratton Network & ISP Consulting
http://www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:31:31 +1100
From: Darryl Smith <vk2tds@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Firstly I know how hard the table in the phone book is to read in MA -
I tried when I was there in October.
Anyway, Australia now has a worse case of needing 1+ than anywhere in
the USA will ever have. Basically most of our area codes now cover
about 1/4 of the country each -- and this is a country similar in size
to the USA. What they did was basically removed the leading 0 from the
area code, made this into the local number and then added the regional
area code:
For instance:
047 123456 became 02 47123456
02 8291234 had a 9 added and became 02 98291234
046 234567 became 02 46234567
We used to have different size area codes from 2 to 3 (or 4)
digits. Now all area codes are 2 digits, and all numbers in the area
code are another 8 digits. (2+8 dialing). Within the area code only
the number is needed. To call outside, the area code is neded.
But things are quickly going to get messy. At the moment the first few
digits point to the geography of the call and therefore the cost. But
it is quickly becoming that I have no idea if the call is local or
toll. And we do not have a 1+ Facility.
And to make things better - We used to get STD pips: four quick beeps at
the beginning of a long distance call. Now, we are getting these less
often.
------------------------------
From: Dr. Ram Samudrala <ram.samudrala@stanford.nojunkemail>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 28 Dec 1997 08:32:02 GMT
Organization: Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University
Reply-To: expt@alanine.ram.org
Louis Raphael <raphael@cs.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> In those places where 1+ has lost its meaning as the toll-indicator,
> being required on all toll calls, maybe it would be nice if telco were
> made to provide a vertical service (*) code, that could be dialed
> before a call (like *67, for example), which would cause the call to
> go through only if not a toll call (recorded intercept otherwise)?
This is a good idea. In fact, you could make all numbers 11 digits,
and just use this philosophy. Currently, you do have this service --
you can call the operator and ask. The problem is that the FIRST time
you do this, you're likely to have different expectation (as it
appears from the comments of people from other states, where "one
means toll" dialing exists, who move to CA).
Someone who wrote me couldn't even believe I could be charged for a
seven-digit call.
> Pac*Bell business office and asked where you could get this
> information, they would have pointed you to the phone book, and told
> you where to get one - probably even offered to deliver one.
They did; but I asked this the second day I moved here (and if it had,
I'd probably have been blissfully unaware of problems).
> anything else - you (like myself) probably come from an area where 1+
> is sacrosanct, which doesn't seem to be the case in California. This
> is just the way things are, and considered normal. You moved to a new
> environment, where things are not done the same way, you didn't find
> out what the difference was, you messed up, and you should probably
> expect to pay the [probably not *overly* large] bill, and know better
> next time.
As I've said several times, I wasn't charged for this. And I did find
out the difference -- I don't think anyone should have to "find" this
difference out. It should be clearly spelled out, not just in the
phone book, but in other places as well, to make sure the consumer
clearly knows.
The reason I consider this worth a fight is because I wonder how many
people who move here just bend over and pay the bill.
> View it this way: if you moved to a country where all calls are toll
> (as most of the world), do you think that telco should be expected to
> tell you that if you don't ask?
But the situation here is that all calls are not toll. Some calls
are, and some calls aren't, and it's not immediately clear which are.
But you're right -- if I do sign up for service, I do expect the telco
to tell me clearly and without ambiguity that all calls have a toll
attached to them.
> My guess is that it would be considered common knowledge, and that
> *you* should be asking.
Sorry, I'd say this is a bad business practice. Credit card issuers
could rely on the fact that it's "common knowledge" that credit cards
carry an interest rate if you don't pay up, but it's clearly spelled
out (along with a ton of different things which are "common knowledge"
-- like the fact that you have to pay them :). I don't think relying
on "common knowledge" is good business, for both the consumer and the
business.
> Sometimes, one messes up, and it's one's own fault, not society's, or
> one's parents, or telco's. This is one of these times. True, it would
> be *nice* of Pac*Bell to put this info on the bill, but I don't think
> that legal redress is appropriate if they did not.
Why not? You admit it would be "nice". I think so too. Which is why
I'm doing what I'm doing. I think some of the things I am asking
isn't too much for PB to do.
Ram
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION was the greatest idea of its time and was vastly
popular except with those people who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws.
So, of course, they had to be TRICKED INTO IT... which is one of the
reasons why MUSIC was eventually made ILLEGAL. ---Frank Zappa
------------------------------
From: c.c.eiftj@07.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: 28 Dec 1997 12:16:52 GMT
Organization: a2i network
In <telecom17.356.11@telecom-digest.org> anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony
Argyriou) writes:
> Phone books are available in most major grocery stores in the Bay
> Area. It is not Pac Bell's job to do _your_ homework for you.
> I personally prefer _not_ having 1+7d dialing..
> Publishing this information in the phone book is more than sufficient
> "clear statement" of this information.
Two different issue are being mixed up here.
1. Whether the telco should notify the caller in real time whether or
not the call is free.
2. Whether the telco should require that a 1 be dialed.
I see no reason to link the two. I don't think anybody, including Ram,
really cares about whether or not a 1 is required. Those who focus on
this are missing the essential point.
Telcos have many ways of notifying the caller. Most of them take the
form of various audible tones. I don't see why the telco can't use a
new type of audible tone to alert the caller that the ringing he's about
to here will ring its way into his wallet.
Today's phone switches are smart -- really smart. They can convey the
caller's number across the country so it becomes an audible set of tones
ready for detection by a caller-id box. These smart switches can look
up the three-digit prefix in an 800 number and identify to which LD
carrier to deliver the call. These smart switches can even figure out
when the caller's phone has been temporarily disconnected for
non-payment and allow only certain types of calls -- toll-free calls and
911, for example -- through while blocking all other calls. These smart
switches can tell the difference between a destination being busy and a
trunk being busy, and give the caller a slow busy or a fast busy signal
accordingly. These switches even know when the caller's voice mailbox
has a message in it, and they generate a different dial tone!
These switches can, and should, generate zero, one, two, three, or four
short beeps to notify the caller about how expensive the call is
estimated to be.
no beeps = free call
one beep = one fee zone away
two beeps = two fee zones away
three beeps = two or more fee zones away, and caller should have dialed
an access code to force the call to go via his LD
carrier, to get a lower rate than local telco will give him
four beeps = call will go via LD carrier
I agree that the caller could in theory check his phone book before
every call. And nobody needs to go to medical school any more, just
make sure your doctor carries a big book and looks things up as
needed. And why waste money posting "no smoking" signs near every gas
station? Just print the warning once in the phone book.
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@spams.r.us.com>
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #362
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 28 23:09:13 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA28327; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:09:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:09:13 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712290409.XAA28327@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #363
TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Dec 97 23:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 363
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Well, Yes, I *AM* in the NYTimes After All (Linc Madison)
Re: Whatever Happened to.... (jim@newmediagroup.com)
Re: Local Phone Bill "Cram" Fraud (Bruce Wilson)
The Future of the AT&T Card (Jerry Leichter)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (Jack Daniel)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (D. Perrussel)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway? (John Nagle)
Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ... (John Nagle)
Re: How to Connect a Phone to an Amp or Tape? (John Fabrega)
Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell (Chris Farrar)
Getting Ready to Update Archives/Web Page (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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:32:20 -0800
From: Linc Madison <Telecom@LincMad.com>
Subject: Well, Yes, I *AM* in the NYTimes After All ...
... but it's a rather briefer piece than I had been expecting.
On the bottom of page 9 of the Sunday magazine section of the 12/28/97
issue of the {New York Times}:
CODE HAPPY To most Manhattanites, the introduction next year of a new
area code (646) is an unavoidable pain. To Linc Madison, an area-code
buff based in San Francisco, new digits are a source of endless pleasure.
Madison, a 34-year-old telecommunications consultant, displays on a Web
site his encyclopedic knowledge of codes and their 50-year history. He
also likes to play trivia games like, say, calculating the number of
code zones you would drive through on imaginary trips from Fredericksburg,
Va., to Salem, Mass. "If you made that trip in 1947, you would go through
11 area codes. If you do it today, you're up to 26," he says authorita-
tively. Madison admits that this is an acquired taste. How does it go
over around the family table at holiday time? "My father is interested
somewhat," he says. "But my brother is bored silly."
There you have it. FWIW, I talked with the reporter about all sorts of
issues of overlays, service-specific overlays, why there has been such an
increase in area codes the last couple of years, what we're going to do
when we run out of 10-digit numbers, and even how the area code splits are
affecting the market for phone sex. They didn't even mention my web
address: < http://www.lincmad.com > Oh, well.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad.com
URL: < http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good for you, Linc. Since this is early
Monday when people wil be reading this messate, perhaps folks will
still able to get a copy of the paper from a newstand in their town.
I think many of us would be interested in knowing how the area code
splits are affecting the market for phone sex ... would you write
up something on it please? PAT]
------------------------------
From: jim@newmediagroup.com
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to....
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 19:24:36 -0500
Organization: Agent Zero Communications
Bill Levant <Wlevant@aol.com> wrote:
> Whatever happened to
> ... Spamford, Cyberpromo and the aptly-nicknamed "Spambone"?
> Last I heard, Spammy was going to create his own national
> spam-friendly backbone, with interconnections to the civilized world
> at "unspecified peering points".
Yeah R-rrrrright
> Anyone know what's up? Did he fade into well-deserved obscurity?
So far so good.
> Is he buying Worldcom? What gives ?
If you believed that line, you will believe anything. The press was so
willing to write whatever he told them, without checking up. If it
were that easy to just "buy a backbone" we'd all have one!... Look at
his customer base! How many people selling junk stocks, MLMs and long
distance service would he have to have as customers to raise the funds
needed for a backbone?!
The press finally became bored when promise after promise of his
turned up empty, and he evaporated. The press was ignorant in its
coverage, more interested in "the story" than in the truth. No
surprise. We are all tired of his blindness to the simple fact that
when people say they don't want to hear from you, cramming more junk
into their mailboxes is no way to earn their respect or business.
You can't stay in business selling products people don't want. People
don't want junk mail cluttering up their e-mail boxes. Business can't
operate with junk mail flooding into mail systems that are scaled
appropriately for business correspondence _only_. If he returns and
tries the same M-O, he will do so only to be isolated out of business
again.
Some large ISPs are becoming a bit lax in their enforcement on some
fronts, and we have to keep reminding them to keep their ignorant or
rude customers in check, though most now demand good conduct as a
matter of policy. The ongoing actions of AOL and others to sue junk
mailers who are damaging their operations is definitely having an
effect. I never thought I'd praise AOL for anything, but by simply
demanding _good conduct_ from all people, and suing when their
repeated requests, then demands, are ignored (they gave these guys a
chance), they're helping solve the problem by using the laws to impose
nothing more than common sense and manners on people who until
recently felt they could trample the privacy and property rights of
anyone with an IP address.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 19:23:01 -0500
From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Local Phone Bill "Cram" Fraud
In article <telecom17.360.6@telecom-digest.org>, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee
Winson) writes:
> IMHO, phone companies should have WRITTEN verification from the subscriber
> before adding any new services or changing long distance companies. It is
> absurb that anyone could march up and add charges to someone's phone bill.
> If these new add-on services are so hungry for business, let them bill
> through a credit card or bill the consumer directly.
IMHO, it should be possible for the subscriber to prohibit the telco
from accepting any such charges, just as other limitations can be
placed on the phone service to keep the bills under control. I'm
conservator for a friend and have put everything I can think of on the
phone account in the way of toll restrictions (and the carrier can't
be changed without my authorization) but her last bill included $14.95
from "ESBI" for "msg retrieve" and $11.90 from "USP&C" for "psychic
help" which I've refused to pay to US West (possibly incurred by her
son, who's the major reason for the conservatorship).
Does anyone have the statutory and/or CFR cites for the laws/regulations
which require the telcos to bill for these charges and prevent a customer
from blocking them?
Bruce Wilson
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bruce, I think it is part of the entire
divestiture package, and not a 'stand-alone' law on its own. What I
mean to say is, the Bells were and still are required at least in
theory, to do everything for their competitors that they do for the
other 'regular' telcos. If it is okay for Nynex to honor calling cards
issued by Ameritech and send the billing tape to Ameritech, then it is
okay for Integratel (to name one 'telco') to likewise send billing
tapes to Ameritech. Remember, a lot of those offensive IPs are calling
themselves 'telephone companies' and legally getting away with it. If
your telco offers voicemail (through a separate subsidiary perhaps)
and puts the charges on the regular phone bill, then your telco cannot
refuse to do the same thing for other voicemail services, particularly
if the other service is registered as a telco. To refuse would be to
discriminate or not treat all ancillary services provided by others on
the same terms as telco treats its own subsidiaries. It would sure as
the world bring down the wrath of the public servants on Bell. Part of
the deregulation that our public servants are so pleased with includes
the right to choose not only long distance service, but voicemail
providers, information providers, etc.
Does your telco offer a recorded weather/time of day message at some
fee? Good, then I can do the same. Do they submit the charges on your
telephone bill? Good, then I can demand that they bill your usage of
*my similar service* on your bill. To deny me this would be to make it
impossible for me to compete, and that is contrary to divestiture.
Now don't blame me, blame the Judge and all the petty bureaucrats up
and down the line for doing this. Western Union billed via telco for
sixty years, and WUTCO was used as an example in a suit brought
against Ameritech a few years ago when Ameritech denied billing
privileges to some outfit which 'delivered messages' ...
Lots of two-bit 'information providers' and ancillary service
providers are set up as telcos. Nothing will change on this until the
established telco (Genuine Bell, let's call it) gets rid of everything
they do except provide dial tone and switch calls.
Now if you can *prove* that Joe Blow's telco was established entirely
for the purpose of perpetrating fraud in an easily collectible manner
via telphone bills, go ahead and prove it, but until that time, every
damn one of them is going to claim it was a simple billing error, or
that someone else fraudulently signed you up for whatever the service
was, etc. Does Genuine Bell make billing errors? Well I guess Joe Blow
can make them also 'from time to time' (meaning, when he gets caught
cramming something on the bill).
What Genuine Bell can do is block charges which originate on their
system or bills which first come to life on their system. They can
block you from calling 900/976. They can tell any other telco which
inquires about a third-party or collect call that you will not accept
the charges for same, and that to proceed with the call or service is
at the risk of the inquiring telco. They can tell other other telcos
that your calling card is invalid and that they (Genuine Bell) will
not accept charges for billing. They cannot block charges from telcos
*which do not ask them for permission to bill* and there is no law
that another telco has to make such an inquiry. Since the big three
consider it prudent to work together in a few cases such as keeping
uncollectibles and fraud as low as possible, they all cooperate with
Genuine Bell in sharing a database of customers like yourself. (I'll
tip you off ahead time to the deadbeats, con-artists, Complainers
{telco's in-house term for people who are always asking for credit
or filing commission complaints or management complaints} coming your
way if you will tip me off to the ones coming my way before there
are charges incurred.)
But if a 'telco' is based primarily on fraud and deception as many in
the Pilgrim Telephone consortium and the Integratel group seem to be,
then they prefer to take their chances with the likes of you, keeping
their nose clean and their pants buttoned up in the event you
complain. It was always a 'billing error', and the law provides for
that to occur as long as some remedial action is taken as a result.
So here comes a billing tape from Joe Blow, probably via his
aggregator Integratel or maybe Pilgrim. Buried there in the
tape somewhere is a charge against your line for X dollars for
some or another 'service rendered'. Genuine Bell does not
*dare* to question that on its face. They must present it to
you and let you initiate a reversal. How do *they* know you
in fact did not use the service indicated? If they take it
upon themselves to decide, they'll get sued, sure as anything.
It works a lot like the 'sales authorization' function at
Visa or Amex credit card. The merchant calls for appproval and
if he is told the charge won't be automatically guarenteed,
then the merchant submits it at his risk. He may still get
paid if in fact you pay your credit card bill, but if you
don't pay your bill and your account goes to collection you
better bet that the collector on your account is going to pull
copies of all the charges for the past several months looking
for those which were not called in for approval; he'll charge
every of those back to the merchant to get them off his books.
Unfortunatly for telco -- or maybe the customers rather than telco --
the rule in this industry seems to be the telcos all function as each
other's billing and collection agent. If you go in default on your
phone bill because you cannot pay it, your local telco eats it,
regardless of the fact that the charges were generated by (and the
profit made by) Nynex or whoever. Nynex gets paid anyway by your
telco. The default in the industry seems to be telcos guarentee
payment to each other. The default is not 'well the customer may after
the fact protest this, so let's not accept it in our system'. With
credit cards, Visa and the others have a merchant agreement saying the
merchant must swipe that card and get approval or else. Telcos cannot,
it seems, make that requirement of each other. As noted above, the big
three and lots of others do work with each other to reduce fraud and
and bad debt, but there is no rule or contract saying they have to,
and it is that loophole that Integratel and Pilgrim slip through. To
its credit, Integratel does maintain its own 'negative list' and will
not allow its clients to render service (or at least not to bill
through Integratel) to numbers on the negative listing, but if you are
not on their negative listing, they flatly refuse to consult Genuine
Bell before accepting the charge or processing it. They figure it is
easier and cheaper to take a few losses I guess.
So what you need to do Bruce is either (a) get your local telco out of
everything except for provision of dial tone and switching; i.e. no
instruments, no voice mail, no recorded information, no 'enhanced'
features so they can legally refuse to deal with other companies
providing those services or (b) get the PUC/FCC to set up some very
strict standards for the billing practices of the 'others' and to also
allow Genuine Bell some leeway in who they bill for. I doubt the
latter is going to happen. If the people who insisted on all the
deregulation and divestiture years ago had had the brains that God
gave to a goose, they would have seen this coming. But what the heck,
it is almost New Years and I have made a resolution not to have
another heart attack. Just watch your phone bill closely, and close up
the leaks as you find them. Oh, and as an afterthought, you might try
going to the residence in question, finding the son involved, toss all
his possessions out on the sidewalk, change all the door locks, and
tell your friend this one last time you will deal with it and the next
time it occurs you will not only actively encourage telco to cut her,
but you will personally go there and pull all the instruments out
yourself, and deface the junction boxes, rendering them unusable. I am
referring to the concept known as 'tough love'. Try it, it usually
works. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 97 18:06:00 EST
From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com>
Subject: Future of the AT&T Card
Last I heard, the Universal Card was still owned by AT&T, though there
were strong indications that it was up for sale. Citibank has been
mentioned as the likely buyer.
From the press reports, it's unclear what AT&T wants to do with the
card: Simply sell the list of cardholders (so that eventually all
former AT&T Universal cardholders would get Citibank - or whatever -
cards); or sell the brand along with the list, so that it would still
be called "AT&T Universal" even though it would no longer be owned by
AT&T. How this gets done has an effect on whether additional AT&T
services, such as the connected calling card, would remain; and on the
likelihood of a change in the "no annual fee for life" policy: Someone
who agreed to keep the brand would probably keep the policy, too.
(I dropped my Citibank card after getting my AT&T Universal card,
after a run-in with Citibank. I had called to cancel the card,
telling them that I saw no reason to pay the annual fee. The customer
rep told me, oh, would you be willing to stay if we credited your
account for the amount of the annual fee? I said sure, why not. Next
month, the last on the old card: No credit. I decide to wait until I
see the credit before using the new card. Three months go by, with no
credit. Each month's bill, of course, shows no new charges, only the
unpaid annual fee - plus interest on it. Citibank starts sending me
dunning notices. Finally, I (try to) call a Citibank customer rep.
The 800 system won't let me through to a rep - I'm transferred to some
hard- ass in Collections who ignores what I have to say and simply
keeps repeating that I have to pay up. Finally, I tell him to close
the account and go F himself. Apparently someone did look at the
thing, as I never heard from them again; but the *last* thing I want
to do is end up back at Shi - err, Citibank....)
Jerry
------------------------------
From: Jack Daniel <jdaniel@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:36:18 -0800
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Reply-To: jdaniel@earthlink.net
Force Ten wrote:
> Jack Daniel wrote:
>> We have a unique way of paying for roadside callboxes and the
>> technical capabilities of the newer callboxes are much more than most
>> people assume. I will elaborate on that of anyone is interested.
> Absolutely we are interested! That's what this group is all about.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I sent Jack an email message saying
> the same thing. Perhaps we will hear from him soon. PAT]
First, let me advise you I am no expert and only offer what little I
know about the subject.
I left two items of discussion open: Call box funding and call box
technologies.
Funding:
In California, the state government authorized each county government
the right to hold a jurisdiction-wide election pay for call boxes
using a $1.00 US per year added tax to the registration (i.e. vehicle
licenses) of vehicles within that juristriction. This means one county
may have callboxes and the next have none, purely based upon the vote
of the vehicle owners stationed in each county. When a county elects
to install callboxes, they take some of the initial funds to develop a
plan with costs and time schedules. Then they accumulate the finds
until thay have enough to implement some sizable portion of the
overall plan. This way the callboxes are funded before they are
bought. The funds collected for callbox use cannot be used for
anything else.
The state government has developed very rigid and specific guidelines
for the way call boxes operate and are placed alongside the highways.
This not only gives some standardization to the users but helps to
prevent 'abuse' of the program by using unqualified local vendors.
The county must develop a plan that places callboxes along the most
heavily traveled highways, even if that includes freeways within a
city boundary (for example, Los Angeles has call boxes on many
freeways). The general plan calls for callboxes to be placed at
approximately 1/10 mile separation in densely populated areas (the
freeways within a city for example) and no more than 1 mile separation
in rural or isolated areas on the same highway. There are also
requirements to provide callbox access for the handicapped; wheelchair
ramps, hand rails, hearing aid compatibility and even braile
instructions (obviously for a passenger, not the driver ... yet).
The calls are all routed to a county wide highway patrol dispatcher (a
state employee) and handled similar to 911 calls. The county has to
pay the state for the dispatch operation. This is taken from current
callbox taxe income. This means there are recurring costs, as well as
the initial construction costs, to maintain the system.
Technology:
The callboxes themselves have evolved into complex and specialized
devices. The earliest ones were simply wired telephones that rang a
central dispatch office when removed from the hook. The current models
are vandal resistant, low maintenance units that use one of several
communications means (wire, radio, fiberoptic, etc). Power for the
units here are either local commercial power (when available) or solar
powered.
A 'typical' callbox consists of a paved pad adjacent to the roadway
large enough for a wheelchair, with hand rails, positioned so the user
is facing the traffic, housed in a bright yellow fiberglass or cast
metal weatherproof box, mounted on a break-away (in case of vehicular
collision) metal post with an antenna and optional solar panel at the
top of the 15 to 25 foot post. Large location identification signs are
mounted on the post as well as inside the call box. The signs help the
user to identify where they are as well as being visible to a patrol
car or ambulance.
The callbox usually contains a radio, power supply and battery. The box
is a sealed unit with a spring closed, magnetically latched door. The
user has access to a handset with high output volume and a noise
cancelling microphone. The handset is connected to the unit with a
flexible stainless steel armored cable.
There are NO screw or bolts heads accessible on the outsides of the
box or the pole. Access (and attachment) is controlled with a
cylyndrical lock 'plug' that gives access to a recessed bolt head when
removed with the proper key. This bolt allows the case assembly to
open like a clam shell, exposing the mounting bolts and electronics
inside. The keyway is located in a corner that is recessed so that a
normal drill or key length would not reach it.
Most people cannot dertermine how the unit is closed or mounted because
it becomes almost seamless when installed.
The antenna and solar cell wiring is inside the post and not exposed to
vandalism at any point.
The user controls on the units vary slightly; The minimum unit simply
has one large red pushbotton, others may have seperate buttions for
"Police", "Fire", "Medic" and "Highway Assistance" (tow vehicles, gas,
etc.). Although the calls all go to the same dispatch center, the
latter version allows the operator to organize waiting calls into
priority types.
In any case, if the door is left open for a predetermined time, the
unit will automatically call the operator. The operator can then talk
through a speaker and listen through the mic. to verify if someone is
there.
The unit also stores historical data about usage and power supply
cycling for remote maintemance checks. The maintenance people can call
the unit using special access codes and download information as well as
make remote adjustments, reset alarms or even disable the unit.
If the unit is tilted by a preset amount, an alarm is generated
automatically. This indicates the unit has been hit by a vehicle or
even taken down. Since there is a 1 to 7 day battery back-up, the
alarm transmissions will operate even if power is removed and the
signal may be used for radio direction finding.
If the antenna cable or power cable become severed, this also sets the
alarm mode. In the event the normal antenna shows a high VSWR (i.e the
antennas becomes disconnected) another low gain antenna inside the
case could be switched into service. This way a stolem callbox can be
located even when concealed in many cases.
Under local law, the value of a callbox is enough to made any theft a
felony and punishable by over a year in prison. They just aren't worth
it now that you can get a cellular phone for $1. Additionally, the
radios are 'special' models and not compatible with any normal use.
Since the operator can activate the mic on a stolen unit, the thieves
usually give themselves away.
There are many more details but this should give you plenty to consider.
Again, there are many variations when discussing specific details and
I have only tried to describe one general and limited situation.
I'm sure others can add more to this message string.
Anthony Argyriou wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:41:12 -0800, Jack Daniel <jdaniel@earthlink.
> net> wrote:
>> Here in California we also have wide use of roadside callboxes. Both
>> wired 'telephone' and radio call boxes are used. The radio call boxes
>> generally use a specially modified cell phone, but other radio bands
>> are also used when there is no cellular service within range.
> Are they really "modified" cellulars? I recall a tv news story about
> people breaking the boxes open, then re-programming the equipment to
> work with pirated ESNs. The main modifications seems to be replacing
> the keypad with one button which dials 911. Or did they fix them
> after the local cellular thieves discovered the weakness?
Yes, The ones I have seen use only a cellular subassembly with highly
modified software. The resulting unit is not compatible with any
'standard' cellular phone and would cost more to get to operate than
simply buying a cheap cellular handset. Very early models DID use trunk
mounted cell phones but there's probably none still in use here.
Incidently, they don't dial 911 but another special number here.
Jack Daniel
------------------------------
From: David Perrussel <bbscorner@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 97 18:28:27
Reply-To: David Perrussel <bbscorner@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway
> This reminds me of a question my husband and I had on a recent trip to
> the Washington, DC, area. In Maryland not far from Silver Spring we
> saw signs urging people to call in to report anyone in trouble on the
> freeway. Yet we did not see call boxes anywhere along that highway.
> This would mean that people would have to leave the freeway to find a
> phone or the authorities were depending on a significant number of
> drivers having cell phones in their cars.
If you read the signs, it said to dial #77 from your cellular phone. A
lot of people these days have cellular phones and that seems to be the
quickest way to report an accident - even your own. I've used it to
report accidents of others, but fortunately not yet my own :)
> Yet along the Pennsylvania Turnpike we saw call boxes at regular
> intervals all along the highway. Apparently these were installed long
> before cell phones were available.
Not true ... these were introduced in the late 80's -- cellular was
definitely there but not as much as it is now. It is nice to see these
call boxes though. These call boxes have their own generators that you
operate by pulling down on the lever (similar to that of a fire alarm)
and pressing the appropriate button on the unit (tow truck, accident,
police, fire). It sends a digital signal to headquarters in Harrisburg
to summon the appropriate people. (Nice thing too -- I guess the
expensive tolls are worth it.)
> I wonder what percentage of drivers these days have cell phones in
> their cars. I would think a significant number of them would need to
> have them to make it worthwhile for authorities to post signs asking
> drivers to call in and report people in trouble. Otherwise, it seems
> that it would be a good idea to install call boxes on freeways if 80
> percent or more of the people did not have cell phones.
You'd be surprised how many do have cell phones. Have you noticed in
many other states you also dial #77 or *77 to reach the police. Even
on I-70 in PA they say to dial 911 from your cellular phone. And on
the PA turnpike, you can also dial *11 from your cell phone if you
don't want to use the call box.
As for the call boxes, it would be nice but rather expensive.
Remember, these call boxes are on the PA Turnpike, a TOLL road. I'd
hate to see how high my taxes would go up to see them on the "free"
interstates.
Dave Perrussel
Webmaster - the BBS Corner
http://thebbscorner.home.ml.org
Assistant webmaster - "thedirectory" of ISPs and BBSes
http://www.thedirectory.org
------------------------------
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway?
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 18:41:05 GMT
anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) writes:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:41:12 -0800, Jack Daniel <jdaniel@earthlink.
> net> wrote:
>> Here in California we also have wide use of roadside callboxes. Both
>> wired 'telephone' and radio call boxes are used. The radio call boxes
>> generally use a specially modified cell phone, but other radio bands
>> are also used when there is no cellular service within range.
> Are they really "modified" cellulars?
Yes. I've gotten various GTE error messages from them, including
"the number you are calling is not in service at this time." They
don't call 911, they call the California Highway Patrol, on a line
that's often busy.
John Nagle
------------------------------
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Qwest and the TCP/IP Challenge ...
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:54:02 GMT
Nathan Duehr <nduehr@cfer.com> writes:
> As far as TCP/IP being like billiards, I wholeheartedly disagree.
> Open a TCP connection to another machine and the protocol gets very
> upset if packets come in out of order ... ACK/NAK still exists in
> TCP/IP, or can be added to the Application layer if you don't trust
> the protocol to do it.
The protocol can handle packets coming in out of order, although it
certainly causes annoying latency jitter.
> If packets wandered around like billiard balls, I seriously doubt
> anyone would have ever been successful at building a "traceroute"
> command for UNIX systems ... would they?
You don't always get the same route, although modern thinking is to
change routing only on the order of minutes, not seconds.
> Oh yeah, FAX actually works better over IP telephony than voice does,
> because fax machines can deal with latency, whereas the average human
> doesn't like the "echo'ey" sound of phone lines with long end to end
> return times.
The way to send fax is by recognizing fax data and transmitting it
digitally. Group III fax is only 9600 baud, so there's a big win in
doing this. That trick was even used on transatlantic voice links,
where over half the traffic is fax, for a time. Anybody know if it's
still being used there? In any case, that's an obvious thing to do
for fax over IP. This also offers the advantage that you could handle
faxes on ordinary IP hosts with appropriate emulation software.
John Nagle
------------------------------
From: John Fabrega <jfabrega@Line1com.com>
Reply-To: jfabrega@Line1com.com <jfabrega@Line1com.com>
Subject: Re: How to Connect a Phone to an Amp or Tape?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:07:22 -0500
Organization: Line1 Communications
Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:30 GMT Manuel Ladas <ladasm@uni-muenster.de>
wrote:
> I'm desperately searching for a phone that has audio inputs and
> outputs.
> In other words: I want to connect the phone to a mixer or a tape (via
> an audio output) _and_ connect an external microphone or even an
> effect processor to the phone (via an input).
> My questions:
> - Are there any phones which can do that?
> - Are there any devices you can put on the phone that pick up the
> signals and have ins/outs themselves? They used to have such things
> before there were modems, but I guess they are not suitable for audio?
I found such a device through Skutch Electronics
http://home.inreach.com/skutch/ they have a number of different
interfaces available.
Good Luck!
John Fabrega, Line1 Communications, Inc.
Tallahassee, Florida
------------------------------
From: Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Want to Force Policy Change at Pacific Bell
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 19:42:09 -0500
Organization: Bell Solutions
Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Telcos have many ways of notifying the caller. Most of them take the
> form of various audible tones. I don't see why the telco can't use a
> new type of audible tone to alert the caller that the ringing he's about
> to here will ring its way into his wallet.
Why not a simple intercept of the type "The number you are dialing is
outside your local area. Please press 1 to complete the call or hang
up now."
> Today's phone switches are smart -- really smart. They can convey the
> caller's number across the country so it becomes an audible set of tones
> ready for detection by a caller-id box. These smart switches can look
> up the three-digit prefix in an 800 number and identify to which LD
> carrier to deliver the call. These smart switches can even figure out
However, the caller id falls flat on its face the moment it goes
though an older (and there are many of them still active) switch. For
instance, even though Hargray Telephone (Hilton Head, SC) has Caller
ID, and Bell Canada has Caller ID, calls from Hargray to Bell, using
AT&T come in as "Out-Of-Area."
As for the three digit prefix being able to identify which LD carrier
owns/carries the call, that went out the window with 800 (and 888)
portability. 1-800-555-xxx1 and 1-800-555-xxx2 can have line one
carried by Pa Podinski Telecom and line two by AT&T. Now it takes all
seven digits to know who to route it via. Ain't progress grand?
> when the caller's phone has been temporarily disconnected for
> non-payment and allow only certain types of calls -- toll-free calls and
> 911, for example -- through while blocking all other calls. These smart
Only if your phone company allows it. Here, if you don't pay your bill,
all you hear is the sound of silence. No toll free, no 911, no
operator, no dial tone.
> switches can tell the difference between a destination being busy and a
> trunk being busy, and give the caller a slow busy or a fast busy signal
> accordingly. These switches even know when the caller's voice mailbox
> has a message in it, and they generate a different dial tone!
Which has been available for years.
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: TELECOM Digest Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Getting Ready to Update Archives/Web Page
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 21:00:00 EST
I am going to soon -- very soon -- spend the better part of a day
updating the web page for telecom; getting all the incorrect and
irrelevant links removed; getting the sponsor's page up to date;
getting the 'other resources' page improved and cleaned up. I
know that a few of you over the past few months have written to
me asking to be linked on the web page, etc, and I apologize for
neglecting this area for such a long time.
If you want to have your **NOT FOR PROFIT, TELECOM ONLY** web site
linked through telecom-digest.org please send me a one line
message of this form:
http://whoever.wherever.com Description here in a few words.
That includes those of you such as Linc Madison who have written
to me even in the recent past. Sorry, but I do not have the
notes that some of you sent.
If you maintain a telecom-related business, I will put you on the
sponsor's page if you send me money to do so -- there, let's just
be frank about it. It is unfair to the existing sponsors -- some
of whom have been around more than a year -- to put for-profit
businesses in with the 'freebies'. Do not assume your listing
on the telecom web page now will remain there if I do not hear
from you sometime this week. Existing sponsors are safe; I know
who you are and **deeply** appreciate your continued support.
So, those of you with area/country code charts, worthwhile stuff
for telecom enthusiasts etc, please send me details this week.
If you don't mind, make the subject line, 'web page links'. If
you don't mind also, please provide a link in return to the Digest.
Thanks,
Patrick Townson
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #363
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 30 09:20:04 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA18079; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 09:20:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 09:20:04 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199712301420.JAA18079@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #364
TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Dec 97 09:20:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 364
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Long-Distance Directories are Losing the Accuracy Touch (Tad Cook)
These Numbers "Don't Exist", But They Can be Dialed (Paul Robinson)
101XXXX Implementation Schedule (Tom Crofford)
New Telco Service: Bus Call (Steve Howard)
Telephone Company Scorecard Available (Mike Morris)
Major Update of Area Code Website www.lincmad.com (Linc Madison)
Job Opportunities Available in Asia (Philip Silva)
Still Don't Understand Why Scum Can't be Stopped (Joey Lindstrom)
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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: Long-Distance Directories are Losing the Accuracy Touch
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:07:44 PST
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Long-Distance Directories are Losing the Accuracy Touch
By Jennifer Files, The Dallas Morning News
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Dec. 29--Long-distance directory assistance isn't always so helpful
anymore.
Although listings are correct most of the time, industry officials
agree that operators are giving out wrong numbers or failing to find
the right ones more often than ever.
"It's virtually impossible to find an operator who knows anything,"
says Ruth Levitz, owner of Lamp Genealogical Services and a frustrated
caller. "They have no local knowledge, which, as far as I'm
concerned, is not right.
"Sometimes, they're not even in the right state."
Companies won't say officially how often directory assistance
operators err or can't satisfy requests. Unofficially, their estimates
of errors range from 2 percent for local-phone companies to as much as
20 percent or more for long-distance or wireless phone companies.
That wouldn't have happened a few years ago, when long-distance
companies paid local-phone carriers such as Southwestern Bell about 25
cents a call to provide directory assistance services. Operators sat
at switchboards in the cities they were providing numbers for and were
as familiar with their businesses and government agencies as a veteran
taxi driver.
"That assumption that the local company is providing service with an
operator who can look out the window and see if someone's home
... that's a romantic figure of the past," AT&T spokesman Mike Keady
says.
AT&T changed all that in 1995 by deciding it could make more money by
dealing with directory assistance itself. Now, when an AT&T customer
dials an area code plus 555-1212, the call most likely winds up in
Phoenix, where a big subcontractor does the work, or perhaps in AT&T
call centers in Scranton, Pa., or Augusta, Ga. MCI Communications is
also easing its business away from the local-phone providers, and
mobile phone companies commonly use independent contractors for
directory assistance.
The companies say they'll eventually make more money and customers
will get better information.
Still, AT&T and other companies have to get listings from somewhere,
and the best source for the numbers remains local companies that hook
up the phones. Businesses on both sides of the phone line are fighting
over who has the right to the numbers and at what price.
AT&T and its contractors have agreements with some local-phone
companies to buy listings. The asking prices range from half a penny
at Pacific Telesis to Southwestern Bell's 5.85 cents. GTE will sell
numbers to AT&T but not to its outside contractors which makes them
practically worthless until the companies can find a way around that
stipulation.
Such squabbling, experts say, is why, five months after Richardson-
based Springbok Technologies opened an Austin office, AT&T can't find
a number for it.
Even when purchase agreements for numbers are in place, delays in
transferring the listings range from a week "at best," Mr. Keady says,
to several weeks.
As a substitute, long-distance companies turn to hundreds of other
sources for listings.
They may get their data from credit card records, magazine subscriptions,
the U.S. Postal Service even from scanning in old phone books.
Exacerbating the problem for customers, many companies are cutting
back on the number of operators who answer calls, relying on computers
rather than people to read the numbers and requiring operators to work
faster. Callers have noticed.
"We get a lot of people who are nasty and mad at the world and who
take it out on us," says Guila Jackson, a 34-year operator for
Southwestern Bell.
"People think sitting at a computer all day and looking at numbers is
easy, but I don't think so," she said.
Ms. Jackson says that she talks to an average of 800 to 1,000 callers
a day and that she's directed to keep her average call length down to
as little as 20.3 seconds.
Southwestern Bell says the operators are usually not at fault. Callers
often don't provide enough information for operators to retrieve the
correct listings from the electronic database, the company says.
"We continue to provide a quality service every day," says Nelson
Cain, director of operator services.
AT&T's big contractor, Excell Agent Services, tries to educate
employees who may not have firsthand information about the whole
country by offering bonuses to those who answer a series of trivia
questions about four cities each month.
Excell also tries to help workers pick up on regional dialects, chief
executive officer Dan Evanoff said. "We don't hire from Massachusetts,
so we need a team that understands Massachusetts English."
AT&T also recently began an enhanced directory assistance service that
promises not to transfer callers to machines.
Better software lets operators search for phone numbers around a city,
even when a caller doesn't know the name of a particular suburb.
AT&T says it believes customers will pay extra for a more accurate
search and plans eventually to offer other information, such as fax
numbers and e-mail addresses.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:55:40 -0800
From: Paul Robinson <rfc1394@juno.com>
Subject: These Numbers "Don't Exist", But They Can be Dialed
Bellcore, the wholly-owned subsidiary of SAIC that assigns area codes
in the U.S., Canada and the rest of international code 1 that is North
America, has assigned area code 240 as an overlay to my own area code
301, which serves roughly the western 1/2 of Maryland, as well as
assigning area code 443 as an overlay to area code 410, which covers
Baltimore and points east.
This became effective during the summer, when callers in the 301 and
410 area codes were required to dial all local calls -- even ones in
the same area code -- as 10 digits.
There is a test number which may be dialed for either of the overlay
area codes: 999-TEST (1-240-999-8378 or 1-443-999-8378). If I dial
either of them from a business or a residential phone line, I get the
following recording which repeats over and over:
Female voice: Congratulations, you have reached the Bell Atlantic Test
Line for area code 240. or Male voice with heavy machine noise in
background: Congratulations, you have reached the Bell Atlantic Test
Line for area code 443.
The interesting thing is that even though area code 240 is supposed to
be an overlay, to call the 240 area code number I have to dial 1
before the area code because I get timed out after dialing 240-999-8
with a recording saying "You must dial the 3 digit area code and the 7
digit phone number for all local calls in Maryland..." In this area
(except for the toll-free 800 and 888 service codes), being required
to dial 1 before the area code implies the number is long distance.
So, I decided to find out where it was.
According to the AT&T operator, there is no area code 240 or 443. And
no 999 prefix in either. According to the Bell Atlantic operator, the
number isn't a short-distance toll call because there is no 240-999 or
443-999 prefix.
Also, I have a business line that is restricted to no long distance
calls; that line may only dial local and 1-800 numbers. Long distance
calls must be billed to another number or to a credit card or such.
Yet, I can dial the 1-240 or 1-443 test numbers from that phone line
and they do go through, even though long distance calls are not
allowed from that line and according to the telephone operators, these
numbers don't exist.
Paul Robinson <rfc1394@juno.com> (Formerly PAUL@TDR.COM, FORYOU@EROLS.COM)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 12:50:55 -0600
From: Tom Crofford <tomc@xeta.com>
Reply-To: tomc@xeta.com
Organization: XETA Corporation
Subject: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule
What is the current schedule for implementing the new 101XXXX carrier
access codes? I believe there was a previous thread here regarding
implementation during the Summer of '98. I'm looking for confirmation
of the timetable.
Tom Crofford tomc@xeta.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:47:39 -0600
From: Steve Howard <showard@paulbunyan.net>
Subject: New Telco Service: Bus Call
Paul Bunyan Telephone in Bemidji, Minnesota is offering BusCall
service on a trial basis to customers on selected school bus routes in
our service area. We are the first telephone company to offer this
service.
BusCall is an enhanced telephone service that assists students and
parents by notifying them when their school bus is close to arriving
at the bus stop.
When the school bus is five minutes from a subscriber's bus stop, the
BusCall system phones the subscribers home with a distinctive ring.
If the subscriber answers the phone, they receive a message like, "Bus
14 will arrive at your bus stop in approximately five minutes. Thank
you for using BusCall!" (The system can also send e-mail or activate
an numeric/alpha pager if the line is busy). If someone misses their
call, they can call the system (from their home phone) to find out
when the bus is expected at their stop.
If the bus is running more than 12 minutes late, the subscriber is
called with a normal ring and told that they will receive another call
when the bus is approaching.
Several parameters can be changed by a subscriber calling from a tone
phone at their home. These include the amount of notification time,
days/times to call, etc.
To provide this service, we install special equipment on each school
bus. This equipment uses GPS to track the location of the bus. This
information along with some basic mechanical information about the bus
is transmitted to servers at Paul Bunyan Telephone's Bemidji CO via
cellular data/telemetry services provided by Rural Cellular Corp.
Using this information, the CO-based equipment monitors the location
of each bus as well as the mechanical information. The CO equipment
calls each subscriber at the appropriate time and processes the
mechanical information when appropriate.
The system can handle a variety of different household situations including:
Multiple children at the same household on different buses
Children with varying schedules (for example, Monday through Wed
Parent #1 and Thursday through Fri at Parent #2)
During the trial period, the service is free for all of our customers
along the test routes. When the trial is completed, we plan to offer
this service to our customers for $4-$6/month.
Several people have expressed an interest in obtaining the service so
that they can use it to help them avoid getting stuck behind the
behind the school bus while driving to work in the morning!
For more information about BusCall, see http://www.buscall.paulbunyan.net
[FYI, Paul Bunyan Telephone is an independent LEC serving approximately
3,200 square miles in North Central Minnesota. FMI see
http://www.paulbunyan.net ].
------------------------------
From: morris@SPAMBLOCKcogent.net (Mike Morris)
Subject: Telephone Company Scorecard Available
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 20:39:23 pdt
There's a newsletter here in the L.A. area called the CGC Communicator.
There's not much in the way of telecom in it, as it's intended for
local broadcasting folk, and covers items like EAS, broadcasting
license renewals, FCC rule changes, etc. However, the most recent
issue had an item that I thought would be of interest to this
newsgroup. In line with the authors request I've included the
boilerplate at the end.
= = = = = = = = = =
TELEPHONE COMPANY SCORECARD AVAILABLE
The Common Carrier Bureau's Enforcement and Industry Analysis
Divisions have posted their December 1997 edition of the Common
Carrier Scorecard Report on the FCC web site. The Scorecard includes
an overview of how telephone companies performed individually and as a
group, and highlights the types of telephone- related consumer
complaints and inquiries processed by the FCC during the most recent
reporting period. The information is intended to help you make an
informed decision about which company and service to use and includes
tips on how to avoid scams and what steps to take if problems occur.
For downloading instructions, see:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/score_card_97.html
= = = = = = = = = =
The boilerplate from the end of the newsletter:
The CGC Communicator is published for broadcast professionals in
Southern California by Communications General Corporation (CGC),
consulting radio engineers, Fallbrook, CA. Short news items without
attached files are always welcome from our readers; letters may be
edited for brevity. Send e-mail to: rgonsett@connectnet.com
CGC Communicator articles may be reproduced in any form provided
they are unaltered and credit is given to Communications General
Corporation and the originating authors, when named. Past issues may
be viewed and searched at http://207.42.32.124/cgc/ courtesy of Bext.
------------------
Mike Morris ham radio: WA6ILQ ICBM: 34:07:54.9 by 118:03:46.2
The above is my own opinion and should not be construed to be that of any of
my former or my current employers. The reply address is spoofed to discourage
junk email, please remove all the capital letters from the address.
I do not accept any liability for damage which may occur direct or
indirect by using this advice. Always use your own mind!
------------------------------
From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison)
Subject: Major Update of Area Code Website www.lincmad.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 18:28:39 -0800
Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM
I just completed a substantial update of my North American Area Codes
web pages, including a new, highly detailed area code map reflecting
all area codes currently in use and several planned for the next year
or so. I also have a new listing of "telesleaze" prefixes.
Main page: < http://www.lincmad.com >
Area code map: < http://www.lincmad.com/splitmap.html >
Telesleaze list: < http://www.lincmad.com/telesleaze.html >
** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind **
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com
URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits
>> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" <<
------------------------------
From: Philip Silva <psilva@classic.msn.com>
Subject: Job Opportunities Available in Asia
Date: 29 Dec 1997 23:23:15 -0800
The PSI Group
Is looking to fill lucrative positions in southeast Asia for interested
senior execs specialising in heading areas such as:
- information systems
- network broadband design
- system intergration
- satellite control
- network design
- switching and CPC
-network operation centres
- record quality and safety
- training
- capital planning
- financial anylisis
- voice and video product development
- business development
- procurement
The organisations involved are Telecommunication and IT companies
offering expat and long term contracts. Asian nationals or applicants
familiar with dealings in asia are favoured. IT or Telecommunication
experience essential.
If you are interested please paste a BRIEF resume and email to
psilva@classic.msn.com DO NOT SEND ENCLOSURES. Potential candidates
will be asked for further details within 14 days. No details will be
forwarded to the client or organisation withought permission from the
parties involved. PSI will treat all details with the utmost
confidentiality.
Philip Silva
Director
PSI Group
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 05:57:13 -0700
From: Joey Lindstrom <joey@lindstrom.com>
Subject: Still Don't Understand Why Scum Can't be Stopped
At 11:09 PM 28/12/97 -0500, TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> mean to say is, the Bells were and still are required at least in
> theory, to do everything for their competitors that they do for the
> other 'regular' telcos. If it is okay for Nynex to honor calling cards
> issued by Ameritech and send the billing tape to Ameritech, then it is
> okay for Integratel (to name one 'telco') to likewise send billing
> tapes to Ameritech. Remember, a lot of those offensive IPs are calling
> themselves 'telephone companies' and legally getting away with it. If
> your telco offers voicemail (through a separate subsidiary perhaps)
> and puts the charges on the regular phone bill, then your telco cannot
> refuse to do the same thing for other voicemail services, particularly
> if the other service is registered as a telco. To refuse would be to
> discriminate or not treat all ancillary services provided by others on
> the same terms as telco treats its own subsidiaries. It would sure as
> the world bring down the wrath of the public servants on Bell. Part of
> the deregulation that our public servants are so pleased with includes
> the right to choose not only long distance service, but voicemail
> providers, information providers, etc.
Pardon my Canadian ignorance of the American system here, but
something's not soundin' right here. OK, fine, Genuine Bell and other
LEC's are required to allow scumoids like Integratel to perpetrate
their little frauds because they're legally obligated to allow any
third-party "telco" to bill via a subscriber's phone bill, and the
reverse as well (the customer has the right to subscribe to
third-party services).
But doesn't the INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER have the right to refuse to take
such services?
This is what I can't understand. The message you were replying to was
complaining that unusual charges came up on a line that had 900/976
blocking on it. That blocking was due to a written request from the
customer asking that any/all toll and/or value-added services NOT be
permitted. It sounds to me like the result of this is that "Genuine
Bell" has honoured this request but for some reason is not allowed to
honour this request when it comes to third-parties.
The key here is that it's not "Genuine Bell" that would be refusing
such an incoming billing request (ie: "Psychic Hot Line"), but the
SUBSCRIBER. Now, how exactly does this law read? I'm certain that
this is going much further than was ever intended when this law was
laid down.
Final question: is there ANY way a subscriber can tell the telco,
"Look, all I want from you is a dialtone. I'll use my
prepaid-calling-card for long distance and I don't want *ANY* charges
on this phone bill OTHER THAN FOR DIALTONE, comprende?"
Colour me confused,
Joey Lindstrom
joey@lindstrom.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The customer can advise *his own telco*
to not allow special services of any kind. This will only apply to
charges originating with *his own telco*, and that of cooperating
telcos. 900/976 blocking along with billed number screening will
cover ninety percent or more of the items which might otherwise show
up. Those blocks will NOT cover the instances (actually rather few
and far between, but some say with increasing frequency) where the
originating telco does not honor the local telco's negative lists.
There is not, at the present time, any legal way for the local telco
to 'discriminate' against competitors. The competitors who choose
to cooperate by noting in advance the customers who do not wish to
be billed all save themselves much time and money by doing so. Those
competitors whose entire operation is build around fraud have
nothing to lose either way. This is why when customers request to
have a 900/976/billed number screening block on their line, telco is
quick to point out it will work 'most of the time' but not all the
time. No way is the local telco equipped (nor as far as I know
permited by law) to go through every billing tape it receives and
question, "did Bruce actually make this call and does he accept
the billing or not?". All telco can guarentee is that charges which
originate with itself (and cooperating telcos) will be screened to
prevent the things you do not want from appearing there. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #364
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 1 00:04:46 1998
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id AAA12428; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 00:04:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 00:04:46 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199801010504.AAA12428@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #365
TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Dec 97 23:50:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 365
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Still Don't Understand Why Scum Can't be Stopped (rbean@execpc.com)
Re: Still Don't Understand Why Scum Can't be Stopped (WE202C3F)
How Scum CAN be Stopped (was: Re: Still Don't Understand Why) (Mike Fox)
Re: Local Phone Bill "Cram" Fraud (Dave Stott)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Joseph Singer)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Gail M. Hall)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Robert L. McMillin)
Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service (Dean Foreman)
Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway (Stanley Cline)
That's It, Folks! (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:
* telecom-request@telecom-digest.org *
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: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org
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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. *
*************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
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: rbean@execpc.com
Subject: Re: Still Don't Understand Why Scum Can't be Stopped
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:18:37 CST
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
[...]
> Those blocks will NOT cover the instances (actually rather few
> and far between, but some say with increasing frequency) where the
> originating telco does not honor the local telco's negative lists.
[...]
> No way is the local telco equipped (nor as far as I know
> permited by law) to go through every billing tape it receives and
> question, "did Bruce actually make this call and does he accept
> the billing or not?".
It seems to me that they have no business accepting billing for
anything if they can't at least verify that the line was off-hook at
the time in question. Otherwise anyone can bill you for anything
(which is why businesses use purchase orders -- they get bills all the
time for stuff they didn't order, and they don't pay them if there's
no PO).
I thought I'd heard in the past that they could provide such
information if presented with a federal subpoena, but that if you
don't have one, they'll claim it's "impossible". Was this an urban
legend or what? What about the time they gave you a list of all those
extra calls on your line -- and they all pointed to an internal repair
number? If they can track that, then they can tell you if your line
was offhook, at least after the fact.
Instead, they sidestep any responsibility by dropping the charge from
your bill if you complain (after first insisting that it *must* be
correct, even though they can't verify it themselves -- billing errors
*never* happen). So they get to provide a billing service without
taking any responsibility for it.
> All telco can guarentee is that charges which originate with itself
> (and cooperating telcos) will be screened to prevent the things you do
> not want from appearing there. PAT]
And why can't all "telcos" be required to "cooperate"? Deregulation
doesn't have to mean anarchy. Either the line is blocked, or it
isn't. Are they legally required to provide blocking? If anyone can
bill to it, then it's not "blocked".
When a line goes offhook and connects to a LD trunk, they could create
a blank billing record, to be filled in when the billing tape arrives
(they have to log intra-LATA LD calls for their own billing purposes
anyway, so why not all LD calls?). If someone tries to bill for a call
that didn't happen, it's suspect right away. Only the local telco is
really in a position to verify this.
Following up on an earlier thread ...
I suppose this won't get fixed until some senator's mother gets
one of these bogus billings...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:31:06 -0500
From: we202c3f@aol.com (David Willingham)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Still Don't Understand Why Scum Can't be Stopped
> Final question: is there ANY way a subscriber can tell the telco,
> "Look, all I want from you is a dialtone. I'll use my
> prepaid-calling-card for long distance and I don't want *ANY* charges
> on this phone bill OTHER THAN FOR DIALTONE, comprende?"
900+ and 976+ blocking are available at no charge, as are blocking of
per-call 3-way calling, call return (*69), etc. And for about a $3 fee
(residential lines) you can have all 1+,0+, 411, and 0 (operator) and
00 (long dist operator) calls blocked, though with no guarantees.
WE202C3F@aol.com
david willingham
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Listen to what David is saying,
everyone ... * "With no guarentees" * is exactly the answer every
telco rep will give you when you ask to have premium charges blocked
out of your line. It certainly makes no money for telco if they have
to fight with you month after month over those charges. They have
no reason not to block those calls in every way possible, but as the
system is set up now there will always be a few leaks. The billing
arrangements between telcos are extremely technical and difficult.
Probably no one understands exactly how it works except a few dozen
droids in the back offices who hand papers around to each other
all day long and even they, I have noticed, frequently quarrel and
squabble among themselves over who should get one humongous stack
of papers to work on and who should get another similar stack. One
will insist on one procedure but another will tell him it was
changed. Both will refer to operations manuals a thousand pages
long as their 'proof' of the current billing practices, etc. If
someone in customer service or public relations comes along and
suggests that customer X be given some sort of special handling,
the droids will object strenuously, and most likely go over his
head to managers, etc. And the managers and other executives of
telco will listen to the droids and take their word on it because
they (upper management) has no real idea what it is the droids
sit there and do all day anyway, and they don't want to get it
all messed up. So don't count on any time soon having the
ability to get a total guarentee from telco as to what will and
what will not appear on your bill.
Speaking of the droids reminds me of very large companies fifty
years ago, including telco to name one example. Who were the
most important people in the company? Not the president, and
not the board of directors. Not even customer service people.
It was the file clerks and bookkeepers who reigned supreme. They
would shuffle around the offices all day long with their transport
carts -- sort of like a shopping cart from a grocery store --
loaded with files on their way in or out of 'bookeeping'. And
when the file clerk came to *your* desk and started groping in
the stacks of files you had there, you best not tell her "I need
that file" ... because she would say , NO! I NEED IT ... and
who do you suppose would win that argument if she went to the
supervisor? She would ... because file clerks and bookkeepers
got *any file they wanted, any time they wanted it* ... Just as
today we rely on the computer to shuffle data around in its
memory, fifty years ago the file clerks shuffled things around
and they could produce a thousand page manual of operations to
show you why they did it the way they did it, that is if you
dared to ask them. The ledger posting clerks were the same way.
You could be talking to a customer on the phone with the customer's
file in your hands. A ledger posting clerk would walk up with a
scrap of paper, literally take the file out of your hands, write
something on the jacket, drop the slip of paper in the file, hand
it back to you and walk away without saying a word. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:27:28 -0500
From: Mike Fox <mikefox@ibm.net>
Reply-To: mikefox@ibm.net
Subject: How Scum CAN be Stopped (was Re: Still Don't Understand Why)
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The customer can advise *his own telco*
> to not allow special services of any kind. This will only apply to
> charges originating with *his own telco*, and that of cooperating
> telcos. 900/976 blocking along with billed number screening will
> cover ninety percent or more of the items which might otherwise show
> up. Those blocks will NOT cover the instances (actually rather few
> and far between, but some say with increasing frequency) where the
> originating telco does not honor the local telco's negative lists.
True, but most of the scum telcos that don't honor the "genuine bell"
negative lists keep their owns lists and honor them. It does work,
it's just that you have to go to the extra trouble of blocking them
all. I stumbled across Integretel a few years ago, and after a few
months of wrangling got their charges reversed, and, as a condition of
getting my charges reversed, was put on their blocking list (that's a
condition I gladly accepted!). It works, as I recently tried to call
an 800 number, misdialed, and got a recording that basically said
"we're sorry, the number you are calling from is not permitted to
access the requested service" or words to that effect. This was
nearly 2 years after my Integretel hassle. Cool.
A few months after that, the TELECOM Digest published a list of
numbers to use to get blocked from the major aggravators, errr, I
mean, aggregators. I dug it up (I love Deja News!!), and here it is
again as a public service:
----begin quote---
Subject: Adult Services Auto-Block Numbers
From: Michael Fumich <0003311835@mcimail.com>
Date: 1996/07/08
Message-ID: <telecom16.332.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
[More Headers]
The numbers below may prove useful. When called, they will
automatically provide blocking to all Adult and Premium (800/900/etc)
services billed by that company. They must be dialed FROM the number
you wish blocked.
Integretel 800-425-6256 (Auto
Block)
800-736-7500 (Customer Service)
American Telnet 800-204-2569 (Auto Block)
800-460-0307 (Customer Service)
Info Access Inc. 800-568-3197 (Auto Block)
Another popular provider is Pilgrim Telephone. I do not have an
Auto-Block number for them, but Customer Service at 800-382-5500 will
place a block for you.
Also, International Telemedia (ITA) Customer Service at 800-866-8889
can block services billed by them, but the block must be renewed
*every six months.*
US Billing (USBI) claims they do not offer blocking of ANY sort. It
has also been my experience that they also take a very hard line, and
will not adjust ANY calls billed by them as well. Customer Service at
800-460-0556.
Comments? Additions?
Michael Fumich <mfumich@mcimail.com>
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for supplying that
list. I imagine several readers will be busy on Tuesday as they use
the various lines in their possession to call the above numbers and
institute blocking. PAT] (note from original posting)
----------------
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Again I say thanks. I hope these
numbers are useful to folks. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:56:54 -0500
From: Dave Stott <dstott@2help.com>
Subject: Re: Local Phone Bill "Cram" Fraud
In Telecom Digest #363, our Moderator wrote:
> Does your telco offer a recorded weather/time of day message at some
> fee? Good, then I can do the same. Do they submit the charges on your
> telephone bill? Good, then I can demand that they bill your usage of
> *my similar service* on your bill. To deny me this would be to make it
> impossible for me to compete, and that is contrary to divestiture.
And this is _close_, but not _exactly_ true. As a product manager for
one telco's voicemail service, I could bill my services on the LEC
bill, but had to impute the costs of doing so into my product cost. I
had to have an agreement on file with the LEC to do my billing. Any
other voicemail provider could also pen an agreement with the LEC to
have their service billed in the LEC bill, but they had to pay for it,
not just "demand that they bill" it. And, of course, they would have
to pay for it at the same rate I was paying.
Further, not having the LEC bill for you doesn't make it impossible
to compete -- I don't think anyone would try to make that argument --
but it does put the LEC in the position of favoring its own services
over that of another carrier, and just favoring itself could be a
violation of the law.
(For instance, in equal access states where U S WEST offers intraLATA
service in competition with other intraLATA 1+ carriers, the LEC Service
Rep can't offer USW intraLATA service unless the customer can't decide
who to use and asks for a list of carriers. The Reps are forbidden by
PUC rules from even telling customers that the LEC offers the service
in some states, other than when the customer asks for the list, or
asks specifically if USW offers that service.)
Finally, even lowly Integratel has to have a billing agreement with the
LECs to have it's billing included in their bills. All IXC's (or
aggregators) have to have a signed agreement with the LEC for their
billing to be included, but it's so darn profitable for the LEC that
there is really no reason not to include it! All the LEC has to do
is run the billing tapes, tie the billing to the customer, and print
another bill page. Later, they pay the IXC the amounts collected and
pocket a nice fee for that service. If the amount can't be collected,
the LEC _may_ have to eat it (if they bought the receivables at a
discount) or they may recourse it back to the carrier or aggregator,
if that's in the agreement they signed. Either way, the LEC will do
it's best to collect it, usually, because there are performance per-
centages in the contracts.
The system is easy for the LEC, convenient for the IXCs and aggregators,
and usually easy for the customer (until the cramming starts). Since all
the LEC does is run the tape, though, they have no way of verifying the
"truthfulness" of the billing; they have an agreement with their partner
that says only genuine charges are to be sent to them for billing. So
if the aggregator is sending in false info, the LEC just prints it and
sends it. If the customer makes no noise about it, the LEC will never
know. If I get merchant's license, some software, and a bad idea, I can
start billing $2 to every VISA card I can find, and VISA will never
know unless the cardholders begin complaining. Who's to blame - VISA or
me? If GenuineBill sends the LEC a charge for a refigerator on your
phone bill, who's to blame, the LEC who prints the bill, or GenuineBill?
The billing agreement says that only genuine charges will be passed for
billing, so I'd vote that the LEC is off the hook.
BTW, if LEC gets enough complaints about GenuineBill, they can refuse
to bill for them in the future, citing breach of contract.
Dave Stott
dstott@2help.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:05:02 -0800
From: Joseph Singer <ursaminor@usa.net>
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Wayne Gucwa <gucwa@*planet.net> wrote: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:08:23 -0500
wrote:
> I'm very interested to see what the (NEW) MCI is going to do, since
> they spent a fortune putting switches in several cities to go local.
> Perhaps they are the only chance we under-represented will have.
> I, for one, will go where price and performance are better, but I
> suppose it'll take several more years before we see a choice.
Well, I can tell you of experience with MCI as a provider for local
service here in Seattle. My ISP has used several providers for its
service including ELI (Electric LIght Incorporated), then switching to
MCI because initially MCI offered a very cheap rate for them to use
their lines. Well, as is often the case with carriers such as MCI or
Sprint they hooked the customer with an attractive rate and then when
the customer is fully entrenched they jack up the rate. In MCI's case
they tripled the rate that they quoted to "snare" the business. Also,
MCI's lines have been very prone to trunking and switching problems so
that users would dial in and get either circuit busies or ring no
answer even though there was plenty of capacity that the ISP had. I'm
finding as a user that USWest's lines tend to be a lot more reliable
even though with the US West lines I get disconnected from my service
far more often than I did with either ELI or with MCI. If I had
another option other than dialup I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA <mailto:dov@oz.net>
<http://www.oz.net/~dov/> <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/460262> [ICQ pgr]
170 - 15th Ave., Seattle, WA 98122-5617 USA
------------------------------
From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall)
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:12:27 GMT
Organization: APK Net, Ltd.
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 21:49:52 EST, ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM
Digest Editor) posted to comp.dcom.telecom about "AT&T Hangs Up on
Local Service":
> After feuding with Ameritech for months -- or has it been years --
> AT&T has announced that it is suspending its efforts to get into local
> phone service effective immediatly.
> In an effort to cut costs and ease the financial drain the company has
> been plagued with in recent months as well as buoy its stock price,
> AT&T has also announced a freeze on hiring and 'consideration to be
> given to further reductions in its work force'. Decisions for the
> company are now being made by C. Michael Armstrong, a corporate
> turn-around artist who became AT AT&T chairman two months ago.
I wonder if AT&T didn't just take a look at all the old lines and
equipment we have and decide that if Ameritech couldn't keep noise off
so many of our lines here that AT&T probably couldn't, either. OK, so
some said that AT&T wanted to simply rent the services from Ameritech.
Who would subscribe to the same exact service plus a markup? No!
People would have to be assured of better service before they would
change.
There are quite a few people who are wondering why Ameritech is so
actively promoting its own ISP when other ISPs are having trouble with
Ameritech providing healthy lines to connect to them. Sometimes it
takes weeks for Ameritech to do the troubleshooting necessary to find
the causes for connection problems to some ISPs here. So some people
suspect that Ameritech would give its own ISP subscribers better
attention and thus cause a conflict of interest.
Sure, it may sound good to blame Ameritech and say they kept AT&T out,
but I'll bet AT&T just took a closer look to see how much it would
really cost to keep us all supplied with good clean phone lines. If
Ameritech is having trouble doing that for its own customers, how
could it do any better if simply "renting" or "reselling" service to
AT&T? Either way it would cost AT&T more money than they probably
want to spend.
For a local phone competitor to really do well, it will have to be
able to provide good clean connections at a similar or lower cost than
the present local phone company.
I'm speaking strictly from a consumer's point of view, so it may not
really be "expert" enough to make the Digest. <G>
Gail M. Hall
gmhall@apk.net
------------------------------
From: Robert L. McMillin <rlm@syseca-us.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:42:05 -0800
Organization: Syseca, Inc.
TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
> After feuding with Ameritech for months -- or has it been years --
> AT&T has announced that it is suspending its efforts to get into local
> phone service effective immediatly.
> In an effort to cut costs and ease the financial drain the company has
> been plagued with in recent months as well as buoy its stock price,
> AT&T has also announced a freeze on hiring and 'consideration to be
> given to further reductions in its work force'. Decisions for the
> company are now being made by C. Michael Armstrong, a corporate
> turn-around artist who became AT AT&T chairman two months ago.
[...]
Incredible. Based on my experience, the last thing AT&T needs to do is
to cut more employees; but perhaps this is how old-guard execs view
the world, i.e., cutting payroll lowers costs. Our company had a
dedicated sales rep from AT&T, but earlier this year he jumped ship
for another company. His replacement stayed for a month or two, then
promptly went on disability without changing her voicemail greeting.
We finally figured this out when repeated attempts to contact her met
with no returned calls, and eventually, a message saying her mailbox
was full. I tried to contact someone, anyone, but ultimately to no
avail; nobody else returned my phone calls, either. Our company
finally moved all its business -- conventional voice and ISDN -- to
competitors. (Of course, after we switched, they sent a contingent of
three people out here to beg forgiveness, but they wouldn't accept our
terms for staying, i.e., the same rates we were getting with their
competitors with credits for the difference on six months' bills.)
I have to wonder: having tried (and failed!) to get sales reps from
both Sprint and AT&T, how do these outfits stay in business? AT&T's
technical people are, from my experience, all first-rate once you get
the right department, but the sales side seems to be managed like the
Keystone Cops.
Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com
Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com
Put 'rabbit' in your Subject: or my spam-schnauzer will eat your message.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 14:31:15 CST
From: Dean Foreman <dean.foreman@telops.gte.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T Hangs Up on Local Service
As expressed in other messages posted to this forum, AT&T would still
seem to be exploring its alternatives for offering profitable local
services. The press release in question likely serves two purposes:
(1) alleviate immediate pressure from the financial community for
AT&T's new leadership to improve earnings and (2) stir sentiments
prior to the unprecedented number of state and federal regulatory
proceedings (concerning universal service and the prices that new
entrants must pay for access to the PSTN) that are scheduled between
now and April, 1998.
Mr. Wayne Gucwa (gucwa@*planet.net) wrote:
> Of course, profit margins are quite good in local service....
> The LEC's probably are not terribly
> interested in long distance, as the margins are tight already.
> (Admittedly, they do want long distance between their now
> *expanded * regions since merger-mania finished).
Actually, the profitability by segment is just the opposite. While
long distance service still generally offers plump margins,
residential basic local service rates often are below cost.
Historically, the regulated rates for switched access and regional
(intraLATA) toll services generally have carried higher margins to
provide an adequate return to local carriers as a whole. This
distorted price structure makes certain local services appear to be
very profitable (e.g., high access rates provided a main impetus for
the emergence of competitive access providers) but unfortunately it
does not provide the correct incentives for AT&T or any other carrier
to offer service to the majority of residential customers.
Mr. Gucwa's message is a great example of how the market for telephone
service sends incorrect price signals.
> The courts were MUCH more active during the breakup of the Bell system
> in setting appropriate rates and monitoring AT&T's behavior in new
> entrants like MCI. In this case, we've got a state's rights
> Vs. federal law confrontation, with the consumer in the middle.
It is important to keep in mind that the 1984 divestiture represented
a settlement to an ongoing antitrust case against AT&T. By contrast,
current activities have been stimulated by the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 and the desire of Congress to see that consumers benefit from
local competition. Even still, the federal courts -- especially the
Eighth Circuit -- have been instrumental to the course and pace that
local competition has assumed. Anyone interested in this topic would
benefit by reading the recent Comptel decision (Competitive
Telecommunications Association v. Federal Communications Commission,
117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir., 1997)). Moreover, as the debate over
internet telephony demonstrates, competition and technology will
circumvent inflexible regulatory regimes.
Regulators, not consumers, are in the middle. Most subscribers will
continue to find that their monthly local service rate is available
for less than the price of a large Pizza Hut pizza with toppings, but
consider that the cost of building and maintaining a local telephone
network is gargantuan by comparison. The true quandary lies with
those *state* regulators who must weigh what is affordable and
acceptable against the impact of moving local rates quickly towards
levels that adequately reflect costs: this is a prerequisite to
meaningful local competition that many state regulatory commissions
have avoided for years.
Mr. Barry Bishop wrote:
> Interesting, now ask AT&T if they are giving up their "Digital Link"
> product. It seems that this product provides local dial tone via a T1
> to large customers. While it would appear they want out of the local
> business for small customers, they will cream skim and go for the
> bucks.
Abandoning "Digital Link" would seem unlikely since it is designed to
attract large business customers, and investors should cherish that at
least some parts of AT&T are smart enough to target profitable
customers. While what constitutes "cream skimming" depends one's
perspective, there is little doubt that antediluvian local rate
structures and regulatory precedents have influenced the emergence and
potential of local telecommunications competition.
R.D. Foreman
foremard@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: Call Boxes on Highways - was Re: Telecom on the Subway
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:02:38 GMT
Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX)
Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com
On Sun, 28 Dec 97 18:28:27, David Perrussel <bbscorner@juno.com>
wrote:
> You'd be surprised how many do have cell phones. Have you noticed in
> many other states you also dial #77 or *77 to reach the police. Even
> on I-70 in PA they say to dial 911 from your cellular phone. And on
> the PA turnpike, you can also dial *11 from your cell phone if you
> don't want to use the call box.
Most states have * or # numbers for the highway patrol -- *477 (*GSP)
in Georgia, *847 (*THP) in Tennessee, etc.
Alas, the */# numbers do not work from unactivated phones or phones
whose roaming has been blocked for some reason -- only 911 works from
such phones. (Naturally, local 911 centers can transfer calls to the
highway patrol -- I've called 911 from cellphones in the past and been
transferred.)
> As for the call boxes, it would be nice but rather expensive.
> Remember, these call boxes are on the PA Turnpike, a TOLL road. I'd
There are call boxes on various sections of interstate in Florida, not
just the Florida's Turnpike; I've seen them in other states as well.
IIRC, there was a bill proposed in the Georgia legislature to install
call boxes along Interstate 75, the main highway through the state
(goes from Chattanooga, through Atlanta, Macon, and Valdosta to
=46lorida), but I don't know how far it went.
Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA
roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/
what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/
spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
From: TELECOM Digest Editor
Subject: That's It, Folks!
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:35:00 EST
Another year of the Digest is over ... and over the next two or
three days I'll be busy updating the subject/author indexes in
the archives, doing some updating on the telecom web page, putting
a few new items in the archives itself, and getting ready like
all of you to start a new year.
This is the final message for volume 17. Between now and the
weekend or first of next week a couple special mailings will come
your way, and then about Monday or so (maybe Sunday if I get time)
the first issue of volume 18 will be coming your way.
You may have noticed the past few days the large number of messages
in the Digest which were in Re:(ply) to ealier threads. I wanted to
get a lot of the old threads out of the way so that when the new
year and new volume gets under way we will have all new message
threads. As part of that plan, it is my sad duty to purge the queue
of unused stuff once again. About 800 messages you have sent me over
the past couple months that have not yet been used in the Digest
will be killed. Please don't be offended; it is nothing personal.
It has been several years since I was able to use more than a small
fraction of the mail which comes in each day in the Digest itself.
That is one reason I encourage the use of the telecom chat area on
the web page, so that fast answers can be obtained.
Don't forget if you have a telecom-related, *non-commercial* web
page available and want a link from here, please write and let me
know in the next day or so.
In the meantime, Happy New Year to one and all!
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #365
******************************