From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 16 17:41:10 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA23880;
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906162141.RAA23880@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #151
TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jun 99 17:41:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 151
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Steven J Sobol)
Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints (Steve Winters)
Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 (someone@teleport.com)
Question About Telephone Numbers (Aoife Morrissy)
Bank Sued Over Client Data Sale (Monty Solomon)
Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back (Hugh Pritchard)
Seeking 'Telephone Techniques' Publication (Partners & Staff)
Seeking Information on Camel Phase 3 (mamits_k@my-deja.com)
Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction (Andrew Green)
Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction (John B. Hines)
Followup on The DuPage Seven (Riklef Flor)
Implementation of VON/IP Technology (webnerd@beta.rwu.edu)
Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation (Daniel Brody)
Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts? (Steve Winters)
Re: Internet Regulatory Freedom Act (J.R. Phillips)
Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Herb Stein)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol)
Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland
Date: 15 Jun 1999 22:19:02 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET
On 14 Jun 1999 01:59:33 GMT, bob@cis.ysu.edu allegedly said:
> I really wish these folks would cut up area codes once and make it
> stick. We just went through a switch from 216 to 330 in 1996. When
> splits/overlays are needed, why not split/add codes to last more than
> just a couple of years??
It seems to me that the Youngstown area doesn't typically experience
as much growth as Cleveland or Columbus or Akron. Maybe when they
estimated how many new numbers would be needed, they underestimated??
Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net
System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:45:19 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
OK, update. I have been receiving requests for the FCC contact info.
I am talking with the FCC right now and am being advised that they
prefer to receive complaints about unsolicited FAXes by mail. Please
mail a cover letter stating that the person or company recieved an
unsolicited FAX that contained an advertisement and that the person or
company has no business or personal relationship to the sender of the
FAX.
Also please include the date and time of the FAX and be sure to
include a copy of the FAX you are complaining about. Provide as much
information as possible and send it as soon as possible.
The address is:
FCC
Common Carrier Bureau Enforcement
Consumer Protection Branch
Room 5A863
Washington, DC 20554
Steve
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem is Steve, aren't these the
people who get around to opening/reading their mail six or eight
months after it arrives? By that point in time, the junk faxers might
well be out of business and/or set up shop under a new name on the
other side of the country. I had hoped, based on earlier messages in
this thread, that the FCC might be a bit more responsive, but your
statement that they 'prefer to receive things by mail' is not a good
sign. Readers should also note that FCC can be contacted at their web
site which is http://www.fcc.gov and I would suggest looking at that
also. PAT]
------------------------------
From: someone@teleport.com
Subject: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503
Organization: As server security goes, it's as if NT wears a 'Kick me' sign.
Reply-To: usbcpdx.teleport.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot )
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:02:59 GMT
Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database
(which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who
else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland
Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)?
------------------------------
From: amorrissy@altavista.net (Aoife Morrissy)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:32:37 EDT
Subject: Question About Telephone Numbers
Hi Patrick,
I'm writing from Ireland where I am trying to do some research on
telephone numbers and the theory behind what makes a "good" number
versus a "bad" number. So far I haven't been able to find much
information but I happened across your site and I thought I would
just check to see if you would have any ideas?
Any guidance would be gratefully appreciated.
Kind regards,
Aoife Morrissy
amorrissy@altavista.net
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think 'good' and 'bad' are subjective
terms and depend on your intentions for the number. Years ago, numbers
ending in two or three zeros, that is 'hundred' or 'thousand' were
considered very desirable by many business places. Numbers consisting
of repetitive digits, ie xxx-1515 or xxx-1212 are considered to be
desirable by some. Businesses generally want easy to remember numbers.
Numbers which can be translated into words are considered good, since
they are usually easy to remember. Numbers consisting of all the same
digit are helpful, such as the {Chicago Tribune} newspaper's classified
advertising 'counselors' (another name for the person who takes your
advertising request over the telephone); they have 312-222-2222. Judith
Oppenheimer would agree that where toll-free numbers are concerned,
having well-known, easily understood words and phrases made from
number combinations is quite important, such as 800-FLOWERS.
On the other hand, would you want to have 554-1212, 556-1212, or any
number off by only a digit or perhaps by a digit transposed from that
of a very popular, often-used number such as the local weather fore-
cast or time of day message? The owners of some numbers which are
repetitive digits often get plagued with 'wrong number' calls from
people seeking a transposition of the same repetitive numbers, for
example, 2141 might get a lot of calls from people seeking 4121. I do
think your intended application is all-important here.
I was once chatting with a friend who asked for the phone number to
something. I looked it up and told him; it was something like 528-9037
and after hearing that, his response was, 'oooh! ick! how awful! ...'
About 35 years ago, I had 312-RAVenswood-8-7425 which really spells
PATRICK. And do you know, I did not catch that for about a month after
the number had been assigned to me? I found out later the telco service
rep from Illinois Bell who had assigned me my number had deliberatly
picked it out as a joke on me. Then one day, a friend mentioned it to
me and I looked at my number more closely, and thought back to the
day I had ordered the service and my conversation with the rep.
The exchange in Chicago known as 312-744 has a similar glorious
history. It is exclusively an exchange used for City of Chicago muni-
cipal government. Until the middle 1960's, when cord switchboards were
in use by city government, City Hall was RANdolph-6-8000 and the
Police Department administrative offices were WABash-2-4777. Police
were cut over to centrex first, and a new exchange had to be started.
In those days, police were often called the derogatory term 'pigs'
and a very vocal anti-war (Vietnam) protestor who was employed by
Illinois Bell as a central office technician cleverly selected the
prefix 744 (guess what it spells!) for the new exchange. Nothing was
said about it; no associations were made with the word, the exchange
was started with police getting cut over first and then a couple
months later the rest of City Hall offices.
Once it was too late to do much about it, then the {Seed}, which was
an 'underground' and anti-war newspaper of the time was pleased to
announce that henceforth all city officials and police officers could
be reached by telephone at their new direct dial numbers, which was
simply PIG followed by the four digit extension they had used prior to
the cutover. 'Just dial PIG-xxxx, where xxxx is the extension of the
pig you wish to speak with. The main number for all pigs, if you want
information is PIG-4000'. As it came to light, King Daley the First
(the present mayor's father) insisted that 'we are not pigs, we are
just regular people'. A few police officers had fun with it by
answering their phones using the phrase 'oink oink' for a couple days
until they were told by administrative fiat to cut it out. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:46:58 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Bank Sued Over Client Data Sale
Deal sparks outcry over privacy violations
By Kim S. Nash
06/14/99
The state of Minnesota last week sued U.S. Bank for allegedly
selling Social Security numbers, account balances and other sensitive
customer data to a telemarketing company in exchange for commissions.
A federal official said last week that several other banks are hawking
customer information, which raises serious privacy concerns. It also gives
a boost to pending legislation, security and privacy experts said.
http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/990614AE82
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:23 EDT
From: Hugh Pritchard <Hugh.Pritchard@wcom.com>
Subject: Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back
Organization: MCI WorldCom
> Some time ago, MCI Mail decided to block TELECOM Digest from delivery
> to mcimail.com sites thinking that it was 'spam'. It was explained to
> me by someone at wcom.com at 'one of our operators thought it was spam
> and put a block on the Digest which has now been removed.'
Even before WorldCom bought MCI, internal users of MCI Mail (domain name
MCIMail.com) were being urged to use the newer, POP3-based service
called Innermail, which had a domain name of MCI.com. A few months
ago, someone decided that "MCI.com" just didn't reflect the true nature
of MCI WorldCom, so the Innermail domain name was changed to WCom.com.
Hugh.Pritchard@WCom.com (or 9007944@pageMCI.com to my pager)
(703) 341-6995; page 1-888-900-7944; FAX (703) 341-9126
------------------------------
From: Partners & Staff <bpp-ca@telusplanet.net>
Subject: Seeking 'Telephone Techniques' Publication
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:30:43 -0600
Hello there,
I was wondering if it is you who emails out the Telephone Techniques
newsletters. We received them about 3 years ago and then stopped
getting them. We are now interested in receiving them again. If you
are the ones could you please put us on your mailing list. Our email
address is bpp-ca@telusplanet.net.
Thanks
Colleen
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry, not me. Maybe some readers
might know where to find this publication, if it is still around. PAT]
------------------------------
From: mamits_k@my-deja.com
Subject: Seeking Information on camel phase 3
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:06:07 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Anyone know the current status of camel phase 3 specification?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Green <acg@datalogics.com>
Subject: Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:16:03 -0500
Our Moderator notes:
> Cruz was released and on investigating the 'evidence' a little
> further, the claims made by the police officers totally fell apart.
> Cruz filed suit, as to be expected, and the stench became so
> bad after the {Chicago Tribune} started working on it that the
> seven law enforcement guys had to be put on trial. [...] All
> seven will likely be convicted.
Pat, apparently you were out of town recently, or something ... Two of
the defendants had the charges dropped by the judge at the conclusion
of the prosecution's presentation, and the remainder were found Not
Guilty at the conclusion of the trial. This happened about a week and
a half ago.
Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331
Datalogics, Inc.
101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com
Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the update. I did not know
about this. Aren't those the same guys who were complaining that they
would recieve unfair treatment because of the coverage given by the
{Chicago Tribune} and how the trial would have to be postponed
indefinitly or else moved out of town because of the prejudice shown
in the Tribune articles?
For those unfamiliar with it, a week prior to the trial of the
so-called 'Dupage Seven' -- the prosecutors and police officers on
trial for their role in the Rolondo Cruz case -- the {Chicago Tribune}
ran a five part, very lengthy, very detailed series in the paper on
the subject of police and prosecutor misconduct in criminal cases in
the Chicago area. They documented a dozen or more cases in which the
state had to dismiss charges, or the defendant had to be released
from prison -- usually death row -- once the lies (or to be kind,
let's call them 'distortions of the truth') told by police officers
under oath came to light, or when witnesses came forward to say
that prosecutors had coached them how to get on the witness stand
and lie. They summarized a dozen more cases. It seems of the several
men released from death row last year in the USA, the majority or
most were from northern Illinois. The Tribune also gave the names
of the prosecutors and others involved in the travesties, and
explained how for the most part they were still employed by the state
as prosecutors, having gone unpunished.
Oooh, did the manure hit the fan! This, a few days before the Dupage
Seven were to go on trial. Attornies for the seven castigated the
Tribune saying now the guys would never get a fair trial. The Tribune
had a most appropriate response, saying, "Isn't that the way it is
supposed to work? Isn't that why police officers and others come to
our reporters and whisper in their ears about 'certain defendants'
in the hopes the newspaper will print the whispers as truth and as
a result generate community hostility against the defendant-of-the-
day, thus removing any hope for a fair trial? It would never do to
have a fair trial for someone who was innocent would it; the person
might actually be found not guilty."
Anyway Andy, are these the same seven guys who a few months ago were
weeping and wailing and wringing their hands about how they would
never get a fair trial now that the Tribune had screwed them over? PAT]
------------------------------
From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines)
Subject: Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:10:22 GMT
Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself.
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Carl Moore:
> Cruz was released and on investigating the 'evidence' a little further,
> the claims made by the police officers totally fell apart. Cruz filed
> suit, as to be expected, and the stench became so bad after the {Chicago
> Tribune} started working on it that the seven law enforcement guys
> had to be put on trial. After all these years, one cop is now the
> Chief of Police in one of the suburbs, two of the prosecutors are
> now private attornies, and one of the prosecutors is a judge. All
> seven will likely be convicted.
The case against two of them was kicked, after the prosecution failed
to make a case in the judge's eye.
The other five were aquitted of all charges, and later seen partying
with the jurors after the case at a local restaurant.
Cruz was blamed yet once again, that his lies and efforts to blame
someone else was the problem. A civil suite is still pending, I think.
The good ol' boy network is alive and well at the county courthouse
here in DuPage County.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (sarcastically) ... so I have heard.
But Carl Moore explained it succinctly: when someone in the fraternity
known as the 'corrections industry' falls short of the glory of
Janet Reno, they have to be given professional courtesies from others
in the same line of work. Somehow I don't think that Carl meant it
quite like I am phrasing it however. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Riklef Flor <rik.flor@abbott.com>
Subject: Update on the DuPage Seven
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:03:18 -0500
PAT,
Ok...you've probably gotten LOTS of replies back on this one already ...
The DuPage 7 were acquitted of all charges two weeks ago. The defense
did a fairly good job of showing that Rolando Cruz is a pathological
liar, and that no one is exactly sure what the real story is.
For the most part, though, I agree with you ... the poor kid has gone
through the ringer ... and the fact is ... he was acquitted. Leave
the poor guy alone. Of course, the Nicario family will continue their
witch-hunt ... which is a sad thing.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled TELECOM Digest <grin>
Keep up the good work!
Rik
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. and Mrs. Nicario were the parents
of the six-year old girl who was raped and murdered now some fifteen
or more years ago. They *thought* the matter was resolved and that
there would finally be closure when Rolando Cruz was sent to death
row. Their living hell began the day their daughter Jeannie was
missing. It was abated or mitigated somewhat when days later, the
youngster's naked body was found dumped in a deserted area and they
realized that at least the child was now safe from further harm; that
the child would realize no further pain and suffering. Over five
years they went through two trials for Cruz, both of which ended with
a higher court ruling there had been a mistrial, and ordering it to
start all over. The *third* time the state brought Cruz to trial,
a dozen or so years after the first trial -- itself a couple years
after the offense had occurred -- Cruz was released. Then a few
months later the officials involved were put on trial. Jeannie
Nicaro's parents had to deal with all this, as well as an unrelated
man in prison (Brian Dugan) who mocked them publicly and said he would
confess to the crime (he is a likely suspect) only on the condition
the state would not seek the death penalty. Since it is difficult and
has little effect to further punish someone already in prison, and
since the prosecutors were out for blood, they ignored Dugan's con-
fession and put Cruz on trial a third time.
In the midst of these events last year, you may recall the twelve year
old girl in Chicago who was raped and murdered. She was found by the
two children (were they seven and eight years old?) who then were
themselves accused of the crime and newspapers around the world
headlined the next day that 'two youngest killers ever in history' had
been arrested in Chicago. Within a couple days, 'evidence' the police
had gathered was exposed as a total sham, and the two young 'accused
killers' were advised by their attorney to never, ever speak to a
police officer again about the case. As a result, the the only
possible hopes the police might have had for solving the crime (the
kids had seen an older person nearby) vanished when the kids were
taught 'police officers will lie about you if you give them a chance'.
That crime is still unsolved also.
Like the message sent by 'the Baker Family' yesterday said, just call
me a bitter old man, frustrated by my own lack of accomplishments in
life. I would not wish living in Chicago on anyone, and certainly not
the 'Chicago style of justice'. Its time for more telecom stuff. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:12:22 -0400
From: webnerd@beta.rwu.edu
Subject: Implementation of VON/IP Technology
Could I request more discussion regarding real world implementation of
VON/IP technology?
Pat, Keep up the good work !
\/\/eb/\/erd
[Bitter old man replies: Sure, you can request whatever you like
around here. I do not charge anything extra for people who wish to
make requests. If other Nerds see your request and wish to act on
it, no doubt my mailbox tomorrow will dictate what the content of
the Digest for the day after that will be. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Daniel Brody <Daniel.Brody@marriott.com>
Subject: Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:53:00 -0400
Dear Editor,
I have been researching a company called "Postal Telegraph and Cable
Corporation" to see what has come of the organization. I have found
some information about a company called Postal Telegraph Co. but I do
not know if they are one in the same. Please let me know if you have
heard of "Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation" and if you have any
knowledge of what happened to this early telecommunications corporation.
Please respond to: ADBrody@Erols.com Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brody
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am pretty sure they were one and the
same. When this company was discussed here a few weeks ago, John Levine
provided information about them going out of business and merging with
Western Union in 1943. Perhaps if this is not correct, John will give
a followup. PAT]
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts???
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:45:08 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
Robert <rciautomation@csi.com> spake thusly and wrote:
> Given your distance requirements, you might consider a new digital
> cordless telephone system that has a range of 5 miles in open terrain,
> and over 11 floors through an office building. We distribute this new
> product and you can find an image and details on our web site at:
We also carry that phone system at www.sellcom.com
While the EnGenius SN-900 Ultra has the longest range of anything we
have tried, the 5 mile part is a bit of a stretch for any "real-world"
application that I am aware of.
I would like to see an "honest" rating system for cordless phone systems,
maybe like the car gas ratings of "city" and "highway".
Steve
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
------------------------------
From: j.r.phillips@uk.pwcglobal.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:44:22 +0200
Subject: Internet Regulatory Freedom Act
I am interested in any opinion about the recent bill introducted in
the Senate called the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act.
------------------------------
From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein)
Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:11:30 GMT
Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com)
There doen't seem to a a problem getting flat-rate service in St. Louis
either. Residential or business.
In article <telecom19.150.1@telecom-digest.org>, hillary@hillary.net (Hillary
Gorman) wrote:
> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
>> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones
>> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30
>> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered
> Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of
> this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area
> calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of
> our more temperate suburbs).
Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
herb@herbstein.com
314 215-3584
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #151
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 16 18:34:19 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA26766;
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906162234.SAA26766@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #152
TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jun 99 18:34:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 152
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Doug Reuben)
Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Mark Crispin)
Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Mike Desmon)
Question About CEPT Signal (Alonzo Alcazar)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: dsr1@interpage.net (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:35:22 EDT
In article <telecom19.122.2@telecom-digest.org> was written:
> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still
> haven't figured out why, and I'm hoping someone here knows the answer.
> I was just in Canada, and I drove for three hours from Toronto to
> Thousand Islands, and I have five bars of signal on my (digital) phone
> for the whole trip. The second I crossed the border into the US, I
> lost the signal. I've travelled in Israel, Norway (100 miles north of
> the artic circle!), Geneva, and London, and seen five bars of signal
> almost everywhere. But here in the US, I can't drive from Boston to
> NY without losing signal. This is obviously not a technology problem.
> What politicial or economic forces are making it impossible to create
> a good digital phone network in the US? (I would add that even when I
> >have< signal, as often as not I can't receive calls when roaming on
> AT&T.)
I'd actually omit the "digital" :) And the AT&T Digital One Rate
"failed" Call-delivery problem is well-known; see below.
Although I agree you have an exceedingly valid point (and I'm glad
someone else has observed this), the areas you are comparing may not
best serve to exemplify the assertion that coverage outside the US is
much more seamless and integrated than it is here. I'm not sure
exactly where you were, but the topography in Ontario just north of
the US border (and Quebec for that matter) is mainly level, while
shortly after you cross into the US (eg, a bit south of the Thousand
Islands, and very much so from Quebec to Vermont) you start getting
some hills and mountains, etc. Not that this should make a difference,
but is likely that covering the relatively flat expanse just north of
the border between Toronto and Quebec is a bit easier than covering
the somewhat hillier terrain of northern New York and Vermont.
That being said, there are a number of reasons I can think of why
coverage is comparatively poor in the US as compared to elsewhere:
1. The US system was initially designed around 3-watt mobile phones
mounted in cars or used as transmobile phones. As a result, early
network architecture and investment into plant and equipment was based
around this model, and even after 11 years, many systems still reflect
this mode of thinking (for example, Cell One/VT 00313 has an excellent
system covering a variety of challenging areas, but their system is
still optimized for 3-watt phpnes and has terrible handoff problems
with handheld .6 watt phones. They do NOT offer digital service
despite their promotions offering a "digital" airtime plan -- the
digital means nothing, it is just a sales ploy.)
2. The US system was apportioned into many small systems, so that
geographically interrelated areas can and frequently are served by
different (and sometimes competing) carriers. For example, the NY
Metro "A" market is served by ATTWS (00025) and Bell Atlantic in CT
(00119). But Bell Atlantic is also the "B" carrier who competes
directly with ATTWS in the NY 00025/00022 market. As a result, they
don't always cooperate on things. For example, handoffs between the
two systems are generally poor, and you can't travel far between the
two systems without being dropped. This is not a technical problem,
but a business decision on the parts of ATTWS/BAMS. In order for a
mobile to hand off from one carrier's switch to another, there needs
to be a T-1 or some other communications link between the two
switches. ATTWS has many switches in NY, yet BAMS only connects to a
few of them.
Thus, a call initiated in CT which roams into NY will initially be
handed off into one of the ATTWS NY switches, but shortly after
ingressing further into ATTWS's territory, it will drop since BAMS
does not connect to more "distant" ATTWS switches. They are both aware
of this, and have *opted* not to do anything about it, yet there is no
*technical* reason why calls can't hand off all the way. Indeed, if
you initiated a call in the NY market right before crossing into CT,
and you hand off to CT successfully, you can proceed far into CT since
only one switch covers you for quite a while in BAMS's CT A market.
3. Digital also has its problems ... if I am using my CDMA phone on
the BAMS Boston 00028 system, and drive down I-84 to CT to (hopefully)
hand off to the SNET/B 00088 system, the digital signal should drop to
analog so it can hand off (in analog) to SNET's system (SNET doesn't
use CDMA). But this never happens, and instead, the call degrades to
the point that it drops. If both SNET and BAMS used CDMA this may not
be a problem, but since SNET uses TDMA and BAMS CDMA, the handoff
issue is trickier, and neither carrier has really spent the time to
try to get it to work. (If you put your phone in analog mode BEFORE
you make/receive a call, and then commence a call before you hand off
it *will* work, but the protocol to hand off from CDMA to analog
doesn't seem to either exist or work between the two carriers.
At the very least, BAMS should drop the call to analog before it hits
SNET, but CDMA has this annoying (although sometimes useful for other
reasons of system differentiation) habit of always going for the CDMA
signal, even if it is too weak to carry on a conversation, despite a
siginificantly stronger analog signal being present. But if a CDMA
signal can be "downgraded" to an analog within a given system (which
it can and regularly does when you leave the CDMA area), the same can
be done right before you hand off to another non-CDMA system; SNET and
BAMS just haven't done this yet.
4. There are many areas of the country where there are only 2 wireless
carriers (ie, the A and B carriers) and no PCS or other competition like
Nextel or Sprint. As a result, the A and B carriers are very happy to sit
on their relatively high airtime rates and roamer fees and basically do
little to build out their systems other than what is required by the FCC
to keep their licenses (although this duopolisitc lethargy is getting
harder to come by because even these carriers see the writing on the wall
and realize they won't have a duopoly forever). In some markets, there is
only one carrier with any real coverage, such as along US-7 in CT where
ATTWS, which owns a small piece of northwestern CT, has superior coverage
over SNET, so if you want cellular coverage along that corridor, you need
to go with AT&T -- there is no other wireless carrier with service in that
area. Where the duoploy (or the even worse monopoly situation) still
exists, there frequently is no incentive to put towers where revenue is
anything less than optimal, and many carriers, either strapped for cash or
just dumb and not forward-looking don't spend the time to worry about gaps
in their network.
5. Tower siting is also a big issue here -- in some states, like NY,
every little town (as it currently stands) can make rules governing
tower siting and placement. Just to get a new tower up takes over a
year if you are lucky, and if there is some objection or someone from
the local town board doesn't want a tower on top of a hill because it
ruins his sunrise view 2 days out of the year when the sun is directly
aligned with the tower, well, he can stall the process for
months. (Recently BAMS got final approval to put a tower up along the
NY-22 in Dover, NY, after about 3 years of fighting with the town
board ... This is only ONE tower covering maybe 6 miles of NY-22
... NY is a big state ... imagine what they have to go through to get
their entire territory covered ...). NY State is making some progress
by trying to reconcile the interests of landowners with *legitimate*
(non-Not-In-My-Back-Yard) siting concerns with new legislation
designed to streamline and codify the process, but there are still
plenty of states like CT with thier zoning bodies such as the CT
Siting Board which make it VERY difficult to put up new towers.
I've even noticed in areas of LA there are towers much shorter than
you see elsewhere and shorter than one would expect would be needed
for optimal performance, perhaps as a eslut of local ordinances
restricting tower hieght. Obviously there are some legitimate siting
concerns, but having this hodge-podge of rules and ordinances from one
city to another all over the country makes it very difficult to plan
ahead for coverage if you don't know how many towers you will need
from a given company if some town board will come back and say "Oh,
the new one you are putting up, well, it must look like a pine tree
and be no more than 150 feet tall" (take a look at the Garden State
Parkway just north of the I-287 JCT by about 5 miles ... there's a
weird looking "tree" there on the northbound side.)
6. Roamer gouging: In many cases, carriers see other carrier's
customers as mobile expense accounts, which can be charged as needed
to supplement subscriber revenue. In Canada, Bell operates most of the
B network in eastern Canada, and Cantel/ATT the A network. They have
an incentive to make sure they their switches talk to each other, that
handoffs work well as you drive from system to system in their
networks, and have central means to coordinate and remedy problem
reports (or so they say :) ) which is not common in the US with its
fragmented market. Roaming is not oriented as much towards revenue
generation as it is to keeping customers on YOUR network.
In the US it is a little bit different :). Carriers see roaming
outside of their networks as money making opportunities, and are much
less concerned with seamless handoffs, feature interoperability, call
delivery, etc., as they are optimizing roaming prices, or in cases
like Southwestern Bell's Cell One Boston 00007 system, charging YOUR
OWN CUSTOMERS $4 per month each time they roam! Other carriers provide
roaming services to the extent that it (apparently) suits their
purposes, forgetting that the customer's functionality and utility
which he derives from the phone is (or should be) they key issue.
For example, ATTWS/NY Digital One Rate customers generally can't
receive calls when in the Boston or ComCast/NJ markets and outside of
the Digital One Rate area (ie, while roaming on networks other than
AT&T but "near" areas where AT&T has its own towers). Callers just get
a busy signal or go to voicemail (I've tried this and verified this
with two 917 ATTWS/NY digital one rate numbers, and the results are
the same -- callers either get a busy signal or go right to voicemail,
even though the phone is on and roaming very well in analog mode and
outgoing calls work fine. This may be important for AT&T customers
(and perhaps to ATTWS, although they save money with this system so
perhaps they secretly approve of this "problem"), but to Comcast and
Cell One/Boston it's not a major issue and it takes quite a while to
gather up the right people at ATTWS and their counterparts at ComCast
and CO/Boston and try to get the matter resolved.
7. US Customers are more interested in price, or rather competition in
some of the major markets has focused the primary consumer issue on
price rather than quality of service, despite the carriers' ads
promoting their own networks as superior. Take Sprint PCS for example:
Absolutely horrible coverage and very poor service in the areas which
they do cover. I've been dropped so many times in LA, NY, Boston and
DC on my Sprint CDMA phone that I'm just used to it. In the same
areas, I am rarely, if ever dropped on my analog phone, and sometimes
dropped on my CDMA phone. (IMO, CDMA digital is pathetic for most
applications, and BAMS and GTE and/or Qualcomm have still not figured
out a way to stop drops in perfect coverage areas ... the phone will
just drop even though you are right near a tower ... not to mention
all the other problems associated with CDMA when coverage chracter-
istics aren't as good.)
Yet people flock to Sprint ... Why? For probably the same reason I
did: A package of services for one low price, same price anywhere in
their markets in the US, first incoming minute free, no long
distance/toll delivery charge, etc. In other words, I don't feel as if
I am being nickle-and-dimed by Sprint like I do with so many other
carriers, such as Bell Atlantic for "toll delivery" charges within
their own system. So I use my Sprint phone to get calls, and the
important ones I transfer to my other accounts where needed.
It appears then that customers in the US, either by conditioning or
out of mere frugality, are more interested and thus sensitive to
pricing than service quality. Otherwise, how could one explain why
Sprint, which really doesn't work outside of major metro areas (unless
you roam and pay $.69 per minute) and in these areas coverage is so
poor and sound quality laughable, can obtain so many customers so
quickly. (And Sprint in many markets, including NY, Boston, and most
BAMS markets, is NOT the least expensive carrier; it is just marketed
as such an appeals to people tired of the nickle-and-diming behavior
of some of the cellular carrier ... NO ONE after using a Sprint phone
keeps the service becuase the voice quality is better! ;) )
In general, the US system is comprised of many small satrapies of
frequently bickering, petty, carriers who due to either their own
shortsightednes, regulatory, or financial concerns are unwilling or
unable to make improvements to their own networks or to reach out to
other carriers and form regional "alliances". This in turn results in
the comparatively poor quality of coverage in some markets and poor
integration between systems.
In the long run, when carriers like AT&T, BAMS/GTE, Sprint and Nextel
cover significantly larger footprints in the US, these other
"non-alligned" carriers may begin to finally take note and stop trying
to gouge for revenue and otherwise ignore each other's customers and
work together to form wide-area, ubiquitous and seamless networks to
compete effectively with the larger carriers. While I am not
suggesting they communally form a large entity in which they each
become immersed and lose their local identity, there will be little
reason for me to maintain an account with Cell One/VT (00313, Atlantic
Cellular) for use in Vermont, if and when Bell Atlantic builds out its
system them and provides seamless coverage (handoffs, etc) to the
Boston, CT, and Albany markets.
The same will be true for people residing in those areas: Why use Cell
One VT, which will limit your use of its phone (ie, fixed number of
romaing minutes) outside of its market when you can just as well use
Bell Atlantic, and, by virtue of it's ultimately controlling a large
chunk of the east coast market (to a greater extent than it currently
does), will be able to offer its customers home / unlimited use of its
entire network and much more seamless coverage as compared to its
competitors.
And this is not to say that Cell One/VT is not a good carrier -- quite
the opposite is true. Cell One/VT covers some very challenging areas,
and generally does so quite well. Yet if a Cell One/VT customer roams
to New Hampshire's seacoast, considerably higher per minute charges
will apply, regardless of any roaming plan (which offers a limited
number of included minutes). Should Bell Atlantic build out its VT
system, and acquire the relatively small and obscure US Cellular 01484
system covering southern VT and NH, it will have a network comparable
to Cell One/VT AND be able to leverage all of its properties in Albany
(00078), Boston (00028), CT/Western Mass (00119), and Manchester
(00428), as well as the rest of its network (possibly augmented by the
GTE properties) to offer (hopefully) seamless coverage and same rate
servic, which Cell One/VT, under the currently limited intercarrier
regime, could only offer by "eating" the charges of the roaming
carriers it works with in the same areas and subjecting it to large
amounts of cost exposure in terms of its paying for Cell One/VT
customers to roam on other networks, a cost BAMS will not have to
incur (since it will own all of the system involved).
But back to the main question, there are many reasons why coverage and
interconnectivity suffer in the US as compared to other countries, and
I've tried to outline my thoughts on the issue above.
In terms of what can be done, I think it is more than just a series of
technical fixes between carriers or in a given carrier's home market.
Neddless to say these are needed and will be taken care of, if not
because the FCC requires that a given percentage of a licenses coverage
area be covered within 5 years, then because customers demand it.
But more globally, seeing that customers primary interest in a carrier
appears to be based more on price than anything else, farsighted local
carriers, if they intend to be in business 10 years from now, will start
*now* to work on building regional relationships where they do not gouge
each others roamers and where they work together to build seamless
networks *before* Sprint, Nextel, AT&T, and the plethora of other regional
and nationwide lisencees come into their territory and steal away the
best, highest spending, least customer support intensive customers.
Because as soon as I can get the same coverage with AT&T Digital PCS
or Sprint of Bell Atlantic in a given market (Vermont for example), I
have the benefit on unlmited airtime off peak (Bell Atlantic), or free
incoming minutes with no toll delivery charge (Sprint) or..well, I
don't know what's with AT&T..they don't like giving unlimited things
:(, and don't suffer the restircitions that I do with a Cell One/VT
account in terms of roaming or paying a premium (either up front or
when the bill comes in an itemized manner) to roam, I'll drop my Cell
One/VT account so I have one less account to worry about and one fewer
phone to carry on trips.
Many carriers will say these aren't important issues to their
customers, and that they wish to concentrate on building their own
system and not worrying about interconnect since most of their
customers stay in one area. I question this assertion -- mobile phones
are exactly that -- mobile, and people tend to drive and visit other
friends or conduct business, etc. over increasingly larger areas. In
many cases they may not use their phone outside their local area for
months, but when they do, and get socked by high charges or get
dropped on an important business call as they hand off from one system
to another, they will complain, and if an alternative is available,
opt for that instead.
Moreover, fostering a greater degree of integration between carriers
and offering reciprocal airtime rates is probably one of the lowest
cost ways for carriers to keep their customers; it doesn't require an
entirely new technical solution or massive investments into new
equipment. The cost of T-1's between switches, or retuning towers to
optimize inter-system handoffs, or reworking billing arrangements to
offer roamers from visiting carriers the same rates as home (even
unlimited off peak or special toll plans) is considerably less than
building even one new tower or opening a few customer service centers,
and has system-wide implications. Yet it is rare to see smaller MSA or
most RSAs care too much about this on anything else the the most
traveled routes or areas where there is high intersystem traffic (and
even in many cases where there is these issues are ignored, such as
between BAMS and 360/Altell along I-80 and I-78 in PA, or the "A"
carriers along I-80, etc.)
(Note this lack of integration and reasonable roaming is also, IMO,
hurting the CDPD Digital Wireless IP services which carriers like
BAMS, ATTWS, Vanguard, GTE, etc., offer ... the minute you roam off of
their networks and onto another carrier you can rack up packet charges
very quickly. This is a service which if all the carriers offered at
some unlimited flat rate natiownide could serve to bring in new
customers to a service which supplements (and generally does not
detract from) cellular revenue, yet the carriers penny-wise
pound-foolish attitude and application of the cellular model to this
service has handicapped it from the outset.)
One would hope that the carriers serving such areas begin to see the
light and remedy some of the issues that the initial poster
promulgated with his questions before the natiownide lisencees come to
their respective areas and either run the locals out of business or
relegate them (by drying up new subscriber growth and feeding off of
churn) to second rate carriers focusing on limited local regions for
specialized (and likely low margin) applications.
Regards,
(This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org)
Doug Reuben / Interpage(TM) Network Services Inc. / http://www.interpage.net
dsr1@interpage.net
+1 (617) 696-8000
(510) 315-2750
------------------------------
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:43:09 -0700
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing
aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones
> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30
> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered
> "flat-rate" service back in the 60's, the area served was not a large
> geographic expanse. The only flat-rate landline service I've
> encountered in the past 25 years of reading and auditing phone bills
> has been in GTE or Rochester Telephone territories where the carrier
> chose not to install sufficiently sophisticated equipment to to pick
> up and calculate the charges. Every RBOC I've encountered used a
> graduated method for charging local calls, but NONE were open-ended
> flat-rate.
That's strange. With the exception of the People's Republic of New
York City, I've never encountered a locale in the US which didn't have
flat rate billing. I always thought that the lack of flat rate in the
PRNYC was typical rip-off of New Yawkahs whose knowledge of the
outside world effectively ends at the Hudson River ... something about
there being cows in Joisey.
In those areas that I have encountered which offer both flat rate and
measured billing, the RBOC won't let you put measured billing on a
line if any of your other lines are flat rate. Measuring billing
seems to be offered solely as a means of providing inexpensive dial
tone to low-income individuals who place few calls.
As for the size of flat rate calling areas, my significant other lives
over an hour away by car, on the other side of a major body of water
and in a different county. Yet, we're in each other's flat rate
calling area. Our flat rate calling areas are growing in size, and
now incorporate multiple LOCs in multiple area codes.
[Special memo to New Yawkahs: you live in the greatest place in the
world. You don't want to visit any place else, and you especially
don't want to move there. There is nothing outside but desolate
wilderness. Those places let people have guns, not like NYC where
everybody is safe. No need to go there. Stay home.]
-- Mark --
* RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. *
* Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message. *
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:00:00 -0700
From: Mike Desmon <mdesmon@gate.net>
Reply-To: mdesmon@gate.net
Organization: Cybergate
Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular
aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
>> cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is
>> no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a
>> cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here
>> like it ...
Actually, CO Finder will tell you. Enter the NPA-NXX and it will tell
you who the carrier is, what rate center it's in, etc. It's a pretty
good program.
------------------------------
From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar)
Subject: Question About CEPT Signal
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:47:52 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
What is a CEPT signal?
Alonzo
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #152
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 17 12:26:24 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA29775;
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906171626.MAA29775@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #153
TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jun 99 12:26:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 153
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
It's Time to Register For MobiCom'99 (Jason Redi)
Internet Access Thru Cable (Raymond D. Mereniuk)
503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? (Someone)
11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Jim Van Nuland)
Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat (David Vinograd)
Re: Qwest and US West (Brett Frankenberger)
Re: Qwest and US West (Jin Hwang)
Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Adam H. Kerman)
Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Steven J. Sobol)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Steven J. Sobol)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Jason Redi <jredi@bbn.com>
Subject: It's Time to Register For MobiCom'99
Organization: BBN Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:57:18 GMT
IT'S TIME TO REGISTER FOR
MOBICOM'99
The Fifth Annual International Conference on
Mobile Computing and Networking
August 15 - 19, 1999
Seattle, Washington, USA
http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com
The advance program is _complete_ and _available_ on our web site.
We invite you to register now to join us for this ground-breaking
conference in August.
Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE
Technically Co-sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society
In cooperation with ACM SIGCOMM, SIGOPS, SIGMETRICS, and SIGMOD;
the USENIX Association; the IEICE; and the IEE
+ Supported by the following leading-edge companies +
American Mobile, Bell Atlantic Mobile, GTE / BBN Technologies,
BellSouth, Compaq Research, CUE, Harris Semiconductor / Prism,
IBM Research, Infowave, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft Research,
Nettech Systems, Proxim, SmartServ, Symbol,
WAP Forum, Wireless Knowledge, and Xerox
CONFERENCE BACKGROUND
1999 marks the fifth (and best!) year of the MobiCom Conference
Series. We have done much to make this last MobiCom of the century
a memorable affair for all attendees. Please allow us to share some
of the noteworthy achievements for this year's event.
1) MobiCom '99 has set an all time record in the number of papers it
received for review. We received 170 submissions this year,
beating '95 by 121%, '96 by 91%, '97 by 69% and '98 by 15%.
The task of identifying the best-of-the-best was challenging.
2) MobiCom '99 received the highest number of tutorial proposals ever,
up 184% from last year. The quality of these proposals and the
qualification of the instructors was remarkable.
3) MobiCom '99 is being endorsed by a record number of professional
organizations from all over the world. Several organizations are
cooperating with MobiCom for the first time like the IEE (UK),
the IEICE (Japan), the USENIX Association (US) and the ACM SIGMOD (US).
4) A record number of corporations are financially supporting this
year's conference and a record number are participating in an
exhibition that we are trying out for the first time.
All of this gives a clear indication of the strength of this year's
program, and of the continued excitement in the field.
SOME HIGHLIGHTS
The main program consists of nine paper sessions and two panel
sessions. The paper sessions are single-track, while each of the panel
sessions consists of two parallel panels. This will allow you to
attend all paper presentations and two of the four panels.
This year:
1) We are introducing a new "Next Century Challenges" session
with five visionary papers on the future of mobile computing
and wireless networking.
Details available at
http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/tp.htm
2) We are offering the highest number of tutorials ever. After careful
deliberation and thought we have picked a total of 8 tutorials
covering a gamut of topics useful to you whether you are a novice
or an expert in this field.
T1. Understanding the Wireless Physical Layer and
its Impact on Other Layers
- Magda El Zarki, UPenn.
T2. Understanding Code Mobility
- Gian Pietro Picco,
Washington University at St. Louis
T3. Wireless Ad Hoc Networking Protocols
- David A. Maltz and Josh Broch, CMU
T4. Mobile IP and Mobile Networking in the Internet
- David B. Johnson, CMU, and
Charles E. Perkins, SUN Microsystems
T5. Designing Energy Efficient Mobile Systems -
- Mani B. Srivastava, UCLA
T6. Multicast Communications Over Wireless Networks -
- Upkar Varshney, Georgia State Univ.
T7. TCP for Wireless and Mobile Hosts
- Nitin H. Vaidya, Texas A&M University
T8. Wide Area Wireless Data Communications -
- Satyajit P. Doctor and Jennifer Yin, Award Solutions
Detailed descriptions are provided at:
http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/tutorials.htm
3. We have organized a record number of cutting-edge workshops that
are co-located with MobiCom 99:
W1. Data Engineering for Wireless and Mobile Access (MobiDE)'99
W2. Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and
Communications (Dial M) '99,
W3. Wireless Mobile Multimedia (WoWMoM) '99
W4. Modeling and Simulation of Wireless & Mobile Systems (MSWiM)'99.
Information about these workshops can be found in
http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/workshops.htm
4. We have organized four panels on topics that are timely and with
panelist who are passionate about these subjects.
P1. Global Satellite Communication Networks
P2. Future of Local area Networks
P3. Electronic Books
P4. Wearable Computers
Information about these panels and the panelist can be found in
http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/panel.htm
5. We will have a corporate exhibition area, where you can see the
latest mobile communication products and services first-hand and
find out about breakthroughs in mobile networks, systems and
applications. You can meet with the people and companies who
are designing and developing the new mobile systems and setting
the standards.
Information on MobiCom '99 supporters is available at:
http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/workshops.htm
SOCIALS
Several interesting social events in nice settings are part of this
year's Conference:
S1. Monday Evening (August 16, 1999)
Chairman's Welcome Reception
Join the organizing team in an informal setting
also browse the exhibition area
S2. Tuesday Evening (August 17, 1999)
Student/Faculty Get Together
This will be a three hour cruise of the Puget Sound,
with food and spirits provided
S3 Wednesday Evening (August 18, 1999)
Conference Dinner Banquet
Join your colleagues at the Space Needle (a landmark of
some significance for Seattle) for some lively
entertainment and dinner
In addition to the above, we will be providing conference
luncheons to all attendees on all three days of the conference. Lunch
will also be provided to people attending the workshops on Friday
and to those attending the full-day tutorials on Sunday and Monday.
LOCATION
The conference will be held at the beautiful state of art Bell
Harbor International Conference Center -- this is one of the
finest conference facilities in all of Washington. Check
out the URL.
http://www.bellharbor.org/index.html
REGISTRATION
Thus, don't delay and register today for MobiCom '99. It is THE
conference to attend. With a great location, Seattle, Washington,
in the heart of downtown, you can't ask for anything more. We
look forward to seeing you there.
Important URL
http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/registration.htm
Important Dates:
July 23, 1999 -- MobiCom '99 and Hotel Registration discounts end
August 1, 1999 -- Early registration for MobiCom '99 ends.
------------------------------
From: Raymond D. Mereniuk <Raymond@fbn.bc.ca>
Organization: FBN Technical Services
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:12:41 -0800
Subject: Internet Access Thru Cable
A few years ago no one wanted anything to do with Internet on cable
and many said it would be a failure. Now that it is proving to be
successful everyone wants a piece of it. I believe the cable
operators should be given the privilege of another five to ten years
of exclusive operation of their system before they are forced to open
it to other service providers. The Telcos had a pretty good run with
no competition, why shouldn't the Cablecos have the same treatment?
AOL and the other whining ISPs who bet their future on Internet over
circuit switched voice quality facilities should suffer the
consequences of their previous bad decisions. If the Telcos had the
vision they could have invested resources in building high bandwidth
pipes to their users many years ago, the technology was available,
they knew it had to be done, but they close to do nothing. What good
would it do me to allow AOL onto the cable system?
Maybe they will made ADSL or some other DSL technology work in the
near future. It would be great if the consumer had a true choice in
high-speed Internet service providers. The cable company gives me
high-speed Internet access for $40/month, so damn cheap competition is
not required. And, their service is not that bad either!
I frequent websites where I get fast response. If the site is too
slow I don't bother to go back much. If UUNET will not peer with
@Home and I get poor response going to a UUNET hosted website I will
not go back. The UUNET customer loses business and if they care they
will either force UUNET to peer with @Home or they will go find a new
bandwidth provider which gives @Home customers good website responses.
The free market system will work, it just takes time. Plus, I have a
choice, if I don't like @Home I can get another ISP.
Virtually,
Raymond D. Mereniuk
Raymond@fbn.bc.ca
"The Ultimate Enterprise Security Experts"
http://www.fbn.bc.ca/sysecurt.html
------------------------------
From: Someone <someone@somewhere.com>
Subject: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin?
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:04:00 -0700
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's
I get copies of US West Network Disclosures in the mail all the time.
I noticed that when #439 arrived, regarding the 971 NPA overlay in
Oregon's NPA 503, it began, "On May 14, 1999 Lockheed Martin announced
implementation of area code relief for the 503 NPA in the State of
Oregon."
Attached to this usual announcement, with its usual US West logo, was
a three-page attachment on Lockheed Martin letterhead, and the contact
is a Lockheed person in D.C.
What's the deal with that?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:11:23 PDT
From: Jim Van Nuland <jvn@svpal.org>
Subject: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and
we'll all be dialing many digits.
I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when
calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area
code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to
calling (say) to another state?
Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between
my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory?
--Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:48:33 GMT
From: David Vinograd <d.r.vinograd@city.ac.uk>
Reply-To: d.r.vinograd@city.ac.uk
Subject: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat
People,
Perhaps you can help.
We live in London and get back to the US two or three times a
year. While we are there I like to call friends etc and do so using my
combined ATT credit and calling card. But the rates are silly - $6 for
a ten minute call from Boston to Portland, ME.
Can you suggest any other way to do this with the following constraints:
* No min or monthly charge;
* Not tied to a US phone number as we do not have one;
* Must be usable from public and private (friends) phone;
Thanks,
David Vinograd mailto:D.R.Vinograd@city.ac.uk
Director of Computing Services http://www.city.ac.uk/~sh392
City University, Northampton Square Phone +44-171-477-8170
London EC1V 0HB, England FAX +44-171-477-8565
------------------------------
From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger)
Subject: Re: Qwest and US West
Organization: Netcom Online Services, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:25:33 GMT
In article <telecom19.150.7@telecom-digest.org>, Wulf Losee
<wulf@CERF.NET> wrote:
> Regarding Qwest's hostile bid for US West: Hmmm, there's more here
> than meets the eye, I think.
> Fact: Qwest is making a big push for voice over IP services.
> Fact: US West's long distance revenue dropped off 15 percent last
> quarter! (That will be very very painful to them if that trend keeps
> up).
> Fact: Qwest saves a lot of money on Internet phone calls, because as
> an "ISP" they don't have to settle up with the local players (i.e. US
> West).
False. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or whether your
backbone carries voice as IP packets, ATM cells, circuit switched TDM
bit streams, or anything else. If you terminate a voice call from a
LEC and carry it across LATA boundaries, you pay access ("settle up")
period.
Qwest's general Long Distance offering "settles up" just like any other
carrier. (In fact, in at least some cases, their Long Distance
offering carries calls on circuit switches -- IP isn't even involved.)
> Fact: US West is making lots of waves with FCC to mandate that long
> distance carriers who use "packet switching protocols" be forced to
> cough up interconnection fees to the local players. (Hmmm, sounds like
> an attack on Qwest's modus vivendi).
False.
The protocol on the backbone doesn't impact access ("interconnection
fees").
Now, if you make a modem call to a local ISP, and then, within that
modem data stream, send packets that correspond to voice, and those
packets happen to transit LATA boundaries, there is no requirement that
anyone pay access. But that's completely separate from Qwest's LD
offering, and it never applies to "Direct-dialed" long distance -- only
to people who want to dial an ISP, packetize their voice themselves,
and make their own arrangements for getting it unpacketized on the
other end.
The FCC, incidentally, isn't much interested in these arguments anyway.
It first surfaced many years ago when LECs claimed that the packet
networks of the day were IXCs and should pay access -- this gave rise
to the "modem tax" rumors. The FCC didn't agree. They tried again
once VoIP became viable (for low-quality definitions of viable). They
lost again.
> CONCLUSION: Qwest wants to, (A) either buy up US West lock stock and
> barrel to shut down their yapping,
On the theory that no other LECs would ever yap about this, even though
they are similarly situated to U S West!?
> or (B) they'll be willing to withdraw their hostile offer if US West
> makes some concessions. Personally, I think its the former reason
> (A). Especially since US West, which has been unable to sell
> long-distance services to areas outside its region, but could do so
> (under current FCC regs) if it were via those dang "packet switching
> protocols".
Again, not really true. You only get special exemptions for "those
dang packet switching protocols" if the end user does the packetization
and depacketization. If the call is made from a POTS line to a POTS
line, voice the whole way, it's treated as a plain-old-long-distance-call,
with the same regulations and same access charges.
Heck, Stratacom (and others) have been selling commerically viable,
toll-quality, voice packet (cell) switches for a long time. If all
Sprint or MCI or ATT had to do to avoid access was install such things,
no one would be paying access these days ...
- Brett (brettf@netcom.com)
... Coming soon to a | Brett Frankenberger
.sig near you ... a Humorous Quote ... | brettf@netcom.com
------------------------------
From: Jin Hwang <bumdaddy@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Qwest and US West
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:44:04 -0700
I agree with you since my inside source has told me today that Qwest
will be aquiring US West after having a teleconference with Joe
Nacchio.
Wulf Losee <wulf@CERF.NET> wrote in message news:telecom19.150.7@
telecom-digest.org:
> Regarding Qwest's hostile bid for US West: Hmmm, there's more here
> than meets the eye, I think.
> Fact: Qwest is making a big push for voice over IP services.
> Fact: US West's long distance revenue dropped off 15 percent last
> quarter! (that will be very very painful to them if that trend keeps
> up).
> Fact: Qwest saves a lot of money on Internet phone calls,
> because as an "ISP" they don't have to settle up with the local
> players (i.e. US West).
------------------------------
From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.chinet.com>
Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:48:48 GMT
In article <telecom19.151.16@telecom-digest.org>, Herb Stein
<herb@herbstein.com> wrote:
> There doen't seem to a a problem getting flat-rate service in St. Louis
> either. Residential or business.
Uh, huh. Try calling across the state line. When I lived in St. Louis
during 1992, I recall intraLATA toll calls outside the prepaid zone and
interLATA to call to the Illinois side of the metropolitan area.
At one time you had protected prefixes that were not duplicated in
both the Missouri and Illinois sides of the metropolitan area, but I
never saw that. There were people on the Illinois side who could
still obtain (I think it was called) "metropolitan" numbers that would
be billed as if they were in St. Louis. So you could call those
numbers prepaid in some zones.
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol)
Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular
Date: 16 Jun 1999 23:33:32 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET
On 16 Jun 1999 03:44:25 GMT, hillary@hillary.net allegedly said:
> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
>> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones
>> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30
>> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered
> Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of
> this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area
> calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of
> our more temperate suburbs).
Alan has also ignored every last one of the posts made by myself and
Joseph Adams about flat-rate calling in northern Ohio.
Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net
System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org
IRC:sjsobol> Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address?
IRC:heller> No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers.
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Date: 16 Jun 1999 23:40:03 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:38:45 -0400, aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET allegedly said:
> But chances are pretty good you weren't using the phone all the time,
> and the carrier you accessed probably wasn't Sprint, itself (don't
> forget, Sprint is not a cellular carrier).
Yes, they are.
But you can't use Sprint as a reference. They love to tout the network
they've "built from the ground up"; but the fact that it's a new
network means you have a ton of places where you have no access (with
a digital-only phone) or expensive roaming (with a dual-mode phone).
I've been with GTE for six years, and their cell network has been
around since before *that*. Use GTE or BAM or Airtouch or someone that
has a mature network if you're going to talk about coverage.
Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net
System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org
IRC:sjsobol> Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address?
IRC:heller> No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #153
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 17 14:28:05 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA06123;
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906171828.OAA06123@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #154
TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jun 99 14:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 154
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso (Rob Slade)
Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Derek Balling)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Michael David Jones)
Re: Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints (Steve Winters)
Re: Question About CEPT Signal (Andrew Emmerson)
Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? (Brian Charles Kohn)
Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? (ellis@ftel.net)
Chance for a Free Book - Electrical and Computer Engineers (SpectraCom)
EarthWeb E-Leaning Expo Live on Internet (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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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 <rslade@sprint.ca>
Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:43:56 -0800
Subject: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso
Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca
BKINTDET.RVW 990423
"Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso, 1999, 0-9666700-7-8, U$49.95
%A Edward G. Amoroso eamoroso@mail.att.net
%C P. O. Box 78, Sparta, NJ 07871
%D 1999
%G 0-9666700-7-8
%I Intrusion.Net Books
%O U$49.95 973-448-1866 fax: 973-448-1868 order@intrusion.net
%P 218 p.
%T "Intrusion Detection"
This is not (very much not) to be confused with the identically named,
and almost equally recent, book by Escamilla (cf. BKINTRDT.RVW).
Where Escamilla's is basically a large brochure for various commercial
systems, Amoroso has specifically chosen to avoid products,
concentrating on concepts, and not a few technical details. The text
is based on material for an advanced course in intrusion detection,
but is intended for administrators and system designers with a
security job to do.
Chapter one, after demonstrating that the term means different things
to different people, gives us an excellent, practical, real world
definition of intrusion detection. This is used as the basis for an
examination of essential components and issues to be dealt with as the
book proceeds. Five different processes for detecting intrusions are
discussed in chapter two. Each method spawns a number of "case
studies," which, for Amoroso, means looking at how specific tools can
be used. (This style is far more useful than the normal business case
studies that are long on who did what and very short on how.)
Intrusion detection architecture is reviewed in chapter three,
enlarging the conceptual model to produce an overall system. Chapter
four defines intrusions in a way that may seem strange, until you
realize that it is a very functional description for building
detection rules. The problem of determining identity on a TCP/IP
internetwork is discussed in chapter five, but while the topic is
relevant to intrusion detection, few answers are presented.
Correlating events is examined in chapter six. Chapter seven looks at
setting traps, primarily from and information gathering perspective.
The book ends with a look at response in chapter eight.
The bibliography is, for once, annotated. While I do not always agree
with Amoroso's assessments; I think he tends to give the benefit of
the doubt to some who primarily deliver sensation; the materials are
generally high quality resources from the field. Books and online
texts are included, although the emphasis is on journal articles and
conference papers.
The content is readable and, although it seems odd to use the word in
relation to a security work, even fun. I suppose, though, that I must
point out that your humble "worst copy editor in the entire world"
reviewer found a significant number of typographic errors. (And some
that can't be put down to typos: I think you'll find that it's
"berferd" rather than "berford.")
This book works on a great many levels. It provides an overall
framework for thinking about security. It thoroughly explains the
concepts behind intrusion detection. And it gives you some very
practical and useful advice for system protection for a variety of
operating systems and using a number of tools. I can recommend this
to anyone interested in security, with the only proviso being that you
are going to get the most out of it if you are, indeed, responsible
for designing network protection.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKINTDET.RVW 990423
====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:17:04 -0700
From: Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org>
Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers
And Pat Replied....
> On the other hand, would you want to have 554-1212, 556-1212, or any
> number off by only a digit or perhaps by a digit transposed from that
> of a very popular, often-used number such as the local weather fore-
> cast or time of day message? The owners of some numbers which are
> repetitive digits often get plagued with 'wrong number' calls from
> people seeking a transposition of the same repetitive numbers, for
> example, 2141 might get a lot of calls from people seeking 4121. I do
> think your intended application is all-important here.
A similar problem exists in my old residence of Fort Wayne,
Indiana. GTE is *BIG* there, (one of the city's top 5 employers), and
most everyone know's at least one or two people who work for them,
either in their Regional Offices, their call centers, or as a tech.
The GTE customer service 800 numbers are 800-483-3x00 (the x varies
from region to region).
It's important to note that in the 219 NPA, 483 is a valid exchange
serving ... you guessed it ... Fort Wayne.
MANY is the person who would look at the 800 number, see the 483, know
they're calling across town, and just dial 483-3600 (which would be the
North Region call center ... if they'd put the 800 before it).
Instead they would of course bother some local resident.
It got so bad that they actually put notices in the phone books
REMINDING people that "Just because the 7D number looks like a local
number, you REALLY need to dial the 1-800 part as well".
There are two really funny after-stories to that (one of which I am
NOT permitted to tell under penalty of pain and suffering from a
former roommate of mine who still works at the Pit of Despair , er um,
I mean GTE North call center, although I CAN say that it involves work
orders entered by/for employees, additional listings, and rude names
*G*). For more info, see the 1996-97 Fort Wayne phone book, if you can
find a copy. ;-)
The story I *CAN* tell is that my roommates and I used to have, in Ft.
Wayne, 483-3200. (It's nice to be able to look at the telephone number
bucket and find yourself something nice). This wasn't much of a
problem, since 3200 was GTE-Florida, and the problem didn't occur too
often. Occasionally, though, people would call trying to reach GTE-FL
when one of us would answer the phone. It was always either a
disconnect of service (because the person either moved to Ft. Wayne,
or it was a winter home they were turning off service in) or someone
who was behind on their bills.
In either case, especially knowing the telco "lingo" and manner of
talk, it was quite easy to amuse ourselves endlessly, letting them
believe that their service was "all well and good and cancelled
effective immediately", or in the case of billing problems, make
ludicrous payment arrangements that any sane person would think is
completely bogus ("Sir, how much do you owe?" [nice leading question
for info, since I don't HAVE their info] "1,200 dollars? and you want
to pay $50 every month until its paid off? Sure, that's
acceptable. No your service won't be disconnected."
But unfortunately, GTE made us change the telephone number after less
than a year (cuz of the first story) and we got something incredibly
dull after that ...
See, Pat? You're not the only one with amusing anecdotes from
telephone history. ;-)
D
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know how old you are, or how
long you have been in Fort Wayne, but perhaps you recall how prior
to sometime in the late sixties or early seventies the phone numbers
there were five digits in length with the prefix 'Anthony' .. they
were dialable locally as five digits I think, but you could not dial
into Fort Wayne from anywhere else.
Fort Wayne reminded me then of Lafayette and West Lafayette, another
GTE-bastion in northern Indiana with (at the time) a peculiar dialing
sequence: telephone numbers in the early days of automatic dialing
were seven digits, however Purdue University had its own numbering
scheme which worked out to be seven digits as well. Everyone had a
seven digit number *except* for Purdue, which had the number '90'.
That two digit number could be dialed from anywhere in Lafayette or
West Lafayette and would reach the Purdue telephone operator. If one
knew the five digit extension desired at Purdue, it could be reached
by dialing '92' plus the desired five digits. Or you could call 90
then verbally pass the other five digits to the operator if you wished
to do it that way. For a long time after area codes were routinely in
place across northern Indiana with 219 for the geographic area which
included Fort Wayne and 317 for the geographic area which included
Lafayette, direct dialing into those -- or any community served by
GTE was impossible. For several years after points served by various
AT&T telcos were direct-dialable, one still had to use the operator
to call a GTE point. I think the operator did 317+473+121 for calls
to Lafayette and 219+483+121 for calls to Fort Wayne, even though
the Anthony-xxxxx style numbers persisted there.
When the operator in Lafayette or Fort Wayne answered, then the
operator in Chicago passed the desired number verbally. In West
Lafayette one day at a pay phone I placed a long distance call to
Chicago, and asked the operator (in these words) for 'area code 312
(number)' and the operator hastened to inform me "sir, it is *not*
312" (her emphasis) "it is 'Chicago' and the seven digit number when
calling from here ..." and she then dialed 312+121 if you knew the
number you wanted or 312+141 if it was necessary to get the number
from directory assistance, or 'Information' as it was called in those
days, and she would be the one to get the number from Information,
never the subscriber directly.
If you 'just happened' to dial 317-555-1212 and ask the operator for
information in Lafayette (as opposed to asking your local 'long-distance
operator' (available by dialing 211) to get it for you) she would say
to hold on, that she would have to connect you to Lafayette to get the
number. There would be a ringing sound once or twice, and when Lafayette
answered, the 555-1212 person would say, "Operator, this is a call for
information only, do not connect the party." Sometimes 317-555-1212
would refuse to do it at all, and would tell the caller "you have to
get that through the long distance operator in your community." I am
assuming GTE's subscriber database was not available to AT&T's oper-
ators in those days. 'Database' of course back then simply meant a
*huge* collection of telephone books on a large table in the center
of a room and several people wearing headsets who walked around the
table picking up the desired books to look at. PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Organization: Excelsior Computer Services
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:58:41 GMT
>> In article <telecom19.122.2@telecom-digest.org>, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
>> <joel@exc.com> wrote:
>>> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still
>> Not in my experience. I spent last summer crisscrossing the West on
>> a rock climbing trip, going from St. Louis to Denver to the upper reaches
>> [...]
But:
> but I still can't carry on a continuous mobile conversation in lower
> Manhattan, still can't reliably make or receive a phone call anywhere
> in Jersey City, and the cell site that covers where I live is often
> completely blocked during evening hours.
That's my point. Here in the New York area, some of the major highways
have NO coverage, the airports aren't covered reliably, and the system
is often just flakey -- both AT&T and BA.
In response to my earlier post (wherein I described driving for three
hours in CA with 5 bars of signal, and then finding nothing when I
crossed into the US at 1000 Islands) some people suggested that my
phone has problems. But the bottom line is the same phone that didn't
get any signal in the US had 5 bars in Canada.
Something is clearly wrong with cell service in the US. I can't
believe it's a technical problem, so it must be a political or
economic one. And so I repeat my question: does anyone know what the
problem is?
-Joel
------------------------------
From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones)
Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular
Date: 17 Jun 1999 10:21:51 -0400
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
>> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones
>> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30
>> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered
>> "flat-rate" service back in the 60's, the area served was not a large
>> geographic expanse. The only flat-rate landline service I've
...snip...
> That's strange. With the exception of the People's Republic of New
> York City, I've never encountered a locale in the US which didn't have
> flat rate billing. I always thought that the lack of flat rate in the
> PRNYC was typical rip-off of New Yawkahs whose knowledge of the
> outside world effectively ends at the Hudson River ... something about
> there being cows in Joisey.
And it doesn't even extend up the river into Bell Atlantic (ex-NYNEX,
ex-New York Tel) land. We've had flat rate local around Albany as long
as I've been here (1978). I can probably call not quite a million
people in my local calling area.
...snip...
> [Special memo to New Yawkahs: you live in the greatest place in the
> world. You don't want to visit any place else, and you especially
> don't want to move there. There is nothing outside but desolate
> wilderness. Those places let people have guns, not like NYC where
> everybody is safe. No need to go there. Stay home.]
What he said.
Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu
The cow may be black, but the milk comes out white.
- Russian proverb
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Re: Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:24:01 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
> The address is:
> FCC
> Common Carrier Bureau Enforcement
> Consumer Protection Branch
> Room 5A863
> Washington, DC 20554
<snip>
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem is Steve, aren't these the
> people who get around to opening/reading their mail six or eight
> months after it arrives? By that point in time, the junk faxers might
> well be out of business and/or set up shop under a new name on the
> other side of the country. I had hoped, based on earlier messages in
> this thread, that the FCC might be a bit more responsive, but your
> statement that they 'prefer to receive things by mail' is not a good
> sign. Readers should also note that FCC can be contacted at their web
> site which is http://www.fcc.gov and I would suggest looking at that
> also. PAT]
Well, Pat, when I was speaking to the person who gave me that address to
publish here, she mentioned that I should ask people to get them the
complaints in time to do something about it. She mentioned that someone
had sent them a year old FAX spam and that was too old to do anything
about (I know, it would be interesting to see the postmark on that).
From what she told me, they are big time serious about pursuing FAX
spammers. She also mentioned that they had online thingies for filing
complaints, but for FAXes, they had to have a copy.
I mean, sure it's "gummit", but its *our* gummit.... ;O)
BTW, I don't get so many spam FAXes as I used to.....
Steve Winter
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
------------------------------
From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson)
Subject: Re: Question About CEPT Signal
Date: 17 Jun 1999 13:47:32 GMT
Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange
Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk
> What is a CEPT signal?
Short for interCEPT?
CEPT is the standing conference of European post and telecomms
administrations, an international policy-making and discussion body based
in Switzerland.
Regards,
Andrew Emmerson.
------------------------------
From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn)
Subject: Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin?
Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn <bicker@mediaoneNOSPAM.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:48:51 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
A Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:04:00 -0700, en comp.dcom.telecom, Someone
<someone@somewhere.com> escribi en el mensaje de noticias
<telecom19.153.3@telecom-digest.org>:
> I get copies of US West Network Disclosures in the mail all the time.
> I noticed that when #439 arrived, regarding the 971 NPA overlay in
> Oregon's NPA 503, it began, "On May 14, 1999 Lockheed Martin announced
> implementation of area code relief for the 503 NPA in the State of
> Oregon."
> Attached to this usual announcement, with its usual US West logo, was
> a three-page attachment on Lockheed Martin letterhead, and the contact
> is a Lockheed person in D.C.
> What's the deal with that?
Lockheed Martin administers the North American Numbering Plan.
just bicker
------------------------------
From: ellis@ftel.net
Subject: Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin?
Date: 17 Jun 1999 18:02:26 GMT
Organization: Franklin interNet http://www.franklin.net
In article <telecom19.153.3@telecom-digest.org>, Someone
<someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Attached to this usual announcement, with its usual US West logo, was
> a three-page attachment on Lockheed Martin letterhead, and the contact
> is a Lockheed person in D.C.
> What's the deal with that?
Lockheed runs the North American Numbering Plan administration. See
http://www.nanpa.com.
http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/
------------------------------
From: spectracom_research@my-deja.com
Subject: Chance For a Free Book - Electrical and Computer Engineers
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:05:30 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hello,
If you are an electrical or computer engineer, you are invited to
participate in an online survey to review books for an Electrical and
Computer Engineering Book Club. SpectraCom, a market research
company, is conducting the survey. You will not be asked to join
the club and will not receive any follow up mailings.
Please go to the address below and complete the short screening
questionnaire; those who qualify will be eligible to participate in the
survey and receive their choice of a free book as a thank you gift.
The survey is limited to US respondents only. We recommend using
Netscape or Internet Explorer 3.0 or higher.
To participate in the project, please go to the following Internet
address:
http://www.spectracom.com/cgi-bin/doubleday/engineering/screener.pl
You will be prompted for the following user name and password:
User name: doubleday
Password: research
If you know of other engineers who would be interested in
participating, please forward this message to them.
The number of survey participants is limited, so please respond soon.
The screening and survey questionnaires will take from 20 to 30
minutes to complete.
Thank you,
SpectraCom Research Staff
------------------------------
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: EarthWeb E-Learning Expo Live on Internet
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:53:38 -0500
I am passing along this annoucment I received yesterday which may
be of some interest.
PAT
----- Original Message -----
From: JavaScripts.com <jsnews@JAVASCRIPTS.COM>
To: <SCRIPTS-L@LISTSERV.EARTHWEB.COM>
Subject: Special Announcement
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:34:12 -0400
Reply-To: "javascripts.com info" <SCRIPTS-L@LISTSERV.EARTHWEB.COM>
Subject: Special Announcement
Pardon the interruption...
An event we thought you'd like to know about (both for its
subject matter, and because it's a cool, virtual-world type
of thing):
EarthWeb's e-Learning Expo will take place "live" on the
Internet on June 28, 1999.
There are two sessions:
- CORBA Enabled: An Evolution in Applied Distributed
Technology ($free)
- Distributed Java: Programming with CORBA ($49 for advance
registration if you're an OMG member, $99 all others)
You'll be "present" in the form of a 3-D rendered avatar,
and can wander among the symposia and vendor booths. You'll
experience video and audio Webcasts teaching you all about
CORBA. In short, a seminar/trade show without the travel.
To sign up (or just to get more information) for either or
both, go to:
http://www.earthweb.com/corporate/events/eelu/index.html
Thanks. When it's over, please let us know what you thought
of it!
The Editors at EarthWeb
(Now back to your regularly scheduled lives.)
************************************************************
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #154
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 18 03:19:32 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA05338;
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:19:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:19:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906180719.DAA05338@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #155
TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Jun 99 03:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 155
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer)
Re: US West's Plan to Abandon Rural America (John Harris)
Largest Market, Not MarketS (Joey Lindstrom)
Pac Bell CIDCW is Up in Southern CA (Alan Adamson)
Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
NYC Local Calls (Jon Solomon)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Thor Lancelot Simon)
We Are Looking For a Rockwell (Conexant) V.FC Chip (sky78300@skynet.be)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Allan M. Olbur)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Steven J. Sobol)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Brett Frankenberger)
Re: Internet Access Thru Cable (Tim Keating)
Re: Bell Atlantic: "We Don't Service Centrex" (Terry Kennedy)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:30:15 -0400
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com
Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers
Aoife Morrissy amorrissy@altavista.net wrote:
> I'm writing from Ireland where I am trying to do some research on
> telephone numbers and the theory behind what makes a "good" number
> versus a "bad" number.
and Patrick said,
> Judith Oppenheimer would agree that where toll-free numbers are
> concerned, having well-known, easily understood words and phrases made
> from number combinations is quite important, such as 800-FLOWERS.
Patrick and Aoife, 800 vanities go well beyond comprehension and
'memorable.' 800 vanity numbers trigger a markedly elevated response
and a pronounced buying behavior, delivering tangible, bottom-line
results.
A number of years ago, ICB researched 800 vanity number use in the
marketplace, specifically choosing mainstream companies with existing
advertising experience and track record (versus vanity-specific
companies like 800 FLOWERS.)
Prodigy operations and call center execs explained to me how a television
campaign test of 1 800 PRODIGY versus their numeric 800 number, pulled
a full 25% greater response, over a 24 hour longer period of time,
every time the commercials aired.
Prodigy went on to attribute significantly increased customer
retention (in a churn-sensitive business), and measurably increased
customer satisfaction ratings, to the use of the 1 800 PRODIGY vanity
number.
Evidently, they said, it wasn't just easier to remember, as they'd
thought, but provided additional, tangible utilities: an ease of use
and access of service that well exceeded the initial response,
extending the sale into a customer.
Jeep Eagle shared similarly enthusiastic results based on its 1 800
JEEP EAGLE commercial experience.
The vanity number had been reserved only for high-end print ads. The
company was gun-shy about incurring 1-800 costs on a mass television
scale, and didn't want to attract, or pay phone bills, for
underqualified, tire-kicking browsers.
It took the TV plunge advertising 1 800 JEEP EAGLE on the Super
Bowl. Results were so successful that 1 800 JEEP EAGLE was rolled out
to broader tv exposure. (Note that this vanity is nine characters
long, one of many successful, longer vanity numbers that debunk the
myth that only seven digit vanities can be effective.)
1 800 JEEP EAGLE response rates exceeded expectations -- and the
company discovered an elevated caliber of respondent, people both more
inclined, and more financially qualified, to buy.
Conversion follow-up provided confirmation. Within twelve months of
the first call to 1 800 JEEP EAGLE, 50% of callers bought either a
Jeep Eagle, or a comparable brand.
ICB heard similar stories from Bally's Health and Fitness, as well as
other marketers. Callers to Bally's vanity numbers (at the time they
tested using two, 1 800 WORKOUT and 1 800 FITNESS) "were raising their
hands, asking to buy", according to one call center manager.
We know that 800 numbers trigger response, identifying prospects at
varying levels of qualification.
But 800 vanity numbers -- brand names, recognized vernacular, calls to
action -- trigger an elevated response over numerics, as well as a
pronounced buying behavior. According to the mainstream marketers we
spoke with, 800 vanity numbers attract more callers, who are more
qualified by both desire, and ability, to buy.
FYI, in a recent study, "Toll-free Numbers in Radio Advertising"
(http://www.800response.com/Studies/radiostd/index.html), toll-free
vanity numbers yielded 14 times more phone calls than toll-free numerics.
Judith Oppenheimer
ICB Toll Free News (http://icbtollfree.com)
WhoSells800.com (http://whosells800.com)
ICB Consulting (http://800consulting.com)
Moderator, TOLLFREE-L (http://www.egroups.com/list/tollfree-l/)
email;internet:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
------------------------------
From: John Harris <harris@hsatel.com>
Reply-To: <harris@hsatel.com>
Subject: Re: US West's Plan to Abandon Rural America
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:15:24 -0500
Under Part 54.305 an acquiring carrier will only receive the same USF
as the selling carrier. There will be no new USF to these exchanges.
We specifically communicated this to US West in April when we reviewed
the properties being sold. What is really happening is that US West
(and GTE) are shedding their high cost areas, but not the areas which
were providing the internal support or subsidy (i.e. urban to rural).
Therefore, their profit margins will increase. Further, there are
parties willing to pay substantial sums ($3500 per access line and
higher) for these properties on the premise that either new technology
will justify the price or that the acquiring company is eventually
going public and they hope for the higher multiples that the public
market is putting on pipes to the home (refer to AT&Ts purchase of
Media One).
While I have no love for US West I have to say that they are simply
responding to the market signals provided them by the FCC.
------------------------------
From: Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:47:56 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Subject: Largest Market, Not MarketS
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT), Steven J Sobol wrote:
>> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
>>> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones
>>> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30
>>> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered
>> Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of
>> this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area
>> calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of
>> our more temperate suburbs).
> Alan has also ignored every last one of the posts made by myself and
> Joseph Adams about flat-rate calling in northern Ohio.
Possibly because every last one of those posts misunderstood him. He
talks of "the largest market in the US", not "the largest markets in
the US". He was speaking strictly of New York City.
From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom
Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com
Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY
FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403)
Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU
Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU
Today's history note: In 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the
throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was assassinated by Serbian
terrorists in Bosnia. So Germany invaded France. World War I:
Because Wars Don't Have To Make Sense.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:09:41 +0000
Subject: Pac Bell CIDCW is Up in Southern CA
From: Alan Adamson <alanadamson@teledexcpd.com>
FYI, Pacific Bell now has Caller ID Call Waiting service (it's about
time). I confirmed this today by ordering the service (available as of
today) in San Diego and it's up and running at my house. No provision
for Centrex users however.
Speaking of Centrex and Caller ID. We still do not have CID Name
delivery on our Centrex lines. No one at Pac Bell can seem to explain
why not and when (if ever) this will happen. Does anyone have any
thoughts on why CID number only is supported by Centrex? I wonder if
they are running SMF or MMF through the Centrex ports?
-Alan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat
Organization: Excelsior Computer Services
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:01:00 GMT
> [Re a calling card]
> Can you suggest any other way to do this with the following constraints:
> * No min or monthly charge;
> * Not tied to a US phone number as we do not have one;
> * Must be usable from public and private (friends) phone;
I'm pretty sure that Voicenet is not tied to a US phone number. You
give them a credit card, and then you can make calls at will. Their
Us rates a high (seventeen and a half cents per minute), but their
international rates are not bad ($0.37 to Switzerland, $0.84 to
Israel) compared to other calling cards. The quality of international
calls isn't always very good, though.
They can be reached at 800/500-9028.
I use to use them a lot until I started using AT&T's personal network
calling card.
-Joel (joel@exc.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:05:48 EDT
From: Jon Solomon <jsol@MIT.EDU>
Subject: NYC Local Calls
I hear BA is offering unlimited calling as an option in the NYC area.
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Date: 17 Jun 1999 14:32:01 -0400
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom19.154.3@telecom-digest.org>, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
<joel@exc.com> wrote:
>>> In article <telecom19.122.2@telecom-digest.org>, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
>>> <joel@exc.com> wrote:
>>>> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still
>>> Not in my experience. I spent last summer crisscrossing the West on
>>> a rock climbing trip, going from St. Louis to Denver to the upper reaches
>>> [...]
> But:
>> but I still can't carry on a continuous mobile conversation in lower
>> Manhattan, still can't reliably make or receive a phone call anywhere
>> in Jersey City, and the cell site that covers where I live is often
>> completely blocked during evening hours.
For the record, I live in lower Manhattan, and have no such trouble.
> That's my point. Here in the New York area, some of the major highways
> have NO coverage, the airports aren't covered reliably, and the system
> is often just flakey -- both AT&T and BA.
You might consider another carrier. Neither Sprint nor Omnipoint
appear to have these problems in the New York City area; Nextel is
also an option.
> In response to my earlier post (wherein I described driving for three
> hours in CA with 5 bars of signal, and then finding nothing when I
> crossed into the US at 1000 Islands) some people suggested that my
> phone has problems. But the bottom line is the same phone that didn't
> get any signal in the US had 5 bars in Canada.
Your evidence fails to support your conclusions. At least one poster
responded with a story which was almost exactly the opposite of yours.
You're talking about, between the U.S. and Canada, *millions of square
miles of area*, some of it with extremely rugged geography. It's
ridiculous to assume that there will ever be 100% perfect coverage --
there are plenty of places where even satellite phones don't work, and
quite possibly never will. In addition, which network you're on will
substantially impact your ability to roam, and the model and settings
of your phone will impact how much signal you "see", particularly when
you're outside your carrier's network.
> Something is clearly wrong with cell service in the US. I can't
> believe it's a technical problem, so it must be a political or
> economic one. And so I repeat my question: does anyone know what the
> problem is?
The problem, it seems to me, is your extrapolating from your sample
size of one to the general case.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
------------------------------
From: sky78300@skynet.be
Subject: We Are Looking For a Rockwell (Conexant) V.FC Chip
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:41:06 GMT
Organization: Sky
Reply-To: sky78300@skynet.be
We are looking for a Rockwell (Conexant) V.FC chip it is:
* RC288ACi/VFC R6670-20
Quantities: any up to 500
Regards,
Mike Verdugt
Visit http://www.tron.be
Allied Data Technologies
------------------------------
From: dtm37@aol.com (Allan M.Olbur)
Date: 18 Jun 1999 03:45:24 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs
Dave:
Please contact me at our Service Bureau 847-934-0580 and I would be
glad to answer your questions. Pls feel free to visit our web site at
http://209.172.186.90 for E-911 information.
Regards,
Allan M. Olbur
InfraTech Inc.
http://209.172.186.90
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol)
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Date: 18 Jun 1999 04:07:41 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:11:23 PDT, jvn@svpal.org allegedly said
> My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and
> we'll all be dialing many digits.
> I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when
> calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area
> code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to
> calling (say) to another state?
> Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between
> my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory?
Because if you have, say, 1-408-555-1234, someone in the new area code
could also have 555-1234, and if you don't dial ten digits, and the AC
is an overlay, there would be no way to tell which person was supposed
to get the call.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Didn't you miss the point here? He
said when *calling within his own area code, when not calling outside
his area code ...* in other words, he wants the 555-1234 that is
within his area code. In that case, why is ten or eleven digits (if
you count the '1' on the front) needed? PAT]
------------------------------
From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger)
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Organization: Netcom Online Services, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:51:10 GMT
In article <telecom19.153.4@telecom-digest.org>,
Jim Van Nuland <jvn@svpal.org> wrote:
> My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and
> we'll all be dialing many digits.
> I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when
> calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area
> code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to
> calling (say) to another state?
> Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between
> my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory?
Because, initially, most people will have 408 numbers. Therefore, if
seven-digit intra-NPA dialing is allowed, it would be easier for most
people to call 408 numbers than to call numbers in the new area code.
That wouldn't be fair to people in the new area code. Therefore, you
have to dial the NPA for all calls.
This is generally how it's done when a new area code is overlayed --
it's nothing special just for 408.
- Brett (brettf@netcom.com)
... Coming soon to a | Brett Frankenberger
.sig near you ... a Humorous Quote ... | brettf@netcom.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you know, this is getting to be
very ridiculous. How far must we go to accomodate all the various
kinks and twists that are appearing in the industry these days? Each
new carrier wants certain kinds of arrangements so *their* customers
will not be 'discriminated against'. Cellular carriers will not accept
new area codes. Local competitors will not accept certain kinds of
numbers. I get to dial seven digits; you have to dial ten digits so
instead of telling your carrier that if he would release back into
circulation ninety percent of the numbers he is hoarding that he will
never use, thus eliminating the need for a new area code entirely,
instead, let's inconvenience all the other customers by making them
dial ten or eleven digits also. A cellular carrier thinks it is
discrimination to be in an area code assigned for that purpose, so
instead let's divide the village down Main Street with a different
area code on each side of the street and screw all those people
instead. There are some places on the northwest side of Chicago
where people routinely need *three* area codes just for local calls
around their neighborhood (773, 847, 708). Ah, but we don't dare
tell Joe Doe's Pager Service that they cannot have several blocks
of ten thousand numbers each for new paging accounts they might
possibly get sometime in the next ten years. That would be terrible
discrimination. Why, some of his customers might eventually have
to dial eleven digits.
I suggest it is time for municipalities who are getting inconvenienced
by area code splits and overlays to begin filing suit against telco
and forcing telco to (a) submit to a complete audit of all its avail-
able stock of numbers; (b) retrieve the thousands upon thousands of
numbers set aside for competitors that will never be used in any
reasonable period of time; (c) ditto the wireless carriers and their
huge excess of numbers; (d) appoint an impartial committee to salvage
this excess and serve as the final arbitrator who who gets what number
subject to the present technical limitations. Lockheed Martin comes
to mind for this purpose.
So you request new service; the service rep would call the arbitrator
and say 'this is (name of) telco'; I need a new number for residential
service at (address). The arbitrator would supply the number, and
that, as they say, would be that. Take the number or leave it. I would
venture to say probably thirty percent or more of our existing stock
of numbers not in service are out of reach due to some telco or cellco
hoarding them. I would force it to stop; then go back in a couple
years and see if another area code overlay is needed or not. PAT]
------------------------------
From: NotForJunkEmail@mediaone11.net (Tim Keating)
Subject: Re: Internet Access Thru Cable
Organization: Keating Consulting
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:35:57 GMT
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:12:41 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk
<Raymond@fbn.bc.ca> wrote:
> A few years ago no one wanted anything to do with Internet on cable
> and many said it would be a failure. Now that it is proving to be
> successful everyone wants a piece of it. I believe the cable
> operators should be given the privilege of another five to ten years
> of exclusive operation of their system before they are forced to open
> it to other service providers. The Telcos had a pretty good run with
> no competition, why shouldn't the Cablecos have the same treatment?
Oh, your so kind, The cable co's have yet to make their first dime and
you're already proposing turning them into a common carrier.
In ten years, the cable co's will be in competition with cellurised
satellite, local wireless, and telcos for local high speed service.
> AOL and the other whining ISPs who bet their future on Internet over
> circuit switched voice quality facilities should suffer the
> consequences of their previous bad decisions. If the Telcos had the
> vision they could have invested resources in building high bandwidth
> pipes to their users many years ago, the technology was available,
> they knew it had to be done, but they close to do nothing. What good
> would it do me to allow AOL onto the cable system?
AOL and the baby-bells are both whining about the latest cable-co
technology leaves them both out in the cold.
> Maybe they will made ADSL or some other DSL technology work in the
> near future. It would be great if the consumer had a true choice in
> high-speed Internet service providers. The cable company gives me
> high-speed Internet access for $40/month, so damn cheap competition is
> not required. And, their service is not that bad either!
Agreed, I like my cable service the way it is. No bandwidth caps,
reasonable price, good performance, decent AUP, all items that would
change for the worst if access where mandated.
> I frequent websites where I get fast response. If the site is too
> slow I don't bother to go back much. If UUNET will not peer with
> @Home and I get poor response going to a UUNET hosted website I will
> not go back. The UUNET customer loses business and if they care they
> will either force UUNET to peer with @Home or they will go find a new
> bandwidth provider which gives @Home customers good website responses.
> The free market system will work, it just takes time. Plus, I have a
> choice, if I don't like @Home I can get another ISP.
UUNET is quickly becoming a minor player. There is a LOT of IP
bandwidth coming on board shortly both domestically and international.
Either they wake up, and smell the roses(start peering) or they'll
lose customers.
Note: They're not supposed to have most of those customers, they where
supposed to give them all to a British firm C&W as a condition of the
MCI-Worldcom merger. They reneged, and are now being sued.
Tim Keating
ktcnslt32@mediaone1.net,
(Note: remove numeric digits from email address before responding.)
------------------------------
From: Terry Kennedy <terry@spcunb.spc.edu>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic: "We Don't Service Centrex"
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 06:49:52 GMT
Alan Boritz <aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET> writes:
> Got this response, when I called in a problem to Bell Atlantic that
> prevented callers from Jersey City, NJ, from reaching my home phone in
> Mahwah, NJ. Seems that the central office repair guy didn't know what
> a centrex was, or that he was responsible for maintaining it, and he
> was calling from the CO where that particular centrex lives. Gee, I
> wonder who B-A allows to come in to their CO's to service the centrex
> portions of their switches. <g>
Are the calls originating from the 201-200 5ESS switch (which got the
old 201-332 1A rolled into it a few years back)? If so, let me know
and I'll have the appropriate people flogged (I've got 4000+ lines on
this switch).
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
erry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
+1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #155
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 18 15:31:06 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA29817;
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:31:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:31:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906181931.PAA29817@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #156
TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Jun 99 15:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 156
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecom Terms (Rob Slade)
Re: Largest Market, Not MarketS (Jack Hamilton)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (John Benedetto)
Canadian Cell Phone Service (Carolyn Meraw)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Brian Charles Kohn)
Re: Survey Sez: People REALLY Hate Spam! (eclectijim@aol.com)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Michael Quinn)
Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat (Joseph Singer)
Signing up With AllAdvantage.com (Corazon DeGuzman)
Looking For Old AMX/81 Docs (Eric Wampner)
FTC Sues Three Web Site Providers For Illegal Billing (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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 <rslade@sprint.ca>
Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:43:45 -0800
Subject: Book Review: Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication Terms
Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca
BKGLTLTM.RVW 990611
"Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication Terms", National
Communications System, 1996, FED-STD-1037C
%A National Communications System Technology and Standards Division
%C 470 East L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 8100, Washington, DC 20407
%D 1996
%G FED-STD-1037C
%I General Services Administration Information Technology Section
%O 202-755-0325
%T "Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication Terms"
This is, of course, the standard. Or, one of the standards, anyway.
Government issue, definition by committee, no frills.
As opposed to works oriented to business or the general public, frills
would seem to include computer terms. Other than those strictly
related to data communications or networking, computer hardware and
software is noticeable by its absence. There is a solid presence for
radio technology, and telephony gets good coverage as well. Military
jargon spawns a number of entries, including some initially surprising
expressions like "air portable." There is fair representation from
the engineering and scientific side of things.
The definitions are generally sound, although not necessarily easy.
It's very hard to find outright errors, although awkward constructions
are common. This is more of a reference for professionals than a
guide for newcomers: if you didn't know what the technology meant
coming in, the definitions here aren't likely to give you much help.
(The listing for virus isn't great, but it isn't too bad.)
This glossary does share one great advantage with Shnier's "Computer
Dictionary" (cf. BKCMPDCT.RVW): it's available online at
http://ntia.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/. The user interface is a bit
idiosyncratic, but it does work.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKGLTLTM.RVW 990611
====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com
Justify my text? I'm sorry, but it has no excuse.
http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade
------------------------------
From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Largest Market, Not MarketS
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:01:53 GMT
Organization: Copyright (c) 1999 by Jack Hamilton
Reply-To: jfh@acm.org
Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU> wrote:
> Possibly because every last one of those posts misunderstood him. He
> talks of "the largest market in the US", not "the largest markets in
> the US". He was speaking strictly of New York City.
Perhaps a definition of "market" is needed. Are you speaking of New
York City itself, or of the New York State portion of the NY-NJ-CT-PA
metropolitan area, or of the entire area? In terms of population, there
are some cuts that would make Los Angeles larger. Or in terms of area?
Or in terms of residential phones? Or total phones?
Jack Hamilton
Broderick, CA
jfh@acm.org
------------------------------
From: John Benedetto <john.benedetto@SNET.com>
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:43:04 -0400
dsr1@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) wrote:
> Thus, a call initiated in CT which roams into NY will initially be
> handed off into one of the ATTWS NY switches, but shortly after
> ingressing further into ATTWS's territory, it will drop since BAMS
> does not connect to more "distant" ATTWS switches.
Not true. BAMS need only connect to the ATTWS switch that serves the
cell first encountered when crossing into NY. The ATTWS network will
then carry the call as if it started on their network. A drop further
down the line means ATTWS does not have adequate coverage.
OR
What often happens is that you don't initially make the inter-network
handoff, and you actually stay on a BAM cell a few miles into NY.
Inter-network handoffs often take longer for the switches to process
and need to be coordinated and tested by two parties, so they don't
often get optimized as well as intra-network handoffs. Once you get
further into NY, your call may have carried past the first cell in
ATTWS territory and a handoff is not designed to pass to the second
cell. In addition there is no way for the average user to know which
system is serving the call, since the ROAM light will not come on
until the call is ended.
------------------------------
From: Carolyn Meraw <CMERAW@pfi.org>
Subject: Canadian Cell Phone Service
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:45:43 -0400
I'm looking for an easy way to compare cell service in Canada --
Alberta to be specific. Do you have any recommendations?
Thanks.
C. Meraw
------------------------------
From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn)
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn <bicker@mediaoneNOSPAM.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:12:54 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
A 18 Jun 1999 04:07:41 GMT, en comp.dcom.telecom, sjsobol@NorthShore
Technologies.net (Steven J Sobol) escribi en el mensaje de
noticias <telecom19.155.10@telecom-digest.org>:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:11:23 PDT, jvn@svpal.org allegedly said
>> My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and
>> we'll all be dialing many digits.
>> I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when
>> calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area
>> code when *not* calling out of it?
I doubt there is any technical requirement; however new commercial
enterprises would be at a distinct disadvantage for a long time since
long-standing local businesses will be accessible by seven-digits
while newer local businesses would, by comparison, appear to be a
long-distance call, with harder-to-remember numbers.
just bicker
------------------------------
From: eclectijim@aol.com
Date: 18 Jun 1999 13:19:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Survey Sez: People REALLY Hate Spam!
> See the article at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/279768.asp
It seems to me that common courtesy would dictate that at least a
re-cap of the survey results be supplied with the URL for full
details. I (and many others of my acquaintance) refuse to follow blind
links.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You raise a good point about following
blind links. Sometimes the writers here send very short, terse
comments (such as links like above, with no other text, trying to be
considerate in saving bandwidth in the Digest. If the main link is
known to be trustworthy i.e. a decent site, with reputable content and
not just web-spam or there to collect names, etc, I will usually print
it as is. MSNBC is one such example; it is relatively free of commercial
links and in the opinion of many, a good source of daily news. I
thought also in the case mentioned here, that his subject line was as
good a summary or re-cap as any, If it had been a totally 'blind link',
that is to say I had never seen it or heard it it before and had no
idea of what its contents were likely to be, I probably would have
written it up a bit further after looking at it first.
I do suggest that in the future, writers should add at least a couple
sentences of their own regards what the link is about. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:21:11 -0400
From: Michael Quinn <quinnm@bah.com>
Organization: BAH
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Here in the Washington DC area, we have 3 area codes available to each
other as local calls: 703 (Northern VA), 202 (DC) and 301 (suburban
MD). 1 is not required, nor is it necessary to dial the area code if
you are originating a call in that same area code. I believe I heard
that there will be in overlay in Northern VA next spring, which will
require all 10 digits for all calls, even those originating in the
same area code. I agree -- it doesn't seem to make much sense on the
surface.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:27:52 -0700
From: Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net>
Subject: Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat
joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that Voicenet is not tied to a US phone number. You
> give them a credit card, and then you can make calls at will.
I also use the Voicenet card, but on calling them I've found that in
order for them to assign you a card you have to have a US phone number
and a US mailing address to have the card. This may be partly because
the card number is your ten digit telephone number plus a four digit
PIN. Of course if you are going to be in the states and can receive
billing in the US you could use that address and I would guess you
could use any US phone number as your number.
Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA <mailto:dov@oz.net>
<http://welcome.to/dov> <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/460262> [ICQ pgr]
+1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 707 516 0561 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess he could pick any number, as
long as he does not pick mine. (: I've a feeling that the requirement
for a US phone number goes a bit deeper than just merely having some
number to use to fill in a blank space on the card. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Corazon DeGuzman <Corazon.DeGuzman@itu.int>
Subject: Signing up With AllAdvantage.com
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:57:23 +0200
Dear Friends,
I recently joined a new Internet service called AllAdvantage.com. You
should definitely consider becoming a member.
AllAdvantage.com is the Internet company that pays its members while
they surf the Web ($.50 an hour). It's free to join and it takes about
a minute (no survey to fill out).
Just go to http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=3DCVI461
Members are paid for their own Web browsing and for referrals. Please
tell as many of your friends about this program as possible. Be sure
to enter my ID# (cvi461) when you join. Remember, it's easy to sign up
and it will never cost us a dime!
Details below. Let me know how you like it.
Regards,
Cora DE GUZMAN
How AllAdvantage.com membership works:
Get Paid to Surf the Web.
As a member, AllAdvantage.com will pay you 50 cents an hour while you
surf the Web for up to 40 hours per month. That's up to $20 per month
just for browsing the Internet the way you normally do.
All members download the AllAdvantage.com Viewbar(tm). The bar is
standard ad height, about one-half inch on most screens. The bar can
be minimized with a single click to eliminate it from the screen at
any time.
Refer friends to AllAdvantage.com and receive 10 cents per hour while
they surf the Web. And receive an additional 5 cents per hour from the
extended referrals that come in from your referrals (for new members
extended as far as four referrals from your original referrals!)
==========================
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Corazon DeGuzman has long been a VIP --
very important person -- in the production of this Digest, because it
is through her effort that the gears get greased and a push is given
each quarter to process the grant from ITU which the Digest receives
to offset my expenses in its production. It is a long way from here to
Switzerland, so when my faxes go off occassionally to ITU as part of
their procedures, I know that when Ms. DeGuzman receives it, it is in
good hands. ITU's grant is the main reason this Digest has continued
publication over the years. I've always sincerely appreciated it.
We've had short discussions about AllAdvantage.com here in the past.
I have not yet heard from anyone who has actually received a check from
AllAdvantage so I cannot vouch for the program. Quite obviously, money
is one thing which would carry a lot of weight and add authenticity to
their program. Has anyone yet been paid anything?
On its face, it seems like a worthwhile thing; Lord knows there are
enough sites with annoying advertising on the net these days and since
it is unlikely/impractical to assume most of us will ever get five
cents for all the spam we have to sort through in a day's time, if
some companies want to pay us something for our tolerance, then God
bless them, even if it is maxxed out at twenty dollars per month per
user.
But there are other factors involved as well. In order to get that
twenty dollars per month, there has to be a name and address to mail
it to. I assume if AllAdvantage.com is going to feed me a ribbon
message across the bottom of my screen, they are also going to know
what pages I was viewing at the time their messages were being presented.
Where before, all certain sites had was an accumulation of cookie data
which with some logic and effort could possibly eventually be matched
with a name, address and credit card number, now all the guesswork
is taken away. Now it just becomes a matter of 'my name is John Doe,
I live in Anytown, USA, here is what pages I have been viewing, and
here are the sites where I made purchases ...' ... and it would seem
to me that twenty dollars per month is giving away that personal infor-
mation rather cheaply.
This of course says nothing about the banner ads, the double-clicks
and assorted other intrusions which will continue to come our way. I
do not think they will stop showing up on the screen merely because
AllAdvantage.com says 'here are a few more ads for you in addition'.
None of the others are going to *cease* sending their stuff just
because the user has an agreement with AllAdvantage.com to look at
theirs instead, and how many ads can be on the screen at the same time
while still having some room for the requested information to be
displayed?
If a user tends to do all or most surfing at non-commercial web sites
such as this one and lots of others where ads are non-existent, I see
little to be gained by letting AllAdvantage.com place a ribbon or
banner on the bottom of the screen merely to pick up an extra twenty
dollars per month with all the risks to privacy that it entails. And
that is assuming that they *are* for real, that they *do* actually
make payments, and that they are not just another in the long, never-
ending line of scams which come our way. Big assumptions, eh? I've not
yet met anyone who got paid, and I wish someone would clarify or confirm
this ASAP. If they are a scam, we can stop the discussion here. If they
are for real, we can talk about it a bit more if anyone wishes. In any
event, I am sure they expect to get more for their twenty dollars than
just having you glance occassionally at the bottom of the screen.
If a user tends to visit mostly commercial sites, all I see happening
is just one more part of the screen clogged up, and yes, they said
they would pay for it, but their payment is just a pittance against
the larger backdrop of ads, privacy invaders, etc. Perhaps you say
that twenty dollars monthly is what you pay your ISP, and that therefore
by running the AllAdvantage.com banner or ribbon for two days straight
at the start of the month (assuming you stay nailed down; you only
get paid by AllAdvantage for forty hours at fifty cents each) you have
met the cost of your ISP and get the essence of 'free' service the
rest of the month. Well sweetheart, if it is free service you want,
any number of places will give you twenty megs for your web pages,
all the free email you can use, home pages with news, weather and you
name it until you can't begin to use it all. Consider geocities.com
or xoom.com for starters: they say take all you can use, we will just
plaster your web site and email with advertising. At least with the
sites which give you everything for free in exchange for advertising
you can remain 'somewhat anonymous'. None of them actually send you
something that requires a real name, address or signature as a check
for twenty dollars -- if that ever materializes -- would require.
Overall, I have a hard time recommending AllAdvantage.com at least
until their honesty is demonstrated and I see what information they
actually collect and what they do with it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Eric Wampner <eww@kataent.com>
Subject: Looking For Old AMX/81 Docs
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:15:09 -0400
Organization: Orlando Software Group, Inc.
I just thought I'd ask again to see if anybody had any *OLD* Dialogic
AMX/81 documentation. I believe the piece I am looking for is _AMX/8x
Audio Multiplexer Hardware Reference Manual_. This should have been
published around 1989 or so. I have tried several times to get some
sign of life out of Dialogic support, but they continously reference
me to some PDF files on their web site which don't cover what I am
after.
Please, if you have some old Dialogic documentation from that time,
take a quick look and see if you have that particular manual. You will
be saving the life of millions of innocent brain cells.
Thanks in advance,
Eric Wampner Orlando Software Group, Inc. eww@kataent.com
Software Engineer (407) 366-0909 wampner.e.w@orlsoftgrp.com
Systems Administrator fax (407) 366-2721 eww@iag.net
------------------------------
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: FTC Sues Three Web Site Providers For Illegal Billing
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:09:02 -0400
FTC Sues 3 Web Site Providers For Illegal Billing of Small Firms
By Margaret Webb Pressler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 1999; Page E03
The Federal Trade Commission, as part of a new crackdown on Internet
business fraud, said yesterday it has sued three World Wide Web site
providers for illegally "cramming" charges for their services onto the
phone bills of unsuspecting small-business owners.
More than 300,000 small businesses nationwide were targeted by the
Internet telemarketing companies, the FTC said, with an unknown number
of those firms becoming victims of illegal charges that often went
undetected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-06/18/060r-061899-idx.html
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #156
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jun 19 15:24:26 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA08876;
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906191924.PAA08876@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #157
TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Jun 99 15:24:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 157
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (John Benedetto)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Bob Keller)
A Bell Tolls - Long Distance Phone & Telecom Clearinghouse (Mike Pollock)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Jan Ceuleers)
Re: Signing up With AllAdvantage.com (Tom Betz)
Re: NYC Local Calls (Tom Betz)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Ray Pichulo)
U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Eric Morson)
Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Gary Chatters)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (George Yanos)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Herb Stein)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: John Benedetto <john.benedetto@SNET.com>
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:17:23 -0400
joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
> Something is clearly wrong with cell service in the US. I can't
> believe it's a technical problem, so it must be a political or
> economic one. And so I repeat my question: does anyone know what
> the problem is?
Is it a digital phone? Many of the new digital sets can and are being
programmed with a combination of "favored" "friendly" or "negative"
SIDs. Some phones, after registering on a network with a negative SID
(even where there is plenty of signal), will show no signal once they
see the SID and have been programmed to ignore it. So the signal is
really there, but the phone is told to ignore this. Most analog
phones don't do this, they will simply find the strongest signal on
the A or B band (whatever the phone is defaulted to)
Cell providers do this to keep you on their own networks or those with
whom they have the best roaming agreements, particularly when the
different networks are A side in some areas and B side in other
regions.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:09:05 -0700
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
The following exchange from TELECOM Digest Vol 19 Issue 153:
>>(don't forget, Sprint is not a cellular carrier).
> Yes, they are.
Well, it all depends. If you are talking about "Sprint Spectrum," then
they are a cellular carrier only in the generic sense of the word, but
they are actually a PCS carrier. If you are talking about "Sprint
Cellular," then they are an honest-to-goodness cellular carrier.
The distinction is important (or at least can be) because the "no
roaming/no long distance" deals tend to be significantly different in
practical application depending on which type of system you are
on. For example, if you read the fine print in the AT&T Wireless plan
(at least the one being marketed here in the DC area), it says you
won't pay roaming while you are on their digital network. That ain't
worth horse puckey when you go out of the 2 GHz PCS coverage area and
fall back to digital or analog cellular. Then you are at the mercy of
whether and with whom they may or may not have roaming agreements.
The no roaming deal I have through Bell Atlantic Mobile has no such
qualifications -- it says no roaming, period. So far I've traveled to
various parts of the country (including areas well outside Bell
Atlantic territory, e.g., California and Colorado) and this has held
true -- no surprise charges on my bill when I return home. The service
is cellular only (digital cellular, falling back to analog cellular if
digital is not available), which I figure is more than good enough for
now. While I don't have 2 GHz PCS coverage, I figure that (at least
for a few years to come) if I am in an area of the country that does
not have analog cellular coverage, it will be unlikely to have PCS
coverage anyway.
Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com> (www.his.com/~rjk)
------------------------------
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Subject: A Bell Tolls - Long Distance Phone and Telecom Clearinghouse
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:46:36 -0400
Organization: It's A Mike!
Here's an interesting site. I make no claims about its accuracy, and I
have no connection to it, despite the fact that one of the guys behind
it has the same last name. We're not related.
--Mike
http://www.abelltolls.com/
The 1982 Consent Decree between the U.S. Dept of Justice and AT&T
divested 'Ma Bell' of its Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). Today the
U.S. consumer enjoys the lowest priced, widest ranging suite of
telecommunications services in the world. Sadly, this
telecommunications nirvana has passed over the monthly phone bill and
finding straightforward information on pricing is challenging, to say
the least. As a final customer service U.S. telecommunications
companies appear to have adopted the 'hire-a-comedian' approach to
information dissemination.
Enter A Bell Tolls, The Long Distance Telephone and Telecommunications
Clearinghouse. We're dedicated to providing consumers and businesses
information for making intelligent decisions in their quests for
telecommunications nirvana.
The creators of A Bell Tolls were sitting around a fine restaurant
table one evening talking about the state of the telecommunications
industry and realized that although the internet is the bridge to the
21st century, and all that jazz, that it could also serve as a
wonderful information source for the plain old telephone industry
(POTI?). They batted around the idea for a bit and decided to create a
central location for information on the telecommunications
industry. It would be a place to find all the webpages of long
distance carriers, find information about the best rate plans (we all
know that rate plans are way too complex for consumers to track!), and
find some interesting tidbits about the industry. If you have tidbits
to share feel free to send them to us! We'd especially like to collect
old Ma Bell, MCI and Sprint stories from pre-1982 participants. If
that's you, send in your story!
Interested in how we compose our charts and why? Read the full story.
Scott McCoy is the Networked PC Specialist (the Intel guy) at an
intimate public institution of higher learning set in a redwood forest
overlooking the Monterey Bay. He believes that clear pronunciation and
ascii text are the keys to good communication. He has 3 phone lines
into his house and plans to launch his personal satellite
communications system, Jan 1, 2001 (built-in Y2K compliance).
Justin Pollock is a graduate student at a snooty, private institution
of higher learning instead of a cool, hip, public institution where
people learn to think for themselves rather than about themselves. He
likes Friday night dates and playing with the Ur-dog, Reka (all too
frequently on Friday nights).
Marc-David Seidel is an assistant professor of management at The
University of Texas at Austin. He is also the founder and president of
Airlines of the Web. Marc-David has a huge phone bill that he always
tries to minimize.
------------------------------
From: Jan Ceuleers <janceuleers@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:32:57 +0200
Organization: the Experimenter Board
Reply-To: jan.ceuleers@computer.org
Arthur Ross wrote:
> In the EU countries operators are REQUIRED to run an ETSI-approved
> standard, of which right now there is one: GSM. They have leveraged
> this into world-wide dominance -- the GSM organization has more than
> 300 operator members in something like 130 countries. There are far
> more GSM subscribers world-wide than CDMA, even though the latter is a
> far-superior technical standard. Even with different frequency plans,
> it would not be difficult to run the same air interface and network
> protocols if they really wanted to.
> I personally think this is an appalling situation. And so does the US
> government. There have been nastygrams exchanged between Washington &
> Brussels over the last few months regarding this Euopean use of its
> regulatory regime to exclude competition and manipulate markets.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this excludes competition. In the
markets for GSM infrastructure and terminals, American companies are
quite successful, you know. Americans are also well represented as
shareholders of European and other GSM operators. Moreover, the fact
that so many operators use the same technology also means that in many
cases there are several competing operators in the same service area,
all using GSM technology. This once again encourages competition, as it
reduces the barriers for users to switch to another operator.
As you rightly said elsewhere, the GSM market is huge. It's not limited
to Europe. The bigger the market, the more attractive it becomes for
equipment manufacturers. The standard is open and widely available.
Where are the barriers to competition you are talking about?
Also: unlike CDMA, there are no licensing strings attached to GSM.
Jan
------------------------------
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Signing up With AllAdvantage.com
Date: 19 Jun 1999 09:08:51 -0400
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email
Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com
Quoth Corazon DeGuzman <Corazon.DeGuzman@itu.int> in <telecom19.156.9@
telecom-digest.org>:
> I recently joined a new Internet service called AllAdvantage.com. You
> should definitely consider becoming a member.
It's a pyramid scam, and this submission is just another spam for it.
I'm surprised Pat let this go through to the list.
[ Pat said: ]
> Overall, I have a hard time recommending AllAdvantage.com at least
> until their honesty is demonstrated and I see what information they
> actually collect and what they do with it. PAT]
I'd take it further; just stay away from it.
|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>| YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED!|
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, maybe it is a scam and maybe not.
It certainly is not a 'traditional' pyramid scheme in any event. In
those, new participants are asked to put forward some amount of money
which is divided among earlier participants; in order to recover the
money one 'invested' (threw away?) it is necessary to get still more
people participating under you. The AllAdvantage.com people, on the
other hand, ask for no money from participants; only the right to
display advertising messages on your screen for which they will pay
you money -- they claim -- and a smaller amount of money for persons
who join the same program at your behest. Presumably the advertisers
pay all the money into the pool, and the viewers draw all the money
out of the pool, less AllAdvantage.com administrative costs and profit.
On its face, it seems to be a good deal for internet advertisers. Their
ads are getting exposure with a highly-qualified audience: persons who
have specifically stated they are willing to read advertising while
surfing the net. My questions instead are these:
Are they are actually paying as promised, or was this just a way of
getting netters to submit personal information about themselves for
other purposes? If so, shame on them, and they need to be exposed in
widely circulated media such as this newsletter.
If they are paying as promised, precisely what information are they
collecting from participants if any -- I cannot imagine they would
not be at least collecting a little information -- and what are they
doing with that information? They've already got your name and address
on file; they had to get that in order to mail your money each month.
If they are not paying as promised, is there something nefarious behind
it all, i.e. getting netters to expose themselves either out of trust
(remember when we all had trust in each other here years ago?) or per-
haps out of greed on the part of netters who think they can Make Money
Fast and Retire Early by participating. Or perhaps, some of both.
Many con games depend heavily on a cooperative victim; someone who
suspects they will get to share in the loot but then they get outwitted
by others in the scheme; i.e. 'bank examiner', 'I found a purse with
money on the sidewalk, share it with me', etc.
Or perhaps if they are not paying, there is nothing nefarious about it
at all; perhaps AllAdvantage.com simply has not been able to secure
any (or enough) advertisers to make it work, and I am sort of leaning
in this direction in my own thinking about them. Maybe the people behind
it sat down one evening, had a great idea for providing a useful service
to the net, and it simply has not worked out. It would not be the first
time. After all, if advertisers can throw together sort of cheap and
cheesy banners which can be transmitted constantly for essentially free
on any number of 'banner exchange networks' on the net and send email
for 'free' (we know how that goes!) then why should they pay a group
like AllAdvantage.com a relatively hefty sum of money to qualify the
people who get their messages? This approach would insure that their
messages went in an inoffensive way to netters who were willing to see
them, but who cares about that sort of thing around here anymore?
Despite their web site assurances to the contrary, and their press
releases that all is well and business is thriving, my hunch is that
business on the net is *horrible* for about 95 percent of the banner
advertisers and small business people on the net. They keep their chin
up and say positive things about themselves and their efforts, because
if a netter does come along willing to spend money rather than take
what is offered for free, would he rather spend the money on a winner
or a loser? Our tradition over the years of freeware and shareware
has made it very difficult for them. Does anyone actually bother to
try and *sell* software on the net any longer?
That's where I think AllAdvantage.com might be at. If they came here
to spam and scam and enlist the services, unwitting or otherwise, of
netters who hoped to get a slice of the pie, then they need to be
exposed. I am glad I could help do that. If they mean well, and just
can't get things together, then I am glad to tell about them also.
To be sure, *money* is the essence of it all. If some people want to
write and say 'yes, I received a check from them' and show us what
the little banner looks like, etc, I for one will start to feel a
little more comfortable with their efforts. PAT]
------------------------------
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: NYC Local Calls
Date: 19 Jun 1999 09:16:45 -0400
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email
Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com
Quoth Jon Solomon <jsol@MIT.EDU> in <telecom19.155.6@telecom-digest.org>:
> I hear BA is offering unlimited calling as an option in the NYC area.
I can't speak for the five boroughs, but I have unlimited regional (as
opposed to local) calling for about $12/month (doubled from the
$6/month it was four years ago when I signed up for it) in
Westchester. I could have had local as well for a small incremental
addition, or unlimited local calls alone, but I make very few local
calls, so to save money, I opted for regional only.
Since my Internet provider has dialups outside my local area, I use
them exclusively for my dual-channel DOV ISDN calls, and make more
than $700 worth of local calls a month for that $12.
|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>| YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
------------------------------
From: Ray Pichulo <ray@pichulo.com>
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:05:12 GMT
Organization: RP Laboratory
Yep ... I lived in DC and marveled at the simplicity of the numbering
plan within the three NPA's. HOWEVER, when one considers that Washington
DC is literally under the Fed's collective noses, it makes sense to
keep those people happy. Unfortunately for those of us living in the
rest of the country, there is no such incentive :(
Michael Quinn wrote:
> Here in the Washington DC area, we have 3 area codes available to each
> other as local calls: 703 (Northern VA), 202 (DC) and 301 (suburban
> MD). 1 is not required, nor is it necessary to dial the area code if
> you are originating a call in that same area code. I believe I heard
> that there will be in overlay in Northern VA next spring, which will
> require all 10 digits for all calls, even those originating in the
> same area code. I agree -- it doesn't seem to make much sense on the
> surface.
Ray Pichulo - W1IRH - | Email:ray@pichulo.REMOVETHIS.com
RP Laboratory | WWW: http://world.std.com/~rplab
Carlisle MA 01741 |
"Life is like a dog sled team -
if you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes."
------------------------------
From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:28:30 -0400
Subject: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel
I have BAM Dual mode CDMA/AMPS service and will likely be going to
Israel later this year. I know that Israel uses the same AMPS system we
do here and they have lots of TDMA, and are rolling out CDMA 800MHz
(NON-Sprint PCS 1900MHz CDMA).
Does anyone know:
1) If my service will allow automatic roaming, or will I have to get a
temporary Israeli number in a spare NAM?
2) What sort of charges should I expect to pay for intra-Israeli calls
and calls back to the U.S.?
Eric B. Morson
Co-Webmaster
AreaCode-Info.com
EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com
------------------------------
From: gc@rat.cen.com (Gary Chatters)
Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers
Organization: Century Computing, Inc., Laurel, MD
Date: 18 Jun 1999 18:25:21 -0400
In article <telecom19.151.4@telecom-digest.org>, Aoife Morrissy
<amorrissy@altavista.net> wrote:
> I'm writing from Ireland where I am trying to do some research on
> telephone numbers and the theory behind what makes a "good" number
And Patrick annotated:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think 'good' and 'bad' are subjective
[...]
> cast or time of day message? The owners of some numbers which are
> repetitive digits often get plagued with 'wrong number' calls from
> people seeking a transposition of the same repetitive numbers, for
> example, 2141 might get a lot of calls from people seeking 4121. I do
This is a very familiar pair. A few years ago my residence was -4121
and a nearby doctors' office was -2141. I guestimated my home phone
regularly received about three calls per day for the doctors. I
didn't have to answer most of them since I wasn't home during the day,
but it could get interesting when someone would call in the evening
with an urgent problem and start giving me details about their medical
troubles before I had a chance to tell them they had a wrong number.
I finally switched to a new suffix, -9022, which very rarely gets
wrong numbers.
gc
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh gee, I thought maybe you were going
to say that you sued the doctors to get them to change their phone
number or you started giving out bogus medical advice over the phone
to teach the patients a lesson for dialing the wrong number.
It is quite common here in the USA that when someone has a phone number
which is frequently confused with that of some large corporation (for
example, a hotel reservation service or a customer service department
whose 800 number resembles your own seven-digit number) to make
trouble for the company by suing them or abusing their customers, or
both. Regards the dim-witted customers, I can almost agree with any
proposals made about them ... but some have gone so far as to suggest,
actually demand, that the company should be forced to change its
number as well. Remember reading here a couple years ago about the
lady who was having trouble with the new hotel built in her town whose
phone number was similar to her own? And who can forget Mike Royko,
the crude and ignorant columnist for the {Chicago Sun Times) -- until
they fired him, and the {Tribune} took him instead -- who actually
suggested it was the fault of AT&T that so many of their customers
forgetting to dial 800 first were winding up on his direct-dial line
in his office. He wanted AT&T to change their number; it was up to
them to placate him, poor abused consumer and all that.
But you chose to change your number instead, to one that was very
unlikely to get misdialed calls, although as my aquaintence would
say on reading the '9022' part: oooh! ick! what kind of number is
that and why would anyone want it? Someone who wants peace and quiet
I guess. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:44:16 CST
From: George Yanos <GYanos@uic.edu>
Subject: Re:
Reply to editor@telecom-digest.org on Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:19:32 -0400
(EDT)
> said when *calling within his own area code, when not calling outside
> his area code ...* in other words, he wants the 555-1234 that is
> within his area code. In that case, why is ten or eleven digits (if
> you count the '1' on the front) needed? PAT]
Something I've been wondering about for some time. Once we have to
dial an area code for every call, why do we need to continue with the 1-
prefix? It would seem that there is no longer a need to anounce that
you will be dialing 10 digits because you always dial ten digits.
George Yanos
708-205-6788
GYanos@uic.edu
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the
front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of
the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user
that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra
money. PAT]
------------------------------
From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein)
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:38:51 GMT
Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com)
This beond the doubt the dumbest assortment of laws that I've ever
seen. I have a phone system (behind a PBX/EPBX) for my convenience, no
one else's. I'll route 911 calls to DIAL-A-PRAYER if I choose. We need
less rules.
Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
herb@herbstein.com
314 215-3584
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many times administrators of large
institutional settings would *prefer* that their own staff respond
first to calls from the public for police or fire department assis-
tance. Then, the appropriate staff person will decide whether or
not police department or fire department intervention is required.
This presupposes of course that you have well-trained and profess-
ional security people on your staff; it makes the assumption that
your building engineer knows the difference between an odor of
smoke or a smoke detector going off as a result of a motor which
needs oil or someone who carelessly threw a lighted cigarette in
a trash disposal unit versus a real, actual, out of control fire.
Building managers will tell you that certain tenants of the building
or visitors/employees will call 911 at the slightest provocation;
i.e. they saw a 'suspicious person' in the vicinity or they 'smell
smoke coming from somewhere'. In their hysteria, they will report
some major incident to police/fire that does not exist. As a result
it may be best for a *well-trained* -- that is the key phrase here --
staff person to first evaluate the circumstances. No one operating
a large complex, whether it is a factory, a cluster of offices,
a school, a residential building or whatever likes having police or
fire personnel there frequently for essentially false alarms. It
disrupts the activities of others, and gives the place a sort of
'bad reputation' amongst emergency response agencies.
Where you wind up in trouble however when you intercept 911 calls
via your own staff is that there may be an actual situation where
a minute wasted was a minute too many. Then the user sues you for
delaying his call for emergency intervention, especially if someone
gets hurt or killed.
Years ago, when AT&T ran everything through its 'Bell System', one
part of the 'same system for everyone' rules involving training for
PBX operators dealt with security matters. Those privatly employed
switchboard operators for large institutions, etc none the less
had to be certified by Bell to be allowed to run the switchboard.
It was part of the tariff.
The rules were that unless the operator(s) were personally in danger
(i.e. a fire in the phone room), they were to do these things upon
report from an extension user reporting a fire: (1) place their
switchboard on emergency-call-only status; (2) immediatly notify the
building engineer or other maintainence employees;(3) those employees
would then report that either they would attend to the matter or that
indeed the Fire Department was needed; (4) the telephone operator was
the ONLY person authorized to call the Fire Department and would do so
in a calm manner making certain the address and location within the
premises was clearly understood; (5) based on instructions from
building engineer or maintainence staff the operator would respond to
the numerous callers instructing the callers in evacuation procedures
if such were needed, or perhaps instructing the callers to remain in
their room/office with their doors closed by an open window for fresh
air while awaiting further instructions, etc; (6) if fire department
does order evacuation, begin calling several extensions at once with
all lines bridged open and begin repeating over and over into the open
line the instructions given by firemen or building employees; simply
keep pulling as many ringing keys at one time as your fingers can
reach, all talking paths open and saying your message over and over
again, etc.
A fire at the Chicago Union Stockyards in 1935 showed how it was
to be done and Bell operators got that as part of their training.
The YARds telephone exchange (now 773-927) sat almost in the middle
of the stockyards complex. In a fire that lasted eight hours and
burned most of it down, with intense black smoke drifting for a
couple miles in any direction into the residential neighborhood
known as 'Back of the Yards' understandably there was much panic
among neighborhood residents. The phone operators sat there the
entire time, coordinating communications between firemen in
different parts of the complex (there was no radio communication
among emergency personnel as is possible today) and telling some
thirty thousand neighborhood residents who were constantly calling
the operator in a panic that things were under control; that if
the fire were to spread, they (the operators) would be there to
notify them and instruct them what to do based on messages from
the firemen, etc.
That was Bell System's way of dealing with emergencies either at
community level or perhaps just in a part of the community. The
operator's duty to coordinate emergency communications as needed
in the community were taken very seriously. Of course, we do not
have a Bell System any longer. Judge Greene did not think it was
necessary, and that it was unfair to the newcomers. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #157
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 20 16:17:11 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA17070;
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906202017.QAA17070@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #158
TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jun 99 16:17:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 158
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Julian Thomas)
Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer)
Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Jeffrey William McKeough)
Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Danny Bateman)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Robert Alexander)
Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Stan Schwartz)
Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Patrick Tufts)
Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Robert Alexander)
Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize (srini_v@my-deja.com)
Anybody Speak 3Com? (L. Shaping)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (wdg@hal-pc.org)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas)
Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:45:12 GMT
Don't know what makes a good number, but one class of BAD numbers are
those numbers where one digit is one off from a local movie theater.
I've had several such numbers over the years (unfortunately, before
machines were available to screen the calls).
Julian Thomas: jt 5555 at epix dot net http://home.epix.net/~jt
remove numerics for email
Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Prior to dialing, when all calls were
placed by verbally passing the number to an operator, this was even
then a problem with movie theatres or other 'popular places' with
telephone information lines attached to them. In Whiting, Indiana
for example, with which I am familiar, the number '1234' was assigned
to the Hoosier Auditorium Theatre, a downtown Whiting place for
movies (and in still older times) vaudeville shows, etc, for the
purpose of information on show times, prices, and reservations. I
think they had '1235' as their office/administrative number. From
about 1956 onward, it was on an answering machine (as such existed
in those days) giving the information mechanically to callers.
People asking the operator for the number would quite often say
'2134' by accident and they would get connected to the family who
owned that number instead. Or they would ask for '1243' -- although
not quite as often, the first two digits being verbally transposed
more often than the final two digits -- and that person would get
annoyed instead. It apparently happened often enough that the plug
for 2134 on the switchboards was marked a certain way to catch the
operator's attention and the operator was supposed to quickly ask
the caller, 'do you want the theatre?' and if the person said yes,
then put them on 1234 instead after telling the caller they had
asked for the wrong number.
Ditto for the Fire Department administrative offices which were on
2131 versus the local high school which was 3121. For the few
actual emergencies which came along there was no literal number
assigned, people were to 'tell the operator you want to report a
fire' or 'tell the operator you want to speak with police', but
the administrative numbers for both, because they were deliberatly
repetitive, easy to remember digits were often times tossed around
by callers in error looking for other things. In smaller towns like
that, the operator usually knew what the caller wanted, regardless
of what the caller actually said, although strictly speaking, they
were to give the caller what he actually asked for, without any
questions asked. And of course invariably the operator got blamed
for the wrong connection; the caller never considered himself to
be at fault; sometimes it was the operator's fault however. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 11:54:46 -0400
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com
Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... It is quite common here in the USA
> that when someone has a phone number which is frequently confused with
> that of some large corporation (for example, a hotel reservation
> service or a customer service department whose 800 number resembles
> your own seven-digit number) to make trouble for the company by suing
> them ... ]
In a related scenario, a company sued because the carrier assigned it
a previously high-volume 800 number. The District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania referred this matter, Unimat,
Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Civ. Action No. 92-9541, to the
FCC.
The FCC ruled in favor of the carrier, MCI (TOLL-FREE NUMBERS ORDER,
FILE NO. ENF-96-07, DA 99-983), saying in part, "absent any
extenuating circumstances ... which might indicate the presence of
willful or gross negligence, we first find that a carrier may assign a
particular toll-free number to a subscriber, without disclosing that
number's history to the prospective subscriber." ... also, "from MCI's
governing toll-free service tariff, the pertinent term of its
limitation of liability provision states: MCI shall not be liable at
all for the use, misuse, or abuse of a customer's 800 Service by third
parties, including, without limitation, the customer's employees or
members of the public who dial the customer's 800 number by mistake."
Judith Oppenheimer
ICB Toll Free News (http://icbtollfree.com)
WhoSells800.com (http://whosells800.com)
ICB Consulting (http://800consulting.com)
Moderator, TOLLFREE-L (http://www.egroups.com/list/tollfree-l/)
email:internet:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
------------------------------
From: sandris@spdcc.com (Jeffrey William McKeough)
Subject: Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:23:10 GMT
In article <telecom19.157.8@telecom-digest.org>, Eric Morson
<Eric@AreaCode-Info.com> wrote:
> 1) If my service will allow automatic roaming, or will I have to get a
> temporary Israeli number in a spare NAM?
> 2) What sort of charges should I expect to pay for intra-Israeli calls
> and calls back to the U.S.?
There's an Israeli cellphone FAQ at
<http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~geoffm/cell.html> that might be useful.
Jeffrey William McKeough sandris@spdcc.com
sandris@homosexualmenace.com jwm@spdcc.com
"I don't remember what the Fast of Gedaliah is
about, but it sure sounds girly to me." -Gavi
------------------------------
From: Danny Bateman <dannybateman@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 06:50:35 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <telecom19.157.8@telecom-digest.org>, Eric@AreaCode-Info.
com (Eric Morson) wrote:
> I have BAM Dual mode CDMA/AMPS service and will likely be going to
> Israel later this year. I know that Israel uses the same AMPS system we
> do here and they have lots of TDMA, and are rolling out CDMA 800MHz
> (NON-Sprint PCS 1900MHz CDMA).
> Does anyone know:
> 1) If my service will allow automatic roaming, or will I have to get a
> temporary Israeli number in a spare NAM?
Automatic roaming will only work if you have GSM. I don't know anyone
who has done it, but the spare NAM might work. I have heard of people
that moved here and got an acount with cellcom (see below) .
> 2) What sort of charges should I expect to pay for intra-Israeli calls
> and calls back to the U.S.?
Cellphone calls are cheap in Israel, and Calling Party Pays, so you
don't pay for incoming calls.
Israel has three providers:
1. Cellcom - CMDA service, cheapest provider, a cellcom to cellcom
call is about $US0.12 per minute! Calls to Bezeq, the PSTN, cost more.
http://www.cellcom.co.il:80/framemain2.html (English).
2. Orange, aka Partner, the new boy on the block, provides GSM
service. More expensive than cellcom. Hebrew only web :( ,
http://www.orange.co.il/
3. Pelephone. The original provider, TDMA and digital (CDMA?)
service. The most expensive provider. Hebrew only web :( ,
http://www.pelephone.co.il
Calls back to the US are via of the the three international providers and
are cheaper than calls from US to Israel. Get more info from cell
provider or international provider (Bezeq International, Kavei Zahav
[Yellow lines] or Barak.
Danny Bateman
bateman at shani.net
------------------------------
From: R.M.A.@pdq.net (Robert Alexander)
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:46:50 GMT
On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:00:22 -0400, Ken M. <pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still
I don't live in the US, I live in Texas which is a part of the United
States of America. Anyway, it depends on your carrier. GTE has
worked for me almost everywhere ... but in some places you need to call
the operator before making calls.
Aerial has been fairly good to extremely good everywhere they have
service with the note that sometimes I cannot call from within certain
structures.
Houston Cellular (ATT) works everywhere (almost) but their voice
quality could be improved alot.
------------------------------
Reply-To: stannc.no1spam@yahoo.com
From: Stan Schwartz <stannc.no1spam@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:35:28 -0400
In TD V19 #157, Telecom Digest Editor wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the
> front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of
> the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user
> that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra
> money. PAT]
This would be a nice idea if it was standardized all over the country.
While on a recent trip to Seattle, the local (USWest) phone book's
dialing instructions directed callers to dial the area code for all
calls within the 206 NPA (it was still permissive in the area that I
was in), but be sure NOT to dial 1+206 because even a local call could
get billed as a toll call. This is ludicrous!!!
Once the NANP standardizes on NPA+7D dialing for local calls, 1+NPA+7D
should be used for "a toll may apply". However, that only seems
logical (to me) so it could never work.
Stan
------------------------------
From: zippy@cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts)
Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier
Date: 20 Jun 1999 06:04:01 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University, Waltham MA
George Yanos <GYanos@uic.edu> writes:
> Once we have to dial an area code for every call, why do we need to
> continue with the 1- prefix?
Training for the day when we have country code overlays.
--Pat
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Gasp of Indignation: Oh really! Its probably
not far off at the rate things are going. PAT]
------------------------------
From: R.M.A.@pdq.net (Robert Alexander)
Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:46:47 GMT
On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:01:34 -0700, "Someone" <someone@somewhere.net>
wrote:
> I see that beginning 3/15/99, US West is charging all telephone
> subscribers 53 cents per line for "Service Provider Number
> Portability." Great! Now that I'm paying for it, where can I get it?
> There are no alternative companies from which I can get dialtone! Is
> this just another "hidden tax?" We are compelled to pay the phone
> company as a de-facto tax-collection arm of the federal government,
> while getting nothing in return.
I dunno about that tax but YES, the government in general knows how to
waste and steal money from the people who put them into power ... often
times deceptive.
------------------------------
From: srini_v@my-deja.com
Subject: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:41:01 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hi,
A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and
talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was
switched to the new company.
My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch.
The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized
list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to
my local telephone company a year back.
My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch,
is it legal?
Thanks,
srini
------------------------------
From: NoSpam@mindspring.com (LShaping@...)
Subject: Anybody Speak 3Com?
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 05:01:42 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I need updated drivers for my Internet Discovery Suite modem.
At 3Com's web site http://www.3com.com/products/index.html that modem
is very easy to find. From there, you follow path
(Modems > U.S. Robotics 56K Modems > 56K Internet Discovery Suite)
But at 3Com's software driver search page
http://dcms.3com.com/softwarelibrary/search.htm I have no idea what to
search for to find the drivers for this modem. Does anybody know
specifically how to find the drivers for this modem at 3Com's site?
Thanks,
LShaping
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you tried asking the webmaster or
other person in charge of that web site where to find things? I am
sure they would be more likely to know than anyone here. PAT]
------------------------------
From: wdg@hal-pc.org
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 03:13:31 GMT
Organization: You only wish you were this organized
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:38:51 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Digest
Editor wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many times administrators of large
> institutional settings would *prefer* that their own staff respond
> first to calls from the public for police or fire department assis-
> tance. Then, the appropriate staff person will decide whether or
> not police department or fire department intervention is required.
> This presupposes of course that you have well-trained and profess-
> ional security people on your staff; it makes the assumption that
> your building engineer knows the difference between an odor of
> smoke or a smoke detector going off as a result of a motor which
> needs oil or someone who carelessly threw a lighted cigarette in
> a trash disposal unit versus a real, actual, out of control fire.
[snip]
As defacto sysadmin of a fairly large (3600-port) enterprise class
PBX, I feel somewhat qualified to comment.
To satisfy my legal beagles, I "bridge" rather than intercept 911
calls. The call proceeds on to the PSAP normally, but does so over a
separate, small dedicated analog loop-start trunk group (911 traffic
only). There are audio bridges on these trunks which feed plain-Jane
Orator monitor speakers located in three areas; building security, the
nurse's station and building maintenance. The PBX gives me the calling
extension in real time (at the initial onset of the call) which is
splashed against a database of internal numbers.
This gives me the originating extension, location and the assigned
user name, date and timestamp, again all in real time, within ten
seconds of onset of the call. This information is sent to small
serial "instrument" printers (via short haul modems) in the three
aforementioned areas. There is a multi-line analog key system bridged
onto these trunks so that bldg. security can "join" the call should
the need arise. Their Orator speaker is wired through the off-normal
contacts of the switchook of their emergency phone to mute it and
preclude feedback.
During a typical 911 call the following things occur:
1. Most important from a legal standpoint, the call proceeds to
the PSAP uninterrupted and in real time;
2. Security, overhearing the call on their monitor and seeing
the location on their printer, dispatches two CPR-trained
guards to the location, mostly for 'onlooker control' though
they are trained to assist if called upon;
3. The company nurse, overhearing the call on her monitor
and seeing the location on her printer, also proceeds to the
location with a medical 'crash' bag that just recently now
includes a cardiac defibrillator;
4. Building maintainence dispatches a person to the street in
front of the building to meet the arriving emergency personnel
and escort them to the scene;
5. Building maintainence dispatches a second person to "hold"
the freight elevator for exclusive use by emergency personnel;
6. Yes, it's recorded.
All the above begins happening while the original caller is still on
the phone with the PSAP. All of the internal personnel responding are
in radio contact with each other.
I do not have problems with inappropriate 911 calls or accidental 911
misdials, in spite of the fact that the routing tables in the PBX will
accept *either* 911 or 9-911. I have programmed the routing tables to
look for any additional 'superfluous' digits and intercept those calls
and send them to building security without outpulsing them on the 911
trunk group. Thus the only way to dial 911 is to dial those 3 digits
explicitly and no other digits to follow or to explicitly dial 9-911,
again with no additional digits to follow.
Yes, this causes the genuine article 911 call to pause in the route
tables momentarily (4 seconds), but is a necessary evil when your
legal dept mandates that both 911 and 9-911 be handled in the same
way. The legal dept had no problem with the 4-second call processing
delay, which incidentally can be bypassed with the '#' terminator.
(The nurse and building security both know this.)
> Building managers will tell you that certain tenants of the building
> or visitors/employees will call 911 at the slightest provocation;
I have never found that to be the case in my building. Even in the
face of some pretty extensive "blood in the hallways" layoffs a few
years ago, there were no disgruntleds maliciously dialing 911. I did
have one instance where a fire pull station was maliciously activated,
but that's once in 12 years with over 1,000 employees in the building.
> Where you wind up in trouble however when you intercept 911 calls
> via your own staff is that there may be an actual situation where
> a minute wasted was a minute too many. Then the user sues you for
> delaying his call for emergency intervention, especially if someone
> gets hurt or killed.
This is exactly the reason that I do not divert or intercept 911
calls. To do so, IMO, is an open invitation to an expensive lawsuit.
std. disclaimers apply. I do not represent my employer in this forum
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your setup seems to me to be ideal; it
is about as close as you can come to having control over emergency
situations which arise and whether or not there is an actual emergency.
I should have also pointed out before that building managers do not
like having emergency personnel showing up with them in the dark about
some alleged incident. ("We got a call that there was a lot of smoke
in the hallway on the fourteenth floor ... do you know anything about
it?") And of course staff knows nothing about it and come off looking
like idiots.
Your PBX operator also needs training in handling emergency calls
which come to the switchboard first, and training in handling a massive
number of calls i.e. the switchboard being lit up like the proverbial
Christmas Tree, which come in from anxious and hysterical tenants and
employees, etc when they see fire engines arriving or police running
around through the complex. What about calls from outside which the
PBX operator gets first such as a bomb threat? Has the operator been
trained to respond calmly and courteously to a person making a bomb
threat? The operator needs to obtain all the details possible such as
where it is located, when it will explode and why. Does the caller
have a grudge against the institution for some reason? Details like
this can be extremely important at a later time.
Is there a procedure in place for the operator to use in notifying
selected members of staff? Does the operator have their pager numbers,
or in the event of overhead paging, are there agreed upon code words
and phrases the operator should use in stressing to management or
security people that an emergency exists while not getting everyone
else frightened and distracted from their own work? Can the operator
place calls on the loud speakers you mentioned in your security and
maintainence departments in the same way calls to 911 or 9-911 are
placed on those loud speakers? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:42:59 EDT
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regs
In issue #157, Herb Smith wrote, ungrammatically ...
> We need less rules.
Uh, Herb. We think you mean "fewer" rules. This time we'll let
you off with just a warning. ;)
--- The Grammar Police
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh, sir, if you are from the police,
I'll have to ask you to get a warrant before you come in this
newsgroup snooping around.
In conclusion, a short note from Allan Olbur at 847-934-0580 sent
to Herb -- or really anyone interested -- points out that 911
response systems for managers of PBX / centrex type situations in
large commercial or institutional settings are available which
will minimize potential liability and provide equal access to E-911
in a workplace setting from his company Infratech.
His website is http://209.172.186.90 for persons interested in
pursuing this, or readers are invited to call. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #158
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 21 17:44:12 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA03134;
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906212144.RAA03134@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #159
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Jun 99 17:44:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 159
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telecom Update (Canada) #188, June 21, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement)
How is Roaming in Montana? (Jerome Yuzyk)
1-700-555 For Carrier ID (David Esan)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Ron Walter)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Bob Keller)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Wrong Number)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Tad Cook)
Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Joseph Singer)
Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (David Jensen)
Telecom in Coffeehouses - Need EE (Greg Ladner)
Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Carl Moore)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:03:10 -0400
From: Angus TeleManagement <angus@angustel.ca>
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #188, June 21, 1999
************************************************************
* *
* TELECOM UPDATE *
* Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin *
* http://www.angustel.ca *
* Number 188: June 21, 1999 *
* *
* Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by *
* generous financial support from: *
* *
* AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ *
* Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ *
* Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ *
* MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ *
* Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ *
* Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ *
* TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ *
* *
************************************************************
IN THIS ISSUE:
** CBTA Declares Bankruptcy; TeleCon Cancelled
** Intrigna Launched in BC, Alberta
** Purchase Gives MaxLink National LMCS License
** Primus Buys Local Service Reseller
** New Rate Plans at Bell Mobility
** Canadian Wireless Ranked World's Most Affordable
** Number Portability Comes to Halifax
** C1 Registers as Local Carrier
** ITU Adopts Voice Over Internet Standard
** Northwestel Payphone Rates to Stay at 25 Cents
** Voice Mail Now a Local Call from QuebecTel Payphones
** ExpressVu to Provide In-Flight TV
** NBTel Sues Fundy for Unpaid Bills
** Telus Offers E-Commerce Service
** Switchview Provides Web Access to Telecom Data
** Web Site Targets Call Center Staffing
** Dave House to Leave Nortel
** Phil Lind Honored as Cable Pioneer
** NBTel, Union Sign Contract
** Siemens, Fujitsu Merge Computer Businesses
** Qwest Joins Bidding for U S West
** Nine Days Left for Telemanagement Bonus
CBTA DECLARES BANKRUPTCY; TELECON CANCELLED:
The Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance, Canada's largest
organization of business telecom users, has declared bankruptcy and
cancelled its annual TeleCon conference and trade show. All but one of
the organization's employees have been laid off, its office is closed,
and its Web site is no longer on line.
** The 37-year-old CBTA attributes its financial crisis to "a
low level of trade show sales for TeleCon '99," which was
to be held in Toronto in October. The Alliance's Board
says it was unable to find other sources of funds.
INTRIGNA LAUNCHED IN BC, ALBERTA:
On June 21, MTS and Bell Canada announced that their joint venture to
offer local telephone service to businesses in BC and Alberta, in
competition with Telus, will operate under the name Intrigna. The
company's President and CEO is Murray Korth, former President and CEO
of ISM Alberta and a former Telus executive.
PURCHASE GIVES MAXLINK NATIONAL LMCS LICENSE:
MaxLink Communications, which holds an LMCS license for 33 markets,
has bought the other two licensees, WIC Connexus and RegionalVision,
giving it the ability to offer wireless broadband service in 207
cities and towns across Canada.
** As part of the deal, Newbridge Networks is dropping its
$1-Billion suit against WIC Connexus for breach of contract.
(See Telecom Update #172)
PRIMUS BUYS LOCAL SERVICE RESELLER:
Primus Telecommunications has paid US$5 Million to acquire Telephone
Savings Network, a Windsor-based Centrex reseller which has some
12,000 local business lines in operation. Primus aims to be a
facilities- based local carrier.
NEW RATE PLANS AT BELL MOBILITY:
Bell Mobility's new RealTime plans eliminate roaming charges in
Canada. The first two of six price levels are $29 for 150 minutes and
$49 for 400 minutes; extra minutes are 25 cents. Most previous plans
have been withdrawn.
** Bell Mobility now offers a tri-mode handset, the Nokia
6185, which provides digital service at the 800 MHz
frequency used by Mobility companies in British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia.
CANADIAN WIRELESS RANKED WORLD'S MOST AFFORDABLE:
A Yankee Group rating of average wireless airtime costs relative to
average monthly salaries ranks Canada as the world's "most affordable"
country for wireless, followed by Finland and Italy. Canada's average
per-minute cost (25 cents) is the world's sixth-lowest.
NUMBER PORTABILITY COMES TO HALIFAX:
MTT reports that Local Number Portability will be available in Halifax
on July 12.
C1 REGISTERS AS LOCAL CARRIER:
C1 Communications has registered with the CRTC as a Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier. C1 is continuing the commercial business of Fundy
Communications, whose residential business was sold to Shaw in
April. (See Telecom Update #181)
ITU ADOPTS VOICE OVER INTERNET STANDARD:
The International Telecommunication Union has defined a new standard
for the control of gateways between circuit-switched and packet-based
networks. Target date for final approval is February 2000.
NORTHWESTEL PAYPHONE RATES TO STAY AT 25 CENTS:
The CRTC has turned down Northwestel's bid to raise payphone rates to
35 cents. The Commission says the lower rate -- charged in most of
Canada -- is necessary to keep telephone service affordable in the
North.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0529.htm
VOICE MAIL NOW A LOCAL CALL FROM QUEBECTEL PAYPHONES:
Quebec-Telephone is giving its voice mail customers access to their
messages from any of its payphones as a local call, starting July.
EXPRESSVU TO PROVIDE IN-FLIGHT TV:
Bell ExpressVu is joining with California-based Airshow Inc. to
broadcast satellite TV to private aircraft over Canadian
airspace. Airshow already provides service in the U.S. through
DirecTv.
** Oshawa-based Comlink Systems has won a $4 Million contract
to supply earth station facilities to ExpressVu.
NBTEL SUES FUNDY FOR UNPAID BILLS:
NBTel is suing Fundy Cable for $2 Million, alleging that the cableco
failed to pay the full amount due for use of the telco's telephone
poles.
TELUS OFFERS E-COMMERCE SERVICE:
Telus's new Interactive Enterprise service supports applications such
as customer self-service, bill presentation, cataloging, Web
procurement, and knowledge management.
** Telus has announced plans to offer e-mail, Internet
access, and fax services through 25 kiosks in the Calgary
Airport.
SWITCHVIEW PROVIDES WEB ACCESS TO TELECOM DATA:
Waterloo-based Switchview Inc. has announced Telecom Web Page, which
replaces paper reports with Web-based access to telecom management
data. Availability: August.
WEB SITE TARGETS CALL CENTER STAFFING:
Job Bus Canada, an Internet employment site, has launched
CallCareers.Com, which provides staffing information for call centers
in Canada.
http://www.callcareers.com/
DAVE HOUSE TO LEAVE NORTEL:
David House, who one year ago led Bay Networks into its merger with
Nortel, will resign as President of Nortel Networks this summer. Bill
Hawe, also from Bay Networks, has become Nortel's Chief Technology
Officer.
PHIL LIND HONORED AS CABLE PIONEER:
Phil Lind, Vice-Chairman of Rogers Communications, is the first
Canadian to be honored as an industry pioneer by the U.S. National
Cable Television Association.
NBTEL, UNION SIGN CONTRACT:
NBTel and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union have
signed a new contract covering the telco's 600 unionized
employees. (See Telecom Update #181)
SIEMENS, FUJITSU MERGE COMPUTER BUSINESSES:
Siemens and Fujitsu are merging their computer manufacturing units in
a new company called Fujitsu Siemens Computers.
QWEST JOINS BIDDING FOR U S WEST:
Qwest Communications International, the fourth-largest U.S. long
distance company, has bid $55 Billion to acquire Denver-based U S
West, which provides local service to 25 million customers, and
Frontier, a long distance company. (See Telecom Update #184)
NINE DAYS LEFT FOR TELEMANAGEMENT BONUS:
Until June 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement receive "Tips, Tricks
and Traps," a collection of 22 practical reports and resources by Ian
Angus, Lis Angus, and Henry Dortmans. Included in the collection:
** "Eight Ways to Stretch Your Phone Budget" and other
techniques to cut costs without reducing quality;
** "Those '50% of Savings' Deals" -- a self-defense guide
against ill-advised contingency proposals;
** "Angus's Laws for Understanding and Surviving (and
Possibly Profiting From) the New Telecom."
To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive Tips, Tricks
and Traps) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit
http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.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 at
http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html
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 1999 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
225.
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.
------------------------------
From: jerome@supernet.ab.ca (Jerome Yuzyk)
Subject: How is Roaming in Montana?
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:20:00 -0700
Organization: BRIDGE Scientific Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Reply-To: jerome@supernet.ab.ca
With all the discussion of the (lack of) quality cell coverage in the
US, I am wondering about a future trip from Alberta to Montana,
driving south to Big Sky, near Yellowstone via Great Falls, Helena and
Butte. I have an analog Motorola 650e*. This is the first time I've
had a cell in the US. What should I expect for coverage and
reception?
J e r o m e Y u z y k | jerome@supernet.ab.ca
BRIDGE Scientific Services | www.tgx.com/bridge
Sunbeam Alpine Series II #9118636 | www.tgx.com/bridge/sunbeam
I'm going to SUNI III... Are You? | www.newsource.net/suni3
------------------------------
From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan)
Subject: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:16:17 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I recently switched long distance carriers from AT&T to Destia,
(formerly Econophone). I have not yet received the dreaded AT&T $3
minimum letter (even though AT&T was my carrier on both the landline
and the cellphone). I switched because Destia offered 17 cents a
minute to Israel, which is my most expensive call.
After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had
taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network."
Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia.
A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait),
suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia".
Is one number for intra-LATA calling and the other for out of LATA?
Is there a difference between the numbers?
David Esan
Veramark Technologies
desan@veramark.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all
cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to
Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company.
Note for example that you can force 4141 to pass you to any carrier
'welcome' message you desire by prefixing the call with the carrier
access code. For example in the past, 10288+1+700-555-4141 *always*
produced the 'welcome to AT&T' message, while 10222+1+700-555-4141
*always* produced 'welcome to MCI'. Ditto, using 10777 and the above
would cause you to receive a greeting from Sprint. My understanding
is that 4141 employs software which examines the PIC information then
'forwards' your call to the number which will give the appropriate
answer-phrase or greeting/welcome message. You might want to investigate
this in more detail.
The other thing to remember is that many 'carriers' these days are not
really carriers, they are 'switchless resellers' meaning all they are
doing is brokering long distance service on the switch of some other
company. The ones which do a better job of hiding their true identity
(as an independent company on its own merits) can usually fix things
so that even the most obscure tell-tale signs that some other company
actually owns the facilities and network are covered.
For instance, in the earliest days of Frontier reselling cellular
phone service via various companies depending on where you were
located in the USA, they took care that no matter where you were at,
things like *611 routed to them rather than the 'real' company. They
fixed things so that intercept messages from the switches gave their
identification rather than that of the 'real' company. It was Frontier,
period, and that is all the customer was supposed to know. But after
joining their service and doing some initial experimentation with
known conditions that would produce indentifications from switches,
what do you suppose we heard one day but an announcement from Ameritech
which Frontier had somehow forgotten to have diverted to themselves
in the event one of their customers landed there. Then on calling the
Ameritech Cellular business office (had to dial the 1-800 version
rather than the *611 version since it kept getting intercepted by
Frontier) and giving our cellular phone number to the Ameritech rep
who answered, we were told, 'I cannot help you with that account; I
do show it here, but it is a corporate bulk account handled through
one of our resellers; they are the only ones who can discuss it, that
is part of our contract with them.'
The same thing happened with a small, practically unknown landline
carrier: the rep insisted to me, 'we have our own facilities and
network; everything is handled through us.' When I asked for the
number to be used to make calls via their network from a phone which
was not PIC'ed to them, she told me to use 10222. My response was,
'in other words, you are a reseller for MCI'. 'Well', she said in sort
of an annoyed tone of voice, 'we do not describe it in that way'.
So you might want to see if Destia in fact resells Frontier, who
the last I heard was reselling Sprint. No matter if they are, your
contract is still with Destia subject to their rates and terms, even
if the rates, credit conditions, etc are different. The very, very
large resellers waving around lots of $$ and with a huge customer
base to stick in front of the nose of a company like Sprint or MCI
or AT&T usually get their way with things like alterations in the
switch recordings and routing of customer service calls, etc. You
might also try to find out from Destia what carrier access code is
to be used if/when you wish to use them from a non-subscribed line.
Let's see if it is a code we all recognize for another biggie. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:44:50 -0500
From: Ron Walter <ronw@capcittel.com>
Organization: Capitol City Telephone, Inc.
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
In Telecom Digest V19 #157:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the
> front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of
> the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user
> that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra
> money. PAT]
There is an equipment consideration. Many home telephones, key
systems, and PBX's have toll restriction features that look for the
first few digits dialed to determine whether to allow calls to go
through. Most systems, especially the older ones, look for a 1 at the
beginning to make that determination. If you want to allow local
calling at particular phones but not allow long distance calls, you
need that toll restriction feature.
If you remove the 1+, many businesses are forced to replace their
systems or add on equipment that can keep a table of which numbers are
long distance and which are local. It also requires you to spend a
great deal of time keeping up with what are local and what are not.
This usually means spending more money on having the system vendor
take care of those things.
An example in Southeast Nebraska came when the Local Exchange Carrier,
Aliant Communications, introduced a new enhanced calling area plan.
Part of that plan allowed people to call to communities within a 25
mile radius by simply dialing a 7 digit number. Those numbers would
have toll charges related to them. It created quite a problem with
places like schools and manufacturing plants who had students or
employees who lived in those areas and who could now call those
numbers because their systems' toll restriction feature was rendered
ineffective without the 1 in front of the numbers. It led to either
replacing their phone system, paying for their equipment vendor to
come out and build toll restriction tables, or just stop allowing
calls altogether. Companies in the interconnect business got some
good benefit out of it (by the way, guess who the largest vendor of
phone systems and PBX's in the area is? Aliant Communications).
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Years ago we used to look for zero or
one as the first digit and zero or one as the second digit (since
only area codes had zero or one in the second spot) and deny the call
on that basis. You can still deny on zero as the first digit and have
billed number screening in place (no manual charges to be placed on
this number by an operator) but screening for one as the first digit
won't even work in a place like Chicago where crossing of area code
boundaries is still considered a local call in many cases. And of
course with overlays there will be a lot of 1+ calls just around
your own neighborhood. I do not know any effective way to screen
the digits dialed these days except for using a table which says to
deny all except (these three) or something like that.
Radio Shack sells a toll deny device which can go in some secret
place at the head end of your pair, right before it reaches the
demarc so that everyone has to pass through it. The admin can
program it remotely using a password, and other passwords can be
used by callers as 'authorization codes'. The admin can tell it to
(for example) allow 312,630,708,773,800,847,888,877 as the only
acceptable combinations with a '1' in front (all are local or no-
charge combinations in the Chicago area) and to disallow all other
combinations which began with '1', also to deny 900 by virtue of
it being disallowed because of '1' on the front, deny 976, 555 or
411 (premium charge for directory assistance), etc.
Trouble is, you have to keep the little box itself well-hidden, since
anyone who unplugs it for a minute or does a 'hard reset' will cause
it to forget everything it knew before. On the other hand, if someone
steals root from the admin by getting his password, all he has to do
is go unplug the device and start over with the factory defaults
again. If the admin only wants a certain phone to be restricted, then
the little box is placed in series on that local portion of the pair;
others ahead of him are unrestricted. If it is placed in series at the
head -- which would seem to be the only worthwhile way of doing it --
then everyone downstream is toll-restricted.
A user dialing a forbidden number hears a second or two of silence,
followed by a 'click' and fresh dial tone. You need one device for
each outgoing trunk especially if you cannot be sure which outgoing
trunk will be seized by the user at any given time, such as dialing
'9' on a PBX and getting an available line. I think root gets a
six digit passcode while other users get a four digit bypass code if
authorized to make calls. I hope Radio Shack has not taken that
out of stock; so many of their more esoteric and seldom-sold phone
products are no longer available. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:33:16 -0700
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
In TELECOM Digest Vol 19 Issue 157, I wrote:
> If you are talking about "Sprint Cellular," then they are an
> honest-to-goodness cellular carrier.
John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> reminded me that Sprint divested
itself of its cellular operations, so it is likely that the Sprint
service the original poster was referring to was indeed PCS (Sprint
Spectrum) and not cellular.
Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com> (www.his.com/~rjk)
------------------------------
From: Wrong@home.net (Wrong Number)
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
Date: 21 Jun 1999 02:30:21 GMT
Organization: Your Organization
Reply-To: badams@infi.net
In article <telecom19.157.2@telecom-digest.org>, rjk@telcomlaw.com
says:
> For example, if you read the fine print in the AT&T Wireless plan
> (at least the one being marketed here in the DC area), it says you
> won't pay roaming while you are on their digital network. That ain't
> worth horse puckey when you go out of the 2 GHz PCS coverage area and
> fall back to digital or analog cellular. Then you are at the mercy of
> whether and with whom they may or may not have roaming agreements.
Bob ... although I don't have a copy of the AT&T Wireless contract
with me AND I have NO love loss for them on the AT&T Wireless Digital
One Rate Plan(s) you don't pay ANY roaming or long distance.
HOWEVER, let's say you have the 600 minute plan ... 600 minutes for
$89.95/month. If you use 595 minutes every month because of delayed
billing for roaming you may only show 400 minutes on your bill (no
problem right .... still only $89.95 right) .... then next month your
bill may show not only the 595 minutes you actually used that month
but also the 195 minutes which wasn't billed the month before. Even
though thoses minutes were used in a previous month (in which you
didn't go over your 600 minutes) they are added to the present months
total. In other words, you are bill for 790 minutes ... after
subtracting the 600 minutes in your plan you owe an additional
$0.25/minute for 190 minutes.
There is always a "gotcha".
Bill
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:57:24 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
PAT wrote:
> Is there a procedure in place for the operator to use in notifying
> selected members of staff? Does the operator have their pager numbers,
Proctor & Associates (www.proctorinc.com) of Redmond, WA makes a
device that will monitor your 9-1-1 trunks and autodial pagers as well
as drive wall displays or local printers with the location info during
a 9-1-1 call. It is called 9-1-1 Call Alert, but I don't think it is
on their website yet.
They also make PBX-ANI-Link, which generates 9-1-1 trunks from your
PBX in addition to doing the local alerting.
PBX ANI-Link is at http://www.proctorinc.com/prod03.htm and the
application note describing the whole problem of locating 9-1-1
calls behind PBX systems is at http://www.proctorinc.com/Sys%202%20Briefx.htm
You can reach Proctor at 425-881-7000.
Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 18:47:10 -0700
From: Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net>
Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier
Stan Schwartz <stannc.no1spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In TD V19 #157, Telecom Digest Editor wrote:
>
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the
>> front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of
>> the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user
>> that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra
>> money. PAT]
> This would be a nice idea if it was standardized all over the country.
> While on a recent trip to Seattle, the local (USWest) phone book's
> dialing instructions directed callers to dial the area code for all
> calls within the 206 NPA (it was still permissive in the area that I
> was in), but be sure NOT to dial 1+206 because even a local call could
> get billed as a toll call. This is ludicrous!!!
I live in Seattle and yes those instructions are ludicrous if only
because that caution in the directory "Dialing "1" before dialing a
local ten-digit phone number could result in charges from your long
distance provider" is utter bull pucky. If you dial 1+areacode+number
on a local call it simply will not go through. You'll get the
recording: a SIT and then the recording "Your call cannot be completed
as dialed. Please check the number and dial again." You will not be
billed for your call contrary to what the directory says. The call
just will not complete. I guess USWest doesn't even bother to check
out how their own system works!
When they were proposing the new area codes and dialing arrangement
for the area I had asked why permissive 1+area code+number dialing
would not be implemented and the answer that I got was that GTE didn't
want to go to the trouble of updating their translation table!
It would have been nicer if they gave some uniformity to our dialing
arrangement so that if someone was visiting or using a modem dialup
they wouldn't have to guess on the dialing arrangement in the area,
but it was decided otherwise unfortunately.
Such are the anomalies of dealing with multiple telephone companies.
Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA <mailto:dov@oz.net>
<http://welcome.to/dov> <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/460262> [ICQ pgr]
+1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 707 516 0561 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought that everyone knew that
dealing with multiple telephone companies was for Your Own Good. We
do not want any monopoly arrangements where a competitor can cover
for its own ineptitude by wailing about discrimination. PAT]
------------------------------
From: djensen@madison.tds.net (David Jensen)
Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier
Organization: At My House
Reply-To: djensen@madison.tds.net
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:15:16 GMT
On 20 Jun 1999 06:04:01 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom zippy@cs.brandeis.
edu (Patrick Tufts) wrote in <telecom19.158.7@telecom-digest.org>:
> George Yanos <GYanos@uic.edu> writes:
>> Once we have to dial an area code for every call, why do we need to
>> continue with the 1- prefix?
> Training for the day when we have country code overlays.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Gasp of Indignation: Oh really! Its probably
> not far off at the rate things are going. PAT]
But of course, 95% of the numbers won't be assigned.
------------------------------
From: gregladner@aol.com (Greg Ladner)
Date: 21 Jun 1999 19:00:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Telecom in Coffeehouses - Need EE
We are financiers planning a line of coffeehouses with telecommunications
rooms for interactive communication for business, separated families,
people who meet in chat rooms, etc. We are also showcasing an indepen-
dent film on HDTV. We need a telecomm engineer to head up our
digital division.
GregLadner@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:23:20 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out?
Responding to an article forwarded to the Digest early last November:
We've already passed April 9, 1999 (noted as the 99th day of '99).
Anything happen then? Don't get complacent even if it did go
smoothly.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the
99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth
day of the ninth month of year 99? I had heard it was to be the
latter, a few days after Labor Day there would be trouble. Well I
guess no one knows for sure, and all we can do is hope for the best,
that there will be massive outages and computer failures; that the
government will be in shambles; that people everywhere will riot and
loot all the stores looking for food and beverages to drink and that
the telephone system will shut down.
It will be a good opportunity for the government to act out its innate
hostility toward the people it is supposed to be serving by simply
shooting dead those who try to survive however they can. I just hope
there is no trouble at the Gas Works however. January is a mighty cold
month in the USA to have to go with no operating furnace for warmth.
Lucky are the people in Australia who will be able to riot in the
warmth of summer sunshine. New Zealand, which gets the first chance at
Century 21 will keep the rest of us advised on progress throughout the
afternoon and evening of December 31 here in the USA I guess. Seriously,
it would not hurt all of us to go back to the Dark Ages for a little
while, or even just a century ago when most of what we take for granted
today was unheard of. Are those big, tough Marines still having their
practice drills over in Virginia so they can keep the rest of us on
our best behavior starting sometime in late December? PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #159
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 22 00:26:58 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA17319;
Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906220426.AAA17319@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #160
TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jun 99 00:26:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 160
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Jin Hwang)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Ed Ellers)
Trouble for DoubleClick (Monty Solomon)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Greg Abbott)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Allan M. Olbur)
Re: 10-10-220 (Leonid A. Broukhis)
House Passes Net Filtering Bill (Monty Solomon)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (James Wyatt)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Bill Levant)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Stanley Cline)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (John R. Levine)
AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (Joel M. Hoffman)
Re: Unmasking Xircom's Xorro (Alan Boritz)
Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Alan Boritz)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Jin Hwang <bumdaddy@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:09:16 -0700
If your name is on that phone bill then you are the only one who can
authorize it. Otherwise I say that you were slammed.
James
<srini_v@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:telecom19.158.9@telecom-
digest.org:
> A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and
> talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was
> switched to the new company.
> My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch.
> The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized
> list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to
> my local telephone company a year back.
> My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch,
> is it legal?
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:52:03 -0400
John R. Covert (no.spam.covert.maps.on@covert.org) wrote:
> Again we are those stupid Americans who won't use a worldwide
> standard. How embarrassing."
What's the alternative? Should we always do what the rest of the
world tells us to do, and hold off on all technical advances until the
rest of the world gets around to endorsing them? Considering how long
it took for many advanced countries to adopt tone dialing -- a
U.S.-only standard that *was* adopted later by the CCITT, by the way
-- I suspect we'd still have mostly pulse dialing if AT&T had waited
for the CCITT to get off its rear.
I contend that we as a nation are better off choosing our own
standards, evaluating what other nations' industries are doing on
their own merits, but going it alone when that is in our best
interest. If that means Americans can't take their wireless phones
overseas, and foreign visitors can't use their wireless phones here, I
just don't see that as more than a minor inconvenience.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:20:47 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Trouble for DoubleClick
Trouble for DoubleClick
By Jacob Ward
Barely 24 hours after DoubleClick said that it would acquire marketing
research company Abacus Direct for $1 billion in stock, privacy coalitions
announced that they would file complaints with the FTC, contending that the
merged entity would pose a threat to consumer privacy. The merger, which
would help DoubleClick build the ultimate online database of consumers,
brings the company closer than any other to achieving every online
marketer's dream. But along the way, DoubleClick may have stumbled into a
consumer-backlash nightmare.
http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,5017,00.html
DoubleClick not worried about privacy charges
By Courtney Macavinta
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 15, 1999, 5:55 p.m. PT
DoubleClick is not sweating over the plans of privacy watchdogs to
upset the $1 billion merger of the Internet advertiser and market
researcher Abacus Direct, a top DoubleClick executive said today.
Under the deal, DoubleClick's advertising network would correlate the
names and addresses of Net shoppers with the Abacus Alliance database
of consumer buying habits, made up of more than 2 billion consumer
catalog transactions, to allow marketers in both media to target
potential customers more efficiently.
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37882,00.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:23:39 -0500
From: Greg Abbott <gabbott@prairienet.org>
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs
wdg@hal-pc.org wrote:
> To satisfy my legal beagles, I "bridge" rather than intercept 911
> calls. The call proceeds on to the PSAP normally, but does so over a
> separate, small dedicated analog loop-start trunk group (911 traffic
> only). There are audio bridges on these trunks which feed plain-Jane
> Orator monitor speakers located in three areas; building security, the
> nurse's station and building maintenance. The PBX gives me the calling
> extension in real time (at the initial onset of the call) which is
> splashed against a database of internal numbers.
> This gives me the originating extension, location and the assigned
> user name, date and timestamp, again all in real time, within ten
> seconds of onset of the call. This information is sent to small
> serial "instrument" printers (via short haul modems) in the three
> aforementioned areas. There is a multi-line analog key system bridged
> onto these trunks so that bldg. security can "join" the call should
> the need arise. Their Orator speaker is wired through the off-normal
> contacts of the switchook of their emergency phone to mute it and
> preclude feedback.
[SNIP}]
I didn't see if you mentioned what state you are in, but I'm pretty
sure in Illinois that you may be opening yourself up to trouble by
violating the overhear laws. Basically you are eavesdropping on the
9-1-1 calls from your building. You *might* be able to get around
that by posting it for the employees to see and understand, but what
about visitors? Do the coin phones in your building function the same
way?
As a 9-1-1 system administrator, I would rather see the calls route
directly and exclusively to the 9-1-1 center. I understand the
costing argument and database update and so forth, I'm just talking
about the call audio itself. I just have a little uneasiness (is that
a word?) with the scenario as presented. On the other hand, at least
the call will be completed to 9-1-1, unlike a lot of PBX systems.
One other comment ... you mentioned that any "extra" digits will cause
the call to route internally, rather than to 9-1-1. What if a person
is having a heart attack and presses extra ones or any other digits as
they are falling to the floor? What if the caller is blind or is
blinded by a chemical spill or explosion? Sounds like a liability to
me. People dial 9-1-1 expecting to get 9-1-1.
9-1-1 saves seconds ... seconds save lives!
Greg Abbott
9-1-1 Coordinator
Champaign County, Illinois
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are speaking from the point of view
of a person involved with emergency response activities and that is a
perfectly honest, acceptable point of view. I've often thought that
911 call-takers had to be exceptional people in terms of patience and
understanding. Your call-takers there have a very light load compared
to Chicago or New York for example, yet a very heavy load compared to
a small town or sparsely populated county in central or western Kansas.
In Junction City, Kansas the combined Junction City/Geary County 911
person receives so few calls via 911 that they have the luxury of
broadcasting each one over police radio as it comes in. Listen to your
scanner there, and you will hear the radio dispatcher say something
like, 'all units hold for an emergency, 911 has a call coming in', and
then they literally put it over the radio with the dispatcher 'talking
it through' with the caller, repeating what the caller says while the
officers on the street are listening and already beginning to respond.
(Dispatcher repeating over the air what caller is saying: 'you say he
has a late model car, and he is driving west on Sixth Street now? And
you say he has a scar over his left eye?'). Meanwhile of course, guys
on the street have already headed in that direction. As soon as the
dispatcher told them to stand by for a 911 call, they were in their
cars ready to move out on one second's notice, just say where.
Other jurisdictions in the area are listening to the call also, and if
there is any hint the fleeing suspect is heading in their direction,
they'll be on the case. Three or four jurisdictions all share the same
radio frequency, but even so, there is not five minutes worth of
emergency traffic in a day's time. Its an area of the country where
the daily 'police blotter' column in the newspaper -- and *all*
incidents are printed -- may consist of three or four items: Junction
City Police arrested two people in a brawl outside a tavern, and in
another incident stopped someone who was speeding and upon searching
his car found a marijuana cigarette. The Fort Riley Military Police
investigated a domestic dispute; and the Geary Sheriff reported no
incidents at all that day. By contrast in Chicago, dispatchers *never*
cease talking on the radio, and 911 call takers never have a minute
when there are not at least a few calls waiting to be answered. Some-
times at three in the morning in Chicago the scanner will go quiet
for a minute or so at a time, and 911 calls will be answered without
even a single ring, that is just a click and the operator is on the
line.
So I can see and deeply appreciate the work going on by professional
and well-trained emergency response agencies in larger cities, and
that the vast, overwhelming majority of your 'users' or callers are
not going to be in a position to evaluate their circumstances and deal
with them in a professional -- and most important, lawful! -- way.
Do you remember how when 911 first started in Chicago many years ago,
the Fire Department resisted being part of it? Having the police screen
our calls first and pass them along will lead to unacceptable delays
in our response was the way they said it. It took awhile to convince
them otherwise.
And consider those communities who share a telephone exchange with
a neighboring community and as a result of defeciencies in the way
the telephone switch operates, they are 'stuck with' using a single
911 center for both communities. What happens? As often as not they
do not have 911 at all, so concerned are they that not being in
charge of their own calls, their community will suffer as a result.
There are politics involved in 911 of course; if something goes right,
then you get the credit (we do not like that idea) and if something
goes wrong, then we are the ones to catch hell or get sued, and we
like that idea even less than having you get all the glory and the
label of hero, etc. I guess finally all the communities in the
Chicago suburban area are now using 911, both as a result of phone
exchange improvements and because they managed to settle their
differences with neighboring communities. But they certainly spent
years squabbling over who was going to actually answer the calls.
So Greg, I do understand your position very well, but I also empha-
thize with persons whose responsibilities include managing large
institutional properties, etc and who must, absolutely without
question for legal reasons be 'on top of' or aware and responsive
to every single incident which occurs on their premises. That is
why I said his passing of calls explicitly to 911 unhindered while
still monitoring them so that his own security representatives and
other trained personnel listened and began responding was probably
the best things could get. And after all, when your people get a
call reporting a fire and patch it through, *they* stay on the line
and listen don't they? After all, police may very well be needed to
assist firemen in an evacuation or crowd-control, etc. So what
is the difference? PAT]
------------------------------
From: dtm37@aol.com (Allan M. Olbur)
Date: 22 Jun 1999 00:23:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs
Pat:
Thanks for the note.
We have recommended that a consortium of interested parties who are
willing to share ideas and input re E-911 be convened. If you are
intested in joining this forum, pls contact me via email at
aolbur@ccscnet.com.
Regards,
Allan M. Olbur
InfraTech Inc.
847-934-0580
http://209.172.186.90
------------------------------
From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis)
Subject: Re: 10-10-220
Date: 21 Jun 1999 16:36:05 GMT
In article <telecom19.124.7@telecom-digest.org>, Joel B Levin wrote:
> That's just a restatement of the pricing as advertised: "Any call up
> to 20 minutes for 99 cents, then ten cents a minute." The catch is
> that it's a great rate when the call is over 12 minutes, but very
> expensive to make a couple of one minute calls with. If you plan to
> talk for 20 minutes, and get the answering machine instead, you're
> screwed for the whole 99 cents anyhow.
Convenience aside, it seems that the idea or possibility of using one
carrier to make sure the other party is at home, then using another
carrier for a long call, escapes some people completely.
Leo
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Leo, there is a limit to what
effort most people will go to to save a few cents, and a few cents
is what it comes down to these days with most carriers. At the
end of the month your long distance bill was two dollars less because
you incovenienced your called party by dialing once then telling him
to hang up and wait for your next call a few seconds later, etc.
Another player out there willing to get your business was brought to
my attention to today. A company called 'Clear Choice' in Dallas, TX
offers this choice of three options:
1) Five cents per minute interstate at all hours, and varying rates
ranging from ten to fifteen cents per minute in intRAstate calls
depending on which state you live in ... OR ....
2) Nine cents per minute anywhere at all times, with a $3.95 per
month service charge ... OR ...
3) Ten cents per minute anywhere at all times, no service charge.
To amortize that $3.95 per month on the difference of just one cent
per minute would require 3.5 additional hours of talking per month
*just to break even* and quite a bit more talking to get to the point
it made any real savings, so choice three at ten cents per minute is
probably best if you make very many intRAstate calls; otherwise go
with choice one. I did not check out the rates in every state for
intRA service, but most of them appeared to be in the 15 cent per
minute range, a few lower, some higher.
Look at http://www.clearchoice.net if you are interested. I have no idea
who they are reselling. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:30:10 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: House Passes Net Filtering Bill
By Courtney Macavinta
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 18, 1999, 1:10 p.m. PT
Update: Mandatory Net filtering in schools and libraries finally may
become a reality after a string of failed attempts by Congress to
implement content regulations at public institutions.
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38018,00.html
------------------------------
From: James Wyatt <jwyatt@RWSystems.net>
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:40:27 -0500
Organization: Fastlane Communications (using Airnews.net!)
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, David Esan wrote:
> After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had
> taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network."
> Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia.
> A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait),
> suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia".
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all
> cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to
> Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company.
Did you *try* it? Both of them indicate AT&T on the line I tested. I do
not know what the difference is unless it 'hints' to the switches that a
toll-bypass should be considered. (see below)
> The other thing to remember is that many 'carriers' these days are not
> really carriers, they are 'switchless resellers' meaning all they are
> doing is brokering long distance service on the switch of some other
> company. The ones which do a better job of hiding their true identity
> (as an independent company on its own merits) can usually fix things
There are also lots of folks that resell other carriers service for most
areas and concentrate 'special' capacity where they have an advantage.
Does this company have lots of capacity to Israel and resell others for
the rest of the planet? If so, the second number could be directing the
response to match traffic they would handle on their own capacity.
- Jy@
------------------------------
From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:33:06 EDT
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
> A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait),
> suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia".
> Is one number for intra-LATA calling and the other for out of LATA?
> Is there a difference between the numbers?
FWIW, I tried 1-700-555-9499 from both of my home phones, here in
suburban Philadelphia (Bell Atlantic-land).
On line #1, subscribed to Worldcom (from the pre-MCI days) yields
"Thank you for using MCI ..."
On line #2, subscribed to Sprint, "[SIT TONES] We're sorry, you have
reached a number that has been disconnected, or is no longer in
service ..."
Evidently, the call is handed off to the PIC'ed carrier, since the two
lines produced different results. What happens then is anyone's
guess.
By the way, intra-LATA carrier checking is accomplished here by dialing
700-4141 (or now, I suppose, with mandatory 10-digits, 610-700-4141).
Bill
------------------------------
From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:36:36 GMT
Organization: how, with all the spam?
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:16:17 GMT, davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan)
wrote:
> After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had
> taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network."
> Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia.
> A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait),
> suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia".
It looks like they resell Frontier (Global Crossing? soon to be
Qwest? ...)
This sort of thing isn't unusual at all among smaller resellers.
Many, most notably Excel, have customers dial a "different" 700-555
number (Excel, who has resold AT&T, Frontier, and IXC and now has
their "own" network, uses 700-555-0752) to verify that they've been
switched or are on the correct carrier. Others tell customers to dial
the usual 700-555-4141 and that they may hear the name of a different
carrier (often the WorldCom side of MCI WorldCom, IXC, or Frontier)
when they dial it.
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
------------------------------
Date: 21 Jun 1999 21:40:02 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had
> taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network." ...
> A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait),
> suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia".
TELECOM Digest Editor then noted:
> So you might want to see if Destia in fact resells Frontier, who
> the last I heard was reselling Sprint.
Frontier is now a real facilities based IXC, one of the major reasons
that Global Crossing is buying them. I suspect Pat's right, Destia
is reselling Frontier, -4141 gives the real carrier and -9499 gives
you their reseller.
For what it's worth, when I try either, I get "welcome to IXC
Communications" who is indeed my LD carrier.
If you're wondering about intra-LATA toll, that's 700-4141.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
Subject: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US)
Organization: Excelsior Computer Services
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:02:55 GMT
> Bob ... although I don't have a copy of the AT&T Wireless contract
> with me AND I have NO love loss for them on the AT&T Wireless Digital
> One Rate Plan(s) you don't pay ANY roaming or long distance.
But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in
Orange County, NY, and sometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I
try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a
credit card. Other times (without moving the phone!) I get no bars of
"roam" signal, which I guess is AT&T, but I can't tell for sure,
because there's not enough signal to make or receive calls. So
sometimes there's no service, and sometimes I have to use a credit
card.
AT&T's one rate is good for some things, but even at $90/month, it's a
budget plan and you get what you pay for. If you really want to make
and receive calls wherever you are, stick with an analog phone :-(
-Joel
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: Unmasking Xircom's Xorro
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:16:03 -0400
In article <telecom19.150.10@telecom-digest.org>, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,4991,00.html
> Xircom won a round Monday in its legal battle to unmask (and silence)
> a critic who posted two messages critical of the company on Yahoo's
> message boards. It's not the first time a company has subpoenaed Yahoo
> to turn over the name of someone bashing the company on its boards,
> but it is the first time the anonymous basher has fought back in
> court. Xircom makes network and modem cards for PCs.
> Judge John J. Hunter of Ventura Superior Court in Southern California
> tossed out Xircom's original subpoena on a technicality, but left the
> door open for it to file another to Yahoo to reveal the name. An
> attorney for the basher, whom the court calls John Doe, said it was
> free speech. But Hunter said, "There is no right to free speech to
> defame." Did John Doe defame Xircom? Xircom says it will prove so in
> court, while Doe's attorney, Megan Gray, says Xircom's legal actions
> are all a show to get her client to shut up.
> But few quotes showed up in the press to let us judge for ourselves
> the defamatory material. The New York Times' Rebecca Fairley Raney
> quoted John Doe saying Xircom was no longer the fun place to work it
> once was. Pretty tough stuff.
I think I would think twice about specifying a product manufactured by
a company that would prosecute an individual who publicly criticizes
them, especially when it appears to be a personal vendetta. That
technique has been known to backfire, even when there's a legitimate
cause for the legal action. I just hope that if it does, and Xircom's
sales does plummet, that the person responsible for pursuing the legal
action can understand the foolish mistake he made.
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:33:42 -0400
In article <telecom19.153.9@telecom-digest.org>, sjsobol@NorthShore
Technologies.net (Steven J Sobol) wrote:
> On 16 Jun 1999 03:44:25 GMT, hillary@hillary.net allegedly said:
>> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
>>> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones
>>> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30
>>> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered
>> Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of
>> this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area
>> calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of
>> our more temperate suburbs).
> Alan has also ignored every last one of the posts made by myself and
> Joseph Adams about flat-rate calling in northern Ohio.
Quite correct. Last time I looked, "northern Ohio," and Philadelphia,
weren't the largest market in the US. Now, if I said, "top 500
markets," perhaps you'd have a point. <g>
In article <telecom19.150.2@telecom-digest.org>, craig@glasswings.
com.au (Craig Macbride) wrote:
> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes:
>>> cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is
>>> no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a
>>> cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here
>>> like it ...
>> And that's the way consumers like it.
> They do? Which ones?
The ones who buy and use cellular or mobile service for their main
business activities?
>> Some people operate their daily business entirely on cellphones with
>> no desire to call attention to it.
> Why? Because they are shonky operators who are already in the airport
> about to skip town while taking your order?
Because they might be site acquisition or construction managers who
spend almost all of their time in the field. I worked with some
individuals in that situation, some with the largest cellular system
operators in the US, some independent. There's absolutely nothing
"shonky" about them, and they do a lot of the system construction for
systems we routinely use and criticize.
> I can't imagine that any reputable business has the slightest
> advantage in hiding the fact that the number you are calling is a
> mobile number.
A business whose key people are mostly in the field may not want to
call attention to the fact that that your first contact may not be a
main business phone. After all, first impressions are the most lasting.
And, some mobile service plans in the US are so competitive that some
people are using it as their only phone, which is exactly the target
of AT&T's latest marketing effort.
Perhaps you should spend some time in the US before being so certain
how businesses operate, or how individuals use their cellular phones.
>> Other people like it because it's none of your damn business
>> whether it's mobile or not.
> I've never heard of that one either.
I've never heard of the term "shonky" before. We're even. <g>
>> The single best argument for CPP, however, might be in support of
>> telemarketers. If a teleslime operator chose to blanket mobile phone
>> customers, his expenses might double or triple if his rotaries ran
>> over blocks of mobile numbers. That, by itself, is a powerful
>> incentive for CPP, IMHO.
> Of course. Telemarketers are much rarer here and I have at least a
> tiny bit of respect for a company which is prepared to spend money to
> contact me than if they can do it for free.
You must have a LOT of time on your hands. Telemarketers are a major
nuisance in the US. They rob us of our available time, and often
cause us to spend OUR money to to avoid them.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #160
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 22 01:00:06 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA18515;
Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906220500.BAA18515@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #161
TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jun 99 01:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 161
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Updated GSM-List Jun 20, 1999 (Jurgen Morhofer)
Re: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso (John S. Maddaus)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Mike Pollock)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:00:11 +0200
From: Jurgen Morhofer <jurgen@flashnet.it>
Subject: Updated GSM List - Jun 20, 1999
For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site:
http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html
kindly supplied by Jutta Degener.
This is the last time I will send out this list via email. Over the
last five years the number of subscribers grew and grew. My Email
program is not able to handle this large amount of recipients anymore,
therefor I will let the mailing be handled by a professional mailing
list service. You will receive a mail from EGROUPS in the next days
containing an invitation to re-subscribe to this list following a link
within the message. This will save me a lot of work and it will be
possible to send out new info faster.
Since the introduction of Dual-Band GSM phones it makes sense for the
first time to add GSM 1800/1900 operators too as the original purpose
of this list was meant to be a roaming guide.
To answer many requests regarding which operator is using which
frequency, 1900 Mhz is used in the US, Canada and Japan, the rest of
the world uses 900 Mhz (usually first two operators) and 1800 Mhz
(usually third and fourth operator). Anyway, when I have some time, I
will add another column with the freqs used. (Changes in the list
marked by "*")
Date Jun 20, 1998
Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service
------ ------------- ------------ -----------------------
Albania AMC 276 01
Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115
Argentina
Armenia Armentel 283 01
Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 9342 6000
Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287
Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 9415 7236
Austria Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 664 1661
max.mobil. 232 03 Int + 43 676 2000
Connect Austria 232 05 Int + 43 1 58187300
Azerbaidjan Azercell 400 01 Int + 994 12 98 28 23
* JV Bakcell 400 02
Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557
Bangladesh Grameen Phone Ltd 470 01
* TM International 470 19
Sheba Telecom
Belgium Proximus 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4912
Mobistar 206 10 Int + 32 95 95 95 00
* KPN Orange 206 20
Bosnia Cronet 218 01
PTT Bosnia 218 19
Botswana * Mascom Wireless 652 01
Brunei DSTCom 528 11
Jabatan Telekom 528 01
Bulgaria * MobilTel AD 284 01 Int + 359 88 500031
Burkina Faso OnaTel
Cambodia CamGSM 456 01
* Cambodia Samart 456 02
Cambodia Shinawatra
Cameroon PTT Cameroon Cellnet 624 01
Cape Verde * Cabo Verde Telecom 625 01
Canada Microcell 302 37
Chile Entel Telefonia
China Guangdong MCC 460 00
Beijing Wireless
China Unicom 460 01
Zhuhai Comms
DGT MPT
Jianxi PTT
Tjianjin Toll
Liaoning PPTA 460 02
Congo African Telecoms
Congolaise Wireless
Croatia HR Cronet 219 01 Int + 385 14550772
* Vipnet 219 10
Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588
Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha 230 02 Int + 420 2 6701 6701
Radio Mobil 230 01 Int + 420 603 603 603
Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 7024 2408
Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 8020 2020
Mobilix 238 30 Int + 45 8040 4080
Telia 238 20 Int + 45 8010 1010
Egypt * MobiNil 602 01
* Click GSM 602 02
Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 6 397130
Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 6 399966
Q GSM 248 03
Ethiopia ETA 636 01
Faroe Isl. Faroese Telecom
Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000
Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050
Sonera 244 91 Int + 358 800 17000
Alands Mobiltelefon 244 05
Telia 244 03 Int + 358 800 41 1041
Finnet 244 09 Int + 358 800 94000
* Lnnen Puhelin 244 09
* Helsingin Puhelin 244 09 Int + 358 9 500 100
France Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81
SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16
Bouygues Telekom 208 20
Fr.Polynesia Tikiphone 547 20
Fr.W.Indies Ameris 340 01 Int + 590 93 27 47
Georgia Superphone
Geocell 282 01
Magticom 282 02
Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 961 0171
D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212
E-Plus Mobilfunk 262 03
Viag Interkom 262 07 Int + 49 179 55 222
Ghana Franci Walker Ltd
ScanCom 620 01
Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000
G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 753 504548
Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1191
Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 882 512
Guernsey Telecom 234 55
Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613
One2One 234 30 Int + 44 7958 121121
* Orange 234 33 Int + 44 973 100150
Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122
STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333
* Cosmote 202 01 Int + 30 1 680 8950
Greenland Tele Greenland
Guinea Int'l Wireless 611
Spacetel 611
Sotelgui 611 02
Hong Kong HK Hutchison 454 04
SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688
Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2888 1010
New World PCS 454 10
Sunday 454 16
Pacific Link 454 18
Peoples Telephone 454 12
* SMC PCS 454 22
Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 20 9 654 062
Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 9 303 100
Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 800 6330
Icelandic Mobile Phone 274 02
India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345
Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110
Maxtouch 404 20
BPL Mobile 404 21
Command 404 30
Mobilenet 404 31
Skycell 404 40 Int + 91 44 8222939
RPG MAA 404 41
Modi Telstra 404 14
Sterling Cellular 404 11
Mobile Telecom
Airtouch
BPL USWest 404 27
Koshika
Bharti Telenet
Birla Comm
Cellular Comms
* TATA 404 07 Int + 91-040-21199
Escotel 404 12
JT Mobiles
Evergrowth Telecom
Aircel Digilink 404 15
Hexacom India
Reliance Telecom
Fascel Limited
Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int + 62 21 8282811
PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881
Excelcom 510 11 Int + 62 21 5759818
PT Indosat
Iraq Iraq Telecom 418 ??
Iran T.C.I. 432 11 Int + 98 2 18706341
Celcom
Kish Free Zone
Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 38888
Digifone 272 02 Int + 353 61 203 501
Meteor 272 03
Israel * Partner Communications 425 01
Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190
Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119
Wind 222 88
Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00
Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51
Telecel 612 05 Int + 225 32 32 32
Japan
Jordan JMTS 416 01
Kenya Kenya Telecom
Kuwait MTCNet 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000
Kyrgyz Rep Bitel Ltd 437 01
La Reunion SRR 647 10
Laos Lao Shinawatra 457 01
Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 256 2191
BALTCOM GSM 247 02
Lebanon Libancell 415 03
Cellis 415 01 Int + 961 3 391 111
Lesotho Vodacom 651 01
Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01
Lithuania Omnitel 246 01
Bite GSM 246 02 Int + 370 2 232323
Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088
Millicom Lux' S.A 270 77
Lybia Orbit
El Madar
Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912
Macedonia PTT Makedonija 294 01
Madagascar Sacel 646 03
Madacom 646 01 Int + 261 2022 66055
* SMM 646 02
Malawi TNL 650 01
Malaysia Celcom 502 19
Maxis 502 12
My BSB 502 02
* TM Touch 502 13
Adam 502 17
* Digi Telecom 502 16
Malta Telecell 278 01
Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828
Mauritius Cellplus 617 01 Int + 230 4335100
Moldova * Voxtel
Monaco Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81
SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16
Office des Telephones
Mongolia MobiCom
Montenegro Pro Monte 220 02
Mozambique Telecom de Mocambique 634 01
T.D.M GSM1800
Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212
Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106
Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 54 500100
Telfort Holding NV 204 12
* Ben 204 16
* Dutchtone 204 20
New Caledonia Mobilis 546 01
New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100
Nigeria EMIS
Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68
TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 78 15 00
Oman General Telecoms 422 02
Palestinia Palestine Telecoms
Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Int + 92 51 273971-7
Papua Pacific 310 01
Philippines Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720
Islacom 515 01 Int + 632 1457000
* Smart 515 03
Poland Plus GSM 260 01 Int + 48 22 607 16 01
ERA GSM 260 02
IDEA Centertel 260 03
Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212
TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 791 4474
Optimus 268 03
Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int +974-325333/400620
Romania MobiFon 226 01 Int + 40113022222
MobilRom 226 10 Int + 40112033333
Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734
United Telecom Moscow
NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747
* Dontelekom 250 10
KB Impuls 250 99
JSC Siberian Cellular 250 ??
BM Telecom 250 07
* Beeline 250 Int + 7 095 258 8888
* Extel 250 28 Int + 7 0112 5530 60
* Far Eastern Cell 250 12
San Marino Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190
Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119
Wind 222 88
SaudiArabia Al Jawal 420 01
EAE 420 07
Senegal Sonatel 608 01
Seychelles SEZ SEYCEL 633 01
* Airtel 633 10
Serbia * Serbian PTT 220 03 Int + 381 11 9820
Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123
MobileOne 525 03
* Binariang
Slovak Rep Eurotel 231 02 Int + 421 903 903 903
Globtel 231 01 Int + 421 905 905 905
Slovenia Mobitel 293 41 Int + 386 61 131 30 33
* SI.Mobil
South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 301 6000
Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111
Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02
Spain Airtel 214 01 Int + 34 907 123000
Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 909 100909
* Amena 214 03
Sudan Mobitel 634 01
Swaziland
Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10
Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22
Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50
Switzerland Swisscom 900 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64
Swisscom 1800 228 01
* diAx mobile 228 02
* Orange
Syria SYR MOBILE 417 09
Taiwan LDTA 466 92 Int + 886 932 400821
Mobitai 466 93 Int + 886 931 413131
TransAsia 466 99
TWN 466 97
Tuntex 466 06 Int + 886 938 749104
KG Telecom 466 88 Int + 886 938 348404
FarEasTone 466 01 Int + 886 931 000099
* Chunghwa 466 11
Tanzania Tritel 640 01
Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440
Total Access Comms 520 18
* WCS 520 10
* Hello 520 23
Tunisia Tunisian PTT 605 02
Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850
* Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 212 313 0000
UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01
UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Int + 971 4004 101
Uganda Celtel Cellular 641 01
* MTN 641 10
Ukraine Mobile comms 255 01
Golden Telecom 255 05
* Radio Systems 255 02
* Kyivstar JSC 255 03
USA Bell South 310 15
Sprint Spectrum 310 02
Voice Stream 310 26
Aerial Comms. 310 31
Omnipoint 310 16
Powertel 310 27
Wireless 2000 310 11
Uzbekistan Daewoo GSM 434 04
Coscom 434 05
Buztel 434 01 Int + 7 3712 320 648
Vatican Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190
Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119
Wind 222 88
Venezuela * Infonet 734 01
* Digitel
Vietnam MTSC 452 01
DGPT 452 02
Yugoslavia * Mobile Telekom 220 01 Int + 381 11 138608
* Promonte 220 02 Int + 381 81 9898
* Telekom Serbia 220 03 Int + 381 11 9820
Zaire African Telecom Net
Zimbabwe NET*ONE 648 01
* Telecel Zimbabwe 648 04
------------------------------
From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus)
Subject: Re: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:41:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net
Rob Slade <rslade@sprint.ca> wrote:
> BKINTDET.RVW 990423
> "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso, 1999, 0-9666700-7-8, U$49.95
> %A Edward G. Amoroso eamoroso@mail.att.net
> The content is readable and, although it seems odd to use the word in
> relation to a security work, even fun. I suppose, though, that I must
> point out that your humble "worst copy editor in the entire world"
> reviewer found a significant number of typographic errors. (And some
> that can't be put down to typos: I think you'll find that it's
> "berferd" rather than "berford.")
Just my two cents worth.
Actually, the 8 point (or is it 6 point, I can't see it clearly enough
to tell) type was a challenge for my reading glasses.
Though I have not finished the book as yet, my initial reaction is:
another example of what I deem a narrow definition of intrusion
detection, i.e. limited in scope to "IP". It is hard for many to
understand that the majority of today's data networking at some point
crosses the boundary into the PSTN, a land where no single person can
even contemplate what may or may not be connected. Consider that the
typical large customer with a PBX muxes voice and data out to the CO
through a "single" Fat-Pipe. The user at the desktop sees voice as a
phone and data as a computer.
But the infrastructure does not necessarily differentiate. What I had
hoped for given Amoroso's employer (AT&T) was that I would finally see
some movement to recognize that intrusion detection tools implemented
on the local LAN are self limiting depending upon where they are
placed, are partially defeated by IPSEC policies that include encryp-
tion and that the need for what some would term telecommunications
intrusion detection systems is critical. Just wanted to hear that
there is more to Intrusion Detection than IP.
As an example, if I dial into a modem and establish an illicit
connection to a network node, what is the difference if one intrusion
detection tool sees me type in "su root" while sniffing the LAN while
another tool sniffing the Q.931 stream sees the same string? A great
deal. The LAN sniffer may decide I am OK since I originated from a
"trusted" source. Different story for the back-door scenario and I
might choose to react differently. All too often the back door is the
easiest and preferred method for gaining access, at least for the
traditional hacker.
Further, telecommunications nodes must now be considered network
nodes. LECs can site ample evidence of just how true this statement
is. Hackers in LMOS, TIRKS, COSMOS - you bet. The number of
databases accessible to the typical switch (i.e. read computers) has
grown enormously. As the director of security for a major telco once
confided, every Central Office in the U.S. either currently has or
has in the past been subjected to a hacker break in. Rather sobering
words. Hopping between CO's, PBX's and peripheral OSS is commonplace
and something you will rarely read about. You will never see details
of what I just said, in part because it can not be proven beyond
reproach and in part because few will admit the extent of the problem.
Further, interconnection via X.25, SS-7, ATM (not to mention all the
supporting OSS) all come with their own specific vulnerabilities,
portions of which are known to perhaps less than 200 people in the
U.S. that are legitimately involved in identifying same. Sadly, the
few people who are aware of these vulnerabilites are sequestered away
and sworn to secrecy in either a lucky few telco's, infrastructure
manufacturers or primarily the intel organizations because we have now
entered the realm of information warfare, where the offense NEVER
talks with the defense. Correlation and identification of events is
intimately secret in all and very little if any sharing takes place
(save some few examples where national security was truly involved).
Makes an utter sham of the PCCIP. And, in most cases it is truly
difficult to find the hole until you've caught someone exploiting it.
Sadly, the equipment to monitor the high bandwidth capacity of the
above does exist and can be cost effective. But, it does not
contribute to the financial bottom line of any telco and is therefore
largely ignored. "Security" has always been a tough sell internally,
despite some significant proven threats. I know of NOCs that have
gone through the trouble to assess the "financial damage to the
company if the entire telco infrastructure were deliberately taken
down" yet will not spend a dime on investing in any automated incident
detection capability, monitoring equipment or support staff. The
placement of the NOCs themselves (at major airports for example) is
questionable. Many NOCs now have multiple mirror sites, i.e.
redundant NOCs capable of being on line by the time employees can get
there. The physical threat gets dollars, the invisible intruder
threat does not.
So the next time you are slammed (despite no pic) start thinking
about how this might happen, I mean really think. Or, the entire
exchange gets dial tone but can't dial 911, 0 or anything else while
the other exchanges on the same CO are OK and it takes four days to fix?
And can you really be sure that the LNP data base dip bill your telco
just received from a competitor is accurate? Or what do you mean we
didn't have a single billable inter-lata call between X and Y for the
entire month of June? Or your Nortel DMS-100 is down, the ETAS modems
are physically disconnected, you can't call out so you leave the
switch room, call Nortel support go back, the switch is up. You call
Nortel support and they tell you problem has been corrected?????
As an aside, couldn't help but muse at a previous contributor's
question on who in Bell Atlantic maintains their Centrex equipment by
asking simply who do they let into their CO's? Having recently
participated in a telecom vulnerability assessment of a customer
served by Centrex elsewhere, we requested a CO site visit. LEC
Security politely turned us down, saying that what goes on in the CO
is proprietary. Oh well, physical security of the CO was not one of
our objectives. The techs we interviewed, however, were very helpful
and offered us the site visit we were looking for (Policy, what
policy?).
I was a bit late getting there. I asked an installer just coming out
of the CO if there was a meeting going on inside (never identifying
myself). He politely said yes and opened the door for me. I was a
bit surprised that he didn't follow me in. Oh well, no one on this
floor, I'll try the basement. Hmmm, the master console for the 5E in
front of me, no one around, Hmmm, serves a lot of customers, some
federal. Alas, thats not why I am here either. Oh well, I'll try the
second floor again. There they are. Started a conversation up with
one of the resident frame room personnel and noticed an endless stream
of people going into and out of the building. Asked if there was
always this much traffic. 'Yup, most of it from CLECs. They're
supposed to identify themselves, but they usually don't. Most are
ex-LEC employees anyway. Not sure what they are doing.'
Key in on that last phrase and you get the idea of just where security
is at and why any and every type of defensive intrusion detection
capability should be widely deployed. Lots of issues here but the
essential truth is that you can't stop em, err take action, if you
can't detect em.
John S. Maddaus
Merlin Communication Systems, Inc.
Telecom fraud and security conulting
jmaddaus@usa.net
------------------------------
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:52:06 -0400
Organization: It's A Mike!
Bell Atlantic once told me that dialing 700-4141 in the NY Metro area,
i.e., removing the 555 to make it a 7 digit local number, will tell
you who your regional toll (not LD) carrier is.
There's also another 700 555-XXXX number that will give you the name
of the reseller where 700 555-4141 gives you the, er, resellee, but I
don't remember that one off-hand. Destia (to whom I just switched)
should know the code.
Mike
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #161
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 03:00:58 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA03167;
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:00:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:00:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906230700.DAA03167@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #162
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 03:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 162
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Carolinas, South Found to Embrace Caller ID (Stan Schwartz)
Book Review: "Securing Java", Gary McGraw/Edward W. Felten (Rob Slade)
"Name That Domain" Contest (Fred R. Goldstein)
Another Sprint Horror Story (Andrew Green)
Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (J.F. Mezei)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs (wdg@hal-pc.org)
Re: 150K by 2034: A Typical Too-Conservative Opinion (K DeMartino)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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, 22 Jun 1999 20:23:35 PDT
From: Stan Schwartz <stannc@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: stannc@yahoo.com
Subject: Carolinas, South Found to Embrace Caller ID
Published Tuesday, June 22, 1999
The Charlotte Observer
By FOON RHEE
Staff Writer
The South might summon up an image of friendly front porches and
"welcome y'all" openness. But Southerners don't take kindly to phone
calls disturbing them at home.
More so than other Americans, Carolinians and other Southerners have
Caller ID so they know who's calling before picking up, a new study
says.
And now BellSouth is offering a way to check calls without moving a
muscle -- the caller's number pops right up on the TV screen. "The
ultimate couch potato's telephone gift," spokeswoman Hope Lanier said
Monday.
More than 800,000 Carolinas households have Caller ID, the phone
firm's most popular optional feature.
While 15 percent of American homes and businesses pay for Caller ID,
nearly 18 percent do in Charleston. The call-screening feature is
slightly more popular than average in Charlotte, Columbia, Greensboro
and Raleigh, the study's author said Monday.
The main reason people get Caller ID is what you'd expect -- to
sidestep telemarketers intruding on dinner to hawk another credit card
or some other unwanted product, or to ask for money.
John Shelton Reed, a sociologist and Southern expert at UNC Chapel
Hill, suspects Caller ID is a polite way to avoid unwelcome
conversations.
"We may feel we need to talk to any darn fool who calls up," he said
Monday. "This may be a way to avoid hanging up on them."
"I've occasionally wished I had Caller ID," added Reed, who's
surprised by the study. "Even telemarketers, I hate to hang up on
them. I try to explain I'm not interested, but they have all these
canned responses so I end up having to hang up on them anyway."
The service is more popular among less well-off people with less
schooling, the study says.
"There's a lot going on behind these consumer patterns," said
marketing analyst Michael Weiss, a contributing editor to American
Demographics magazine whose study is in July's {Atlantic Monthly}.
One factor: while richer folks with more education increasingly use
e-mail on their home computers to communicate, poorer people stick to
the lower-tech telephone and add relatively inexpensive services such
as Caller ID and Call Waiting, Weiss said.
The technology is getting even more convenient -- for a price.
By buying a $99.96 unit and plugging it into their TV like a cable
box, BellSouth customers with both Caller ID and Call Waiting Deluxe
can see caller information on the screen.
There's no extra charge other than regular Caller ID service that runs
$6 a month. Deluxe service, which lists the caller's name as well as
number, costs $7 a month.
"Now you can enjoy uninterrupted TV viewing AND screen your calls at
the same time!" BellSouth tempts customers in this month's bills.
Homes use Caller ID more often than businesses; the service is most
popular among black and Hispanic families. In the nine Southern states
served by BellSouth, nearly half of black households and 54 percent of
Hispanic ones subscribe, the study says.
Overall in those nine states, 39 percent of its residential customers
get Caller ID, BellSouth says. That figure is 26 percent in North
Carolina and 36 percent in South Carolina.
Weiss surmises some Hispanic families screen calls because they want
to know if it's a friend or relative so they can speak Spanish -- or
whether it's a business or government agency they can call back when
someone more fluent in English is home.
That helps explain why Caller ID is so common along the Mexican
border. For example, Laredo, Tex., where nearly 20 percent of
business and residential customers subscribe, has the highest use of
all 212 U.S. media markets.
Another factor: People tend to add phone features when they move, and
most are relocating to the Southeast and Southwest.
Caller ID use is lower in the Northeast and the Great Plains. The
lowest: Glendive, Mont., where 10.8 percent of homes and businesses
have the service.
------------------------------
From: Rob Slade <rslade@sprint.ca>
Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:37:10 -0800
Subject: Book Review: "Securing Java", Gary McGraw/Edward W. Felten
Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca
BKSECJAV.RVW 990501
"Securing Java", Gary McGraw/Edward W. Felten, 1999, 0-471-31952-X,
U$34.99/C$54.50
%A Gary McGraw gem@rstcorp.com
%A Edward W. Felten felten@cs.princeton.edu
%C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8
%D 1999
%G 0-471-31952-X
%I John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
%O U$34.99/C$54.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com
%P 324 p.
%T "Securing Java: Getting Down to Business with Mobile Code"
Unlike Oaks "Java Security" (cf. BKJAVASC.RVW), this book concentrates
on Java in the popular perception: as a means of providing active code
on the Web. As such it is intended not simply for techies, but also
for dedicated users.
Chapter one provides a readily accessible backgrounder, covering
portability, the Internet, the Web, active content, security risks,
other active content systems, and a rough outline of the Java security
model with particular regard to applets. The original Java applet
security model, or "sandbox," is covered in chapter two. The security
model is now complicated by signed code, and chapter three points out
the changes made. Chapter four outlines a number of malicious
applets, but also gives clear directions for disabling Java on both
the Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers.
The authors outline a second class of hostile applets, in chapter
five, that are intended to breach system security and allow an attack
to bypass normal security mechanisms. There are suggestions for
improving the security model, as well as a review of third party
attempts to enhance it, in chapter six. (I was amused to see the
slight lifting of the skirts of ICSA [International Computer Security
Association]: the history of the outfit is a lot more interesting and
convoluted even than is portrayed here.) Chapter seven is directed at
programmers, but the advice provided looks at practices and policies
rather than APIs (Applications Programming Interfaces) and chunks of
sample code. A version of Java specifically designed for Smart Cards
is available, and chapter eight looks at its promises and problems. A
recap and restatement of the major security issues in mobile code is
given in chapter nine. Appendices provide a Java security FAQ,
security resource pointers, and directions on Java code signing.
The text is quite readable. The authors have made a very serious
attempt to ensure that the book does not depend upon previous
technical background. For the most part, they have succeeded. The
diligent reader would be able to understand most of the concepts as
presented, even without having worked with computers or computer
security. However, the key word is "diligent:" it *feels* like a
technical book, and newcomers to the topic may be put off by the
style.
In addition, McGraw and Felten are careful to avoid any bias. They
obviously feel that Java has some worthwhile security measures, but
admit to its faults and point out its shortcomings. This makes the
book extremely useful: much more so than an uncritical paean of
praise.
An effective book on an important subject with a wide audience. But
you don't have to take my word for it. You can try before you buy.
The www.securingjava.com site does not simply contain a few press
releases and the errata, but has the whole text of the book online. A
bold step. (You can help justify it by then buying the book.)
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKSECJAV.RVW 990501
====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com
The client interface is the boundary of trustworthiness.
- Tony Buckland, UBC
http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:43 EST
From: FGOLDSTEIN@wn1.wn.net (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: "Name That Domain" Contest
It's not cybersquatting ... it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening,
and it could be worth a big prize! All you have to do is guess the
new corporate name that Bell Atlantic will be adopting if/when they
merge with GTE.
They have said that they'll be taking a new name -- "Bell Atlantic"
doesn't sound right for their Hawaiian Telephone Company or their
biggest GTE state, California. But what will the new name be?
Obviously they'll want its .com and .net domains. And if somebody
tried to register those domains knowing that they were Bell's new
trademark, why, it would be Cybersquatting and poor old Senator
Abraham would have a conniption. ICANN and WIPO would have a cow too,
and you'd lose the domain registration faster than you could say,
"mcdonalds.com". But Bell hasn't even chosen its new name yet, at
least as afar as anyone knows, so if the new name happens to infringe
on a pre-existing domain name, why, that domain holder would
presumably have the right to sell it to them.
So the contest is simple. Send $70 (the basic domain registration
fee), plus whatever else the registry of your choice wants, to the DNS
registry of your choice. Today that's Network Solutions or
Register.com, though others will be up soon. Then sit back and wait.
If the domain name you register is the name that Bell chooses to
replace their existing name, post merger, then you get to negotiate
your own prize with them. Remember, you can enter as often as you
want.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Green <acg@datalogics.com>
Subject: Another Sprint Horror Story
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:40:53 -0500
Those of you who follow the adventures of Sprint in the marketplace
will definitely enjoy this tale from the "Shopping Avenger" in a
recent issue of the online magazine {Slate}:
http://www.slate.com/ShoppingAvenger/99-06-21/ShoppingAvenger.asp
Note that the column starts with a lengthy piece on Northwest Airlines;
scroll downwards to find the Sprint PCS section. A short excerpt of the
article:
> We will return to the issue of airlines in a future episode,
> but the Shopping Avenger would like to relate another tale that
> caught his attention this past month. The company in question is
> Sprint PCS, and the story most definitively does not end with an
> apology.
> In short strokes, the story goes like this: A customer, William
> Summerhill, an associate professor of history at UCLA, ordered
> two phones from Sprint PCS. He was billed for six -- weirdly, at
> three different prices (still another charge, for one cent, was also
> billed to his credit card by Sprint PCS). He fought the bill; Sprint
> PCS fought back, by phone and fax, wasting a good amount of time.
The entire episode is entertaining, slightly depressing, and classic
Sprint. :-)
Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331
Datalogics, Inc.
101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com
Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:38:28 -0400
In a recent trip trhough Outback Australia, I found out that some
microwave links are deemed unreliable and folks in remote communities
served by a long strong of MW towers often lose service during preiods
of high sun activity.
Also, Telstra is spending lots of money to string 5km of fiber from a
nearby solar repeater to a road house on the Stuart Highway to provide
a reliable connection (which would allow installation of newer
payphones etc).
This is what I was told. I had never heard that microwave links were
susceptible to sunspots etc.
Is that really the case ?
Or are these links "weak" to begin with and thus susceptible, compared
to "backbone" links using stronger towers etc ?
Also, I noticed that many of the remote towers used dishes made of
wire/mesh as opposed to a full metal dish. Does this make a difference?
------------------------------
From: wdg@hal-pc.org
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:31:52 GMT
Organization: You only wish you were this organized
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:23:39 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom Greg Abbott
<gabbott@prairienet.org> wrote:
> I didn't see if you mentioned what state you are in,
Texas
> but I'm pretty
> sure in Illinois that you may be opening yourself up to trouble by
> violating the overhear laws. Basically you are eavesdropping on the
> 9-1-1 calls from your building. You *might* be able to get around
> that by posting it for the employees to see and understand, but what
> about visitors? Do the coin phones in your building function the same
> way?
The employees know how the 911 system in the building works. And
goodness knows there's been enough 911 "tapes" of other incidents
played over the news media that I would surely by now think that
everyone knows that a conversation with the PSAP is hardly confidential.
As to the coin phone (singular) no, it is not behind the PBX and hence
does not function in the aforementioned manner. The lone paystation in
the building also doesn't have a very good record of "up time". It has
frequently been out of service for one reason or another (usually the
coin box is full). To date no one has ever placed a 911 call from that
phone (that I know of). However, my lobby barely qualifies as a public
place and one cannot get beyond the lobby without a magnetic-stripe
badge. Even escorted guests are issued their own magnetic badge and
must use them to pass through a guarded turnstile just to reach the
elevators. The entire building is controlled-access, save for the
lobby.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread and something that I
made sure *did* work was dialing 9-1-1 from a "house" phone. ie, one
which is otherwise restricted to placing only internal calls and
clearly marked as a "house" phone. My "house" phones can dial 9-1-1 as
well as 9-9-1-1, again with exact location info in real time. Can
yours?
As for the scenario described about the hypothetical heart patient or
sight-impaired person stuttering on the digits and misdialing, yes
that is certainly a possibility. However, I do not think it any
greater a possibility than the same person 'stuttering' on any of the
other digits. No 911 system operating behind a PBX is going to be
everything to everyone. I personally think my system is at least as
good as anything anyone else has to offer and far superior to what
most PBX operators are using (which is nothing at all).
> As a 9-1-1 system administrator, I would rather see the calls route
> directly and exclusively to the 9-1-1 center. I understand the
> costing argument and database update and so forth, I'm just talking
> about the call audio itself. I just have a little uneasiness (is that
> a word?) with the scenario as presented. On the other hand, at least
> the call will be completed to 9-1-1, unlike a lot of PBX systems.
Unlike most, you mean. I really believe the 911 vs. PBX issue is
going to become a focal point of attention before long. My PBX at
least makes a best effort in that the call is handed to the PSAP and
not intercepted. All we're doing with 911 call monitoring and trace
is to immediately identify the location and assist. The persons we
dispatch *are* qualified to deal with whatever the emergency is until
the paramedics/police/fire department arrive. If you ask me, the
industry is really behind the eight-ball and asleep at the switch. The
PBX 911 system I described to Pat in my original posting is a 13
year-old Mitel SX2000-SG and I've had 911 working through it as
detailed for the past five years.
In an office complex the size of mine it is imperative that building
security and building management keep their fingers on the pulse of what
takes place minute by minute. If anything occurs in the building that
warrants a 911 call, it is just as vital for us to be apprised of "who,
what and where" and respond as it is that the call also proceed to the
PSAP unencumbered. If I go down in flames, I'll do so with a clear
conscience.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Believe me, I have seen places which
were much smaller, much less security-driven, and with employees
not nearly as well trained as I suspect yours are who wanted to
sidetrack all the 911 calls because they were afraid that something
on their premises was happening behind their back that they would
otherwise miss out on. As I mentioned to Greg in the last episode of
this, every emergency responder is concerned that someone else in
the way is going to cause a problem. There were debates that went
on in Chicago for several months prior to the start of 911 about
whether or not the fire department could trust the police department
to handle fire calls as effeciently as their own; or if there was
a crunch on system resources, would the police favor their own
calls first to the detriment of the fire department, etc. There
were debates that went on for *years* over which tiny suburb out
of three sharing the same telephone exchange would be responsible
for the 911 calls of the other two. In the case of the Chicago Fire
Department at least, they were not just crying sour grapes over
some other agency cutting in on them; they had serious reservations
about it. Their attitude was that they had an important commitment
to the community; would they be able to meet it or not under the
proposed 911 plan. Some of the intial plans were re-written at the
request of the fire department; some procedural changes were made
which satisfied them.
I think -- not certain -- that University of Chicago diverts 911
on its PBXs ... they have an extremely huge phone system, it takes
up most of an Ameritech central office building which is located
a block south of the main part of the campus. I think also that
their police officers are sworn; that is, they have equal authority
to Chicago Police on their own property. That neighborhood in
Chicago has a very high rate of crime, violent and otherwise. If
your building security people were sworn officers of the law, then
of course it is all a moot point. You cannot get sued when your
officers respond in good faith.
I have to say I can see Greg Abbott's point of view though. 911 is
difficult enough without having good citizens trying to play doctor
or trying to play house detective without the proper training or
experience to do so. Diverting 911 should only be done in exceptional
cases, with well trained staff involved such as your own. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Kevin DeMartino <KDeMartino@drc.com>
Subject: Re: 150K by 2034: That Was a Typical Too-Conservative Opinion
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:43:43 -0400
I fell far behind in reading TELECOM Digest so that I am late in responding
to a thread that caught my attention. Paul Robinson wrote in V19 #74:
> Recently, Moderator Pat opined that by 2034 we could expect standard
> communication speeds of 150K for communications. . .
> So basically his opinion is that in 34 years we could see 150K
> communications speeds on lines that cost the current equivalent of $20
> using modems that probably cost about $100.
> Oh please. In maybe 15 years I've owned my own computer -- 1984 to
> 1999 -- I've seen the minimum speed go from 1200 baud to 56000, a
> factor of more than 40 times. Just using this figure as an estimate,
> figuring the original base figure of 1200 baud and doubling
> every three
> years, on average should give us a much higher rate than that. Taking
> the figure of 1200 baud and giving ten generations of
> doubling gives us
> "only" 1228800 bits/second, or about the equivalent of a T1 line. . .
> I'm going to go out on a limb and predict much higher
> numbers. I'll go OC3.
> I'll spell that out in simple terms. The average two-way
> communications
> line for in-home use will be the equivalent of
> 44megabits/second by 2034.
I pretty much agree. In fact, I would raise the estimate to 155 Mb/s
and predict that it will happen long before 2034.
Downstream data rates in the T1 range (1.5 Mb/s) can be achieved over
most twisted pair access lines in the U.S. using asymmetric digital
subscriber line (ADSL) techniques. (See Maxwell, IEEE Communications
Magazine, October 1996.) To reduce crosstalk, ADSL data rates in the
upstream direction are limited to typically about 10% of the
downstream data rate. This is ok for most clients, but not so good for
servers. Note that a data rate of 1.5 Mb/s is adequate for
transmitting VCR quality video compressed by MPEG-1 encoding. It would
be possible to transmit higher quality MPEG-2 video at data rates up
to 6 Mb/s in the downsteam direction on a significant percentage of
the twisted pair lines in the U.S.
The data rates can be further increased if ADSL is used in conjunction
with digital loop carrier (DLC) lines. With DLC, many subscriber
signals are multiplexed on a single line. For example, a cable
carrying hundreds of twisted pairs from the telephone central office
to a subscriber neighborhood can be replaced by a single fiber, which
reduces the average length of twisted pair access lines to less than
half a mile. This makes it possible to achieve downstream data rates
in excess of 20 Mb/s with ADSL.
Broadband integrated services digital networks (B-ISDN) are supposed
to provide data rates sufficient to support voice, data
communications, and video on a common network. The goal of B-ISDN is
to provide individual subscribers with a full duplex data rate of 155
Mb/s, the fundamental data rate of the synchronous digital hierarchy
(SDH). This is 3 times the fundamental synchronous optical network
(SONET) data rate (OC-1) and is sufficient to carry many video
channels. Data rates of 155 Mb/s and higher can be achieved if fiber
is run all the way from the central office to the subscribers'
premises.
In the near term (the next few years), downstream data rates of a few
Mb/s over telephone lines should become more readily available with
the deployment of ADSL and other DSL techniques. In the mid-term (10
years?), data rates of tens of Mb/s should be available with the
partial deployment of fiber into the subscriber loop. Eventually,
twisted pair access lines will go the way of vacuum tubes and be
replaced by a superior technology. This will take a long time and a
lot of money. My guess is 20 years for widespread deployment of fiber
all the way to the subscribers' premises in the U.S. At this point,
the equivalent of today's standard phone line will provide the
subscriber with a data rate of 155 Mb/s (OC-3) or higher.
Kevin DeMartino
Dynamics Research Corporation
kdemartino@drc.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #162
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 15:10:12 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA26287;
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:10:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:10:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906231910.PAA26287@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #163
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 15:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 163
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number (Steven)
Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in (Bob Keller)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Bob Keller)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (JF Mezei)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Jack Decker)
Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 (jbyrn)
Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (Terry Kennedy)
Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Dave Close)
Re: "Name That Domain" Contest (Andrew)
Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Carl Moore)
Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Ron Walter)
Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Robert A. Rosenberg)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven)
Subject: Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:26:09 +0800
Organization: Prima Computer
All the switches I have seen record the pin on the inbound connection
and the outbound connection. With those two CDRs it is trivial to
match them up. Not all switches match the inbound port with the
outbound port though. The result is that if there are two people
using the same pin then you don't know which one called which number.
The moral of this story is that is you are going to blow something up
buy codes from a guy on the street corner, not prepaid from 7/Eleven.
Steven
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I have never seen a 7/Eleven store
or any other convenience store type place which bothered to ask for
names, let alone request identification when selling those cards. I
do not think any of them bother to match the PIN on the card they sell
with any name in any event. So if I happen to drive down the highway
and pull into some combination service station/roadhouse/convenience
store kind of place, buy a card then drive off and use it elsewhere,
what possible assistance could be given to someone who was looking
to find out who made a phone call? It might be as realistic trying
to lift fingerprints off of coins dropped in the coinbox or lift
fingerprints from the telephone receiver.
Now, if someone is already in custody and you wish to 'prove' that the
person made a certain phone call, I suppose you could find the PIN
used with that phone call, detirmine which store sold the card with
that PIN then go to the convenience store along the highway and show a
picture of the person in custody to all the clerks and eventually find
some clerk who would agree that the person in the picture looked like
the person who purchased the card. But I still think that is quite a
stretch; how many people that you had a casual, one-time thirty second
relationship with a couple months ago can you describe at all, let
alone in any detail? Naturally, I suppose that if police were detirmined
to convict some one person or another, they would do their best to
'help' the store clerk 'remember' what the person looked like, etc.
I would think possession of the card by the person arrested would be
far more damning evidence than anything gained by trying to backtrack
on the sale from the PIN two or three months later would be. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:47:37 -0700
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage)
In TELECOM Digest V19 #160, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman <joel@exc.com> wrote:
> But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in
> Orange County, NY, and ometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I
> try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a
> credit card.
Ah2a! There's another loophole they can use. Even as currently
described on the AT&T Wireless web site: "The AT&T Digital One Rate
Calling Plan rates are not available for calls which require a credit
card or operator assistance to complete." I'll bet dollars to donuts
that what happens is, if they don't have a roaming agreement with the
carrier whose signal has got you, you get diverted to the credit card
taker, and then you are going to be paying roaming charges and long
distance charges.
Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com> (www.his.com/~rjk)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:39:10 -0700
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
In TELECOM Digest V19 #159, Bill "Wrong Number" <Wrong@home.net>
wrote:
> Bob ... although I don't have a copy of the AT&T Wireless contract
> with me AND I have NO love loss for them on the AT&T Wireless Digital
> One Rate Plan(s) you don't pay ANY roaming or long distance.
May well be true now. I don't have a copy of a contract either, and I
just visited the web site (www.attws.com), and if you look at things
there (including the coverage maps) it certainly appears to be what
they claim. But when I first started looking into these various "one
rate" plans (no roaming, no long distance), a client of mine who was
one of the early subscribers to the AT&T Wireless Digital One Rate
plan warned me that he did in fact get nailed for roaming charges when
he wandered into analog cellular coverage areas not affiliated with
AT&T Wireless.
The service contract I examined back then did have some carefully
chosen words ... something to the effect of no roaming, long distance
"while on the AT&T Wireless digital network". I took that to be the
caveat that allowed them to get away with it, so I opted for the Bell
Atlantic Mobile plan because (a) the price was slightly better, and
(b) the contractual language regarding no roaming, no long distance
appeared to be unequivocal. So far that has proven to be the case.
<knock wood>
Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com> (www.his.com/~rjk)
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:19:56 -0400
Ed Ellers wrote:
> What's the alternative? Should we always do what the rest of the
> world tells us to do, and hold off on all technical advances until the
> rest of the world gets around to endorsing them?
The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America
was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom?????
> I contend that we as a nation are better off choosing our own
> standards, evaluating what other nations' industries are doing on
> their own merits, but going it alone when that is in our best
> interest.
The only folks who have benefitted from the US' not-invented-here
syndrome are Quallcomm. Motorola has been building GSM phones overseas
for very long. So they have to constantly duplicate phone designs
instead just distributing the same phone design worldwide (with just
frequency changes).
As a result, US companies don't actually export much since they've
built their GSM facilities abroad so the US loses export
potential. The upside of this are foreign companies such as Nokia and
Ericcsson building phones in the USA for the USA market only.
> If that means Americans can't take their wireless phones
> overseas, and foreign visitors can't use their wireless phones here, I
> just don't see that as more than a minor inconvenience.
Tell that to companies that need to duplicate software and services
because there isn't a single way to send data to phones in the USA due
to there being various incompatible protocols (some of which don't
even support phones sending SMS messages).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 23:20:45 -0400
From: Jack Decker <jack@novagate.REMOVE-THIS.com.content.net>
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) wrote:
> After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had
> taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network."
> Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia.
> A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait),
> suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia".
[...snip...]
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all
> cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to
> Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company.
[subsequent messages contained numerous examples to show this is not
the case.]
My take on this: From any given line, all calls to any 1-700 number
are sent directly to the customer's presubscribed interLATA carrier -
that is to say, the REAL carrier, not the reseller. The carrier then
decides what to do with a call to any particular 1-700 number.
So in this case, I would guess that the REAL carrier is Frontier
Network. But Frontier has Destia as a reseller, and they have told
Destia to give their customers the 9499 number to verify that the
service has been switched. If you were previously an AT&T or MCI
customer (for example) and your local phone company has not yet
changed your PIC, and you dial the 9499 number, you'll get a recording
from your previous carrier (depending on how THEY route calls to
9499).
My guess would also be that any genuine Frontier Network customer
would get the Destia recording if dialing 9499. And if Frontier has
other resellers, you might get their recordings by trying different
suffixes (my logical mind would start trying other combinations of
9x99, where x is something other than "4").
Of course, if Frontier wanted to do it in a more sophisticated way,
they could examine the ANI on any call to the standard 1-700-555-4141
number, and do a database dip to see which of their resellers (if any)
have that line, and then deliver an appropriate recording. I suspect
that this would be what larger carriers (such as any of the "Big 3")
do for their resellers. You dial 1-700-555-4141, and the first thing
they do is check your number to see which reseller's recording you
should receive. But for whatever reason, Frontier apparently doesn't
do it that way, they simply give each of their resellers a different
700 number to use with their customers. Of course there is a risk
here, in that if you move from one Frontier reseller (or Frontier
itself) to a different one, the recording will give you no clue as to
who Frontier currently thinks should be your reseller -- it will just
happily deliver the recording of the reseller associated with whatever
1-700-555 number you dialed.
Disclaimer: This is all just speculation on my part -- I am just
"guessing out loud" as it were. If I figured it out, great. But be
aware that what I have said above may not bear any resemblance at all
to the actual reality of the situation! :-)
Jack
(Make the obvious modification to my e-mail address to reply privately.)
------------------------------
From: jbyrn <jbyrn@mciworld.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:58:48 -0500
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com
someone@teleport.com wrote in message ...
> Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database
> (which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who
> else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland
> Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)?
MCI Worldcom offers local dial tone for businesses in Portland, but I
don't know about residential. You should contact their local sales
office to see if it is available -- if so, I'm sure it will be
significantly cheaper (and no LNP charges on your bill).
------------------------------
From: Terry Kennedy <terry@spcunb.spc.edu>
Subject: Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:45:46 GMT
J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes:
> This is what I was told. I had never heard that microwave links were
> susceptible to sunspots etc. Is that really the case?
One Northeast Internet provider used to operate a microwave backbone
(as far as I know, it's been retired for some time). DECUS used to be
connected to that provider, and whenever there was snow/rain/fog,
connectivity would slow to a crawl.
I used to have a feed to a satellite uplink that used microwave from
SPC to some point west of Newark Airport, and whenever a plane flew
through the path, we'd get snow in the signal.
> Or are these links "weak" to begin with and thus susceptible, compared
> to "backbone" links using stronger towers etc ?
Signal strength plays a part in it, as does the amount of bandwidth
you are willing to sacrifice for error correction. Also, temporary
installations (like TV news trucks) combine low power with less-stable
antennas, which is why you see odd effects on the news.
Were the rural stations you saw self-powered (for example, solar) or
was there a utility grid in place? If they're self-powered, that would
explain the low-power operation.
> Also, I noticed that many of the remote towers used dishes made of
> wire/mesh as opposed to a full metal dish. Does this make a difference?
Not much. It depends on the frequency used and the wire spacing of
the mesh, but they're pretty similar in performance to the solid ones
if chosen properly. The mesh is used for wind/snow/etc. resistance.
Digging up the ground for fiber is a one-time expense (modulo
repairs from errant backhoes), but you can put *vastly* more data over
fiber. The largest fiber I've seen going in around here is
432-strand. Given that you build redundant diverse paths, that's 864
strands between two points. Assuming OC-48 data rates and redundant
fiber pairs, you get 216 OC-48's, which is about seven million
simultaneous voice calls (traditional, without compression). Newer
equipment is either OC-192 (giving 28 million simultaneous calls) or
DWDM. A 16-wavelength DWDM system w/ each wavelength running at OC-48
speeds would give 112 million simultaneous phone calls. I think that
somewhere along here we exceeded the total population of Australia
... And this is just two cables that are less than 2" in diameter. Of
course, nobody would use these for 112 million phone calls - they use
them for data. But cables of this size are being installed regularly
in places like New York City.
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
+1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX)
------------------------------
From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close)
Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier
Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:46:48 GMT
Stan Schwartz <stannc.no1spam@yahoo.com> writes:
> Once the NANP standardizes on NPA+7D dialing for local calls, 1+NPA+7D
> should be used for "a toll may apply". However, that only seems
> logical (to me) so it could never work.
I'm starting to see advertisements for flat-rate long-distance
service, something I have been predicting for several years. The
general plan offered today is some amount of money for some number of
minutes of LD to anywhere in the US, per month. I continue to predict
that there will be additional varieties of calling plans offered,
eventually leading to one all-inclusive monthly fee for calling
anywhere for any length of time. Sprint PCS's Toll-Free USA and AT&T's
One Rate plans are leading the way.
There will also be less distinction in the future between landline and
cellular phones. Already, some customers are using a cellphone as
their only phone. As some local service is offered through stationery
wireless devices, the distinction will erode further. Pricing plans
will also come into competition with each other. Right now, we accept
as natural that local calling areas for cell phones are generally
larger than for landline phones in the same area. Soon, that will seem
very strange.
The only thing slowing this trend is the unholy alliance between the
landline carriers and the regulators. Rate center boundaries are set
by regulation and new landline carriers are forced to conform. The
pressure to change will become too strong to resist as wireless and
landline carriers come into direct competition. Ultimately, each
carrier will determine it's own rate structures, and will change them
in response to competitive pressures.
When every phone potentially has a different calling plan and a
different rate structure, toll alerting becomes a much more
complicated issue. Fortunately, it also becomes a much less
significant issue as the cost of toll calls drops, possibly to zero. I
believe that those folks who are promoting 1+ toll alerting are living
in the past and fighting the last war. The issue today, IMHO, is my
present inability to dial any number from anywhere using the same
string of digits.
-- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting
dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without
dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." -
P. J. O'Rourke
------------------------------
From: andrew@3.1415926.org (Andrew)
Subject: Re: "Name That Domain" Contest
Date: 23 Jun 1999 15:37:12 GMT
Organization: gte-ba.com Industries
Fred R. Goldstein (FGOLDSTEIN@wn1.wn.net) wrote:
> It's not cybersquatting ... it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening,
> and it could be worth a big prize! All you have to do is guess the
> new corporate name that Bell Atlantic will be adopting if/when they
> merge with GTE.
Thank you for the heads up! I have just entered gte-ba.com and
gte-ba.net in the contest. Wish me luck!
Andrew
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, okay, good luck ... but are you
are they will not try to claim some ownership of the letters 'GTE'
when arranged in that order? If so, they could sic their lawyers
on you. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:34:44 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out?
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response:
> TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the
> 99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth
> day of the ninth month of year 99?
I did see reference to 9 April 1999 (99th day of '99) somewhere!
However, it was not in an article dated 13 Sept 1998 (forwarded in a
message dated two days later) in a TELECOM Digest. THAT article has the
following items between now and 1 Jan 2000 (and notice Sept 9, 1999,
a/k/a "9-9-99"):
Aug. 21, 1999: The GPS rollover problem;
Sept. 9, 1999: The 9999 end-of-file problem;
Oct. 1, 1999: The federal fiscal year 2000 problem.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the 'federal fiscal year 2000
problem' is a problem in more ways than one: In addition to not
knowing for sure if their computers are going to start when they
come to work that day, the whole operation is bankrupt (in more
ways than one!) as well. I suppose if they can get their computers
cranked up and started, they will just ignore the other problems as
they always have. Can you imagine any private business or individual
having debt as out of proportion to their income as does the federal
government NOT being forced by its creditors into bankruptcy? PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:01:48 -0500
From: Ron Walter <ronw@capcittel.com>
Organization: Capitol City Telephone, Inc.
Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out?
> Responding to an article forwarded to the Digest early last November:
> We've already passed April 9, 1999 (noted as the 99th day of '99).
> Anything happen then? Don't get complacent even if it did go
> smoothly.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the
> 99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth
> day of the ninth month of year 99?
From what little programming I've done, I'm not too concerned about
either. The 99th day of 1999 would usually show as 09999. September
9 would usually be 090999. While some might have written some more
complex code to allow them to eliminate the zeroes in the date fields,
and in those cases it does show all nines, that probably won't make
much difference because the next question would be whether the date
field would be the field that the program is looking for the nines in.
I heard some great predictions about Y2K. 40,000 businesses will fail
due to Y2K. That's about how many businesses fail each year, but Y2K
becomes a convenient excuse. Stores will run out of food. Shoot, as
scared as everyone's getting, they'll be running on the stores in
December running them out of food. There will be rioting. Well,
about the first of the year some college team wins a National
Championship and there's usually rioting to follow (except after
Nebraska's wins).
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There will not be any rioting because
the government will not permit any rioting. As I write this, some
Big Tough Marines are in daily combat and riot control training in
Virginia whose mission starting at the end of this year will be to
see to it that you behave yourself, take what is given to you and
be grateful. And if you cannot behave yourself, then they will be
authorized to shoot you dead and give your little box of supplies
including food, drinking water and a roll of toilet paper to some
other citizen who needs it as much as yourself who *did* behave.
I suspect most of the disturbances in the USA will occur during the
day and evening of December 31 as reports filter back from places
like Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. If reports come back
that they are having service interuptions, computer failures and
the like -- and of course you know that radio, television and this
Digest will be bringing you live coverage all day from those places
to help you stay informed -- then that will get the Americans all
the more frantic and hysterical. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:05:42 -0400
From: Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9001@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out?
Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL> wrote:
> Responding to an article forwarded to the Digest early last November:
> We've already passed April 9, 1999 (noted as the 99th day of '99).
> Anything happen then? Don't get complacent even if it did go
> smoothly.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the
> 99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth
> day of the ninth month of year 99? I had heard it was to be the
> latter, a few days after Labor Day there would be trouble. Well I
> guess no one knows for sure, and all we can do is hope for the best,
> that there will be massive outages and computer failures; that the
> government will be in shambles; that people everywhere will riot and
> loot all the stores looking for food and beverages to drink and that
> the telephone system will shut down.
It is supposed to be both. One is for YYDDD (DDD'th day of "year" 99)
and the other is MMDDYY/YYMMDD (9th Month and 9th day of "year"
99). Both are erroneous as the patterns show. DDD is _3_ not _2_
digits (or we'd have a 99 day year) so the CORRECT date is
99_0_99. The same goes for MMDD since there are 12 (not 9) months and
28-31 days in a month (not just 9). These dates being considered
"dangerous" is due to computer-illiterates confusing fixed
length/format dates (which the computer uses) with free length/form
dates (which humans use). With human readable the date ends with the
blank and a date is from 4 to 6 digits long (plus 2 separators ["-",
".", or "/").
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #163
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 17:51:09 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA03283;
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906232151.RAA03283@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #164
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 17:51:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 164
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs (Charles B. Wilber)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Tom Betz)
Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Eric Morson)
Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Andrew Emmerson)
Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Martin Tibbitts)
Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Anthony Argyriou)
Calling in Seattle (Babu Mengelepouti)
Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (Eric Morson)
Re: 10-10-220 (Dave Stott)
Re: Another Sprint Horror Story (James Gifford)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 (Daniel McDonald)
Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer? (Afshin David Youssefyeh)
Cell Phone Call Tracing Question (Dan S. Wirsky)
IXC Notification of NPA Changes (Phil Smiley)
Difference Between NAC and NIC (Alonzo Alcazar)
Search Engine For "thedirectory" Prefix List Requested (David Perrussel)
Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Carl Moore)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: 22 Jun 1999 09:59:33 EDT
From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Reply-To: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs
TELECOM Digest Editor noted:
> So Greg, I do understand your position very well, but I also empha-
> thize with persons whose responsibilities include managing large
> institutional properties, etc and who must, absolutely without
> question for legal reasons be 'on top of' or aware and responsive
> to every single incident which occurs on their premises. That is
> why I said his passing of calls explicitly to 911 unhindered while
> still monitoring them so that his own security representatives and
> other trained personnel listened and began responding was probably
> the best things could get. And after all, when your people get a
> call reporting a fire and patch it through, *they* stay on the line
> and listen don't they? After all, police may very well be needed to
> assist firemen in an evacuation or crowd-control, etc. So what
> is the difference? PAT]
As PBX manager and E-911 administrator for a large college, I can pass
on to your readers that a significant number of people, both potential
E-911 users and those charged with examining legal issues for our
institution, have expressed serious concerns about privacy regarding
911 calls. There is strong feeling among some that the 911 dispatch
center (PSAP) and *only* the dispatch center should be privy to the
details of a live 911 call. Emergency personnel can still be
immediately dispatched to the scene of an emergency without hearing
the actual voice content of the call. The nature of the emergency can
even be mentioned without the actual voice of the reporting party
being heard by anyone other than PSAP personnel.
There are those who feel that such live monitoring of emergency calls
by "extraneous" persons constitutes a serious breach of privacy and an
unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion. As always in cases like this,
the "proof" is in the jury verdict, though.
Charlie Wilber
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you do not hear the voice of the
reporting party, exactly *who* then tells you the nature of the
emergency, and whether you want the firemen, the nurse, or your
security representatives to respond? Or do they all respond? If a
person is on your property and that person has sufficient legal
standing to sue you afterward (yes, I realize anyone can sue anyone
else for any reason; the court will rule on its legitimacy) then
I would hardly consider you to be an 'extraneous' person in the
event. And if there must be a breach of privacy or an unwarranted
intrusion is it better that the entire institution be disrupted in
its activities with students/employees/others wandering about, gaping
and looking and getting in the way of emergency responders because
management was blissfully unaware of the matter until the firemen
pulled in the driveway with sirens blaring only to discover that
the 'emergency' consists of a malicious pull on an alarm box?
Emergencies are of legitimate concern to any community, and a
person who declares that an emergency exists -- which is the ONLY
reason 911 should EVER be called; when a situation exists in which
immediate intervention is required -- is hardly in a position to
say that their particular emergency is their own private business
and that their privacy was invaded by community knowledge of the
event. If that is the case, they had no business dialing 911. I
am sure Greg Abbott, if he wishes to write again, can relate all
sorts of horror stories about people abusing 911, calling for the
damnedest things that had nothing to do with whether or not a
police officer or firefighter was expected to rush off to the
scene with no assurance he would come out of it alive and go home
to his own family that night. Every 911 agency deals with that all
the time.
Police maintain administrative seven digit numbers (or as noted a
couple days ago, just dial PIG and the four digit extension of the
one you want to speak with) to discuss things that happened yesterday,
things that might happen tomorrow or general, non-specific complaints
about your neighbors, or people of other religions, lifestyles, etc
that you happen to dislike. 911 is only to be used for things
happening right now which require intervention right now. You should
never monitor police admin calls for any reason; that *is* an
invasion of the caller's privacy, but why is a call to 911 where
the person screams FIRE! any different than a person who runs through
the hallway of your premises shouting FIRE! The community has the
right to knowledge and involvement in either case.
And I ask again: without hearing the voice on the phone as it
describes its emergency, intervention needed now, situation, how do
you know who among your staff is best suited to respond? I am sure
911 does not call you back to say the caller reported smelling smoke
somewhere, or that a suspicious man was loitering somewhere.
It is always so much fun to listen to the police scanner, even though
police usually do not appreciate citizens listening to them, because
of the perfectly marvelous 'emergencies' you hear about that would
never be known otherwise. Even the dispatchers and responding officers
treat some of them very casually and joke about them which I guess
you have to do to keep your own sanity. If you stopped for a minute to
cry or pray or anything else you would never be of any value in that
line of work, especially in a larger city where calls to 911 and radio
dispatches are like an assembly line, one after another seconds apart
around the clock. PAT]
------------------------------
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
Date: 23 Jun 1999 17:49:58 GMT
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email
Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com
Quoth Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) in <telecom19.160.9@telecom-digest.org>:
>> A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait),
>> suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia".
>> Is one number for intra-LATA calling and the other for out of LATA?
>> Is there a difference between the numbers?
> FWIW, I tried 1-700-555-9499 from both of my home phones, here in
> suburban Philadelphia (Bell Atlantic-land).
> On line #1, subscribed to Worldcom (from the pre-MCI days) yields
"Thank you for using MCI ..."
> On line #2, subscribed to Sprint, "[SIT TONES] We're sorry, you have
> reached a number that has been disconnected, or is no longer in
> service ..."
> Evidently, the call is handed off to the PIC'ed carrier, since the two
> lines produced different results. What happens then is anyone's
> guess.
Here, we just switched over to Frontier via CTC. On half our lines,
both those numbers correctly identify our LD carrier as Frontier.
On the other half, as soon as I have dialed 1-700-555 I get [SIT
TONES] "We're sorry, your call can not be completed as dialed ..."
CTC hasn't come up with an explanation yet; can anyone else
here give me a clue?
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>| YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED!
------------------------------
From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:02:30 -0400
Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID
I have SNET local service in CT and MCI Long Distance for Intra- and
Interstate calls on all four of my lines.
When I dial (700) 555-4141, two of my lines say "Thank you for
selecting MCI-Worldcom", and the other two1 say "Your long distance
service is now connected". All accounts were set up directly via MCI,
not any reseller.
Why would there be any difference at all, and what does the generic
message mean? All accounts are confirmed active with MCI and billing
is error free, despite the generic message on 2 of 4 lines.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all
> cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to
> Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company.
I did try dialing (700) 555-9499 and got a trunk busy signal.
Eric B. Morson
Co-Webmaster
AreaCode-Info.com
EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please note however that with 4141 you
can force it to say whatever you want by dialing the appropriate
carrier access code first instead of the 1+ default. PAT]
------------------------------
From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson)
Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Date: 22 Jun 1999 11:48:21 GMT
Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange
Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk
> If your name is on that phone bill then you are the only one who can
> authorize it. Otherwise I say that you were slammed.
Precisely. Once a contract is made, it can only be varied by the two
parties who originally made it. Nobody else can alter the terms of that
contract. This is a fundamental point of law (Well, it is here in
Britain!).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:26:02 -0400
From: Martin Tibbitts <mjt@lcrtelecom.com>
Organization: LCR Telecommunications, LLC
Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Call the carrier and ask to listen to the verification tape. If the
verification system asked whether (your wife) is authorized to make
changes to the line, and she says "yes", then you don't have a lot of
ground to stand on, as the carrier wouldn't know that she is not, and
the name of the authorizer is *not* sent ot the LECs as part of the
PIC request.
My company is an LD reseller, and I handle provisioning, so this is
pretty first hand. So, assuming that she did authorize it, it would
be a legal switch. My suggestion is ask the LEC to put a PIC freeze
on your account. Then only you can switch carriers. But you have to
do it by calling the LEC yourself ... you can't authorize someone else
to do it in your name.
Martin Tibbitts
LCR Telecommunications, LLC
------------------------------
From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:57:51 GMT
Organization: Alpha Geotechnical
Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com
srini_v@my-deja.com wrote:
> A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and
> talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was
> switched to the new company.
> My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch.
> The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized
> list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to
> my local telephone company a year back.
> My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch,
> is it legal?
If you were in California, and I was the slammer's lawyer, I'd argue
it was legal (as long as I could make the case that your wife did
authorize the change). California is a community property state, and I
believe that the wife's authorization would hold up. However, IANAL.
Anthony Argyriou
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:50:05 -0700
From: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>
Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
Organization: US Secret Service
Subject: Calling in Seattle
Actually, if it is a local call in the Seattle area and you dial 1+,
the call will not be billed as a long distance call. It simply will
not go through. Seven or ten digits is permissive for local calls
originating and terminating in 206, 425 or 253. You must dial ten
digits from one NPA to the other (e.g. 425-885-8080 to call Microsoft
from Seattle). The one caveat is that if you dial a carrier access
code plus 1-206 (or 425 or 253) the long distance carrier *will* bill
you at their intraLATA rate. There is no "free" calling if you route
something through a carrier access code, so be sure that it's actually
long distance before you get that "great" 10-10-whatever rate!
------------------------------
From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:31 -0400
Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan
Joel,
Some phones offer a way to see the SID you are connected to at the
given moment. Look in your manual to see if there's a way to SCAN
SID. This should help you determine what signal you are using. Also
set your phone to SCAN A. On the AT&T Wireless plans, the A Band is
preferred. If you are NOT Scanning A only, you may move to B, in which
case you'll have NO digital signal at all, just analog, since BAM
offers CDMA. AT&T as you know is TDMA, making your phone unable to use
digital when it acquires a B Band signal.
On the Motorola StarTac, the shortcut is FCN 1-2-7 STO
For some Audiovox phones (850-855 series) FNC 81
In Orange County NY, BAM is SID 486, AT&T is SID 1513.
Eric B. Morson
Co-Webmaster
AreaCode-Info.com
EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:14:56 -0700
From: Dave Stott <dstott@2help.com>
Subject: Re: 10-10-220
In TELECOM Digest # 160, leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis)wrote:
> In article <telecom19.124.7@telecom-digest.org>, Joel B Levin wrote:
>> That's just a restatement of the pricing as advertised: "Any call up
>> to 20 minutes for 99 cents, then ten cents a minute." The catch is
>> that it's a great rate when the call is over 12 minutes, but very
>> expensive to make a couple of one minute calls with. If you plan to
>> talk for 20 minutes, and get the answering machine instead, you're
>> screwed for the whole 99 cents anyhow.
> Convenience aside, it seems that the idea or possibility of using one
> carrier to make sure the other party is at home, then using another
> carrier for a long call, escapes some people completely.
and Pat replied:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Leo, there is a limit to what
> effort most people will go to to save a few cents, and a few cents
> is what it comes down to these days with most carriers. At the
> end of the month your long distance bill was two dollars less because
> you incovenienced your called party by dialing once then telling him
> to hang up and wait for your next call a few seconds later, etc.
My son, who is 16, has a girlfriend in California. When it's her
night to call, we can expect the phone to ring at about 11pm; if he
answers, we can expect another call in about 60 seconds. They take
turns calling and since they are (each) spending somewhere between $75
and $100 per month on this long-distance relationship, they find it
quite useful to do the 10-cent "are you home" first-minute call, then
call back on the 20-minute-for-99-cent carrier. The phone rings about
half a ring every 20 minutes after that for about the next hour or
two.
I admire their resourcefulness.
Dave Stott
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have a specific situation in
mind such as you describe, where there will be a large amount of
calling on a schedule and it is known in advance, then what they are
doing is good. I was referring more however to the casual long
distance call to a friend that you happen to think about and happen
to call once or twice a month for thirty minutes or so at a time.
The application is all important, as always. PAT]
------------------------------
From: James Gifford <gifford@nitrosyncretic.com>
Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com
Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press
Subject: Re: Another Sprint Horror Story
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:39:03 GMT
Andrew Green wrote:
>> In short strokes, the story goes like this: A customer, William
>> Summerhill, an associate professor of history at UCLA, ordered
>> two phones from Sprint PCS. He was billed for six -- weirdly, at
>> three different prices (still another charge, for one cent, was also
>> billed to his credit card by Sprint PCS). He fought the bill; Sprint
>> PCS fought back, by phone and fax, wasting a good amount of time.
I'd like to thank the members of this group for keeping me from making
a horrible mistake. I just changed two accounts from analog to PCS,
and I had been considering Sprint for one of them. Silly me. :)
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ |
| and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" |
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: 23 Jun 1999 15:17:14 -0400
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom19.163.4@telecom-digest.org>, J.F. Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Ed Ellers wrote:
>> What's the alternative? Should we always do what the rest of the
>> world tells us to do, and hold off on all technical advances until the
>> rest of the world gets around to endorsing them?
> The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America
> was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom?????
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. AMPS was designed and first built in
the *1970s*.
I'd be interested to know the date when the total geographic area
covered by GSM equalled that covered by AMPS. I'd have to guess early
90's, though I'd be interested to know otherwise ...
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
------------------------------
From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald)
Subject: Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503
Date: 23 Jun 1999 19:43:38 GMT
Organization: Illuminati Online
In article <telecom19.163.6@telecom-digest.org>, jbyrn
<jbyrn@mciworld.com> wrote:
> someone@teleport.com wrote:
>> Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database
>> (which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who
>> else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland
>> Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)?
> MCI Worldcom offers local dial tone for businesses in Portland, but I
> don't know about residential. You should contact their local sales
> office to see if it is available -- if so, I'm sure it will be
> significantly cheaper (and no LNP charges on your bill).
Electric Lightwave also offers service in Portland.
Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX
Digicon Technologies, Inc
dmcdonald@digicontech.com
------------------------------
From: Afshin David Youssefyeh <kashi@ibm.net>
Subject: Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:28:02 -0700
Having read one more story about cellular phones causing brain tumors:
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20321.html
I have gone over the edge and decided to do something about it. For
me, this was the last straw! This week I am going to get a handsfree
kit and an ear piece for when I carry it around. Am I being overly
cautious? Also, one of my good friends told me today that because it
uses CDMA spread spectrum, Sprint PCS is the lesser of the cellular
evils. Is this true?
-Afshin Youssefyeh
------------------------------
From: dswirsky@netscape.net (Dan S. Wirsky)
Subject: Cell Phone Call Tracing Question
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:54:11 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
A relative of mine was robbed in her apartment. The attacker knocked
on the door and asked for the telephone number of the previous tenant.
The victim gave him the number and then he dialed something with his
cell phone and said that there was no answer. He then beat and robbed
her.
The police got a warrant to check all incoming calls to the previous
tenant's number at the time of the attack in order to trace back to the
attacker's cellular phone. However, he was apparently not foolish
enough to actually dial the previous tenant's number.
I want to try a different tack. I want to know if the cellular
telephone company's database stores the identity of the cell from
which a phone call is made as part of the record of the phone call.
If this is the case, the police might try to get a warrant for all
phone numbers that made an outgoing call from the cell that covered
her apartment at the time of the robbery.
Until they catch the guy she feels very unsafe in and around her
apartment. I'd really appreciate any help I can get.
Thanks,
Dan
------------------------------
From: Phil Smiley <epsmiley@epix.net>
Subject: IXC Notification of NPA Changes
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:08:46 GMT
Whose responsibility is it to tell an LD Carrier that an area code is
splitting, overlaying etc. Does the local telco have any responsibility
in telling the IXCs?
------------------------------
From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar)
Subject: Difference Between NAC and NIC
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:05:44 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
What is the difference between NAC (network application card) and a
NIC(network interface card)?
Thanks a lot for any help.
alonzo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:01:38 EDT
From: David Perrussel <prefix@softhome.net>
Subject: Search Engine For "thedirectory" Prefix List Requested
As some of you who are regulars to the TELCOM DIGEST or the
comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup may already know, "thedirectory"
(www.thedirectory.org), the largest listing of Internet Providers and
web hosting companies, also runs a section on their website where
people can find ratecenter names for a particular area code and prefix
(NPA-NXX) combination.
For the the last three years, users have been able to look up a
ratecenter name from lists of prefixes (one web page for each area
code) for the United States and Canada. This has been a public service
of "thedirectory" and we plan to continue this service free of charge,
especially since AT&T started charging 99 cents per request for NPA-NXX
information via their new "Double-O" directory service.
We would like to start using a search engine so users can find the
ratecenter names easier. The search engine would accept an NPA and NXX
combo and return the ratecenter name and type of service (i.e. CLEC,
cellular, PCS, etc) from our database. We would like to use a
delimited ASCII list - but can also use, dBase/Foxpro .DBF files
or Excel .XLS files if need be.
Our problem is - we are database researchers and maintainers but know
nothing about web page CGI scripts. If anyone out there knows of a
program or script that can run a Windows NT based webserver that can
be easily modified to perform such a task, we would like to know about
it. Or, if anyone can modify one and send it to us it would be most
appreciated.
The sooner we get the search engine on line, the sooner we can put
the updates on the web. (We have TONS of updates and additions!)
Please E-mail me at either address below. Thanks in advance.
Dave Perrussel
Assistant Webmaster - "thedirectory" of Internet Providers and
Web Hosting companies
Web: http//www.thedirectory.org
E-Mail: prefix@softhome.net or bbscorner@thedirectory.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:04:38 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament
I have been hearing the word "beeper" regarding what Phil Mikkelsen
(sp) was carrying when he played the just-concluded U.S. Open (golf)
in North Carolina. (He lost, and made it back to Arizona on time for
his wife giving birth to a daughter yesterday, Monday 21 June.) I take
it he used vibrator mode only!
I have seen cell-phone prohibitions posted for the LPGA McDonald's
tournament in Wilmingon, Delaware, and also for the arts center there
on South Madison Street (I was in the latter on Sunday looking at the
Meiji Japanese exhibit) -- but neither had a note posted about pagers!
I was referred back to the cloakroom check at the arts center when I
mentioned that I had a pager, but heard (as I had suggested in THIS
forum earlier) that it was OK in vibrator mode only. I have had
libraries, church services, theater events, etc. to consider as well,
so I have commonly used vibrator mode anyway.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #164
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 21:08:11 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA11417;
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:08:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:08:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906240108.VAA11417@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #165
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 21:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 165
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
A VISA Card From Merrick Bank With a Catch to It (TELECOM Digest Editor)
GSM Interception (Babu Mengelepouti)
Questions on How Billing and Rating Are Actually Done (Carl E. Huth)
Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (John Levine)
Microwave Oven Interference (jcheah@my-deja.com)
Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Steve Howell)
LD Carriers Question (Howard Kaikow)
Bellheads vrs. Netheads (Richard Shockey)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:22:12 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: A VISA Card From Merrick Bank With a Catch to It
Until about ten years ago, having a VISA or Mastercard meant that
you had reasonably a reasonably good credit standing, at least
at the time you applied for the card. VISA/MC never did have quite
the stringent credit requirements which applied to Amex or Diners
Club, but they were always ahead of the cards issued by oil companies
to motorists where just about anyone who had a car was able to get
a credit card from the oil companies of his choice unless his credit
was really, really bad. VISA/MC was about equal with Discover, the
card which had its origins in the Sears, Roebuck Company as their
store credit card under the Sears name until it expanded and began
appearing in the same places as the other big credit issuers cards.
VISA/MC were considered such symbols of good credit standing that
quite a few department stores in the 1980's and early 1990's used
them as a way to convert credit card users without the hassle and
expense involved in validating credit-worthy customers. Many chains
had 'instant credit' promotions where if a customer presented a
VISA/MC (or Amex or Diners card) as payment, the store clerk was
instructed to ask the customer, 'would you like a credit card from
our store?' and if the answer was yes, the customer's signature on
a small form was all it took; credit was issued on the spot for
the merchandise and anywhere from two to three weeks later, the
customer would receive plastic in the mail from that chain store,
with his original purchase of course already on the bill. No further
credit investigation was done; no further credit application was
required. The store *did* have to have the customer's signature on
file since federal law forbids the unsolicited issuance of credit
cards without the consumer's okay.
Ah, the stories that could be told from the middle 1960's when
VISA first got started as 'Bank Americard' and the millions of
dollars in writeoffs they had to eat as a result of their unsophis-
ticated practices in those days is good for another day ... but
by the 1980's they had gotten sophisticated enough that merchants
who wanted to issue their own cards without the expense of setting
them up and also to avoid the two or three percent discount that
VISA/MC applied to purchases were able to begin using those two
major cards as guidelines.
If you had a VISA/MC, therefore your credit has already been checked
and you are a good bet for one of the store cards, right? The store
let VISA/MC do all the work and then sort of rode on their coattails
with their own credit programs. No need to waste money checking out
the customer, VISA/MC already did all that, otherwise why would the
person have one of their cards?
Then one day, someone let the cat out of the bag you might say, and
revealed that VISA/MC had begun accepting franchisee banks who had
'secured credit card' programs and that there was no way to tell the
difference between a secured and an unsecured VISA/MC unless you just
happened to know the name of a bank which was doing the former.
Unsecured credit simply means there is nothing of value to back it
up. The creditor has nothing to go on except your promise that you
will pay him what is due. Your credit bureau report tells the merchant
if you are good at keeping your promises or not. Some people would
say that their word -- their willingness to look you in the face,
shake your hand and state their intentions -- is quite valuable, and
I guess it is; but unsecured means there is no property or other
tangible, easily convertible thing to assure the creditor that he
will be paid. Secured credit on the other hand is credit which is
backed up by something of value. It could be a sum of money deposited
as a 'performance bond' or a savings account given to the bank as
collateral, a mortgage on your home or any 'real' property you own.
Then the creditor does not care if you keep your word or not; his
interests are protected.
Well, as social mores in this country began to change during the
1970's and 1980's and as America's wealth began shifting around in
new directions effectively eliminating what used to be called a
'middle class' it became more and more difficult for the conventional
credit card issuers to do business. More and more applicants were
coming to them with perfectly rotten credit reports, the cost of
setting up accounts was increasing, and the large number of Americans
on the move each year made for a land-office business for skip
tracers and collection agencies, but did not enhance the bottom line
at the banks with VISA/MC franchises. By about two years after the
chain stores started their 'instant credit' programs, they were
getting burned badly, and about the same time VISA/MC banks were
trying to do a balancing act between reducing their standards somewhat
while still maintaining a low ratio of bad debt.
Then someone came up with the 'secured VISA/MC' scheme. Let's let
the customer pay for our procedures by giving him a card with little
or no available credit until *he* demonstrates his intentions. Some
of the early players were like Bank of Hoven, in Hoven, SD. A tiny
little place going nowhere anyway, they found they could get people
to send them $300 to be held in escrow in exchange for a 'credit
card' with the same amount of 'credit' available. The little blue
plastic 'Bank of Hoven VISA Card' became quite common. Chain stores
unwittingly would accept it as 'a good credit reference since it
is a VISA card' and they wound up getting stung badly anywhere from
one to six months or a year later when their new customer's account
aged out and went to collection or write-off. ANYONE can get a
secured VISA/MC card; I can name a half-dozen banks who deal in them
exclusively. Hoven is still doing it, as is 'Cross Country Bank'
which is based out somewhere, they are chartered in Delaware naturally
where regulations are few to non-existent, but they work out of a
credit card processing center in Clearwater, FL with a few other of
the 'secured credit card' operations.
So as life in these United States changed over the years, it became
harder and harder for many people to get credit using the conventional
requirements of years ago (even Amex has reduced its standards a lot),
yet doing almost anything *without* a credit card became difficult or
almost impossible. VISA/MC became more a type of 'plastic cash'
serving a clearinghouse sort of function between consumers and their
banks rather than any actual indication that the holder of the card
had anything of value in life. So the secured credit card programs
began to flourish; after all, it costs the VISA franchisee little or
nothing and he makes money serving that 'clearinghouse' function for
the increasing number of netters who want to purchase something on the
Internet or who need a card in order to cash a check, etc. Today there
are dozens of these programs operating, and to look at a VISA card you
cannot tell if it is secured or unsecured -- if your business calls
for knowing your customer is credit worthy -- unless you just happen
to know the names of the various banks offering those programs.
As to be expected, the secured credit-card people have found their
way onto the internet, and prosper through advertising banners on
sites where advertising is permitted. Now days, the secured side of
the business is where the money is at, as VISA/MC rapidly change from
instruments of credit into instruments for merely transacting business
in a convenient way.
One that I want to alert you about today is called Merrick Bank, of
Salt Lake City, Utah. They are not alone, but they are prominent in
the banner ads on the net these days. Their banner proclaims that they
guarentee one hundred percent approval rates **on line** of anyone who
applies. If you go to their web site, you do get this little form with
merely THREE questions, i.e. are you over 18 years of age; do you have
a job anywhere; do you have a checking account anywhere; but experiments
have shown that you can answer all three of their 'qualifying
questions' with the wrong answer and still be told 'congratuations,
you have been approved' ...
So let's get down to business and get that credit card issued. They
want your name and SSN of course, which would be a reasonable request
at first glance. Naturally your address, place of employment and other
data is required in the online application which is taken after you
have already been 'pre-qualified' with the bogus questions in front.
Now with all this information already collected from you the applicant
they give you the surprise message. It really should not be a surprise
I guess, but this is how their program works:
You will get your card alright, in a couple weeks, with a five hundred
dollar credit limit but *the available credit already used up* in the
form of a 'reservation fee' charged to your new VISA card by the
company which is sponsoring this program. You cannot use the card at
all until you have paid off (or substantially paid down) the existing
'balance' charged. If you do so, then you may use the card up to its
available five hundred dollar limit.
(What's the matter guys? Did you find out that most people
who apply for 'instant approval' on secured VISA cards are
unable to scrape together the five hundred dollars needed to
open a non-interest bearing 'savings account' held in trust
by yourselves, and now you have to loan them that money also
in order to 'qualify' them?)
Then of course the fine print goes on to say there are the usual
high interest rates and special fees for being overlimit or not
being on time with your payment, etc ... meaning for most poor
people who obtain one of these VISA cards it will be a long time, if
ever, before they get any real purchasing power with it.
Cross Country Bank at least, gives *anyone who asks* a VISA card
with a limit of two hundred dollars, a hundred of which has already
been used for the 'enrollment fee' ... I guess they figure losing
a hundred dollars on some people is still cheaper than getting bureau
reports and more extensive processing done prior to issue on
everyone.
(Does anyone remember how years ago, VISA/MC card issuers
used to actually send out confirming letters to the people
named on your application, i.e. your employer, your closest
relative not living with you, etc to verify what you said
in your application? Dear employer, John Doe has applied
for credit. How long has he worked there and what do you
pay him? ... remember those days? ... no 'point scoring'
or statistical analysis would do; they wanted answers to
EVERYTHING in writing before you could get a credit card.)
So you look over the fine print from Merrick Bank and you say to
yourself that seems like sort of a crummy deal, but too late!
They already have your checking account number and the bank name
because you gave it to them earlier so guess what ... they put
through an $89 'processing fee' as an automatic debit to your
checking account, usually within a day or two. And if you do
catch on at the last minute and hurry to tell your bank to stop
payment -- itself at a cost of $25 or so -- then what does Merrick
Bank do but wait a few days and submit the automatic debit a
second time or third time as needed until it finally slips through
and gets paid.
I asked someone at the Clearwater, Florida processing center why
they did not simply charge the $89 fee to the new VISA card account
they were issuing ... her response was, 'Do you think we are a
bunch of fools? We want to get some actual cash money out of this
program ...'
I was informed that anyone on the internet who feels they have been
cheated or decieved in some way by this new 'VISA card for everyone,
automatic approval guarenteed over the net' program could submit
their complaint in writing to 'The Presidents Council' at a PO Box
in Clearwater, no phone number available ... I told them maybe I
could make a better suggestion:
How about calling the attorney for Merrick Bank in Salt Lake
City and following up with a fax telling the bank to keep
their hands out of other people's money without permission.
What is the bank's phone number, anyway? She gave me the number
800-260-8825 but I told her I would rather just have the regular
number. Thinking a minute, she came up with 516-576-8796, but I
told her that sure does not sound like a phone number in Salt
Lake City to me ... she could offer nothing more except to say
that 'The Presidents Council' had a fax number of 727-524-9180.
In Salt Lake City, Merrick Bank was located on 801-685-7700.
Attorney Howard Gee was not in his office when I called, but
his secretary said that he definitly would be interested in
hearing of complaints about the contractor who was operating the
VISA program they started. A fax went out to Mr. Gee on 800-685-8800
a few minutes later, with a copy to 'The Presidents Council'.
The lady I spoke with at the bank even went so far as to say I
did not need to fax the 'people in Florida', '.. you will get
a much faster response right from here ..' But I faxed them
both with my concerns, and guess what! The next morning there
was a credit of $89 placed in my account at First Chicago Bank.
I told the lady in Florida (not the actual Merrick Bank people) that
something should be written on the internet about their operation,
and in a sort of snotty tone of voice she told me to go right ahead
and do so ... so I told her I would. I wanted to keep my promise.
Be alert to those 'guarenteed immediate approval for a VISA card over
the net' banner ads you see at web sites especially if they are
in behalf of Merrick Bank ... you will have a five hundred dollar
charge on your new VISA account the first thing, and your checking
account will be $89 lighter the next day.
And of course, if someone else has your checking account number, they
can apply for a card 'in your name' and then watch the mailbox and
hijack it when it arrives a couple weeks later. You will still be
the person out the $89 when the Merrick Bank automatic debit goes
through.
PAT
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:32:49 -0700
From: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>
Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
Organization: US Secret Service
Subject: GSM Interception
Well, it is only a matter of time before any system gets cracked. And
the first one to sell a device gets the biggest markup!
Subject: GSM Cellular Phones Increasingly Unreliable
From Intelligence Newsletter, 06/10/99
Over the past six months a roaring trade has sprung up on back-street
markets for equipment to intercept cellular telephone calls that had
once been reserved for government intelligence and law enforcement
agencies. The risk that GSM networks are being broken into for
espionage purposes with widely-available equipment and modest skills
is now very real.
Intelligence Newsletter has been able to identify web sites that sell
interception equipment by mail-order. Elsewhere, components required
to manufacture such devices are to be found in many electronics stores
in Europe and the United States. The industry itself has pointed the
way. We have obtained a leaflet from the British company G-Com Tech
which provides a detailed rundown of the GSTA-1400 system. The firm
describes the system, reserved for governments, as one of the best
"official" devices to record GSM communications at a cost of between
$245,000 and $327,000 depending on the model.
Systems sold on the black market run along the same lines as such
products, and sometimes simply copy them. The system consists
invariably of a portable computer equipped with deciphering software
connected to a GSM or fixed 2Mbits/second telephone. Tracking the
target line with a clone of its SIM (Subscriber Identification
Module), the system can usually decipher the signal in just 2.5
minutes. The breakthrough came in April, 1998 when two researchers
from the University of Berkley in California demonstrated it was
possible to clone a SIM card. David Wagner and Ian Goldberg, who both
belong to the Internet Security Applications Authentification and
Cryptography Group (ISAAC), carried out a successful series of attacks
against the Comp128 algorithm.
The latter forms the basis of algorithms created by the manufacturers
of GSM, the A3 and A8, which encrypt information contained inside a
SIM card. According to the American Smartcard Developers Association
(SDA) the system developed by Wagner and Goldberg can turn out cloned
cards that GSM operators can't distinguish from real ones. At the same
time, the SDA identified a partial flaw in the symmetric-type A5
algorithm which protects data transmission between the operator and
user. According to SDA director Marc Briceno, although A5 has a 64 bit
key only 54 are actually used, probably to facilitate eavesdropping by
an intelligence agency.
Late last December in Berlin an experimental system devised by
"private researchers" was presented to a conference of hackers
belonging to the Chaos Computer Club (CCC). It took advantage of flaws
in the A3,A5 and A8 algorithms to conduct interceptions. Since then a
number of make-shift versions have made their way to the public,
mainly through the Internet. According to a military intelligence
specialist, the system aims initially to intercept a call by
electromagnetic wave to record the authentification information each
cellular phone sends to its operator when switched on. Next, the
deciphering software allows the user to read the targeted line's SIM
card. Subsequently a clone is made with a Smartcard Reader Writer, a
smart-card manufacturing machine sold on the open market.
Some illicit cloning systems even use special Smartcartd Reader
Writers that can reproduce the 30 smart card standards that exist in
the world and are used, for instance, to make bank cards. Once the
SIM card has been cloned the system detects and monitors communications
in real time without -- theoretically -- the operator or user knowing
about it. The fact that encryption used in GSM is relatively easy to
crack has obviously contributed to the upsurge in cloning. But
electronics stores that sell devices that read and reproduce cards
have also played a part in the rise of such systems. Some companies
have sized up the danger that cloning represents to the market and are
preparing new products. For one, the Schlumberger group's R&D division
is currently working on making a more tamper-proof SIM card.
------------------------------
From: Carl E. Huth <carl.huth@eds.com>
Subject: Questions on How Billing and Rating are Actually Done
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:10:59 -0400
I work for a group that works with rating and billing in the telco
industry, and I am a bit lost in how everything works. Can anyone
tell me exactly how rating is done? What are the rating tables used
for? Most of all, how does this translate into a monthly bill? I
am really confused by the 10 10 xxx features and how they are billed
as well as 1-900 things. I am further confused by the local long
distance charges and for lack of a better term long long distance
charges. Is there a place that can unravel this mystery, or is there
someone out there who knows it all? Thanks for your interest.
Carl E. Huth
TESC Camphill PA
(717) 975-6137
carl.huth@eds.com
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1999 16:47:17 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage)
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
>> But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in
>> Orange County, NY, and ometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I
>> try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a
>> credit card.
> ... I'll bet dollars to donuts that what happens is, if they don't
> have a roaming agreement with the carrier whose signal has got you,
More likely somebody's just being spiteful. In Orange County, the A
carrier is American Cellular (dba Cell One, of course), the B carrier
is BAMS. In metro New York, the A carrier is AT&T, B is BAMS; they're
intense arch-rivals.
According to the Cellular Travel Guide, AT&T and BAMS have roaming
agreements, and American Cellular has agreements with "all major
system A companies" which would presumably include AT&T.
Theory 1: BAMS is being annoying and trying to get you to switch.
Theory 2: BAMS and/or American Cellular switch is programmed wrong.
Try dialing *611 and see if they think that AT&T customers should be
able to roam there.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: jcheah@my-deja.com
Subject: Microwave Oven Interference
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:54:58 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Please visit www.jcheahtechtalk.com for the July issue covering
microwave oven interference and pi/4 QPSK modulation.
------------------------------
From: Steve Howell <showell@filtersinc.com>
Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:42:08 -0400
Organization: FILTERS, INC.
Reply-To: showell@filtersinc.com
I was told by my account rep. that it is being charged to allow you
to take your telephone number with you to another provider if one is
available.
Yeah, just another tax. Kind of like the tax collected from us to
subsidize rural access / school internet access. Something like tens
of millions of dollars collected and very few thousand actually
dispersed.
------------------------------
From: Howard Kaikow <kaikow@standards.com>
Subject: LD Carriers Question
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:03:48 -0400
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Am I better off informing my local carrier (BA) that I do not want to
have a designated primary long distance carrier?
Recently, I've been using a 10 10 number for all LD calls. However,
AT&T still bills me $1.93 per month on my account (which includes two
phones). I get a separate bill from AT&T, not included in BA bills.
Dunno what BA would add to my bill if I did not have a designated LD
carrier?
Any recommendations?
Pointers to info at the FCC, AT&T or BA web sites?
Please reply only to newsgroup.
------------------------------
From: rshockey@ix.netcom.NsSPaM.com (Richard Shockey)
Subject: Bellheads vs Netheads
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:52:40 GMT
Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC
The following report out of Canada may be of interest to readers of
this distinguished group.
http://www.canniff.com/tdenton/netheads3.htm
Its a very well thought out analysis of the fundamental differences in
viewpoints and chalenges of Internet Telephony.
Its worth your time to read.
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
FAX 314.918.9015
Internet E-Mail/IFAX
rshockey@ix.netcom.com
eFAX 815.333.1237
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #165
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 24 12:23:11 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA08148;
Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:23:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:23:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906241623.MAA08148@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #166
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jun 99 12:23:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 166
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes (David N Hunt)
Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes (Michael G. Koerner)
Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) (D Hunt)
Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) (R Hayes)
Re: LD Carriers Question (John R. Levine)
Re: LD Carriers Question (Richard Freeman)
Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (D.E. 'Omar' Jennings)
Re: 10-10-220 (Eli Mantel)
Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Charles B. Wilber)
Re: How is Roaming in Montana? (Tony Toews)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Leonard Erickson)
Re: Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer? (J.F. Mezei)
Microsoft to Require Web Site Privacy (Monty Solomon)
Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:35:35 -0400
From: David N Hunt <dnhunt@msceng.com>
Subject: Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes
Organization: Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Phil Smiley <epsmiley@epix.net> wrote:
> Whose responsibility is it to tell an LD Carrier that an area code is
> splitting, overlaying etc. Does the local telco have any responsibility
> in telling the IXCs?
Any carrier, local telco (ILEC or CLEC) or wireless carrier, has to
make changes to the national databases indicating what NPA /NXX codes
are new or changing. The changes are then available to the inter-
exchange carriers and other telcos via a report called the LERG
(Local Exchange Routing Guide) which comes from TRA (Traffic Routing
Administration). There are volumes explaining the procedures that
every telco, wireless carrier should follow. Sometimes a code is
missed by the Interexchange carrier, especially when the interval for
a change is shorter than normal.
I once received a call from a wireless carrier that our telco client
had not input the new NXX code properly in their switch because the
wireless carrier person was unable to complete test calls to the new
code. After verifying that everything had been done properly in the
telco switch, I made test calls over many long distance carriers. All
but one of the test calls completed properly. I called the wireless
carrier and suggested that they might want to have the long distance
company they were owned by check their long distance switches.
David N. Hunt, Executive Vice President - Business Development
Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc.
3901 Rose Lake Drive, Charlotte, NC 28217
dnhunt@msceng.com, tel: 704/357-0004, fax: 704/357-0025
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had an almost identical case several
years ago. A new exchange was opened in Wisconsin in the 414 area code.
One plus dialing it always failed. Ameritech would never put the call
through. Even dialing it with a carrier access code first failed. If
the call was placed on a 'direct line' of an IXC, such as dialing to
AT&T's 800 number, *then* entering a pin and the desired number, the
call would go through okay, ditto MCI or Sprint. But anytime that
Ameritech examined the digits dialed first, the call would always be
bounced. It took a couple months to get it corrected, and then it
only got fixed because I was speaking with a lady at AT&T who is one
of the rare breed which actually listens to customers, tries to under-
stand the problem, and gets help as needed from others. After talking
to her she promised I would get a call back from someone a few minutes
later. I did get a call from a guy who described himself as 'someone
at AT&T in the technical side of things'. I told him the situation,
he put me on hold a couple minutes and came back to say that he had
tried it himself and I was correct.
I asked him where he was located and he said 'down in the St. Louis
area ...' I asked him how he was able to test Ameritech switches from
there and he said he 'had methods' of checking what he wanted, and
that in fact Ameritech had an error in their tables and he would see
to it that it was corrected. I told him good luck, that I had told
Ameritech about it a few times and gotten nowhere. His response was
very simply, 'they will do as I say ...' and indeed, later that day
or the next morning, the call went through normally. He called me back
later that day and asked if my call had gone through normally using
one plus. I told him it had, and his response was 'thank you for your
persistence. If you encounter this again from any local phone company
just let me know ...' and he gave me a 618 number which would imply
an Illinois suburb of St. Louis, MO, however the number was listed to
'Southwestern Bell Telephone Co' in St. Louis. His answer to that was
that he 'worked for AT&T but his office was in a SWBT exchange building
in one of the suburbs.' He got the job done, so I figured who cares
where he works out of. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Michael G. Koerner <mgk920@dataex.com>
Subject: Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:38:11 -0500
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com
Phil Smiley wrote:
> Whose responsibility is it to tell an LD Carrier that an area code is
> splitting, overlaying etc. Does the local telco have any responsibility
> in telling the IXCs?
I believe that it is the carrier's own responsibility to learn that
info. Most (if not all) subscribe to periodical 'TelCordia' documents
that convey info on those, along with a boatload of other changes.
These documents include the 'Local Exchange Routing Guide' (LERG),
'NPA/NXX Activity Guide' (NNAG), etc. Many of these come out monthly,
with more frequent occasional updates as needed.
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:56:00 -0400
From: David N Hunt <dnhunt@msceng.com>
Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability)
Organization: Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Steve Howell <showell@filtersinc.com> wrote:
> I was told by my account rep. that it is being charged to allow you
> to take your telephone number with you to another provider if one is
> available.
> Yeah, just another tax. Kind of like the tax collected from us to
> subsidize rural access / school internet access. Something like tens
> of millions of dollars collected and very few thousand actually
> dispersed.
This is not a tax! When the FCC mandated Local Number Portability
(LNP) to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, many changes
had to be made in the telephone network. New organizations (private
companies) developed software to handle the database "look-up" of
telephone numbers to determine which telco (ILEC OR CLEC) now served
the person with that number. Changes in the switches were required to
do the "look-ups". Rather than charge the new companies for the work
required in the existing telephone network, the FCC issued an Order
allowing all telephone companies to recover the costs associated with
LNP from their subscribers over a period of five years (I believe).
The money goes to the telephone company to pay for these new costs
associated with LNP.
One of the disadvantages of competition in the telephone network is
that it costs more to do LNP than the way we used to route calls when
we knew where the number was. LNP capability had to be placed in the
switches in the largest metropolitan areas first, even if there is no
competition yet. However, if you live in one of the large metro
areas, you are probably calling numbers that have been "ported" to a
new competitive local telco even if you don't have a new carrier that
will serve you at your small business or residence. All telcos will
eventually (very soon) have to have LNP capability in their switches.
Without it, you will not be able to call friends and businesses that
have changed telephone companies. This is the short version. I can
do several hours on LNP.
There are many thing on your bill that are "taxes" but this is not.
It is the cost of having competitive local telephone service. If you
think this is expensive, just wait until you want to be able to take
your number with you when you move across the country.
David N. Hunt, Executive Vice President - Business Development
Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc.
3901 Rose Lake Drive, Charlotte, NC 28217
dnhunt@msceng.com, tel: 704/357-0004, fax: 704/357-0025
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How, by the way, is this -- moving
across the country -- going to work, David? Does anyone yet have
any clue about how charging for the call will be done? Will the
caller pay the long distance charges or the called party? How
will anyone know what they are paying for? You mentioned you could
do 'several hours on LNP' and I think most everyone here would be
interested in your discussions if you would care to submit them to
the group. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:24:26 -0500
From: Randy Hayes <Randal.Hayes@uni.edu>
Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability)
someone@teleport.com wrote in message ...
> Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database
> (which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who
> else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland
> Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)?
To the best of my knowledge, Ross Perot's "Perot Systems" was booted
off the LNP project due to delays, etc. If the LNP database is still
not ready across the country, it's Lockheed Martin (who had the other
portion of LNP database responsibility) who now has the whole ball of
wax ...
In other cases, there have been hold-ups due to FCC inquiries into the
LNP rates various LECs are trying to charge to recover their "costs"
of implementing LNP (the FCC potentially requiring lower rates would
not necessarily be a bad thing, now would it?). The rates vary widely
around the country, as well as how the LECs intend to apply those
rates ...
Randy Hayes
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1999 21:23:02 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: LD Carriers Question
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> Am I better off informing my local carrier (BA) that I do not want to
> have a designated primary long distance carrier?
> Recently, I've been using a 10 10 number for all LD calls. However,
> AT&T still bills me $1.93 per month on my account (which includes two
> phones). I get a separate bill from AT&T, not included in BA bills.
> Dunno what BA would add to my bill if I did not have a designated LD
> carrier?
Less, probably, the line fee for a resi line is under a dollar around
here.
But my recommendation is to find a long distance carrier with decent
rates and service and make them your dial-1 carrier. I don't know of
any 101XXXX dialaround that's better for normal domestic calls than a
reasonable dial-1.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: rfreeman@netaxs.com (Richard Freeman)
Subject: Re: LD Carriers Question
Date: 24 Jun 1999 13:41:51 GMT
Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com)
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:03:48 -0400, Howard Kaikow <kaikow@standards.com> wrote:
> Am I better off informing my local carrier (BA) that I do not want to
> have a designated primary long distance carrier?
> Dunno what BA would add to my bill if I did not have a designated LD
> carrier?
I made the same decision myself (live in Philly). Once ATT started
adding the monthly fee (for the Federal wire-up-the-schools (or at
least pay their phone bills) program). I make an average of about 5
cents a month of long distance calls. Once I dropped them, I started
getting a 50-some cent charge from BA for not having a presubscribed
line. They just announced that this is going to increase to just over
a dollar, but it is still cheaper than having the line PIC'd ... I've
heard of at least a few other people who dropped their long distance
carriers after the monthly fees started kicking in -- it makes no sense
to have one when your total monthly bill is usually on the order of
$13 (when is anybody home to make calls these days anyway?) :)
Hope this helps -- granted, the savings aren't as big in light of the
50 cent rate hike, but once ATT starts going to a larger minimum call
fee it will definately be worth it for low-volume callers. And, it
will at least save about 80 cents for high-volume callers (in exchange
for having to dial 1010 codes all the time).
Richard T. Freeman <rfreeman@netaxs.com> - finger for pgp key
3D CB AF BD FF E8 0B 10 4E 09 27 00 8D 27 E1 93
http://www.netaxs.com/~rfreeman - ftp.netaxs.com/people/rfreeman
------------------------------
Reply-To: D.E. 'Omar' Jennings <donald.jennings@wfinet.com>
From: D.E. 'Omar' Jennings <donald.jennings@wfinet.com>
Subject: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:07:42 -0400
J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes:
> This is what I was told. I had never heard that microwave links were
> susceptible to sunspots etc. Is that really the case?
Microwave fading occurs due to a variety of atmospheric conditions
(not sun spots).
> Or are these links "weak" to begin with and thus susceptible, compared
> to "backbone" links using stronger towers etc ?
Yes these links must be weak ... Microwave links can be made more
reliable once the specific fading mechanism is known. Power, Dish
size, Space diversity, Frequency diversity are among the means of
makeing a path more reliable. A chart recording of signal levels can
be made to determine the fading machanism and corrective actions
taken.
> Also, I noticed that many of the remote towers used dishes made of
> wire/mesh as opposed to a full metal dish. Does this make a difference?
The mesh dishes capture the wave properly, the size of the mesh is
based on the frequency (Wavelength). Mesh dishes have a lower wind
loading coefficient.
I would be glad to help you solve these problems; any specific
questions let me know.
D.E. 'Omar' Jennings
WFI Project Manager - National
Desk: 703.375.7724, - Pager: 888.472.6955
------------------------------
From: Eli Mantel <mantel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 10-10-220
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 04:37:03 GMT
Dave Stott (dstott@2help.com) wrote:
> They take turns calling and since they are (each) spending somewhere
> between $75 and $100 per month on this long-distance relationship,
> they find it quite useful to do the 10-cent "are you home"
> first-minute call, then call back on the 20-minute-for-99-cent
> carrier. The phone rings about half a ring every 20 minutes after that
> for about the next hour or two.
> I admire their resourcefulness.
They might do well with Qwest's nickel a minute a minute program with
a $14.95 monthly fee. All their state-to-state calls would be 5 cents
a minute regardless of length, and they would save themselves the
hassle of interrupting their conversation every 20 minutes.
Another possibility would be Sprint's "Unlimited Weekends" program,
which for $25 a month, provides you NOT unlimited calling, but 1000
minutes of weekend calling, which works out to 2.5 cents a minute for
the first 1000 weekend minutes, and 5 cents a minute for additional
weekend minutes.
There are also some prepaid calling cards that purportedly charge 3.9
cents a minute, with a per-call surcharge of 39 cents. This beats the
101-0220 "deal", even if you break it up into calls that are exactly
20 minutes long, once your calls are at least 37 minutes long.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 1999 23:14:57 EDT
From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Reply-To: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs
> And I ask again: without hearing the voice on the phone as it
> describes its emergency, intervention needed now, situation, how do
> you know who among your staff is best suited to respond? I am sure
> 911 does not call you back to say the caller reported smelling smoke
> somewhere, or that a suspicious man was loitering somewhere.
In New Hampshire, E-911 calls are routed directly to the PSAP where
E-911 dispatchers answer the calls and simultaneously activate a
ringdown line to the appropriate local emergency dispatch center. In
Dartmouth College's case, that is the local municipal police/fire
dispatch center. In some parts of the state, the actual call is
patched through to the local dispatch center as well. In our area,
that capability is not yet in place. The E-911 dispatcher conveys the
location and nature of the emergency to the local dispatcher who then
dispatches the appropriate responders (fire, police, EMS or all of
these).
This local dispatcher simultaneously activates another ringdown to the
College's Safety & Security dispatch office, advising the S&S
dispatcher of the location and nature of the emergency along with
information about what emergency personnel have been dispatched. A
separate, dedicated computer monitors our PBX's SMDR stream and
displays the originating number, street address, building location and
room number for any call placed to 911. This alerts S&S personnel to
the presence of a 911 call and serves as a cross-check for the
information given to them verbally by the local emergency dispatch
center.
The only entity who actually hears the emergency call is the E-911
dispatcher. Local dispatch and College security personnel receive all
pertinent details of the call, giving them all the information they
need in order to dispatch the appropriate resources to the scene.
The concern over privacy issues is the result of expressed opinions,
both individual and legal, not merely of conjecture. It is a serious
matter not easily resolved by simply saying "If you have to call 911,
it is automatically everyone's business." Many medical conditions,
sexual assualts and other legitimate emergency situations are
certainly not the public's business. These people are legitimately
requesting immediate assistance. They are not yelling "Fire!"
Charlie Wilber
Dartmouth College
------------------------------
From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews)
Subject: Re: How is Roaming in Montana?
Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance.
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:18:47 GMT
jerome@supernet.ab.ca (Jerome Yuzyk) wrote:
> With all the discussion of the (lack of) quality cell coverage in the
> US, I am wondering about a future trip from Alberta to Montana,
> driving south to Big Sky, near Yellowstone via Great Falls, Helena and
> Butte. I have an analog Motorola 650e*. This is the first time I've
> had a cell in the US. What should I expect for coverage and
> reception?
One thing I've heard of from a trucker is to turn on your cell phone
only if required and to use payphones if at all reasonable. If, OTOH,
you're staying in one cell phone providers network then you might be
fine.
Apparently what happens is that roamers can get dinged a $3 or $5
roaming charge each time they hit a new area. So one three or four
day trip from Alberta to Texas, where he left the phone on, he got hit
with $100 worth of roaming charges.
Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
VolStar http://www.volstar.com Manage hundreds or
thousands of volunteers for special events.
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:57:27 PST
Organization: Shadownet
Jim Van Nuland <jvn@svpal.org> writes:
> My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and
> we'll all be dialing many digits.
> I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when
> calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area
> code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to
> calling (say) to another state?
> Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between
> my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory?
Well, for one thing, you can dial an overlay number *without* a leading
1-.
The big thing is this: How are you going to know which of the two area
codes the phone you are *using* is in? If it's your own personal phone,
maybe. But for any other phone you'd have to *look*.
And a given switch may be handling exchanges in *both* area codes.
Which makes the programming a real problem, because it'd have to use
different dial decoding rules based *solely* on the line ID, which is
based on the wire pair, *not* the assigned telephone number.
For that matter, If I get a distinctive ring number added to my
existing number, they could be in *different* area codes. So which one
is "the" area code for the number?
There are also other issues involving reserved exchanges and adjacent
area codes, but that gets a bit technical. Suffice it to say that once
an overlay goes in, you are stuck with 10-digit dialing for local
calls.
Also, in not that many years, even *non*-overlay areas may have to
switch to 10-digit local dialing.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:29:32 -0400
Afshin David Youssefyeh wrote:
> Having read one more story about cellular phones causing brain tumors:
> http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20321.html
In my opinion, any article which does not show differences between the
old analog and newer digital telephones (and perhaps even differences
between GSM and the US digital protocols) should not be taken too
seriously.
Digital telephones consume heaps less power and are smart enough not
to transmit anything during moments of silence, as well, their "hello
I am here" messages are transitted quite differently.
GSM phones are also smart enough to lower the power of the phone when
it is near an antenna.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:50:02 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Microsoft to Require Web Site Privacy
WASHINGTON (AP) - The world's biggest advertiser on the Internet,
Microsoft, will require the hundreds of Web sites where it buys ads to
publish adequate assurances to protect the privacy of consumers.
Microsoft, which spent more than $34 million last year on Internet
advertising, said it will review privacy statements at those sites to
ensure they meet guidelines developed by federal regulators. Analysts
estimate companies together spent about $2 billion last year on Web ads.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/mds026.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:12:42 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Suppose you're a shapely fitness model/law student whose campaign for
elected office is jeopardized when thousands of bogus pictures of you
start popping up on the Internet? Who you gonna call? Themis Klarides
called Alyssa Milano's mother, Lin.
http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/dish/990617a.asp
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #166
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 24 20:51:03 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA28236;
Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906250051.UAA28236@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #167
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jun 99 20:51:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 167
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Three Held in Phone Fraud (Tad Cook)
Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon? (Monty Solomon)
News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Carl Moore)
Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back (Onenetnut)
Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (Bob Keller)
Re: Pager at U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Randy Hayes)
Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Tony Pelliccio)
Re: "Name That Domain" Contest (Ron Walter)
Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (J.F. Mezei)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Ed Ellers)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (J.F. Mezei)
Seeking Database For Area Codes in More Than One Time Zone (FACSman)
Re: LD Carriers Question (Howard Kaikow)
9-1-1 Info (was Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs) (Jennifer Case)
Chicago Address Question (Carl Moore)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Three Held in Phone Fraud
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:18:42 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Three held in phone fraud - S.J. man puts cops on trail
By Bill Romano
Mercury News Staff Writer
When a deal sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
That's what James Fitzgerald of San Jose figured when he picked up the
phone earlier this month to learn he was the "lucky winner" of a
$450,000 sweepstakes.
The 61-year-old retired military police officer promptly informed San
Jose police of his suspicions, and the result was the arrest June 12
of three members of a telemarketing-fraud scheme called the Winner's
Circle -- an alleged criminal organization authorities say has fleeced
millions of dollars from the elderly around the country in recent
years.
Fitzgerald said Wednesday he recognized immediately that the phone
pitch was a fraud. Solicitors actually called him twice, and police
credited his alertness in stringing the callers along with helping
them crack the case.
"This bunch must be the world's dumbest criminals," Fitzgerald said.
Armed with warrants, investigators uncovered one of the group's
telephone boiler-room operations in a Fresno motel, where they
arrested 31-year-old Reginald Lowe. Two suspected confederates, Cloyd
Marshall, 28, and Teresa Marshall, 37, were nabbed earlier. The three
are charged with grand theft, financial elder abuse and fraud.
In Lowe's room, police recovered numerous letters that victims had
enclosed with money, in addition to wire receipts and phone records
that linked other victims directly to the suspects, said San Jose
fraud investigator Mark Hawke.
A fourth person has been identified as a suspect but remains at large.
Police did not disclose the arrests until Wednesday because they still
were trying to find possible victims and suspects and didn't want to
jeopardize the investigation.
Lowe is under federal indictment for similar alleged scams in Nevada,
Arkansas, Washington and California. The ring, consisting of various
"cells" of six or seven persons each, has been operating out of Las
Vegas for about seven years, police believe.
$1.3 million collected
The scheme has netted the ring at least $1.3 million. Several million
more dollars from victims are unaccounted for, Hawke said. It was
unclear Wednesday how many potential victims were from California or
the Bay Area.
With Fitzgerald's cooperation, San Jose police began moving on the
group in recent weeks after he reported the call to police. Like other
recipients, the caller told Fitzgerald that he would first have to
send the company money as a "refundable tax deposit" against his
winnings. The caller explained that Winner's Circle had Internal
Revenue Service agents working directly with the firm for that
purpose.
Hawke said that a Winner's Circle representative instructed Fitzgerald
to send a $3,500 money order to a Western Union office in Clovis, near
Fresno. Under the guise of Fitzgerald, police sent the money
order. After a man showed up to collect it, a subsequent investigation
led police to Lowe and the other suspects.
Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office and fraud investigators
said such scams are not uncommon.
"There are literally hundreds of victims of this kind every day. We
could not possibly follow up on every single lead," Hawke said. "And,
leads often go nowhere because suspects refuse to provide call-back
numbers or other information that can be used to identify them."
The isolated elderly are particularly vulnerable because they usually
lack family or friends on whom they can rely for advice.
Didn't fall for scam
"We were lucky in this case to have Mr. Fitzgerald, who did not fall
for the scam and had the wherewithal to contact the police department,"
Hawke said.
Assistant District Attorney Al Weger, head of the Santa Clara County's
consumer-protection unit, offered this advice: "Don't ever, ever, ever
send money to someone who says you've won a prize. If you've legitimately
won a prize, they'll send it to you. It smacks immediately of fraud
when you're told you have to send them something to collect it."
Anyone who has been victimized by the Winner's Circle is asked to call
Hawke at the San Jose Police Fraud Unit, (408) 277-4521.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:44:38 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon?
http://thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,5256,00.html
Iridium, the Motorola-led consortium that promises wireless phone
service anywhere on the globe, thought jet-setting execs would jump at
the chance to ensure connectivity for their treks upriver or along the
Silk Route. But it turned out the suits weren't willing to shell out
$3,000 to stay in touch on the road less travelled. Their worn path
includes Kuala Lumpur and London's M5 ring road, as well as the drive
from Newark Airport to midtown Manhattan, but so far their cell phones
are doing the job.
So what's Iridium's Plan B? Wired's Joanna Glasner says it will target
tough guys. Think Will Steger or the guy Bruce Willis played in
"Armageddon": roughnecks on oil derricks or the disaster-relief crowd.
Maybe the next Jane Goodall.
Iridium's CFO quit in March and its CEO quit in April after the
failure of Plan A became apparent. A Reuters story in Tuesday's New
York Times explained that although Iridium would take an even bigger
hit to offer affordable rates to its blue-collar globetrotters ($2.99
per minute, anywhere on the planet), doing so would help "load the
customers and see the usage we need to make this business a financial
success."
Iridium Goes Industrial
http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/20331.html
Telecommunications Price Cuts by Iridium (Reuters)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/biztech/articles/22iridium.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:49:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
------------------------------
From: onenetnut@nospam.hotmail.com (Onenetnut)
Subject: Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:01:35 GMT
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:23 EDT, Hugh Pritchard <Hugh.Pritchard@wcom.
com> wrote:
>> Some time ago, MCI Mail decided to block TELECOM Digest from delivery
>> to mcimail.com sites thinking that it was 'spam'. It was explained to
>> me by someone at wcom.com at 'one of our operators thought it was spam
>> and put a block on the Digest which has now been removed.'
> Even before WorldCom bought MCI, internal users of MCI Mail (domain name
> MCIMail.com) were being urged to use the newer, POP3-based service
> called Innermail, which had a domain name of MCI.com. A few months
> ago, someone decided that "MCI.com" just didn't reflect the true nature
> of MCI WorldCom, so the Innermail domain name was changed to WCom.com.
Yes, but NON-MCI employee's, or regular uses of MCI Mail (there are
still a few of them out there), are still using the service. Friends
and Family mail is still out there under the @mcimail.com domain name.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:27:11 -0400
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage)
In TELECOM Digest V19 #165, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> According to the Cellular Travel Guide, AT&T and BAMS have roaming
> agreements, and American Cellular has agreements with "all major
> system A companies" which would presumably include AT&T.
But that would cover an American Cellular customer when it traveled
into an AT&T Block A *cellular* area, and (since presumably the
roaming agreements are reciprocal) vice versa. But the AT&T Digital
One Rate plan is not provided by a *cellular* carrier (Block A or
otherwise) -- it is a PCS service.
I know from experience that, with respect to its cellular service,
BAMS apparently has a roaming agreements with almost all other
cellular carriers. On the BAMS one-rate plan, I have not yet been hit
with any roaming charges regardless of where I've gone and regardless
of whether I've connected via a Block A or a Block B system. I've also
never been diverted to an operator -- the roaming has always been
automatic. (I am occasionally diverted to a fraud verification system
for my first call in a new area, but that's it.)
But for the *PCS* services, e.g., AT&T's One-Rate plan, to work
automatically when you are in an area where you drop back to cellular
because a PCS signal is not available for one reason or another, would
require roaming agreements between *cellular* and *PCS* carriers. I'm
just not sure how ubiquitous such inter-service roaming agreements are
at this time.
Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com> (www.his.com/~rjk)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:36:37 -0500
From: Randy Hayes <Randal.Hayes@uni.edu>
Subject: Pager at U.S. Open Golf Tournament
Someone wrote:
> ... but heard (as I had suggested in THIS forum earlier) that it was
> OK in vibrator mode only. I have had libraries, church services,
> theater events, etc. to consider as well, so I have commonly used
> vibrator mode anyway.
At my previous employer (large hospital), we installed a new paging
system, which I believe currently serves 3,000 pagers. When one of our
staff felt safe in carrying his pager (on vibrate) into a theatre to
enjoy a play, imagine his surprise when the audible alert sounded in
the middle of the play!
We found the default programming of the system utilized audible alerts
for "emergency" pages, no matter what the pager mode was set to!
Obviously, we changed that programming immediately!
Details, details, details ...
Randy Hayes
------------------------------
From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament
Organization: Providence Network Partners
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:27:59 GMT
In article <telecom19.164.18@telecom-digest.org>, cmoore@ARL.MIL says:
> I have been hearing the word "beeper" regarding what Phil Mikkelsen
> (sp) was carrying when he played the just-concluded U.S. Open (golf)
> in North Carolina. (He lost, and made it back to Arizona on time for
> his wife giving birth to a daughter yesterday, Monday 21 June.) I take
> it he used vibrator mode only!
> I have seen cell-phone prohibitions posted for the LPGA McDonald's
> tournament in Wilmingon, Delaware, and also for the arts center there
> on South Madison Street (I was in the latter on Sunday looking at the
> Meiji Japanese exhibit) -- but neither had a note posted about pagers!
> I was referred back to the cloakroom check at the arts center when I
> mentioned that I had a pager, but heard (as I had suggested in THIS
> forum earlier) that it was OK in vibrator mode only. I have had
> libraries, church services, theater events, etc. to consider as well,
> so I have commonly used vibrator mode anyway.
This is what really frosts me about cellular phone manufacturers and
carriers. Why is it that you have to pay oodles of money to get a
cellphone that vibrates vs. the annoying ring most of them have? And
why is it that the carrier and manufacturers can't incorporate a "one
moment" key on them so that those who really need to have their
cellphone with them can excuse themselves to a private area and the
call will be held.
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR
== Trustee WE1RD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:59:46 -0500
From: Ron Walter <ronw@capcittel.com>
Organization: Capitol City Telephone, Inc.
Subject: Re: "Name That Domain" Contest
>> It's not cybersquatting ... it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening,
>> and it could be worth a big prize! All you have to do is guess the
>> new corporate name that Bell Atlantic will be adopting if/when they
>> merge with GTE.
Now that you've brought up name changes and mergers, I'm almost hoping
Qwest pulls off their attempted purchase of Frontier and US West.
Since I live near US West territory, I don't want to go through a
dramatic name change and would prefer it become something like US
Qwest.
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:47:11 -0400
Terry Kennedy wrote:
> Were the rural stations you saw self-powered (for example, solar) or
> was there a utility grid in place? If they're self-powered, that would
> explain the low-power operation.
Some were utility (well, off the community's generator). Some were
solar. The line I was thinking about is the one which starts at Alice
Springs and goes west all the way to Warburton in Western Australia
(about 800km).
But the other case, was a mere 5km hop from a fiber repeater in the
Stuart Highway to the Aileron roadhouse (about 130km north of
Alice). That MW hop was deemed unreliable and is being replaced with
fiber to the roadhouse (roadhouse is a restaurant/bar/petrol
station/caravan park combo). I would have though that a 5km link would
not be a problem. Telstra is supposedly spending a million bucks for
that single customer.
The fiber backbone in outback australia is mostly solar powered
(except when the repeater is near a community). But these repeaters
are more "developped" then the rural microwave links. (larger solar
panels and larger banks of batteries from what i was told).
> if chosen properly. The mesh is used for wind/snow/etc. resistance.
Had not thought of that. Makes sense. (Although there is rarely any
snow in the middle of Australia).
> Digging up the ground for fiber is a one-time expense (modulo
> repairs from errant backhoes), but you can put *vastly* more data over
> fiber.
I was told that in Australia's outback, they only put it 6 inches
below ground except in crossing rivers where it is put a few feet
below the ground level for those rare times when there is water in the
river.
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:50:35 -0400
J.F. Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) wrote:
> The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America was
> still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom?????"
Actually, you and Thor Simon are both partly right -- AMPS went into
commercial service in Chicago and Washington in 1983 after a few years
of tests in those cities, but the rollout did take over a decade to
reach the present state, partly because the FCC didn't license
cellular systems in rural service areas until several years after the
licenses had been issued for the metro areas.
IIRC, NTT in Japan had its own analog cellular system that entered
commercial service in 1979.
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:52:10 -0400
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America
>> was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom?????
> Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. AMPS was designed and first built in
> the *1970s*.
AMPS is old news. Countries such as Australia are already reducing
their AMPS network capacity because their GSM networks have replaced
them in many areas. Remember that North America was very late in the
game in adopting digital telephony.
There were a few attempts with D-amps but they failed because the
vocoders were too shabby.
AMPS is simply not workable anymore because it has too small system
capacity.
GSM is to AMPS what EMAIL is to TELEX.
------------------------------
From: ryoung@airmail.net
Subject: Seeking Database For Area Codes in More Than One Time Zone
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:28:02 GMT
Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
Any ideas where to look? Willing to purchase if its the right
product\subscribe for automatic updates.
Thanx - FACSman
------------------------------
From: Howard Kaikow <kaikow@standards.com>
Subject: Re: LD Carriers Question
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:24:17 -0400
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
I've been using Lucky Dog (which is owned by AT&T).
Presently, I receive a separate bill from AT&T. I have two phones on
one bill and am billed 1.93 each month, tho earlier this year, they
did not bill me for a month or so, I know not why.
Since I've only been using 1010 345 for the past several months, I see
no reason to pay any carrier a minimum.
Please reply only to newsgroup.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:28:39 -0400
From: Jennifer Case <jennifer.case@telops.gte.com>
Reply-To: <jennifer.case@telops.gte.com>
Subject: 9-1-1 Info (was Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs)
> We have recommended that a consortium of interested parties who are
> willing to share ideas and input re E-911 be convened. If you are
> intested in joining this forum, pls contact me via email at
> aolbur@ccscnet.com.
> Allan M. Olbur
You might want to try:
www.nena9-1-1.org
The National Emergency Number Association addresses practically
everything related to 9-1-1, including telecom issues like LNP,
Wireless, Y2K, and so on.
Jennifer Case
GTE Spec-Systems Analyst E911
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:55:14 EDT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Information Wanted on Chicago Address
On (I believe) Court TV, there has just been a Crime Stories episode
this week of the killing of the eight student nurses in July 1966
(that's the case where Corazon Amurao, from the Philippines, became
star witness against Richard Speck). I picked up an address for the
scene; it's 2319 E. 100th Street, and I find this to be in 60617
zipcode.
Just now, I also have this reference to State Line Road, part of which is
also in 60617:
S. State Line Rd.; even only; Chicago
10600-11198 in 60617, and 13900-13998 in 60633
The reference to State Line Road suggests 60617 hits the Indiana
border, and I also heard there was (at least in July 1966) a
longshoremen hiring hall near the crime scene (see first paragraph), so
60617 is toward Lake Michigan?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 2319 East 100 Street is a group of
townhouses which belong to the nearby hospital, and are used as
staff residences. That is the location where the eight student nurses
were murdered by Richard ("if they knew how much fun I was having
here, they would never have put me in prison") Speck in 1966. It is
just a few blocks west of Lake Michigan, which at that point has
begun to curve in a southeastern direction toward Indiana.
The state line between Indiana and Illinois (thus, between Whiting
in Indiana and Chicago, in Illinois meets the shore of Lake Michigan
at 106th Street, where three streets meet. Indianapolis Boulevard
runs northwest/southeast along the lake shore. 106th Street runs
straight east and west, it is about the 3200 block east (using
Chicago numbers) at that point. State Line Avenue runs straight
north and south from the intersection of the other two. In Chicago,
'even' street numbers are on the west and north sides of streets
while 'odd' numbers are on the south and east sides. There is no
east side of State Line Avenue for the purposes of your street
guide, thus the reference to 'even only'. The west side of State
Line Avenue would take numbers using the Whiting system, but it
is a moot point, since the whole area is heavily industrial and
are no individual properties on the east side of the street at
that point.
On the shore of Lake Michigan at the point that 106/Indianapolis/
State Line Avenue merge sits the Commonwealth Edison Company's
'State Line Generating Station', a huge, old-fashioned coal-burning,
steam-generating place. The intense steam pressure causes turbines
to spin which generate electricity for much of the south side of
Chicago. Mountains of coal are piled up around one side of the
building; the plant receives deliveries of coal daily from the mines
in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to the extent of about 60-80
railroad coal cars daily. The plant runs the distance of about a city
block; it is a huge, gothic-like structure, almost midievel in
appearance, a very high, vaulted ceiling in the interior. About half
of the building is in Illinois while the other half is in Indiana. The
obligatory telecom note here is that when I was a child 11-12 years
old, the facility had two telephone numbers: The Chicago number, which
was dialable, was SOUth Chicago-8-7000; the Whiting number, which was
still served manually by operators was 'Whiting 6' ... and after
Whiting converted to dial service it became 219-659-0006 ...
In those times, the middle 1950's, my friends and I would play behind
State Line Generator; we always enjoyed watching the coal trains
coming in every day. Between the back side of the generator plant
and the actual shore of the lake are some dozen railroad tracks which
serve three or four different railroads which serve not only that
plant but also serve (in order, going east) the Amaizo Corn Products
Factory, the Lever Brothers Factory, the Amoco Oil Refinery, and
eventually the United States Steel 'Gary Works'. As I said, it is
a heavily industrialized area. The Longshore Mans Union Hiring Hall
that you mentioned is a few blocks west of there, on the Chicago
side. At 110th Street/Calumet Avenue/Indianapolis Blvd. on the
Indiana side the railroad crossing with 13 tracks belonging to
the four railroads is sufficiently complex that the warning signals
and gates across the road were manually operated by crossing guards
who (we kids would notice) always sat in a 'little house on stilts
up in the air above the crossing' where they could see in all
directions. Now and again, one of them would reach over and flip
a switch and then the red flashing lights at street level, the
up and down arms would go down and block the street and the bells
would start ringing. Another person would go out in the center
of the intersection with a sign that he would hold up saying for
traffic to go one direction or another.
Probably forty or fifty trains each day crossed that intersection
some of which were very slow moving 60-80 car coal trains for
Edison pulled by a couple of diesel locomotives; they would take
upwards of 15-20 minutes to clear the intersection while other
trains would go barreling through at 60 miles an hour and the
gates would only be down a few seconds. The New York Central and
the Pennsylvania Railroads were still operating their passenger
service in those days, and a block or two east of that crossing
was the Whiting railroad depot, where passengers would board the
trains going to New York.
As kids, we would sit and talk to the crossing guard in the little
house and thought it was very funny to see how congested the traffic
would get when the gates were down for twenty minutes only to come up
for all of thirty seconds and then go down again for another train, or
sometimes two trains at once going in opposite directions through that
crossing. Sometimes not even thirty seconds would pass; he would flip
the switch to raise the gates, and when the gates had gone up but the
flashing lights and bells had not yet stopped, his radio would say
another train was a short distance away and the gates would upon
reaching the upright position immediatly start back down again. And
the motorists would drag-race down Indianapolis Blvd. to try and beat
the trains. Train coming from the east at 60 mph. and gates just now
going down at 110th? Then let's drive 80 mph. and see if we can cross
the tracks at 104th on the Illinois side before the gates start going
down over there as well. Get to 104th and .... whoops! the gates were
already down there because a train was coming from the other direction.
And that, Carl, was/is 106th and State Line Avenue. This writer
and his friends at age 11-12 thought it was great fun to watch the
coal cars getting lifted by the automatic conveyor, literally lifted
off the track, turned over on their side in the air and all the
coal spilling out into the deep pits below which fed Edison's
furnaces inside the big gothic cathedral-like building next to
the railroad tracks and the huge piles of coal around it. Then the
machine would sit the railroad car upright on the track again,
push it out of the way and the next car full of coal would be
moved into place for the process to begin again. Later, all the
empty coal cars were taken back to West Virginia where they would
be filled again with coal and brought back time and again for
the same process to be repeated. The sky was always grey. Rarely
did you see bright sunshine except after it had rained heavily.
But it was fun to be there when it rained also. We had a little
'secret clubhouse' (actually just an old broken up shack that
sat next to the railroad tracks) where we would stay out of the
rain but be able to watch the lightning. The generating plant was
quite well grounded as you might expect, and a large pole/rod on
one side of the building seemed to attract lightning. So we would
sit in our clubhouse looking at forbidden books and periodically
bolts of lightning would strike that pole a hundred yards away
and in the darkness the old gothic building looked sort of like
an ancient castle when flashes of lightning would brighten up
the area for a couple seconds.
I remember where I was when I heard about Speck. In the Lawson YMCA
having lunch, I sat down with a friend of mine and the first thing
he said was 'did you see the paper yet today?' with a disgusted
look on his face. And he told me that about 6:00 AM that morning,
the one surviving nurse had escaped and brought police to the house
on East 100th Street where the bodies were all found. It was in
the {Chicago Tribune} headlines for several days. It was all very
gruesome. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #167
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 25 20:48:13 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA00255;
Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906260048.UAA00255@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #168
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jun 99 20:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 168
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit (TELECOM Digest Editor)
The Dark sSde of Online Shopping (Monty Solomon)
Rio Sings Toll-Free Calling Tune (Monty Solomon)
CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"? (Michael David Jones)
Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice? (Ian Angus)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Linc Madison)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (David Clayton)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Arthur Ross)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Withheld Adrian)
Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Alan Boritz)
Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (Alan Boritz)
Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (Arthur Ross)
Who Invented the Telephone? With Microsoft Encarta, it Depends (J. Decker)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:13:33 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit
I am very pleased and proud to announce a new, very major addition to
telecom-digest.org to you today.
** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** is a new, permanent exhibit at this
site, which was created, and is maintained by David Massey, who can
be reached via email at dmassey@telecom-digest.org if you wish to
write him.
** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** consists of more than one hundred pages
of telephone-related history, ranging from the earliest days in the
1870's through the demise of the 'Bell System' in 1983. In addition to
the hundred-plus pages of material to read -- many of which are very
lengthy files -- there are more than four hundred pictures which accomp-
any the text. The exhibit includes many 'Bell System' documents from
the past which have been scanned in for display on your screen. Pictures
include inside looks at telephone central offices of the past; they
include a few dozen different telephone instruments in common use over
the past century; they include pictures of Alex Bell, Tom Watson and
others. A large section is devoted to pay phones; Princess phones and
other things.
** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** includes schematics that have been scanned
in for your viewing. It includes a very detailed history of AT&T written
by its former chairman at the time of divestiture, Charles Brown. It
includes a very detailed history of Western Electric, Bell of Canada
and other telephone companies. It includes numerous links to other
telephone-related sites including its 'sister site' also run by David
Massey known as 'Tribute to the Bell System'.
** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** includes human interest stories, and it
includes numerous sound files (.wav files) of various sorts including
ringing tones, dial tones, busy signals, intercept messages, and more.
This exhibit consists of several years of work by David Massey in the
process of collecting the things on display, and the cooperation of
several people who loaned texts and images to him for the exhibit.
David Massey, a resident of the Atlanta, GA area has spent years in
putting all this together. I have spent a great deal of time over the
past two weeks doing some work editing and arranging it for use here.
When David expressed to me his inability to continue giving 'Tribute'
the amount of time and attention it needs on a regular basis, and his
wish to place it on a non-commercial site rather than one of the
various commercial web-sites available, I immediatly offered to make
time in my own schedule to care for it.
Allow yourself *plenty of time* to review http://telecom-digest.org/tribute
since it is NOT a small exhibit. Like so many museums, which is
really the best way to describe this major addition to the site,
you can easily spend most a day going through it, looking at the
pictures and reading the text if you have any interest at all in
telephony as it evolved over the century that the Bell System was
our nation's phone service provider. Perhaps you will want to review
some of the exhibit each day for several days; and for your reading
convenience, the larger text files are also available in .doc or .zip
formats for downloading, to keep in your own collection for later
use.
I seriously think of this as a very major addition and improvement
at telecom-digest.org and hope you will feel the same way when you
see it. Of course, it is fully searchable; the search engine which
indexes the Archives has been including the 'Tribute' files for the
past couple days getting them included as well, but because of the
size of the exhibit, you will get best results by using the template
located in the exhibit rather than the one included on the Archives
search page.
From David Massey (dmassey@telecom-digest.org) then and myself, we
hope you enjoy this new permanent exhibit, given at no charge to the
net community.
Just address your browser to: http://telecom-digest.org/tribute and
enjoy it. Watch for frequent additions and changes as new materials
become available to be included in the display!
Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest & Archives Webmaster
Editor, Publisher, call me whatever you like!
------------------------------
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: The Dark Side of Online Shopping
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:24:46 -0400
Trail of fraud leads from Amazon.com to Thailand
By Molly Masland
MSNBC
June 24 When Internet investigator Don Garlock's bank account was
mysteriously cleaned out in early June, the last thing he expected was
that the search for the culprit would take him on a shadowy trail
through cyberspace. The clues began at online retail giant Amazon.com
and led to a ring of alleged hackers in Bangkok, Thailand. Along the
way, Garlock picked up crucial lessons about the perils of online
shopping, even at sites that claim to be '100 percent safe.'
http://www.msnbc.com/news/283239.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:31:26 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Rio Sings Toll-Free Calling Tune
Wired News Report
12:00 p.m. 24.Jun.99.PDT
Add free phone calls to the Rio Internet music player's list of
undocumented features. Availability may vary. Hackers are circulating
instructions on turning the Diamond Multimedia MP3 player into a
device for making free phone calls.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20409.html
------------------------------
From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones)
Subject: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"?
Date: 25 Jun 1999 09:35:40 -0400
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA
Is there a web site somewhere which has a good description of some of
the underlying technologies and who uses what? For even a reasonably
educated consumer, the number of providers and acronyms (not to
mention made up names for various offerings) is terribly confusing.
For example, I've been a pretty happy customer of Sprint PCS (over
CDMA, right?) for a couple of years now. I'm getting a little
disappointed because they're not building up their digital network as
fast as I'd hoped in the areas I travel through (I'm really happy with
the coverage in Albany and NYC, though). Some friends are telling me I
should switch to Bell Atlantic Mobile because they have better digital
coverage because they use "digital cell" technology. I thought they
were another CDMA-based system. Is there a good place to go to get
answers to questions like this?
Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu
Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proven innocent.
- George Orwell
------------------------------
From: ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus)
Subject: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:12:08 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
The statement that data traffic now exceeds voice in North America is
repeated in just about every telecom presentation I hear these
days. But no one cites a source for the claim. It seems to be
accepted without question.
In the current "Communications of the ACM," Michael Noll argues that
the statement is false, and offers some back-of-the-envelope
calculations to support his view.
I find Noll's analysis simplistic -- but I agree with him that the
"data exceeds voice" claim appears to be unproven.
Can anyone point me to any actual studies, statistics, etc., on this
issue? Is the claim legitimate, or a telecom urban legend?
Ian Angus
Angus TeleManagement Group
http://www.angustel.ca
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:16:46 -0700
From: Telecom@LincMad.nospam (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Organization: LincMad Consulting
In article <telecom19.166.11@telecom-digest.org>, shadow@krypton.rain.com
(Leonard Erickson) wrote:
> Jim Van Nuland <jvn@svpal.org> writes:
>> My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and
>> we'll all be dialing many digits.
>> I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when
>> calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area
>> code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to
>> calling (say) to another state?
>> Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between
>> my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory?
> Well, for one thing, you can dial an overlay number *without* a leading
> 1-.
Incorrect. You CANNOT dial an overlay number IN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA,
without the leading 1 (effective October 1999).
In California, 10-digit dialing without the leading 1 is always and
absolutely forbidden. If you dial 1, you must dial an area code, and
conversely if you dial the area code, you must always dial 1 or 0
first. California does not use the "1+ means toll" rule at all.
> The big thing is this: How are you going to know which of the two area
> codes the phone you are *using* is in? If it's your own personal phone,
> maybe. But for any other phone you'd have to *look*.
> And a given switch may be handling exchanges in *both* area codes.
> Which makes the programming a real problem, because it'd have to use
> different dial decoding rules based *solely* on the line ID, which is
> based on the wire pair, *not* the assigned telephone number.
> For that matter, If I get a distinctive ring number added to my
> existing number, they could be in *different* area codes. So which one
> is "the" area code for the number?
All true.
> There are also other issues involving reserved exchanges and adjacent
> area codes, but that gets a bit technical. Suffice it to say that once
> an overlay goes in, you are stuck with 10-digit dialing for local
> calls.
This is why California does not permit 10D dialing of any calls. For
example, the 408-925 prefix is local to some exchanges in the 925 area
code. Before the introduction of mandatory 1+10D in 408, you would
have a conflict between 925-xxxx and 925-nxx-xxxx.
> Also, in not that many years, even *non*-overlay areas may have to
> switch to 10-digit local dialing.
True, although right now the CPUC is reconsidering its overlays because
of consumer resistance to mandatory 1+10D.
** 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: as an anti-spam measure, replies are set to "postmaster";
>> however, replies sent to "Telecom" will be read sooner.
------------------------------
From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:58:41 GMT
Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd.
Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL> contributed the following:
> I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
> against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
> least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
> says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
You have to turn them off at petrol stations in Australia.
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:49 -0700
From: Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
> I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
> against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
> least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
> says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
Someone called me several weeks ago about this story. It apparently was
flying around the internet somewhere. I'll tell you the same thing I told
them: That I think it borders on an urban myth.
While it is probably possible, under VERY contrived circumstances, to
make a tiny spark from the fraction of a watt that comes out of a
cellular handset, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. If there
is an explosive gas-air mixture at any of these gas stations that
could be ignited by such a thing, THAT is the problem, not an unlikely
source of a tiny spark. If they are worried about sparks they should
also be forbidding cars with nylon carpets, women wearing nylon
stocking, people with cats in the car, etc, etc, which are all
potential sources of static sparks in dry weather. And they shouldn't
be PUMPING their gas, as the very motion of the fluid itself can
create static charges.
You sometimes see roadside signs near construction projects asking
that motorists refrain from using radio transmitters because of nearby
blasting. The concern here is that the radiated RF can induce current
in the wiring to the electrically-triggered blasting caps & set off
the explosives prematurely. This IS a valid concern, as they are
worried about higher-powered transmitters (e.g. amateur, police
dispatch, etc., that radiate many WATTS). Again, the issue is one of
proximity of something that will go boom to a potential source of
accidental ignition. In this case, the hazard is real, so caution
should prevail.
But if those gas stations are going to tell me that they have
explosive mixtures in their tanks, the authorities should be closing
them down as hazards to public safety until they get their act
together. It's the presence of the explosive mixture that is
worrisome, not so much the source of ignition. Same issue as that 747
that blew up over Long Island. What was an explosive mixture doing in
that tank? You can draw sparks from all sorts of moving mists,
sawdust, fluids of various kinds (e.g. thunderstorms), rubbing
fabrics, etc. This is how grain elevator explosions happen. The dust
forms both the explosive mixture, AND, sometimes, the ignition source
due to its motion (it is called triboelectricity - the production of a
static charge by rubbing stuff). In every case, the key to safety is
to make sure the the explosive mixture is not allowed to accumulate.
While it doesn't hurt to eliminate ignition sources, it is difficult
to do with high certainty.
Something else comes to mind. I seem to recall that one of the merits
of gasoline is the rather narrow range of fuel-air mixtures over which
it is explosive. This also is probably a major contributor to the
empirically low rate of exploding automobiles/gas stations.
-- Best
-- Arthur
-- Dr. Arthur Ross
2325 East Orangewood Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730
Phone: 602-371-9708
Fax : 602-336-7074
------------------------------
From: 141@wilkinsonsmith.com (Withheld Adrian)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 05:20:45 GMT
Organization: www.wilkinsonsmith.com Limited
Reply-To: acs@wilkinsonsmith.com
> I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
> against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
> least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
> says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
The UK being one where you are not allowed to use radio transmitting
equipment, such as mobile phones, on gas station forecourts.
Also in London at the ticket office of the new high speed link to the
airport they have prohibited use of mobiles as they "upset" the ticket
booking systems!
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:31:04 -0400
In article <telecom19.158.9@telecom-digest.org>, srini_v@my-deja.com wrote:
> A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and
> talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was
> switched to the new company.
> My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch.
> The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized
> list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to
> my local telephone company a year back.
> My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch,
> is it legal?
Some phone companies will switch your PIXC whether they have your
permission or not, whether you have a PIXC freeze or not. As has been
documented in this forum more than once, if your number is in a batch
being processed electronically, the telco may not bother to check, and
won't be too concerned when you call to complain.
It's probably not legal, but your telco will probably charge you to
make the switch it back. If they won't put things back the way they
were before, file a complaint with your state's utility regulatory
agency and ask them to order the telco to change the PIXC back and
charge all associated costs to the party who submitted the fraudulent
order.
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:22:58 -0400
In article <telecom19.165.4@telecom-digest.org>, johnl@iecc.com (John
R. Levine) wrote:
>>> But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in
>>> Orange County, NY, and ometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I
>>> try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a
>>> credit card.
>> ... I'll bet dollars to donuts that what happens is, if they don't
>> have a roaming agreement with the carrier whose signal has got you,
> More likely somebody's just being spiteful. In Orange County, the A
> carrier is American Cellular (dba Cell One, of course), the B carrier
> is BAMS. In metro New York, the A carrier is AT&T, B is BAMS; they're
> intense arch-rivals.
> According to the Cellular Travel Guide, AT&T and BAMS have roaming
> agreements, and American Cellular has agreements with "all major
> system A companies" which would presumably include AT&T.
Both companies have to have roaming agreements, since AT&T customers
are on BAMS when they travel east into Connecticut and BAMS customers
are on AT&T's system when they travel into New York.
> Theory 1: BAMS is being annoying and trying to get you to switch.
> Theory 2: BAMS and/or American Cellular switch is programmed wrong.
> Try dialing *611 and see if they think that AT&T customers should be
> able to roam there.
Theory 3: BAMS doesn't want to deal with potential pirate activity and
defaults to intercept in that area. AT&T will sometimes do that to
their own customers in high-fraud areas, like in the vicinity of the
George Washington Bridge.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:31:38 -0700
From: Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage)
Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com> said:
> But for the *PCS* services, e.g., AT&T's One-Rate plan, to work
> automatically when you are in an area where you drop back to cellular
> because a PCS signal is not available for one reason or another, would
> require roaming agreements between *cellular* and *PCS* carriers. I'm
> just not sure how ubiquitous such inter-service roaming agreements are
> at this time.
Right. I think that most of the PCS carriers do this. In order to
APPEAR to provide ubiquitious service, in spite of their limited
coverage, they provide their customers with dual mode (CDMA/AMPS or
TDMA/AMPS) dual band (1800/800 MHz) handsets, and strike roaming
agreements with the cellular carriers. When the phone can't find its
native digital service at 1800 MHz, it acts like an analog roamer at
800 MHz. And this can be true even if you are in your home area. If
your PCS phone is like mine (Sprint/Sony). the way to avoid those high
roaming charges is to not use it if the "Roam" indicator is on, and
thet "Digital" indicator is off.
BTW -- My CELLULAR (800 MHz) carrier (Airtouch) offers a pretty good
flat rate premium plan in which all airtime in ANY digital (CDMA)
service area counts against your basic plan home area airtime, NOT as
roaming. Works very well for me as I am often travelling in east coast
urban areas where this is the case. They also sometimes act as their
own toll carrier.
-- Best
-- Dr. Arthur Ross
2325 East Orangewood Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730
Phone: 602-371-9708
Fax : 602-336-7074
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:13 -0400
From: Jack Decker <jack@novagate.REMOVE-THIS.com.content.net>
Subject: Who Invented the Telephone? With Microsoft Encarta, it Depends
Here's a snippet of a {Wall Street Journal} article that MSNBC carried
this morning, at http://www.msnbc.com/news/283586.asp
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia has different facts for different folks:
Kevin J. Delaney
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 25 Who invented the telephone? Microsoft Corp. Encarta multimedia
encyclopedia on CD-ROM has an answer to that simple question. Rather, two
answers.
CONSULT THE U.S., U.K., or German editions of Encarta and you find the
expected one: Alexander Graham Bell. But look at the Italian version
and the story is strikingly different. Credit goes to Antonio Meucci,
an impoverished Italian-American candlemaker who, as the Italian-
language Encarta tells it, beat Bell to the punch by five years.
Who's right? It depends on where you live.
[See the rest of the article at http://www.msnbc.com/news/283586.asp -
it gives several other examples of how Microsoft Encarta interprets
the "facts" differently in different parts of the world. One kind of
gets the notion that any devotion to truth or accuracy flies right out
the window when faced with a potential loss of sales.]
Jack
(Make the obvious modification to my e-mail address to reply privately.)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who invented the phone, along with dozens
of other essays, pictorials, sounds, and links dealing with telephones
are now available in our new exhibit, 'Tribute to the Telephone' by
David Massey. It officially opens this weekend, and I hope all Digest
readers will visit: http://telecom-digest.org/tribute **Allow a lot
of time, it is a large, 'museum size' presentation with hours of
reading and viewing. Let me know how you like it. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #168
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 25 22:35:04 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA04467;
Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906260235.WAA04467@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #169
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jun 99 22:35:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 169
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
More Mischief on the Net! Hackers Netcast Phone Calls (Mike Pollock)
Re: Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon? (J.F. Mezei)
Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Michael J. Kuras)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Lisa Hancock)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Dave O'Shea)
Re: "Name That Domain" Contest (Seymour Dupa)
Re: Cell Phone Call Tracing Question (Seymour Dupa)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:15:30 PDT
From: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Subject: More Mischief on the Net! Hackers Netcast Phone Calls
W I R E D N E W S
Private Lives Laid Bare on Net
by James Glave
Voices drift through the ether, over cell phones, from somewhere in
Vancouver, British Columbia.
In a heavy working-class Canadian accent, a man says good morning to
his girlfriend, who is half asleep. She asks him if there's any coffee
left.
Neither is aware that a hacker known only as DwC is capturing their
words with a Bearcat BC200XLT scanner, and netcasting their intimate
chat live onto the Internet with Shoutcast, a streaming MP3 service.
"I think it is an intrusion," said David Jones, director of Electronic
Frontier Canada, a group that seeks to preserve free expression in the
digital age.
Because the man and his girlfriend are using older cellular phones
that transmit over radio frequencies without encryption, the conversation
can be easily intercepted. Normally such calls can only be heard by
someone using a modified scanner, but DwC has taken their conversations
to a wider audience all over the world.
"[The callers] are using out-of-date technology [and the hacker is]
broadcasting it like a radio program," said Jones. "But it is not a
radio program. It is a private conversation."
And that could land the anonymous netcaster in jail.
Section 184 of The Criminal Code of Canada states that anyone found
guilty of intercepting cellular phone calls "maliciously or for gain"
can be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison.
Jones said that while Section 183 says that calls made on analog cell
phones, or via "radio-based telephone communication" are not
considered a "private communication," DwC may still be violating the
law under Section 184 by using the intercepted conversations maliciously.
Neither the Vancouver Police Department nor the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police could be reached for comment. British Columbia has an Office of
the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but that department only
oversees the privacy of public bodies, and not individuals.
The conversations are private, but mundane -- DwC's digital sieve
catches the tedium of everyday life. One person gripes about why his
insurance won't cover stolen scuba gear. A man on his way to work
chats with his sleepy girlfriend. Then there's restaurant reservations,
drug deals, someone complaining about her bowel obstruction.
Some are intimate, others are disturbing.
"He was having financial problems and he hung himself in his garage
yesterday," said one voice.
"How old was he?"
"Fortyish."
While the chatter runs in the background, a group of streaming MP3
enthusiasts listens in on an Internet Relay Chat channel.
The cyber peanut gallery at times creates a bizarre interplay between
reality and the group of technically sophisticated voyeurs. As a woman
on a technical support cell call coaches a friend on how to plug in
her keyboard, the voyeurs in the channel chime in with their own
smart-aleck advice. Only they can hear it.
One young audiophile said he couldn't resist the voyeuristic thrill.
"I think he's trying to prove that we can't be ignorant to the people
listening to the scanners," said the chatter, who described himself as
an 18-year-old high school student from Toronto.
"It's like it's in the air: You can't stop the waves from going
through your body; why not listen to it?"
For David Jones, the answer is to junk analog cell phones in favor of
more secure digital PCS phones.
"We should all have digital cell phones that have strong crypto. It
wouldn't matter if we are broadcasting encrypted voice because it
would be indecipherable.
"Strong crypto keeps out the cops, it keeps out the reporters, and it
keeps out this punk in Vancouver who is getting his jollies."
------- Related Story ---------
Cell-Phone Calls Streamed on Net
by Chris Oakes
You can hear almost anything on the Internet these days -- maybe even
your own phone conversations.
America Online said Thursday morning that it was investigating
Internet broadcasts of private cell-phone conversations captured with
private scanner hardware and streamed out over the Net through its
Shoutcast service.
Shoutcast lets anyone with an Internet connection deliver any one of
dozens of audio feeds of their choice. Basement netcasters the world
over use MP3-encoded audio streams to channel home-brewed broadcasts
to users of MP3 playback software in real time.
"If you listen for a while, you'll hear credit card numbers, phone
numbers, addresses, and all kinds of information I'm sure the people
on the cell phones don't want the entire Internet to know," said
Thomas Edwards, founder of webcasting company The Sync.
"The legal implications are significant."
Edwards said he's heard what sound like both wireless phone and
cell-phone conversations. The cell-phone conversations are typically
interrupted every two minutes as cellular providers change a call's
radio frequency, he said.
The conversations could be heard on the Shoutcast home page at
Nullsoft, the company hosting the service, as recently as Wednesday
night. But Thursday morning, no feeds with titles indicating a
cell-phone conversation were listed.
Nullsoft parent company America Online said the company was made aware
of the issue only Thursday morning and began investigating.
"We want to act responsibly and swiftly so when information comes to
our attention that a user has posted information that could be
unlawful, we're going to review it, and if necessary, remove it," said
AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose.
As of Thursday morning, the company had not yet removed any feeds from
the Shoutcast site. A system monitor running on the Shoutcast site at
the same time detected 2,357 people listening to 569 active servers.
Telecommunications law generally removes Internet service providers
from liability for information sent through a service's network. Legal
cases have also established the provider as a conduit, or common
carrier. End users, and not the network provider, are liable for
illegal or libelous information.
Edwards said he checks into Shoutcast every two weeks and had only
just begun to notice the cell-phone conversations. He says it may be
that most of the feeds show up late at night.
In policy and disclaimer material on the Shoutcast site, Nullsoft
takes a hands-off stance on content fed through its site.
"Nullsoft, Inc. is not responsible for the content of what is
broadcast below. Nullsoft, Inc. believes in the First Amendment to the
US Constitution and will not review or censure any broadcast. Nullsoft,
Inc. maintains no responsibility for the content of any broadcast."
Nullsoft also publishes WinAmp, the popular MP3 player for listening
to Shoutcast and MP3-based music files.
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:12:45 -0400
Monty Solomon wrote:
> So what's Iridium's Plan B? Wired's Joanna Glasner says it will target
> tough guys. Think Will Steger or the guy Bruce Willis played in
> "Armageddon": roughnecks on oil derricks or the disaster-relief crowd.
> Maybe the next Jane Goodall.
I am afraid that I agree. I think that Iridium wasted way too much
time in making itself affordable. In countries such as Canada and
Australia, Iridium has a very strong chance to increase its subscriber
numbers in industrial applications.
While cycling in Australia's Western Australia state, I found heaps of
prospectors working for weeks in remote areas and they had bulky
sat-phones (telstra) and all were aware of Iridium but said that
nobody could afford an Iridium phone. Prospectors in Canada's north
(especially near Yellowknife where there is now diamond mine) would
also use such phones.
Also, once you make Iridium affordable, you start to dig into the
adventure-vacation market. I would have used an Iridium phone had it
been affordable in my last cycling trip across australia so I could
have downloaded data from ANYWHERE. (And also as a safety measure in
case something happened to me). With the lower rates, Iridium becomes
an alternative to the expensive HF radios used in australia's outback
on 4wd vehicles (required to call the flying doctor or police in
emergencies).
I think that Iridium has no choice now but to lower its rates. It has
only until June 30th to convince creditors not to force it into
bankrupcy, and it obviously had not succeeded with its "plan A" so it
had no choice but to start to show momentum and make a new plan that
the bankers/creditors willknow to give it another chance.
Another aspect:
With its lower rates, perhaps Iridium can replace Inmarsat and thus
start to get lost of "ship" subscribers.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:53:05 EDT
From: Michael J Kuras <mkuras@ccs.neu.edu>
Subject: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US
John Benedetto <john.benedetto@SNET.com> wrote:
> Is it a digital phone? Many of the new digital sets can and are being
> programmed with a combination of "favored" "friendly" or "negative"
> SIDs. Some phones, after registering on a network with a negative SID
> (even where there is plenty of signal), will show no signal once they
> see the SID and have been programmed to ignore it. So the signal is
> really there, but the phone is told to ignore this. Most analog
> phones don't do this, they will simply find the strongest signal on
> the A or B band (whatever the phone is defaulted to)
This is apparantly a VERY important issue to the carriers. I just
upgraded to a new dual-mode phone (Startac 7760- very nice, BTW) and
the Bell Atlantic sales drone told me that they were just finishing a
promotion where they offered customers with 1-2 year old dual modes a
NEW digital phone for free. The new phones, he said, had a firmware
update which would force them to use the cheapest carrier available.
So it was worth it to Bell Atlantic to give away new phones simply to
adjust its roaming parameters. Wow. Must be a BIG disparity between
roaming agreements. (funny- you'd think something as simple as this
would be flash upgradeable, either by bringing it in or even over the
air ...)
On a side note, he seemed very unhappy that I chose the 1600-minute-
anywhere-in-the-US-for-$169 plan. He admitted that they lose money on
that deal and are instructed to persuade the customer to choose a
different plan. This was after I caught him in three lies in as many
minutes as he tried to do so. Fortunately, I did my research
beforehand and knew exactly what I needed. (Now if they'd only get
CDMA data online...)
michael j kuras finger for pgp key mkuras@ccs.neu.edu
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: 24 Jun 1999 21:08:08 -0400
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom19.167.11@telecom-digest.org>, J.F. Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>>> The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America
>>> was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom?????
>> Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. AMPS was designed and first built in
>> the *1970s*.
> AMPS is old news. Countries such as Australia are already reducing
Which is relevant to the above quoted exchange how?
You've constructed a straw man argument, in which you can flog North
American network operators for so long as _any_ AMPS equipment is
installed _anywhere_. Of course, the fact that initial AMPS rollouts
in major cities were in the early 1980s, and that the system was
designed in the 1970s, is not appropriate clothing for your straw man,
so you ignore it. The world was not "well into GSM" in 1983; GSM did
not exist! But in your looking-glass world, being the first to deploy
_any_ type of cellular system (along with NTT in Japan, as another
poster pointed out) is somehow a sign of technical backwardness...
> their AMPS network capacity because their GSM networks have replaced
> them in many areas.
This is, of course, also the case in the United States. One hears
more than occasional complaints from AMPS users in some areas because
legacy AMPS carriers have converted so much equipment and bandwidth
over to PCS of one form or another. This is a worldwide trend.
> Remember that North America was very late in the game in adopting
> digital telephony.
You must have some wacky definition of "digital" or "telephony" or
"digital telephony". AFAIK (and in this forum, I'm quite sure someone
will tell me if I'm wrong) the Bell System was the first carrier in
the world to deploy digitized trunk circuits; a friend and coworker of
mine holds the patent on the first electronic signaling terminal for a
digital switch; and of course the modern electronic central office
switch as we know it, as well as the stored-program-controlled switch
and common-channel signaling, were all Bell System/Western Electric
innovations.
Not to mention digital access all the way out to the ultimate subscriber;
AT&T was there first with Accunet switched 56k service long ago, the
progenitor of today's ISDN>
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: 25 Jun 1999 02:58:53 GMT
Organization: Net Access BBS
> Suppose you're a shapely fitness model/law student whose campaign for
> elected office is jeopardized when thousands of bogus pictures of you
> start popping up on the Internet? Who you gonna call? Themis Klarides
> called Alyssa Milano's mother, Lin.
Yes, the mother has been waging a campaign against web sites that post
nude pictures of the daughter (either real or faked -- the daughter has
done nude scenes in movies so real pictures are out there.) [Alyssa
played the daughter in "Who's the Boss", did some movies, a stint on
Melrose Place, and now is on the WB's "Charmed".]
It does raise interesting questions about the law and the internet.
Traditional established publishers have to be careful of pornography,
copyright, and libel laws. While it's hard to prove libel, especially
with public figures, there are standards that publishers must follow
or they will be liable. Reprinting a copyrighted picture without
permission is not allowed.
The law is clear for traditional publishers, and most observe it.
(The tabloids do push the envelope quite a bit). But what about web
sites?
First, unlike a print publisher, how hard is it to find the actual
location and owner of a web site? When someone registers their http
address, is there a verified physical address and person associated
with it? Is there an enforcement authority in case of abuse?
A print publisher who has any kind of widespread distribution network
needs to have some capital to start off with and thus has some
responsibility. (Anyone of course can be a 'publisher' using a
copying machine and handouts on a street corner, but realistically the
resultant circulation revenue will be extremely low.)
An Internet "publisher" may own nothing but a computer, and even if
shutdown, can easily resume publishing again under a different name
and address. Such tactics can quickly wear down the most dedicated
enforcers.
Secondly, what about web sites operated outside the U.S.? Unlike
books which need an import agent, a foreign web sites flows in
freely. There was a case a few years from the small country of Moldavia
involving a long distance scam (users were secretly tricked into
making expensive overseas calls). How do U.S. copyright, libel,
and porn laws apply to them?
Third, there is the potential of abuse of personal rights to privacy.
Someone does NOT have the right to post embarassing nude photos of his
or her ex-boyfriend or girlfriend -- that is libel. Private individuals
have a right of privacy, and publishing embarassing things violates
that and is libel. (You might be able to lampoon the President on
your web site, but not your ex lover.)
------------------------------
From: Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:09:57 -0500
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote in message news:telecom19.150.11@
telecom-digest.org:
> http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,4993,00.html
> DoubleClick's planned buyout of Abacus Direct for $806 million in
> stock created hardly a ripple of interest among the major print
> dailies. A few posted yawning reports based on Bloomberg wire copy
> about the acquisition, which pairs the Internet-advertising company
> with the nation's fattest database of catalog-buying behavior.
I became a bit annoyed with having Doubleclick, as well as one or two
other companies, know a lot about my surfing habits. Here's what I did
to my two "main" workstations:
Unix machine:
Added a 'cron' job:
27 5 * * * rm /home/dos/.netscape/cookies ; touch
/home/dos/.netscape/cookies
(Basically, at 5:27am every day, when I am guaranteed to have a death-grip
on the pillow, all cookies are purged from the system, and the file is
re-created to avoid confusing Netscape too much.)
Wintel machine:
I've got Norton Program Scheduler (comes with NAV), that runs a two-line
batch file once a day:
del \windows\cookies\*.txt
del \windows\cookies\*.dat
The only down side it that I lose my stored logins on one or two web
sites, but, who cares? It means that Amazon.com doesn't know that I'm
also shopping at barnesandnoble.com, and running searches at
Lycos. I'm just not a big fan of people watching over my shoulder.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I always purge my cookies on a regular
basis. I do not have it set as a cron job (or whatever Windows calls
it), but I do have an easy to reach icon on my desktop which I just
click once in awhile, and everything goes away. I have best results if
I run it in DOS mode, and a few of the files stubbornly refuse to go
away unless you reboot the computer, so I include a reboot as part of
it. Part of the process is not just merely erasing the files, but
writing over them as well, then erasing a second time what you have
just written. Add to this a defrag once a week or so for extra clean
conditions.
As you point out, in the process you lose 'good cookies' as well as
'bad cookies', but one way around this is to grep your cookies file
for those cookies you wish to keep; copy the output of grep to some
other file; zap the remains and then move what you earlier separated
back into place. It would only add a second or two to the overall job.
I feel it is just too damn bad that something good and worthwhile like
javascript routines for creating/reading cookies -- which are most
useful and aid in making a website a pleasant place to visit -- have
to be abused by these companies on the net who like to snoop on all
the users. I think it is too bad that whoever first developed the
technique we call 'cookies' did not copyright or patent his technique
and place definite restrictions on the use of same, allowing cookies
to be used in a non-profit way as an aid to keeping track of users'
desired background colors, marking the place where they left off in
reading, things like that, while flatly forbidding their use by any
business place for marketing activity, etc. Probably whoever it was,
like so many of us, had no idea five or ten years ago what dreadful
things would happen to the net as we knew it then.
You mention Amazon.com in your message; I hope you (and other readers)
saw the item in the issue of the Digest just prior to this one which
also went out Friday night: it looks like Amazon.com has gotten mixed
up with some sort of scam involving direct debit of checking accounts.
Even supposedly being a VISA/MC processor does not carry a lot of
weight any longer. I reported here a few days ago that Merrick Bank
in Salt Lake City had gotten involved with a bunch in Clearwater, FL
who like making dips into your checking account while you are not
looking ... and that you have to yell at the bank's attorney to get
them to leave your checking account alone.
And the article in the last issue of this Digest which told of the
mess Amazon.com is now dealing with also seemed to imply that a lot of
businesses on the net are not very honest about their security pro-
cedures. I had a company which processes VISA/MC send me a note in
the mail and offer to handle it here. That is, anyone who wished to
make a donation as a Friend of the Digest to help offset my expenses
would be able to do so via credit card using a page on the website
for that purpose. I thought strongly about it, but I for one would
hate to get involved in some mess like Amazon.com, where someone
ripped off everyone else's money and then left a finger pointing at
me on account of it, as has now happened to Amazon. I am still
thinking about their offer, but my inclination is to stay away from
it; there are just too many risks and not enough safeguards. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Seymour Dupa <grumpy@bigbird.en.com>
Subject: Re: "Name That Domain" Contest
Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:53:52 GMT
Qwest-Frontier could be shortened to Qwier ...
Ron Walter <ronw@capcittel.com> wrote:
> Now that you've brought up name changes and mergers, I'm almost hoping
> Qwest pulls off their attempted purchase of Frontier and US West.
> Since I live near US West territory, I don't want to go through a
> dramatic name change and would prefer it become something like US
> Qwest.
If You Always Do the Things You've Done,
You'll Always Have the Things You Got.
------------------------------
From: Seymour Dupa <grumpy@bigbird.en.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Call Tracing Question
Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc.
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:05:58 GMT
Dan S. Wirsky <dswirsky@netscape.net> wrote:
> I want to try a different tack. I want to know if the cellular
> telephone company's database stores the identity of the cell from
> which a phone call is made as part of the record of the phone call.
> If this is the case, the police might try to get a warrant for all
> phone numbers that made an outgoing call from the cell that covered
> her apartment at the time of the robbery.
Have you tried asking about this in alt.cellular?
If You Always Do the Things You've Done,
You'll Always Have the Things You Got.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #169
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jun 26 03:40:17 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA15423;
Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:40:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:40:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906260740.DAA15423@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #170
TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Jun 99 03:40:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 170
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"? (Matt Bartlett)
Re: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"? (Scott Robert Dawson)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Hudson Leighton)
Re: 9-1-1 Info (was Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs) (DTM37)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Dave Lapin)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (David Clayton)
Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (David Clayton)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Neal McLain)
Re: Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit (L. Winson)
For Sale: Mitel SX-100 Super Switch System (Butch Butler)
For Sale: Norstar With Five Telephones (elchino@my-deja.com)
Norstar Plus Docs Wanted (Russ Ericson)
Re: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice? (Keelan Lightfoot)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Matt Bartlett <mbartlett@cyberdude.com>
Subject: Re: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:55:01 -0400
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
The only difference between Sprint PCS and BAM is that Sprint operates
on 1900 Mhz CDMA, and BAM uses 800 Mhz CDMA/AMPS. BAM isautomat-
ically dual mode, roaming on BAMs analog side (AMPS) when digital
coverage gets weak. Sprint PCS (on a dual band phone) will work on
either A or B carrier (ATT or BAM) analog amps if Sprint coverage is
weak, but only at 39 cents per minute.
Matt
------------------------------
From: sunspace@interlog.com.placeholder (Scott Robert Dawson)
Subject: Re: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"?
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 04:12:28 GMT
Organization: Interlog Internet Services
On 25 Jun 1999 09:35:40 -0400, jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones)
wrote:
> Is there a web site somewhere which has a good description of some of
> the underlying technologies and who uses what?
Try Steve Punter's site at http://www.arcx.com/sites/. It has
excellent descriptions of all five types of cellphones used in North
America right now.
The site is focused on the Toronto area. Don't be put off by this if
you are not in Toronto; the background information is what you want.
Scroll down to the middle of the page and folow the FAQ, Technologies,
Guide, and CDMA vs. TDMA links.
It's the site I would have tried to build, but Steve got there first.
:)
Scott Robert Dawson
Toronto
------------------------------
From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 23:18:02 -0500
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.
In article <telecom19.169.5@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
(Lisa Hancock) wrote:
snip
> Third, there is the potential of abuse of personal rights to privacy.
> Someone does NOT have the right to post embarassing nude photos of his
> or her ex-boyfriend or girlfriend -- that is libel. Private individuals
> have a right of privacy, and publishing embarassing things violates
> that and is libel. (You might be able to lampoon the President on
> your web site, but not your ex lover.)
But what TV judge was unable/or gave up doing anything about nude photos
taken by old boyfriend and posted on the Internet.
And what well endowed TV star and now ex-husband rock star were unable
to do anything about a video stolen from them and posted on the internet
and sold through the mail.
Enforcement and case law have a long way to go on the internet copyright
and libel issues.
http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has anyone been following this same
situation with Dr. Laura Schlessinger? 'Doctor Laura' as she is known
to her millions of radio listeners and her web site visitors lived
quite a wild life in earlier years; someone got photos of her and put
them on the net where they remain to this day. Occassionally on her
radio program someone will mention the nude pictures on the web and
her response is simply that, 'those were from a long time ago, when
I was a different person than I am now; I have changed my life I
think for the better, but through those pictures, I am still paying
the price for the lifestyle I used to have." She occassionally will
invite people to go look at the pictures -- although she does not give
out the URL; she assumes if you want to see them bad enough you will
find it on your own -- and says that, 'The internet and the web are
good, positive things that can serve us all. The person who put my
pictures on view was not trying to serve the net or help make the
world a better place than he found it; he only did it to be hurtful,
and at that he succeeded. The pictures embarass me, and much of my
former life embarasses me when I think about it. Others will judge
him for his actions.' PAT]
------------------------------
From: dtm37@aol.com (DTM37)
Date: 25 Jun 1999 11:58:51 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: 9-1-1 Info (was Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs)
We are directly involved with NENA. The purpose of this supplemental
group is to establish direct communications with interested parties
with the intention of uploading input to the NENA subcommittees.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:53:40 -0400
From: Dave Lapin <dlapin@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:49:36 EDT , Carl Moore (cmoore@ARL.MIL) posted:
> I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
> against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
> least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
> says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
Carl may have missed the one extra bit I heard on only one of the
reports on KYW-news radio: the reason for this prohibition is that
cell phones may cause electrical sparks and ignite the gas vapors,
especially if the cell phone is dropped.
Now, please don't shoot the messenger. I really did hear this
explanation on a legitimate news broadcase (although only once).
Dave Lapin (home) dlapin@alum.mit.edu
<insert std.disclaimer> (work) david.lapin@unisys.com
Obtain PGP key from PGPKeyServer: http://pgpkeys.mit.edu
------------------------------
From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:58:39 GMT
Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd.
Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> contributed the following:
> Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>>> The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America
>>> was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom?????
>> Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. AMPS was designed and first built in
>> the *1970s*.
> AMPS is old news. Countries such as Australia are already reducing
> their AMPS network capacity because their GSM networks have replaced
> them in many areas. Remember that North America was very late in the
> game in adopting digital telephony.
The extensive Australian AMPS network gets shut down at the end of
this year, (with the exception of some remote areas), and is being
superseded by the combination of extending the GSM network and a new
CDMA network.
There have been significant political issues with the current range
and coverage of the AMPS network but CDMA look like the solution.
BTW, there are still hundreds of thousands of AMPS users who have to
make other arrangements in the next few months, but most people will
not be too sad to see AMPS get the flick.
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag
you down to their level then beat you with experience.
------------------------------
From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:58:40 GMT
Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd.
Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> contributed the following:
>> Digging up the ground for fiber is a one-time expense (modulo
>> repairs from errant backhoes), but you can put *vastly* more data over
>> fiber.
> I was told that in Australia's outback, they only put it 6 inches
> below ground except in crossing rivers where it is put a few feet
> below the ground level for those rare times when there is water in the
> river.
Remember also that crossing Australia from east to west is about the
same distance as crossing the USA from east to west ... that's a long
piece of fibre to bury ...
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:31:01 -0400
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
In TELECOM DIGEST V19 #166, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard
Erickson) writes:
> Also, in not that many years, even *non*-overlay areas may
> have to switch to 10-digit local dialing.
If/when the entire NANP goes to 10- (or 11-) digit dialing on all
calls, we should be able to use 1 and 0 for the first digit of the NXX
code -- turning it into an XXX code. Thus, combinations such as
415-120-9905 and 415-020-9905 would be valid. This would result in a
25% increase in the size of the number pool.
Is this likely to happen?
Neal McLain
nmclain@compuserve.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At the present time, many of those
three-digit combinations as per your examples are used. They are
non-dialable, of course, for billing purposes only. Things like
'non-subscriber calling cards' from AT&T (calling cards issued
where there is no specific telephone number to relate it to), tie-
line circuits between PBXs, the older style 800 number which had
its termination on a circuit of its own not related to any specific
seven-digit number as most are today, etc. Many of them are also
dialable by telephone operators only as a way to reach the 'Inward'
operator in some other city.
A miscellaneous billing account in Chicago for example might be
something like 312-173-2901. Like an actual, dialable prefix, some of
those non-dialable 'billing pur- poses only' three digit combinations
are assigned to local telco, some to AT&T, some to MCI, some to
Sprint, etc so that clearinghouse functions can be handled with ease,
with the area code and first three digits detirmining which telco is
to get the associated charge or credit. If a toll ticket for example
was to be billed to the number (example) 305-099-7234 then telco's
back office could look at it and detirmine that the charge should go
to Sprint to some miscellaneous account at their office in Miami.
Just as for many, many years when we had 'traditional' area codes,
the number '909' was never assigned to telephone use because it was
in use by Telenet as the 'area code' for their data network, when
it was eventually taken over, Telenet had to do some re-arrangements
on their own network. The numbers you suggest are already 'known'
by telco computers, its just that they are known to serve other things
than actually connecting to a live customer. To assign them now as
phone numbers would require all sorts of changes in things like the
operator's routing tables for inward, billing functions, and whatever
else. I suspect a lot of backoffice bureaucrats would be hostile.
Besides, there are other ways to expand the supply of numbers, and
telco would rather inconvenience the public with area code overlays
and eleven digit dialing anytime in preference to having to be
inconvenienced itself in its own internal functions. PAT]
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson)
Subject: Re: Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit
Date: 26 Jun 1999 02:44:56 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
I am looking forward to checking this out! Sounds exciting. Will
pass the word to ATCA and TCI groups.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: David Massey, creator of Tribute to
the Telephone is a member of ATCA as a matter of fact. He mentions
his membership number in the organization on one of the web pages.
The first few comments I have received (I told a couple of long-time
people here about it a few days ago in private mail) have generally
been favorable. One person said he had no idea how one person could
accumulate that much information and get it all scanned in. It did
not happen overnight. Massey has been at this for a few years now.
It took me about two weeks of working a couple hours per day to get
the pages properly linked and into a directory structure here. I
told him I was thrilled with the idea of it being part of Telecom
Archives, and I hope all readers enjoy it as much as David and I did
in getting it on line here. http://telecom-digest.org/tribute/
Don't try to view/read it all at once! PAT]
------------------------------
From: bbutler@home.com (Butch Butler)
Subject: For Sale: Mitel SX-100 Super Switch System
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:43:38 GMT
Organization: @Home Network
I have acquired a Mitel SX-100 Super Switch surplus to my needs (which
are nil.) It works -- according to my telecom guy who just upgraded my
place of business. It really is too heavy to ship unless someone is
REALLY desparate to have it, so I'll try parting it out. There are
SIXTEEN BOARDS in the cabinet, as follows:
6 ea. - LINE CIRCUIT (8 STATION) 9110-110
1 ea. - C.O. TRUNK CIRCUIT (4 TRUNK) 9110-211-000
2 ea. - DID/TIE TRUNK CIRCUIT (2 TRUNK)9110-031
2 ea. - RECEIVER (DUAL) 9110-009
1 ea. - CONSOLE CONTROL (DUAL) 9110-006
1 ea. - TONE CONTROL 9110-005
1 ea. - SCANNER 9110-004
1 ea. - 160K PROM/CPU 9110-103-216-N A
1 ea. - RAM/COS 9110-102
Anyone out there tell me what these are worth? I'll let them go fairly
cheap, but I don't want to give them away.
Thanks,
Butch
------------------------------
From: elchino@my-deja.com
Subject: For Sale: Norstar With Five Telephones
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:07:09 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Selling telephone system Norstar with 5 telephones $1500.00 plus
shipping. Send Email or Call 305-552-1288.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is just a reminder that normally
the Digest is NOT a vehicle for 'want to sell' or 'want to buy' type
messages. *Commercial messages* from brokers, used equipment sales
people and such are not accepted. Occassionally, when I have a little
space to fill in an issue, private party placements like the above
two, from regular reader/participants here, are accepted at no
charge. Only occassionally, not as a routine thing. Items like the
two above are relatively unsaleable in any general-purpose commercial
newsgroup which is why I will consider them here. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Russ Ericson <aspr2shs@cruzio.com>
Subject: Norstar Plus Docs Wanted
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:29:41 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Reply-To: aspr2shs@cruzio.com
Hi,
Yesterday I couldn't spell phones and today I must learn to manage the
phone system.
It has MICS-DR 1.1 software and what I need is a that will help me to
better understand what I am doing. We are splitting our T1 line with
8 voice channels and 16 data channels. The problem I am having is
that since we changed area codes, a year ago, our dial out number
still appends the old area code which forces us to dial the direct
number + the new area code to dial locally. I think it is in the
routing part of the software but I'm not sure. I would appreciate some
help with this problem. I just started the job, (I didn't tell them I
was a phone guy) and solving it would give me more points than a
porcupine.
Thanks.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See the message before this one. Maybe
the guy with the Norstar stuff for sale has documentation on your
problem. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:02:55 -0700
From: Keelan Lightfoot <keelan@mail.bzzzzzz.com>
Subject: Re: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice?
> The statement that data traffic now exceeds voice in North America is
> repeated in just about every telecom presentation I hear these
> days. But no one cites a source for the claim. It seems to be
> accepted without question.
Not exactly statistics, but a little better than unsourced claims:
http://www.tmo.hp.com/tmo/tcnews/9811/16tncov.html
- Keelan Lightfoot
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #170
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jun 26 14:27:05 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA00311;
Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906261827.OAA00311@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #171
TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Jun 99 14:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 171
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Ralph Seberry)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Craig Macbride)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Juha Veijalainen)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Steven Lichter)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (David Clayton)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Tom Betz)
Re: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"? (Arthur Ross)
Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Ryan Tucker)
Re: Norstar Plus Docs Wanted (Brian Cox)
Ericsson MD-100 Switch Question (Mark Earle)
Re: Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit (Frank Heisler)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:39:40 +1000
From: Ralph Seberry <rseberry@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
editor@telecom-digest.org wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I always purge my cookies on a regular
> basis. I do not have it set as a cron job (or whatever Windows calls
> it), but I do have an easy to reach icon on my desktop which I just
> click once in awhile, and everything goes away.
> As you point out, in the process you lose 'good cookies' as well as
> 'bad cookies',
You might look at the Junkbusters Web Proxy (www.junkbusters.com).
It allows you to control cookies quite closely. You can block
them by site, so you only receive good cookies in the first place.
It also allows blocking of banner ads.
Ralph
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someplace around here I have a little
program which prevents popup windows from reaching you. It has three
levels of control, either off, mimimum or maximum. In the minimum
state, it is supposed to do a reasonable job of killing popups, but
it says some will come through anyway. In the maximum state, it
alleges to 'kill popups, i.e. goecities style, dead before they
reach your screen', but the level also seems to kill *desired* popups
called for by the user. I may take a look at Junkbusters and see
how well they deal with these things.
I find those popup window advertisements quite a nuisance. If they
want to put advertising on the page itself, I do not favor that
idea but will live with it, but the popups and the frames you cannot
close out of with advertising in them, etc, really are distasteful.
One reason David Massey did not want Tribute to the Telephone at a
place like Geocities was for that very reason; he did not want to
have advertisements popping up all over the display. Many of those
things make it appear as though the occupant of the web page is
endorsing them. I guess everyone knows that Geocities and Yahoo have
merged. The technical stuff was done yesterday and last night, and
now it is known as 'Geocities-Yahoo'. I certainly hope that does
not mean that Yahoo is now going to start having popups all over the
screen. It would be a shame to see a good service like that get the
reputation Geocities has among so many netters. PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
From: craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride)
Organization: Nyx Public Access Internet
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:22:28 GMT
Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com> writes:
> on the pillow, all cookies are purged from the system, and the file is
> re-created to avoid confusing Netscape too much.)
Why not just use the option in Netscape "accept only cookies that get
sent back to the originating server"?
That'll prevent any sites sharing cookies in real time. However, if
Doubleclick decides to create a massive database and cross-check it,
they could always store all the cross-check information on their
server, indexed by IP address, maybe? Okay, many people have
non-permanent IP addresses these days, but they could still narrow it
down a lot.
> The only down side it that I lose my stored logins on one or two web
> sites, but, who cares? It means that Amazon.com doesn't know that I'm
> also shopping at barnesandnoble.com, and running searches at
> Lycos. I'm just not a big fan of people watching over my shoulder.
Use the above option, and they won't know anyhow.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I always purge my cookies on a regular
> basis.
I don't. A large proportion of sites which send me cookies are places
I log in to that are storing information I don't want to have to type
again.
> I think it is too bad that whoever first developed the
> technique we call 'cookies' did not copyright or patent his technique
> and place definite restrictions on the use of same
Why? It's the responsibility of government to legislate on privacy
issues, not for individuals to have to take civil action. The real
problem is the lamentable lack of such legislation in the USA. Other
countries can legislate to protect privacy within their own borders,
but that does little good when US companies create databases on
(presumably) anybody. Of course, this is why US companies are having
problems with their European divisions not being allowed to exchange
data on clients with their US divisions, due to European countries not
allowing private information to be sent to places (eg. the USA) where
such data may be abused.
Of course, the real answer is more configurable browers. Just configure
your browser to ignore all doubleclick.net addresses, for example. Simple.
If you are running your own proxy server, it's pretty easy to do this
already, much as the banner ad places _hate_ the idea, of course.
Craig Macbride <craig@glasswings.com.au>
---------------------http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/~craig---------------
"It's a sense of humour like mine, Carla, that makes me proud
to be ashamed of myself." - Captain Kremmen
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everyone wants the government to do
everything for them. That won't work! Look at the mess the government
has already made on the internet in places where they have started
getting involved. As far as the US government is concerned, they'd
just as soon regular people would get off this thing so it could be
turned over to big business interests anyway. When is the last time
in a dispute between a netizen and a big corporation over the use of
a domain name that the courts ever ruled in favor of the netizen?
It doesn't happen.
Did you see the recent item in the news about the black lady in New
York who is suing America On Line for theft of a domain name she owns?
Her web site is devoted to a directory of African-American professionals
on the net, organized by their field of expertise, and their business
activities, etc. She had it for the longest time, a quite active site
under the name aolsearch.com and one day it just went dead. Upon her
inquiry of the name registrar, she was told that America On Line was
taking it over, because they (AOL) were starting a search engine and
needed the name. No advance warning, no nothing. It was all just so
casual, as if it were an everyday occurrance, which apparently it is
since the name registrar stated in the same article that last year
they 'adjudicated' about 900 disputes regarding domain names, and I
guess what that means is that if a lawyer for some large corporation
comes along, posturing in a very arrogant way, that everyone is
expected to suck up and give in to the demands. Or don't give in if
you don't want to, it doesn't matter; the name registrar will do as
they feel like anyway. So the government is the last place that I,
as a netizen, would turn for any assistance regarding things that
are offensive around here. They do not want you here. As soon as you
come to grips with that simple reality, you will start getting along
just fine. They want you to get so annoyed you finally leave.
I wish it were possible to ignore all doubleclick addresses, but there
are so many of them, keeping them all straight would be impossible.
And I guess like spammers, when you block them off from one direction,
they just change their name and come at you from another direction.
So just as I personally shower, shave and change my clothes daily, I
do the same to Computer, more or less regularly. PAT]
------------------------------
From: juhave@zdnetmail.com (Juha Veijalainen)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:35:32 +0300
Organization: Jkarhuritarit
In article <telecom19.170.5@telecom-digest.org>, dlapin@alum.mit.edu
says:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:49:36 EDT , Carl Moore (cmoore@ARL.MIL) posted:
>> I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
>> against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
>> least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
>> says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
> Carl may have missed the one extra bit I heard on only one of the
> reports on KYW-news radio: the reason for this prohibition is that
> cell phones may cause electrical sparks and ignite the gas vapors,
> especially if the cell phone is dropped.
As far as I know, Britain has had cell phone use restrictions at
petrol stations for a while. Esso (Exxon) had decided internationally
that cell phones must not be used at their stations. Strange thing is
that in Finland some Esso stations have services that require cell
phone (like paying for automatic car wash). Also, cell phone use does
not bother any other petrol stations (Shell, Jet, Neste ...)
The cited reason was possibility of sparks from the cell phone, though
I suspect secondary reason might be that someone is worried about cell
phone effects to the computerised metering pumps.
Use of mobile radio and other equipment _is_ restricted on oil tanker
ships, for example. Rubber coated and gas sealed equipment is used to
avoid sparks.
Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/
Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer
** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect **
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Odd, isn't it that Exxon is so careful
about the use of radios on their tankers and then hires a drunkard
as a captain who causes the ship to dump its cargo all over the
Alaska shoreline; a mess that people are still trying to clean up
after all these years. Or, as the old rhyme goes, 'what are you gonna
do with a drunken sailor ... put him charge of an Exxon tanker ...'
PAT]
------------------------------
From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter)
Date: 26 Jun 1999 13:12:24 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
PacBell will not let anyone use Cell, PCS, 900 meg or anyother type of
wireless devise in any of their CO's. They say that it will cause
interference with their switch, I have yet to see a problem in any
other digital office of any other company's office I have been in and
that includes AirTouch, ATT Wireless.
Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the
Apple II and Mac. 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server.
------------------------------
From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:43:37 GMT
Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd.
Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Dave Lapin <dlapin@alum.mit.edu> contributed the following:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:49:36 EDT , Carl Moore (cmoore@ARL.MIL) posted:
>> I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
>> against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
>> least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
>> says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
> Carl may have missed the one extra bit I heard on only one of the
> reports on KYW-news radio: the reason for this prohibition is that
> cell phones may cause electrical sparks and ignite the gas vapors,
> especially if the cell phone is dropped.
> Now, please don't shoot the messenger. I really did hear this
> explanation on a legitimate news broadcase (although only once).
Every time I see this argument I am just thankful that some people
with sufficient foresight have managed to have the restrictions put in
place.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that some goose filling his
tank, (with the petrol fumes pushed out of the pipe as the petrol goes
in), has his 'phone clipped to his belt -- possibly centimetres from
the fumes -- which then starts transmitting because someone has called
it?
Even a minute RF arc in the proximity of the fumes could cause an
explosion.
The circumstances may be unlikely, even remote, but I would prefer that
this unnecessary risk wasn't taken at all.
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
------------------------------
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: 26 Jun 1999 08:12:41 -0400
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email
Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com
Quoth hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) in <telecom19.170.3@
telecom-digest.org>:
> And what well endowed TV star and now ex-husband rock star were unable
> to do anything about a video stolen from them and posted on the internet
> and sold through the mail.
I sincerely doubt that anything was stolen from this duo; rather, they
made a deal to sell it and were surprised with its notoriety, hence
the later "stolen" claim.
|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>| YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 07:57:59 -0700
From: Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"?
jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) wrote:
> Is there a web site somewhere which has a good description of some of
> the underlying technologies and who uses what? For even a reasonably
> educated consumer, the number of providers and acronyms (not to
> mention made up names for various offerings) is terribly confusing.
> For example, I've been a pretty happy customer of Sprint PCS (over
> CDMA, right?) for a couple of years now. I'm getting a little
> disappointed because they're not building up their digital network as
> fast as I'd hoped in the areas I travel through (I'm really happy with
> the coverage in Albany and NYC, though). Some friends are telling me I
> should switch to Bell Atlantic Mobile because they have better digital
> coverage because they use "digital cell" technology. I thought they
> were another CDMA-based system. Is there a good place to go to get
> answers to questions like this?
The tutorial on the CDMA Development Group website
(www.cdg.org/tech/a_ross) addresses CDMA technology at an introductory
technical level, and tries to show how it differs from the others. It
includes a glossary. Similar material, sans marketing spin, can be found at
www.amug.org/~ahmrphd. The rest of the CDG website (www.cdg.org) may be
helpful about who runs what and who manufactures what.
Both Sprint and BAM do run CDMA. The former in the PCS band (1800 MHz), the
latter in the cellular band (800 MHz).
-- Best
-- Dr. Arthur Ross
2325 East Orangewood Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730
Phone: 602-371-9708
Fax : 602-336-7074
------------------------------
From: rtucker+from+199906@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker)
Subject: Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament
Date: 26 Jun 1999 14:15:15 GMT
Organization: TTGCITN Communications <http://www.ttgcitn.com/>, ROC NY
Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199906@katan.ttgcitn.com
In <telecom19.167.7@telecom-digest.org>, Tony Pelliccio
<nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com> spewed:
> This is what really frosts me about cellular phone manufacturers and
> carriers. Why is it that you have to pay oodles of money to get a
> cellphone that vibrates vs. the annoying ring most of them have? And
> why is it that the carrier and manufacturers can't incorporate a "one
> moment" key on them so that those who really need to have their
> cellphone with them can excuse themselves to a private area and the
> call will be held.
Hmmm, my Ericsson KF788 has a vibrate function, and it wasn't all that
expensive. The vibrator is kinda weak compared to my pager, but it
works.
Also, I'm not sure about this phone (just got it a week or so ago), but
most phones have a hold function ... answer phone, say "one moment
please", put it on hold, and then carry it elsewhere. -rt
Ryan Tucker <rtucker+18@ttgcitn.com> http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425
Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored.
------------------------------
From: Brian Cox <exsmogger@***.com>
Subject: Re: Norstar Plus Docs Wanted
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:28:02 -0400
Organization: Atlantel Business Comm.
Russ Ericson wrote:
> Yesterday I couldn't spell phones and today I must learn to manage the
> phone system.
> It has MICS-DR 1.1 software and what I need is a that will help me to
> better understand what I am doing. We are splitting our T1 line with
> 8 voice channels and 16 data channels. The problem I am having is
> that since we changed area codes, a year ago, our dial out number
> still appends the old area code which forces us to dial the direct
> number + the new area code to dial locally. I think it is in the
> routing part of the software but I'm not sure. I would appreciate some
> help with this problem. I just started the job, (I didn't tell them I
> was a phone guy) and solving it would give me more points than a
> porcupine.
It is a routing problem. This is programmed in the area of destination
codes. You need to sub your new area code for the old one. We have
books available.
Brian Cox
Atlantel Business Comm.
800-637-9973
use mindspring instead of *** to reply by email
------------------------------
From: mm6669@electrotex.com (Mark Earle)
Subject: Ericsson MD100 Switch Question
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:33:53 GMT
We have an Ericsson MD100 switch, and run version 2.01 of the DNA
suite (operator console, graphics user interface administation tools).
2.01 is not Y2k compliant. There is a patch (which we don't yet have);
and a new version which is in hand.
The problem is, my vendor wants 8 hours (!) to install and reconfigure
the new version. This is for a system with about 120 phones and 2
operator consoles. I'm wondering if anyone has gone through this, and
if 8 hours is really the extent of the effort.
Also wondering if anyone has used the patch which is supposed to
simply fix the Y2k aspects.
We're not using the fancy stuff (telanphony, fax to desk, etc).
Thanks!
Mark
mearle@sfxhou.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 99 15:25
From: frankie@dns.tlug.org (Frank Heisler)
Subject: Re: Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit
Organization: Downsview Networking Services
In article <telecom19.168.1@telecom-digest.org> TELECOM Digest Editor
said:
> ** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** is a new, permanent exhibit at this
Pat, I was roaming around the digest late last night and found the
link to this exhibit. Fantastic ... thanks for making this available
at telecom-digest.org .
Cheeri'o...
Frank Heisler | Downsview Networking Services
frankie@dns.tlug.org | System Administrator
"I'm light years away from the people who make me stay. Sitting on the
bad side of the moon." - Elton John "Bad Side of the Moon"
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am glad you liked it. It is an
ongoing thing; David Massey is continuing to compile it and I am
continuing to edit the links and bring it all together on this end.
Editorial questions concerning the exhibit should be directed to
dmassey@telecom-digest.org while questions regarding broken links
and/or missing pictures, etc can be directed to either of us. Please
do check it out soon at http://telecom-digest.org/tribute and feel
free to bookmark pages of interest. You will even get my little
'favicon.ico' -- a red telephone icon -- in your favorites file if
you do! (grin). PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #171
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jun 26 21:23:10 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA12873;
Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:23:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:23:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906270123.VAA12873@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #172
TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Jun 99 21:23:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 172
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Steve Winters)
Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Steven)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Rob Levandowski)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Steven J. Sobol)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Bruce Roberts)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Tony Pelliccio)
Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Stanley Cline)
Re: NYC Local Calls (Patrick Lee)
Re: Ericsson MD100 Switch Question (Charles B. Wilber)
Re: Automated Web Page FAXing (Steven)
Re: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice? (Ian Angus)
Re: More Mischief on the Net! Hackers Netcast Phone Calls (Steven J. Sobol)
Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications (Greg Monti)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winter)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 19:08:57 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) spake thusly and wrote:
> First, unlike a print publisher, how hard is it to find the actual
> location and owner of a web site? When someone registers their http
> address, is there a verified physical address and person associated
> with it? Is there an enforcement authority in case of abuse?
Generally a web site will be registered as a domain and their
information would be available at http://www.networksolutions.com
Even if they set up as anon, someone is paying the bill and their
identity is only one subpoena away if they are doing something illegal
or tortious etc ...
Steve Winter
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
------------------------------
From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven)
Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 03:59:35 +0800
Organization: Prima Computer
That statement is ridiculous. People may get away with scams like
this, but that doesn't mean it is legal.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. I call the guy and say I am
authorised to sell service on behalf of your company for a flat rate
of $1/month. I guess you should be obligated to provide it. After
all, he had every reason to believe that I was representing your
company.
While were at it, anyone want to pretend to be Bill Gates and sell me
Microsoft? Maybe I could get my potted plant to sell it to me. A
little custard pie and they look the same to me.
You have to inform the person who owns the line, and he has to agree.
You then have to provide the service and he has to take it. That is
the fundamental essence of a contract.
All he has to say is that he was dissatisfied with the service, and he
will not only pay no bill, but be eligible to collect damages as well.
If you get a friendly judge (who has been harassed by telemarketers
himself) then he might get punitive damages as well. Id go after a
restraining order while I was at it. See how well they pull this stunt
when they aren't allowed within 500 feet of a dialtone.
Steven
In article <telecom19.164.5@telecom-digest.org>, mjt@lcrtelecom.com
says...
> Call the carrier and ask to listen to the verification tape. If the
> verification system asked whether (your wife) is authorized to make
> changes to the line, and she says "yes", then you don't have a lot of
> ground to stand on, as the carrier wouldn't know that she is not, and
> the name of the authorizer is *not* sent ot the LECs as part of the
> PIC request.
> My company is an LD reseller, and I handle provisioning, so this is
> pretty first hand. So, assuming that she did authorize it, it would
> be a legal switch. My suggestion is ask the LEC to put a PIC freeze
> on your account. Then only you can switch carriers. But you have to
> do it by calling the LEC yourself ... you can't authorize someone else
> to do it in your name.
------------------------------
From: robl@macwhiz.com (Rob Levandowski)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Organization: MacWhiz Technologies
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:02:12 -0400
In article <telecom19.171.5@telecom-digest.org>, dcstar@acslink.aone.
net.au wrote:
> Is it beyond the realms of possibility that some goose filling his
> tank, (with the petrol fumes pushed out of the pipe as the petrol goes
> in), has his 'phone clipped to his belt -- possibly centimetres from
> the fumes -- which then starts transmitting because someone has called
> it?
The fumes are a good point, but it makes me think that there is another
solution to the fumes which is a better idea all around.
In Western Massachusetts, I've noticed that all gas stations have
installed "vapor recovery nozzles." The filler hose is coaxial, as is
the nozzle. There are perforations on the nozzle so that any fumes
given off by the refueling process are drawn into the holes and back
through the hose via a vacuum. This was done primarily to reduce the
environmental dangers of gasoline fumes. I believe this is required
by law in the area.
It's very noticeable after you've fueled a few times at such a pump.
There's none of the gasoline smell you've come to expect and ignore at
regular stations. While this may not completely eliminate the risk of
touching off fumes from a small RF spark, I would think that it would
lessen it considerably -- perhaps even to the level of "freakish chance."
I've also noticed some cars now have onboard vapor recovery for
refueling; my new Saab lists this feature in the owners' manual.
Fumes are diverted to a storage canister and burned in the engine.
There are fewer gas fumes refueling my Saab than I was used to with my
old American car.
Now, I'm not too keen on people using cellphones everywhere and
anywhere, but the fume explosion risk here seems very controllable to
me. It's just that the petroleum companies don't want to spend the
money on "green" technology like this without being forced to do so by
the government ...
Rob Levandowski
robl@macwhiz.com
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: 26 Jun 1999 17:45:28 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:49 -0700, a.ross@ieee.org allegedly said:
> potential sources of static sparks in dry weather. And they shouldn't
> be PUMPING their gas, as the very motion of the fluid itself can
> create static charges.
If you had a gas leak, would you call the gas company from your house
or someone else's? (Just wondering.)
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The word on this from People's Gas,
which serves Chicago and its subsidiary North Shore Gas in the
suburbs is *DO NOT* use your telephone to report a gas leak. Make
the report from a telephone somewhat removed, such as at a neighbor's
house. Telco also advises the same thing regards gas leaks, or 'anytime
you smell gas in your home ...' Telco also advises against the use
of the phone during heavy rainstorms with thunder and lightning since
there is a risk that lightning might strike their wires. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Bruce Roberts <bfr1@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:25:07 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Reply-To: bfr1@worldnet.att.net
David Clayton wrote:
> Every time I see this argument I am just thankful that some people
> with sufficient foresight have managed to have the restrictions put in
> place.
> Is it beyond the realms of possibility that some goose filling his
> tank, (with the petrol fumes pushed out of the pipe as the petrol goes
> in), has his 'phone clipped to his belt -- possibly centimetres from
> the fumes -- which then starts transmitting because someone has called
> it?
> Even a minute RF arc in the proximity of the fumes could cause an
> explosion.
In which case each individual should be required to coast his/her
vehicle the last 100 feet to the pump and then push it the first 100
feet after filling. A running internal combustion engine is a
veritable hotbed of ignition sources. Every door on a car has
sparking dome light switches and the like and we won't even go into
the idiots who stub out their cigarettes, if at all, until after they
pull up to the pump. Given all this and the dearth of petrol station
explosions I'll not worry even a bit about being immolated courtesy of
my Motherola Flip Phone.
TTFN -br-
These opinions are all mine - and I'm quietly proud of them.
Bruce Roberts - Long Beach, California
------------------------------
From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Organization: Providence Network Partners
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:52:53 GMT
In article <telecom19.171.4@telecom-digest.org>, stevenl11@aol.comstuffit
says...
> PacBell will not let anyone use Cell, PCS, 900 meg or anyother type of
> wireless devise in any of their CO's. They say that it will cause
> interference with their switch, I have yet to see a problem in any
> other digital office of any other company's office I have been in and
> that includes AirTouch, ATT Wireless.
I've been in a Brooks Fiber office and had a call come in on my GSM
cellphone. I look around and all the techs have cellphones hanging off
thier belts so I guess it's ok. It was.
The switch in that room was a 5ESS-2000. If I'm not mistaken, both Lucent
and Nortel build those things to withstand nothing short of an
earthquake. Why should a little thing like a cell phone hurt. ;)
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR
== Trustee WE1RD
------------------------------
From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:29:11 GMT
Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX)
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
On 26 Jun 1999 14:15:15 GMT, rtucker+from+199906@katan.ttgcitn.com
(Ryan Tucker) wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure about this phone (just got it a week or so ago), but
> most phones have a hold function ... answer phone, say "one moment
> please", put it on hold, and then carry it elsewhere. -rt
The GSM standard and nearly all GSM phones provide for "call hold".
(While roaming on DigiPH on the Mississippi Gulf Coast a couple of
months ago, I put someone on hold and they reported getting _music_
while on hold! :) )
With other phones, a mute function can be used as a substitute to a
true "hold" feature.
SC
------------------------------
From: patlee@panix.com (Patrick Lee)
Subject: Re: NYC Local Calls
Date: 26 Jun 1999 18:37:29 GMT
Reply-To: pat@patlee.org (Patrick Lee)
In article <telecom19.155.6@telecom-digest.org>,
Jon Solomon <jsol@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> I hear BA is offering unlimited calling as an option in the NYC area.
NYNEX began offering unlimited local calling plan (New York City) and
unlimited regional calling plan (Long Island and parts of Westchester)
in New York about four years ago. BA has not changed these plans since
acquiring NYNEX.
Patrick Lee <patlee@panix.com>
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jun 1999 18:11:37 EDT
From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Reply-To: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Subject: Re: Ericsson MD100 Switch Question
mm6669@electrotex.com (Mark Earle) wrote:
> We have an Ericsson MD100 switch, and run version 2.01 of the DNA
> suite (operator console, graphics user interface administation tools).
> 2.01 is not Y2k compliant. There is a patch (which we don't yet have);
> and a new version which is in hand.
> The problem is, my vendor wants 8 hours (!) to install and reconfigure
> the new version. This is for a system with about 120 phones and 2
> operator consoles. I'm wondering if anyone has gone through this, and
> if 8 hours is really the extent of the effort.
Mark,
We ran into a similar situation with our Ericsson DNA software. We run
approximately 5500 extensions through our Ericsson MD110 and use the
Extension Manager, Directory Manager and Operator Work Station modules
of the DNA software.
We ran into some problems with our version of the DNA software suite
(v 2.0, I think) that caused serious data mismatches in our PBX. When
we sought technical support for the problems, we were told that our
DNA software version was no longer supported and that the solution was
to upgrade to the latest release. We did so only to find that the
WindowsNT we ran the DNA suite on also had to be upgraded to version
4.0 since DNA 3.0 would not run on NT 3.5.
We did that also, plus buying a faster PC to support all this new
software. Then, naturally, someone (not Microsoft) told us that
Windows NT 4.0 was not Y2K compatible out of the box and we needed to
get a "service pack" to fix that problem. Well, we did that also but I
can say with confidence that we spent well over eight hours before we
had all the pieces in place and working properly.
Charlie Wilber
------------------------------
From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven)
Subject: Re: Automated Web Page FAXing
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:52:51 +0800
Organization: Prima Computer
It depends what platform you are running on, but there are free ones
available from Microsoft for 95/NT. That was what I had in mind. A
more serious way might be with a dialogic PRI and their fax code
coupled with the browser control from MS. Steven
In article <telecom19.146.15@telecom-digest.org>, Daniel@Daniel
Norton.net says...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:30:38 +0800, steven@primacomputer.com wrote:
>> The Browser control and fax SDK ...
> Which? Black Ice?
------------------------------
From: ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus)
Subject: Re: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice?
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:55:08 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I wrote,
>> The statement that data traffic now exceeds voice in North America is
>> repeated in just about every telecom presentation I hear these
>> days. But no one cites a source for the claim. It seems to be
>> accepted without question.
And Keelan Lightfoot replied ...
> Not exactly statistics, but a little better than unsourced claims:
> http://www.tmo.hp.com/tmo/tcnews/9811/16tncov.html
Thank you for the reference, but this article is exactly the sort
of thing I'm talking about -- an unsourced claim. It includes a graph
showing data passing voice, but provides no source for the graph.
Then it says "Some long-distance carriers report that data traffic
already exceeds voice traffic on their networks, and most experts
predict that by the year 2000, the crossover will have been reached in
many countries."
Which carriers? What numbers do they offer? And what do "most experts"
base their predictions on?
I'm not saying data doesn't exceed voice -- I'm saying that I haven't
seen any hard evidence either way, and no one seems to cite any.
Which leads me to question whether the evidence exists.
Ian Angus
Angus TeleManagement Group
http://www.angustel.ca
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: More Mischief on the Net! Hackers Netcast Phone Calls
Date: 26 Jun 1999 17:42:12 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:15:30 PDT, pheel@sprynet.com allegedly said:
> W I R E D N E W S
> Private Lives Laid Bare on Net
> by James Glave
> Voices drift through the ether, over cell phones, from somewhere in
> Vancouver, British Columbia.
How exactly are these people "hackers"? Even the way the word is
misused in the media these days ... to mean someone who breaks into
computer networks ... the description doesn't apply to the people
described in the article you quote.
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steve originally addressed this to Mike,
who had forwarded the original article. Mike is not to blame, I am.
It came from Mike with no subject line other than 'forwarded to you'
and I frivilously decided on the 'Mischief' headline which included
the word 'hackers'. I know very well how the honorable word 'hacker'
has been over the years abused and distorted in the print media so that
now it applies to anyone who, ... well, anyone who causes mischief
which involves the internet. Sorry if any offense was taken. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:55:37 -0500
From: Greg Monti <gmonti@mindspring.com>
Subject: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Each year, somebody (I've never seen it attributed) publishes on the
internet a list of people who died while doing really stupid things.
The concept is that the human gene pool is improved by these events.
Survival of the fittest. Darwinian evolution. Thus the Darwin
Awards. This year's posting had about ten deaths described, but this
was the best one, and the grand award winner.
----------------- -----
THE 1998 DARWIN AWARD WINNER IS ...
THOMPSON, MANITOBA, CANADA.
Telephone relay company night watchman Edward Baker, 31, was killed
early Christmas morning by excessive microwave radiation exposure. He
was apparently attempting to keep warm next to a telecommunications
feedhorn. Baker had been suspended on a safety violation once last
year, according to Northern Manitoba Signal Relay spokesperson Tanya
Cooke. She noted that Baker's earlier infraction was for defeating a
safety shut-off switch and entering a restricted maintenance catwalk
in order to stand in front of the microwave dish. He had told
coworkers that it was the only way he could stay warm during his
twelve-hour shift at the station, where winter temperatures often dip
to forty below zero.
Microwaves can heat water molecules within human tissue in the same
way that they heat food in microwave ovens. For his Christmas shift,
Baker reportedly brought a twelve pack of beer and a plastic lawn
chair, which he positioned directly in line with the strongest
microwave beam. Baker had not been told about a tenfold boost in
microwave power planned that night to handle the anticipated increase
in holiday long-distance calling traffic. Baker's body was discovered
by the daytime watchman, John Burns, who was greeted by an odor he
mistook for a Christmas roast he thought Baker must have prepared as a
surprise. Burns also reported to NMSR company officials that Baker's
unfinished beers had exploded.
forwarded by:
Greg Monti Dallas, Texas, USA
gmonti@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How perfectly awful! You would have
thought he might have noticed something going on within his own body
after a short time because of this, but perhaps he drank a lot of beer
and fell asleep, and never noticed the difference.
I have a tiny little scar on the underside of my left arm, perhaps an
eighth of an inch in size resulting from an injury I suffered in
telecommunications also, about 35 years ago. I had a part-time job
working a couple nights per week as the overnight switchboard operator
at the South Shore Country Club. My roomate, a couple friends and I
had been out celebrating something long since forgotten, and a very
*large* pizza and two or three pitchers of beer later I had to go to
work. They dropped me off at the club and then split. At the time,
the residents of the apartment complex there were mostly very old
Jewish ladies, very orthodox, and this being Friday night, the start
of the Sabbath I expected no trouble out of any of them. They were
all asleep, long since tucked in their beds by the time I came to
work at 11 PM. It was doubtful the switchboard would have a single
call all night in either direction.
There was an alarm clock which was used to remind the operators of
'wakeup calls' to be made at various times in the morning, and it was
understood that on the Sabbath, the operator was to ring twice, but
not to expect an answer in most cases. Even during the day on
Saturday, the board stayed very quiet; most calls consisted of one of
the older ladies asking if the desk clerk or the maintainence man
would please come up and turn on/off her lights or light the stove for
her food, or perhaps in some cases, when they were ready to go to
synagogue an employee was requested to bring the elevator to them.
Riding in the elevator was not forbidden (frowned upon, perhaps) but
they believed they were not to press the button to call for the
elevator. Phone calls were also forbidden but the rationalization was
that they were not making a 'true' phone call since it did not leave
the switchboard and go outside the premises; it was only an 'intercom'
call to downstairs asking an employee to come attend to things they
were forbidden to do on the Sabbath.
I set the alarm for 6 AM which was the first wakeup call of the
day for Saturday, turned the switchboard buzzer sort of loud so
that if I fell asleep I would hear it, and then said to myself, let
me just rest my head on my arms for a couple minutes ... (smile) ...
with one of the switchboard plugs brushing against my arm. I fell
asleep. Just as I suspected, nothing occurred until the alarm went
off at 6 and I woke up, my arm still resting where it had been on
that switchboard plug. A small spot on my arm, about the size of
a dime, was red and had a burning sensation.
It was then I realized I had been giving myself some electrolysis all
night, a tiny bit of direct current (DC) that certainly could not be
felt when touched briefly, but none the less had had several hours to
burn my skin at that point. I suppose if I had continued sleeping
there in my drunken stupor all day Saturday I would have cooked myself
nicely into a roast, as the watchman mentioned above did. The redness
and burning sensation went away a day or so later, but the skin tissue
there is completely dead I think. I wonder if I should have sued
South Shore Country Club for workman's compensation or something. Its
a tiny little spot now, 35 years later, about the size of an eraser on
a pencil, totally white, will not tan with the rest of my arms in the
summer, etc.
The story Greg Monti quotes above does not say if the family of
the deceased filed suit or not because of the loss of their loved
one. I assume they did; that is the way things are done these days
in most places. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #172
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 28 14:15:05 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA22270;
Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906281815.OAA22270@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #173
TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Jun 99 14:15:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 173
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
In Memoriam - Robert J. Keevers of Bell Labs / Bellcore (Mark J Cuccia)
Vive le Internet! Digotage! (Dave O'Shea)
How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access (Phil Herreshoff)
Information Request For German Phone Schematics, etc. (Bahram Parvanian)
Questions on Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Robert Hancock)
Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Dave Close)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Steven J. Sobol)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Steven Lichter)
Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (xoanan@bigfoot.com)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Hudson Leighton)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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, 27 Jun 1999 20:43:16 CDT
From: Mark J Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: In Memoriam - Robert J. Keevers of Bell Labs / Bellcore
For the past three years, I have been in touch by telephone and
(postal) mail with Mr. Robert J. Keevers, who was retired from
Bellcore.
Mr. Keevers started with Bell Labs in the late 1950's, and moved over
into the "new" Bellcore with the divestiture of AT&T, circa
1983/84. He retired from Bellcore in late 1992 or early 1993.
Mr. Keevers was one of the Bell System _EXPERTS_ in issues regarding
numbering and dialing, switching and routing, signaling, and other
INTER-related topics. He had been very much involved with developments
and enhancements with the #4A Crossbar toll switching machine, as well
as the (at the time new, in the 1970's) #4ESS toll/tandem machine,
among other aspects of switching development. He also authored
NUMEROUS articles which appeared in the Bell Laboratories Record
journal, PARTICULARLY regarding International and Overseas
dialing/numbering/routing/etc ... and also authored many Bell
Laboratories (and Bellcore) planning documents regarding the Numbering
Plan as well as inter-related aspects of switching and routing in the
North American Dial Network.
I had read many of Mr. Keevers articles in the Bell Labs Record magazine
back in the 1970's, whenever I would go to the library to do research
on the Telephone Network.
A few years ago, through my various contacts and research, I was able
to be introduced to Mr. Keevers, by telephone. I had many telephone
conversations with him, and he was always very helpful and open in our
discussions regarding the history (and even current developments) in
the telephone network. I think that he enjoyed our conversations as
much as I did. Even though he was retired, he always had some time to
be able to discuss the telephone network and its history with me, as
well as other issues of American nostalgia.
In 1997, Mr. Keevers moved from New Jersey back to his home state of
Connecticut to be closer to his sister and her family.
On Sunday evening (27 June 1999), I received a telephone call from the
sister of Robert Keevers. She informed me that he had a heart attack on
6 June 1999, and another heart attack around 16 June. He passed away on
that date. He was 71.
She had been going through some of his papers on Sunday afternoon and
found my name/number in his records, and remembered my name from
previous telephone conversations with her brother.
Robert Keevers was well respected within the Bell System and Bellcore,
as well as with the International Telecommuncations Union / CCITT. He
had travelled over the years to many ITU functions around the globe
(but particularly at the ITU's Headquarters in Geneva) regarding the
international interconnection and operational aspects of telephone
numbering / dialing / routing / switching / signaling / etc.
He will be remembered and missed by many in the Telephone Industry, as
well as by those of us who might not be "officially" part of the
telephone industry but were well aware of his NUMEROUS works and
achievements over the decades.
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: Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com>
Subject: Vive le Internet! Digotage!
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:06:30 -0500
Craig Macbride <craig@glasswings.com.au> wrote in message news:
telecom19.171.2@telecom-digest.org...
> Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com> writes:
>> on the pillow, all cookies are purged from the system, and the file is
>> re-created to avoid confusing Netscape too much.)
> Why not just use the option in Netscape "accept only cookies that get
> sent back to the originating server"?
I tried that, and *still* some of the offenders kept popping up in the
file. So to hell with 'em all! :-)
> That'll prevent any sites sharing cookies in real time. However, if
> Doubleclick decides to create a massive database and cross-check it,
> they could always store all the cross-check information on their
> server, indexed by IP address, maybe? Okay, many people have
> non-permanent IP addresses these days, but they could still narrow it
> down a lot.
I think more have dynamic addresses than not. Heck, even my network at
home runs DHCP.
>> The only down side it that I lose my stored logins on one or two web
>> sites, but, who cares? It means that Amazon.com doesn't know that I'm
>> also shopping at barnesandnoble.com, and running searches at
>> Lycos. I'm just not a big fan of people watching over my shoulder.
> Use the above option, and they won't know anyhow.
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I always purge my cookies on a regular
>> basis.
> I don't. A large proportion of sites which send me cookies are places
> I log in to that are storing information I don't want to have to type
> again.
I thought the same thing until I visited amazon.com with a computer I
hadn't used in several months. It was more than happy to accept and
process an order without validating any of my information again -- and
charge it to the CC I had used long before!
>> I think it is too bad that whoever first developed the
>> technique we call 'cookies' did not copyright or patent his technique
>> and place definite restrictions on the use of same
> Why? It's the responsibility of government to legislate on privacy
> issues, not for individuals to have to take civil action.
But seriously, that's never going to happen.
The reality is that the invasions of privacy will get worse, and worse.
Government will do little or nothing about it. ("digital millenium act",
anyone?)
I feel an ethical obligation to take note of those who seek to invade
my privacy, and provide them with plentiful information -- but all of
it wildly wrong.
Yesterday I took a computerized survey for some company or other. I'm
a 24-year old unemployed surgeon, with eight children, ages 30-70, and
a 98-year old wife. We own 0 cars, one a honda and the other a
porsche. We have no hobbies nor income, but spend 8,000-10,000 per
year on vacations. We spend $60,000 per year on cleaning products, and
$11 per year on gasoline. We are vegetatrians and eat out every
night. Our favorite restaurant is "Outback Steakhouse". The monthly
mortgage on the apartment that we rent is $2. I am divorced, widowed,
and have never married.
(You're here for the birth of a word, folks: Digotage. ("dij'-oh-taj")
Much as the workers of Europe threw their shoes -- "sabots" into the
machinery they protested ("sabotage"), I feel it's perfectly ethical,
and perhaps a rewarding pastime to stuff the wrong digits up the noses
that try to sniff things that I think they have no business knowing.)
I am always polite with telephone solicitors. I let them try to make
their pitch, but interrupt them repeatedly, and finally explain that
if they're really going to save me money, they should mail me $100 to
prove it. I'll send back 20% of what I save in return. Then I start
pitching my web hosting and network security services to them.
At work, I ask any prospective vendor to send me a quote for his
product or service first, then we'll talk about what it actually is
and how great it is. Last week I made a sales droid do the install
while the techie and I talked about the product. *SO* much more
effective.
> problem is the lamentable lack of such legislation in the USA. Other
> countries can legislate to protect privacy within their own borders,
> but that does little good when US companies create databases on
> (presumably) anybody. Of course, this is why US companies are having
> problems with their European divisions not being allowed to exchange
> data on clients with their US divisions, due to European countries not
> allowing private information to be sent to places (eg. the USA) where
> such data may be abused.
I'm just not really confident that the government has any interest in
solving the problem. Quite the opposite. I think this is a case where
direct individual inaction and misdirection is called for. :-)
Do the same with spammers. Make their life hell. Find out the name and
phone number of their web hosting company's president, and put it in
their responder with a "PLEASE HAVE SALESMAN CALL!!!!" note. Turn the
spammers over to each other, and feed them each other's phone numbers
and addresses. It takes only a few minutes a day, but you'll be doing
your part to make the world a better place, and you'll have a few
chuckles at the same time.
(NOTE! Only do this if you think the spammers really should talk to
compare business interests. Doing this just to harass them would be
wrong, of course. But business interests are so broad that you just
can't help but try to keep them all Making Money Fast.)
------------------------------
From: Phil Herreshoff <herreshoff@netscape.net>
Subject: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 14:34:03 -0700
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com
So, let's say I want to start an IXC. What do I need to do from a
regulatory standpoint? Is there a doc somewhere on the net "Dummy's
guide to becoming an IXC?"
Also, do I need to be an IXC or LEC to have access to SS7, or can I
get access to the signaling system through other means?
Finally, is access to SS7 required to switch a phone call? What I'd
like to do is let someone call my IVR system, press in a 4-digit code,
and then have the call forwarded off to some other number. If that
other number is a toll call, I want to originating caller to be
billed, not me, thus my need to "switch" the call using SS7 or some
other means.
Any/all pointers are appreciated.
Thanks,
phil
------------------------------
From: Bahram Parvanian <parvanian@hotmail.com>
Subject: Information Request For German Phone Schematics, etc.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:36:49 IRST
Dear Sir,
I am an Iranian and manager of telephone service company. Since two
years ago a lot of German type phones and wireless have been come in to
Iran.
Now as there are not any reliable reference for repairing and
servicing these phones in Iran; I would be very glad if you send me
exact information for repairing, designs, block diagram, manual
service and any other useful information for these phones:
Telekom Sinus 11
Telekom Sinus 33
Telekom Sinus 42
Telekom Sinus 42I
Telekom Sinus 42AB
Telekom Sinus 51
Telekom Sinus 52
Telekom Actron B
Telekom Actron AB
Telekom Actron C1
Telekom Actron C2
Telekom Respando 4
Telekom Respando 5
Telekom Tellay AB
Telekom Tarsis B
Telekom Tarsis C
Telekom IQ-Tel 1
Telekom IQ-Tel 2
Telekom IQ-Tel 3
Telekom Zigno 1
Telekom Zigno 2
Telekom Octophon
Telekom Fax 300
Telekom Fax 301
Telekom Fax 310
Telekom Fax 330
Telekom Fax 331
Telekom Fax 341
Or if you can not do this please tell me how and where can I find these
informations.
Thank you very much in advance and waiting to hear from you soon.
Yours Sincerely,
B.Parvanian
E-mail: Parvanian@hotmail.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I hope some of our readers in Germany
or perhaps elsewhere who have literature on the above mentioned
phones will try to help Mr. Parvanian. Thank you. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@nospamhome.com>
Subject: Questions on Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:18:16 GMT
Organization: @Home Network Canada
I have been working as a computer tutor for a retired lady in the
neighborhood. Today they called me and said that when she tried to
connect to the Internet, it said that there was no dial tone. They had
recently come back from a trip, and while they were gone we had a
thunderstorm. They found that one TV is now dead (no response to any
buttons) and their garage door opener will not respond to the remote
transmitter, it will only work with the wall button. Their computer is
connected to a surge protector but it does not have phone line
protection. There is definitely a dial tone at the modem's connection.
Sounds to me like the modem's phone line interface has been fried by a
power surge. However, no other telephone devices are damaged. The
modem is actually a combination sound card and modem, made by Aztech
(one of the bazillions of companies with that name, anyway).
I suppose the next step may be to open up the case and see if any of
the circuitry on the modem is fried.
I am just wondering how common this occurrence is. The modem responds
perfectly to AT commands, but when you type ATH1 (off hook) only
silence is heard. Anybody have something like this happen to them?
Oh, and I don't suppose there's any chance the phone company will pay
for damage, is there?
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamhome.com
Home Page: http://members.home.net/hancockr
------------------------------
From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close)
Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory?
Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 06:00:55 GMT
Neal McLain <nmclain@compuserve.com> writes:
> If/when the entire NANP goes to 10- (or 11-) digit dialing on all
> calls, we should be able to use 1 and 0 for the first digit of the NXX
> code -- turning it into an XXX code. Thus, combinations such as
> 415-120-9905 and 415-020-9905 would be valid. This would result in a
> 25% increase in the size of the number pool.
I've seen the good reasons why this is unlikely. But I note that, if a
leading 1 is required on all calls, that we have effectively made area
codes four digits, all of which start with 1. It wouldn't be a big
stretch to then start to use the other possible four-digit codes.
Of course, current 0+ calls would have to change to 12 digits. And
there would be other adjustments for 01 and 011 calls. But those
changes would probably be minor compared to the increase in numbers.
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting
dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without
dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: 27 Jun 1999 16:49:34 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:02:12 -0400, robl@macwhiz.com allegedly said:
> In Western Massachusetts, I've noticed that all gas stations have
> installed "vapor recovery nozzles." The filler hose is coaxial, as is
> the nozzle. There are perforations on the nozzle so that any fumes
> given off by the refueling process are drawn into the holes and back
> through the hose via a vacuum. This was done primarily to reduce the
> environmental dangers of gasoline fumes. I believe this is required
> by law in the area.
Yes. It's a clean-air issue, and Ohio's big cities have the same
restrictions. If I recall correctly, it's EPA regulations that require
the equipment.
> It's very noticeable after you've fueled a few times at such a pump.
> There's none of the gasoline smell you've come to expect and ignore at
> regular stations. While this may not completely eliminate the risk of
> touching off fumes from a small RF spark, I would think that it would
> lessen it considerably -- perhaps even to the level of "freakish chance."
I agree that the risk of using cellphones is probably low. I still try
to avoid using my cellphone standing outside at the pump; if I have to use
the phone I get back in the car while the gas is pumping.
> Now, I'm not too keen on people using cellphones everywhere and
> anywhere, but the fume explosion risk here seems very controllable to
> me. It's just that the petroleum companies don't want to spend the
> money on "green" technology like this without being forced to do so by
> the government ...
There's no profit in gas sales ... why do you think 99% of the stations
out there sell either convenience items or auto service? I'm not trying
to defend the decision, but there's a damned good reason why the big guys
don't like spending money on gas pumps... the margins are already thin.
But I digress. This is veering way off-topic ...
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
------------------------------
From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter)
Date: 27 Jun 1999 03:26:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
> I've been in a Brooks Fiber office and had a call come in on my GSM
> cellphone. I look around and all the techs have cellphones hanging off
> their belts so I guess it's ok. It was.
> The switch in that room was a 5ESS-2000. If I'm not mistaken, both
> Lucent and Nortel build those things to withstand nothing short of an
> earthquake. Why should a little thing like a cell phone hurt. ;)
Ihave asked a few techs why and they have stated it came down from
above, I heard that they had a problem someplace, but never heard
anything more. I guess someone is just afraid of an outage.
--------------------
The only good commerical E-mailer is a dead one, have you hunted one
down to day yet?
Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the
Apple II and Mac. 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server.
------------------------------
From: xoanan@bigfoot.com
Subject: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 05:54:47 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Reply-To: xoanan@bigfoot.com
Greetings,
My father currently lives on a farm in an area that has a party line.
They are the only party on the line, and he would like to be able to
access the internet. He tried a short while ago, but couldn't get the
computer to find a dial-tone.
A telephone expert at his office told him the problem could be corrected
by finding and using the correct pins, and gave him test equipment.
He wasn't able to get it to work, and the telephone expert has since
been transfered.
Will someone please help me re-create this test?
Thanks,
Dave Vernon
------------------------------
From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 20:47:24 -0500
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.
In article <telecom19.172.1@telecom-digest.org>, support@sellcom.com
wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) spake thusly and wrote:
>> First, unlike a print publisher, how hard is it to find the actual
>> location and owner of a web site? When someone registers their http
>> address, is there a verified physical address and person associated
>> with it? Is there an enforcement authority in case of abuse?
> Generally a web site will be registered as a domain and their
> information would be available at http://www.networksolutions.com
> Even if they set up as anon, someone is paying the bill and their
> identity is only one subpoena away if they are doing something illegal
> or tortious etc ...
What about one of those "free" GeoCities type websites?
I could set one of those up and it would run for a few days until
GeoCities or whoever takes it down, and would anybody be able to find
me?
Use a Hotmail account from some cyber cafe or the local public library.
I should be able to keep doing "new" sites and more "new" sites till
the cows come home or they stop allowing new sites.
Especially if I had a bunch of them already reserved/set up and all I
had to do was turn them on as the old ones were shut down. Would they
be looking for trouble from "established" users, or would they be
looking for new users.
http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #173
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 28 16:46:14 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA00572;
Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906282046.QAA00572@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #174
TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Jun 99 16:46:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 174
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Someone is Going Around in Circles Here ... HELP! (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Providing Easement to Phone Company (Jeremy Greene)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Steve Riley)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Craig Macbride)
Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Barry Margolin)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (Peter Simpson)
Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? Michael N. Marcus)
Re: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice? (Jason Kowal)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Denis McMahon)
Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access (John R. Levine)
Phone System Recommendations... (Tyler Stewart)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Pete Weiss)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (Jeff Brielmaier)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Someone is Going Around in Circles Here ... HELP!
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:00:00 EDT
Some site has things a bit misconfigured; my example below will show
the problem. For the past three or four days, every single message
sent out from here to comp.dcom.telecom has been getting flipped
around and sent back to me via comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.net and I
think the culprit is pipex.net, but I am not sure.
Today I had a couple hundred 'submissions' which were all the messages
which were printed here last week! The 'To' line is to 'undisclosed
recipient' and with the exception of the exact path to pipex.net
(since I enter the news stream at various places) the header is always
the same: pipex.net gets it, claims it is for comp-dcom-telecom and
sends it to uunet which then faithfully sends it along to me. But what
puzzles me is if I am an 'undisclosed recipient' then I must be on
someone's mailing list for redistribution of telecom messages from
Usenet. Anyone with any ideas, please advise. I thought this was
bad enough on Friday and Saturday, but today I really got bombed out
with duplicates, and they are still coming in. Thanks.
----example of header follows, all are identical except path ----
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA04272
for \ptownson; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 06:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from wodc7-1.relay.mail.uu.net (wodc7-1.relay.mail.uu.net [199.171.54.114])
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA03871
for <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 06:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tdukbasconn02.computer2000.co.uk by wodc7mr0.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP
(peer crosschecked as: tdukbasconn02.computer2000.co.uk [193.133.110.21])
id QQgvnu18240
for <comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.uu.net>; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:43:35 GMT
Path: cold.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!grot.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!telecom-digest.org!ptownson
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:55:08 GMT
From: ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice?
Message-ID: <telecom19.172.11@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
Approved: [comp.dcom.telecom/f3c2180edd92e028e51de8f59dee8a1b]
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 19, Issue 172, Message 11 of 13
Lines: 35
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
-------------------------------------------
The above is what the header looks like on each message sent out from
here to Usenet. All that varies is the path of how something got to
pipex. Also on what goes to comp.dcom.telecom the final line saying
that it is To: undisclosed-recipients: is not there.
Thanks,
PAT
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Greene <celloboy@earthlink.net>
Subject: Providing Easement to Phone Company
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 05:04:13 -0400
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Can anyone comment on the legal (or any other) implications of
providing an easement on your property for the phone company's use? My
family has property in rural Vermont and Bell Atlantic would like a
30' x 30' easement to install a fiber optic cabinet (fiber to copper
SLC). The stated purpose is to accomodate increasing growth in demand
for phone service. The area is in the corner of a hayfield. It is
about 3 miles from the CO. Bell is offering $2000.
Where would I do research to see if this is an appropriate amount?
Should we ask for some free phone lines too? Also, members of the
family are concerned about the possibility of sitting a cell tower
nearby. Would it be reasonable to include language in the contract
barring them from using these fiber optic facilities to serve any
wireless service providers? Any other issues to consider?
Thanks,
Jeremy
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do not get too greedy in your demands.
Telco is willing to pay you some amount of money less than what it
would cost their lawyer to file necessary papers for condemnation to
take over what is needed. Generally the courts are sympathetic to the
necessity of occassionally crossing over someone's land for the
purpose of achieving some good benefit for the public, and in the case
in point, if telco really has no other way to get where they need to
be to serve the public I can tell you almost with total certainty the
court will rule in their favor if such a relatively tiny amount of
space in an otherwise remote, distant corner of a large hay field is
involved.
If telco has stated they intend to restore anything damaged as a result
of their excavating, construction, etc, and that your business of
growing hay will be only slightly and temporarily disrupted and that
the finished work will not be an eyesore either to yourself or your
neighbors and will not otherwise devalue your property or harm your
business, then I would venture to say the court -- if it came to
that point -- would rule for telco and sign off on condemnation of
the property as needed.
I think you can rightfully ask for compensation to the extent the land
is valued; whatever the 'going price' is for an acre (or that many
square feet) of land could be reasonably demanded along with some
additional amount of money to cover your out-of-pocket expenses during
the transition for things like road closures, or construction equip-
ment which otherwise occupied other parts of your land, etc. But
the court, at least in theory, is supposed to be a place of equity,
a place of fairness. The court dislikes being a collection agency for
your family. I would not ask for some ongoing favorable treatment,
i.e. free phone service. A one time settlement is best. Do not be
afraid to speak agressively to telco's attorney (some corporate
attornies have a way of being terribly frightful to the general
public when they bluster and posture in an arrogant way, which I
guess is how the corporation wants them to appear) but bear in mind
that unless telco made some totally outrageous demand, i.e. they
want a hundred acres, have no intention of making it esthetically
pleasing, and want to pay you a dollar for the whole thing, chances
are the court will rule favorably for them, accepting their word
and their evaluation of the whole matter.
Understand also that a cellular phone tower way out in a farmer's
field somewhere is not the same as a cellular tower situated on
someone's front lawn in the town itself, or in the playground of
a school or somewhere that the entire community has to look at it
all day or where if it fell over in a storm or similar the community
would be endangered. If telco says 'we are trying to work with the
community in how we locate our facilities, keeping them out of
general view and looking nice' then you know the court will give
them what they want. With all the above to think about, make your
counter-offer to telco, but do not get greedy or you will come out
to be the loser. Telco has lots of experience in these matters. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Steve Riley <steriley@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:13:30 -0700
Crag Macbride <craig@glasswings.com.au> writes:
> Of course, the real answer is more configurable browers. Just configure
> your browser to ignore all doubleclick.net addresses, for example. Simple.
> If you are running your own proxy server, it's pretty easy to do this
> already, much as the banner ad places _hate_ the idea, of course.
Or you could add the names of known ad servers to your hosts file, and
point to the localhost (127.0.0.1) as the IP address. This prevents
the image from loading, thereby reducing bandwidth waste and saving a
little time. Here is my current hosts file:
127.0.0.1 localhost
127.0.0.1 ads2.zdnet.com
127.0.0.1 newads.cmpnet.com
127.0.0.1 ads.msn.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.preferences.com
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
127.0.0.1 images.zdnet.com
127.0.0.1 www2.valueclick.com
... (www3 through www98 deleted to save space in this note)
127.0.0.1 www99.valueclick.com
As I encounter new sites with ads, I right-click on the banner to see
the server name that the image came from. As long as its a different
server than the server I'm reading the page on, I add that server to
my hosts file. Crude, but effective.
Steve Riley
Microsoft Telecommunications Practice in Denver, Colorado
mailto:steriley@microsoft.com
Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in
the correct screw.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
From: craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride)
Organization: Nyx Public Access Internet
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 05:45:20 GMT
Our editor writes:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everyone wants the government to do
> everything for them.
Not everything, just the things that government is there for. There
are some things like privacy which can't work any other way. Big
corporations want to be able to keep databases on your every move. If
the creator of cookies had legal right to prevent organisations
abusing their use, it would be totally meaningless, as he/she wouldn't
have the millions of dollars required to prosecute all the big
companies who want to! The _only_ people who can possibly take on the
likes of Microsoft over most issues, including privacy, are the
government.
> That won't work! Look at the mess the government
> has already made on the internet in places where they have started
> getting involved.
This is _not_ an internet issue, as such, it's a privacy
issue. Whether big corporations are gathering that information via the
internet or by some other means is utterly irrelevant. It is their
right (or lack thereof) to gather it which is relevant.
> When is the last time in a dispute between a netizen and a big
> corporation over the use of a domain name that the courts ever ruled
> in favor of the netizen? It doesn't happen.
With that argument, you just blew your original suggestion out of the
water! _I_ was the one saying that an individual doesn't have the
resources to take on the big corporations, which is what your suggestion
came down to.
> I wish it were possible to ignore all doubleclick addresses, but there
> are so many of them, keeping them all straight would be impossible.
Who needs to keep them straight? Netscape's proxy, for example, can
map regular expressions to something else. "http://ad.doubleclick.net."
works fine to deal with all the doubleclick ads.
Craig Macbride <craig@glasswings.com.au>
--------------------http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/~craig---------------
"It's a sense of humour like mine, Carla, that makes me proud
to be ashamed of myself." - Captain Kremmen
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize?
Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:55:01 GMT
In article <telecom19.172.2@telecom-digest.org>, Steven
<steven@primacomputer.com> wrote:
> That statement is ridiculous. People may get away with scams like
> this, but that doesn't mean it is legal.
I don't think he's saying it's legal, just that it's not the LEC's job
to determine the veracity of the switching order. If someone makes a
fraudulent claim that results in you being slammed, presumably that
party is liable for fraud and any costs you incur to switch back. But
the telco shouldn't have to eat the costs.
> Let's put the shoe on the other foot. I call the guy and say I am
> authorised to sell service on behalf of your company for a flat rate
> of $1/month. I guess you should be obligated to provide it. After
> all, he had every reason to believe that I was representing your
> company.
True, if someone sells you the Brooklyn Bridge, NYC isn't obliged to
let you keep it. But they won't give you your money back, either.
You have to find the con artist and try to get it from him.
> In article <telecom19.164.5@telecom-digest.org>, mjt@lcrtelecom.com
> says ...
>> Call the carrier and ask to listen to the verification tape. If the
>> verification system asked whether (your wife) is authorized to make
>> changes to the line, and she says "yes", then you don't have a lot of
>> ground to stand on, as the carrier wouldn't know that she is not, and
>> the name of the authorizer is *not* sent ot the LECs as part of the
>> PIC request.
>> My company is an LD reseller, and I handle provisioning, so this is
>> pretty first hand. So, assuming that she did authorize it, it would
>> be a legal switch. My suggestion is ask the LEC to put a PIC freeze
>> on your account. Then only you can switch carriers. But you have to
>> do it by calling the LEC yourself ... you can't authorize someone else
>> to do it in your name.
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: Peter_Simpson@ne.3com.com (Peter Simpson)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 07:48:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Darwin Award - Northern Manitoba Signal Relay???
I strongly suspect this story is an urban legend. I can't find any
trace of this organization. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a
microwave tech with enough experience to be left alone on the night
shift, who hadn't heard about the dangers of microwave energy on human
tissue.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it didn't happen last
Christmas. Probably more like the 60's or 50's.
Peter
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please see the final item in this
issue. Jeff Brielmaier located a recent source for this which would
seem to make it real instead of just an urban legend. PAT]
------------------------------
From: michael@ablecomm.com (Michael N. Marcus)
Subject: Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts???
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:02:17 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> I would like to see an "honest" rating system for cordless phone
> systems, maybe like the car gas ratings of "city" and "highway".
But even car ads that showed city and highway ratings, also said "your
mileage may vary," and that line would certainly apply to phone
testing.
The distance advertising is a big problem.
Panasonic claimed that their 2.4 gig cordlesses had longer range than
900meggers, but they were not as good as their own KX-TD7890 and KX-
TSC970 (discontinued); and lots of dealers repeated the misinformation.
I questioned one dealer about ignoring the 7890, and he said he left
it out because it is not a "consumer product" (even tho it is readily
available to any dealer that chooses to sell it.)
We refer to the EnGenius as "multi-mile," and have posted our own test
results on our sites, but we have people asking us for the "five-mile"
cordless.
If people would read the results of the test EnGenius contracted for
(also on our sites) they would know that five mile range (without the
external antenna) was achieved in a very specific circumstance, and
sould quality was lousy at the extreme.
Based on feedback from our customers, I think we can say that most real-
world users will get good audio at half-mile to one mile without the
external antenna, and good audio at two to five miles with the external
antenna.
The Engenius is an amazing phone, and many people will tolerate less
than perfect audio at extreme distances, but it's important that
potential purchases know what they are getting.
Michael N. Marcus
AbleComm,Inc. - www.ablecomm.com -- biggest source of Panasonic phone
system info; discounts for do-it-yourselfers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:06:10 -0400
From: Jason Kowal <jkowal@telegeography.com>
Subject: Re: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice?
>> The statement that data traffic now exceeds voice in North America is
>> repeated in just about every telecom presentation I hear these
>> days. But no one cites a source for the claim. It seems to be
>> accepted without question.
>> I'm not saying data doesn't exceed voice -- I'm saying that I haven't
>> seen any hard evidence either way, and no one seems to cite any.
>> Which leads me to question whether the evidence exists.
The main problem with measuring the voice/data crossover is that the
two types of traffic are not counted the same way. A possible
substitute for traffic measurements is capacity, which can be derived
from circuit usage reports. Although conclusive statistics are not
yet available, the crossover on U.S. long distance networks was
anticipated by an influential 1997 analysis by two MIT researchers,
Philip Mutooni (now with I.P. Phusion Technologies, Inc.), and Dr.
David Tennenhouse in "Modeling the Communication Network's Transition
to a Data-Centric Model"
(http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/iicompol/Papers/Mutooni.htm).
In the Mutooni/Tennenhouse analysis, capacity figures are derived from
the usage of trunk lines at selected AT&T and MCI points of presence
(POPs).
Evidence supporting other conclusions is not hard to find, however.
According to A. Odlyzko of AT&T Labs, voice traffic on U.S. local
exchange and long distance networks is still estimated to be several
times the volume of data traffic. See A. Odlyzko, "The Internet and
Other Networks: Utilization Rates and Their Implications"
(http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/networks.html).
Jason Kowal
Managing Editor
TeleGeography, Inc.
http://www.telegeography.com
------------------------------
From: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk (Denis McMahon)
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:57:05 GMT
Organization: E-Menu Ltd
Reply-To: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 05:20:45 GMT, 141@wilkinsonsmith.com (Withheld Adrian)
wrote:
>> I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition
>> against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at
>> least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources
>> says some foreign countries have such a prohibition.
> The UK being one where you are not allowed to use radio transmitting
> equipment, such as mobile phones, on gas station forecourts.
> Also in London at the ticket office of the new high speed link to the
> airport they have prohibited use of mobiles as they "upset" the ticket
> booking systems!
And in case you haven't noticed, those wonderful upholders of UK law
(HM Constabulary) never seem to pay any attention to the regulation
about RF transmitting equipment on forecourts.
Regards,
Denis McMahon denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk | All mail from some domains is
Mob+44 802 468949 Tel/Fax+44 1705 698221 | deleted due to high UCE levels
AXE-10 Engineer / Switch Tech? Join the AXE-10 Technical Mailing List.
mailto:denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk for invite. No Agencies / Advertising.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1999 15:10:47 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> So, let's say I want to start an IXC. What do I need to do from a
> regulatory standpoint? Is there a doc somewhere on the net "Dummy's
> guide to becoming an IXC?"
1. Raise at least $250K.
2. Hire a good telecom lawyer.
3. Do what he says.
> Also, do I need to be an IXC or LEC to have access to SS7, or can I
> get access to the signaling system through other means?
I believe you have to be a telco.
> Finally, is access to SS7 required to switch a phone call? What I'd
> like to do is let someone call my IVR system, press in a 4-digit code,
> and then have the call forwarded off to some other number. If that
> other number is a toll call, I want to originating caller to be
> billed, not me, thus my need to "switch" the call using SS7 or some
> other means.
Oh, you want to put charges on other people's phone bills. That's
cramming, unless your access is via a 500 or 900 number.
I suggest it would be a good idea to rethink your plan and figure out
some better way to bill your users, like prepaid cards or monthly
credit card billing.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:58:53 -0700
From: Tyler Stewart <stewart@eastearth.com>
Subject: Phone System Recommendations
I am soliciting opinions on phone systems. Our company just added a
second manufacturing facility (20-30 people). We received proposals
for a phone system there and for our current facility (~96 port - 75
people). It's possible that we will have a different vendor's phone
system at our new facility than we have at our current facility
(Panasonic DBS). We are connecting the two voice and data networks via
T1. We have received vendor proposals for a Panasonic 576 with ABS
Talkx voice mail, NEC NEAX 2000 With AD 8 voice mail, and Nitsuko 384i
with Teledata voice mail.
I do not have a lot of experience with the different phone systems out
there, so research has been a real chore. I especially like the NEC
system and the Nitsuko system isn't bad either. I don't like the
Panasonic system nor do I like the local vendor.
What have been your experiences with these systems? If anyone uses or
has used any of these systems, I would appreciate your opinion on the
matter. Thanks a million!
Tyler Stewart
East Earth Herb
stewart@eastearth.com
------------------------------
From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss)
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:00:04 -0400
Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 05:54:47 GMT, xoanan@bigfoot.com wrote:
> My father currently lives on a farm in an area that has a party line.
> They are the only party on the line, and he would like to be able to
> access the internet.
Is there is any possibility that there might be another party of the
line *in the future* ? If so, will the other party be able to signal
an emergency pre-empt?
/Pete
------------------------------
From: jefferyab@nospam.netzero.net (Jeff Brielmaier)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:30:54 GMT
Organization: Telefonica Transmision de Datos
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:55:37 -0500, Greg Monti <gmonti@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Each year, somebody (I've never seen it attributed) publishes on the
> internet a list of people who died while doing really stupid things.
> The concept is that the human gene pool is improved by these events.
> Survival of the fittest. Darwinian evolution. Thus the Darwin
> Awards. This year's posting had about ten deaths described, but this
> was the best one, and the grand award winner.
Try out http://www.darwinawards.com/ This appears to the "source".
> THE 1998 DARWIN AWARD WINNER IS ...
> THOMPSON, MANITOBA, CANADA.
> Telephone relay company night watchman Edward Baker, 31, was killed
> early Christmas morning by excessive microwave radiation exposure. He
Filed under:
Christmas Roast
1998 Darwin Awards Urban Legend
Confirmed True by Darwin
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But please note earlier in this issue
Peter Simpson says he can find no trace of the organization in Manitoba
which is named in the article. Darwin says 'confirmed true' but how
about some independent verification? PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #174
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 28 22:20:06 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA14453;
Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906290220.WAA14453@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #175
TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Jun 99 22:20:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 175
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Bill Horne)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Lars Poulsen)
For the Archivists (Robert D. Weller)
Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company (John R. Levine)
Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company (Dale Farmer)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (nospam)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Sean Maher)
Banks In Bed With California Tax Board (Monty Solomon)
GE Survey Secretly 'Brought Good Names To Light' (Monty Solomon)
Re: Someone is Going Around in Circles Here ... HELP! (Louis Raphael)
Nineteenth Century Phone Health Scare? (Jolyon Jenkins)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (J.F. Mezei)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:59:40 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bhorne.nouce@banet.net>
Organization: Place Clue Here
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
xoanan@bigfoot.com wrote:
> My father currently lives on a farm in an area that has a party line.
> They are the only party on the line, and he would like to be able to
> access the internet. He tried a short while ago, but couldn't get the
> computer to find a dial-tone.
Dave,
Your problem is *not* that you're on a party line: It's that your phone
jacks aren't wired in the usual way. Go down to the cellar of your
dad's house, and find the entrance cable (it might be at a "demarc"
point outside). The two wires that come in from the pole are the "tip"
and "ring" of the line. Your modem needs to connect to them.
Follow these steps:
1. If the wire in the house is color coded, you should see the red lead
going to one side of the line, and the green lead to the other. The
yellow lead will probably be attached to ground. If this is NOT the
case, LEAVE IT ALONE and go to step 4. Otherwise, step 2.
2. If the wire is as shown in (1), go to the jack where the phone is
plugged in and see if the red wire from the RJ-11 jack goes to the red
wire that comes from the cellar. Likewise, green and yellow. If this
is not the case, LEAVE IT ALONE and go to step 4. Otherwise, step 3.
3. Borrow a standard set from someone WITHOUT party service, and make
sure it's a current generation phone, e.g., a Western Electric "500" or
"2500" series. Plug it into the jack near the computer. If you get a
dial tone and can dial a local call, go to step 5.
4. If you have "brown" wiring, i.e., all the wires are the same color,
go to step 11.
If it's color coded, you have a non-standard wiring arrangement,
probably because your installer had to change it in order to make the
billing work right. Don't mess with it: just get a role of "JK" wire
from RadShack and run another connection from the demarc to the
computer. Get a voltmeter (it's really important, so borrow one if you
have to) and check the polarity of the two wires coming from the pole.
You should put the red lead on the incoming wire that has (about) 48
volts on it, the green lead on the other wire from the pole, and the
yellow lead on the ground connection. Wire it the same way at the (new)
jack, i.e., red-red, green-green, etc. Go to step 5.
5. At this point you know that you have a correctly wired jack at the
computer. Plug in the "500" set you borrowed, and try to get a dial
tone at the jack. If not, stop and call a technician: you may require
special modem settings or have other problems. If you do get dialtone,
and can dial OK, we need to find out if your dad is the "ring" or the
"tip" party (If it's not a two party line, all bets are off, but I'll
assume it is). Go to 6.
6. Open up the jack at your dad's computer if it isn't open already.
Make sure there's another phone still plugged in somewhere that you can
hear, and that it rings normally. Have someone call his number, and
measure the AC voltage between the green and red wires while the phone
is ringing: it might be about 80 to 100 volts AC, or you may see
nothing. Go to 7.
7. If you see a AC voltage between tip and ring during ringing, you're
done: your local provider is billing you at the party rate but giving
you dedicated service. The modem should work OK at that jack.
Otherwise, go to 8.
8. If you do NOT see anything from red to green, check from red to
yellow and green to yellow. If you get a reading either way, you have
confirmed that the line is set up for two party ringing. Go to 9.
9. If the voltage is from red to yellow, you're done. If the modem
doesn't get a dial tone from that jack, call a technician. Go to 10
otherwise.
10. If the voltage is from green to yellow, your dad is the "tip" party
on the line, and that means that you'll need to set up his modem for
manual dialing. You should still be able to "bring up" dial tone with
the modem, but if you try to dial with it, will either get an operator,
a recording, or just dial tone again. This is because the "tip" party
has their ringer connected from the "tip" lead to ground, both to keep
it quiet when the "ring" party is getting a call, and TO IDENTIFY THE
BILLED NUMBER ON OUTGOING CALLS. If your dad is the only customer on
this line, and you dial with a phone (or modem) that isn't set up for
tip party detect, the CO software marks the call as "dialed from
disconnected party" and denies the connection. So long as your dad
dials from the phone instead of the modem, he'll be fine.
11. For the older "uncoded" wire, where all the leads are the same
color: buy an RJ-11 jack and separate the color coded wires from the
'425' block (i.e. screw terminals) that comes with it. Find the
demarcation point, and TEMPORARILY disconnect the wire that goes to
ground (trace the ground wire to a water pipe or electric panel to be
sure). Then go to the jack near the computer, and find out which two
leads have voltage on them (be sure no phones are off the hook in the
house). If MORE than two have voltage across them, quit and call a
technician. The lead with the -48 volts on it is the ring, and the
other one is the tip. Attach your RJ-11 jack in parrellel with it, so
that the -48 is on the red (ring) lead, and the green is on the other
wire. Connect the yellow lead to the third wire (the ground), and then
go back and reattach the ground lead at the demarc. You should now read
-48 between the red and yellow wires at the jack, as well as from red to
green. Go to step 5.
HTH.
Bill Horne
(remove ".nouce" from username to reply. Sorry.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:03:28 -0700
From: Lars Poulsen <lpoulsen@utilicom.com>
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
xoanan@bigfoot.com wrote:
> My father currently lives on a farm in an area that has a party line.
> They are the only party on the line, and he would like to be able to
> access the internet. He tried a short while ago, but couldn't get the
> computer to find a dial-tone.
The rules for party lines are very specific that modems may not be
attached to party lines. He should convert to a full line.
For educational purposes, attach a regular 10-dollar phone to the
line. Does it get dial tone? If you punch a tone dial button,
does the dial tone stop? If you continue entering dialing digits,
will the call connect? If a call comes in while the standard telephone
is attached, does it ring? If it does, and you pick up, does the
call connect? If the answers to all of these is yes, a modem should
also work. If not, the point at which the answers go from yes to no
will help in determining how this line differs from a normal line.
------------------------------
Subject: For the Archivists
From: rweller@h-e.com (Robert D. Weller, Hammett & Edison, Inc.)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:37:44 -0700
Organization: Hammett & Edison, Inc.
My company is moving, and is cleaning out its library. Among the
novelties headed for the dumpster are bound copies of the GTE Lenkurt
Demodulator (1963- 1983) and bound copies of the General Radio
Experimenter (1947-1970). Will ship for postage reimbursement.
Please contact me directly if interested.
Bob Weller rweller@h-e.com
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 1999 18:16:02 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> My family has property in rural Vermont and Bell Atlantic would like a
> 30' x 30' easement to install a fiber optic cabinet (fiber to copper
> SLC). The stated purpose is to accomodate increasing growth in demand
> for phone service. The area is in the corner of a hayfield. It is
> about 3 miles from the CO. Bell is offering $2000.
You could try and bargain them up some, but that sounds about right
for a cabinet that doesn't impair other uses of your field. I think
that half the farms in Vermont have utility easements of one sort or
another. When I owned a wood lot in the Northeast Kingdom, there were
several. Keep in mind that if you give them a hard time, they could
take you to court and use eminent domain to force an easement from you
at a price set by the court.
> Where would I do research to see if this is an appropriate amount?
Try asking the PUC people in Montpelier. They're pretty reasonable.
> Should we ask for some free phone lines too? Also, members of the
> family are concerned about the possibility of sitting a cell tower
> nearby. Would it be reasonable to include language in the contract
> barring them from using these fiber optic facilities to serve any
> wireless service providers?
No. Bell is a common carrier, they have to serve anyone who asks them.
Actually, I'd think that a cell tower in a corner of my rural hayfield
would be great. The health risks are zero (the total power is about a
hundred watts, compared to the 10 to 100 kilowatts that a broadcast
station uses) and you can get rents of a thousand bucks a month. If
you get one, make sure that you require that they let other carriers
co-locate and that you get a share of the colo rentals.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: Dale Farmer <dale@cybercom.net>
Subject: Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:06:45 -0400
Organization: Cable slingers and toy users
Reply-To: dale@cybercom.net
Jeremy Greene wrote:
> Can anyone comment on the legal (or any other) implications of
> providing an easement on your property for the phone company's use? My
> family has property in rural Vermont and Bell Atlantic would like a
> 30' x 30' easement to install a fiber optic cabinet (fiber to copper
> SLC). The stated purpose is to accomodate increasing growth in demand
> for phone service. The area is in the corner of a hayfield. It is
> about 3 miles from the CO. Bell is offering $2000.
Well, unless they are burying the thing, you won't be able to grow
stuff there anymore, I suggest an lease or selling it outright.
The easement means that they pay you once and they have those rights
forever. Or is the easement for access to a cabinet that is being
built on land owned by somebody else? If the land is being taken
out of production for the foreseeable future, then you should sell
or long term lease the land. Also check the language on the lease
to see if it obligates you to do anything else. Things like
keeping the access road plowed and repaired year round. Something
like that pushes it to the long term lease being more preferable.
Remember, the easement is nearly forever.
An accaintance of mine bought an old house in a town
adjacent to Boston. There was nothing on the deed about a phone
company easment. He needed to put in lots of phone lines.
(Ultimately eight POTS lines and two T-1s) He noticed in the
basement that he had a 24 pair cable coming in, that the existing
phone service came in on. He smiles and figures that he is all
set. Nope. When he ordered more lines, he was told that there
was no available pairs on his street. He says "There is 23 pairs
more coming into my basement." Those are available. To make a
long story short, the cable in his basement was the point for
all the phone service on his end of the street.
So after much to-ing and fro-ing, he dresses up in his weirdest
clothes, has a couple of prospective housemates also dress up weird,
and they follow the wires from his house to all his neihbors and
introduces himself, and apologizes in advance in case their phone
service is disrupted by the remodeling. This causes the neighbors to
ask why, and the story comes out. Enough of them are outraged by the
fact that they could have been eavesdropped easily and call the telco,
the city council, and mayor. *grin* The telco put in new outside
plant cable in just a few weeks later to the street, And had to give
up their easment into his basement, which had been in place from
sometime in the 1800s.
--Dale
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In older neighborhoods in large cities
like Chicago, you will find numerous examples of boxes in basements
(mostly of older highrise apartment buildings) which serve the phones
in other buildings up and down the street. There is a lot of history
behind how those situations came to be, but it invariably goes back to
an era when 'things were different' in society. Fifty years ago -- and
much of telco's outside plant goes back that far -- wooden boxes with
a simple latch on the door would be located in an apartment building.
Sufficient pairs on the cable to serve the switchboard for the
building (there were 'house pairs' from that point to the various
apartments) would be attached there, and the cable then taken along to
the building next door and its switchboard, etc. There was a very
large building boom in the 1920-30's in Chicago, when most of the
older highrises still around today were constructed, and even though
in their foresight at the time, there were lots of spare pairs in the
cables, which were multipled, or opened at each location to allow for
'all the expansion which would ever be needed', they had no idea of
the changes in phone usage which would occur by 1960-70. Up until
about that time, every highrise apartment building with few exceptions
had a 'front desk' clerk and a switchboard. Rarely did a tenant in
the building have a 'private, direct' phone. Most of those buildings
also offered maid service to the tenants.
As society changed and the financial circumstances changed for the
owners of the buildings, the first thing they did was drop the
maid service. Over a period of about ten years beginning in the
middle 1960's the next thing they got rid of were the front desk
clerks and the switchboards. If a tenant wanted phone service, let
them get it direct from telco. Where telco previously used only ten
or twelve pairs to serve the switchboard, now they had to rewire
those basement boxes to come up with fifty or sixty pairs for the
tenants. Typically the 'house pairs' were just wired straight through
to the cable pairs, but it took some creativity moving spare pairs
around up and down the street to get the job done.
I lived in a building in 1978, which until 1965 had used a switch-
board. The building was originally constructed in 1915, with an
additional section of twelve more apartments added in 1929. The box in
the basement was a *huge* wooden cabinet with numbered strips
indicating which cable pair was attached where, and the interesting
item was a group of pairs terminating on one of the strips which were
bundled together and vanished down into a metal conduit that went into
the basement floor. They were held together with some string tied
around them and a little tag on the string. In the most exquisite,
1930-ish handwriting, still quite legible, was the message 'these 25
pairs are all terminated in the new building at (street address a
block away), on the switchboard, June 15, 1931' ... and signed by a
telco installer, long since dead I am sure, who followed Bell System
rules by making sure the pairs were properly identified. That building
a block away pulled out its switchboard at least 25 years ago also.
Most people who live in large, inner-city neighborhoods would be
outraged if they knew how many places around the neighborhood their
phone pair was available in the basement of some other old building.
The reason they do not know however is because telco operates under
the same theory as early Unix sysadmins: (let's all say it together
in unison) "Security through obscurity". Which of your neighbors has
even the vaguest idea, the foggiest notion, of how telco operates?
How many of them even care?
Perhaps readers will recall an article I published here in the Digest
about ten years ago. It was and is my all-time favorite easement
story. In a Chicago suburb, a man and his wife operated a telephone
answering service from their home for about twenty years, during the
1960-80 time period. They retired, died, whatever, sold the house and
went out of business. A woman buys the house and moves in. She makes
what was the former work area for the answering service into one of
her bedrooms. She gets curious about a 'strange looking box' in one
of the closets which appears that it had not been opened for at least
ten years and in fact was stuck shut because it had been painted.
She manages to get it to come open after prying it with a screw
driver, and finds 'dozens of wires' inside, as she later reported to
the {Chicago Tribune}.
The Tribune's investigation found out about the answering service
which had been located there years before, and furthermore, that
Illinois Bell **had easement rights to that closet in her bedroom**
granted to them back in the answering service days. The answering
service dated from an era when all such services had a literal pair of
wires from each subscriber, like an 'extension phone', where the
subscriber's pairs in the central office were 'jumped' or bridged to
pairs which went out to the answering service premises. If the service
got a new customer, all telco had to do to hook it up was come out to
that box in the answering service office (now the lady's bedroom) and
swap a couple of wires, and do the corresponding switch of wires at
the central office. Now in more recent years, those pairs were in use
all over the immediate vicinity. Most of the neighbors had never
heard of the answering service, it having been gone for years before
they moved in the area.
So technically, telco had easement rights in that lady's bedroom to
come and go as they wished, although someone at Illinois Bell said
they had forgotten about that junction box also, which is why it
had not been opened in years. Telco went out and cut off the under-
ground where it entered the house with all those pairs and and
relocated the rest of the neighborhood. The times certainly change.
New telco outside plant is much more secure, but it will be many
years before all of the older stuff has been replaced. PAT]
------------------------------
From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net (nospam)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: 28 Jun 1999 16:34:12 -0500
Organization: MSG.Net, Inc.
In article <telecom19.173.10@telecom-digest.org>, Hudson Leighton
<hudsonl@skypoint.com> wrote:
> What about one of those "free" GeoCities type websites?
> I could set one of those up and it would run for a few days until
> GeoCities or whoever takes it down, and would anybody be able to find
> me?
> Use a Hotmail account from some cyber cafe or the local public library.
Hotmail, etc will eventually ban an entire library or internet cafe
after this sort of activity. I've seen it happen to public libraries.
> I should be able to keep doing "new" sites and more "new" sites till
> the cows come home or they stop allowing new sites.
Except that the hosting provider will wise up and put the keywords for
your particular content into their automated scans.
> Especially if I had a bunch of them already reserved/set up and all I
> had to do was turn them on as the old ones were shut down. Would they
> be looking for trouble from "established" users, or would they be
> looking for new users.
Systems like Geocities depend mostly on complaints, but also run
automated scans on all pages for specific keywords -- free site
hosting services would be more interested in how new the _page_ is,
rather than how long the user has been a member ...
The free web site services have been known to disconnect 'established'
users who have had their page up for years, with no warning, due to a
sudden rash of complaints or surge in traffic.
------------------------------
From: Sean Maher <sean@smasher.com>
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:34:13 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <telecom19.172.1@telecom-digest.org>, support@sellcom.com
wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) spake thusly and wrote:
>> First, unlike a print publisher, how hard is it to find the actual
>> location and owner of a web site? When someone registers their http
>> address, is there a verified physical address and person associated
>> with it? Is there an enforcement authority in case of abuse?
> Generally a web site will be registered as a domain and their
> information would be available at http://www.networksolutions.com
> Even if they set up as anon, someone is paying the bill and their
> identity is only one subpoena away if they are doing something illegal
> or tortious etc ...
Related question: I've recently gotten a number of spams which include
web addresses which are totally numeric- no letters, no dots, and no
.com. For example, one message included the address http://3626046468/.
This isn't a domain name, or an IP address ... what is it? How do I
gets its DNS info? Anyone who can tell me would be boosting my
spam-busting abilities.
sean@smasher.com
------------------------------
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Banks In Bed With California Tax Board
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:10:55 -0400
Foreshadowing an ominous national system, some California banks have
begun sharing data on all of their customers as part of an effort to
snare deadbeat dads.
http://www.privacytimes.com/Stories/cali_tax_6_23.htm
------------------------------
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: GE Survey Secretly 'Brought Good Names To Light'
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:13:10 -0400
June 4, 1999
GE Investments, the insurance and investments division of the General
Electric Company, secretly recorded the identity of thousands of
investors who responded to a 1998 mail survey of their personal
financial information, a Privacy Times investigation has discovered.
The survey did not ask respondents to provide their name and address.
http://www.privacytimes.com/ge.htm
------------------------------
From: raphael@cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:40:58 -0400 EDT
Subject: Re: Someone is Going Around in Circles Here ... HELP!
Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert
If they're all from the "computer2000.co.uk" site, you could always
block that one off (procmail, or whatever you use) temporarily. Send a
note to their postmaster advising them of that fact -- at worst, it'll
affect one or two subscribers, but it won't make your life hell.
Louis
"Appeasers are those who would feed the crocodile in hopes that he would
eat them last." -- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: rjenkins@cix.compulink.co.uk (Jolyon Jenkins)
Subject: Nineteenth Century Phone Health Scare?
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:14:18 GMT
I'm making a BBC radio documentary about technological phobias, and
read the following in a German book (translated into English),
"Science as History" (1960):
"In the 1880s, German doctors issued warnings against the pleasures of
telephones, and proved statistically that the mortality of telephone
subscribers was three times that of other people, since phones caused
diseases of the brain, chest, and nerves"
Has anyone ever come across this story before? Or does anyone know of
a German historian of the telephone, who speaks English and is
contactable by email?
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:23:13 -0400
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Jeff Brielmaier:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But please note earlier in this issue
> Peter Simpson says he can find no trace of the organization in Manitoba
> which is named in the article. Darwin says 'confirmed true' but how
> about some independent verification? PAT]
Here is a question:
The report stated that for the Christmas rush, they "increased the
power of the microwave" without telling the repairman.
Don't microwave links operate at fixed power settings? Or do they
actually vary the power based on weather conditions?
Is it not correct to state that the traffic levels does not affect the
actual power settings of the MW antennas?
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #175
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 29 02:05:04 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA22642;
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:05:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:05:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906290605.CAA22642@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #176
TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Jun 99 02:05:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 176
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Mental Health Worker's Alleged Calls to Psychic Cost $120,000 (Tad Cook)
Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company (Jeremy Greene)
Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company (Danny Burstein)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (xoanan@my-deja.com)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Ed Ellers)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Jay Hennigan)
Any Other Phone Racers? (Steve Winters)
Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees (Mike Beaty)
Re: Questions on Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Daniel W. Johnson)
Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access (Steven J. Sobol)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (David Wilson)
For Sale: Voysys 100 Voice Mail $100 (C. Blackburn)
For Sale: 4 Port Dialogic D41/D Card (John Faber)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (David Koltermann)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (Jay Hennigan)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (Eric Levy-Myers)
Darwin Award Lawsuit (Jonathan Goldberg)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mental Health Worker's Alleged Calls to Psychic Cost $120,000
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:48:31 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Mental health worker's alleged calls to psychic hotlines run up
$120,000 tab
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It would seem a psychic worth her aura would have
warned county mental health worker Cheryl Burnham that trouble was
headed her way.
Ms. Burnham, who allegedly rang up a $120,000 tab with about 2,500
calls on county telephones to various psychic hotlines, could be
sentenced to more than four years in prison if convicted of felony
grand theft and commercial burglary.
The 39-year-old Antelope Valley woman pleaded innocent in Superior
Court on April 26 and trial was set for July 16. It was unclear how
Ms. Burnham, if she made the calls, figured she could escape
detection.
"There's a lot of things to wonder about this case," Deputy District
Attorney Robert Dver said Monday.
"She has no prior record, so it's unlikely in the extreme that she
would get the maximum sentence," Dver said. If convicted, she probably
will be ordered to pay back the cost of the calls, he said.
Ms. Burnham's attorney, Deputy Public Defender E. John Myers, refused
to discuss the case, other than to say he doubted the prosecution
could prove she made all the calls.
The phone calls allegedly were made at night and on weekends between
June 1997 and November 1998 from McClaren Hall in El Monte. Ms.
Burnham was a clerk at the juvenile offender facility.
The calls were traced back to her work area, said Marion Romeis, head
of the special investigations unit of the county auditor-controller's
office. The calls were discovered during a routine audit.
"We had been aware of the problem for a while, but we let her continue
because we had to catch her at it," said Ms. Romeis, who called the
county phone misuse the most egregious she could recall.
The calls, mostly to a single psychic hotline authorities refused to
identify, were monitored during times when Ms. Burnham was known to be
the only one in her area at a given time, the auditor-controller
investigator said.
Most county phones are blocked to prevent calls to unauthorized area
codes. But the psychic hotline calls weren't immediately detected
because a computer modem line was apparently used, circumventing the
regular phone system.
Modem lines are dedicated to computers and fax machines and didn't
require supervision, until the Burnham case.
"It's something that didn't need to go through the system at the time.
Needless to say, that's changed," said David Meyer, chief deputy
director of the Department of Mental Health.
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Greene <celloboy@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:58:26 -0400
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Dale Farmer wrote:
> Jeremy Greene wrote:
>> Can anyone comment on the legal (or any other) implications of
>> providing an easement on your property for the phone company's use? My
>> family has property in rural Vermont and Bell Atlantic would like a
>> 30' x 30' easement to install a fiber optic cabinet (fiber to copper
>> SLC). The stated purpose is to accomodate increasing growth in demand
>> for phone service. The area is in the corner of a hayfield. It is
>> about 3 miles from the CO. Bell is offering $2000.
> Well, unless they are burying the thing, you won't be able to grow
> stuff there anymore, I suggest an lease or selling it outright.
> The easement means that they pay you once and they have those rights
> forever. Or is the easement for access to a cabinet that is being
> built on land owned by somebody else? If the land is being taken
> out of production for the foreseeable future, then you should sell
> or long term lease the land. Also check the language on the lease
> to see if it obligates you to do anything else. Things like
> keeping the access road plowed and repaired year round. Something
> like that pushes it to the long term lease being more preferable.
> Remember, the easement is nearly forever.
Actually, my family doesn't use the field for anything; it's not a
farm anymore. So it has no commercial value to us. The cabinet will be
located on the easement; there's no other landowner involved.
The field abuts a public road. There is a creek/drainage ditch between
the field and the road. It's actually going to be a neat little piece
of engineering -- the utility poles are on the other side of the
road. So the fiber will come down the pole, under the road in a
conduit, and then there will be a footbridge across the ditch which
the conduit will presumably be attached to. The conduit will continue
underground, through a hedgerow, and ends at the edge of the
field. The SLC and associated equipment will sit on a concrete
platform and little trees will be planted around the whole
apparatus. Bell's trucks will park in a small area of grass off the
road. Bell says they will take responsibility for maintaining access.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
> Most people who live in large, inner-city neighborhoods would be
> outraged if they knew how many places around the neighborhood their
> phone pair was available in the basement of some other old building.
> The reason they do not know however is because telco operates under
> the same theory as early Unix sysadmins: (let's all say it together
> in unison) "Security through obscurity". Which of your neighbors has
> even the vaguest idea, the foggiest notion, of how telco operates?
> How many of them even care?
It's not just in old buildings either. A fairly new building I used to
work in had a 150-pair cable that terminated in a utility closet
accessible to my company. When a business in the building disconnected
a line, Bell Atlantic might show up to undo the cross-connect in the
telephone room, but they would never disconnect the splice up on the
utility pole where the 150-pair meets the main feeder cable. So
whoever gets assigned that pair is probably unaware that their line is
bridge-tapped in my building and perhaps several other buildings as
well. Seems like poor plant management to do things that way, but I
guess it saves time and money. Kind of like the way that they don't
bother putting locks on the large terminal cabinets that sit next to
the roadway, even though the door to the cabinet is designed to be
locked.
-Jeremy
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is one thing you said a few
paragraphs above that I feel you should **never say again** to anyone.
That was your line, 'It has no commercial value to us'. If telco
finds out that is how you feel about it, then that is exactly the
amount they will want to pay. :) PAT]
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company
Date: 28 Jun 1999 23:17:18 -0400
In <telecom19.174.2@telecom-digest.org> Jeremy Greene
<celloboy@earthlink.net> writes:
> Can anyone comment on the legal (or any other) implications of
> providing an easement on your property for the phone company's use? My
> family has property in rural Vermont and Bell Atlantic would like a
> 30' x 30' easement ... [snip]
In addition to the points raised by our Esteemed Moderator, I'd suggest a
sunset period to the easement. Otherwise you may find yourself, or your
heirs, facing a mess twenty or fifty years from now.
I would guess that something like a ten year cap would probably be a
realistic starting point.
____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: xoanan@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:39:34 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Not that I am aware of. It's been this way for quite some time, and
all I assume the rest of the neighboroughs have the phone lines they
need ... there is no possibity of further development in the area (at
least for some time).
Of course, they certainly like to take the precautions needed if there
ever was another party added.
Dave
> Is there is any possibility that there might be another party of the
> line *in the future* ? If so, will the other party be able to signal
> an emergency pre-empt?
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:54:07 -0400
Lars Poulsen (lpoulsen@utilicom.com) wrote:
> The rules for party lines are very specific that modems may not be
> attached to party lines.
That depends on the state and the telco's tariffs. BellSouth in
Kentucky has been installing special devices on party line drops that
allow the use of normal single-line telephone products, allowing
proper ANI for billing and blocking the "other" party's ringing. (Too
bad they aren't as good at getting digital line carrier to work
properly as they are at making party lines bearable!)
The only other problem I can see with modem use on a party line is the
requirement that one yield the line if another party needs it for an
emergency call, but since almost any modem I know of (aside from old
300 baud jobs) will dump automatically if voice appears on the line I
don't see a real difficulty.
------------------------------
From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan)
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:39:51 GMT
Organization: Avtel Communications
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:09:57 -0500, Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com>
wrote:
> Added a 'cron' job:
> 27 5 * * * rm /home/dos/.netscape/cookies ; touch
> /home/dos/.netscape/cookies
Better ...
> 27 5 * * * cp /dev/null /home/dos/.netscape/cookies
> (Basically, at 5:27am every day, when I am guaranteed to have a death-grip
> on the pillow, all cookies are purged from the system, and the file is
> re-created to avoid confusing Netscape too much.)
But you're still making it too complicated.
My netscape works very happily with the following:
ln -s /dev/null /home/jay/.netscape/cookies
(Cheerfully eat the cookie and put it in the bit bucket immediately.)
> Wintel machine:
> I've got Norton Program Scheduler (comes with NAV), that runs a two-line
> batch file once a day:
> del \windows\cookies\*.txt
> del \windows\cookies\*.dat
del \windows\cookies\* (Puke up all your cookies).
attrib +r \windows\cookies (Now keep your mouth shut permanently.)
And I don't do business with SpAmazon, so I never get their cookies
in the first place.
Jay Hennigan jay@west.net 805-884-6323
WestNet: Internet service to Santa Barbara, Ventura and the world.
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Any Other Phone Racers?
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:21:39 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
I was just wondering if there are any other phone systems in the
"race" as it were with the Siemens 2420/2402 Gigaset and the EnGenius
.5 mile SN900 Ultra (not that these are really comparable with each
other).
These each seem unique in the market, the Siemens for its features
with a "practical" usable office/ home office range and the EnGenius
with it's ability to really work well at .5 mile ranges (they must
have forgotten the "." in front of the "5" in their advertising).
But regardless of the (gona be real polite here) "optimistic"
advertising by both companies, they appear to be the hottest products
out and without any real competition.
Anyone know of anything else that even comes close in features or
range?
I have heard of a Brother 4line system coming soon, but I don't
believe that range is one of its goals.
Thanks,
Steve Winter
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
------------------------------
Subject: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees
Organization: Boulder Rural Fire Department
From: mbeaty@nyx10.nyx.net (Mike Beaty)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:04:17 GMT
OUCH! Qwest just jacked up my in-state rates by 50% without notifying
me. *AND* they added a $1.93 fee per line, again without notification.
This meant that for me, with two lines, my new monthly fee is $3.86.
My June bill went up *over* 100% from what I would have been charged in
May. This is due to my in-state calls and the new fees.
Needless to say, I'm looking for another long-distance carrier.
I advise all Qwest customers to look at their bills and see if the same
is true for them.
When I initially signed up with Qwest, the telemarketer said that I'd
have 10 cents/minute and no monthly fees for as long as I was a
customer. Now it appears there are exceptions to this promise.
Living in Colorado, my in-state rate went from 10 to 15 cents a minute.
Out-of-state remained at 10 cents/minute.
Can anyone recommend a long-distance supplier which:
* Has no monthly minimum
* Charges no monthly fee
* Has 10 cents/minute for interstate and intrastate calls (lower
rates would be fine ;-) 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.
Note that this described the plan I had from Qwest until this month.
Qwest says that the new access line charge of $1.93/line is
FCC-mandated. Hmmmph. Sounds like revenue generation to me. And they
say that their new in-state rate plan is fixed -- originally, they said
that it had been 15 cents/minute "forever," until I pointed out that it
was still 10 cents/minute on my previous month's bill. They did agree
to make a one-time adjustment to my bill -- but not for the $1.93/line
fee.
When I asked the customer service rep I spoke with to recommend a good
alternative long-distance carrier, she said that she uses AT&T ;-).
She also reminded me that I can choose one provider for in-state and
another for intrastate calls. If I do that, might I get four access
charges: one for each line from two different companies? No
thanks ...
So, Qwest is likely to lose a long-time customer, at least relative to
how long they've been providing long-distance service. Glad that I
don't own Qwest stock (which has seen a recent dramatic fall in value
;-).
Mike
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Questions on Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:29:40 -0500
Robert Hancock <hancockr@nospamhome.com> wrote:
> I am just wondering how common this occurrence is. The modem responds
> perfectly to AT commands, but when you type ATH1 (off hook) only
> silence is heard. Anybody have something like this happen to them?
Yes, although in my case it was ATH0 that had no effect after the storm.
The most likely affected component would be a relay, but I have no idea
what it would take to replace it.
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol)
Subject: Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access
Date: 29 Jun 1999 03:22:42 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
On 28 Jun 1999 15:10:47 -0400, johnl@iecc.com allegedly said:
>> like to do is let someone call my IVR system, press in a 4-digit code,
>> and then have the call forwarded off to some other number. If that
>> other number is a toll call, I want to originating caller to be
>> billed, not me, thus my need to "switch" the call using SS7 or some
>> other means.
> Oh, you want to put charges on other people's phone bills. That's
> cramming, unless your access is via a 500 or 900 number.
> I suggest it would be a good idea to rethink your plan and figure out
> some better way to bill your users, like prepaid cards or monthly
> credit card billing.
I am investigating Subscriber Billing options for ISP and cellular/
paging charges for my customers.
This is completely legal.
If you set up subscriber billing, your customer arranges to pay for
certain services to be charged to his phone bill by giving you his
phone number and agreeing to pay the charges to the LEC, which
basically acts as a collections agent.
The big benefit to your customer is that if they have a phone line,
they don't have to worry about having good enough credit or needing a
credit card to pay you. Definitely a selling point.
I initially talked to Ameritech, but their minimums were too high, and
my contact at Ameritech directed me to some third-party processors.
The third-party processors have the advantage that they have
agreements with more than one LEC. Note that they may not necessarily
have agreements with all of the newer CLECs, although if most of your
customers use a Baby Bell for your phone service, that's not really a
concern.
Also note that no matter who you go with, there will be monthly
minimums, and they may be significant. One company said there is a
$15K monthly minimum billing, and that if I bill less than that
through them in a given month, I'll have to pay them the difference.
[To the original poster:] I can dig up names and numbers if you'd like
them.
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
------------------------------
From: david@uow.edu.au (David Wilson)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: 29 Jun 99 04:23:51 GMT
Organization: University of Wollongong, Australia
Sean Maher <sean@smasher.com> writes:
> Related question: I've recently gotten a number of spams which include
> web addresses which are totally numeric- no letters, no dots, and no
> .com. For example, one message included the address http://3626046468/.
> This isn't a domain name, or an IP address ... what is it? How do I
> gets its DNS info? Anyone who can tell me would be boosting my
> spam-busting abilities.
It is an IP address. An IP (version 4) address is a 32 bit number,
usually expressed as a dotted quad. The number you give above is
216.33.20.4 (west.angelfire.com) expressed as a decimal integer.
David Wilson School of IT & CS, Uni of Wollongong, Australia
david@uow.edu.au
------------------------------
From: Chris Blackburn <gern@teleport.com>
Reply-To: gern@teleport.com
Organization: NWR
Subject: For Sale: Voysys 100 Voice Mail $100
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:56:33 -0700
I have one unit that came off-lease. The company did not send the
power supply with this unit. The model is 100, Software is 1.6H.
Hardware version is 2100004-29. Looks like this is a 4 port voice
mail system. 5 prong power supply. Unit should be in working
condition, SOLD AS-IS. Please email or call. Here is a picture of
this unit. http://www.teleport.com/~hmwilson/voysys.jpg
Please make an offer if this is not a fair price.
Chris Blackburn
NW Remarketing
------------------------------
From: John Faber <flavor@isp.net>
Subject: For Sale: 4 Port Dialogic D41/D Card.
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:18:29 -0700
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com
Great Card for Voice Applications - 400.00 / obo
Contact me via email - jfaber@isp.net
------------------------------
From: kol@netcom.ca (David Koltermann)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:43:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom Canada
Dear Pat and Friends:
I checked the "Darwin Awards" web-site and this story (Christmas
Roast) is to be found in a section labelled:
"These stories are apocryphal". The story itself is labelled somewhat
confusingly: "1998 Darwin Awards Urban Legend Confirmed True by
Darwin".
I live in Canada. I have never heard of any organization called the
"Northern Manitoba Signal Relay". I searched for it on the web using
various engines and directories and there doesn't seem to be any such
organization. Telecommunications in Canada until recently was a highly
concentrated industry dominated by Bell Canada Enterprises in the most
populous provinces, with large provincial monopolies (some government
some private) operating in the West and East. There are very few
other organizations likely to operate microwave in the North, the
former CNCP Telecommunications (now part of Callnet d.b.a. Sprint
Canada) being the most notable. Maybe NMSR did exist once, but I
really doubt it. It's probably just a made up name.
All the microwave towers and installations I have seen have been
unmanned and unguarded. I too doubt that power levels are increased
in response to expected traffic increases, and in any case, Christmas
voice traffic would not be routed through Northern Manitoba!
Does anyone find the names of the people involved interesting?
victim: Edward BAKER
NMSR spokesperson: Tanya COOKE
other guard: John BURNS
There are a lot of stories of people being "cooked" by microwaves,
many regarding military radar etc ... Sci.electronics.design had a
discussion of these a month or so ago. While such a thing is
possible, most of the stories told on s.e.d were judged "tall-tales".
No one reliable could track any of them to confirmable sources.
If anyone feels the need to track this story further, it was
reportedly submitted by: Gary Nach. I obviously consider it a
complete fabrication.
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But please note earlier in this issue
>> Peter Simpson says he can find no trace of the organization in Manitoba
>> which is named in the article. Darwin says 'confirmed true' but how
>> about some independent verification? PAT]
> Here is a question:
> The report stated that for the Christmas rush, they "increased the
> power of the microwave" without telling the repairman.
> Don't microwave links operate at fixed power settings? Or do they
> actually vary the power based on weather conditions?
> Is it not correct to state that the traffic levels does not affect the
> actual power settings of the MW antennas?
------------------------------
From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:55:02 GMT
Organization: Avtel Communications
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:55:37 -0500, Greg Monti <gmonti@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> THE 1998 DARWIN AWARD WINNER IS ...
Take a look at the names of the individuals involved. It's a fake.
Jay Hennigan jay@west.net 805-884-6323 --
WestNet: Internet service to Santa Barbara, Ventura and the world.
------------------------------
From: Eric_Levy-Myers@amsinc.com (Eric Levy-Myers)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Organization: American Management Systems
There seem to be competing darwin awards sites, e.g. officaldarwinawards.
com
Try out www.urbanlegends.com. No mention of Mr. Baker is not true.
For a guy who takes urban legends too seriously, check out
http://www.cardhouse.com/rocketcar/ROCKIT.HTML. He analyzes the
famous darwin award "rocket car" urban legend with way too much detail
-- though you engineers will love it.
elm
------------------------------
From: Jonathan_Goldberg@mastercard.com
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:36:59 -0500
Subject: Darwin Award Lawsuit
In TELECOM Digest V19_#172 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to
the item submitted by Greg Monti (referring to a communication worker
who supposedly got fried by a microwave tower under particularly
stupid circumstances):
> The story Greg Monti quotes above does not say if the family of
> the deceased filed suit or not because of the loss of their loved
> one. I assume they did; that is the way things are done these days
> in most places. PAT]
No. Since the whole thing never happened. Aside from the fact that
by the time you feel warm from a microwave your brains have been
coagulated into jello, stop and think about the claim that power on
the microwave link was increased by ten to accommodate an expected
traffic surge. Even if the equipment had been built to do take such a
power increase (bah!), extra power does not let a microwave link
handle more traffic. That takes extra bandwidth; more power would
just send the same channel capacity farther. Something you actually
know perfectly well ...
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But it was a great story and fun while
it lasted though, wasn't it! :) PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #176
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 29 14:49:43 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA15969;
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:49:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:49:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906291849.OAA15969@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #177
TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Jun 99 14:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 177
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
The Brooklyn Bridge is Not For Sale (Joey Lindstrom)
Two (Count 'em!) Two Replies in One! (Joey Lindstrom)
Vegetation Interference with Cellular (Dave Stott)
Speaking of Easements (Paul Wills)
Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company (belfert@foshay.citilink.com)
More on Weak GSM Encryption (ahoerter@netcom13.netcom.com)
Re: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees (Jim Van Nuland)
Please Explain Clear Channel Operation (Alonzo Alcazar)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Free Long Distance Over the Internet! (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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:11:21 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Subject: The Brooklyn Bridge is Not For Sale
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:46:14 -0400 (EDT), Barry Margolin wrote:
>> That statement is ridiculous. People may get away with scams like
>> this, but that doesn't mean it is legal.
> I don't think he's saying it's legal, just that it's not the LEC's job
> to determine the veracity of the switching order. If someone makes a
> fraudulent claim that results in you being slammed, presumably that
> party is liable for fraud and any costs you incur to switch back. But
> the telco shouldn't have to eat the costs.
>> Let's put the shoe on the other foot. I call the guy and say I am
>> authorised to sell service on behalf of your company for a flat rate
>> of $1/month. I guess you should be obligated to provide it. After
>> all, he had every reason to believe that I was representing your
>> company.
> True, if someone sells you the Brooklyn Bridge, NYC isn't obliged to
> let you keep it. But they won't give you your money back, either.
> You have to find the con artist and try to get it from him.
If someone sells me the Brooklyn Bridge, presumably by the time I find
out I've been had, I'm already out the money -- it has BEEN PAID.
In this scenario, though, you seem to be saying that the consumer who
got slammed should pay the telco and then go after the sleaze who
slammed him to recover those costs. I sure hope I'm misunderstanding
you, because this position has a whole stack of precedent stacked
against it.
First off, the consumer played no ACTIVE role here. Therefore he has
no liability and cannot be held liable to pay those charges by the
telco. It was the TELCO that got ripped off, not the consumer.
On two occasions, I was billed (on my Visa card) for web services by
web presence providers (NetNation and Digital Chainsaw) long after I'd
cancelled my accounts with them.
In the case of NetNation, I phoned 'em up, politely explained the
situation, and very quickly got their drone to agree that this was an
accounting error, and (this really astounded me) the charge was
reversed THE SAME DAY.
Things didn't go so well with Digital Chainsaw. At first, they would
not acknowledge having received my cancellation -- which was odd,
because they'd gone to the trouble of disconnecting my service.
Finally they admitted they HAD cancelled my service but had NOT billed
my Visa -- this despite the fact that I was holding in my hands a Visa
statement clearly showing the charge. I even faxed it to them, and
that was the point at which they decided they didn't want to talk to me
anymore.
I gave them one more week to sort it out, then checked with my bank.
Nope, the charge was still there. So I explained the situation to the
bank, and they sent me a form to fill out disputing the charge (and
affirming that I had not ordered the goods or services billed). I
filled it out, mailed it off, and the bank reversed the charge. End
of story. If the bank is "out" anything on the deal, that's their
problem and part of the risk they take -- it's what they do to earn the
usurious rates they charge on their credit cards (not to mention the
percentage they gouge out of the sellers).
I didn't ask anybody to put these charges on my bill, just as (in the
above scenario) the consumer didn't ask to change LD carriers. They're
exactly analogous situations. However, things get a tad hazier if the
consumer actually USES any of the new LD carrier's services, but given
the fact that the switch was fraudulent, and that the consumer was
unaware of the change, I can't see how the consumer could be expected
to pay the slammer, even if a bill of hundreds of dollars was racked
up. If my bank decides to raise my credit card interest rates but does
NOT inform me, I am under no obligation to pay those higher rates even
though I used their service to spend next month's rent money on new
computer gadgets. :-)
The essence of tort law is that all parties to a contract must go into
it with their eyes open, and must have a "meeting of the minds". If
that meeting does not take place, the contract is invalid.
From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom
Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com
Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY
FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403)
Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU
Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU
My word, I'm not even a hundred yet.
-- Manuel Garcia O'Kelly, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"
(Robert Heinlein)
------------------------------
From: Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:47:09 -0600
Reply-To: "Joey Lindstrom" <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Subject: Two (Count 'em!) Two Replies in One!
Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com> wrote in Vive le Internet! Digotage!
> I feel an ethical obligation to take note of those who seek to invade
> my privacy, and provide them with plentiful information -- but all of
> it wildly wrong.
> Yesterday I took a computerized survey for some company or other. I'm
> a 24-year old unemployed surgeon, with eight children, ages 30-70, and
> a 98-year old wife. We own 0 cars, one a honda and the other a
> porsche. We have no hobbies nor income, but spend 8,000-10,000 per
> year on vacations. We spend $60,000 per year on cleaning products, and
> $11 per year on gasoline. We are vegetatrians and eat out every
> night. Our favorite restaurant is "Outback Steakhouse". The monthly
> mortgage on the apartment that we rent is $2. I am divorced, widowed,
> and have never married.
Berke Breathed (of Bloom County and Outland fame) beat you to it. In
one strip, a female drone from the "Bureau Of Nosy Statistics" phones
Opus and asks:
"What is your height? Weight? Pant size? Sexual preference?"
To which he replies:
"2 foot 10. 40 pounds. I don't wear any pants. Svelte, buoyant
waterfowl."
She thanks him and hangs up, leaving Opus to turn to the viewer and say
"they're either going to arrest me or fire her."
Robert Hancock <hancockr@nospamhome.com> wrote regarding Questions on
Possible Modem Power Surge Damage:
> Sounds to me like the modem's phone line interface has been fried by a
> power surge. However, no other telephone devices are damaged. The
> modem is actually a combination sound card and modem, made by Aztech
> (one of the bazillions of companies with that name, anyway).
> I suppose the next step may be to open up the case and see if any of
> the circuitry on the modem is fried.
> Oh, and I don't suppose there's any chance the phone company will pay
> for damage, is there?
Don't count on it. :-)
Back in 1992, I lost two modems in one shot like this. I was running
a basement BBS with two phone lines, both external, thus the two
modems in one go. Lightning struck *VERY* close by, so close that my
room-mate and I, sitting about ten feet from each other, both noticed
the hair on the other's head standing on end about two seconds before
the strike. You could FEEL it and HEAR it build up, too ... like the
"ocean" sound you get when you stick your ear in a seashell, only
quite a bit louder.
The strike knocked power out for twenty minutes. When the lights came
back on, we tested every piece of electrical equipment in the house,
including the computers. Everything worked, EXCEPT these two external
modems (both very freakin' expensive at the time I might add!). One
was a no-name 9600 bps V.32, the other was a US Robotics Courier Dual
Standard (14.4K). In both cases, the modems were working fine but the
RELAYS, which open and close the line connection, were fused beyond
repair. 'Twas cheaper to replace both than repair 'em, alas.
So, yes, in my experience, modems seem to be especially susceptible.
You can bet that my modem (and LAN) are protected these days... :-)
From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom
Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com
Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY
FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403)
Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU
Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU
I was arrested for selling illegal-sized paper.
--Steven Wright
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:08:44 -0700
From: Dave Stott <dstott@2help.com>
Subject: Vegetation Interference with Cellular
I'm looking for information on the characteristic interference by a
certain form of vegetation (Australian Pine, Casuarina equisetifolia)
on cellular/PCS transmissions. Anybody have an idea where I can get
detailed information?
Thanks,
Dave Stott
------------------------------
From: Paul Wills <pdwills@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Easements
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:24:39 -0400
Speaking of telco easements, here's a new problem for the long distance
carriers:
It seems that as the nationwide fiber optic network was being built,
many of the carriers arranged to use railroad right of ways for their
lines.
Unfortunately, many railroad rights-of-way are, themselves, easments
negotiated with landowners many years ago. Thus, when a railroad is
abandoned, the land automatically reverts to the original landowner or
successor. Of course when a fiber optic cable was installed, things
get messy! There is one case in Indiana where AT&T must pay landowners
$45,000/mile for 70 miles of right of way located on a now abandoned
railroad.
Now for part 2: Since the railroad rights-of-way were negotiated for
railroad purposes and nothing else, landowners feel that *they* should
be getting the compensation for any easements occupied by the
communications companies. Thus, a nationwide class action suit is now
being filed against railroads and other utilities.
The web address below is an article in the July 5, 1999, {Fortune
Magazine} about the AT&T settlement with abutting property owners on
fiber optic cables laid in railroad rights of way.
http://library.northernlight.com/PN19990618010000313.html?cb=13&sc=0#doc
This was forwarded to me by Dick Welsh of the National Association of
Reversionary Property Owners.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Providing Easement to Phone Company
From: belfert@foshay.citilink.com
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:53:11 GMT
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Dale Farmer <dale@cybercom.net>:
> New telco outside plant is much more secure, but it will be many
> years before all of the older stuff has been replaced. PAT]
I don't know about new installations being more secure.
In 1995, US West installed a 50 pair cable directly to my house. I have
this huge enclosure on the side of my house with 50 pairs of screw
terminals. (Why they didn't use 66 blocks I'll never know) I watched
the line being installed, and it goes directly to my house bypassing all
the pedestals serving the other neighbors.
Now, the line was spliced to an existing 100 pair about 500 feet away.
(The neighborhood was served by the other 50 pairs) I wired all 50 pairs
into my basement, as I planned to use them all. By chance, I noticed that
one supposedly unused pair had dialtone. It turns out that pair is
actually the neighbor's phone line. I could hear anything on that line!
Brian
------------------------------
From: <ahoerter@netcom13.netcom.com>
Subject: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: 29 Jun 1999 14:54:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom
_The_Australian_ recently printed a story concerning SIM card cloning
and eavesdropping on conversations carried over GSM. It isn't very
technical, but obviously there's an increasing awareness of what can
happen when intelligence organizations are able to dictate how much
privacy you can have.
"DIGITAL mobile phone users could soon face the threat of eavesdropping,
following a breakthrough reverse engineering effort in the United States.
Three California researchers say they have cloned the secret encryption
method used to secure Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications."
(http://technology.news.com.au/techno/4221778.htm)
See also:
http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online/0723.html
------------------------------
From: Jim Van Nuland <jvn@svpal.org>
Subject: Re: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees
Date: 29 Jun 1999 07:33:31 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link
Mike Beaty <mbeaty@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote:
> OUCH! Qwest just jacked up my in-state rates by 50% without notifying
> me. *AND* they added a $1.93 fee per line, again without notification.
> This meant that for me, with two lines, my new monthly fee is $3.86.
> My June bill went up *over* 100% from what I would have been charged in
> May. This is due to my in-state calls and the new fees.
> Needless to say, I'm looking for another long-distance carrier.
I was an LCI customer and saw increases that sent me looking. I
settled on "Dime-Line", which (in California) costs 5c/minute instate,
10c/min out of state, 24/7. There is a 53c/month fixed fee, and a 3
minute minimum charge. Also obtained a calling card for 40c/call plus
10c/minute (also 3m minimum).
Dime-Line is the advertised name for VarTec Telcomm, Inc. I'd used
it via the dial-around, 1010-811, for a few months, then had PacBell
switch my primary carrier. I left PacBell for local toll calls.
-- Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association
------------------------------
From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar)
Subject: Please Explain Clear Channel Operation
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:52:01 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hi!
What is:
Clear channel operation for data channels;
Feature Group B for voice channels?
Thanks for any answers.
alonzo
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: 29 Jun 1999 02:43:50 -0400
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom19.175.2@telecom-digest.org>, Lars Poulsen
<lpoulsen@utilicom.com> wrote:
> xoanan@bigfoot.com wrote:
>> My father currently lives on a farm in an area that has a party line.
>> They are the only party on the line, and he would like to be able to
>> access the internet. He tried a short while ago, but couldn't get the
>> computer to find a dial-tone.
> The rules for party lines are very specific that modems may not be
> attached to party lines. He should convert to a full line.
At least per the discussions at some of last year's standards meetings
(not that it was decided there, or even that it was necessarily
decided recently -- just that it was mentioned and thus I learned
about it) all the RBOCs and quite possibly all SS7-connected telcos in
North America have committed to _eliminate_ party line service in the
near future; the cost of maintaining support for it is estimated to be
substantially higher than the cost of simply giving all grandfathered
party line subscribers a free upgrade. A similar conclusion may have
been reached about the few remaining non direct-dial locations in the
continental U.S., but I can't remember which way that one eventually
fell.
So check with your local telco -- they might be *glad* to upgrade you
to regular phone service for no extra cost.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
------------------------------
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Free Long Distance Over the Internet!
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:31:11 -0500
Attached are some excerpts from some spam that arrived recently, and
I am wondering if anyone is familiar with it. If you have seen the
software, perhaps you can describe how it works? Does it allow for
calls to go off-net to a person with a telephone, or does it require
that the two parties both be on the net and using the software?
PAT
----- Original Message -----
From: XOOM.com
Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 6:07 PM
Subject: Free Long Distance over the Internet!
Dear XOOM.com member,
Would you believe me if I told you that you could call anywhere -
state-to-state, even country-to-country - without incurring ANY
long distance charges? Sound too good to be true?
Well, good news! It is true! The Aplio/Phone is a ground breaking,
and multiple award-winning, technology that allows you to connect
your telephone directly to the Internet - you don't even need your
computer! Now you can call anywhere in the world and talk for as
long as you want without owing your long-distance company a penny.
XOOM.com has the Aplio/Phone for the next two weeks at a
discounted rate for members only. Through this special email
offer, you can get the Applio/Phone for only *$179.95*. Usually
the Aplio/Phone retails for $199.99. Buy two and receive a mail
in rebate for $50.00, for a total savings of $90.00.
Go ahead and slash your long-distance bill! For more information
about this unique offer, or to order, go to the following secret
URL for XOOM.com members only:
http://orders.xoom.com/aplio/xbaplio0628/
Newsweek Magazine states that "making a free phone call has become
as easy as sending e-mail. More than 16 million people now use the
Net as a long-distance carrier." With the Aplio/Phone making a
free phone call is even easier than that - absolutely no computer
or other "gateway" is required. All you need is your analog telephone,
Aplio/Phone and an Internet account.
For the low price of $179.95 for one phone, or $310.00 for two
phone, you get...
** True Telephone Sound Quality -- Innovative technology ensures
that your free telephone calls sound as crisp and clear as normal
telephone calls.
** Multi-Language User Interface -- Supports many languages
including English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Chinese,
Japanese, Hebrew and more!
** Even Greater Savings with WakeUp Call -- No need to schedule
your calls beforehand. All your calls to another Aplio/Phone
user are absolutely free, even if they are not expecting the
call!
** FREE Unlimited technical support and Easy Setup Hotline!
http://orders.xoom.com/aplio/xbaplio0628/
Why wait another minute? You have a 30 day, money-back guarantee
from XOOM.com (less shipping and handling) if you are not
completely satisfied. Don't throw away another penny on long
distance calls! Order today.
Cordially,
Bob Ellis
Publisher
P.S. Don't delay! This offer is valid through July 14, 1999!
XOOM.com members can begin saving money on their long-
distance calls immediately by going to:
http://orders.xoom.com/aplio/xbaplio0628/
------------------------------
[Back to PAT again ... so there you have it. Do not abuse that secret
URL to be used by members of the club only to order the product. In
fact, you really should not even look at it at all, because it is a
secret URL, and not available unless you are one of the privileged
few to have recieved this valuable offer.
I would be interested though in figuring out how they get off-net to
a telco central office, etc, and who pays for that part of the call,
and all that stuff. Isn't it great how everything on the net is free,
even our email and our phone calls and all that! :)
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #177
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 30 05:12:03 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA15204;
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906300912.FAA15204@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #178
TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jun 99 05:12:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 178
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Bell Atlantic Escalates War on 'Crammers' (Monty Solomon)
Service Standards for Residential Phone Service (A.E. Siegman)
Disney Joins Web Privacy Movement (Monty Solomon)
Is it Possible to Have no 1+ Carrier? (Barry Margolin)
Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz (Dave B)
Re: Speaking of Easements (Hudson Leighton)
Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Steve Hayes)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Art Walker)
Seeking Database of ICs and CLECs (Katherine Morris)
Re: Any Other Phone Racers? (Rupa Schomaker)
Re: 10-10-220 (Sky Walker)
Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers (Keith Samuels)
Re: Free Long Distance Over the Internet! (Gerry Wheeler)
Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Mike Fox)
Re: Free Long Distance Over the Internet! (Juha Veijalainen)
Re: Free Long Distance Over the Internet! (Webnerd)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (L. Winsom)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Arthur Ross)
Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Robert Smith)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (Eric Blondin)
Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Robert A. Rosenberg)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Bell Atlantic Escalates War on 'Crammers'
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:24:24 -0400
http://www.ba.com/nr/1999/Jun/19990629001.html
Bell Atlantic Escalates War on 'Crammers,' Enables Customers to Block
Miscellaneous Charges; First Phone Company in Nation to Take Such Bold
Action
June 29, 1999
Media contact: Paul Miller, 804-772-1460
Mark Marchand, 518-396-1080
NEW YORK -- Starting today, Bell Atlantic customers from Maine to the
Virginias can protect themselves from having fraudulent charges
appearing on their phone bills. Bell Atlantic, a recognized leader in
combating the fraudulent practice of "cramming," is the first
telephone company in the country to offer customers the option of
blocking "miscellaneous" charges. Miscellaneous charges are usually
monthly expenses unrelated to actual telephone usage, like voice mail
and Web-page design and maintenance.
Cramming, which surfaced late in 1997, is the practice of putting
bogus miscellaneous charges that are unrelated to basic telephone use
on phone bills.
"We have made it clear from the outset that Bell Atlantic has no
patience for companies that use our bills to take unfair advantage of
our customers," said Fred D'Alessio, group president for Bell Atlantic
Consumer Services. "This is truly one of the most important
customer-care initiatives our business has undertaken. Today's action
hammers another nail into the coffins of those who prey on the
innocent and unsuspecting."
The blocking option does not apply to charges from Bell Atlantic or
the customer's selected local-toll and long distance companies. In
addition, customers who choose this option could still be billed by
Bell Atlantic for calls they make using other providers, such as
"10-10" dial-around companies, since such charges are not considered
miscellaneous.
Residential customers who wish to block such services from their phone
bills can do so, starting today, by calling the appropriate toll-free
number for their place of residence: 1-800-249-8719 for New York and
the New England states and 1-888-579-8926 for Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington,
D.C. Business customers can sign up by contacting the Bell Atlantic
business office.
"Our customers can now make a choice as to whether they want these
miscellaneous charges appearing on their bill," D'Alessio said. "Some
may elect to keep the charges on the bill, because in many instances
they are for legitimate services that the customer may want to use."
Bell Atlantic's efforts to protect its customers from cramming have
served as a model for the rest of the telecommunications
industry. Since launching its initiatives over a year ago, the company
has discontinued providing billing services to some 80
telecommunications service providers. The move resulted in a decline
of more than 80 percent in the number of cramming complaints from Bell
Atlantic customers.
"A year or so ago we were averaging some 30,000 complaints a month
related to cramming," D'Alessio said. "And most of those complaints
pointed to a few bad apples." Since taking action against these
suspected crammers, Bell Atlantic's complaints from residential
customers have plunged to roughly 5,000 a month.
Bell Atlantic, which serves 22 million households on the east coast,
provides billing services for a wide variety of telecommunications
providers. Many customers prefer having all of their telecommunications
services on one bill.
Last summer, Bell Atlantic was one of the first telephone companies in
the country to institute a "first-call resolution" policy. Under the
new policy, when a customer calls Bell Atlantic with a cramming
complaint, the company immediately removes the charge from the bill,
instead of referring the customer to the company that initiated the
charge.
Bell Atlantic routinely screens proposals for billing new services and
reserves the right not to bill for objectionable services.
Bell Atlantic is at the forefront of the new communications and
information industry. With 43 million telephone access lines and nine
million wireless customers worldwide, Bell Atlantic companies are
premier providers of advanced wireline voice and data services, market
leaders in wireless services and the world's largest publishers of
directory information. Bell Atlantic companies are also among the
world's largest investors in high-growth global communications
markets, with operations and investments in 23 countries.
------------------------------
From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A.E.Siegman)
Subject: Service Standards for Residential Phone Service
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:14:03 -0700
Organization: Stanford University
I'm seeking information on official standards for service outage or
service reliability of residential POTS as such standards may have
existed in the "good old Bell System" days, and also now, if such
still exist.
I was once told by a Bell Labs old-timer that the Bell System had a
published standard that no residential customer should be without dial
tone for more than 18 minutes total (cumulative) per year due to any
reasons associated with the Bell System (including storm damages,
etc); that conformity to this target was routinely measured and
reported; and that local telco executives' performance ratings
depended on part on their success in meeting performance standards
like this.
More recently I was told by a young engineer designing electronic
equipment to provide phone service over cable TV lines that there was
a similar standard he had to design to, but it was 57 minutes
outage/year.
Does anyone have more reliable or detailed information about this? If
the numbers quoted have any reality, are they to be interpreted as
*averages* over all the residential customers in a given area? Or do
they mean that the design goal is that *no single customer* should be
out for more than those lengths of time?
(In case anyone is interested, my real target is service reliability
of _electrical_ service, which in this modern era I believe needs to
be at least as reliable as telephone service, and in our area
definitely isn't. Our local provider, PG&E, in fact appears to have
no stated quantitative standards for service reliability; and my
concern is that dergulation is likely to make things worse rather than
better.)
Thanks. Email cc of replies appreciated: siegman@stanford.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:41:27 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Disney Joins Web Privacy Movement
Margaret Kane
The Walt Disney Co. is upping the online privacy ante. The company
said today that it would no longer advertise on sites without clear
privacy polices, following similar announcements from IBM Corp. (NYSE:
IBM) and Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT).
But Disney is taking one big step beyond. Disney (NYSE: DIS) and its
Web portal partner Infoseek Corp. (Nasdaq: SEEK), also announced that
they will not accept advertising from companies that do not have clear
privacy policies.
http://www.lycos.com/cgi-bin/pursuit?query=3224&fs=docid&cat=zdnet&mtemp=zdnet
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is very important for every
web site to make certain its visitors feel comfortable knowing that
their personal data is not being collected. This is true not only for
big sites such as those named above, but equally important in the case
of something like the little sites that I manage. I do not accept any
advertising from places like those mentioned, so it is not like I stand
to gain anything from their new policies; I doubt most of them would
want to spend any advertising money here anyway.
To show my own concern about the growing problem of invasion of privacy
on the internet -- and the problem is growing much worse I believe --
and to express my commitment to privacy for users, I arranged today with
Truste (www.truste.org) to include their 'Privacy Partner' logos on
web sites I manage, which includes http://telecom-digest.org of course
but also http://internet-history.org and http://internet-pioneers.org
on the front page of each site. All this logo indicates is that the
site has a clear, published policy regarding user privacy, and that
the webmaster will work with other sites in establishing the same thing.
Clicking on the logo takes you to http://www.truste.org/partners for
a further explanation and a list of sites participating.
I know, go ahead and smile condescendingly and call me an idiot. I
feel like one most days anyway. PAT]
------------------------------
From: barmar@bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin)
Subject: Is it Possible to Have no 1+ Carrier?
Organization: GTE Internetworking
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:40:20 -0400
I just got a notice from AT&T that they've instituted a $3/month
minimum. I have AT&T as my default long distance carrier, but I
almost never use them, instead using a 10-10 code. I make 10-20
minutes of long distance calls a month, so I can't get any benefit
from any calling plans. Meanwhile, AT&T keeps on heaping on charges
like the universal access charge and carrier line charge.
What I'd like to know is whether it's possible to not have any default
long distance carrier, so that no company feels they have the right to
charge me for services I have no interest in. Or does anyone have any
other recommendations? If I want to switch to another default long
distance carrier, won't I have to pay $50? It will take at least a
year to break even on this. Will this get me out of some of the other
charges that AT&T has been hitting me with, or do they all have them
now?
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Burlington, MA
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You certainly can have NONE as your
choice of IXC if desired. I have that on my phone. Then you will get
charged by local telco anyway for 'access' and things like that, but
you will not be charged by AT&T or the other big carriers who have
all their extra charges, etc. **DO NOT PAY** the AT&T charge on your
local phone bill if you do not intend to use their services any longer.
Tell telco to remove it, and follow up with a letter to AT&T with a
copy to telco which states, "I am not your customer, for minimum
billing purposes or otherwise. I do not use your services for any
reason, and you have no authority to refer to me as your customer.
Please discontinue immediatly billing me for any of your services, as
I do not use any of them. If you wish to maintain my telephone number
and name in your database *at your own expense* you may do so, but
I will not pay for 'services' which I have no intention of using.'
Have your PIC one-plus default set to NONE, have a freeze put on it
to prevent changes, and quite obviously, see to it that in the future
you do not use AT&T when 'dialing around' to place a call. PAT]
------------------------------
From: slivovica@mindspring.com (Dave B)
Subject: Cordless phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:27:44 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I'm considering buying a cordless phone with answering machine, and
have gotten conflicting info on how 900Mhz is better. A {Consumer
Reports} article said 900 was an advantage only when you needed
longer-range coverage (though it added that the 900Mhz band is less
noisy); another source I saw said that 900Mhz has much better sound
quality, etc. I live in an apt. building, so distance of coverage
isn't a big concern; it's not like I'm wandering out into a huge back
yard or anything.
I'm sure that digital 900Mhz is better than 43-49Mhz, and than 900Mhz
analog. But if I just want good clarity over relatively short
differences and a good price, what might my best option be?
Thanks for any help you can give.
Dave B.
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called 'Random
Signatures' into your Preferences folder.
------------------------------
From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Easements
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:00:46 -0500
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.
In article <telecom19.177.4@telecom-digest.org>, Paul Wills
<pdwills@voicenet.com> wrote:
> Speaking of telco easements, here's a new problem for the long distance
> carriers:
> It seems that as the nationwide fiber optic network was being built,
> many of the carriers arranged to use railroad right of ways for their
> lines.
> Unfortunately, many railroad rights-of-way are, themselves, easments
> negotiated with landowners many years ago. Thus, when a railroad is
> abandoned, the land automatically reverts to the original landowner or
> successor. Of course when a fiber optic cable was installed, things
> get messy! There is one case in Indiana where AT&T must pay landowners
> $45,000/mile for 70 miles of right of way located on a now abandoned
> railroad.
> Now for part 2: Since the railroad rights-of-way were negotiated for
> railroad purposes and nothing else, landowners feel that *they* should
> be getting the compensation for any easements occupied by the
> communications companies. Thus, a nationwide class action suit is now
> being filed against railroads and other utilities.
We just had a Court of Appeals case in Minnesota where the rail line
was owned by a county rail authority, and the tenant railroad sold a
easement to MCI without the county's permission.
So now MCI has to work out a agreement with the County after the fact
and after paying money to the railroad.
http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, MCI can if it chooses sue the
railroad for fraudulently misrepresenting its property rights. It can
sue claiming the railroad sold something it did not have the right to
sell. The Brooklyn Bridge example comes to mind, but unlike the person
who sold you the bridge and then had vanished after getting your money,
the railroad is, I assume, in plain sight and an easy target for
litigation. MCI can also, I believe defend on the basis that it acted
in good faith with county's agent, the railroad; that it had no reason
to assume the railroad was not authorized as the county's agent. It
can probably ask the court to (a) enforce its existing contract with
the railroad if the terms are otherwise reasonable and (b) make the
railroad turn over monies collected or benefits obtained as a result
of the contract to its rightful owner, the county. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Steve Hayes <stevehayes@csi.com>
Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:50:49 +0100
In Vol 19, No. 173, Steven Lichter observed:
>> I've been in a Brooks Fiber office and had a call come in on my GSM
>> cellphone. I look around and all the techs have cellphones hanging off
>> their belts so I guess it's ok. It was.
>> The switch in that room was a 5ESS-2000. If I'm not mistaken, both
>> Lucent and Nortel build those things to withstand nothing short of an
>> earthquake. Why should a little thing like a cell phone hurt. ;)
> I have asked a few techs why and they have stated it came down from
> above, I heard that they had a problem someplace, but never heard
> anything more. I guess someone is just afraid of an outage.
More years ago than I want to think about, I used to work for one of
the companies mentioned. One of the products we worked on was a
switching regulator card which supplied power to the memory system in
their computer-controlled C.O. switch. For reliability, the memory
system was duplicated in two separate racks. All the calculations had
been carefully done to ensure that the C.O. would meet its reliability
target of no more than 20 minutes downtime in its 40 year design life.
For safety, each regulator had a "crowbar" circuit which would fire an
SCR to short its output if the regulator failed and the output voltage
went too high. One day, we were told to add a whole lot of capacitors,
etc. in the crowbar circuit. After a while, we found out the sorry
tale.
Apparently in some C.O., the two memory racks had been placed side by
side (doesn't sound like a good idea to me - what if the roof
leaked). Anyway, someone had passed by using a floor polisher with a
dodgy motor. Radio signals from the sparking motor got into the
regulators on both racks and tripped all the crowbar SCRs. The
C.O. was down for well over an hour until they replaced the fuses and
got it booted up again.
All this equipment ought to be designed and tested to resist RF
signals and I'm sure they do a more thorough job these days. All the
same, I can understand why no-one would want to take unnecessary risks
with cellphones, etc.
Steve Hayes
South Wales, UK
------------------------------
From: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com (Art Walker)
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
Date: 29 Jun 1999 17:33:56 GMT
Organization: Recovering Nebraskans Clinic - Denver, CO
Reply-To: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com
On 28 Jun 1999 16:34:12 -0500, nospam <nospam@elmhurst.msg.net> wrote:
> Except that the hosting provider will wise up and put the keywords for
> your particular content into their automated scans.
Or start to enact a "Prodigy"-type system where user pages and updates
are sent to a staging area, where a human operator has to check and
approve before it gets published to the web server.
Art
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't you just love Prodigy and all
their antics? Can you believe there are people who actually *pay* to
use the service? I wonder if they have any privacy policy and if they
do, if it is as meaningless as the one at AOL, where despite what they
say, they think nothing of snitching and tattling on their users. If
you do not have a warrant, and for whatever reason can't get Steve
Case to sign off on it, that's okay where AOL is concerned; just get
cozy with one of their tech or Community Action Team (CAT) people when
they are off duty; you'll have what answers you were seeking the next
day. I wonder if Prodigy works the same way? PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:45:56 CDT
From: Katherine Morris <katherine.morris4@gte.net>
Subject: Seeking Database of IXCs and CLECs
Nationwide list by cities and states of all the Inter Exchange
Carriers and addresses. Nationwide list by cities and states of all
the CLEC's.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Any Other Phone Racers?
From: Rupa Schomaker <rupa@rupa.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:53:30 GMT
Organization: @Home Network
support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters) writes:
[snip -- comparing features of 2420 and EnGenius phones]
> But regardless of the (gonna be real polite here) "optimistic"
> advertising by both companies, they appear to be the hottest products
> out and without any real competition.
I definitely agree with this. Nothing that I could find that is
"available" comes close. I currently use a 2420 and for the most part
am very happy with it.
The only features I'd really like to see in the 2420 is:
1) Barge in support (I understand this is in the reduced feature set
phone but then I got the 2420 for the rest of the features).
2) Unified phone directory. You can't sync the base station with
anything and synching directory entries between the cordless phones is
a big pain with more than 2 phones.
3) Longer life batteries (my cell phone lasts longer than the 2420
phones)
4) Ability to pick up the answering machine from a cordless
extension. I screen calls from some numbers (callerid is great) and
from calls that don't have callerid and it is very annoying to have to
pick up the call from the base station if I decide I really do want to
talk to the person. I assume this is a part of 1 -- barge in support.
> Anyone know of anything else that even comes close in features or
> range?
I tried to get on the beta test of a new Ericsson Home/Office phone.
This phone is also 2.4Ghz and 2line (external, dunno how many
extensions you can have). The phone connects to your PC via USB and I
assume the PC does some of the management. It also supports voice
activation ("call office", "check messages", etc).
I signed up for the beta test program and then heard nothing back. It
looked interesting, though I'm not sure I want to rely on a PC for
functionality (perhaps for the voice activation stuff, but core phone
features shouldn't require the PC to be on or working).
> I have heard of a Brother 4line system coming soon, but I don't
> believe that range is one of its goals.
I don't think the Ericsson phone was about range either, just features
(not that features is a bad thing ...).
rupa
------------------------------
From: ROOT@Hotmail.com (Sky Walker)
Subject: Re: 10-10-220
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:59:50 GMT
Organization: Sky Walker
Reply-To: SkyWalker1689.at.hotmail.period.company@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:14:56 -0700, Dave Stott <dstott@2help.com> wrote:
> They can use 1016868 to make the first call which cost $0.079 per minute
> with no minimum and no monthly fee.
Check http://www.pt-1.com/qa.htm
I found their International phone connection quality really bad, but
the quality of the US phone connection is ok.
E-Mail: SkyWalker1689 at Hotmail period Company
------------------------------
From: keith@hot-sauce.com (Keith Samuels)
Subject: Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 20:16:41 GMT
Organization: Hot Sauce Marketing Services Inc
Reply-To: keith@hot-sauce.com
We are in need of a technical person in the telephony world to get us
through some trying times in our business. I hope you might be able to
help or at least give us the contact people who can.
What we currently have is the pretty much a low tech outbound call
center, consisting of p.o.t.s. lines and PC's with dialogic/4 cards to
control the lines. I custom wrote all the calling software that we
use, so it can be modified as needed.
We are a marketing company that specializes in the music industry. We
make requests on behalf of record labels to various markets throughout
the US to ensure the correct demographic representation of the music
in the markets the label so chooses.
Let's say label 'A' wants to make artist 'B' popular in city 'C'. By
requesting the video to be played in that city (C) people will watch
it (B's video) and hopefully start to like it and revenues increase
for the label (A).
Our dilemma is that the video request lines are 900 number based and
therefor track you by your ANI and DNIS. They answer all the calls
centrally and then distribute the call apropriately based on the DNIS
(each city has a unique 900 number). Then they check the ANI to be
sure you are in the viewing area of the 900 number you called (I
assume this is how the blocking works as it is the only logical way to
instantly block on a per call basis and is simply an area code check).
Well the ANI (in our case)always comes back as Durham NC. Now they
don't think anyone in NC meant to request a video to be played in
say Chicago, IL so they block the call assuming you dialed the wrong
number so they don't wrongfully charge anyone for a misdial. They also
have some other limits such as a $50 per line block so people don't
run up huge 900 bills and then never pay for them.
What we need is a way to buy thousands of ANI numbers across the
country in our target markets and be able to place a call from NC and
have its ANI come up as one from the target cities area code. As far
as I know the only way to do this would be to have a phone switch here
connect to a remote switch that the ANIs are located on and pass
the info through the switch.
Although, people have told me with a d240sc-T1 and Omni-Vox software
you can pass any ANI you want down the line. So then we wouldn't need
hardware in each market just ANI's that coresponded to each market. If
this is possible to change your ANI on the fly how would the 900
number know who to bill to? We want to legal about this and don't want
to cheat the video station out of money, that would just put us out of
business as well.
I need something that solves both problems, with enough ANIs we can
spread out the calls and never hit the spending limit and the call
appears to the 900 number owner as a valid viewer request and the
labels demographics are intact since the call appears to have
originated from the targeted city.
I'm open to any suggestions on how to accomplish the goal, Internet
based control, whatever it takes, we need a solution. And we NEED IT
FAST!!!
I've bounced this off quite a few people and they all say, yeah it
sounds possible I'll call you back, but they never do (I hate
voicemail). We are out of time on this and needed a solution a week
ago. There is quite a potential for charges and equipment sales for
the person/company who can figure this out.
Thanks in advance,
Keith E. Samuels
Hot Sauce Marketing Services Inc.
1200 Broad St.
Suite 107
Durham NC 27705
(919) 286-3493
PS. I also need ANI and equipment prices in all major US cities.
------------------------------
From: GWheeler@micros.com (Gerry Wheeler)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:19:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Free Long Distance Over the Internet!
> Attached are some excerpts from some spam that arrived recently, and
> I am wondering if anyone is familiar with it. If you have seen the
> software, perhaps you can describe how it works? Does it allow for
> calls to go off-net to a person with a telephone, or does it require
> that the two parties both be on the net and using the software?
Some friends and I discussed this recently. We looked at the web site
to get some information, and made some likely guesses on some things.
There are two types of calls: scheduled and unscheduled.
Scheduled calls: The recipient presses the magic button on the Aplio
phone when expecting a call. The phone dials his ISP, connects to the
net, and probably registers its IP address with some central
database. The caller uses his Aplio phone to make the call. The
caller's phone finds the recipient's IP address and the two
connect. The recipient's phone rings and he answers and they converse.
Unscheduled calls: The caller makes a normal voice call to the
recipient. Once connected, they agree to go to Aplio mode and each
presses the magic button on the phone. I'm guessing that the two
phones make a quick data swap to get the other's ID number or
something. The phones then hang up, dial the ISP, connect to the net,
probably register in a database, and find each other. The phones ring,
the people answer and converse.
Gerry Wheeler gwheeler@micros.com
Fidelio Technologies Inc.
+1 941 430 4223
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:42:56 -0400
From: Mike Fox <mikefox@ibm.net>
Organization: not organized!
Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers
Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
> In a related scenario, a company sued because the carrier assigned it
> a previously high-volume 800 number. The District Court for the
> Eastern District of Pennsylvania referred this matter, Unimat,
> Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Civ. Action No. 92-9541, to the
> FCC.
When I got a phone number a few years ago, the phone company asked me if
I wanted an "easy" number, that is one that's easy to remember. I said
yes and got one in a long-established prefix with consecutive and
repeated digits in the extension (e.g., xxx-4588). Well, the problem
with an "easy" number is that they are desirable and someone else likely
had it before, and I got a lot of wrong number calls for two years
before the previous owner's correspendents all learned of the change.
I learned my lesson and next time asked for a number that had never been
assigned before instead of an easy one. The resulting number was
"ugly," but I've never got a wrong number call on it! Given the
explosion of phone lines it's easier than one may think to get a number
that's never been assigned before, just get an "ugly" number in the
newest prefix that serves your area.
Mike
"We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them."
(General Augusto Pinochet of Chile)
------------------------------
From: juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Subject: Re: Free Long Distance Over the Internet!
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:53:01 +0300
Organization: Jkarhuritarit
In article <telecom19.177.10@telecom-digest.org>, editor@telecom-
digest.org says:
> Attached are some excerpts from some spam that arrived recently, and
> I am wondering if anyone is familiar with it. If you have seen the
> software, perhaps you can describe how it works? Does it allow for
> calls to go off-net to a person with a telephone, or does it require
> that the two parties both be on the net and using the software?
Well, PAT, I found the following note there:
> NOTE: The person you're talking to must also be able to make calls over
> the Internet. The best solution is to use another Aplio/Phone. They may
> also use a multimedia computer with Internet telephony software.
So, it is just a hardware version of internet phones. Sender and
receiver must have compatible systems to talk to each other.
In my opinion they forgot to mention that ISP/local phone call charges
may apply. I did not bother to read the ad in detail, though, so it
might be buried somewhere in the small print.
Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/
Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer
** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect **
------------------------------
From: webnerd <webnerd@home.com>
Subject: Re: Free Long Distance Over the Internet!
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:37:24 -0400
> user are absolutely free, even if they are not expecting the
> call!
> ** FREE Unlimited technical support and Easy Setup Hotline!
> http://orders.xoom.com/aplio/xbaplio0628/
Thanks for the super secret Spam ... here are the answers to your
questions from their FAQ:
How do I make a call to another Aplio/Phone?
If you're calling someone with an Aplio/Phone, you dial the telephone
as you would normally. Once you've established the call, you simply
press the 'Aplio' button and hang up the phones on each end.
Aplio/Phone will disconnect the long distance call, dial into the
Internet, reconnect to your calling party and ring both telephones.
The connection usually takes 45 seconds or less. Then you both pick up
the phone and continue your conversation.
Do I pay long distance charges for the 45 second delay?
No. When you press the Aplio button and hang up the phone, the
Aplio/Phone disconnects the long distance call and dials your local
Internet provider.
Is the initial long distance call always necessary?
No. If you schedule your calls ahead of time, you can use
Aplio/Phone's 100% Free Mode. The receiving party must set their
Aplio/Phone to 100% Free Mode at the specified time and the calling
party must place the call using the receiving party's Aplio ID. The
call will then be placed directly over the Internet without the first
long-distance call.
It seems like they are trying to "idiot proof " h.323 devices and
looks like they have a way to go ;-) I doubt people will accept a 45
second delay but who knows.
Thanks for the "good stuff" as ever.
\/\/ebnerd
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson)
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: 29 Jun 1999 23:37:57 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
> about it) all the RBOCs and quite possibly all SS7-connected telcos in
> North America have committed to _eliminate_ party line service in the
> near future; the cost of maintaining support for it is estimated to be
> substantially higher than the cost of simply giving all grandfathered
> party line subscribers a free upgrade.
Bell Atlantic Pennsylvania discontinued party service to much of the
state years ago, and limited new service to only existing customers.
They just announced all service is being discontinued.
In Pennsylvania, party customers will have to pay the higher cost of
single line service (usually only about a $1-2 per month.) [Years
ago, paying $4 instead of $6 for basic phone service was a significant
saving. Today with inflation and all the other new costs, the $2
isn't that big a deal.]
[This writer would like it to continue to be offered for nostalgia's
sake, but that is of course not a valid reason.]
New Jersey still lists party service as available in the current phone
book; I don't know their future policy.
As to modems, the phone book was always emphatic that a party line
MUST be vacated when the other caller needs it for an emergency call.
It is quite possible modem use would prevent that, and thus it should
be avoided. (Of course, if there really is no other person sharing
the party line then it probably doesn't matter.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 18:32:51 -0700
From: Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU> wrote:
> The strike knocked power out for twenty minutes. When the lights came
> back on, we tested every piece of electrical equipment in the house,
> including the computers. Everything worked, EXCEPT these two external
> modems (both very freakin' expensive at the time I might add!). One
> was a no-name 9600 bps V.32, the other was a US Robotics Courier Dual
> Standard (14.4K). In both cases, the modems were working fine but the
> RELAYS, which open and close the line connection, were fused beyond
> repair. 'Twas cheaper to replace both than repair 'em, alas.
> So, yes, in my experience, modems seem to be especially susceptible.
> You can bet that my modem (and LAN) are protected these days... :-)
Lightening strikes are indeed very capricious things. Joey and his
friend are lucky they weren't killed.
This reminds me of this house in the Boston 'burbs where I lived for a
couple of years after I got out of school. Place was near the top of a
gentle hill. While we never were actually HIT, at least not that I'm
aware of, I figured out, after many experiences, that ANY TIME an
electrical storm was in the neighborhood one should unplug EVERYTHING
in the house. I often found most of the light bulbs dead after such a
storm, pretty much independent of whether the lightswitch was on or
not.
Never found any visible arcing, charring, or any other signs of direct
hits. My theory was that there was, perhaps, some sort of super
ground-loop problem with the outside utility wiring that led to huge
induced voltages from strikes anywhere within a large area of the
neighborhood. Place next door WAS hit once -- guy had a bark-less dead
tree and a big burn mark on his family room wall where the current ran
along the septic system to the interior.
None of those "surge arrestor" things will do squat in the event of a
substantial strike. They provide some protection, but it is minimal. I
believe that what they contain, mostly, is metal-oxide varistor (MOV)
transient suppressors, that will clip off very short (microsecond or
less) transients such as might be found from switching inductive loads
(e.g. turning motors on or off, electromechanical relays,
etc.). There had better not be too much energy in that transient or
the thing will just vaporize and lose its effectiveness. They are rated
according to the transient energy they can survive, usually rather
small. The most effective protection is to totally disconnect the line
if you are really worried about an approaching storm.
The concept of "power surge" appeared on earth shortly after the first
Star Trek episode, and continues to exist primarily within the minds
of all those Trekkies. The subsequent popular folk-belief in them has
been, IMHO, exploited by the people selling these devices. They are
not total frauds, but I don't think they are effective against the
hazards that they are often being purchased for. Nor is it clear what
hazards they ARE for, if any. The packaging blurb on one that I just
looked at is pseudo-technical psycho-babble, with no real substance.
The people who REALLY DO have to worry about this sort of thing, e.g.
operators of big broadcast transmitters that are VERY susceptible to
lightening strikes and consequent damage, use things like spark gaps
and gas-filled tube transient suppression devices in the transmission
lines. These devices, used in combination, can be very effective in
limiting the size of what winds up at the protected device -- in those
cases large, relatively sturdy transmitting tube(s) -- but that's ALL
it can do. You can never get rid of it entirely.
BTW -- I too remember the warning that Pat repeated in response to a
recent posting -- the phone company used to tell you to avoid using
the phone during electrical storms. That was, and still is, very good
advice. The old carbon block things that used to be on every
residental demarc were intended as lightning protection, but I think
they too wouldn't really help very much against a direct hit. And the
old desksets were probably more survivable than modern semiconductor-
based devices relative to nasties on the loop.
-- Best
-- Dr. Arthur Ross
2325 East Orangewood Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730
Phone: 602-371-9708
Fax : 602-336-7074
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember once several years ago when
Radio Station WLS in Chicago had its antenna struck by lighting. It
knocked them off the air for about 45 minutes. When they came back on
the air, that's all the disk jockeys talked about for the rest of the
night was how much damage the storm had done to their station, put
them off the air, etc.
When I used to do a lot with citizen's band radio back in the 1970's
I lived in an apartment building on the 21st floor which was the top
floor for tenants. It was an older building, constructed in the 1920's.
With management's okay, I put my coax up the elevator shaft and out
into the elevator machine room on the roof of the building; then I
mounted the antenna on the roof of the elevator machine room, and had
that thing mounted to withstand fifty mile per hour winds and whatever
else. A friend of mine brought me a *big* 'lightning arrestor' to
put in series with the coax, and it did the job. I was on the air
one night about midnight and was about to say 'I am going to shut down
here because a very bad storm is brewing' when all of a sudden BOOM!
and that lightning arrestor started smoking and having a very bad
odor to it. It was a fairly large thing, weighed about ten pounds or
so and sat on the floor under the table where the radio was at. But
it did its job; the radio was unharmed.
That lightning also knocked out the relay panel in the machine room
on the roof. Building engineer was up there for about an hour working
on it and finally had to call the elevator company to come out at
two in the morning. He was able to start one of the cars by hand when
the technicians got there so at least they did not have to walk up
21 flights of stairs. I asked him how he did it, and wasn't he afraid
of electrocuting himself. He pointed at a broomstick over in the corner
and said you stand back a distance and use the broomstick to push the
relay into place, then when the elevator got to where he wanted it
he used the same broomstick to knock the relay out of place again.
As it happened, the building was in the process of being sold; the
sale was finalized (or the 'closing' was set for) at twelve noon later
that day. It was about the middle of the month and all the fixed
expenses for the month, i.e the switchboard, the employee salaries,
the utilities would be pro-rated between old and new owners as would
be the revenue from tenant's rent collected. The bill the elevator
company charged for that two hour assignment at two in the morning --
with two men on the job per union safety regulations paid at time and
a half because of the overnight work -- was merely $75 per man hour or
$300 total. The outgoing owner was understandably annoyed and suggested
to the new owners that it be part of the pro-ration ... ah, they said,
it was not a fixed, regular expense, and it happened before twelve noon
today, therefore it is your expense.
The outgoing owner had Mrs. Brown, a seventy-year old and very sassy
lady who had been the manager of the building in excess of thirty
years come in the meeting and in a joking way asked her, 'why didn't
you wait until this afternoon to call the elevator company?' Her
response was 'for one thing, I could not very well tell the tenants
they had to walk up and down the stairs all night and this morning,
and for a second thing, you are on the way out and I don't have to
deal with you any longer; now I will have to live with the new owners
giving me hell all the time for every nickle of theirs I spend. When
Frank (the building engineer) was unable to fix it I figured I could
live with you screaming about it for a couple hours on your way out
the door.'
A stereotypical 'dear, sweet little old lady' in appearance to the
tenants, she could get pretty spicey when she wanted to. The next day
the switchboard operator called in sick, and Mrs. Brown asked me to
come downstairs and run the board, 'otherwise I will stuck sitting
here all day', and when I went in the office and asked her if she was
sorry to see Mr. Rosenberg (the previous owner) gone, she looked at
me like fire was going to shoot out of her nose and ears and said,
'That cheap bastard! It was all I could do to get any money out of him
at all the last six months he owned the place. I'll have to see if
the two new guys squeeze their nickles as tightly as he did.'
As it turned out, Mrs. Brown passed away about five or six months
later. When the operator gave her a wakeup call one day, she did not
answer, and the operator told one of the maids or the housekeeper to
go up to her apartment and see what was going on. She apparently had
died in her sleep during the night. The 'new' owners saw the handwriting
on the wall and began making plans to change the whole place. Where
the old owner after being there for thirty years or so had finally
paid off the mortgage, had no debt service and actually making a small
profit, the new guys had twenty years to go on *their* mortgage and
had a hard time paying the gas bill, which in the winter months for
a building that size is about ten thousand dollars a month. :(
The maids and the housekeeper were the first to go with tenants told
to clean their own apartments henceforth. Within about a month of that
the front desk area and switchboard were shut down, the tenants were
told that henceforth it was an UNfurnished apartment building but they
could keep what furniture they had until they moved or it otherwise
broke down; that there would be no more month-to-month rentals but one
year leases only, and to expect a rent increase at the time they
signed their new one year leases, which would happen not later than
sixty days in the future.
The last time I happened to walk by the place, which was about twenty
years after I had moved out, the place was a total dump. The nice
public dining room which had been on the first floor was gone -- many
were the nights I sat at the bar there with Mrs. Brown drinking brandy
in the late evening -- and a cut-rate liquor and convenience store was
in its place; a very dirty one at that with a bunch of people lined up
purchasing Illinois State Lottery tickets. When I went in the lobby
area the old very ornate elevators had been replaced with newer ones
that were badly defaced with a lot of grafitti. There was no front
desk or furniture in the lobby but a man came out of a room, looked at
me and said 'what do you want?'. I asked who was the manager; he said
he was, and that he was also the janitor and maintainence man. A sign
on the front of the building where there had years before been a
canopy which went out to the curb for people getting in or out of cars
announced 'apartments for rent' and oddly, the phone number given was
the very same number that had been used all the years earlier when
the switchboard had been there: 493-6700, but in the olden days we
called it HYDe Park-3-6700 and there were about twenty outside lines on
the switchboard. Now it was just a phone with one line on it in that
man's office. He had no idea who the owner was, or if he knew, he
would not say. I suspect it has been through several owners in the
past twenty years. He said all he knew was he turned over the rent
money he collected to 'a guy who comes around about once every two
weeks ...' a genuine slum building, but Chicago is full of them now.
--------------------
The elevator relays were big old-fashioned things that would slam shut
or slam open with a loud bang and they would arc and flash on their own
anyway, each one connected with fifty or sixty amp 'stick fuses'. Each
relay had a half-inch thick, round piece of carbon on the end of it
which had to contact a similar thing to start the elevator moving.
The room would be quiet, then suddenly a loud BANG!, a flash and with
a sort of whining noise you'd hear the huge motor start which turned
the large wheel on which the cables were wound that raised or lowered
the elevator. A typical, 1920's highrise elevator installation. The
lightning strike really did a number on the whole thing, but the
mechanics had it going again in a couple hours. Despite the noise
filters I had on my radio coax, I never could get the static from
that elevator relay board off of my radio entirely. PAT]
------------------------------
From: RobertSmith@kill.spam.ork
Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 02:10:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Reply-To: usenet@att.net
kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) wrote:
> FO Flash Override
> F FLash
> I Immediate
> P Priority
yep ...
FO would preempt an entire super-trunk on its path (President/Joint
Chiefs)
F would preempt an entire trunk on its path (Generals)
I would knock off a P or normal call
P would knock off a normal call
If you wanted to abuse your preempting abilities, for instance you
wanted to call to find out how much you got paid and the phone lines
are busy, so you would use the "I" to disconnect the person making the
line you wanted to call busy then hang up real quick. Then call back
real quick so they didn't know that you killed their line.
Big Brother: We are listening for quality purposes only! That's it, I
heard some static, must be a bad resistor somewhere.
------------------------------
From: Eric Blondin <Eric.Blondin@microcell.ca>
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:41:19 -0400
From my understanding of those discoveries though, someone still
needs to have access to your SIM card and physically copy it before
they can do all this eavesdropping. It is annoying to find that
people have a way of listening to your conversations, but they really
need to plan something to get your SIM in the first place. You still
have a way of protecting your privacy (maybe sleep with your phone if
necessary...:))
This is still far from the privacy issues surrounding the older analog
system and other digital systems. In today's technology I don't
believe 100% privacy is still possible.
Eric Blondin
Microcell Telecom
Eric.Blondin@microcell.ca
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:32:16 -0400
From: Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9001@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn
> Related question: I've recently gotten a number of spams which include
> web addresses which are totally numeric- no letters, no dots, and no
> .com. For example, one message included the address http://3626046468/.
Take the number and divide it by 256. Call the remainder D and the
dividend ABC. Now divide ABC by 256 to get C and AB. Divide AB by 256
to get B and A. The address is A.B.C.D and you research it normally.
BTW: It ends up being 216.33.20.4.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #178
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 30 16:43:03 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA09314;
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906302043.QAA09314@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #179
TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jun 99 16:43:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 179
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Scott Peterson)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Tom Betz)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Steven)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (J.F. Mezei)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (Juha Veijalainen)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Mike Fox)
Re: Help! A Real Stumper (James Bellaire)
Re: Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers (Bill Ranck)
Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access (Phil Herreshoff)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Mike Chance)
Re: Disney Joins Web Privacy Movement (Pete Weiss)
Getting to Know You? There Are Ways to Protect Your Privacy (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: scottp4-remove-this-to-reply@mindspring.com (Scott Peterson)
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 07:03:20 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Steve Riley <steriley@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Or you could add the names of known ad servers to your hosts file, and
> point to the localhost (127.0.0.1) as the IP address. This prevents
> the image from loading, thereby reducing bandwidth waste and saving a
> little time. Here is my current hosts file:
> 127.0.0.1 localhost
> 127.0.0.1 ads2.zdnet.com
It's fascinating that the one browser that this technique won't work
properly with is Internet Explorer 5. The minute your route these ad
sites to the dummy IP numbers IE5 barfs and gives you a "can't display
this page" message. The very cynical suggest that Netscape will pick
up this 'feature' in their next release.
Scott Peterson
The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
------------------------------
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: 30 Jun 1999 07:57:30 -0400
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email
Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com
Quoth Steve Riley <steriley@microsoft.com> in <telecom19.174.3@
telecom-digest.org>:
> Crag Macbride <craig@glasswings.com.au> writes:
>> Of course, the real answer is more configurable browers. Just configure
>> your browser to ignore all doubleclick.net addresses, for example. Simple.
>> If you are running your own proxy server, it's pretty easy to do this
>> already, much as the banner ad places _hate_ the idea, of course.
> Or you could add the names of known ad servers to your hosts file, and
> point to the localhost (127.0.0.1) as the IP address. This prevents
> the image from loading, thereby reducing bandwidth waste and saving a
> little time. Here is my current hosts file:
> 127.0.0.1 localhost
> 127.0.0.1 ads2.zdnet.com
> 127.0.0.1 newads.cmpnet.com
> 127.0.0.1 ads.msn.com
> 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
> 127.0.0.1 ad.preferences.com
> 127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
> 127.0.0.1 images.zdnet.com
> 127.0.0.1 www2.valueclick.com
> ... (www3 through www98 deleted to save space in this note)
> 127.0.0.1 www99.valueclick.com
Of course, this can cause GPFs for those using using IE. That's why I
stopped doing it myself.
Microsoft doesn't understand why anyone would want to prevent communication
with these sites, and offers no way to use this solution.
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>| YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
------------------------------
From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven)
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:03:11 +0800
Organization: Prima Computer
Very clever!
Now Ill have to rewrite all my pages with the IP address :(
Steven
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:58:34 -0400
ahoerter@netcom13.netcom.com wrote:
> _The_Australian_ recently printed a story concerning SIM card cloning
> and eavesdropping on conversations carried over GSM.
From the article I had read previously in the TELECOM Digest, it
seems that those US crackers were able to COPY a sim card and
afterwards, listen in to conversations made using the original SIM
card. If that is the case, it is nothing more than a piece of Qualcomm
propaganda.
If you can acquire physical access to the sim card, of course you can
copy it, and of course you can devise a phone that can just listen in.
Bahhh. You would have to bypass the password checking if it is enable
on the phone (then again, if you are building your own phone, such
phone need not interrogate the sim card for the password, does it?).
Unless those guys can really recreate the SIM card from scratch by
listening solely to the airwaves, this story is not worth pursuing.
------------------------------
From: juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:44:28 +0300
Organization: Jkarhuritarit
In article <telecom19.177.6@telecom-digest.org>, ahoerter@netcom13.
netcom.com says:
> "DIGITAL mobile phone users could soon face the threat of eavesdropping,
> following a breakthrough reverse engineering effort in the United States.
> Three California researchers say they have cloned the secret encryption
> method used to secure Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications."
> (http://technology.news.com.au/techno/4221778.htm)
Books published six years ago suspected that the effective length of A5/1
encryption could be as little as 40 bits (out of 64 bit maximum).
40 bits is considered very insecure, though it is the de-facto encryption
strength in web browsers (thanks to US export restrictions). Several
networked computer projects have demonstrated capability to break 40-56
bit encryption (various algorithms) in a few hours.
But still, decryption will require hours, unless you are a major
government or have a couple of million euros to spend. As a private
user I am not that concerned -- real time decryption would revert GSM
to same as analogue -- everyone with a scanner can listen into.
Military has never used cellular (whatever make/brand/standard) for
anything secure.
Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/
Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer
** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect **
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:06:25 -0400
From: Mike Fox <mikefox@ibm.net>
Organization: not organized!
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Jan Ceuleers wrote:
> Moreover, the fact
> that so many operators use the same technology also means that in many
> cases there are several competing operators in the same service area,
> all using GSM technology. This once again encourages competition, as it
> reduces the barriers for users to switch to another operator.
There are some other benefits to a widespread standard that we probably
don't even think of in U.S., because quite frankly we can't consider
having them there.
As one example, many European cars have cellular phones built in. I
don't mean a hack aftermarket car kit installed by a stereo store, but
integrated into the car's design, dahsboard, electrical and stereo
system, and very well done.
Hasn't anyone else wondered why cars in the U.S. are never sold with
digital phones built in? You don't have to wonder. It would be
financially impossible to do in the U.S. with a digital phone. What
technology would they use? No one choice will be suitable for enough
customers to make it useful. AMPS is the only one that they can pick
that has any chance of being usable by all the buyers of an auto, and
it's inferior and becoming obsolete. In Europe, no problem, use GSM 900
(plus the SIM card design of GSM means even rental cars can benefit from
these phones and the rental company has no worries about fraud).
For other considerations of the "benefits" of the U.S. decision to not
have a unified standard, see the thread titled "Poor Cell Phone Coverage
in the US"
Mike
"We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them."
(General Augusto Pinochet of Chile)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:03:30 -0500
From: James Bellaire <bellaire@tk.com>
Subject: Re: Help! A Real Stumper
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 keith@hot-sauce.com (Keith Samuels) wrote:
> We are a marketing company that specializes in the music industry. We
> make requests on behalf of record labels to various markets throughout
> the US to ensure the correct demographic representation of the music
> in the markets the label so chooses.
[snip]
> Well the ANI (in our case)always comes back as Durham NC. Now they
> don't think anyone in NC meant to request a video to be played in
> say Chicago, IL so they block the call assuming you dialed the wrong
> number so they don't wrongfully charge anyone for a misdial. They also
> have some other limits such as a $50 per line block so people don't
> run up huge 900 bills and then never pay for them.
You ARE in Durham NC. The lines are set up so they can accurately
track real people in Chicago IL who really want to see the video.
You are intentionally messing with their statistical sampling of
people in that area. Hopefully the people collecting the data are
also reading and can put a stop to your kind of fraud.
[snip]
> Although, people have told me with a d240sc-T1 and Omni-Vox software
> you can pass any ANI you want down the line. So then we wouldn't need
> hardware in each market just ANI's that coresponded to each market. If
> this is possible to change your ANI on the fly how would the 900
> number know who to bill to? We want to legal about this and don't want
> to cheat the video station out of money, that would just put us out of
> business as well.
You are doing a good job of putting the 900 service out of business
anyways. If the station cannot trust the sampling system and protect
it against your cramming of 'votes' for your client's videos why should
the station continue using the service?
> I need something that solves both problems, with enough ANIs we can
> spread out the calls and never hit the spending limit and the call
> appears to the 900 number owner as a valid viewer request and the
> labels demographics are intact since the call appears to have
> originated from the targeted city.
Thank you for being honest with your intent.
> I'm open to any suggestions on how to accomplish the goal, Internet
> based control, whatever it takes, we need a solution. And we NEED IT
> FAST!!!
The old fashioned way is to hire people in the target cities to do the
dialing for you.
> Keith E. Samuels
> Hot Sauce Marketing Services Inc.
When people call my favorite radio station for a request they are also
asked questions that relate to the station (how long have you listened,
are you planning on going to the next event, etc) as a hedge against
the long-distance cramming of 'votes' for the top 20 songs. They haven't
gone to the trouble of caller ID or ANI to catch the promoters, but they
do notice when requests seem to be stacked a little too lopsided.
I realize it is part of the business, but it is not a good part. No
one should lie^H^H^H misrepresent themselves for a living.
James Bellaire
------------------------------
From: Bill Ranck <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers
Date: 30 Jun 1999 14:51:44 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Keith Samuels <keith@hot-sauce.com> wrote:
> We are a marketing company that specializes in the music industry. We
> make requests on behalf of record labels to various markets throughout
> the US to ensure the correct demographic representation of the music
> in the markets the label so chooses.
> Let's say label 'A' wants to make artist 'B' popular in city 'C'. By
> requesting the video to be played in that city (C) people will watch
> it (B's video) and hopefully start to like it and revenues increase
> for the label (A).
OK, is it just me, or does this sound like ballot box stuffing? On
the other hand, it's just corporate entities playing spy-vs-spy with
each other so I suppose it's not too bad. This is probably how groups
like the Backstreet Boys become popular. Sigh.
> What we need is a way to buy thousands of ANI numbers across the
> country in our target markets and be able to place a call from NC and
> have its ANI come up as one from the target cities area code. As far
> as I know the only way to do this would be to have a phone switch here
> connect to a remote switch that the ANIs are located on and pass
> the info through the switch.
If you get this to work, there are some Canadian residents who would
love to use it for ordering DBS satellite services. Technically, they
can't get full service in Canada because it isn't offered there and
if they hook their receiver up to a phone line the ANI sets off
a flag at the DBS provider who shuts them down.
There would also be some folks in the USA wanting to be able to appear
to be somewhere remote so they can get network stations off the
DBS service. This is not permitted in "served" areas, and is also
checked by ANI when the reciever calls in.
I think you can see why folks might be careful about who they tell how
to do this, if it's even possible.
*****************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center *
*****************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Phil Herreshoff <herreshoff@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:39:33 -0700
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com
"John R. Levine" wrote:
>> So, let's say I want to start an IXC. What do I need to do from a
>> regulatory standpoint? Is there a doc somewhere on the net "Dummy's
>> guide to becoming an IXC?"
> 1. Raise at least $250K.
Ok.
> 2. Hire a good telecom lawyer.
Who's the best telecom lawyer or telecom firm in the business?
>> Finally, is access to SS7 required to switch a phone call? What I'd
>> like to do is let someone call my IVR system, press in a 4-digit code,
>> and then have the call forwarded off to some other number. If that
>> other number is a toll call, I want to originating caller to be
>> billed, not me, thus my need to "switch" the call using SS7 or some
>> other means.
> Oh, you want to put charges on other people's phone bills. That's
> cramming, unless your access is via a 500 or 900 number.
No, I am not cramming. Here's the deal. Let's say I operate a voice
mail service in Idaho, where people call me and listen to messages,
and I want to let my customers press "8" to return a call after
listening to a voice mail message. If that return call is placed to,
say, New York, then I'm going to have to foot quite a bill for the
long distance. What I'd like to do is let the caller press "8" to
return the call, and send a signalling message that would then switch
the call, so the call would be placed (from a billing standpoint at
least) from the caller's billing number.
What do I need to do to accomplish this?
Thanks,
Phil
------------------------------
From: Mike Chance 314-235-4119 <mc307a@cs10k1b.sbc.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:00:35 CDT
Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org> wrote:
> Lightening strikes are indeed very capricious things. Joey and his
> friend are lucky they weren't killed.
> [...]
> None of those "surge arrestor" things will do squat in the event of a
> substantial strike. They provide some protection, but it is minimal. I
> believe that what they contain, mostly, is metal-oxide varistor (MOV)
> transient suppressors, that will clip off very short (microsecond or
> less) transients such as might be found from switching inductive loads
> (e.g. turning motors on or off, electromechanical relays,
> etc.). There had better not be too much energy in that transient or
> the thing will just vaporize and lose its effectiveness. They are rated
> according to the transient energy they can survive, usually rather
> small. The most effective protection is to totally disconnect the line
> if you are really worried about an approaching storm.
The amount of damage that a good lightning strike will do in the
microsecond before the transient suppressor kicks in is enormous.
Remember, electricity will travel a bit over 9 inches through a wire
in a *nanosecond* (anyone remember Capt. Grace Hopper and her
nanosecond wires?), and lightning has a *huge* amount of voltage in
it.
While stationed in Berlin at Tempelhof Central Airport in the late
'80s, a strong thunderstorm passed over the city (unusual weather for
Berlin), and very powerful lightning bolt hit in the middle of the
airfield. It must have hit a main power conduit or something similar,
because the strike knocked out nearly all of the power to the entire
airport complex. Now, Tempelhof Airport has a couple of huge 100-ton
diesel back-up power generators, originally installed when the airport
was built in the late 1930s, which, according to the German engineers
that ran them, operated almost continuously during the Allied bombing
campaign in WWII and during the blockade and airlift a couple of years
later.
Except for routine maintenance, I'd been told that they'd been
operating ever since. They are massively overdesigned, and the
engineers that maintain them are justifiably proud of their service
record. This lightning strike shut down both of the generators, one
for about 2 1/2 minutes and the other for about a half hour. Needless
to say, the German engineers were impressed.
Michael A. Chance
St. Louis, Missouri
------------------------------
From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss)
Subject: Re: Disney Joins Web Privacy Movement
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:45:25 -0400
Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems
Equally (or perhaps more) important is what happens AFTER what they
say on their privacy statements: do they really explicitly keep their
bargain? Are they hacker proof (to common standards)? Are there
slip-ups where they do share info?
So far, without legal recourse, I believe most of these statements are
PR spin-control.
Pete
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is interesting to me that you phrase
it as you did in your last paragraph, because just yesterday when I
discussed in private correspondence with a reader here about my plans
to affiliate in some way with Truste and place their 'Privacy Partner'
logos on the telecom web site, he scorned the whole idea referring to
their privacy standards as just 'toothless window dressing', saying
if a complaint comes in against one of their members, they always side
with their member and allow for no appeals. Then a second person who
I consulted, as I often do about changes I am considering for the site
said much the same thing and noted that there is no real enforcement
mechanism in place; what they say and what they actually do -- meaning
commercial web sites who claim to have a privacy policy in place --
are often times different as night and day. It was suggested that some
sites have put up privacy policies (whether they follow them or not is
another matter) just to keep the government off their case by showing
how 'the net can regulate itself ...' and they are hoping that the
government buys that load of manure and leaves them alone. Maybe it is
just a waste of time and bandwidth to put up a privacy notice. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:27:01 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Getting to Know You? There Are Ways to Protect Your Privacy
Ever get the feeling that somewhere out in cyberspace someone is
gathering a digital dossier on you? Monitoring the sites you visit?
Keeping track of the books you read? Pulling together revealing personal
details, such as where you live and how much you earn?
http://www.seattletimes.com/news/technology/html98/priv_19990620.html
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I get that feeling all the time, which
is why I insist on good personal hygiene for Computer by cleaning it
out and giving it a case of amnesia every few days. It is bad
enough that we know about situations like DoubleClick, who make no
special effort to hide what they are doing. What about the places
doing similar that we do not yet know about?
You'd think by now that any organization intent on collecting personal
data would know enough about the culture and social norms of the net
that they would not go in some Usenet newsgroup or mailing list and
start a debate on the merits or ethics of their plan, risking the
wrath of everyone who found out about it and software being developed
to thwart or throttle what they were doing; they would just secretly
start doing it and *never say a word or give a hint about their plans*.
Consider this: Everyone by now is wise to DoubleClick; they look at
the status bar on their browser and see the site they are at doing an
'http' to somewhere suspicious, so they make little changes or avoid
that site in the future. So instead, the data collectors say they are
willing to sacrifice that first pop up window for the sake of making
the users more complacent. They set up a nice, pleasant site dealing
with any one or more of a number of subjects; they put a nice big 'We
respect your privacy' logo; they arrange things so that your disk
drive light is going to be on a lot because they have lots of nice
files for you to listen to and view, so you are not suspicious if you
happen to observe the disk spinning, because those .wav and .gif files
do sometimes take a long time to load; everything is cozy and the
users all feel what a great site this is, my family and I are all safe
using it; in the meantime the site is giving you the biggest raping of
your life, taking every bit of data it can find in your Microsoft
Wallet, your address book, your credit card list of numbers, your user
names and passwords for other sites, etc. What does the collector of
all the data care if he gives you a popup window on that session or
not? You are unwittingly giving him things of far more value than
just a couple of eye-scans across the top of your screen.
Meanwhile the webmaster smiles and generously keeps handing out all
sorts of free things to the user, i.e. have a free mailbox, have a
weather forecast, how about some news headlines, come visit me every
day, three or four times a day if you wish, I would never dream of
having advertising while you chat on line, that is an affront to the
user since everything on the net is supposed to be free. A strong
advocate of open-source he invites you to grab all the icons, .gif
and .jpg files you can carry away; the users all are delighted and
show up in droves every day thinking that they are raping him when
in fact the exact opposite is true. A site well enough constructed
and designed that the webmaster has one hand on your backside reaching
for your wallet while the other hand is feeling in your front pocket
looking for loose change, and the user doesn't know the difference,
because the disk drive would be spinning all the time anyway while
the movies he is showing me and the music being played are in progress.
But of all the help-yourself-scripts available, there are one or two
he did not show you; the ones that relieved you of your credit card
numbers, bank account numbers and passwords that you left stored in
the computer because it was easier for you that way. A person who
finds a wallet laying on the sidewalk does not stop to examine it
then and there and tell everyone that he found money; after all the
real owner may show up and demand its return. Instead he quietly
picks it up when no one is looking, walks away acting normally, and
then examines his newly found treasure in secret later on. He will
act on the information he found in your wallet at a later time. And
so it is with the Jolly Old Webmaster. He will not do an HTTP to
some other site and hand over your data then and there; some netter
might catch him in the act and Usenet's alt.latest-abusive-affront
newsgroup will be alive with the sounds of fury for months afterward
as netizens debate 'what should we do now' ... instead, the shill
of a webmaster acting as the straight man and cover for the data
collectors in the background hands over his latest files later on.
Today he found sixteen Microsoft Wallets, thirty-six different credit
cards, and a large number of passwords with associated user names.
I cannot say when or where, or for that matter, even 'if' ... but I
sort of get the feeling that that the real privacy rip offs on the net
are going on through people who don't spend much time talking about
it on Usenet or mailing lists. They just quietly do their thing, and
they do not use people like Sanford Wallace to run their 'this is a
good, family-oriented site' schemes. Sanford is just a stooge in
the greater scheme of things I suspect. The day will come when you
will wish Sanford was the only pain in your posterior on the net.
Remember way back when we all thought Jeff 'Spam King' Slaton was
the devil incarnate? (grin)
Don't worry about the known boogeymen on the net. Worry about the
ones you think you can trust, the ones who don't go running off at
the mouth in Usenet all the time with everything they know and
don't know. ****Hey you! Don't give ((ME)) that kind of a funny
look! I am not the one you seek*** ... but you should be just as
cautious when you visit http://telecom-digest.org as you would be
when you visit http://rip-em-off.com, and dare I say it, perhaps
more so. Do not trust me; do not trust any site to the extent you
leave credit cards and other personal data on your hard drive.
***Hey, quit giving me that hard, cold stare. Go look at the Disney
people or CNN or MSNBC or Yahoo or Netscape or AltaVista or the
church ladies or the nice web sites where 'honest webmasters who
are not running an adult site' can have all the freebie chat rooms,
hit counters, guestbooks and more that they want as long as they
agree to push their users through the freebie site's cgi-bin for
processing. Yeah, 'processing' all right ... ***I TOLD YOU TO QUIT
LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT *** (muttering to myself as they lead
me away to the asylum). PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #179
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 30 18:38:15 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA13763;
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:38:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:38:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199906302238.SAA13763@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #180
TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jun 99 18:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 180
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Manhattan Overlay Code Finally Inaugurated (Matthew S. Warren)
Telecomm Masters Classes Offered Online (Steven Dick)
VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted (linabo)
U.K. Wants ISPs To Build In Interception (Monty Solomon)
Multimedia Payphones In JFK Airport (Monty Solomon)
Buffered Billing (Jim Weiss)
Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz (Steve Winters)
Telco Circuit Identifiers (Jeff B. Will)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Bill Ranck)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Steve Winters)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Withheld Adrian)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (Tony Pelliccio)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (James)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (Isaac Wingfield)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: TELECOM Digest Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:50:00 EDT
I'd like to get some thoughts from regular users of telecom-digest.org
about possible changes and additions to the web site involving regular
use of multimedia presentations. It would be a bit too much for me to
do on any regular basis in any quantity without assistance from those
of you who are interested.
What I am thinking about is a series of 'ten minute tutorials' in the
form of Real Media presentations on various technical topics regarding
telecommunications and telephones. For example, one might be on how
to repair a broken phone; another might be a short tour of a telephone
company exchange building; another might be a technical presentation
involving a blackboard with schematics or flow charts, and a person
discussing them. Would any users like to prepare one of these and
submit it?
The topic area here is wide open, as long as it would have general
appeal to a range of persons interested in telcom stuff. I suggest
making them about ten minutes in length since files like that do take
awhile to load, and there are network congestion and buffering
problems in the presentation if it gets too lengthy. An audio only
presentation might run a bit longer with no hassles.
Other examples might include a regular (once per week?) 'news and
commentary' presentation on telecom topics, perhaps with a guest
being interviewed, etc. Would anyone like to handle this? An audio
presentation in the style of a 'radio program' could be fifteen or
thirty minutes, involving news, a feature story, etc. I suppose it
could be video as well if the person doing it wanted to handle it
that way.
Another idea is a 'call-in talk show' format; someone who is a good
conversationalist in telecom would agree to take phone calls from
people at a certain time perhaps one evening per week; discuss with
the caller whatever the subject was, and the entire thing would be
taped, then converted to Real Media format, and downloaded to the
web site for playback by interested listeners over the next week until
the next edition was prepared. You might call this a sort of 'Telecom
Digest Talk Show' with essentially it being the same thing as you
read here, only in audio format, with a half dozen callers.
Back in January I said I was going to put my own picture on the web
site for people who kept wondering what I looked like. I did, as
you know if you have been to http://telecom-digest.org/moderator and
the results have been okay. Audio-visual stuff on the net can be
done *very* inexpensively with a camera that costs less than a hundred
dollars, and very inexpensive software as well.
People who want to do this will need to be totally responsible for
getting the presentation ready and getting it downloaded to me. That
person and I will then chat and arrange its placement on the web site.
I would suggest going with RealMedia for the presentation, using very
simple display methods such as embedded player starts when page is
called, 28.8 speed, make it viewable/audible to as many participants
as possible. No unusual software, odd rates for the streaming media,
no stereo, nothing for the user to have to do except go to the page
and look/listen. No advertising messages, and 'infomercials' kept to
a minimum, realizing that they may be an acceptable trade off now and
then for an otherwise outstanding presentation.
If you do not already know how to do this sort of thing, then I am
unable to teach you, and please do not send me any crappy looking
or sounding things. If you do know how it is done, feel free to send
me some suggestions.
Bringing TELECOM Digest and telecom-digest.org into Century 21, I
remain sincerely yours,
Patrick Townson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:42:55 -0400
From: Matthew S. Warren <opie@fine-print.com>
Subject: Manhattan Overlay Code Finally Inaugurated
Hi,
At <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/regional/ny-phone.html>,
(free registration required) the New York Times reports, in pertinent part:
Beginning Thursday, customers who sign up for new phone service
in Manhattan may be assigned the new 646 area code, instead of
the venerable 212 prefix . . . Callers could end up dialing 11
numbers -- 1 plus the area code plus the phone number -- to reach
someone right down the street. (Customers making calls within
the same area code will continue to dial only seven.)
Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission state:
No area code overlay may be implemented unless there exists, at
the time of implementation, mandatory ten-digit dialing for every
telephone call within and between all area codes in the geographic
area covered by the overlay area code.
47 C.F.R. sec. 52.19(c)(2)(ii) (1998). It seems to me that one of three
things is true:
1. The New York Times is wrong.
2. The FCC gave some sort of a waiver in this case.
3. Telcos are acting illegally.
Which is correct? What is the real story here? And what are telcos
and regulators thinking? Without mandatory ten/eleven-digit dialing,
646 numbers are going to be an awfully hard sell.
Matthew S. Warren "Nothing happens automatically."
opie@fine-print.com +1 (500) for-opie (Mail for PGP)
------------------------------
From: stevenmsu@aol.com (Steven Dick)
Date: 30 Jun 1999 14:01:50 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Telecomm Masters Classes Offered Online
Online Masters Classes Offered
http://www.siu.edu/~mconline/
The Department of Radio-Television at Southern Illinois University
announces two graduate level courses offered completely online.
Students may choose between Telecommunications Technology by Steven
Dick Ph.D. (Michigan State) and Telecommunications Management by Max
Grubb, Ph.D. (Ohio). Students must be accepted into the SIU graduate
school and have ready access to a computer that will run a recent
version of Microsoft Explorer or Netscape Navigator (3.0+, 4.0+
preferred). Course textbooks will be available though many online
booksellers. For more information, see http://www.siu.edu/~mconline
or contact Dr. Steven Dick, Department of Radio-Television, Mail Stop
6609, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA,
618-453-6980, sdick@siu.edu.
MCMA 503:Telecommunication Technology.
An intense examination of new and emerging communication technologies,
analyses of their perceived uses and potential. Creative or
theoretical research required.
RT572: Telecommunications Management
Perspectives in telecommunications management. Includes examinations
of the organizations and management of commercial and noncommercial
telecommunications organizations with an emphasis on leadership
theories and techniques.
Students should contact the graduate school
(http://www.siu.edu/gradschl/procedur.htm) for applications. Both
courses may require consent of instructor. You will NOT be required to
be a part of the current graduate program but the courses may be used
as part of the integrated graduate program in Mass Communication.
(http://www.siu.edu/departments/cmcma/GradDegree/index.html).
The College Mass Communication and Media Arts is a leading media
program. The department and the university have run trial classes
completely and partially online. Steven Dick has been using online
systems to supplement his classes for over four years. Max Grubb has
years of successful industry experience in broadcast management.
Steven Dick, Ph.D. Department of Radio-Television Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, IL 62901 Sdick@siu.edu
------------------------------
From: linabo <linabo@yahoo.com>
Subject: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:59:36 -0400
Organization: Innovex Usenet News Server
Has anyone had any experience with a company called VoiceNet? I'm
looking for a buisness calling card provider for about 3000 cards.
They seem pretty good, but I'd kinda like some first hand info.
Does anyone know anything about them??
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:40:57 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: U.K. Wants ISPs To Build In Interception
By Duncan Campbell, TechWeb
Jun 25, 1999 (12:40 PM)
The British government has become the first in Europe to openly
propose internationally agreed requirements for ISPs to build
technology into networks that would allow for police surveillance.
Under proposals for changes to the Interception of Communications Act
announced by the Home Office this week, all communications service
providers (CSPs) would be required to build interception software or
hardware into their systems.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990625S0019
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:28:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Multimedia Payphones In JFK Airport
Travelers passing into and out of JFK's Terminal 4 now have access to
the industry's most state-of-the-art multimedia payphone, which AT&T
has sourced from iMagic Infomedia in Hong Kong.
By: Steve Gold, Newsbytes
Publish Date: June 21, 1999
http://www.currents.net/newstoday/99/06/21/news12.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:10:13 EDT
Reply-To: Jim Weiss <nbjimweiss@aol.com.>
From: Jim Weiss <nbjimweiss@aol.com>
Subject: Buffered Billing
Over the years I've heard about buffered billing and voice-activated
billing. MCI WorldCom has said they're the only carrier that initiates
billing when the call is answered, not after a certain number of rings.
While it seems possible, I'm skeptical but I haven't any real proof.
I'm wondering if this is true and whether there's any documetation or
verification of this.
Any help will be appreciated.
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Re: Cordless phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:47:52 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
slivovica@mindspring.com (Dave B) spake thusly and wrote:
> I'm considering buying a cordless phone with answering machine, and
> have gotten conflicting info on how 900Mhz is better. A {Consumer
> Reports} article said 900 was an advantage only when you needed
> longer-range coverage (though it added that the 900Mhz band is less
> noisy); another source I saw said that 900Mhz has much better sound
> quality, etc. I live in an apt. building, so distance of coverage
> isn't a big concern; it's not like I'm wandering out into a huge back
> yard or anything.
Actually there is yet another newer alternative for you by Siemens
called the 2420 Gigaset that you may want to research. It runs at
2.4Ghz, has reasonable range for home or office and has superior sound
quality with 26 minutes of record time for the answering machine.
Check it out at our web site www.sellcom.com where we have links
to FAQ, photo etc.
Steve Winter
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
------------------------------
From: Jeff_B._Will@NOTES.UP.COM (Jeff B. Will)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:14:54 -0600
Subject: Telco Circuit Identifiers
Could you tell me where to look up telco circuit identifiers and what they
mean?
Example:
HCGS = T1
LNGS = 4 wire analog
DHEC = ?
AREC = ?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Bill Ranck <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: 30 Jun 1999 15:14:58 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org> wrote:
> This reminds me of this house in the Boston 'burbs where I lived for a
> couple of years after I got out of school. Place was near the top of a
> gentle hill. While we never were actually HIT, at least not that I'm
> aware of, I figured out, after many experiences, that ANY TIME an
> electrical storm was in the neighborhood one should unplug EVERYTHING
> in the house. I often found most of the light bulbs dead after such a
> storm, pretty much independent of whether the lightswitch was on or
> not.
Generally, this sort of problem is due to poor grounding and/or
corroded connections in older buildings. I had a house out in
the country many years ago. When I first moved in I had the same
sort of problems. Lightbulbs burned out during thunderstorms, etc.
After I rewired the place with a new breaker box and made sure
there was a good solid nuetral and safety ground on all circuits
the problems went away.
My mother's apartment was recently having problems with the lights
getting brighter and dimmer seemingly at random. After checking her
apartment's breaker box for loose grounds and such I got in touch with
the building maintenance man. He and I went down to the meters in the
basement and removed some panels. The building had 3-phase service
and the neutral wire on the transformer side of the main breaker was
corroded. The maintainence guy called the power company and they came
and fixed that and some other corroded nuetral and ground connections.
Problem solved.
Turned out some other apartments had been having problems too, but
since it is all retirees and most of them were out of town for
Christmas when this was happening they had only gotten a couple of
complaints.
*****************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center *
*****************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:40:53 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org> spake thusly and wrote:
> None of those "surge arrestor" things will do squat in the event of a
> substantial strike. They provide some protection, but it is minimal. I
> believe that what they contain, mostly, is metal-oxide varistor (MOV)
> transient suppressors, that will clip off very short (microsecond or
> less) transients such as might be found from switching inductive loads
> (e.g. turning motors on or off, electromechanical relays,
> etc.). There had better not be too much energy in that transient or
> the thing will just vaporize and lose its effectiveness. They are rated
> according to the transient energy they can survive, usually rather
> small. The most effective protection is to totally disconnect the line
> if you are really worried about an approaching storm.
The Brick Wall surge protector is not MOV based and will withstand
6000 volt spikes all day long (UL tested). The idea is that internal
building wiring is designed to only be capable of 6000 volts.
We sell them so I am prejudiced, but the only reason that we sell them
is because I was so impressed with the technology and use them here.
They also do NOT divert surges to the neutral or ground wire which is
important in network situations. They actually stop the surges.
I have them all over the place here at SELLCOM. Interestingly enough
they will protect the MOV type surge protectors. We use the Brick
Wall units for the real protection and then have one of the other
junk MOV strip products for the "insurance policy".
As far as I know the Brick Wall units are the only real surge
protectors available.
For the phone lines I use the solid state AT&T 110 punchdown units
loaded with the solid state modules.
Steve Winter
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
------------------------------
From: 141@wilkinsonsmith.com (Withheld Adrian)
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:53:59 GMT
Organization: www.wilkinsonsmith.com Limited
Reply-To: acs@wilkinsonsmith.com
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:06:25 -0400, Mike Fox <mikefox@ibm.net> wrote:
> As one example, many European cars have cellular phones built in. I
> don't mean a hack aftermarket car kit installed by a stereo store, but
> integrated into the car's design, dahsboard, electrical and stereo
> system, and very well done.
I would have to disagree with this. While certain ranges of vehicle do
offer a mobile as standard, remember you pay next to nothing for the
mobile here, most people use hand portables.
Because of the massive number of hand portables available no motor
manufacturer offers a car kit for portables -- no universal interface.
------------------------------
From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Organization: Providence Network Partners
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:56:46 GMT
In article <telecom19.179.4@telecom-digest.org>, jfmezei.spamnot@
videotron.ca says:
> If you can acquire physical access to the sim card, of course you can
> copy it, and of course you can devise a phone that can just listen in.
> Bahhh. You would have to bypass the password checking if it is enable
> on the phone (then again, if you are building your own phone, such
> phone need not interrogate the sim card for the password, does it?).
> Unless those guys can really recreate the SIM card from scratch by
> listening solely to the airwaves, this story is not worth pursuing.
I always laugh when I hear that they've 'cracked' the encryption on a
GSM SIM. For about $150 you can get a smartcard reader/writer or
better yet, my Motorola Select 2000 lets you copy a SIM. None of the
other phones I've seen let you do that.
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR
== Trustee WE1RD
------------------------------
From: none <none@none.com>
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: @Home Network
The U.S. military has a variety of cryptographic devices capable of
being used with cellular service. Voice quality using an AMPS cell
system is lousy though and adoption has been spotty at different levels
because of the cost of the hardware.
james
Juha Veijalainen wrote:
> Military has never used cellular (whatever make/brand/standard) for
> anything secure.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:18:12 -0700
From: Isaac Wingfield <isw@ictv.com>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
>> Telephone relay company night watchman Edward Baker, 31, was killed
>> early Christmas morning by excessive microwave radiation exposure.
As with many of the Darwin awards, this one sounded very suspicious to
me in any case, but the part about:
> Baker had not been told about a tenfold boost in microwave power
> planned that night to handle the anticipated increase in holiday
> long-distance calling traffic".
Sounds completely bogus. While there is a relationship between
transmitted power and the data handling capacity, once you establish
the parameters for a link, you just don't go around boosting the power
to add capacity, and especially not on a temporary basis. I'm not a
telecommunications microwave specialist, but I'll bet this is never
done, because it wouldn't work.
Also, a power ratio of ten to one simply isn't enough to go from
"toasty warm" to "cooked my goose", especially when the air was so
cold. Ever try to grill meat in the winter?
Isaac (the skeptic)
Isaac Wingfield Project Director
isw@ictv.com ICTV
Vox: 408-364-9201 14600 Winchester Blvd.
Fax: 408-364-9300 Los Gatos, CA 95030
------------------------------
From: rtucker+from+199906@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Date: 30 Jun 1999 10:36:22 GMT
Organization: TTGCITN Communications <http://www.ttgcitn.com/>, ROC NY
Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199906@katan.ttgcitn.com
In <telecom19.174.13@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest Editor noted
in response to Jeff Brielmaier <jefferyab@nospam.netzero.net>:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But please note earlier in this issue
> Peter Simpson says he can find no trace of the organization in Manitoba
> which is named in the article. Darwin says 'confirmed true' but how
> about some independent verification? PAT]
Look at the last names. Is there a single one which doesn't look like
a joke? :-) -rt
Ryan Tucker <rtucker+18@ttgcitn.com> http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425
Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #180
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 1 00:36:11 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA29882;
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:36:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:36:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907010436.AAA29882@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #181
TELECOM Digest Thu, 01 Jul 99 00:36:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 181
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet (M Solomon)
AT&T to Raise Monthly Fee on Residential Customers (Monty Solomon)
Re: Cordless phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz (John Temples)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Thor Lancelot Simon)
"Factory" Portable Phones (Ed Ellers)
Re: Is it Possible to Have no 1+ Carrier? (Ed Ellers)
Correction Voysys 100 for $799 (C. Blackburn)
Re: Seeking Database of IXCs and CLECs (Jerry Harder)
Re: HELP! - A Real Stumper (Bill Levant)
Re: So Now I'm a Racist? Says Who? (Bob Goudreau)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:22:06 -0400
Bell Labs Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 Calls Within 15 Feet
June 30, 1999 7:30 AM EDT
WHIPPANY, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 30, 1999--Researchers at Lucent
Technologies' (NYSE: LU) Bell Labs have developed the most sensitive
technology yet for pinpointing the location of wireless 911 emergency
calls. The approach is accurate within 15 feet when users are outdoors
and 100 feet when they are indoors.
The Bell Labs geolocation technology offers marked improvements over
currently deployed systems for locating wireless 911 emergency
calls. Moreover, it provides network operators the double benefit of
meeting a 2001 federal mandate while opening opportunities for new
service revenues. For example, pinpointing a customer's location could
yield such services as detailed driving directions and local traffic
information, especially when combined with improved data services
expected two years from now.
"We intend to pursue standardization of this geolocation technology so
that it can be widely and inexpensively deployed," said John
Freidenfelds, director of wireless technology applications at Lucent's
Wireless Networks Group.
The Bell Labs technology works with all of today's global digital
networks and also will be compatible with next-generation (3G)
broadband wireless networks, which will provide a broad assortment of
location-based services, as well as high-speed, Internet-based
multimedia services.
The driving force for the Bell Labs research has been a U.S. Federal
Communications Commission mandate stating that by October 2001, all
wireless 911 calls must be pinpointed within 410 feet. Currently,
wireless 911 calls can be pinpointed within only a three- to
six-square mile service area on average.
The Bell Labs geolocation technology would provide more precise
location information to police, which is especially helpful when
callers are unfamiliar with their whereabouts, and also would allow
911 calls to be routed more quickly to the appropriate rescue squad.
The Bell Labs approach involves both the wireless handset and network
infrastructure. Global positioning system (GPS) units are placed
throughout a wireless network. As the units keep track of GPS
satellites orbiting the Earth, they pass along key satellite
information including estimated time of the signal's arrival - to
nearby wireless handsets, which are equipped with scaled-down GPS
units. Then, based on time differences between when the network's GPS
units and the handsets receive signals from the satellites, it's
possible to precisely pinpoint the handset's location.
"With the information boost that the network gives the handset, our
approach is 100 times more sensitive than the handset approach for
wireless geolocation that involves putting an entire conventional GPS
unit into each handset," said Bell Labs researcher Giovanni
Vannucci. Besides providing very poor performance indoors, those
handsets are costly, bulky and are a drain on portable batteries.
Another common wireless geolocation technology is solely
network-based, but that approach requires expensive base-station
equipment, is imprecise, and does not perform well in hilly areas.
The Bell Labs researchers also have enhanced their geolocation
approach by developing a method to estimate handset location, which
shortens the handset's initial search for a satellite signal. A
software program, based on the wireless signals that a handset
receives from several base station antennas, helps to estimate a
handset's location.
Other researchers working on the Bell Labs geolocation technology
include Bob Richton, T.C. Chiang, Richard Leung, Ren Da, and others in
Whippany and Naperville, Ill.
Lucent Technologies, headquartered in Murray Hill, N.J., designs,
builds and delivers a wide range of public and private networks,
communications systems and software, data networking systems, business
telephone systems and microelectronics components. Bell Laboratories
is the research and development arm for the company. For more
information on Lucent Technologies, visit the company's web site at
http://www.lucent.com or the Bell Labs web site at
http://www.bell-labs.com.
------------------------------
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: AT&T to Raise Monthly Fee on Residential Customers
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:23:43 -0400
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - AT&T Corp.(NYSE: T), the largest
U.S. long distance company, on Wednesday announced it would raise fees
related to universal service by 72 cents per month on all its
residential customers.
AT&T said it would also slightly reduce per-minute rates for customers
not enrolled in any of its discount calling plans.
So-called basic schedule rates would drop to 26 cents per minute from
28 cents during business hours and to 11 cents from 11.5 cents on
weekends. The change has no effect on customers enrolled in discount
calling plans.
The fee increases are intended to cover an increase ordered by the
Federal Communications Commission in the amount long distance
companies like AT&T must pay to local phone carriers to keep phone
service affordable in rural and low income areas.
The federal charges also included an increase in the education rate or
e-rate program that helps pay for Internet connections in schools and
libraries.
Other long distance carriers are expected to unveil similar increases
soon.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz
Organization: Gulfnet Kuwait
From: john@kuwait.net (John Temples)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:43:33 GMT
slivovica@mindspring.com (Dave B) spake thusly and wrote:
> I'm considering buying a cordless phone with answering machine, and
> have gotten conflicting info on how 900Mhz is better. A {Consumer
> Reports} article said 900 was an advantage only when you needed
> longer-range coverage (though it added that the 900Mhz band is less
> noisy);
The one 49 MHz phone I owned could be noisy even if only a few feet
from the base station. It was very sensitive to the orientation of the
handset.
> another source I saw said that 900Mhz has much better sound
> quality, etc.
The Panasonic analog 900 MHz phone I use has far superior sound quality
to the two 900 MHz digital spread spectrum phones I've used (Toshiba
and Sanyo). The latter two had either higher background hiss levels or
noticeable echo. The digital phones also had significantly shorter
battery life due to their more powerful transmitters. I don't know if
this observation applies to other phones. It would be really nice to
be able to test a phone on a real phone line before buying it.
Steve Winters <support@sellcom.com> wrote:
> Actually there is yet another newer alternative for you by Siemens
> called the 2420 Gigaset that you may want to research.
Panasonic also makes 2.4 GHz phones with answering systems.
http://www.prodcat.panasonic.com/shop/product.asp?sku=KX-TGM240-B
John W. Temples, III
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: 30 Jun 1999 20:15:45 -0400
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom19.179.2@telecom-digest.org>, Tom Betz
<tbetz@pobox.com> wrote:
> Quoth Steve Riley <steriley@microsoft.com> in <telecom19.174.3@
> telecom-digest.org>:
>> Crag Macbride <craig@glasswings.com.au> writes:
>>> Of course, the real answer is more configurable browers. Just configure
>>> your browser to ignore all doubleclick.net addresses, for example. Simple.
>>> If you are running your own proxy server, it's pretty easy to do this
>>> already, much as the banner ad places _hate_ the idea, of course.
>> Or you could add the names of known ad servers to your hosts file, and
>> point to the localhost (127.0.0.1) as the IP address. This prevents
>> the image from loading, thereby reducing bandwidth waste and saving a
>> little time. Here is my current hosts file:
>> 127.0.0.1 localhost
>> 127.0.0.1 ads2.zdnet.com
>> 127.0.0.1 newads.cmpnet.com
>> 127.0.0.1 ads.msn.com
>> 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
>> 127.0.0.1 ad.preferences.com
>> 127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
>> 127.0.0.1 images.zdnet.com
>> 127.0.0.1 www2.valueclick.com
>> ... (www3 through www98 deleted to save space in this note)
>> 127.0.0.1 www99.valueclick.com
> Of course, this can cause GPFs for those using using IE. That's why I
> stopped doing it myself.
> Microsoft doesn't understand why anyone would want to prevent communication
> with these sites, and offers no way to use this solution.
Of course there is -- just run a local nameserve claiming to be authorative
for those zones.
Hm. Perhaps I will provide one as a public service -- I'll send
details here if I decide to.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: "Factory" Portable Phones
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:22:43 -0400
Withheld Adrian (141@wilkinsonsmith.com) wrote:
> Because of the massive number of hand portables available no motor
> manufacturer offers a car kit for portables -- no universal interface.
Some car makers do offer *their own* portable cellular phones with an
integrated "car kit," though this may not be available in all
countries in which a given car is sold. I know someone who has a
Mercedes SLK roadster that came with a Motorola portable with a
docking device factory-installed in the car, and which (AFAIK) has a
cellular antenna integrated into the AM/FM whip antenna.
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Is it Possible to Have no 1+ Carrier?
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:29:06 -0400
Barry Margolin (barmar@bbnplanet.com) wrote:
> I just got a notice from AT&T that they've instituted a $3/month
> minimum. I have AT&T as my default long distance carrier, but I almost
> never use them, instead using a 10-10 code. I make 10-20 minutes of
> long distance calls a month, so I can't get any benefit from any
> calling plans.
My mother was in exactly that situation, and she had me change her
service to "no carrier" and added a PIC freeze. When AT&T found out
(from BellSouth) that she had dropped them, they quickly offered her a
deal that (for the first three months) gives her more free time than
she would possibly use.
------------------------------
From: C. Blackburn" <gern@teleport.com>
Reply-To: gern@teleport.com
Organization: NWR
Subject: Correction Voysys 100 for $799
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:42:25 -0700
Sorry,
This should read $799 not $100!
I have one unit that came off-lease. The company did not send the
power supply with this unit. The model is 100, Software is 1.6H.
Hardware version is 2100004-29. Looks like this is a 4 port voice
mail system. 5 prong power supply. Unit should be in working
condition, SOLD AS-IS. Please email or call. Here is a picture of
this unit. http://www.teleport.com/~hmwilson/voysys.jpg
Please make an offer if this is not a fair price.
Chris Blackburn
NW Remarketing
------------------------------
From: Jerry Harder <jharder@homespamnein.com>
Subject: Re: Seeking Database of IXCs and CLECs
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:44:49 GMT
Organization: @Home Network
Katherine Morris <katherine.morris4@gte.net> wrote in message news:
telecom19.178.9@telecom-digest.org:
If you are looking for free information, the Common Carrier Bureau at
the FCC has a list of Carrier Identification Codes and contacts. On
www. naruc.org, you can find the Web pages of the various state
PSCs. They often have lists and/or downloadable database so IXCs and
CLECs.
Good luck,
Jerry Harder
remove spamnein from address to reply
------------------------------
From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:36:09 EDT
Subject: Re : HELP! - A Real Stumper
Well, I'm not a telco engineer by trade -- actually, I'm a lawyer
-- but I had a fairly low-tech idea to solve this problem, at least
temporarily.
Arrange to rent a corner of someone's office in each of the
markets you're interested in. Install two POTS lines with an extender
attached between. Call into line 1, grab dialtone for line 2, and
dial out to the 900 number(s). If you get a fairly smart piece of
hardware, you should be able to also dial into line 2 and grab
dialtone on line 1.
You *might* also be able to do this with cellular phones with
numbers from each of the desired cities. I know that when I roam with
my Sprint PCS phone, it sends *my* number as the caller ID, no matter
where I am, but I don't know what the ANI looks like. I *think* it's
local to wherever I am, but I'm not sure.
Problems that I see:
1) You will only have two lines per city. You will therefore only
have two different ANI's to send. This may not be enough. Each
additional pairing doubles your cost. Moreover, if the video
programmer's computer is fairly smart, they may figure out that no
kid, no where, no how makes $50.00 in 900 calls in one month (and
lives to tell about it the next month), and then either block, or
simply disregard, calls from your numbers. Changing them every month
or two is a possible workaround, but at $25.00 (and up) per line per
change, it can get expensive in a hurry.
2) You will probably have to arrange this all yourself. You *might*
be able to cook up a deal with someone like a cellular carrier or a
CLEC, who would let you dial into their switches in the destination
cities, thereby getting "foreign" dialtone and sending THEIR ANI to
the 900 numbers. The benefit here is that you'd have a large pool of
numbers to use.
3) In the absence of a special pre-arrangement, cellular carriers
generally block 900 calls, and might not be able to enable them "just
for you".
4) One of the internet IP telephony companies might also be able to
help, IF they have points of presence in the right places, and *if*
you can get them to allow you to make 900 calls on their lines.
For what it's worth, I hope this helps some.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:40:39 EDT
From: Bob Goudreau <goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Re: So Now I'm a Racist? Says Who?
Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU> wrote:
>>> If you're placing an international call, isn't is reasonable to
>>> expect that you would use the international dialing prefix?
>> Except that people who keep making this argument seem to feel that
>> Canada doesn't qualify as "international", and have never met my
>> earlier challenge of enumerating exactly what objective criteria
>> should be used for deciding which NANP countries should be dialable
>> using 1+10D and which should not. Absent such clear rules, the only
>> fair thing to do would be to require 011-1- on calls to *all*
>> international destinations, Canada included.
> This was, in fact, planned at one point, ...
> but I see nothing wrong with going to 011 dialing
> between the two countries.
That's nice, since it shows that you are clearly *not* among the crowd
that is trying to have it both ways, requiring 011-1 to reach
Caribbean countries but still letting some international calls (to
Canada) be dialed without 011. See my comments above about "the only
fair thing to do".
>> Yet for some reason, some people seem to feel that it would be a Bad
>> Thing to make it as difficult to dial those rich white Canadians as it
>> they'd like for it to be when dialing those poorer, predominantly-black
>> NANP countries in the Caribbean. I find the attitude somewhat remin-
>> iscent of the way that certain long distance carriers disable
>> calling-card calls to specific countries when the calls originate from
>> certain "red-lined" ethnic neighborhoods.
> Oh, get bent. I've been following this thread and never once did it
> occur to me that there might be any racist intent -- and that IS what
> you're accusing people of. The issue is SOLELY one of excessive rates
> charged to unsuspecting people. Think it through: if I read an ad in
> the paper and it tells me to dial a particular phone number, with an
> area code I'm not familiar with, I likely won't have a clue where it
> is. And if I live in the USA, then apparently (according to Mark
> Cuccia) I'm going to have to pay a buck just to find out -- assuming I'm
> savvy enough to even suspect that such a step is necessary. Most
> people (that don't subscribe to this list) don't even know that these
> Caribbean countries have "regular" NANPA area codes and automatically
> assume that the number dialed will be in the USA, or possibly Canada -
> but they're certainly not expecting to pay 1-900 like rates for the
> call. 011 serves as a "toll alert" of sorts -- if you preface your call
> with 011, you KNOW you're calling outside your country, and you're far
> more likely to look up the rates before calling if you're not familiar
> with them.
> Calls to Canada are more expensive (from the USA) than are calls within
> the USA, but GENERALLY speaking the price increase isn't that huge, and
> it's certainly quite reasonable when you think about it -- so Canada
> therefore "deserves" to share the same national dialing plan as the
> USA. But calls to some of these Caribbean nations, which APPEAR to
> most people to be calls within the USA, can be as high as 5000% of the
> cost of a within-the-USA call. That's simply too great a disparity.
But how much is "too great"? Please be specific, using hard numbers
of minutes and cents. So far, none of the people who have snidely
dismissed the rates to Caribbean NANP members as too high but who
still want Canada to be 1+ dialable have ever put forth any
*objective* criteria that could be used to decide which NPAs "deserve"
the privilege of 1+ dialing and which do not. I will repeat the
challenge I originally offered, and which no one has yet answered with
any specific facts or numbers:
But under what criteria? If you're going to disqualify the non-US
NANP countries from being dialed from the US via 1+NPA dialing, then
why not Canada as well? What distinguishes Canada from, say, Jamaica
in this respect? Pricing, perhaps (the fact that lots of US long
distance carriers offer fairly decent rates to Canada, while most or
all of the non-US Caribbean NANP countries still have old-fashioned
expensive bilaterally-negotiated settlement rates for calls to/from
the US)? So then what happens if Jamaica subsequently liberalizes its
telecom market enough so that Canada-type rates become available for
calls to Jamaica? Will 1-876-NXX-XXXX calls then become dialable from
the US again? What if those rates are only available from, say, Sprint
and Qwest, but not from AT&T and MCI? And what exactly is the pricing
dividing line anyway? If you're going to exclude just some (but not
all) of the non-US NANP countries from 1+NPA dialing, you're going to
have to come up with a clear and consistent policy that answers all
these questions. Otherwise, you could go for the much simpler policy
of requiring the international prefix for *all* non-US calls (including
those to Canada), or else retain the status quo.
I will also remind everyone that the countries being accused of "high
prices" have not as a rule been raising their rates; they merely
haven't been lowering them as quickly as intra-USA or USA-to-Canada
toll rates have been falling. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago
that calls to Canada, or even within the US, could rack up charges
that (adjusted for inflation) fell into the dollars-per-minute
category, and other posters have recently pointed out that many US
carriers now offer rates in the 20-50 cents per minute range to some
of the Caribbean countries under discussion.
The recent proclivity of US callers to being more cavalier about their
1+ dialing (the "heck, it only costs ten cents a minute these days"
attitude) is hardly something that the Caribbean countries or their
telcos can be blamed for.
> That's the only issue here, Bob. The skin colour of the people being
> called isn't the issue -- and I think it could be argued that most of
> the scam operators who do operate these Caribbean-based sex-lines and
> whatnot are, in fact, rich AMERICAN white people.
And yet US-based sex-line operators are not the ones who would suffer
the most from being made completely undialable from US (even via 011-1),
as advocated by the earlier poster; the island residents would be worst
affected.
> You have chosen to make a connection between our resentment towards
> paying these usurioius rates and the fact that lots of "po' black
> folk" happen to live in these countries. If you're going to make that
> connection, then you better be prepared to back it up, because you are
> making a VERY serious charge.
I will point out that I was not the one accusing certain countries of
"bad behavior", of "sponging off" international gateways and
advocating that those countries be "put on notice" about being kicked
out of the NANP, all without specifying exactly what rules or laws or
guidelines those countries would need to meet, or why Canada
automatically qualifies for the privilege of 1+ dialing and they do
not. Sorry if it pains you to hear it, but I found that entire "you
don't qualify but we won't tell you exactly why" attitude just a bit
too reminiscent of practices such as the literacy tests that were used
to exclude many black voters in the Jim Crow South.
> Bob, I remember in my old FidoNet days, we only had two rules. You
> shall not be excessively annoying, and you shall not be too easily
> annoyed. Both were grounds for removal from FidoNet. You have CLEARLY
> fallen into the both categories -- you've as much as accused us all of
> being closet racists. Some people here may indeed be racists -- hell,
> I'm no mind reader -- but some others of us resent the accusation.
> In fact, I resent it quite a lot.
I will also point out you have broken the two rules yourself. If, as
you claim above, you advocate that Canada not be given any special
exemption from a blanket "all international calls require 011" rule,
then you are clearly not among the group of people I was berating
above, those who want to keep 1+ dialing for Canada and domestic calls
only but who refuse to explain exactly why Canada alone qualifies for
such an exemption. Your subject line is therefore a nonsensical
strawman, evidence of your propensity to be "too easily annoyed" by
barbs that were not even directed at you. And the fact that you did
not read carefully enough to notice the distinction I made between the
"011 for all int'l calls" group and the "Canada exemption" group is
itself quite annoying.
On the other hand, I will admit to being extremely annoyed by the folks
who wish to "break" the existing intra-NANP dialing regime based on
a rationale that they refuse to enunciate. However, since it is they,
not I, that advocate disturbing the status quo, I don't think it is
unreasonable to ask them to assume the burden of proof in explaining
both their justifications for the proposed change, and the specific
details of its implementation.
> I'm not advocating your removal from our presence, but I do believe you
> owe us all an apology.
The only folks I have impugned are the ones who want to give Canada a
free pass but won't explain why other NANP countries are not similarly
eligible. By your own admission, you are not a member of that group,
so it is a mystery to me why you think I owe you an apology. To
others who are members of that group, and who genuinely have no biases
based on race or national origin, I do apologize -- but I also repeat
to them my (still-unmet) challenge from above, and ask them either to
answer it, or to withdraw their "Canada keeps 1+ access but other
countries don't" proposal.
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #181
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 1 18:28:09 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA05563;
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907012228.SAA05563@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #182
TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Jul 99 18:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 182
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Army Web Site Latest Government Computer Cracked (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (The Old Bear)
New Bell Atlantic Service to Fight 'Cramming' (Tad Cook)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (S. Burjak)
Re: Buffered Billing (JF Mezei)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (J.F. Mezei)
Anonymous Postings in Digest (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Do Not Disturb (Ken M.)
What Do I Ask For? (Leonard Erickson)
TTY Corp Telex Call Control Units (George B. Hutchison)
Re: Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest (Arthur Ross)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:27:53 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Army Web Site Latest Government Computer Cracked
The US Army's main internet site was the latest in a series of
high-profile, high-tech attacks on web sites operated by the federal
government. The site at www.army.mil was vandalized late Sunday
evening and apparently went unnoticed by its keepers until about eight
hours later when people started coming in to work on Monday morning.
For once at least, the people maintaining the computer were honest and
admitted the damage was repaired in about one hour instead of the
usual claims they like to make about how the damage was estimated at
a hundred thousand dollars and will take weeks for several people to
replace. I am sure most readers remember all those fanciful tales in
times past.
The web page substituted for the official one stated that the attack
'has a specific purpose ... to settle rumors being spread by the
government about the hackers responsible for attacks on government
web sites having been caught.' The web page went on to say that the
same person(s) who had done this were also responsible for the attack
a month ago on the White House web site. It also went on to say 'trust
very few people'.
Instead of simply writing up their own web pages and installing them,
the Army had chosen to use a commercial software package from Allaire
Corporation of Cambridge, MA. Allaire's web site building software is
full of security holes so large you could drive a Greyhound Bus
through them; it is so buggy that anyone who uses it should be given a
free can of Raid -- kills roaches dead on contact! -- to go along with
the package. But they apparently think it is a great package and sold
it to the Army -- probably at a greatly inflated price since you know
how Defense Department budget matters go; if a toilet seat is worth
$750 then surely a dumb program to build web sites must be worth ten
or twenty thousand dollars -- who then probably got some five star
general with a bachelor's degree in stupidity to spend a couple weeks
installing it.
I mean, for goodness sake how hard is it to write a few web pages if
you have been on the net for any time at all without having to spend
money on a commercial package intended to have lots of razzle dazzle
which in reality leaves your bare backside exposed to everyone who
passes by ... don't they know anything at all about how to set up the
root directory for their pages; how to set their directory permissions
and how to check their work and secure it before they put it on line?
I guess they figure whatever outrageous sum of money they paid Allaire
would take care of it.
And then when Allaire finally did get around to notifying its
customers there were 'a few little problems' and asking them to change
certain defaults and erase certain files not needed, the Army simply
ignored that advice. Probably the security bulletin is sitting in a
public servant's in-basket because it takes them six to nine months to
open and read their mail, the same as at the FCC.
The FBI, which is still trying to figure out where the 'any key'
is located on their computer so they can press it and decide how
many millions of dollars in damage was done to their own site when
it was ransacked awhile back is also investigating the White House
and Senate break-ins of recent weeks. After their wildly extravagant
claims in those cases of catching someone (not true!) and how the
Senate web site would be disabled until further notice (not true!)
now in the case of the Army they seem to have tossed their hands in
the air and walked away from it. When asked precisely what steps
were being taken in the case of the Army web site matter, the FBI
was extremly vague; they would say only that 'it has been referred
to the appropriate authorities ...' but refused to say who those
'authorities' were, or if the agency itself would participate.
I think the federal government should begin to realize that with all
their computer web sites and their connections to the internet they
are coming out on a playing field with all the big boys ... guys who
are light years ahead of them in computer knowledge and skills; guys
who if they chose to do so could turn every government web site
topsy-turvey over night and use denial of service attacks to keep them
out of service for the next several months. Look at how Bosnian hacker
patriots kept the NATO computers out of service for the entire time
the bombing was going on, constantly overloading them with pings
and throwing trash at them. It went on for weeks.
Maybe if the Justice Department and Janet Reno got off the tangent
they are on which requires that Kevin Mitnick stay incarcerated at
all costs -- four years now, and still no trial, so frightened of him
are they -- things might change. Maybe if the government stopped
giving the entire internet away to Big Business, started really
cracking down on spam and its purveyors and facilitators, and closing
down scam web sites while trying to work with the millions of long
time netizens who are getting sick of it all things might be different.
But as things stand now, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the
government web sites under attack. None at all. I am sort of
enjoying watching it happen. I can only hope that they spend so much
of their time and resources trying in their half-witted way to get
their sites back on line and 'catching the hackers' that they do not
get their numerous Y2K problems resolved before sometime next
summer. If that happens, then they will be entitled to sing the blues,
and how 'nobody knows the trouble I've seen ...' And you really
have to wonder, don't you, that if they cannot put up a web site
and know enough to secure it and keep it going, are they *really*
in a position to straighten out all their Y2K messes?
PAT
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:22:16 -0400
From: The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet
FWD:
06-30-99
Responding to the US Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
demand for technology to locate wireless phones within 410 feet when
they place emergency 911 calls, Lucent Technologies Inc.'s Bell Labs
has developed a system that can place a phone to within 15 feet when
it is outdoors or about 100 feet when it is indoors.
The technique uses the global positioning system (GPS), which relies
on satellites to pinpoint location. Unlike other attempts at locating
wireless phones with GPS, though, it puts in the wireless handset
only the bare-bones technology needed to do what cannot be done
anywhere else. Most of the work is done by GPS technology in the
wireless network, drastically reducing the power consumption and
bulk of the GPS equipment in the handset.
Giovanni Vannucci, one of the Bell Labs researchers working on the
project, told Newsbytes that the GPS equipment in the handset only
measures the GPS signal. GPS gear in the network infrastructure
searches for the GPS satellite signal and passes the necessary
information to the handset.
Because only part of the GPS function is in the handset, a handset with
this capability will have roughly the same battery life, size, and weight
as one without GPS technology, Vannucci said. With the entire GPS
function built into the mobile unit, handsets are much bulkier and hard
on batteries.
The main impetus for developing this technology was the FCC's
insistence that a way be found by October, 2001, to locate wireless
phones placing calls to 911 emergency services within 410 feet, said
Vannucci. However, the researchers chose at the same time to provide
for other location needs. So, for instance, a slight adjustment to the
technique would make it possible to track the location of a wireless
phone whether it is in use or not.
Lucent said that, in addition to the obvious 911 application, this
technology could be used to tailor information such as local traffic
information and driving directions to a caller's location.
Lucent plans to present the concept to standards bodies, and ultimately
to commercialize it, said company spokesman Sam Gronner.
------------------------------
Subject: New Bell Atlantic Service to Fight 'Cramming'
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:38:16 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
New Bell Atlantic Service to Fight 'Cramming'
By Greg Edwards, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va.
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 30--Consumers who have been the victims of "cramming," or the
placing of fraudulent charges on their phone bills, yesterday were
given another tool to fight back.
Bell Atlantic announced it will allow customers to call a toll-free
number and request that no charges other than those of Bell Atlantic
and of customers' long-distance companies be allowed on phone
bills. The free residential anti-cramming service will begin
immediately in the 13-state service territory of Bell Atlantic, which
stretches from Maine to Virginia.
Cramming surfaced as a serious problem two years ago. Along with
"slamming" -- the practice of changing long-distance service without
permission -- it became a headache for consumers of telecommunications
services.
Last year, Bell Atlantic threatened to cut off billing services for
companies it believed had links to cramming. Since then, the phone
company has discontinued billing services for roughly 80 companies.
That private enforcement action has reduced cramming complaints from
residential customers by more than 80 percent -- from 30,000 to 5,000
complaints per month, Bell Atlantic said.
A similar decline in cramming, as well as slamming, complaints has
been observed at the State Corporation Commission, according to Alan
R. Wickham, manager of operations in the communications division. "We
are getting a few 1/8complaints 3/8 but not anything like we were a
year or year and a half ago," he said.
Efforts by the Federal Communications Commission and the local phone
companies have done a lot to curb cramming and slamming, Wickham said.
Anything that helps consumers deal with cramming problems is a
positive development, said Jean Ann Fox of the Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council. But why, she asked, should consumers have to bear
the burden of keeping charges they didn't authorize off their phone
bills.
"Folks shouldn't be allowed to add charges to a phone bill without clear
authorization from a consumer to do that," she said.
The FCC says that consumers can help protect themselves from cramming
by carefully reviewing their phone bills. Consumers should look for
charges they haven't authorized and items explained in vague terms
such as: "service fee," "voice mail," "mail server," "calling plan" or
"membership."
In April, the federal agency -- which received more than 60,000
consumer complaints last year about confusing phone bills -- enacted
broad "truth-in-billing" guidelines. The rules require that phone
bills provide full descriptions of what consumers are being billed for
and by whom.
Consumers who determine they've been victims of cramming should
immediately call their phone company and ask for a billing adjustment,
the FCC says. Complaints about cramming charges from telecommunications
companies can also be made to the FCC and the State Corporation
Commission. Complaints about charges from content providers, such as
psychic hot lines, should be directed to the Federal Trade Commission.
Bell Atlantic spokesman Paul Miller said the company has hired a
vendor to handle the large number of calls expected to the toll-free
number, which will serve residential customers in Virginia, West
Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Business customers should contact their local Bell Atlantic business
office.
Fred D'Alessio, president for Bell Atlantic Consumer Services, said
some customers who are billed for legitimate services on their phone
bills may not want to have those charges blocked. Consumers cannot
pick and choose which miscellaneous charges they want blocked.
Bell Atlantic first announced it would be providing the anti-cramming
service last summer, but technical difficulties in starting the service
caused delays, Miller said.
TO BLOCK CHARGES:
Call: (888) 579-8926
------------------------------
From: sburjak@usa.net (S. Burjak)
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 03:55:13 GMT
Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct
My understanding is that the encryption function is an OPTION and is
not turned on by default in AUS.
I am also under the impression that all you need is a compatible CODEC
and receiver.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:44:28 +0300, juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
wrote:
> In article <telecom19.177.6@telecom-digest.org>, ahoerter@netcom13.
> netcom.com says:
>> "DIGITAL mobile phone users could soon face the threat of eavesdropping,
>> following a breakthrough reverse engineering effort in the United States.
>> Three California researchers say they have cloned the secret encryption
>> method used to secure Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications."
>> (http://technology.news.com.au/techno/4221778.htm)
> Books published six years ago suspected that the effective length of A5/1
> encryption could be as little as 40 bits (out of 64 bit maximum).
> 40 bits is considered very insecure, though it is the de-facto encryption
> strength in web browsers (thanks to US export restrictions). Several
> networked computer projects have demonstrated capability to break 40-56
> bit encryption (various algorithms) in a few hours.
> But still, decryption will require hours, unless you are a major
> government or have a couple of million euros to spend. As a private
> user I am not that concerned -- real time decryption would revert GSM
> to same as analogue -- everyone with a scanner can listen into.
> Military has never used cellular (whatever make/brand/standard) for
> anything secure.
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Buffered Billing
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:09:22 -0400
Jim Weiss wrote:
> Over the years I've heard about buffered billing and voice-activated
> billing. MCI WorldCom has said they're the only carrier that initiates
> billing when the call is answered, not after a certain number of rings.
Microcell Connexions which operates the FIDO GSM network in Canada
operates this way. It seems it is a standard feature in GSM mobile
phones to start billing only when the remote has answered.
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:23:34 -0400
Mike Fox wrote:
> There are some other benefits to a widespread standard that we probably
> don't even think of in U.S., because quite frankly we can't consider
> having them there.
Herte is another example.
Garmin, a maker of GPS systems has just released a GPS/phone combo
which can be used to trasmit your location for various applications.
(This has nothing to do with being able to locate the caller to 911.)
However, because there is no standard in the USA, they opted for the
antiquated AMPS phone which is the lowest common denominator. Dial
number, wait for answer and it sends your numeric location as touch
tone digits. No way to ensure it was received. And you pay for call
duration.
Had the USA adopted the GSM standard such applications would be so
much widespread. The ability to send SMS messages would be a natural
for this application and more reliable and definitely cheaper (SMS
messages are generally free.)
As a result of ther mishmash of protocols the usa is lagging far
behind in mobile data applications.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 01:16:22 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Anonymous Postings in Digest
Lately there have been a few more postings in the Digest than I
really feel comfortable with from 'names' and 'email addresses'
which were deliberatly munged in an effort to fend off spammers.
While I can sympathize with that problem, I hope the people who
post as 'someone', 'no one' 'who' and so forth can also sympathize
with me. It adds to the integrity of the Digest and the integrity
of the poster if there is some way to reach the person by email to
obtain further information, etc.
I also understand it adds to the ease with which spammers can
invade your mailbox.
If your munging is obvious to any human being with a couple letters
or some phrase to be removed or added, etc, that is fine, but please
include somewhere in the text your actual name and address.
Also, remember the reason for http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice --
the telecom-digest.org anonymous email service was started so that
users could obtain an email address to be used for posting not only
in telecom, but in any newsgroup or mailing list of their choice,
or to use as a way to answer unwanted questions at nosey web sites.
When the email address then gets polluted, you toss it away and get a
fresh one. Everyone is invited and encouraged to use this anonymous
'mail drop' service as way of keeping spam away from their primary
email address. You don't have to worry that way about using a valid
address of some sort in articles to the Digest.
Feel free to pick up one, or as many as you need. You will be asked
for your name, which is whatever you wish to say it is, and you will
get a couple other questions to be answered in the same way. Anonymous
email addresses is a service provided by Telecom Archives. Please
visit http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice to get yours, and by the
way, you can have your POP3 mail available here also if you wish.
PAT
------------------------------
From: Ken M. <pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Do Not Disturb
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 05:58:45 -0400
Organization: Netcom
Reply-To: pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com
Bell Atlantic phone company of Maryland is now offering a new service
called, "Do Not Disturb." The monthly fee is $3 per month.
This new service blocks out all incoming calls to your phone, unless the
caller's number (which can be local or out of state) has been entered on
your list, which you can change (add/delete) at any time. It also blocks
"out of area" and "unavailable" callers! No more telemarketers or wrong
numbers.
If a caller is NOT on your list of incoming numbers, they may still get
through by entering a four-digit code after hearing the rejection
announcement. (This is ideal for "out of area" callers whom you wish to
speak with.)
The menu gives you a choice of three different announcemnets that
callers hear.
*The party you have called is not accepting calls at this time.
*The number you have called is unavailable at this time.
*Forgot the 3rd phrase.
You can turn this service on or off at any time by calling the 800
number and entering your phone number and passcode. You can also
program the service to be active at "certain" times of the day, or
certain days of the week.
So far so good. I've been waiting for a way to block telemarketers.
(ken)
See some sample photos taken with my Olympus digital camera at:
http://www.theupperdeck.com/digitcam/
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: What Do I Ask For?
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 02:05:04 PST
Organization: Shadownet
I've picked up an old (1985 vintage) key system with docs. But there
are a few things that the docs don't make clear (like whether or not
you can use standard phones or modems on the lines. So I need to run a
few tests.
To test it I'm going to need three pieces of 25 pair cable about three
feet long, each with a 50-pin amphenol connector at one end.
I assume I'm going to have to pick these up at Graybar. So what do I
ask them for?
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:10:00 -0700
From: George B. Hutchison <boswell@foxinternet.net>
Subject: TTY Corp Telex Call Control Units
Patrick -- could you direct me to a resource that has schematics and
theory of operation for the old Telex call control units that the model
32 telex machines came equipped with from Teletype? Several on GreenKeys
are wondering about the dialing, signalling etc., protocols that were
part of the telex system.
I have private line schematics for the 32s and the 33s, but no model 32
telex call control info.
Thanks and hope to hear from you,
George, W7KSJ - - Webmaster, WWW.RTTY.COM
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyone who can help George please submit
their replies directly to his attention. Thanks. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:37:41 -0700
From: a.ross@ieee.org (Arthur Ross)
Subject: Re: Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest
TELECOM Digest Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> I'd like to get some thoughts from regular users of telecom-digest.org
> about possible changes and additions to the web site involving regular
> use of multimedia presentations. It would be a bit too much for me to
> do on any regular basis in any quantity without assistance from those
> of you who are interested.
> Another idea is a 'call-in talk show' format; someone who is a good
> conversationalist in telecom would agree to take phone calls from
> people at a certain time perhaps one evening per week; discuss with
> the caller whatever the subject was, and the entire thing would be
> taped, then converted to Real Media format, and downloaded to the
> web site for playback by interested listeners over the next week until
> the next edition was prepared. You might call this a sort of 'Telecom
> Digest Talk Show' with essentially it being the same thing as you
> read here, only in audio format, with a half dozen callers.
Pat:
Has the thought ever occurred to you of doing a REAL radio talk show?
I've kind of thought, in the back of my mind for a long time now, that
something along the lines of "Car Talk" for telephony (with a very
broad definition, perhaps mixed with popular computer technology)
MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK. Considering some of the stupid nonsense that gets
broadcast daily and the popular misconceptions about the technology, a
well-done consumer-oriented thing on communications might actually
make GOOD SENSE! The public is, in many ways, being unmercifully
ripped off by corporate America, telemarketers, and electro-snake-oil
salesmen. all in the middle of this intergalactic soap opera that is
the war for the eyeballs of the world (a.k.a. "broadband access").
Real information, sans techno-babble, avec good humor, would be a real
public service. You might think about it.
Some of these threads that have been going on lately are good examples
of the sorts of folklore, mythology, and ripoffs that permeates the
popular perception of telecom ... e.g. the probable-hoax Darwin story,
the lightening "surge" nonsense, the slamming & cramming, etc. And
then there is all that really interesting Bell System history ... guys
getting a Nobel Prize for, in effect, cleaning the pigeon droppings
off their antenna, and other such stories.
... and I would happily volunteer to assemble the library of pop telephone
songs, of which there are plenty ... just like all those car songs,
although I don't know of too many accompanied by banjos!
-- Best
-- Arthur :-)
PS: Biggest deterrents may be -
1. Need a good sense of timing, a la Jack Benny, Tom and Ray, Flip
Wilson.
2. Telecom companies have good lawyers and lots of money, so you would
have to be very careful about what you say (Tom and Ray have, on
occasion, received missives from the legal departments of some car
companies, mostly Chrysler, as I recall - something about their
appearance on a Frontline TV program ...).
3. Need someone with money willing to fund it and air it.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards the contents of the main part
of your note, you are more than welcome to begin such a program or
series of programs if you like. I'll be happy to make them available
here on the net. Regards putting them on a 'real radio station' I am
afraid I cannot help you with that, since I prefer to not put my
material or my presence on that media. Years ago I did two or three
talk show things along with Fred Goldstein but that was before the
World Wide Web was in general use, and there were not as many ways to
reach a large audience. Now with netcasting of a wide variety of
programs going on as a common, routine thing, there is really no
reason to bother with television and radio, neither of which I have
cared much about in recent years anyway.
Let me address your postscript points: Regards a sense of timing,
no television or radio station is going to put me on an endless loop
tape playing over and over whenever someone happens to watch/listen.
On the other hand, netcasting on the web allows your program to be
available at any time of day or night that it is convenient for a
netter to 'tune in.' Unlike radio or television, where reception is
a chance matter depending on how the signal propogates in the
atmosphere, and in any event you only can count on reception within a
limited distance of the transmitter, on the net, anyone in the world,
anyplace, anytime, can view your presentation, and there are numerous
web sites serving as promotional tools; i.e. a sort of {TV Guide}
magazine of netcasts. The people at Real Media for example have a very
comprehensive listing on a web site of programs being netcast both
listed by time of day and subject matter. Broadcast.com is another
site doing the same thing. Naturally one also uses search engines to
be listed and/or search for entries. That's point one.
Your second point was that telco has good lawyers 'so you have to
watch what you say' ... and while that is true, it would seem to apply
equally on the net. We've seen lawyers attack webmasters have we not,
and sometimes for the damndedest things and the silliest excuses
because they had a client whose feelings got hurt or whose ego got
battered a little. Large corporations are not accustomed to having the
general public talk back to them or sass them. On radio/television or
the print media, they can control that sort of thing a lot easier than
they can on the net. See my answer to your final point for more on
this.
Then you mention having to raise the money to put the program on the
radio or television, 'finding someone willing to fund it and air it'.
One of the reasons large corporations do not experience a lot of
problems in the broadcast or print media is because while on one day
they are they subject of discussion, the next day they are the sponsor
or funding source for other discussions. What newspaper is going to
be critical of any company which purchases full-page advertisements
at least once a week or more often? What radio or television station
is going to be critical of the company whose musical jingle they play
several times daily? Telco is in that position. Even just a hint from
AT&T, MCI or Sprint that they would pull every nickle of advertising
away from CBS is sufficient to send the brass running to the news
director to get an unfavorable news item or unfavorable feature story
killed.
I would have a hard time with the boundaries they would set, but more
important to me, I would feel like I was purchasing the services of
a prostitute. To them, it would just be one more way to make a buck,
brokering fifteen or thirty minutes of their air space -- and I quite
honestly could never conceive of some radio station doing it the other
way around and purchasing *my* production and paying *me* for the
program -- to let a few people get on the air to complain about the
telephone company.
Then too, most of the print and broadcast media have never yet come to
grips with the reality of the internet as a legitimate forum of
communication and exchange. Let's just say many of them are still in
denial where the internet is concerned. Given a choice between running
a decent, accurate presentation about things going on here on the net
or presenting a lurid, perhaps untrue, but certainly out of context
story about 'hackers', sexual offenders, and scams, which do you see
printed? One of the worst offenders is the {New York Times}, and that
polly-parrot they have screeching for them all the time named John
Markoff. I mean, look at the way they have lied through their teeth
every time they got a chance about Kevin Mitnick. Markoff has done
nothing but lie about Mitnick every time he printed anything about
him at all. The other newspapers on their syndicate then gobble it
all up as Gospel Truth. This is a trend which began back about 1989
with Joe Abernathy and his ludicrous 'reporting' about the net which
has continued to this day. And as the print media in particular sees
the internet encroaching into its previously untouchable monopoly,
they turn up the volume control on Markoff and a couple others, having
them recite their litanies and chants with even more fervor. At least
one headline each week with some negative story about the internet
seems to be the goal of most newspapers.
I used to go on the radio a lot back in the 1970's; CB of course,
but commercial stations as well with talk programs and the like. And
I would sometimes be in the newspapers. I produced the thirty minute
radio version of the Chicago Sunday Evening Club for about six or
eight months in the late 1960's. There was really little choice
in those days since there was no internet. But Arthur, the print and
broadcast media are NOT your friend; the internet is cutting deeply
into their profits, to say nothing of causing them to lose control
over who gets to say what, when, and where. I am surprised Arthur,
that you would even suggest cutting a deal with them when the Internet
offers all the same and even more. And here, I don't have to 'find
someone to fund it' ... because everything here on the net is free
you know ... well you know how that goes, but you know what I mean.
I've only been on television three or four times, I don't remember
for sure. Once was when I was a witness in the federal railroad safety
investigation of the Illinois Central train crash which killed quite
a few people on the train and once for some 'man on the street' interview
thing where they stopped people who were walking along and ask them
their opinion on some topic or another. A television station produced
a version of the Star Spangled Banner to use at their sign off time
each night which had my picture in it for a couple seconds. As the
anthem begins playing the video portion shows a Chicago Transit
Authority bus pulling up at a curb. A close up shows the bus driver
opening the door and with a smile welcoming you to climb on board.
Then the remainder of the anthem plays with quick, five second scenes
of people in different Chicago neighborhoods; a family sitting on
their front porch, some students in a school room, some workers at one
of the steel mills on the south side of the city, etc. I was around
nineteen years old; I was standing with a friend of mine in the
entrance of the old Greyhound terminal in downtown Chicago; the people
making the video had us wave at them. That got three or four seconds
of time in the middle of the anthem. The little one minute, ten second
video was entitled 'Chicago Sketches and our National Anthem' and the
station used it for a few years every night when they signed off the
air at midnight. As the anthem would end, the CTA bus would be seen
pulling up to a curb again, and the driver waving goodbye. I think
they quit using it about 1965 or maybe 1970 and started using the
National Anthem video that was produced by the Sierra Club.
The one time I did have something planned for television it was a
total disaster. I was part of an organization which did volunteer
work at the Chicago Public Library, in fact I did that for a number
of years, making tape recordings of books for people to 'read' who
were visually disabled. With some other people, I put together a
video which was a tour of the library; a look at different areas and
exhibits, things like that. One of the TV stations was going to show
it in a public service time slot at 11 AM on Sunday morning. The
night before the show was to air, the TV station had some sort of
technical problem which they got temporarily fixed, but they then
announced they would be off the air the next day (Sunday) until noon
while the problem was corrected permanently.
The people at the station said to me not to worry, they had many
public service programs on Sunday morning, and they would just bump
everything scheduled back one week; my program about the library would
be aired the next Sunday morning instead. So far, so good. Well,
the next Friday, President Kennedy was assasinated. All the TV
stations everywhere carried nothing but that event the rest of the
day and all day Saturday. By Sunday, they were all going back on to
their regular schedules and the station said to me that the library
program would be aired as planned at 11:00 AM.
It did in fact start at 11 and was on the air for one or two minutes
when there was a break-in by the news department saying that there
would be an interupption of two or three minutes while they had
coverage from Dallas. Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy it was alleged killed
Kennedy was being transported from the city jail in Dallas to the
county jail and they wanted to cover that. They had been having live
coverage at the Dallas Police Department for a minute or so, and
announced that Oswald was being led away. All the cameras closed in
on him, all the reporters started flashing pictures and asking him
questions about why he shot Kennedy. All of a sudden out of nowhere
comes a man named Jack Ruby who walks right up to where the police
have Oswald handcuffed. Ruby pulls out a gun, looks at Oswald and
says, 'you son of a bitch, you shot the president, and now I am
going to shoot you' ... and bang!
Well, that was the end of any plans to return back to the local
station and the program I had planned about the tour of the library.
For the rest of the day, television stations everywhere just dealt
with that event. At about five minute intervals the rest of the day
and evening, the TV announcers would say 'in case you just tuned in,
we have a great picture we want to show you ...' and they would
show Oswald walking down the hallway in handcuffs and Ruby walking
up to him and shooting him. After the original viewing, on the
replays they silenced the audio on Ruby for the first five words,
not preferring to have that phraseology going over the airwaves.
You saw Ruby's angry face, his nostrils flaring and could tell he
was speaking angrily, but the audio of the gun shot was always heard
at the end. After shooting Oswald, Ruby calmly handed his gun over
to a police officer there, and waited quietly to be arrested.
The library video never did get aired. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #182
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 1 19:58:21 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA09579;
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907012358.TAA09579@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #183
TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Jul 99 19:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 183
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
I Repeat: I Am Not a Racist (Joey Lindstrom)
Re: So Now I'm a Racist? Says Who? (Mike Fox)
Re: Manhattan Overlay Code Finally Inaugurated (Linc Madison)
EPABX Callback Problem (Alonzo Alcazar)
Re: 10- (or 11-) Digit Dialing: Why Mandatory? (Neal McLain)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Leonard Erickson)
Re: Getting to Know You: There are Ways to Protect Your Privacy (J Eichler)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:33:56 -0600
Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU>
Subject: I Repeat: I Am Not a Racist
My apologies in advance for what has turned out to be a rather
long-winded rant, but these issues are, in my opinion, rather
important, and I can't just let Mr. Goudreau's comments stand as the
last word on this subject.
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:36:11 -0400 (EDT), Bob Goudreau wrote:
> But how much is "too great"? Please be specific, using hard numbers
> of minutes and cents. So far, none of the people who have snidely
> dismissed the rates to Caribbean NANP members as too high but who
> still want Canada to be 1+ dialable have ever put forth any
> *objective* criteria that could be used to decide which NPAs "deserve"
> the privilege of 1+ dialing and which do not. I will repeat the
> challenge I originally offered, and which no one has yet answered with
> any specific facts or numbers:
Let me sum up your challenge the way I and many others here interpreted
it, and you tell me where I've gone wrong, ok?
> I feel that any argument in favour of forcing Caribbean countries to
> be 011 dialable is racist because the people there have dark skin,
> particularly since many of the people putting forth that argument are
> in favour of keeping Canada 1-dialable, and Canada is mostly white. It
> is up to you to prove me wrong."
Bull hockey. If you wish to assert that people are being racist, PROVE
IT! Put forth some arguments that are a bit stronger than "dark people
happen to live there". You're making the accusation, the onus is upon
you to prove the allegations. You have failed miserably in doing so.
Racism remains a serious problem. But a growing problem is the "crying
wolf" syndrome. Every time someone cries racism where it may not
actually exist, or at least where the evidence is awfully darned slim,
it diminishes every case of REAL racism. You're contributing to the
problem, not helping it, and you're clouding up what should be a very
clear-cut telecommunications (ONLY!) issue.
You've acknowledged that, because I also feel that US calls to Canada
should ALSO be 011, that that makes me cool and non-racist. Well thank
you very freakin' much Bob. But wait: the jury's still out! I *COULD*
be racist... I mean, after all, some people in the US might place a
call to the Tsuu T'ina Reserve or Inuvik or someplace up in sunny
Nunuvut, and we can't have them doing THAT without putting a special
"nigger-prefix" in front of the phone number, now can we?
(Note to anyone offended by my use of the term "nigger-prefix" - I am,
in the words of Rush Limbaugh, "demonstrating absurdity by being
absurd". This is, after all, what Bob is telling us we're advocating.)
> The recent proclivity of US callers to being more cavalier about their
> 1+ dialing (the "heck, it only costs ten cents a minute these days"
> attitude) is hardly something that the Caribbean countries or their
> telcos can be blamed for.
The countries, no. The telcos, yes. These are the same people that
will let a tele-sleaze operator set up in New York with a phone number
in (country "x") which doesn't actually GO to that country, but routes
back to New York at standard long distance rates. The difference in
rates is then pocketed between the telco and the tele-sleaze operator.
Do I have the facts and figures to back it up? No, I don't. Others
here may, but if they don't provide them, that doesn't make them
racists - it just means the tele-sleaze operators and the Caribbean
telcos are pretty darned good at keeping secrets. We all know this is
going on, and it is this type of activity that is specifically being
called into question. The tele-sleaze operators, with willing
accomplices in the telcos that operate in the Caribbean, are bilking
money from unsuspecting people (mostly white US citizens) who are led
to believe that the number they are dialing is in the US - indeed, most
of their ads read "no charge, only regular LD rates apply". What's
"regular" about 70 cents/minute (or much higher in some cases)? The
operator pays 10 cents a minute and splits the remaining 60 cents with
the Caribbean telco.
>> That's the only issue here, Bob. The skin colour of the people being
>> called isn't the issue -- and I think it could be argued that most of
>> the scam operators who do operate these Caribbean-based sex-lines and
>> whatnot are, in fact, rich AMERICAN white people.
> And yet US-based sex-line operators are not the ones who would suffer
> the most from being made completely undialable from US (even via 011-1),
> as advocated by the earlier poster; the island residents would be worst
> affected.
I don't know who advocated that (making these countries completely
undialable) but can you honestly see THAT coming to pass? No, what
most of us who are espousing this view are advocating is requiring that
these countries go to 011 dialing. All this does is add international
toll-alerting to calls made to those countries. Nobody would be made
to suffer simply because people in the US who might want to call them
are being given a heads-up that the call they're about to make is *NOT*
domestic. And this is why calls to Canada should, too, be 011 -
there's a higher rate involved. Not nearly as much higher, but higher.
If I live in Stoke-on-Trent in England and I place a call to Dublin,
Ireland, it goes as an "international" call (dialed with the "00"
prefix, followed by country code 353, then the city and local numbers)
and the rates are higher. Logical?
> I will point out that I was not the one accusing certain countries of
> "bad behavior", of "sponging off" international gateways and
> advocating that those countries be "put on notice" about being kicked
> out of the NANP, all without specifying exactly what rules or laws or
> guidelines those countries would need to meet, or why Canada
> automatically qualifies for the privilege of 1+ dialing and they do
> not. Sorry if it pains you to hear it, but I found that entire "you
> don't qualify but we won't tell you exactly why" attitude just a bit
> too reminiscent of practices such as the literacy tests that were used
> to exclude many black voters in the Jim Crow South.
As I don't share your background, I don't find myself nearly as
suspicious of the motives of others here. I grew up in Canada, and
while I won't make the claim that we're entirely free of racism, we
certainly don't have the same emotional baggage that you've had to put
up with for the past several centuries. I will acknowledge that this
(hidden-racism practices) is something to be guarded against, but I'm
telling you in no uncertain terms that I am not racist and that my
reasons for advocating 011 dialing for all international calls is for
the reasons I've already delineated, and for no other. I also believe
the same holds true for everyone else who has posted in favour of this
plan, but of course I cannot claim to know the minds of others.
But I repeat my earlier statement: it's up to you to prove racism since
you're the one making the claim. There is a feeling these days that
anyone accused of such nasty things as racism, or rape, or child
molestation, or any of a host of other icky things, is automatically
guilty and has to prove himself innocent. May I remind you that your
own Constitution says otherwise? Come to think of it, mine does too.
Even unproven allegations have a tendency to just hang there, forever
tainting people who are in fact NOT GUILTY of the crimes they've been
accused of. They're never completely trusted again.
> I will also point out you have broken the two rules yourself. If, as
> you claim above, you advocate that Canada not be given any special
> exemption from a blanket "all international calls require 011" rule,
> then you are clearly not among the group of people I was berating
> above, those who want to keep 1+ dialing for Canada and domestic calls
> only but who refuse to explain exactly why Canada alone qualifies for
> such an exemption. Your subject line is therefore a nonsensical
> strawman, evidence of your propensity to be "too easily annoyed" by
> barbs that were not even directed at you. And the fact that you did
> not read carefully enough to notice the distinction I made between the
> "011 for all int'l calls" group and the "Canada exemption" group is
> itself quite annoying.
As to both charges, my defence is in my previous paragraph. You've
made allegations that, if not strongly refuted, will STICK, regardless
of their merit. I chose to refute them even though you claim that I
wasn't an intended target of your scattergun approach - because even
though not a target, I still got hit. Your accusation was serious in
the extreme and you've offered no proof whatsoever, and if not refuted
would stain ANYBODY who EVER advocates 011 international dialing in
future. Including me.
As to whether or not I'm being too easily annoyed, lemme give ya a
hypothetical. Let's say I come in here and accuse Bob Goudreau of
being a child molester. I also offer no proof, I just throw out the
accusation and say he MUST be because he's a Boy Scout leader and works
with kids a lot. The next day, Mark Cuccia posts a note slamming me
for making such an outrageous post. Is he being too easily annoyed?
Or is he rightly and justifiably annoyed?
Now, getting to the actual issues involved here, my argument is that
calls to Canada should be 011-dialed because of the higher rates.
Others feel that the rates are not sufficiently higher to warrant this,
and there's merit to this as well - after all, many US carriers charge
higher rates to call Hawaii and Alaska, should we have to call those
places with 011?
An additional argument in favour of keeping Canada 1- dialable, just to
play devil's advocate, can be summed up in three words: "Free Trade
Agreement". Telephone rates between our two countries have come down
substantially since the FTA was signed in 1989 and show every sign of
continuing to fall - it wouldn't surprise me if, sometime in the next
few years, carriers on both sides of the border began offering uniform
rates for calls terminating anywhere in either Canada or the US (ie: no
telephonic border).
Mexico signed on to NAFTA several years back, but rates to that country
are still exorbitantly high. If/when they fall to today's Canada-US
levels, then maybe there'll be a push to include them in NANPA as well.
But that hasn't happened yet, and so today they trudge merrily along
with their own country code and have to be dialed with 011 from both
Canada and the US ... yet, oddly enough, calls to Mexico, at least under
most carriers' rate plans, are CHEAPER than 1-dialable Caribbean
countries.
You asked for a threshold number at which point we decide a call should
be 011 dialable or 1 dialable. I'm not a telecom insider so all I can
offer is my opinion, but how about 100%? That is, if a call to a
destination costs 100% more (or higher) than an interstate call
between, say, New York and LA, then maybe we need 011 for toll
alerting. Depending on the rate plan you select, most calls between
Canada and the US fall under that threshold: I recall someone here
mentioning he was on a rate plan that offered 10 cents/minute within
the US and 15/cents minute to Canada. The two carriers I'm with here
in Canada also fall under this threshold: with Sprint Canada, in-Canada
calls are 15 cents/minute while US-terminated calls are 22
cents/minute. With Wintel, the numbers are 7 cents and 13 cents.
You could make all sorts of arguments as to what number to assign that
threshold. Is 100% too high? Not high enough? I doubt, however, that
the proponents of keeping Canada 1-dialable would go higher than 200%.
In the meantime, calls to the Caribbean nations are more like 600% to
1000%. Quite a SUBSTANTIAL difference, and that's what started this
whole debate. You've asked for an OBJECTIVE analysis and I'm afraid I
can't give you one, for the same reason I can't give you an objective
analysis of the nature of God. The issues involved are subjective in
nature.
If you need more hard numbers insofar as actual rates are concerned, I
leave that as a research project for the student.
> On the other hand, I will admit to being extremely annoyed by the folks
> who wish to "break" the existing intra-NANP dialing regime based on
> a rationale that they refuse to enunciate. However, since it is they,
> not I, that advocate disturbing the status quo, I don't think it is
> unreasonable to ask them to assume the burden of proof in explaining
> both their justifications for the proposed change, and the specific
> details of its implementation.
That would indeed be reasonable, except for the fact that you took it
about 8 steps further and charged 'em with racism. The ball's now in
your court. Prove they're racist or shut up.
> The only folks I have impugned are the ones who want to give Canada a
> free pass but won't explain why other NANP countries are not similarly
> eligible. By your own admission, you are not a member of that group,
> so it is a mystery to me why you think I owe you an apology.
See my earlier "scattergun" remarks.
> To others who are members of that group, and who genuinely have no
> biases based on race or national origin, I do apologize --
Ah ... a partial retraction. That's nice. Now would you care to name
the remaining people who your apology is not extended to, and/or offer
some proof that they are, in fact, racist? Your accusation is still
out there and I for one would like to see you either prove it or
retract it completely.
I'm suddenly reminded of a particularly funny Dilbert cartoon, in which
Dogbert gets a job as a doctor. His patient is sitting on the edge of
a bed, legs hanging down, and he uses that little rubber mallet to rap
the guy's knees. As he does so, the patient suddenly yells out "Save
the whales! Tax the rich! Crime is society's fault!" Dogbert looks
at him pityingly and says "you're a knee-jerk liberal. You can live a
normal life, but you'll be annoying at parties."
From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom
Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com
Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY
FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403)
Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU
Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU
Rush Limbaugh's 14 Commandments Of The Religious Left
NUMBER 7
Thou shalt not commit adultery. Unless thou aspirest to high political
office, useth a condom, or cannot help it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:05:50 -0400
From: Mike Fox <mikefox@ibm.net>
Organization: not organized!
Subject: Re: So Now I'm a Racist? Says Who?
Bob Goudreau wrote:
> The only folks I have impugned are the ones who want to give Canada a
> free pass but won't explain why other NANP countries are not similarly
> eligible.
I snipped most of this post, but wow. Sorry Bob, it's not racism to
want to protect American consumers from off-shore telephone fleecing
operations who are exploiting an oddity of the telephone numbering
system to lure people into making domestic-looking calls to areas with
no, or dishonest, regulatory oversight.
NANP membership should be re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
It can be a very simple standard. If a country has a regulatory regime
such that ripoff calls are recoverable, and their phone market is
structured so that there is no incentive for their authorities to
attract telephone scam artists, then they can be in the NANP. If not
they can't. When you get nailed by a Carribean scam artist and the
FCC's response is "there's nothing we can do, it's international" and by
the way the country's government does not cooperate with U.S.
authorities or citizens to help scam victims, partially because their
monopoly phone company profits from the scam, then that country should
be kicked out of the NANP. Simple as that.
Canada can stay in because they have an honest regulatory regime and
their authorities cooperate with our authorities to shut down
cross-border phone scams and pursue restitution. Any currently-NANP
country that meets this standard can stay in. Any one that doesn't is
out. Regardless of the color/language/religion/sexual
orientation/whatever of the country's population.
Everything is not racism, and it's disappointing to see you resort to
that argument here.
Mike
"We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them."
(General Augusto Pinochet of Chile)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:21:19 -0700
From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Manhattan Overlay Code Finally Inaugurated
Organization: LincMad Consulting
In article <telecom19.180.2@telecom-digest.org>, Matthew S. Warren
<opie@fine-print.com> wrote:
> At <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/regional/ny-phone.html>,
> (free registration required) the New York Times reports, in pertinent part:
> Beginning Thursday, customers who sign up for new phone service
> in Manhattan may be assigned the new 646 area code, instead of
> the venerable 212 prefix . . . Callers could end up dialing 11
> numbers -- 1 plus the area code plus the phone number -- to reach
> someone right down the street. (Customers making calls within
> the same area code will continue to dial only seven.)
> Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission state:
> No area code overlay may be implemented unless there exists, at
> the time of implementation, mandatory ten-digit dialing for every
> telephone call within and between all area codes in the geographic
> area covered by the overlay area code.
> 47 C.F.R. sec. 52.19(c)(2)(ii) (1998). It seems to me that one of three
> things is true:
> 1. The New York Times is wrong.
> 2. The FCC gave some sort of a waiver in this case.
> 3. Telcos are acting illegally.
> Which is correct? What is the real story here? And what are telcos
> and regulators thinking? Without mandatory ten/eleven-digit dialing,
> 646 numbers are going to be an awfully hard sell.
You are correct. The situation is as you described in #2, the FCC has
granted a temporary waiver of the requirements you quoted. The waiver
remains in effect until April 15, 2000, but the state of New York is
pushing to make it permanent.
The essence of the New York plan is that all unused numbers in the
New York City area codes will be placed into a single common pool.
That includes numbers that have never been assigned as well as any
number retired by a subscriber who has terminated service on that
number. The intent is to negate the competitive advantage that
Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) would otherwise have in having a larger store
of 212 and 718 numbers. Thus, the only way that a subscriber will
have a 646 number is if there are no 212 numbers available at all,
or if the subscriber is silly enough to say, "Oh, I don't care," or
perhaps even to just not think to ask.
However, I think that the waiver should not be made permanent, even
given the fancy pooling arrangement. Eventually, there will be about
as many 646 numbers as 212 numbers, and it will be quite confusing
to figure out whether the phone you're calling from is in the same
code as the number you're dialing.
** 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: as an anti-spam measure, replies are set to "postmaster";
>> however, replies sent to "Telecom" will be read sooner.
------------------------------
From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar)
Subject: EPABX Callback Problem
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 05:46:48 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hi!
I want to know if there is some way, I can make the EPABX call back at
my extension. Like for example, i dial a number, and hang up the line.
And the PBX calls back my extension.
Alonzo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:32:15 -0400
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: 10- (or 11-) Digit Dialing: Why Mandatory?
In TELECOM Digest Volume 19 Issue 168 Telecom@LincMad.nospam
(Linc Madison) writes:
> Incorrect. You CANNOT dial an overlay number IN SAN JOSE,
> CALIFORNIA, without the leading 1 (effective October
> 1999).
> ... California does not permit 10D dialing of any
> calls. For example, the 408-925 prefix is local to some
> exchanges in the 925 area code. Before the introduction
> of mandatory 1+10D in 408, you would have a conflict
> between 925-xxxx and 925-nxx-xxxx.
But wouldn't 10D dialing (without the 1) *solve* this very problem?
Certainly there would be no conflict between 669-925-xxxx and
925-nxx-xxxx.
Neal McLain
nmclain@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 01:47:23 PST
Organization: Shadownet
Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com> writes:
> The only other problem I can see with modem use on a party line is the
> requirement that one yield the line if another party needs it for an
> emergency call, but since almost any modem I know of (aside from old
> 300 baud jobs) will dump automatically if voice appears on the line I
> don't see a real difficulty.
Actually, staring around v.32 or v.32bis, the error correction on
modems got so good that things like call waiting "clicks" wouldn't
knock the modem offline anymore.
I'm not sure about voice, but I wouldn't be surprised if the only
effect was a lot of line noise.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: John Eichler <jeichl@acxiom.com>
Subject: Re: Getting to Know You? There Are Ways to Protect Your Privacy
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:55:03 -0500
Pat,
I believe it was in the Digest that I read about LPWA at Lucent. I've
used it and think it's great. It's located at
http://lpwa.com:8000/proxy_index.html and I'd recommend it to anyone.
An excellent service by Lucent for helping insure privacy on the net.
John
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, that service by Lucent is good.
Using a service like that along with an anonymous email address for
when you wish to 'sign up' for some service or post a message on the
net will get you about as much privacy as you can realistically expect
around here. Those steps, plus cleaning out your cache and zapping
the cookies from time to time are important if you do not want to
have commercial web sites finding out about you and spying on you.
I have noticed one user of my anonymous email service has a very
clever idea: he took several boxes with variations on his name. Let's
call him 'John Smith'. One box is for jsmith, another is for smithj,
a third is johns, all @telecom-digest.zzn.com ... he uses one to
post in one newsgroup, another to fill in the blanks at a web site
he wants to visit, a third to use on some other mailing list, etc.
He can tell by which name is used in replies where they found his
name; and for spam it makes it much easier at times to track it down
if you only used that email address in one place.
Anyone can have an anonymous email address on the net by visiting
http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice ... take as many as you need,
just keep track of the names and passwords you use and don't use them
to spam! Boxes which are unvisited and idle for a certain period of
time -- a couple of months or so -- are automatically zapped. Even I
do not have any records of boxholders and their names, let alone their
real identity, and don't want to know about it. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #183
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 2 00:06:13 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA17596;
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907020406.AAA17596@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #184
TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Jul 99 00:06:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 184
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (Andrew Hoerter)
Re: Prodigy (John R. Levine)
Subject: Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates (B. Lustig)
Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers (Martha Garcia-Murillo)
Re: Cordless phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz (Steve Winters)
Re: Telco Circuit Identifiers (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers (Alan Boritz)
Re: Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers (Jack Decker)
Wanted: ADSL (G.Lite) on a PMC/PCI Mezzanine Board (Jim Casten)
Re: Buffered Billing (Mike Desmon)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Alan Boritz)
Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access (John R. Levine)
Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecom (Tony Toews)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Andrew Hoerter <ahoerter@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: 1 Jul 1999 13:41:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Unless those guys can really recreate the SIM card from scratch by
> listening solely to the airwaves, this story is not worth pursuing.
I am not a cryptographer, but from my reading of the article it seemed
to imply that realtime decryption of the conversation itself (without
any stolen SIM cards) was possible. ... "special cracking hardware
devices could unscramble GSM conversations within seconds, according
to Mr Briceno," Of course, Briceno is affiliated with the Smartcard
Developers Association, so perhaps it's really a reference to SIM card
cloning as you suggest. It's a pity the article doesn't cite any
technical source so that we can see for ourselves. And the media has
an incredible talent for getting complex stories horribly wrong.
Another poster commented that given the nature of his conversations,
he felt the level of encryption offered by his phone was sufficient.
However, the problem is that key sizes resistant to brute force
attacks today could be broken almost in realtime by tomorrow's
computers (or 'tomorrow' + n). If you wouldn't feel safe talking on
an AMPS phone, why would you feel any safer on a phone that's
encrypted so weakly any interceptor could crack it with a minimum of
effort? (I'm not saying GSM is at this level today, because I simply
don't know)
Juha Veijalainen <juhave@iobox.fi> wrote:
> But still, decryption will require hours, unless you are a major
> government or have a couple of million euros to spend.
Actually, I feel it is even worse that a major government can listen
in easily, as opposed to a private individual with scanning hardware.
It would be a short step to sifting through voice patterns for words
like 'communist' or 'drugs', and then using the new E911 tracking
technology recently announced by Lucent to keep tabs on such
'interesting' people. :)
On perhaps a more realistic note, wireless phone technology has
interesting implications for things like search warrants -- since your
conversation is being radiated into the spectrum for all to hear,
would law enforcement need to obtain permission from the court to
listen, or would the traffic be considered in 'public view'?
Personally, I prefer strong encryption to assurances from other people
that they won't listen, which is mostly where things seem to be going
in the US courts.
andrew
"Head transplantation is not theologically inconsistent with any of the
Catholic Church's tenets."
-- Robert West
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jul 1999 10:35:00 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Prodigy
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't you just love Prodigy and all
> their antics? Can you believe there are people who actually *pay* to
> use the service?
Not for long. It's been shrinking for years, and will be turned off
altogether later this year because it's not worth the expense of
fixing the Y2K bugs. Prodigy also has an unrelated service called
Prodigy Internet which is just an ISP.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: Barry Lustig <barry@lustig.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:39:53 -0400
Subject: Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Reply-To: barry@lustig.com
I find that the easiest way to deal with cookies, banner ads, and
other annoying things is interMute. Take a look at http://www.intermute.com
This is a package that allows selective filtering of banner ads,
animations, pop-up windows, cookies, referrers, java, javascript, etc.
It works as a proxy between your browser and the internet. I think
this is the best $20 I've spent in a long time.
barry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:48:07 PDT
From: Martha Garcia-Murillo <mgarcia@almaak.usc.edu>
Subject: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers
I have been following the comments about 900 Mhz cordless telephones. It
caught my attention because I was interested in buying a set of cordless
speakers that use the same frequency. Does anybody have any idea or
experience on how those phones can affect the sound on the speakers? How
about on wireless LANs?
Thanks,
Martha
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winter)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 20:31:03 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
john@kuwait.net (John Temples) spake thusly and wrote:
>> Actually there is yet another newer alternative for you by Siemens
>> called the 2420 Gigaset that you may want to research.
> Panasonic also makes 2.4 GHz phones with answering systems.
Unless I am mistaken they have a rather short record time capacity 16
minutes, I believe, which I consider inadequate. That is the reason
we have not really looked into them. Also I believe that particular
phone is a 900mhz/2.4Ghz "hybrid".
Regards,
Steve
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Telco Circuit Identifiers
Date: 1 Jul 1999 17:45:15 -0400
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom19.180.9@telecom-digest.org>, Jeff B. Will
<Jeff_B._Will@NOTES.UP.COM> wrote:
> Could you tell me where to look up telco circuit identifiers and
> what they mean?
They vary between companies.
> Example:
> HCGS = T1
> LNGS = 4 wire analog
> DHEC = ?
> AREC = ?
I believe Bellcore publishes a set of guidelines for assigning Common
Language identifiers ("CLLI"s or "sillys") which may have something on
this.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 16:04:19 -0400
In article <telecom19.178.12@telecom-digest.org>, keith@hot-sauce.com
(Keith Samuels) wrote:
> Our dilemma is that the video request lines are 900 number based and
> therefor track you by your ANI and DNIS. They answer all the calls
> centrally and then distribute the call apropriately based on the DNIS
> (each city has a unique 900 number). Then they check the ANI to be
> sure you are in the viewing area of the 900 number you called (I
> assume this is how the blocking works as it is the only logical way to
> instantly block on a per call basis and is simply an area code check).
Use a calling card and all your calls will appear to be "out of area."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 11:25:07 -0400
From: Jack Decker <jack@novagate.REMOVE-THIS.com.content.net>
Subject: Re: Help! A Real Stumper - And I Need Quick Answers
In regard to Keith Samuels' message and the subsequent follow-up by
Bill Ranck, it seems to me that there could be a win-win-win solution
here. Let me explain.
Keith is looking for ANI numbers that appear to be in different cities
from the city he is actually located in. He's also calling only a
single 900 number from each city (in other words, he doesn't need to
change the number on the fly).
Bill pointed out that there are Canadian home satellite viewers that
have a need to have call appear as though they originated from the
United States. Again, they are presumably only calling a single
number. The hitch is that in their case the number is probably
hard-programmed into a satellite receiver, so you might need some
device to intercept all outgoing calls on their line and translate
that one number to a different number, which would take the call into
the United States (more on that in a second). A Mitel Smart-1 dialer
would probably do the trick, although there may be less expensive
solutions.
So for the first part of the equation, we have people that have a need
to make it appear as though a call originated from someplace other
than where they actually are. One way to do that is to have Remote
Call Forwarding numbers in distant cities. You have the phone company
set up an RCF number and point it at the 900 number you wish to call.
Problem is, many phone companies get rather restrictive about where a
Remote Call Forwarding number can be terminated. Also, you'd be
paying for business lines for each RCF number, which could get
expensive (of course all of this could get expensive, but for what you
are doing I assume that certain costs are expected). The alternative
would be to have individuals -- residential customers, that is --
subscribe to plain old Call Forwarding service, then program their
phones to forward to whatever number you want to call. In this case
the calls would appear to come from residential phone lines.
Now, let's bring in part two of the equation. There are a good number
of computer users out here that still cannot obtain, or cannot afford
cable modem or xDSL type service. Nor can they afford a second phone
line, especially since the "Gore tax" and other penalties have boosted
the cost of a second line beyond anything reasonable. Many of these
folks would LOVE to have a second phone line in their homes capable of
making outgoing calls only. But, if they are poor enough that they
can't afford a second line, they sure don't want some unknown company
running up big $$$ in phone charges on their bill (this would not be a
problem for the Canadian satellite owners, since I'm sure they boxes
dial an 800/888/877 type number, but it would be a problem for Keith
and his 900 number calls).
So this sets the stage for a third company to enter the picture. This
company would be bonded and insured, and would broker call-forwarded
lines provided by residential Internet users. They would arrange with
the users' local phone company to have a second residential line
installed in the home of a participating Internet user, but the bills
would go to the customer c/o the broker at their address (phone
companies will send a customer's bill anywhere you ask them to, so
long as it gets paid) and the broker would pay the bills from a
corporate account.
The broker would order the service to assure that what is purchased is
minimal service, no extras whatsoever except of course for call
forwarding (they might even request toll restriction if the calls are
going to a local number). Once the line is installed, they would
e-mail that user with instructions on how to program it to
call-forward all calls to the desired number (and to re-program it
should that become necessary). The residential user would not be paid
anything, but would have the free use of the phone line for outgoing
local calls only (if a broker company wanted to "sweeten the pot",
they could buy accounts in bulk with a local ISP and offer the
residential user Internet service either for free, or at a discounted
rate). So, the user could call his ISP and hang out online all day on
that line, but any incoming calls would be call forwarded to wherever
they need to go.
Since the ANI is that of the party paying for the call, and since on
call-forwarded calls, the party doing the forwarding pays for that leg
of the call, the ANI *should* be that of the line doing the
forwarding, and not that of the original caller. If a Canadian
satellite user called a number in the U.S. which then forwarded the
call to the satellite provider's 800 number, the ANI should show the
U.S. number, not the Canadian one.
Why do I suggest a third-party broker rather than dealing with the
customer directly? Simple. The idea is that the broker would
hopefully bring some credibility to the mix. As a phone customer,
there is no way I want some company make calls to a 900 number from a
phone line that is in my name, unless I am absolutely sure they are
going to pay the bill. If the broker were bonded and insured, the
customer could have a bit more assurance that the bill would be paid.
Even so, it's going to be hard to find users who will let you place
900 calls from a line billed in their names.
The alternative would be to install a business line (in the
residential customer's home) and have it billed direct to the company
but even that is no assurance that the residential customer would not
get stuck with the bill. I know a guy that is currently fighting with
Ameritech over a $1200 bill. At one point he was disabled and
receiving workman's compensation, and the insurance company found him
what was basically one step above a telemarketing job (scheduling for
a manufacturer's representatives). The manufacturer in this case paid
Ameritech to run six phone lines into the guy's home (of which only
three were ever actually connected), and started having him make calls
all over the state to schedule appointments.
All went well for a couple months and then apparently the company ran
into financial difficulty and closed its doors, leaving the final
month or two unpaid. Well, even though the manufacturer had ordered
the lines and dealt with the phone company, they (fraudulently in my
opinion) gave the phone company this guy's social security number to
put on the accounts (which of course they had because they were paying
him and needed it for the IRS). They did this without his knowledge
or permission.
Anyway, Ameritech has been threatening for some time now to shut off
the guy's personal phone service and from what I hear they finally did
it last week. After the manufacturer went belly-up, and I think in
part because of the stress over all this, the guy had a stroke and
couldn't even function by himself for about six months. He still is
not employed and there is no way he can come up with $1200, but
Ameritech's position is that the lines went to his home and his social
security number was on the accounts (again, without his knowledge or
permission) so he has to pay.
What really stinks about this in my opinion is that he was basically
forced into taking this job in the first place, by the insurance
company handling his worker's compensation claim, which threatened to
cut off his payments if he refused to take it. And yet neither
Ameritech nor the Michigan Public Service Commission seems to think
that makes any difference, they act as though he somehow agreed to pay
the phone bills if the company didn't, which was never the case. In
fact, he never got paid the wages he was supposed to get for making
the last batch of calls, so he was also left holding the bag.
So after seeing that, there is no way I would let an unknown company
put a phone line in my name and then run up huge bills. Calls to an
800 number or a local number would be one thing, but a company would
have to have a VERY good reputation before I'd even THINK of letting
them bill 900 calls to any line where I might ultimately get stuck
with the charges. A broker could bring that credibility. Also,
because the broker would presumably have access to a large number of
lines in various cities, they might be better positioned to turn up
service in a hurry when someone like Keith needs service. They'd
simply e-mail a few of their residential Internet users, telling them
to change the forwarding on their "free" modem lines.
Of course, none of this addresses the issue of the morality of making
a call appear as though it came from somewhere else. Personally, I'm
not crazy about the fact that companies can capture your number if you
call an 800/888/877 number, or a 900 number, so it the thought that
they might get less-than-accurate information once in a while doesn't
bother me too much (as noted, the intent is not to defraud them from
any revenues they might receive on the 900 call). What I think
bothers me more about Keith's particular application is the attempt to
deceive the buying public into thinking a song is more popular than it
really is. Parts of the music industry have gotten so scummy in the
way they deal with the public that I kind of hope they take a hard
fall real soon now.
Jack
(To reply via private e-mail, make the obvious modification to my e-mail
address).
------------------------------
From: Jim Casten <jcasten@intelectinc.com>
Subject: Wanted: ADSL (G.Lite) on a PMC/PCI Mezzanine Board
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:52:32 -0500
Organization: Intelectinc (using Airnews.net!)
We build and sell an add drop Sonet/SDH multiplexer and we want to add
a new ADSL interface. I have an existing module mother board that
will accept PMC/PCI mezzanine boards. I need a daughter card using
PMC/PCI mezzanine standards to offer ADSL using G.992. Does anyone
make this or something similar?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 11:48:08 -0700
From: Mike Desmon <mdesmon@gate.net>
Reply-To: mdesmon@gate.net
Organization: Cybergate
Subject: Re: Buffered Billing
Jim Weiss <nbjimweiss@aol.com> wrote:
> Over the years I've heard about buffered billing and voice-activated
> billing. MCI WorldCom has said they're the only carrier that initiates
> billing when the call is answered, not after a certain number of rings.
> While it seems possible, I'm skeptical but I haven't any real proof.
> I'm wondering if this is true and whether there's any documetation or
> verification of this.
MCI Worldcom is lying to you. Any decent carrier will bill calls
based on when the calls are answered and not after a certain amount of
rings. At carriers I have worked at, we billed calls when they were
answered, although some of our less desirable carriers would begin
billing us after a certain number of seconds. That made for some
billing headaches.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the early days of competition and
even for a few years after divestiture, 'call supervision' was not
available to anyone but Bell. As a result, the other carriers had to
do the best they could on billing, and used somewhat elaborate
formulae to arrive at the length of time into a call that should be
considered as the point to start billing. But now, there is no reason
at all for any carrier to not use call supervision for accurate
billing to customers. Run away from any who do not use it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 15:29:40 -0400
In article <telecom19.178.18@telecom-digest.org>, Arthur Ross
<a.ross@ieee.org> wrote:
> The concept of "power surge" appeared on earth shortly after the first
> Star Trek episode, and continues to exist primarily within the minds
> of all those Trekkies.
No, Arthur, "surges" have been alive and well for many years before we
had equipment available to measure them. It's a generic enough term
to describe stuff like transients that may or may not have substantial
power behind them.
I happened to observe a real "surge" one afternoon while working at a
radio station in Hempstead, NY. I was looking at an equipment rack
with a power line voltmeter, and watched the meter climb from about
115 volts to 150 volts, where it stayed for a few seconds while the
building lights were brighter than ever, and then drop back to between
110 and 120 volts. The top local story that day was how Long Island
Lighting Company had a system power surge that blew up equipment all
over the place. Apparently, I was one of the few who actually watched
it with a measuring device.
> The subsequent popular folk-belief in them has
> been, IMHO, exploited by the people selling these devices. They are
> not total frauds, but I don't think they are effective against the
> hazards that they are often being purchased for. Nor is it clear what
> hazards they ARE for, if any. The packaging blurb on one that I just
> looked at is pseudo-technical psycho-babble, with no real substance.
No, they won't work in extreme circumstances, but some of them may be
very effective in surge/transient environments. In most cases,
though, you pay for what you get.
> The people who REALLY DO have to worry about this sort of thing, e.g.
> operators of big broadcast transmitters that are VERY susceptible to
> lightening strikes and consequent damage, use things like spark gaps
> and gas-filled tube transient suppression devices in the transmission
> lines. These devices, used in combination, can be very effective in
> limiting the size of what winds up at the protected device -- in those
> cases large, relatively sturdy transmitting tube(s) -- but that's ALL
> it can do. You can never get rid of it entirely.
No, Arthur, that's not entirely true. An AM radio station can
eliminate down time for horn gap arcs by running shunt-fed towers,
which are connected directly to ground with no base insulators. Since
the towers themselves are always at ground potential, a lightning
strike does not interrupt the transmitter's RF output. It also
eliminates the potential for induced current from a hit nearby from
taking the transmitter down, since the induced current takes the same
path to ground.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jul 1999 11:21:29 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: How to Become an IXC, and SS7 Access
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
>> Oh, you want to put charges on other people's phone bills. That's
>> cramming, unless your access is via a 500 or 900 number.
> No, I am not cramming. Here's the deal. Let's say I operate a voice
> mail service in Idaho, where people call me and listen to messages,
> and I want to let my customers press "8" to return a call after
> listening to a voice mail message. If that return call is placed to,
> say, New York, then I'm going to have to foot quite a bill for the
> long distance. What I'd like to do is let the caller press "8" to
> return the call, and send a signalling message that would then switch
> the call, so the call would be placed (from a billing standpoint at
> least) from the caller's billing number.
Well, maybe it's not cramming. Maybe it's just toll fraud. But
whatever it is, it's not gonna work.
You cannot assume that someone making a phone call is authorized to
charge anything to the ANI that the call is coming from. It might be
from behind a PBX. It might be a pay phone or a COCOT (many of which
I can assure you from reading my 800 bills, do not identify themselves
as such with the ANI.) There's a reason that every PBX and payphone
in the country blocks calls to 500 and 900 numbers -- it's exactly
because they put unknown extra charges on the bill. You may remember
a brief flurry of excitement a year or two ago about 800 numbers that
charged the caller's ANI (directory assistance with call extension, I
think.) Same problem.
Even if you use a number that sneaks through a COCOT or PBX, as soon
as the owner gets the bill, the calls from your IXC will stick out
like a sore thumb. The owner will immediately call the telco and tell
them not to pay you, just like he does with a pile of other random
bogus charges from Integratel et al every month. (The PBX owner will
also note that he has perfectly good T1 trunks to his long distance
carrier on which he pays four cents a minute, and he's not interested
in your service at 15 cpm or whatever you charge.)
A voice mail service that can extend calls is not a bad idea, but you
have to find a legitimate way to bill your users. Cramming the
charges via ANI onto a bill that may or may not be the caller's isn't
it. If you're charging your users a monthly fee for the voicemail
anyway, put it on the same bill.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! 1999 Darwin Award Winner is in Telecommunications
Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance.
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 06:41:01 GMT
Greg Monti <gmonti@mindspring.com> wrote:
> THOMPSON, MANITOBA, CANADA.
> Baker had been suspended on a safety violation once last
> year, according to Northern Manitoba Signal Relay spokesperson Tanya
> Cooke.
Umm, during the '60s I lived in Thompson, Manitoba. Ok, I was a kid
but the telephone company was and still is MTS or Manitoba Telephone
Systems. So Northern Manitoba Signal Relay Inc/Ltd/Corp? Not a
chance.
The prefix was 667 but you only ever needed to dial four digits until
the late 60s when they added the 778 prefix. Then you could dial
7-xxxx if the call was to the old 667 prefix.
And I don't know about you folks but I've never seen a microwave horn
that wasn't on a very tall tower. Much, much colder up there.
> He had told
> coworkers that it was the only way he could stay warm during his
> twelve-hour shift at the station, where winter temperatures often dip
> to forty below zero.
Oh yeah, and its been known to hit -50 or -60 in winter. -40 isn't so
bad. Dad used to put regular oil in the manual transmission in winter
because otherwise you couldn't shift the gears using the 90 weight
oil.
> For his Christmas shift,
> Baker reportedly brought a twelve pack of beer and a plastic lawn
> chair, which he positioned directly in line with the strongest
> microwave beam.
Umm, if it was that cold the twelve pack of beer would've been frozen
solid very fast and the plastic lawn chair would've shattered.
> The story Greg Monti quotes above does not say if the family of
> the deceased filed suit or not because of the loss of their loved
> one. I assume they did; that is the way things are done these days
> in most places.
Lawsuits, while on the increase, are much less prevalent in Canada.
Thankfully.
Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
VolStar http://www.volstar.com Manage hundreds or
thousands of volunteers for special events.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The coldest temperature I have ever
been in was 27 degrees below zero, in Chicago during Christmas week
in 1982. The temperature dropped below zero four days before Christmas
and then things just go increasingly worse for the next two days. If
a 'high temperature' for the day of zero or two below zero does not
sound depressing enough that first night it dipped to fifteen below
zero with a 'high' the next day of ten below. That night, which was
the early morning hours of Christmas Eve we hit 27 below in the city
as the official temperature, and 31 below in Skokie in the north
suburbs. I had one of those little weather radios which makes a chirp
and turns itself on whenever there is an important weather-related
announcement. *Three times* it went off on Christmas Eve to announce
that an historical record had been broken. First, it was the coldest
December 24 since they began keeping records around 1875; a few hours
later it was to announce the longest number of hours on record that
the temperature had not risen above zero then about an hour later to
announce that the coldest temperature ever recorded in Chicago had
been exceeded as of a few minutes earlier. Then for some odd reason
things began to 'warm up' and by early afternoon on Christmas Day
the temperature went all the way to two degrees above zero!
I was to meet some friends downtown for dinner at 4 PM at Berghoff's
Restaurant and when I got to State and Adams Street for a block
in any direction the street looked like a lake which had frozen
over. Right at the corner sat a truck -- sort of a large van -- with
insignia on it saying 'City of Chicago Water Distribution Department'
and next to that, an *enormously* deep hole in the ground, twelve
or fifteen feet deep. Two men down in there wearing large hip-boots
stood in muddy water swirling around them doing whatever they were
doing to fix the pipe. At ground level, two other guys had dragged
a 'keep Chicago clean' trash barrel over from the sidewalk to where
they were standing, had piled it full of trash, scraps of lumber and
other stuff, and started a fire in it, standing there to keep warm.
The one said to me, I guess it must have happened because of the
'heat wave' we are having today. The pipe had burst about 6 AM; by
the time a crew could be called in, the proper maps found in files
at City Hall, and the main line shut off at that point, the city
had lost around a hundred thousand gallons of water. There was
never a period of cold like that in Chicago before or after that
week. Normally our winters are mostly moderate, with only a day or
two each winter of temperatures going below zero overnight. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #184
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 2 01:50:49 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA21516;
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907020550.BAA21516@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #185
TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Jul 99 01:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 185
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Turning the Screws on Content in Australia (Monty Solomon)
Disappointing Results (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Arthur Ross)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (J.F. Mezei)
Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet (J Mezei)
Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (Louis Raphael)
New Chicago Area Codes Postponed Indefinitely (Adam H. Kerman)
Re: Telco Circuit Identifiers (Art Kamlet)
Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest (Bruce Roberts)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (Phillip Ritter)
Website For Your Consideration (Jennifer Martino)
Re: Qwest: Raising My Interstate Rates and Imposing Fees (Jin Hwang)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 21:57:49 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Turning the Screws on Content
by Stewart Taggart
12:00 p.m. 30.Jun.99.PDT
CANBERRA, Australia -- Rich Siggs is neither a pornographer nor a
policeman. Along with a few friends, he runs a 2,500-subscriber ISP
here in the nation's capital.
But Siggs and his fledgling Spirit Networks have become unwilling
street cops in Australia's battle against online indecency.
Under a new national law passed Wednesday, Siggs, along with more than
600 other ISP owners, is obligated to prevent pornographic or other
online content deemed indecent from reaching end users.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/20496.html
(another report on the same topic)
By JAMIE MURPHY
In a national effort to limit children's access to pornography on the
Internet, the Australian government on Wednesday approved a law that
would force Australian Internet service providers to remove
objectionable material from Australian sites and to block access to
similar sites overseas.
The law, which is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2000, has
been widely criticized as unworkable. Opponents of the measure, in
addition to criticizing its rapid passage, argue that it will have
little impact in protecting children on the worldwide computer
network and that it will undermine Australia's Internet economy as
well as Australians' freedom of Internet access.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/cyber/articles/01australia.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:00:23 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Disappointing Results
As users of the telecom-digest.org may have noticed, near the top of
the front, main page is a hyperlink to 'stats' which shows the
accumulated number of hits to the various components of the site during
the current day. This is updated at 10 minutes past each hour, and
started from zero at 4:00 AM eastern time each day.
To compile these, I first go through the MIT master log pulling out
the telecom-archives entries and I remove all hits to GIF and MIDI
files. Then I go back and pull out all hits to known search engines.
Then I deduct my own hits and I arbitrarily deduct a few more for
search engines I was not able to easily identify as such.
After doing that, the hit count on Wednesday was 6729. The hit
count for the seven days ending Wednesday was 35,997. For
Thursday, as of 1:00 AM Eastern, the count is 5781, with about
three hours to go before closing. MIT cuts the log at 4:00 AM eastern
each day, drops all open connections at that point and resets
everything, so it is a good time to start my log also.
It seems to me however that this amount of usage of the site is
very skimpy. I feel that really a successful web site should be
and does do a much higher volume.
Several years ago, there was a monthly report on Usenet detailing
the actual and estimated traffic for each news group. This associated
newsgroup, comp.dcom.telecom averaged about 60-65 thousand readers
per day at that time, but I have not seen that report now for a
few years and do not even know if it is still published or not.
Does anyone know if there are network traffic reports around these
days which discuss newsgroup and web site readership? I've not
been able to find a thing on it. In June there was about 135,000
hits for the month (as stated above less GIF stuff) and it
just seems to me that is not very good.
PAT
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:14:10 -0700
From: a.ross@ieee.org (Arthur Ross)
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
At 3:29 PM 7/1/1999 -0400, Alan Boritz wrote:
>In article <telecom19.178.18@telecom-digest.org>, Arthur Ross
><a.ross@ieee.org> wrote:
> I happened to observe a real "surge" one after noon while working at
> a radio station in Hempstead, NY. I was looking at an equipment rack
> with a power line voltmeter, and watched the meter climb from about
> 115 volts to 150 volts, where it stayed for a few seconds while the
> building lights were brighter than ever, and then drop back to between
> 110 and 120 volts. The top local story that day was how Long Island
> Lighting Company had a system power surge that blew up equipment all
> over the place. Apparently, I was one of the few who actually watched
> it with a measuring device.
I quite agree with that interpretation. If someone asked me to define
"surge" I would describe it as you do - an out-of-tolerance overvoltage
that persists for a long time (seconds, minutes, or more). What I DON'T
believe, though, is that this is anything like a real, widespread problem.
Were "surges" with this definition really common there would be a high
incidence of burned-out air conditioners, refrigerators, other appliances
etc, due to overheated motors, etc. You yourself support that opinion by
pointing out that the indcident was so unusual that it made the local news
and was a source of widespread damage.
There does seem to be a popular tendency to use the word "surge" for what I
would call a "transient" - hard to say whether the change is a result of a
misunderstanding or a true shift in intent - such is the evolution of
languages.
I too have watched power monitors. We used to have a rather fancy recording
power monitor associated with a medium-sized computer facility (of the type
that hardly anyone has anymore because the WINTEL machines have grown so
enormously in capability) that I worked in. We were concerned about
occasional crashes, and bad power was one of the suspects. Over a span of
months we NEVER saw any large, prolonged changes such as you describe. We
saw small variations (few %) through the day (this was a light industrial
neighborhood of San Diego). What we DID see on a daily basis was big,
rather short transients, which occurred at about the same time every day.
An inquiry to SDG&E elucidated the fact that this was when they swithed
over some large transmission facilities in order to accommodate the
shifting diurnal changes in demand.
>> The subsequent popular folk-belief in them has
>> been, IMHO, exploited by the people selling these devices. They are
>> not total frauds, but I don't think they are effective against the
>> hazards that they are often being purchased for. Nor is it clear what
>> hazards they ARE for, if any. The packaging blurb on one that I just
>> looked at is pseudo-technical psycho-babble, with no real substance.
> No, they won't work in extreme circumstances, but some of them may
> be very effective in surge/transient environments. In most cases,
> though, you pay for what you get.
I beg to differ with respect of the "surges" - granting for the sake of
argument that they are a real problem, which I don't believe. The devices
that I seen in consumer-oriented stores describe their clipping voltage as
several HUNDRED volts (a typical outlet strip that I found in the garage
says 400V). That will do almost nothing for a prolonged 50% increase in
voltage. If the clipping threshold were reduced to the point where it DID
reduce a 50% increase to something smaller, it would burn up due to
excessive dissipation. MOVs are intended as transient suppressors, capable
of absorbing so-many Joules in a short time (like milliseconds or less),
provided there is enough time between repetitions for it to cool off. The
only thing that I can see them doing is reducing the magnitude of the
transient that hits the protected power supplies. Those very short
transients typically won't make it through the power supplies anyway,
although there is potential for damaging the supply itself.
>> The people who REALLY DO have to worry about this sort of thing, e.g.
>> operators of big broadcast transmitters that are VERY susceptible to
>> lightening strikes and consequent damage, use things like spark gaps
>> and gas-filled tube transient suppression devices in the transmission
>> lines. These devices, used in combination, can be very effective in
>> limiting the size of what winds up at the protected device -- in those
>> cases large, relatively sturdy transmitting tube(s) -- but that's ALL
>> it can do. You can never get rid of it entirely.
> No, Arthur, that's not entirely true. An AM radio station can
> eliminate down time for horn gap arcs by running shunt-fed towers,
> which are connected directly to ground with no base insulators. Since
> the towers themselves are always at ground potential, a lightning
> strike does not interrupt the transmitter's RF output. It also
> eliminates the potential for induced current from a hit nearby from
> taking the transmitter down, since the induced current takes the same
> path to ground.
Quite so -- I didn't mean to imply that gaps are the ONLY way of doing
it. But, as you say, you pay for what you get. And even with the
shunt feed there is still a transient that goes back up the line, but
it is small enough to be not a problem relative to the susceptibility
of the things that see it.
You point out, by the way, one of the problems with lightening
protection, especially as it applies to outdoor, overhead high voltage
transmission lines. What often disrupts the service is not the
lightening strike itself, but the arc that that the lightening strikes
between the conductor and ground. Once gas breakdown has occured, the
voltage drop through the ionized gas is very low, and the arc is
maintained by fault current from the line itself, until the circuit
breakers fire (an awesome phenomenon, that). To stop the fault, the
current must be interrupted. I gather from your comments that the same
sort of phenomenon occurs in ungrounded AM transmitter structures,
motivating the metallically continuous feed structure that precludes
this problem.
I stand by my original statements. These mass-market "surge
suppressor" things are sortof an electro-technical equivalent of a
placebo drug - their effectiveness is largely in the minds of their
purchasers. In reality they are a bit more than a placebo, but the
hazards that they are effective against are relatively rare - big
inductive loads being switched off, sharing the same AC service - that
sort of thing.
As was mentioned by a previous author in this thread, good grounding
in your utility wiring is probably more important. Some strange
effects can be caused by excessive impedance between the neutral side
of the household wiring, the center tap of the streetside utility
transformer, and the real earth ground. An especially entertaining one
is the disconnected neutral - you wind up with your household
circuits, in two groups, across 240 volts in series. You turn on the
toaster and the lights get bright somewhere else in the house, for
example - very hazardous to your appliances - all of them, not just
computers.
Thank you for your comments!
-- Best
-- Arthur
PS: While it may no longer be published, the GE corporation used to
have a nice application guide titled "Transient Voltage Suppression
Manual." Contains detailed discussion of the potential sources of
transients and how to deal with them (usually using their MOV devices,
of course).
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 00:20:24 -0400
Andrew Hoerter wrote:
> interesting implications for things like search warrants -- since your
> conversation is being radiated into the spectrum for all to hear,
> would law enforcement need to obtain permission from the court to
> listen, or would the traffic be considered in 'public view'?
There was an AMPS incident in Quebec a few years ago where a reporter
was listening in on the Cantel frequencies near a building where
constitutional negotiations were being held and heard the Quebec PM's
secretary/assistant make a call and saying thet the PM was selling
Quebec out. This, of course, made big news and forced the PM to back
down on a deal he was supposed to have struck.
The federal government quickly passed a law stating that telephone
airwaves were not public and it was an offence to listen to
them. Remember that these frequencies are property of the government
(in Canada at least).
> Personally, I prefer strong encryption to assurances from other people
> that they won't listen, which is mostly where things seem to be going
> in the US courts.
If you are important enough that you really need strong encryption, I
am sure that you can get a specialised phone that has added encryption
at both ends. But for us regular mortals, even weak encryption
prevents casual eavedropping.
------------------------------
From: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 18:22:25 -0400
I may be thick, but do they seriously expect to retrofit all handsets to
incorporate that mini-GPS unit and logic ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I was really hoping that they would have use network infrastruture to
locate the SIGNAL. Heck, an imprecise measurement would be sufficient
if emergency vehicles were equipped with a locator device to pinpoint
that phone's location. Analog phone networks have had this equipment
for a long time to find fraudsters.
------------------------------
From: Louis Raphael <raphael@cs.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet
Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 23:34:35 GMT
The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com> wrote:
> Lucent said that, in addition to the obvious 911 application, this
> technology could be used to tailor information such as local traffic
> information and driving directions to a caller's location.
Or as *yet* one *more* way for Big Brother to track you down.
Possibly, I'm being paranoid, but I suspect that this may have been a
part of the government's motivation.
Louis
------------------------------
Subject: New Chicago Area Codes Postponed Indefinitely
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982
From: ahk@chinNYETSPAMet.com (Adam H. Kerman)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 03:35:38 GMT
Will wonders never cease!
At its meeting Wednesday, the Illinois Commerce Commission postponed
indefinitely the opening of any new area codes to serve Chicago,
rejecting industry arguments about imminent shortages in numbering
space.
The Ill.C.C. actually made a tough decision!
New area codes halted http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/01code.html
------------------------------
From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Telco Circuit Identifiers
Date: 2 Jul 1999 00:14:39 -0400
Organization: InfiNet
Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com
In article <telecom19.184.6@telecom-digest.org>,
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
> In article <telecom19.180.9@telecom-digest.org>, Jeff B. Will
> <Jeff_B._Will@NOTES.UP.COM> wrote:
>> Could you tell me where to look up telco circuit identifiers and
>> what they mean?
> They vary between companies.
>> Example:
>> HCGS = T1
>> LNGS = 4 wire analog
>> DHEC = ?
>> AREC = ?
These are one company's coding; another may use a different coding, or
a switch or other equipment may need to use its own coding.
> I believe Bellcore publishes a set of guidelines for assigning Common
> Language identifiers ("CLLI"s or "sillys") which may have something on
> this.
CLLI (silly) is always an 11 character code, and is supposed to be
a common language location identifier, where the first four characters
are the town or city, the next two the state, and the next five
whatever.
NYCMNY505L7 might be the borough of Manhattan, the 505 Lexington Ave
Bldg, 7th floor (I am making this all up, but this is the idea)
CLCI -- common language circuit identifiers are 19 character
identifiers which might or might not se the CLLI as the first 11
characters, and then home in on the floor, aisle, cabinet, shelf
and slot, depending on how they wish to code.
None of these necessarily identify the type of equipment, just where
it is.
The old 1FR type of identifier is for a type of circuit or type of
service and would be specific for that manufacturer's equipment. DA
might specify a line feature not a circuit or equipment or location.
Telcordia once was the keeper of the first six characters of the CLLI,
but I have no idea who handles this any longer.
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 19:08:09 -0700
From: Bruce Roberts <bfr1@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: bfr1@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest
TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
> Lately there have been a few more postings in the Digest than I
> really feel comfortable with from 'names' and 'email addresses'
> which were deliberatly munged in an effort to fend off spammers.
And when someone posts "oh I need two 14.4k modems so desparately" and I
try to respond to that person saying "I'll send you one for the
shipping" and find the return address is munged or bogus ... <g>
TTFN -br-
These opinions are all mine - and I'm quietly proud of them.
Bruce Roberts - Long Beach, California
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well yeah, that one caught my eye also.
Its really too bad that spammers and other commercial interests on the
net have made things so bad that netizens now have to try and hide
their email addresses. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Phillip Ritter <PARitter@home.com>
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 20:57:29 -0700
juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen) writes:
> Military has never used cellular (whatever make/brand/standard) for
> anything secure.
Not true at all. In the late '80s, early '90s, Motorola manufactured,
and multiple US Government agencies (including DoD) used, the
"Cellular STU-III" which was approved for Top Secret communications.
This was nothing more than a car-mount cell phone with the same Secure
Telephone Unit type III used on landline phones (STU-III) built in. I
believe that the STU series, including the cellular version, were all
approved for use, and widely used, in NATO and other allied block
counties countries.
There is nothing too magical about cellular from an Operational
Security (OpSec) or Communications Security (CommSec) perspective.
You assume from the start that your transmission facilities have been
compromised and your encryption has to hold. Cellular is no better or
worse than a landline to a security specialist.
Of course, the best reliable data feed on AMPS is at 2400 baud (if
your lucky). Voice over a 2400 baud CoDec is pretty mechanical with
no hope of speaker recognition (kinda sounded like an early computer
generated voice with just a bit more inflection). The beasties were a
real pain to use!
Phil Ritter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:24:00 -0500
From: Jennifer Martino <jmartino@cotse.com>
Subject: Website For Your Consideration
Organization: Church of the Swimming Elephant http://www.cotse.com
I would like to submit my website for your collection of links, please.
The Web Page You Have Reached
http://www.cotse.com/twpyhr/
Over 150 telephone sounds/recordings!
Thanks for your time.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay Jennifer, here is a bit of
publicity for your web site. I will also add your site to the
links page in the Telecom Archives. I hope you have good luck
with your efforts. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jin Hwang <bumdaddy@anet.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 20:28:00 -0700
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com -
Jim Van Nuland <jvn@svpal.org> wrote in message news:telecom19.177.7@
telecom-digest.org:
> I was an LCI customer and saw increases that sent me looking. I
> settled on "Dime-Line", which (in California) costs 5c/minute instate,
> 10c/min out of state, 24/7. There is a 53c/month fixed fee, and a 3
> minute minimum charge. Also obtained a calling card for 40c/call plus
> 10c/minute (also 3m minimum).
> Dime-Line is the advertised name for VarTec Telcomm, Inc. I'd used
> it via the dial-around, 1010-811, for a few months, then had PacBell
> switch my primary carrier. I left PacBell for local toll calls.
I don't know what program you were on but I get 5 cents in CA and 7
cents interstate.
James Hwang, Monterey, CA
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #185
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 3 03:31:09 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA08286;
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907030731.DAA08286@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #186
TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Jul 99 03:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 186
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Anonymous Surfing For Users (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Re: Do Not Disturb (Ken M.)
Re: Questions on Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Someone)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Louis Raphael)
Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Steven L. Cohen)
More Info on Third Voice (Richard M. Sander)
Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers (Rupa Schomaker)
Choosing an ISP For a Business (Tom Law)
I Am Not a Racist! (Eric Florack)
Re: Getting to Know You? There Are Ways to Protect Your Privacy (Someone)
Talk Radio and Telecom (Lauren Weinstein)
Re: 10- (or 11-) Digit Dialing: Why Mandatory (Link Madison)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:07:11 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Anonymous Surfing For Users
After the several discussions in the past here in the Digest regarding
the serious privacy problems so prevalent, and the most recent thread
on this topic which ran earlier this week, it occurred to me that one
feature here might be the most important and useful of all: users
having the ability to surf anonymously.
Now there are a couple of services like this which ask you to sign up
with them. You can use them without signing up, however you are faced
with 30-45 second delays on each request and you have to look at their
advertising. We discussed the service from Lucent, but unfortunatly
it is being removed as a free service later this month.
So I decided to build my own for users here.
Please check out http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html
The way my version works is pretty similar to others. I just send
you through various proxies on your way to your final destination, in
much the way that telephone loop-arounds are used. In one side, and
out the other, etc; do it two or three times on a single call to
fix it so no one knows for sure where you are calling from. The site
you are visiting just gets the address of the final proxy server,
and furthermore, data that your computer sends out is stripped off
also. For the most part, it also gets rid of those obnoxious pop-up
advertising windows like you find at Geocities, but this does not
always work as well as it should. I wanted to leave things so you
could get your own pop-up windows at a site if you chose to do so,
plus which the people at Geocities and similar sites are getting
very sophisticated about this kind of thing.
In any event, my service hides your IP and other details, and it gets
rid of *most* pop-up windows, let's put it that way. If you continue
to accept cookies, they'll appear to be addressed to the proxy, as
though it was the proxy calling the site, which really is what did
take place.
Before you begin serious, or very personal use of 'Operator Pat' as
the service is known, first test it out on a site where you can see
the logs; see for yourself what is left in the logs where you visit.
I want YOU to know that it works as advertised and that it will not
cause any hassles. Then if you like it, just keep on using it. I
cannot personally be responsible or liable for any improper or
illegal use made of the anonymous web page server, and I strongly
suggest that you (1) obtain an anonymous email account to use with
it when you are at a site that requires you to register or asks a lot
of other questions that are none of their business, and (2) do NOT
download images or files which are illegal to possess in the country
or state in which you are located. I am sure you will all use very
good judgment when asking Operator Pat to connect your 'call'.
Obtain anonymous email addresses from Postmaster Pat at:
http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice
Then do anonymous web surfing via Operator Pat at:
http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html
And just for fun, this being a holiday weekend and all, a gift from me
to you for your ears at http://telecom-digest.org/MIDI/BANNER.gif
PAT
------------------------------
From: Ken M. <pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Do Not Disturb
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:52:24 -0400
Organization: Netcom
Reply-To: pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com
Michael Williams wrote:
> pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com (Ken M.) wrote in <377B3C1C.7154@ix.netcom.com>:
>> Bell Atlantic phone company of Maryland is now offering a new service
>> called, "Do Not Disturb." The monthly fee is $3 per month.
> Don't like the cost, but this should do it. I like the fact that
> you can set this up to be active during only certain times of day,
> such as during the legal window for telemarketing calls.
Yes it will come in handy. Most of my troublesome calls are usually
"Out of Area."
> But doesn't this require you to distribute the passcode to everyone? Perhaps
> this can best be done by specifying "extension 1234" when you give out your
> home phone number.
You can compile a list if 15 numbers (local or long distance) that will
pass through. The others will have to enter the passcode "after" the
announcement.
> In general, though, I like it. I'd like it better if it were free, but...
Yes -- wouldn't we all!
(ken)
See some sample photos taken with my Olympus digital camera at:
http://www.theupperdeck.com/digitcam/
------------------------------
From: someone@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Questions on Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Organization: As server security goes, it's as if NT wears a 'Kick me' sign.
Reply-To: usbcpdx.teleport.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot )
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:36:47 GMT
Although the Willammette Valley only gets about five days of
lightning/yr as per BEST Power, the Oregonian several months ago
documented phone line surges causing equipment failure.
It's real -- which is why there's UL Std. 587A for phone line
protection.
------------------------------
From: Louis Raphael <raphael@cs.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 03:29:59 GMT
Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> wrote:
> Actually, staring around v.32 or v.32bis, the error correction on
> modems got so good that things like call waiting "clicks" wouldn't
> knock the modem offline anymore.
Indeed. Since I got my new modem, I'm unable to cause it to hang up by
picking up the phone line and doing things like flashing the hook and
making noise into it. I used to do this when I forgot to hang up the
computer and was too lazy to go back downstairs to take it off line.
Now, I can't manage to get it to hang up any more.
I can already see the lawsuit. I would only do it if I were *very*
sure that I would find out if another party were added to the line. I
*might* risk it if I obtained an older modem which hangs up easily.
Louis
------------------------------
From: Steven L. Cohen <CohenS@vab.alliedtech.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:55:49 -0400
I lived in Sicily in the early eighties. The man at the AGIP or IP
station would actually be smoking a cigarette while holding the nozzle
to fill your tank. They are notoriously distrustful, and suspect
everyone getting gas will cheat somehow. The point is that there are
no Italian benzina (gasoline) stations on the moon, so I suppose that
was not much danger associated with his actions. With all the
accidental and irresponsible things people do, how many gas station
fires are there per year? It is ridiculous to think that a wireless
telephone could produce a spark that was capable of causing an
explosion.
------------------------------
From: Richard M. Sander <nospam@sandrose.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:07:33 -0400
Subject: More Info on Third Voice
Hi PAT,
I just read this in May's edition of Red Herring (www.redherring.com):
THIRD VOICE
CEO: Eng-Siong Tan
FOUNDED: 1998
EMPLOYEES: 11
BASED: Foster City CA
PHONE: 650-212-3000
www.thirdvoice.com
MARKET: Develops web-based, page-specific message-board software. Both
parties do not have to be online to exchange messages. Software can be
downloaded for free from the company's website. Planned to beta-test
flagship product, ThirdVoice, in the first quarter of this year and to
begin service in the second quarter. In partnership discussions with
various content providers and online publishing companies. Targets
consumers. Competes with personal communications services companies
like PeopleLink and ICQ (America Online).
FINANCE: Prerevenue. Expects to earn revenues after one year of
operation based on traffic brought to partners' sites; will also earn
revenues from advertising. Was spun off from Kentridge Digital Labs,
an R&D organization funded by the Singaporean government, in
September. Raised seed financing of $500,000 in December from angel
investors, including former Netscape executives. Raised a first round
of $5 million in January from the Mayfield Fund, Draper Fisher
Jurvetson, and angel investors. Expects to raise another round in the
fourth quarter of this year. CEO co-founded the company and previously
worked at Kentridge Digital Labs.
Replace 'nospam' in email address with 'rms' to reply directly.
GLOBALnet TeleManagement is a division of The Sandrose Group, Inc.
Department 724133 * Atlanta GA 31139-1133
+1 770 801-1998 Fax: +1 603 794-5552
http://www.sandrose.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers
From: Rupa Schomaker <rupa@rupa.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 14:10:41 GMT
Organization: @Home Network
Martha Garcia-Murillo <mgarcia@almaak.usc.edu> writes:
> I have been following the comments about 900 Mhz cordless telephones. It
> caught my attention because I was interested in buying a set of cordless
> speakers that use the same frequency. Does anybody have any idea or
> experience on how those phones can affect the sound on the speakers? How
> about on wireless LANs?
I have cordless headphones that run at 900Mhz and used to have a phone
(Panasonic) that ran at 900Mhz. If I turned the headphone transmitter
off, I could sometimes tune into the phone conversation and listen
(obviously the phone was analog). I could even listen to some
neighbors. However, if I had the transmitter on I was not able to get
the phone to interfere with the headphones (or the other way around).
The phone is intelligent enough to change channels if the current one
is being used. The headphones (and all the speakers I could find) do
not change channels, you tune them once and then leve them alone.
I still have the headphones, but now use a 2.4Ghz phone. I'm in the
process of setting up a wireless network. This also uses 2.4Ghz.
Both devices are also intelligent enough to work around each other.
There are some 900Mhz wireless networking devices, but most of the
newer ones (and all of the consumer oriented ones) seem to operate in
the 2.4Ghz range.
rupa
------------------------------
From: Tom Law <tomlaw@mindspring.com>
Subject: Choosing an ISP For a Business
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 11:51:59 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: tomlaw@mindspring.com
I've found various ISP comparison articles, all targetted toward
consumers. Is there any resource of ISP comparisons for businesses?
We need an ISP to provide internet access for about 75 users (thru an
ISDN line), as well as web-hosting.
I know we could start our own ISP, but we don't have that sort of
expertise in our company.
Tom Law
WP Law, Inc
Lexington, SC, USA
------------------------------
From: Eric Florack <eflorack@servtech.com>
Subject: I Am Not a Racist!
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:00:45 -0400
In Volume 19 : Issue 183, Joey Lindstrom wrote:
> My apologies in advance for what has turned out to be a rather
> long-winded rant, but these issues are, in my opinion, rather
> important, and I can't just let Mr. Goudreau's comments stand as the
> last word on this subject.
Nor can I.
I /almost/ responded three times, and discarded it each time as too
lengthy, and too hostile. However, this time, I think I can respond in
brief. At the risk of upstaging Joey's further arguments, I offer the
following thoughts:
What all of this argument comes down to, is this;
If this rate abuse we're on about were to have been noted in any
country largely populated by WHITE people, there would have been no
charge of racism. Witness the scams we saw involving sex lines in the
former Soviet Union. Far less money per call was involved there, far
as I can recall. Yet the members of this group gleefully rattled on
for days over the issue of rate abuse ... and rightly so.
But because blacks happen to live in Caribbean countries, we who have
problems with the way of doing businsess, as noted, are now faced with
Bob Goudreau's bogus racism charge. Are we now to avoid any finding of
wrongdoing if the perp is (insert race here)? Sorry, Bob, the argument
doesn't wash.
Is racism an issue? Certainly. Apparently, however, Mr. Goudreau, like
many Americans, isn't aware that racism works both ways.(Alas!)
------------------------------
From: someone@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Getting to Know You? There Are Ways to Protect Your Privacy
Organization: As server security goes, it's as if NT wears a 'Kick me' sign.
Reply-To: usbcpdx.teleport.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot )
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:24:52 GMT
From lpwa.com, notice of their closing:
...We are launching ProxyMate, www.proxymate.com,
...a commercial service that contains all of the current LPWA features.
...As a result, we will shut down the LPWA technology demonstration
...at lpwa.com, effective July 15, 1999.
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:55:03 -0500, John Eichler <jeichl@acxiom.com>
wrote:
> I believe it was in the Digest that I read about LPWA at Lucent. I've
> used it and think it's great. It's located at
> http://lpwa.com:8000/proxy_index.html and I'd recommend it to anyone.
> An excellent service by Lucent for helping insure privacy on the net.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After finding out myself about Lucent
closing down the service later this month -- at least the free
side of it -- I decided to start my own as a free service to the net.
As noted in my earlier message today, to do anonymous surfing via
proxies visit http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 99 23:37 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Talk Radio and Telecom
Greetings. Arthur Ross (a.ross@ieee.org) mentioned the idea of a
radio talk show that covered telecom-related issues. Well ...
actually, this is a subset of a show I've been working on for
quite sometime, though I have not discussed it in detail publicly.
The focus is to take on the pseudoscientific and other garbage that is
thrown around so often as fact, in technical, non-technical, and
policy arenas. So from the telecom perspective, it's a place to
discuss the issues and try clear up consumer confusion -- and to help
people make sense of it all, in a world where there are millions of
VCRs flashing "eights" at this very moment! Guests would include
experts, major public figures, advocates on all sides, and all manner
of other persons who can shed light on any facet of these topics.
I don't want this show to be high-brow or academically-oriented. It's
not a "techie" show, though it will have some tech-oriented segments
that would be helpful to a general audience. It needs to be
informative, entertaining, somewhat confrontational, and a bit
off-center. But it also needs to be footed in the real world. "Stop
the craziness!" Let's bring on the guys promoting the magnetic
healing insoles and the perforated plastic fly-vision glasses. Let's
chat with the remote viewers and the reverse speech fanatics. And Y2K
doomsday experts? Yeah, them too. Let's see what happens when all of
these people confront folks who know what they're talking about. I
think the give and take with callers, on all sides of the issues,
could be fascinating.
Part of the reason I'm taking this to the general radio audience is
that I feel that it's important to get these kinds of topics discussed
with, and by, people whom you would not ordinarily expect to find
reading (for example) TELECOM Digest. There is so much confusion
regarding technology and its impacts in the world today, that many
people don't even realize the scope of the problems -- until they get
burned by one of them!
It takes a certain kind of, uh, temperament to do this sort of show.
But since I've hosted talk radio in the past and do other radio work
(some of you may have heard my commentaries on "technology and
society" topics on NPR's "Morning Edition"), I consider it to be a
practical yet fascinating task.
As for the logistics of getting it all going -- most of the technical
infrastructure is already in place. Finding the necessary
underwriting and/or sponsor support has been an ongoing effort and is
definitely where I could use some help.
In any case, I think it's a worthwhile project that could do some real
good to help people make sense of the technological world and its
effects on our lives. If there are any individuals and/or other
entities who would be interested in more details, please feel free to
contact me. Thanks much!
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz"
--- http://www.vortex.com/reality
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lauren, let me as you one question
about this. *Why* would you want to put it on the radio instead of
on the internet? National Public Radio is no better, or only a
little better than commercial broadcasters. What do you think they
are going to say or do when AT&T, which gives them just tons of
money every year, gets annoyed at your program? Who do you think
they will try to appease, you or AT&T? You would be much better
off putting your program on the net rather than attempting to
place it with NPR. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 13:52:25 -0700
From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: 10- (or 11-) Digit Dialing: Why Mandatory?
Organization: LincMad Consulting
In article <telecom19.183.5@telecom-digest.org>, Neal McLain
<nmclain@compuserve.com> wrote:
> In TELECOM Digest Volume 19 Issue 168 Telecom@LincMad.nospam
> (Linc Madison) writes:
>> Incorrect. You CANNOT dial an overlay number IN SAN JOSE,
>> CALIFORNIA, without the leading 1 (effective October
>> 1999).
>> ... California does not permit 10D dialing of any
>> calls. For example, the 408-925 prefix is local to some
>> exchanges in the 925 area code. Before the introduction
>> of mandatory 1+10D in 408, you would have a conflict
>> between 925-xxxx and 925-nxx-xxxx.
> But wouldn't 10D dialing (without the 1) *solve* this very problem?
> Certainly there would be no conflict between 669-925-xxxx and
> 925-nxx-xxxx.
Yes, it would. However, you have to go through the transition to
mandatory 1+10D in order to reach a point where you can have 10D
local and 1+10D toll. You cannot mix 7D local and 10D local in
California's metropolitan areas.
** 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: replies sent to <Telecom@LincMad-com> will be read sooner!
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #186
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 3 16:28:04 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA27465;
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 16:28:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 16:28:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907032028.QAA27465@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #187
TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Jul 99 16:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 187
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telecom Act - Section 255 - Accessibility (Jim Tobias)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Gerry Belanger)
Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers (Tom Betz)
Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers (Martin McCormick)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Re: Telco Circuit Identifiers (skydoc@email.com)
Looking For Rack Fastener Seen at Networld (Larry Klein)
Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet (H Stein)
Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest (Tony Pelliccio)
Merlin Programming Codes Needed (Justin)
Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (was Re: What Do I Ask For) (Bill Levant)
Kevin Mitnick Status (was Re: Army Web Site) (Bill Levant)
Horrible Data Connection (Heather Drury)
New Phone System Recommendations (Tyler Stewart)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Jim Tobias <tobias@inclusive.com>
Subject: Telecom Act - Section 255 - Accessibility
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 06:44:32 -0400
Organization: Monmouth Internet
You may be aware that Section 255 of the Telecom Act requires that "a
manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises
equipment shall ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and
fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, if readily achievable." and that "A provider of
telecommunications services shall ensure that the service is
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily
achievable."
The Access Board has developed Guidelines for this section, and the
FCC is preparing complance regulations for it, to be released later
this month.
What remains is that the telecom industry as a whole improve its
understanding of this issue: where it comes from and how to address
it.
Designing for Usability, Flexibility, and Compliance is a unique
two-part course, structured to provide practical information as well
as opportunities for hands-on application and networking with people
involved in different aspects of the field. The course is presented at
the Trace Research & Development Center, where you'll have the
opportunity to see and try out some of the latest access and design
techniques. Part One is offered August 9-11, 1999, in Madison,
Wisconsin. Part Two of the course will be offered October 27-29,
1999. It will provide more technical depth, building on the concepts
and techniques presented in Part One.
Enrollment in the course is limited to 27 participants, and this initial
offering of the course is being targeted to key individuals in
telecommunications, as well as consultants and regulatory specialists
involved in improving the usability of telecommunications products.
Some of the Key Questions Addressed:
How do we create practical, accessible (and profitable) products while
still addressing regulatory requirements?
Where do access features add functionality for all users? What is the
"low-hanging fruit"?
Why was Section 255 of the Telecom Act created, and what does it
really mean to a telecommunications company?
What are the market justifications for making products more accessible?
What are cost-effective ways of implementing accessible telecommunications
products?
How can features for different disabilities not interfere with each other,
or with the standard product features? Can they be reinforcing?
You can get more information about this course, including
how to register at:
http://trace.wisc.edu/tuder
or contact Kate Vanderheiden at 608.265.4621, email
mailto:vanderk@trace.wisc.edu
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
732.441.0831 v/tty
732.441.0832 fax
www.inclusive.com
------------------------------
From: wa1hoz@kona.javanet.com (Gerry Belanger)
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: 3 Jul 1999 11:18:38 GMT
Arthur Ross (a.ross@ieee.org) wrote:
> PS: While it may no longer be published, the GE corporation used to
> have a nice application guide titled "Transient Voltage Suppression
> Manual." Contains detailed discussion of the potential sources of
> transients and how to deal with them (usually using their MOV devices,
> of course).
GE sold that business to Harris. Their 1995 suppression device data
book has all the GE info. Harris is trying to divest most of their
semi business. They sold the logic business to TI. I think they
still have the supressor and communications chip business, but that
can change with the next press release. 8-).
Gerry Belanger, WA1HOZ wa1hoz@javanet.com
Newtown, CT g.belanger@ieee.org
------------------------------
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers
Date: 3 Jul 1999 08:21:06 -0400
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email
Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com
Quoth Martha Garcia-Murillo <mgarcia@almaak.usc.edu> in
<telecom19.184.4@telecom-digest.org>:
> I have been following the comments about 900 Mhz cordless telephones. It
> caught my attention because I was interested in buying a set of cordless
> speakers that use the same frequency. Does anybody have any idea or
> experience on how those phones can affect the sound on the speakers?
I use a Recoton cordless transmitter/receiver set, and have noticed
that using a Lucent 900 MHz cordless, a PCS phone or my BAM-300D in
the immediate vicinity (<1 to 2 meters) of a receiver can cause
varying forms of interference. If the 900-MHz cordless selects a
particular channel, I can monitor half the conversation on my
speakers. Moreover, when the 300D is sitting across the room in the
charger with its power turned on, occasionally it sends a signal pulse
that interferes with my audio reception; I have trained my wife to
turn it off when she puts it in the charger.
However, I find that the local Ham radio operators interfere with my
audio enjoyment much more than any of these telephone sources have
done.
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>| YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
------------------------------
From: wb5agz@dc.cis.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz and Wireless Speakers
Date: 2 Jul 1999 19:28:48 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma
In article <telecom19.184.4@telecom-digest.org>, Martha Garcia-Murillo
<mgarcia@almaak.usc.edu> wrote:
> I was interested in buying a set of cordless
> speakers that use the same frequency. Does anybody have any idea or
> experience on how those phones can affect the sound on the speakers?
There is no one correct answer to that question. The 900-MHZ
band covers a little more radio spectrum space than does the FM
broadcast band. 900-megahertz telephones come in both digital and
analog forms. The analog phones are just 900-MHZ versions of older
cordless telephones. Their signals are frequency modulated or FM and
the conversation can be heard on scanners as well as accidentally
picked up by other cordless phones that might happen to use the same
frequency. If either the base or hand set of such a phone uses the
same frequency as one or both wireless speakers, one might hear the
conversation.
The digital cordless phones produce a buzzing signal that
covers a fairly wide range of frequencies. It sounds kind of like a
vacuum cleaner motor. If it turns out to be on the same channel or
fairly near to the same channel used by the wireless speakers, then
they will pick up the noise.
Having said all that, my limited experience says that the
analog 900-MHZ phones use frequencies in the extreme top and bottom of
the 902-928-MHZ band. The one cordless speaker I have actually
observed transmitted on about 913 megahertz.
This makes it well out of the way of the cordless telephones
so both should coexist peacefully.
A digital cordless telephone might make some noise on the
wireless speakers especially if it is very near to the antenna of the
speakers.
Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: 3 Jul 1999 11:01:00 -0400
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom19.182.6@telecom-digest.org>, J.F. Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Mike Fox wrote:
>> There are some other benefits to a widespread standard that we probably
>> don't even think of in U.S., because quite frankly we can't consider
>> having them there.
> Herte is another example.
> Garmin, a maker of GPS systems has just released a GPS/phone combo
> which can be used to trasmit your location for various applications.
> (This has nothing to do with being able to locate the caller to 911.)
> However, because there is no standard in the USA, they opted for the
> antiquated AMPS phone which is the lowest common denominator. Dial
> number, wait for answer and it sends your numeric location as touch
> tone digits. No way to ensure it was received. And you pay for call
> duration.
> Had the USA adopted the GSM standard such applications would be so
> much widespread. The ability to send SMS messages would be a natural
As this one is in Europe, right? Here you go again, taking innovation
and twisting it, in your Alice-in-Wonderland world, into something to
bash the U.S. over.
When Garmin *actually builds* a GSM phone, and doesn't release it in
the U.S. (yeah, right) then maybe you'll have a legitimate gripe.
Until then, of course, you could pipe down ...
I note that you have conveniently failed to notice any of the
plethora of new gadgets that use wireless data service, some _only_
available in the USA. A good example would be the Qualcomm pdQ,
the 3Com Palm7, or any of their rapidly appearing competitors.
SMS (and plenty of other options for *useful* wireless data
data service without that silly message size limit) are quite common
here as well.
To paraphrase your own words, "Had the standards bodies who created
GSM not chosen frequencies they knew would _never_ be available in
the USA, perhaps European consumers would be lucky enough to have
such innovative devices available for GSM sooner."
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
------------------------------
From: Doc <skydoc@email.com>
Subject: Re: Telco Circuit Identifiers
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 00:38:31 GMT
Organization: @Home Network
The HCGS is a Bell designation, the DHEC is an AT&T designation.
If you order an AT&T T1 in a Bell local exchange you would get a
similar Bell and similar AT&T designation for the same circuit. Bell
-- since it is the last-mile and AT&T, since it is the long-haul
carrier that is billing the circuit.
Art Kamlet <kamlet@infinet.com> wrote in message news:telecom19.185.8@
telecom-digest.org:
> In article <telecom19.184.6@telecom-digest.org>,
> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
>>> HCGS = T1
>>> LNGS = 4 wire analog
>>> DHEC = ?
>>> AREC = ?
> These are one company's coding; another may use a different coding, or
> a switch or other equipment may need to use its own coding.
------------------------------
From: klein_larry@hotmail.com (Larry Klein)
Subject: Looking For Rack Fastener Seen at Networld
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:41:04 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Reply-To: klein_larry@hotmail.com
I am looking for a rack fastener that I saw at the Networld show a few
months back. I can't remeber the name of the product or the name of
the company that makes it (they did not have a booth but were
exhibited in someone elses).
I can describe it though. There are 2 pieces. The first piece looked
almost like a set screw but had an untreaded area where the rack gear
would sit while mounting the rack piece. The second piece was a
cylindrical cap that cinched the gear.
I am hoping someone saw this and can tell me where to find the
product. I have not seen anything like it and now that I really need
something that will align my gear and hold it in place while I secure
it I am out of luck! Typical, eh?
Any help or ideas in locating this product would be much appreciated.
Larry K.
klein_larry@hotmail.com
------------------------------
From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein)
Subject: Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 06:37:16 GMT
Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com)
I don't want them to find me! If they can find me in an emergency
situation they can find me when I didn't brush my teeth! BIG BROTHER --
I'd sooner not be found.
In article <telecom19.185.5@telecom-digest.org>, J.F. Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
> I may be thick, but do they seriously expect to retrofit all handsets to
> incorporate that mini-GPS unit and logic ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> I was really hoping that they would have use network infrastruture to
> locate the SIGNAL. Heck, an imprecise measurement would be sufficient
> if emergency vehicles were equipped with a locator device to pinpoint
> that phone's location. Analog phone networks have had this equipment
> for a long time to find fraudsters.
Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
herb@herbstein.com
314 215-3584
------------------------------
From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest
Organization: Providence Network Partners
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:10:56 GMT
In article <telecom19.185.9@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest Editor
noted in response to bfr1@worldnet.att.net:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well yeah, that one caught my eye also.
> Its really too bad that spammers and other commercial interests on the
> net have made things so bad that netizens now have to try and hide
> their email addresses. PAT]
I use moderate measures to discourage spam but heaven forbid some spammer
sends some to me. I don't prosecute, I persecute. I will take every
measure I have to in order to make sure that that person never spams me
again. If everyone did this, it'd make the world a better place.
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR
== Trustee WE1RD
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I like your idea, but because of the
amount of spam which comes to the telecom mailbox, I could easily
spend my entire day prosecuting, persecuting, having fits, raising
hell and do nothing else. 20-25 pieces of spam each day is about the
norm here, and that is just what does not get filtered out before I
get it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: raptor@wwa.com (Justin)
Subject: Merlin Programming Codes Needed
Reply-To: raptor@wwa.com
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:29:01 GMT
Organization: Verio
Can anyone point me to a list of codes for programming special
functions on a BIS-22 voice terminal on Merlin 410 system?
Thanks in advance.
In replies delete X from address
Justin === raptorX@wwa.com
Chicago
http://www.wwa.com/~laser26/
------------------------------
From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:52:40 EDT
Subject: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (was Re: What Do I Ask For?)
> like whether or not you can use standard phones or modems on the lines
Each trunk on the key system uses three pairs: voice, control
("A-lead") and lights. The A-leads are used to control the lights,
and to place calls on hold.
If you are going to use a single-line phone or modem, you have to
make sure it's wired to provide A-lead control; otherwise, the lights
won't light when the thing goes off hook (and won't stop flashing if
you answer from single-line equipment) and trying to hang up may
actually place the calls on hold instead.
It's fairly easy to re-wire an old Bell single-line phone (though I
don't know the particulars); I would think that you need either a
specially-designed model (or an adaptor) for a single-line modem to
work.
Bill
------------------------------
From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:56:43 EDT
Subject: Kevin Mitnick Status (was Re: Army Web Site)
No, PAT, Kevin Mitnick HASN'T been held for four years without trial.
He pleaded guilty to telephone fraud in June of 1997, and got 22
months, to run CONSECUTIVELY with 14 months for violating the terms of
the supervised release sentence imposed for a 1989 computer fraud
conviction.
The story, from a Department of Justice press release, follows:
(or go to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr/cac70627.1.html)
There may be many things wrong with this country, but throwing
people into prison indefinitely, without trial, generally isn't one of
them.
Now, settle down already.
Bill
1997-06-27 -- Computer Hacker Kevin Mitnick Sentenced to Prison.
Notorious Hacker Gets 22 Months for Illegal Cellular Phone Codes
and Violating Supervised Release in Prior Computer Fraud Case.
LOS ANGELES, June 27 -- Notorious computer criminal Kevin Mitnick
was sentenced today to 22 months in federal prison for possessing
illegal cellular phone codes and for breaking the law while on
supervised release in relation to his 1989 computer fraud conviction,
United States Attorney Nora Manella announced.
Mitnick, 33, was sentenced by United States District Judge
Mariana R. Pfaelzer. The judge imposed an eight-month sentence for
Mitnick's guilty plea to possession of cloned cellular phone
codes. The judge also sentenced Mitnick to 14 months in prison for
violating the terms of the supervised release Pfaelzer imposed when
she sentenced Mitnick in 1989 to one year in prison for his conviction
on computer fraud charges.
Mitnick pleaded guilty last year to one count of a twenty-three
count indictment first brought in North Carolina. That indictment
charged possession of numerous fraudulent cellular codes that Mitnick
used to illegally access cellular phone networks. According to
Assistant United States Attorney Christopher M.E. Painter, Mitnick
had more than 100 of these clone cellular phone codes when he was
arrested in North Carolina.
The 14-month sentence that will run consecutively to the sentence
imposed in the North Carolina case arose from Mitnick ignoring
conditions of his supervised release in 1992. Painter said Mitnick
disobeyed court orders not to engage in further computer hacking or
associate with other known hackers. Mitnick violated these orders by
breaking into Pacific Bell voice mail computers and listening to
confidential messages of security personnel. He also associated with
Lewis DePayne, an individual with whom he had previously engaged in
computer hacking.
As part of his sentence, Judge Pfaelzer ordered Mitnick to spend
another three years on supervised release after he completes his
prison term. The judge imposed a series of special conditions,
including barring Mitnick from possessing any computer equipment,
software or cellular phones without the express prior approval of his
probation officer. Furthermore, during the period of supervised
release, Mitnick will be prohibited from being employed in any
capacity in which he would have access to computers, without the
probation officer's prior approval.
Mitnick has been in custody since February 1995, when he was
arrested in North Carolina. Mitnick is currently being detained
without bond in relation to a third case. Mitnick faces a twenty-five
count indictment returned last year by a grand jury in Los
Angeles. The latest indictment alleges computer fraud, wire fraud,
interception of wire communications and possession of unauthorized
passwords. The charges relate to numerous computer intrusions and the
alleged theft of millions of dollars of proprietary software during a 2
1/2-year period when Mitnick was a fugitive.
Release No. 97-159
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California
Nora M. Manella, United States Attorney
312 North Spring Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012
Main Office Number: 213-894-2434
Public Affairs Office: 213-894-6947; fax: 213-894-5377
Thom Mrozek: Public Information Officer
tmrozek@justice.usdoj.gov
Archived News Releases/Documents: http://www.usdoj.gov/press.html
gopher://gopher.usdoj.gov
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay, so by the government's own
version of the facts, 22 months plus 14 months equals 36 months
which equals three years. He has been incarcerated for four years,
and there appears to be no release date for him in sight, since he
is being held now while they try to figure out some additional
charges they can throw at him.
Aside from the fact that imposition of *consecutive* sentences is
rather rare -- with *concurrent* (or serve all at once) sentencing
being the ordinary procedure, even three years comes down to about
a year and a half or maybe two years when 'good time' is factored
in. The clock started running on 'time served' as soon as Officer
Friendly snapped those handcuffs on his wrist, as did Kevin's right
to Speedy Trial, another of his rights that has been consistently
violated. So you want to add in still more time, for the time due
on the earlier suspended sentence from the early nineties while he
was on probation? Okay add another year or so, we are still up to
only at most four years, or five perhaps, if they insist that all
these offenses much be handled consecutively. Subtract good time
and how much is left to be served? So why is he still in prison?
That press release you sent dates back to 1997. When he was sentenced
at that point he had two year's credit for time served did he not?
And according to that 1997 press release, he was being held pending
the state charges. Guess what? They still have not brought him to
trial on those 'new' (as of 1997) charges. They've had two years
to prepare that case, and yet as of June this year, the government
still was not ready to go to trial. Doesn't that seem a bit odd?
Earlier this year, the court ruled that Mitnick would be allowed a
limited amount of time to use a laptop computer in the preparation
of his defense. Not a laptop to keep in his possession unsupervised,
not a laptop with a modem attached, not a laptop to use without
someone nearby observing him; just a laptop computer he could use
under supervision in the prison library for a short time each week.
He had hoped to supply his attorney with text files pertaining to
his case on a diskette. The judge said okay, the prison allowed him
to use it once, then the government told the prison to quit allowing
Mitnick to use it. Now his attorney is apparently fighting with the
government about that matter.
Bill, I think it is plain to most people who have watched this case
over the past four years that the government has a vendetta where
Kevin Mitnick is concerned. You can parse out his different offenses
however you wish, and calculate his punishment however you wish
bearing in mind that federal judges are required to observe guidelines
in sentencing, and it still comes down to the fact that enough is
enough. Four years in prison, a couple years on probation before that,
a couple years of running which I am sure was no picnic, and whatever
lockdown time originally served before the first instance came to
trial in the early nineties. All for the crime -- and I do not downplay
or denigrate it -- of being a 'computer hacker'. And now they are
telling him to hang around, good buddy, we still are trying to put
together a case involving 'millions of dollars in software and stolen
phone cards, etc during the time you were on the lam ...'
Well, we all know how that 'millions of dollars in stolen software
and damages to our computer' story goes. I have yet to see a telco
or government computer get cracked that didn't have 'millions of
dollars in software stolen and millions of dollars in manpower time
required to fix the damages, etc ' ... and based on the number of
times this has occurred in the past decade, I am surprised the whole
industry hasn't gone bankrupt. How many 'millions of dollars' can they
afford to spend at one time? (snicker) ... either that or a few
sysadmins I've been privileged to work with at one time or another
are not as impoverished as they claim. Why does the federal govern-
ment assume all of its citizens are idiots?
I'll stand by my original statements, Bill. Janet Reno has problems.
Kevin Mitnick should be released now. I'd not be surprised at all to
see the raids on federal websites and computer installations continue
until he does get released. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Heather Drury <heather@v1.wustl.edu>
Subject: Horrible Data Connection
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 12:19:22 -0500
Organization: Washington University in St. Louis
Hi,
We have just moved into a new house (new for us) and are doing battle
with Southwestern Bell over our data connection. Basically, sometimes
it works, sometimes it doesn't and SWBT insists there is no problem.
We had this very same equipment/modem, etc. at our old house (five
miles away) and it worked just fine for years.
We are about 16K feet from the switch. When I connect (using a 56K
external analog modem), the modem trains and retrains during the
initial link negotiations. It usually ends up connecting at 24K baud.
The connection is sporadically ususble up until about 4 o'clock when
it becomes UNUSABLE (no response for minutes in a UNIX shell) for the
evening. We have moved the computer to the basement and are connected
directly to the SWBT network interface (so the problem is not internal
wiring).
What can we do? We are investigating getting a DSL line but aren't
certain we can get one in our area. This problem has been going on for
over a month (since 5/27) and SWBT is giving us lip service but not
taking steps (it appears) to resolve the underlying problem. Are we
really dead in the water, so to speak?
I will say we have had technician after technician out (who usually
just complain about non-union techs and how terrible the SWBT
infrastructure is). We have also had many billing errors (three so far
on our first bill). All in all, I really can't wait for some other
carriers to enter our area so we can dump SWBT forever, but in the
meantime we need a decent data connection.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Heather Drury (in St. Louis, MO)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 10:49:50 -0700
From: Tyler Stewart <stewart@eastearth.com>
Subject: New Phone System Recommendations
I am soliciting opinions on phone systems. Our company just added a
second manufacturing facility (20-30 people). We received proposals
for a phone system there and for our current facility (~96 port - 75
people). We may decide to put a different vendor's phone system at our
manufacturing facility and keep our current phone system (Panasonic
DBS). We will also be connecting the two voice and data networks via
T1 using an add/drop CSU/DSU that can integrate voice and data. We
have received vendor proposals for a Panasonic 576 with ABS Talkx
voice mail, NEC NEAX 2000 With AD 8 or AD 40 voice mail, and Nitsuko
384i with Teledata voice mail.
What have been your experiences with these systems? I have experience
using the Panasonic DBS system, but I have not been extremely pleased
with it since components are very expensive. Plus, we have had poor
experiences with the Panasonic vendor.
I think any of these systems will meet our needs, but I am really
leaning towards the NEC system in particular. The Nitsuko 384i seems
like a pretty good system for a key pbx hybrid, but it seems like it's
kind of a "cheap" system. It looks like the designers did not spend
time designing a quality, ergonomic, and feature rich phone. But, the
Nitsuko vendor is pretty good though. I have never used any of these
systems. If anyone uses or has used any of these systems, I would
appreciate your opinion on the matter. Many thanks in advance!
Tyler Stewart
East Earth Herb, Inc.
stewart@eastearth.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #187
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 4 14:43:13 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA28843;
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 14:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907041843.OAA28843@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #188
TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Jul 99 14:43:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 188
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
'Til All Success Is Nobleness (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Re: Anonymous Surfing For Users (Craig Metz)
Re: Anonymous Surfing For Users (Steve Winter)
Secret Surfer Question (Frank)
Re: Anonymous Surfing For Users (T. Byfield)
Illegal Access of Phone Line (Chad Scofield)
Rotary Dial Telephone (John P. Sinkiewicz)
Re: Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest (Herb Stein)
Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (Carl Navarro)
Dole: No Net Porn at Libraries (Monty Solomon)
Re: Talk Radio and Telecom (Lauren Weinstein)
FBI Subdues 'Privacy Gone Crazy' (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:00:37 EDT
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: 'Til All Success Is Nobleness
Correction one: in that little file I linked for you in the
last issue of the Digest, I got it wrong somehow in the digest version
and the c.d.t. version although I was able to correct it at the last
minute for http://TELECOM_Digest_Online.
It should have been http://telecom-digest.org/MIDI/BANNER.mid
not with the '.gif' on the end ... silly me.
Correction two: Issue 186 of the Digest got sent out labeled as 185
in a couple places. It now appears consistently as issue 186 in the
archives I believe. If you have two copies of 'issue 185' then the
one with the later dating should be 186. Please mark up your copies
as such if you print them out or bother to save them.
Putting a few thoughts together this Sunday morning:
Despite the several serious problems I see in the United States today,
and the way our country has drifted away from the ideals and standards
of our founders, I still must say there is no other place in the world
quite like it. On its birthday, I suppose I should try to say something
positive about it.
So instead of calling your attention today with what I feel is wrong
about America, let me mention instead what I think is right about
America. I think if there was ever anywhere in the world that one
might be able to succeed in his goals and aspirations, the USA is
probably the place. Despite what I believe are many unfair restrictions
placed on Americans, I am fully aware that something like Usenet
could never have started or prospered in many or most other countries
in the world. I am aware that my own personal speech would be totally
unacceptable in many countries. Despite the several restrictions that
we deal with, the fact remains we still have more personal freedom
than almost anywhere in the world; freedom not only to speak, but in
large part to act on our speech.
What's right about America? ***YOU*** are. Her people, both the famous
and well-known, and the not so well-known; the people who have made
this country what it is today, 223 years after its founding. Maybe you
saw the 'Family Circus' cartoon in the papers a couple days ago. The
mother is in line waiting to report for jury duty and another woman is
right behind her. Mother is saying what a hardship this is going to
be, 'I am a mother, with children to take care of', and the woman
behind her, who appears to be of a different nationality says that
she also is a mother with children. Mother says she is very busy and
has no idea how she can fit in this demand for her time with
everything else she has to do; the woman behind her replies that she
also had to cancel some of her plans because of this. Mother asks
what we can possibly do now? ... and the woman behind her replies,
'I am just hoping I am lucky enough to be selected to serve ...'
Then there was the item in the {Chicago Tribune} a few years ago which
has stayed in my mind. On the paper's front page that day, a photo of
a four year old boy with a big smile on his face waving a small
American flag in the air. The picture was entitled, "Our Newest
Citizen", and the caption noted, 'Marco, who is four years old, and
his mother were among the several hundred people who were sworn in
as new American citizens yesterday in Chicago'. A short story which
accompanied the picture told of the reception which is held for
new citizens regularly at the Chicago Temple Building auditorium
following the swearing-in ceremony, and that representatives from all
levels of government -- federal, state, and local -- were present
to greet the new citizens and answer questions, etc. The new
citizens were given personal copies of the United States Constitution
and replicas of other historic documents as keepsakes. At the
conclusion of the program, the Chicago Temple organist played the
'Star Spangled Banner' and everyone was invited to rise and join
in singing the National Anthem.
"It was then," said the Tribune report, "we saw Marco with his flag,
and we heard him as he turned his mother and said, 'I sure am glad
we decided to come here and live, aren't you ...' to which his mother
replied, with tears in her eyes, 'I am glad also' ..."
And the Tribune concluded with just a note of its own, "You see,
sometimes there is good news to put in the paper for you to
read. Marco, we wish you the very best, and we know you can make all
of us very proud of you over the next sixty or seventy years. Do your
best for your new country."
-------------------------------
Some governments last only a very short time; others last much longer.
I may be mistaken, but I believe at the ripe old age of 223, the
government of the United States has been around longer than most, but
not all of the others. That should say something in itself.
So to the USA readers, I hope your holiday is a pleasant one, and
that you take a few minutes to think it all through and decide if you
could really do as well anywhere else in the world.
PAT
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anonymous Surfing For Users
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 13:45:05 -0400
From: Craig Metz <cmetz@inner.net>
What software are you using for this?
(Many roll-your-own systems have had problems; it's a tougher problem than it
appears.)
Craig
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is just a very simple thing based
on the way telephone 'loop-arounds' work. When you use the form to
enter the desired URL, it goes to cgi-bin where the output gets sent
to a proxy location which is 'friendly' to surfers; that information
which is sent by your browser is munged before it even gets to the
proxy. I have no idea who uses it, and do not care to know.
To catch any potential problems with it, I make the suggestion on that
page (http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html) that new users
first use 'Operator Pat' to connect with a site where they can either
personally review the logs or have a freind do so. First use it in a
place where you know what the answers should be so that you can see
the kind of changes that are done. Then when you are satisfied that
it works as indicated, begin using it regularly if you wish. From time
to time of course, it never hurts to audit what's going on by once
again using it against one of your own sites to review the results and
be certain nothing has changed, etc. PAT]
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Surfing For Users
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 18:06:20 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org> spake thusly and wrote:
> Before you begin serious, or very personal use of 'Operator Pat' as
> the service is known, first test it out on a site where you can see
> the logs; see for yourself what is left in the logs where you visit.
> I want YOU to know that it works as advertised and that it will not
> cause any hassles. Then if you like it, just keep on using it. I
> cannot personally be responsible or liable for any improper or
> illegal use made of the anonymous web page server, and I strongly
> suggest that you (1) obtain an anonymous email account to use with
> it when you are at a site that requires you to register or asks a lot
> of other questions that are none of their business, and (2) do NOT
> download images or files which are illegal to possess in the country
> or state in which you are located. I am sure you will all use very
> good judgment when asking Operator Pat to connect your 'call'.
Are you going to keep some records so that if someone uses your
service to place fraudulent credit card orders or similar activity
that their true IP source would be available for subpoena?
Your lack of responsibility for illegal use of your service has
not been put to any test yet and I am not sure that one could
count on a disclaimer to hold up.
Are you really sure it is such a good idea? I know it sounds
good, but in the past I believe that net crud have really abused
the best of intentioned and the not so well intentioned anon
services. I personally believe that providers of anon services
can (and in many cases should) be held civilly liable for all that
transpires via their services.
Regards,
Steve
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steve, I could just as easily print a
tutorial which (a) told people how to get into the code for their
browser and adjust its output to hide or change the output, and (b) told
people how to write the address line on their browser to point to
a proxy location and the type of syntax to use to cause the output to
reach that proxy and pass through it to elsewhere. I could have posted
a little script and told people drag this off with you back to your
own PC and run it each time you want to browse. It would be a little
interface which would bring you your browser of choice, diddle with it
and start it going.
I can tell you however that most of the guys who have proxy type
things in place use them primarily for other purposes, and while they
do not object occassionally to other people passing through, if I
were to sit here and post a list of proxy addresses they would get
very annoyed. A few guys who are friendly or sympathetic to the need
for privacy on the net have proxies running and allow them to be
used by anyone, again provided that things stay relatively quiet.
> are you going to keep some records ....
Of course not. Records are the very thing I do not want to have around
here. If I wrote the whole thing up in tutorial form and made you
write your own HTML page with a little form on it, etc should I keep
records of people who download my tutorial just in case one of them
decides to abuse the information? Couldn't you, if you chose, simply
right click on my secret-surfer page and copy the whole thing anyway?
How do I know, when you placed that fraudulent credit card order that
you specifically came to my site and used my page? And the cgi-bin
is not here; it is at a site located on the moon or on some other
planet or perhaps some other country. And God only knows where the
proxy is at; just some place that when it sees traffic coming it
flips it around and sends it back out again. Or is there a second or
third proxy in the loop somewhere as well? That might be the case
also you know.
Oh and by the way Steve, I don't even really have to bother with much
of a 'tutorial'. If you look over your browser default settings you
will see that no one is forcing you to use the address your ISP issued.
And there is also a place to fill in some numbers if you are 'behind
a fire wall'. You fill in numbers there to show what proxy address
is serving you. If you fill in those blanks correctly, thats who the
other site thinks you are. Let's just say I streamlined the process
and made it easier for the guys to surf without worrying about someone
trying to spy on them or hurt them in some way. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Frank <frank@telecom-digest.zzn.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:23:46 -0400
Subject: Secret Surfer Question
One clarification Pat: It appears that going through your
secret-surfer page, I cannot connect to a site that requires my
browser to accept cookies; correct? For example, the telecom-digest
mail site can't get past login because it thinks cookies aren't being
accepted. Just checking to make sure that limitation is built in
(since your posting said something vague about cookies).
Frank
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes you can connect to a site which
requires cookies if you choose. It is up to you if you leave cookies
turned on or not. Cookies can pose a risk, they can be an invasion
of privacy.If you choose to visit a site which requires cookies, and
if you allow cookies on your machine then the site will ask *the
proxy* if it wishes to have cookies, and you will answer yes, and
the site will deliver cookies *to the proxy* which is who it thinks
is calling.
As an example, try the http://telecom-digest.org/index.html page. If
you have in the past accepted its cookies, it knows what name you
gave it for yourself and the last time you visited. In fact, in this
test, first go to http://telecom-digest.org and make sure you take
a cookie if you are not already taking one regularly there. Now, try
approaching the site (a) through Operator Pat as one example, or (b)
through the language translator at Babel Fish. Notice what happens:
now telecom-digest.org can no longer find the cookie it gave you last
time. Why? Because it is looking at the place that you came from, and
no cookie is there. Come through the cgi-bin at Babel Fish or the
cig-bin for secret surfer or any cgi-bin you like where some changes
were made along the way, and the people handing out the cookies,
which includes yours truly, have no idea who you are but of course
they are more than willing to hand you a cookie anyway. Now if you
visit a second or a third time *before you clean out your cache and
your cookie file* via secret surfer or whoever, then the cookie place
will recognize you, because it finds its thing from before.
Look at the cookies you get from me: they say 'telecom-archives' with
a date, your name, etc. Then go look at the cookies you get from me
after having gotten to me through a proxy. They will still be there,
but when the site saw you coming and went to the proxy and said 'hand
over your cookies' the proxy had nothing to hand over, so my response
to you was essentially, 'welcome stranger, would you like a cookie so
I know who you are next time you visit' ...
That is a little bit of an oversimplification, but the sites think
that the proxy is a computer visiting them rather than that you are
the person visiting with them. Going in via proxy is like you wearing
a mask on your face so you cannot be recognized, that's all. You can
still take cookies or not as desired; you can still run javascript or
not as desired. But refusing those things when possible, using an
anonymous email address *and routing through a couple of proxies
along the way* all provide layers of security which when used together
make your surfing almost -- never totally! -- impossible to trace.
Certainly very difficult to trace. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 09:16:51 -0400
From: T. Byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
Subject: Thanks
You wrote:
> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Jul 99 03:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 186
> Anonymous Surfing For Users (TELECOM Digest Editor)
and this is just to thank you for making such an excellent service
available to your subscribers.
Happy fourth!
Cheers,
Ted
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your kind words. I hope that
Operator Pat can be of help to the guys who want privacy when they are
using the net. Nothing is perfect, but using this in connection with
other privacy-enhancing techniques should make things a bit better. You
still need to deal with cookies as you wish. Remember, it never hurts
to give Computer a bath now and then, and as we say, after you finish
using the net, don't forget to wipe. And if you use Operator Pat to
connect your call on a regular basis, please become a Friend of TELECOM
Digest and support my work with gifts you feel are appropriate.
TELECOM Digest / PO Box 765 / Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Thanks. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 19:01:25 -0700
From: Chad Scofield <cscofield@dodgecity.net>
Subject: Illegal Access of Phone Line
Hello telecom_digest:
I have been referred to your from Paul Cook of Proctor and Associates,
Inc.
My problem is trying to find help for my inlaws. They have been
receiving phone bills for calls they have not made. Hundreds of
dollars worth in phone bills for calls that were made at the same time
or only minutes apart i.e. one call made at 8:00pm. for 14 minutes and
another at 8:05 for 20 minutes. Impossible right? Well, its on their
phone bill I have seen it. They have no long distance carrier, they
have disconnected it in an attempt to solve the problem. Call blocks
and call screnning does not work. The local phone company denies any
problems or will not admit to one. A busy light has been suggested by
Paul Cook. He also wrote he has seen this problem posted on your web
sight before. Some of the calls were made to 1900#s male 1900#s they
were not made by any one in the house they know because some were made
while no one was there. If you can help please let me know.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Chad Scofield
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We did just recently have a thread in
the Digest about people misusing the phone service of others by
making attachments to the telephone lines of other people when they
were not authorized to do so. People can do this by attaching a phone
to the wires at the back of your house, or they can attach phones at
other places in your neighborhood where the phone lines happen to be
located. Chad, your letter indicates you connect to the net through
an ISP called 'dodgecity'. Is that in Kansas? Who is the local telephone
company where your relatives live? It is also possible that someone
may have given your relative's phone number to the operator as the
number to be billed for the calls. This sometimes happens and the
operator does not realize it is a fraudulent call. Perhaps if we
saw a copy of the phone bill or the page(s) on which these charges
appeared we could reach a better conclusion on it. Has it happened
more than one time? That is, do new charges like this keep showing
up every month on the phone bill? Please provide a little more
detail and we may be able to help you. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 17:17:22 -0400
Subject: Rotary Dial Telephone
From: John P Sinkiewicz <johnsink@juno.com>
Dear Telecom Digest:
A friend of mine has suggested that I keep a rotary dial telephone on
hand in case the phone company loses its ability to detect DTMF. Is
there any validity in this advice?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say there is no validity to
that advice. What if instead of 'losing the ability to detect DTMF'
they instead 'lost the ability to provide dial tone'? Or what if
like on the second Sunday in May, 1988 -- Mother's Day -- a fire
started and burned down the telephone company completely such as
happened in the Chicago area. If what you suggest were to happen,
I suspect the technicians would get rather frantic and start
looking into the problem immediatly to cure it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein)
Subject: Re: Audio-Visual, Multimedia Component to Digest
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 06:33:45 GMT
Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com)
How about a FAQ-type of list with names and E-mail addresses of folks
that confess to knowing about various subjects? If I see a real
question that I can answer, I have no problem calling the other party
to help. Mostly continental US though in my case.
You (we) have tons of expertise in this forum.
Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
herb@herbstein.com
314 215-3584
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Herb, I am not going to put the essence
of an online directory here so that users can be plagued with even
more spam than they recieve already.I consider this Digest sort of one
big FAQ that people can research, and if they write in with questions
I post them here. That way, users can respond if they wish to do so
rather than be bothered with lots of questions they cannot help with.
You are correct, there is a lot of expertise present here if people
wish to draw upon it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: cnavarro@wcnet.org (Carl Navarro)
Subject: Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (was Re: What Do I Ask For?)
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 21:21:09 GMT
Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:52:40 EDT, Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) wrote:
>> like whether or not you can use standard phones or modems on the lines
> Each trunk on the key system uses three pairs: voice, control
> ("A-lead") and lights. The A-leads are used to control the lights,
> and to place calls on hold.
> If you are going to use a single-line phone or modem, you have to
> make sure it's wired to provide A-lead control; otherwise, the lights
> won't light when the thing goes off hook (and won't stop flashing if
> you answer from single-line equipment) and trying to hang up may
> actually place the calls on hold instead.
Um Bill,
This post might have worked 10-15 years ago, but we have a new
invention called the "ELECTRONIC KEY SYSTEM". Most of the businesses
in the United States have changed out their 1a2/10a1 thick wire
systems to this new thing.
Certain brands of key systems (notably Panasonic KXT) choke on the A1
control lead short, since it shorts the data pair. Guaranteed to stop
a Pana key system in it's tracks.
One of the cutest implementation of A Lead controls is the Comdial
family of KSU's. It let's you put a single line device in the 3rd
pair of the RJ-25 jack that feeds the first 4 line jacks (1,2,aux,
3,4,aux). Any device using the aux port automatically busies out
trunk 2 or 4.
Carl Navarro
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 15:58:54 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Dole: No Net Porn at Libraries
Reuters
9:15 a.m. 2.Jul.99.PDT
Republican presidential hopeful Elizabeth Dole wants public libraries
to filter Internet access to make sure that no one can look at
pornography.
Standing outside the main branch of the Des Moines Public Library
Thursday, Dole said that institutions like schools and libraries
receiving government tax dollars should not allow children to use their
computers to view X-rated Internet sites.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/20558.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 99 10:17 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Talk Radio and Telecom
Greetings. Our Moderator asks a couple of questions regarding my radio
effort which was described in my previous message.
First, while I know that he doesn't much care for NPR, that is of
course his personal choice. I've found them to be a good group to
deal with, and I've had the opportunity through them to get concepts
aired that touch on technology-related issues that have rarely been
addressed in the mass media. But to each his or her own, of course.
One thing that you learn early on in radio -- you're never going to
please everybody -- it goes with the territory.
However, I should note that my radio project that I outlined has
*nothing* whatever to do with NPR, and is specifically oriented
towards commercial radio (talk radio for the long form show, news and
other formats for the shorter vignette versions). That's why
sponsorship is of course important.
Pat expresses concerns about the reactions of any firms (telecom or
otherwise) who might be the subject of criticism during these new
shows. The idea of the show is not to be a tirade of criticism -- the
positive things going on are at least as important. But either way,
my experience has been that so long as you treat people and firms
fairly, reactions will be good -- even when you're criticizing some
aspect of their operations. I've been throwing some pretty hard
punches in my PRIVACY Forum for many years, but I do my darndest to be
fair, and that goes a long way. I'll be continuing this philosophy on
the new radio show.
Pat also asks about Internet broadcasting. I've in fact been doing
Internet audio and video efforts for my PRIVACY Forum and related
areas for a number of years, so I have considerable experience with
this. There's a great deal of potential. I've found the net to be an
excellent way to make archived materials available. But the reality
of the net's capacity and throughput, and the kinds of connections
that most users get in the real world, really aren't up to reliably
dealing with large numbers of people in a live venue such as the
participatory, call-in format my show would entail. Over time this
will change of course, but we're really at the start of the
evolutionary curve in this respect.
But perhaps more importantly, my focus for the show is really the
audience of persons who are the *least* likely to be comfortable with
computer-based audio, many of whom either don't have computers or use
them only rarely or for limited periods. Like I said, the show is not
aimed at techies -- just the opposite. The idea is to bring "into the
loop" persons who are confused about technology, or who are not aware
of how technology impacts their lives in positive and negative ways.
I want to help clear out the pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo that all too
often poses as reality. The whole point is to counteract the
inaccurate or biased information related to technology and society
that floats around in talk radio these days. To reach this audience,
you have to go to where they are, and to where they listen. That's in
the kitchen, the car, or wherever, from conventional radio. So that's
my focus for this particular effort as far as the live show itself is
concerned. I would naturally expect there to be accompanying
Internet-related materials and archives.
Since I've had my feet planted in both the Internet and radio worlds
for quite a few years, I think I have a pretty good handle on the
overall environment. But all of this is predicated, of course, on
finding support from entities who feel that this is a worthwhile
effort.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz"
--- http://www.vortex.com/reality
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 15:58:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: FBI Subdues 'Privacy Gone Crazy'
by Declan McCullagh
3:00 a.m. 2.Jul.99.PDT
WASHINGTON -- Law enforcement groups and their supporters in Congress
rallied late Thursday to defeat a bank privacy proposal.
Warning in the darkest terms that a plan to protect the confidentiality
of bank records was "privacy gone crazy," opponents angrily denounced it
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
The House then rejected the reform package, 299-129, with only 12
Democrats supporting it.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/20554.html
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #188
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 4 18:37:07 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA06619;
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:37:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:37:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907042237.SAA06619@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #189
TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Jul 99 18:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 189
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cell Phones Invade Wilderness (Mike Pollock)
Re: Do Not Disturb (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Walter Dnes)
Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line! (Frank)
Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Steven J. Sobol)
An Up to Date Listing of US LATA Codes Wanted (Kamal Southall)
Disute About Old Prefix Names (BRMannin@aol.com)
Re: Kevin Mitnick Status (Derek Balling)
Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Sheryl Myers)
1A2 Key System Adapters For Modems (Michael Muderick)
Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest (Steve Winters)
Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest (Keelan Lightfoot)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Subject: Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cell Phones Invade Wilderness
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:31:39 -0400
Organization: It's A Mike!
LAKE PLACID, N.Y. (AP) - High above the trees and surrounded by sky,
the Adirondack peaks can seem far removed from the everyday world.
Unless, of course, the guy next to you is jabbering on his cell phone.
Such a surreal scene played out on Mount Marcy's summit in front of
state forester Jim Papero. He remembers it well: "It was cold and
windy. Beautiful. You could hear the wind whistling and everything,
then this ... he was talking to his stockbroker."
Cell-phone chatter, already common at restaurants and shopping malls,
is heard more and more often in the wilderness. Hikers and campers are
tapping into personal directories to ask directions and apologize for
dinner delays, to bum rides and call in sick.
This is not amusing to many campers, hunters or others who appreciate
nature's quiet. The problem has prodded New York environmental officials,
who also worry about hikers using cell phones as life-lines, to promote
phone etiquette in the wilderness.
"To be walking down a trail or expend the effort it takes to climb one
of the high peaks, and to see someone on the telephone ... it's
disconcerting," says Stu Buchanan, regional director of the state
Department of Environmental Conservation.
There's no backwoods cell-phone epidemic just yet. But calls from the
wild have become noticeable recently, now that wireless phones reach
an estimated 74 million users nationwide.
What can be a mere irritant in civilization can be a lifesaver in the
wild. Rescues have been launched after timely calls for help from
remote areas. Even many "Ridge Runners," whose job is to help hikers
on the Appalachian Trail, now carry cell phones.
Problem is, cell phones aren't reliable in the wild because cell
towers tend to be far apart. Then there's the problem of getting a
phone to work in gorges, gullies and other pockets amid peaks. It's a
Catch-22 because efforts to build cell towers in remote areas are
often opposed by locals and conservationists concerned about rural
eyesores.
Even when phones can hail a signal in the backwoods, rescuers complain
about trivial "emergencies." Rangers in New York report picking up the
phone to hear hikers asking directions or complaining about sprained
wrists.
Rick Donovan, owner of an outdoor gear store in the Berkshire hills at
Great Barrington, Mass., has received cell-phone queries about how to
light the camp stove. Or worse: "They're calling my store and asking
me for a ride. What happened to the days of walking down the
mountain?"
Baxter State Park in Maine has banned the use of cell phones on park
grounds, as it had earlier excluded radios and cassette players.
Park naturalist Jean Hoekwater says the ban in part targets nuisance
calls the likes of, "Honey? Guess what I'm in front of right now. A
big moose!"
New York considered banning cell phones in the Adirondack high peaks a
few years ago. But after evaluating their benefits in an emergency,
the idea was scrubbed. However, a state-sponsored effort to discourage
frequent and non-emergency use of cell phones is to begin this summer
with things like brochures, videos and trailhead postings.
Can education work? Michele Morris, senior editor of Backpacker magazine,
calls it the key. She's hoping for new attitudes of self-reliance and
consideration.
Stephen Jacobs, an associate professor of information technology at
the Rochester Institute of Technology, predicts the problem will "auto
correct" over time as more people consider it rude to ring.
Don't expect cell phones to disappear from the woods any time soon
though. A survey by Backpacker magazine last year found cell phones a
popular item on readers' "to buy" lists.
Meanwhile, some high-end cell phones can pull in signals from
satellites, eliminating the need for towers. With the right equipment,
even the deepest, most remote gulch can be just a phone call away.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 22:57:48 -0400
From: Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9001@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Do Not Disturb
Ken M. <pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Michael Williams wrote:
>> pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com (Ken M.) wrote in <377B3C1C.7154@ix.netcom.com>:
>>> Bell Atlantic phone company of Maryland is now offering a new service
>>> called, "Do Not Disturb." The monthly fee is $3 per month.
>
>> Don't like the cost, but this should do it. I like the fact that
>> you can set this up to be active during only certain times of day,
>> such as during the legal window for telemarketing calls.
> Yes it will come in handy. Most of my troublesome calls are usually
> "Out of Area."
>> But doesn't this require you to distribute the passcode to
>> everyone? Perhaps this can best be done by specifying "extension
>> 1234" when you give out your home phone number.
> You can compile a list of 15 numbers (local or long distance) that will
> pass through. The others will have to enter the passcode "after" the
> announcement.
Does the software support having an phone number on the list that is
Caller*ID'ed as PRIVATE (ie: Call Blocked at the caller's end)? This
is one of my gripes about Caller*ID, Call Blocking (where you can
supply a list of numbers to not accept calls from) and Anonymous Call
Rejection - There is no way to REQUEST display/non-blocking of a call
that is flagged with a do-not-display flag even if by listing the
number you prove you know it. I have friends who have unlisted/unpub-
lished numbers and who have the line set to All-Call-Block who forget
to turn the blocking off when they call certain people (who know the
number) and thus my Caller*ID box will not display their number.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:05:00 -0400
From: Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9001@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations
Steven L. Cohen <CohenS@vab.alliedtech.com> wrote:
> I lived in Sicily in the early eighties. The man at the AGIP or IP
> station would actually be smoking a cigarette while holding the nozzle
> to fill your tank. They are notoriously distrustful, and suspect
> everyone getting gas will cheat somehow. The point is that there are
> no Italian benzina (gasoline) stations on the moon, so I suppose that
> was not much danger associated with his actions. With all the
> accidental and irresponsible things people do, how many gas station
> fires are there per year? It is ridiculous to think that a wireless
> telephone could produce a spark that was capable of causing an
> explosion.
I think that the people who passed these restrictions have seen "The
Birds" once too often <g>. You do remember the scene of the smoker at
the gas station. The only problem was that (I seem to remember) it
involved THROWING/DROPPING a match/cigarette in the pool of gasoline
NOT just waving a flame over it.
------------------------------
From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes)
Subject: Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 04:24:59 GMT
Organization: Interlog Internet Services
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 07:03:20 GMT,
scottp4-remove-this-to-reply@mindspring.com (Scott Peterson) wrote:
> It's fascinating that the one browser that this technique won't
> work properly with is Internet Explorer 5. The minute your route
> these ad sites to the dummy IP numbers IE5 barfs and gives you a
> "can't display this page" message. The very cynical suggest that
> Netscape will pick up this 'feature' in their next release.
Even worse is IE's favouritism with HTML executables. Try
disabling Java, Javascript, and Active-X in IE.
a) Go to a website with a Java program (Sun's baby), and view
the page. It's OK, other than the Java program not executing.
b) Go to a website with a Javascript program (NetScape's baby),
and view the page. It's OK, other than the Javascript program
not executing.
c) Go to a website with an Active-X program (MicroSoft's baby),
and view the page. IE comes to a screeching halt, and a dialog
box comes up telling you that there is an Active-X control on the
page and that IE may not display the page properly. You have to
manually dismiss the dialogue box before things continue.
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@interlog.com> procmail spamfilter
http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm
Why a fiscal conservative opposes Toronto 2008 OWE-lympics
http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/owe-lympics/owe-lympics.htm
------------------------------
From: frank <sicnarf@javanet.com>
Subject: Re: Help! Dial-up on a Party Line!
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 08:18:37 -0700
There are two things he probably has that wont allow him to call out,
he is a tip on a two party which means you cant draw dial tone with a
metalic set or a modem looking for dial tone and he probably has
rotary service. To get dial tone pick up a phone then click on your
dial up connection, when you hear dialtone on the modem hang up the
phone and the modem will dial. Now if you have rotary service set the
dial up connection to pulse dial and it should work. The CO doesn't know
or care whats making the call,the tricky part is getting dial tone.
Good luck,
Frank
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations
Date: 4 Jul 1999 00:34:58 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:55:49 -0400 , CohenS@vab.alliedtech.com allegedly said
> I lived in Sicily in the early eighties. The man at the AGIP or IP
> station would actually be smoking a cigarette while holding the nozzle
> to fill your tank. They are notoriously distrustful, and suspect
> everyone getting gas will cheat somehow. The point is that there are
> no Italian benzina (gasoline) stations on the moon, so I suppose that
> was not much danger associated with his actions. With all the
> accidental and irresponsible things people do, how many gas station
> fires are there per year? It is ridiculous to think that a wireless
> telephone could produce a spark that was capable of causing an
> explosion.
I've watched NASCAR races where there will be an accident and a gas
spill, and someone else's exhaust fumes ignited the gas. The fumes are
very volatile, and they might not ignite *every* time something like
this happens, but ...
People who are smoking while pumping gas are (a) unbelievably stupid,
(b) incredibly selfish ("Yeah, I don't care if I'm endangering
everyone else, just as long as I get my fix"), and (c) lucky if they
don't cause any problems.
So the guy at the Sicilian service station was distrustful. Fine. He
could have put his cigarette out before pumping the customers' gas.
And what *exactly* do gas stations on the moon have to do with this
argument?
Anyhow, to get to the point: Yeah, it's probably extremely unlikely
that the cell phone will ignite the gas fumes. It's not like having a
gas leak in your house, where there is probably a big gas buildup by
the time you realize the leak is there, and using the phone may very
well end up causing your house to go into orbit. :) But ... why take
chances?
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
------------------------------
From: Kamal Southall <kamals@mpowernet.com>
Subject: An Up to Date Listing of US LATA Codes Wanted
Date: 03 Jul 1999 16:45:48 PDT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Reply-To: kamals@mpowernet.com
Hello, good day.
Where can I find, online, an up to date listing of the LATAs in the
Continental US?
I tried looking at Bellcore's (Telcordia) site and found nothing :-/
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: BRMannin@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:33:19 EDT
Subject: Dispute About Old Prefix Names
My mother and I cannot agree on some of the old prefixes for Seattle
area before all numbers. Any idea where we could verify that info?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Go to the Seattle Public Library and
ask to see very old telephone directories from the 1940-50's era. You
will probably need to ask for them; I doubt they will be just on open
shelves. They are probably stored away somewhere, or they may very
likely be on microfilm which will have to be fetched from wherever
they store it. Ask at the reference desk for help in locating the
books. microfilms, etc. Then review the information pages in the front
of the directories at things like, 'your local calling area', and
'how to call the business office from your exchange'. That should
resolve any disputes. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 18:02:26 -0700
From: Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org>
Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Status
> Well, we all know how that 'millions of dollars in stolen software
> and damages to our computer' story goes. I have yet to see a telco
> or government computer get cracked that didn't have 'millions of
> dollars in software stolen and millions of dollars in manpower time
> required to fix the damages, etc ' ... and based on the number of
> times this has occurred in the past decade, I am surprised the whole
> industry hasn't gone bankrupt. How many 'millions of dollars' can they
> afford to spend at one time? (snicker) ... either that or a few
> sysadmins I've been privileged to work with at one time or another
> are not as impoverished as they claim. Why does the federal govern-
> ment assume all of its citizens are idiots?
And its also interesting to bring up a point that was made by the
editors of 2600 Magazine ... these companies (e.g., Motorola, etc.)
claim to have had losses in the millions of dollars, except that the
companies in question never reported the losses to their shareholders
in their earnings statements filed with the SEC. (And in some cases,
the figures were quite obviously arbitrary numbers picked out of the
air for maximum effect).
For more info, see http://www.2600.com/2600new/042299.html ...
I'm as "anti-cracker" as the next person, but its painfully obvious
that Mitnick has gotten the shaft by the system because he made a fool
of them. The fact that he was "caught" by a reporter and another
cracker in possession of equipment he wasn't legally allowed to
possess gets overlooked by the Feds, because its not a "glamorous"
part of the story ...
D
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When a corporation suffers the sort of
loss -- in the millions of dollars, etc -- as some of them have claimed
as a result of 'hackers' (most of them have no idea what the word
'cracker' means, they think it is something you have with a bowl of
soup) they are supposed to report such substantial losses to their
shareholders. Its the law, and its for the protection of shareholders.
Of course they know its nonsense, there was no such loss in any amount
even closely approaching what was claimed. Its like someone backing
into your car by accident and slightly denting the fender, then you
inflate the claim to the insurance company. Same kind of fraud, so
they do not report such a thing to their shareholders because a few
company executives might wind up in jail if they did make such a
fraudulent report. They can tell the {New York Times} if they wish and
have it printed in the next morning's edition of the Holy Bible, in
the section where the Prophet Markoff speaks; but like they say, its
okay to lie, and its okay to be under oath; just don't do both at the
same time if you want to stay out of jail.
Yes, Kevin Mitnick was guilty. But if you recall, in this Digest back
in 1995 I editorialized at the time that the one thing you do not do
is you do not mock or trivialize your probation officer. While on
probation, Kevin tampered with his probation officer's telephone,
among other things. You do not do self-destructive things like that.
I forget the details ... did he tap the P.O.'s phone calls or do
something at the central office switch to divert the calls? Whatever ...
Kevin, in his (I hope since outgrown) immaturity did not realize
that those are people you stay a thousand miles away from. You treat
them like lepers, you avoid them at all costs.
Guilty or innocent, no difference; like police officers they'll turn
on you in a minute if they take a dislike to you or have prejudice
about you because of your nationality, lifestyle, sexual orientation
or whatever. If you are not guilty, there is always something you can
be found guilty of. And unlike a police officer, who has to specifi-
cally make an effort to get you put away, all the probation officer
has to do is sign off on it; the probation officer violates you one
day and the sheriff is at your door the next day or sooner, as poor
Kevin would have found out had he hung around town a day or two
longer. (smile).
Okay, so he made fools of them, the wisdom of which I discuss in the
above paragraph, then he stayed on the lam for over two years. In
1997 after having been caught and in custody for two years, they
sentence him to a total of three years, meaning for most people an
immediate release for time served. But they say hang on, we have more
charges coming, and for the past two years, since 1997 things have
been 'on hold'. Now they are having trouble justifying all those
'millions of dollars in stolen software and cellular ESN codes, etc'
so they just hold him in custody. Those charges should have been easy
enough to resolve back in 1995 when they caught him; essentially they
have had four years to do so. This is why I said what I did originally
which caused Bill Levant to take such umbrage: Mitnick has been kept
in prison for four years with no trial. He should be released immediatly.
And Kevin, if you do get released any time soon, I hope your friends
-- your good, *true* friends -- will take you aside, try and beat
some sense into your head, and keep you out of further trouble. I
think the expression is, you'll need to start blowing your nose with
a silk handkerchief, because you know they'll be waiting patiently
or not so patiently with their mouths watering for a chance to get
you back in 'the system', you menace, you danger to the community, you!
And this time, if they give you probation again, maybe you will get
a liberal probation officer; one who is idealistic and believes in
rehabilitation and all that. Do just as you are told, and don't be
a smart aleck. No one likes smart alecks, especially not judges and
probation officers, or haven't you found that out already? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Sheryl Myers <smyers@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 03:27:33 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Does anyone know what frequency Orange operates on in Israel (e.g.
European 900? US 1900? The 1800 they are on in Israel?
------------------------------
From: Michael Muderick <am004d@netaxs.com>
Subject: 1A2 Key System Adapters For Modems
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 06:53:37 EDT
There are 1A2 adapters available which will operate as the extra pair
of hook-switch adapters for A-lead control of lights and hold. This
would let your modem work on a key system. Other than the light
indicating an off-hook position, the only down side of not using the
adapter is the 30-40 second time-out, after the modem hangs up before
the system would hang up the phone line. If you connect the modem
right to the phone line, that problem goes away. Mike Sandman
(mike@sandman.com) sells such adapters.
Mike@muderick.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mike Sandman has long been a very
loyal supporter of this Digest, and a very trustworthy member of
the net community. In addition to what is discussed above, he has
a catalog full of 'goodies' for use on telephone systems as well
as individual phones. Anyone who does not have a copy of his complete
catalog is urged to obtain one as soon as possible. If Mike does
not stock it for your phone, chances are it isn't made. Use the
address shown in the message above. PAT]
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 22:29:01 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) spake thusly and wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I like your idea, but because of the
> amount of spam which comes to the telecom mailbox, I could easily
> spend my entire day prosecuting, persecuting, having fits, raising
> hell and do nothing else. 20-25 pieces of spam each day is about the
> norm here, and that is just what does not get filtered out before I
> get it. PAT]
I just take a moment and forward each one with headers to the
postmaster of the actual site that delivered it with a cc to
uce@ftc.gov (probably a futile gesture, but at least it gives me a
warm fuzzy feeling).
I have a substantial collection of thank you notes from postmasters
and ISPs all over the world.
Regards,
Steve
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 00:45:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Anonymous Postings in Digest
From: Keelan Lightfoot <keelan@mail.bzzzzzz.com>
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I like your idea, but because of the
> amount of spam which comes to the telecom mailbox, I could easily
> spend my entire day prosecuting, persecuting, having fits, raising
> hell and do nothing else. 20-25 pieces of spam each day is about the
> norm here, and that is just what does not get filtered out before I
> get it. PAT]
The people that run my e-mail server use a service called ORBS (Open
Relay Behaviour-modification System), that blocks any message being
sent through an open relay -- This means junk-mail which is sent
through an unknowing 3rd party server. I have found that ORBS greatly
reduced the amount of junk-mail I was recieving, as opposed to when my
server was not using ORBS.
You can have a look at what it is at:
http://www.orbs.org
Maybe it could help reduce your junk-mail load?
Keelan Lightfoot
PS: I loved the new Tribute to the Telephone -- I remember looking at
before you 'took it under your wing' (For which I am grateful), and I
was lost at that site for a few evenings in a row :) I don't miss the
popup banners one bit :)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Based on my total volume of incoming
mail each day -- several hundred pieces -- a couple dozen that are
spam is not a big deal, besides I like having a good laugh once in
awhile, seeing their ridiculous claims. Maybe some of the creators
of spam should get jobs writing press releases for the FBI. That way
their press releases would get good coverage (like, spammed at least
a dozen times to each person on the net), the amount of damage done
would read like any spammer's account of the amount of money to be
be made on the net; they should get along fine together, like two
peas in a pot. Introduce your favorite spammer to your favorite FBI
agent today.
Ummm ... I said 'pot' above, didn't I? Its not pot with a 't' on the
end, its pod, with a 'd' on the end. Its paw-DUH, not paw-TUH. I'll
try to keep that straight in the future ... paw-DUH .... paw-DUH.
(Paraphrased from a Laurel and Hardy movie.)
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #189
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 4 23:41:51 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA15902;
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:41:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:41:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907050341.XAA15902@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #190
TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Jul 99 23:41:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 190
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet (A.Ross)
Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (Hudson Leighton)
Wanting a Particular Area Code and Call Forwarding (Mark Claypool)
Re: 'Til All Success Is Nobleness (Steven J. Sobol)
Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (Alan Boritz)
Re: Anonymous Surfing For Users (Steve Winter)
Re: Secret Surfer Question (Frank)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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, 4 Jul 1999 12:30:00 -0700
From: Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 to 15 Feet
herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) wrote:
> I don't want them to find me! If they can find me in an emergency
> situation they can find me when I didn't brush my teeth! BIG BROTHER --
> I'd sooner not be found.
> In article <telecom19.185.5@telecom-digest.org>, J.F. Mezei
> <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> I may be thick, but do they seriously expect to retrofit all handsets to
>> incorporate that mini-GPS unit and logic ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>> I was really hoping that they would have use network infrastruture to
>> locate the SIGNAL. Heck, an imprecise measurement would be sufficient
>> if emergency vehicles were equipped with a locator device to pinpoint
>> that phone's location. Analog phone networks have had this equipment
>> for a long time to find fraudsters.
There is another, very credible, entrant in this race to do accurate
handset location. It is a proprietary product from a company called
SnapTrack. There was an article about their efforts in the WSJ of this past
June 24, 1999, entitled "SnapTrack Develops a System to Locate Cell-Phone
Callers."
I have been told that the SnapTrack product does raw signal timing
measurements on the GPS signals (they are spread spectrum, high rate PN
modulation, basically) in the handset. The handset then transmits those
measurements to the fixed network for processing. While full GPS receiver
functionality can be put in the phone, this scheme a) makes the phone less
costly/complex, and b) allows the deliberatly introduced errors in the GPS
signal to be reduced via the differential GPS principle. The deliberately
introduced GPS errors are relatively uniform over a large area.
Measurements by a fixed site that already knows its location very
accurately can therefore be used to determine the local correction to the
GPS-estimate for nearby receivers. The performance of this system has been
impressive in recent field trials with the carriers.
I'm not sure what the Lucent product does, but I expect that it is
something similar.
Deployment, I presume, will be by evolution & normal turnover of equipment.
As you know, there is an FCC-mandated requirement that the carriers be able
to do handset location fairly accurately for purposes of 911 emergency
services - finding the person trapped in the burning building, that kind of
thing. This rule takes effect in October 2001. What happens with respect to
those tens of millions of existing handsets, I don't know. What has been
done in the past is to report only serving cell & sector, which can be a
fairly large area - many tens of square km.
There were changes put into the US CDMA air interface spec that facilitate
the used of timing information from that signal as a location means -
basically a time-difference-of-arrival scheme, exploiting the fact that
CDMA systems are precisely synchronized via a GPS timing reference at each
cell site. This method requires a cooperative transmit power increase on
the part of the target handset, commanded by the fixed network when it
wants to do a measurement. It might be thought that measurements could be
done on the received signals without any special action. Problem is power
control. If the handset is very close to one cell site and distant from
others, then the signal will be power controlled down so far that it cannot
be measured from the more distant sites.
Accurate location of the old analog FM sets has never been practiced other
than to report serving cell and sector. As a practical matter, it is
difficult to do signal-based location to an accuracy better than, roughly,
the velocity of light divided by the reciprocal signal bandwidth. The 30
kHz BW FM signals would give an accuracy of the order of 3E8 mps/30 kHz ‰
10 km ... completely inadequate. The corresponding number for CDMA is about
1/4 km, and it can be improved a bit (to a fraction of a chip) by very
careful, long measurements. The GPS thing can be quite a bit better, if
there are enough satellite signal & time to do the measurements on them.
Your reader who thinks that handsets can be located from emergency vehicles
reflects the same kind of wishful thinking that was expressed by the US
government serveral years ago, at a conference on E-911 locating. We had to
tell them that, unless they were prepared to implement a full-blown mobile
cell site in all those fire trucks, that this wouldn't work. They seemed to
envision the kind of thing that you might find in an old WW-II spy movie -
the van driving down the street with the rotating antenna on the roof to
find the spys from their radio transmissions. Not possible in any reliable,
practical way, and for several reasons.
All of these schemes require considerable care in implementation, and are
subject to potential ambiguities due to multipath, i.e. measuring signals
that have NOT come by the geometrically direct path.
Some folks, no doubt, would like to do is use the location capability for
crass commercialism, and perhaps even more nefarious purposes. Like Herb, I
find the Big Brother-ish aspect of this more than a little disturbing.
Statutory oversight may be necessary to forestall the obvious privacy
problems.
-- Best
-- Arthur
Text of WSJ article, June 24, 1999 follows
Under the Radar
SnapTrack Develops a System
To Locate Cell-Phone Callers
By NICOLE HARRIS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
SnapTrack Inc. wants to know exactly where you are,
wherever you go.
The closely held company uses satellite technology to
pinpoint a cell phone's exact location. Some see the
idea as an important safety feature. Cell-phone
companies view it as a way to offer nifty
location-based services such as weather updates and
traffic reports. Others see it as a troubling blow to
privacy. Regardless, development of the technology will
proceed, driven by a mandate from the Federal
Communications Commission requiring all wireless-phone
companies to be able to locate the origin of a 911 call
by October 2001.
Carriers have two choices to provide
location-based services. One is to upgrade
communications towers and other parts of a network so
safety officials can estimate where a call originates
based on which cellular towers are picking up the
signal. SnapTrack's chief executive, Steve Poizner,
however, has another answer. He argues that by using
enhanced satellite technology in the phone itself,
carriers won't have to rebuild their network
infrastructure, saving millions of dollars.
The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to
host a roundtable discussion with wireless carriers and
location-based technology providers on Monday to talk
about technical issues regarding both network-based and
handset-based solutions for location-based services.
Global Positioning
Cell-phone executives are still weighing their options,
but price and reliability are key factors. Says Oliver
Valente, a technology vice president in Sprint Corp.'s
wireless division: "We don't want to commit ourselves
prematurely."
SnapTrack's patented technology blends the location
capabilities of the U.S. government's
global-positioning satellite system with the nation's
wireless networks. A SnapTrack-enabled phone captures a
"snapshot" of the signal being beamed down from the
satellites. Using a small chip placed in the phone,
SnapTrack's software starts to process that signal,
beginning the calculation of the caller's location.
The signal is then sent over the wireless network to a
small server computer placed in the phone company's
central hub, where it completes the calculation
process. By splitting the processing job, SnapTrack's
technology saves power consumption in the phone and
battery life isn't affected.
Cost-Saving Feature
More significantly, by sharing circuitry SnapTrack's
system requires less hardware than conventional
satellite technology -- another cost-saving feature for
the carriers, Mr. Poizner says. Adding SnapTrack's
system to a phone is expected to cost handset
manufacturers only $5 to $10 more per unit, he says.
SnapTrack has also developed technology that enables
the satellite signal to be read indoors or in densely
populated areas. That could be an important
breakthrough, since conventional satellite receivers
need an unobstructed path to the sky to operate
reliably.
Such improvements in satellite technology have caught
the attention of wireless giants such as Motorola Inc.
"They have a unique approach to an existing
technology," says Tony Bugg, strategic marketing and
alliances manager at Motorola's semiconductor-products
sector. Motorola eventually became an investor in
SnapTrack and in April agreed to license the technology
to use in its phones.
Chip maker Texas Instruments Inc. also saw promise in
SnapTrack. The company last summer invested several
million dollars in SnapTrack through a venture fund it
uses to boost new ideas for digital-signal processors.
TI will also license SnapTrack's technology to build an
automatic locating feature into chips it produces for
wireless phones.
'Very Impressive'
Meanwhile, SnapTrack has held extensive tests of the
technology in an attempt to win over wireless carriers.
In Tampa, Fla., the company recently teamed up with
carriers including AirTouch Communications Inc.,
Ameritech Corp. and GTE Corp. for field trials. The
results showed about 90% accuracy in call location, to
within an average of 10 meters to 20 meters. "It was
very impressive," says Craig Farrill, AirTouch's vice
president of strategic technology.
Founded in 1995, the San Jose, Calif., company today
has 50 employees and has raised $20 million in venture
capital and strategic investments. Mr. Poizner says the
product should be commercially available in late 2000.
In a nod to privacy concerns, users will be able to
turn off the location feature.
Still, challenges remain. It faces formidable
competitors in companies such as TruePosition Inc. and
U.S. Wireless Corp. Both are rushing to build the
network solutions for carriers. One advantage of that
solution: All cell-phone users on the network are able
to use the location-based services, even those who
don't have a satellite-enabled phone.
Mr. Poizner, however, is undaunted. He says the new
location-based services for wireless customers, such as
using a cell phone to download directions to Aunt
Mary's house or to find the nearest Hilton, will ignite
demand for the technology.
Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
End of WSJ article ********
-- Dr. Arthur Ross
2325 East Orangewood Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730
Phone: 602-371-9708
Fax : 602-336-7074
------------------------------
From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:21:48 -0500
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.
In article <telecom19.188.7@telecom-digest.org>, John P Sinkiewicz
<johnsink@juno.com> wrote:
> Dear Telecom Digest:
> A friend of mine has suggested that I keep a rotary dial telephone on
> hand in case the phone company loses its ability to detect DTMF. Is
> there any validity in this advice?
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say there is no validity to
> that advice. What if instead of 'losing the ability to detect DTMF'
> they instead 'lost the ability to provide dial tone'? Or what if
> like on the second Sunday in May, 1988 -- Mother's Day -- a fire
> started and burned down the telephone company completely such as
> happened in the Chicago area. If what you suggest were to happen,
> I suspect the technicians would get rather frantic and start
> looking into the problem immediatly to cure it. PAT]
But a good idea is to have a plain phone somewhere so that when the
power goes out and your fancy cordless phone doesn't work you can
still make and receive phone calls.
Also a sign of a good phone phone system install is a plain phone on
the wall next to the "box" that is directly hooked to the master phone
number for when the power dies.
http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well that I will agree with; I definitly
'second the motion'. There are so many things that can cause failure
at the subsciber end of the line, it is good to have a phone which
is tied right into the line bypassing all switchboards, etc.
When my associate who used to have the Skokie Bus Station got a couple
of new phones, I was there the day an installer for Nortel came out
to put them in. Totally electronic key sets with two lines, the thing
that caught my eye immediatly was an item in the user manual which said
that in the event of a power outage, only the first line would be able
to send/receive calls and that there would be no visual or audible
indicators.
So without saying why, I told the Nortel installer I wanted one (of
the two) phones to be installed with the second line and the first
line swapped; that is have one of the two instruments think based on
its wiring that the second (from the CO) line was its 'first line'
and vice versa. Big deal, in one of the modular wall boxes swap the
red/green connectors with the yellow/black connectors. This way in
the event of a power outage, there is always some phone on the
premises which thinks it has 'line one'.
The Nortel installer was oh so indignant about that, demanding to
know why I wanted that and insisting I knew not of what I was
speaking. I told him those flimsy, two-bit transformers he had for
each phone (you plug in an outlet, then insert a small plug in the
back of the phone to provide the ringing, the hold circuit, the
second line switch-in, and all that) looked to me like the cheapest
things I had ever seen, and they would probably blow up with the
first power surge to come along. He would absolutely have none of it,
and said anytime anything went wrong 'all you have to do is call our
repair service'. Yeah, and wait a couple days for someone to come out
and fix it. I made him do it the way I wanted, and told him if he
didn't I would just change it as soon as he left anyway. After the
usual bluster about how that would void the warranty and all that,
I reminded him I was not touching the inside of his precious phones
in any way, I was merely reversing two sets of two wires each at the
the modular jack for one phone in order to have both phone lines from
the central office appear to be 'line one' on the instruments.
Would you believe he was gone two days and one of the little transformers
went out? Fortunatly I have a few spare Radio Shack transformers
laying around of the same CD voltage and amperage output, so I put
one of those on to get the service going again. When I called the
supplier for Nortel they were quite nice about it and sent me five or
six transformers; 'just keep a few handy if this happens again'. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Mark Claypool <qamar@pobox.com>
Subject: Wanting a Particular Area Code and Call Forwarding
Date: 4 Jul 1999 21:54:40 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS
I want a phone number starting with the area code of an adjacent
county. One way to do this is to buy a cellular phone based in that
county with the call forwarding option. My number will be in the
desired area code, and the phone will forward the calls to my real
number. Unfortunately this can be a bit expensive with the call
forwarding being charged at various rates by providers. Are there any
other ways to do what I'm trying to do?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 17:56:18 -0400
From: Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net>
Subject: Re: 'Til All Success Is Nobleness
In comp.dcom.telecom, you wrote:
> everything else she has to do; the woman behind her replies that she
> also had to cancel some of her plans because of this. Mother asks
> what we can possibly do now? ... and the woman behind her replies,
> 'I am just hoping I am lucky enough to be selected to serve ...'
Yeah, well, I am hoping I never have to be called for jury duty
because I'm going to end up having to take a day off without pay just
to find out if I'm on the jury, and then if I'm lucky I get $20 a day.
But I still think the US is a cool place to live.
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am lucky if I get $20 some days also.
I do not worry that much about the jury pay, and I think many or most
companies pay the salary of their employee anyway if called to serve
on a jury. What I actually find much more annoying is that even though
the person on trial asked to have a jury make the decision, a judge
can still overrule it if he wishes. Its like the judge is saying 'if
you want a jury you can have one, and as long as the jury reaches the
decision I feel is correct we will go along with it.' Look how many
times a jury will find someone guilty then the person's attorney will
ask to have the jury verdict tossed out and the judge goes along with
it. Or the jury awards a certain sum of money to an injured party and
then a judge comes along and says no, I think such and such is better.
My reaction would be then why the hell did you bother wasting my time
and asking my opinion when you planned on substituting yours for
mine anyway? If a person asks for a jury trial he should be stuck with
the results of the jury, period.
As for myself, if I ever went on trial for anything, I would **NEVER**
opt for a jury trial. I'd opt for a bench trial anyday. All a jury
trial accomplishes is to make the whole matter go on two or three days
longer than necessary, and run the lawyer's bill up even higher than
it was before. Ask any lawyer the difference in his fee for handling
something 'if it has to go to trial' or can get settled out of court;
and if it has to go to trial, the difference in his fees if he has
to select a jury to go with it, versus just the judge. PAT]
------------------------------
From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 13:18:58 -0400
In article <telecom19.187.11@telecom-digest.org>, Wlevant@aol.com
(Bill Levant) wrote:
>> like whether or not you can use standard phones or modems on the lines
> Each trunk on the key system uses three pairs: voice, control
> ("A-lead") and lights. The A-leads are used to control the lights,
> and to place calls on hold.
> If you are going to use a single-line phone or modem, you have to
> make sure it's wired to provide A-lead control; otherwise, the lights
> won't light when the thing goes off hook (and won't stop flashing if
> you answer from single-line equipment) and trying to hang up may
> actually place the calls on hold instead.
> It's fairly easy to re-wire an old Bell single-line phone (though I
> don't know the particulars); I would think that you need either a
> specially-designed model (or an adaptor) for a single-line modem to
> work.
No, Bill, it's not easy at all. If the phone wasn't manufactured with
an extra switch-hook contact closure, it can't be done. Not all 500
or 2500 series simple sets had them. Good luck trying to find them on
newer products.
------------------------------
From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winter)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Surfing For Users
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 22:30:02 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: support@sellcom.com
TELECOM Digest Editor spake thusly and wrote:
> And there is also a place to fill in some numbers if you are 'behind
> a fire wall'. You fill in numbers there to show what proxy address
> is serving you. If you fill in those blanks correctly, thats who the
> other site thinks you are. Let's just say I streamlined the process
> and made it easier for the guys to surf without worrying about someone
> trying to spy on them or hurt them in some way. PAT]
Hurt can go both ways. We are currently dealing with a situation
where a rather large credit card order was placed and delivered to
the billing address of the cardholder.
A short time later we received a communication from the cardholder
claiming they just returned from vacation and knew nothing about the
order, but it turned out they didn't want to involve the police.
I did however file a criminal complaint regarding the matter and
contacted the ISP whose service was used to place the order who
were less than delighted regarding such use of their services and
have been in contact back with the police etc.
This matter is currently unresolved.
How would your anon service handle SSL secure connections?
Steve Winter
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a customer said to me that their
credit card had been used fraudulently at my place of business so
they were disputing and refusing to pay for a charge on their card
(thus resulting in a chargeback to me) and they 'did not want to
involve the police' that would throw up a big red flag. I would
ask them why they did not want to 'involve the police'. If the
merchandise was shipped out, as I suppose would be the case if the
transaction took place over the net, then you are going to have a
signature on file for the delivery.
If the name stated by the signature was that person's name then I
would bluntly tell them we are going to go one of two ways: either you
'involve the police' and provide me with a copy of the police report
so that I can in turn (a) file it with my insurance carrier covering
stolen merchandise and (b) include it as a loss on my income tax
report or if you do not want to involve the police then since I have a
delivery signature on file and the merchandise has not been returned
to me you can either pay for it or get sued. I would provide a copy of
the signature for their examination, and if they stated it was not
their signature then you have to take it further if you wish.
If the delivery company or post office cannot provide a signature, or
there is indication that delivery was made to a party different than
the one on record (and here, the AVS -- Address Verification Service
-- offered by online credit card processors is a big help) then your
complaint is with the delivery company. You should never ship out
merchandise to any address other than the address on the credit card
*as verified in the sales authorization/credit approval process*.
Someone saying 'my credit card was abused; I did not make the
telephone order purchase; I am not going to pay for it; and I am
not going to file a police report' is a well-known scam. Of course
they ordered it, of course they received it. I would say they have
good reason for not wanting the police involved, wouldn't you? Their
hope of course is that their plaintive whining about being a 'poor
innocent consumer, abused by a big corporate bully that has its
records all wrong' is going to catch on.
What about if someone calls on the phone and places an order, and
they reach you from a payphone somewhere and use a lot of tricks to
get the connection; then they defraud you out of merchandise as well.
Do you say the phone company was at fault for that? If you ran a
'real' store where shoppers came in and out all day, you would have
a security guard, cameras or some sort of shoplifting deterrent in
place. You would ask for identification sometimes wouldn't you? The
same thing applies on the net. Study up on the rather sophisticated
validation processes used by the telemarketing firms. I am sure you
know all of that. I am well aware that consumers can be just as
dishonest as companies; often times more so. And I have been around
on the net long enough to know that everytime a consumer writes to
a Usenet newsgroup with a horror story of how they were abused by
some corporation, there are enough naive netters available to read
it, believe it, cluck their tongues about it and keep on spreading
the story about how awful Corporation X treated Miss Innocent until
there is no chance of the facts ever being heard correctly, even
though Corporation X is blameless. Consumers can be crooks also.
You are the guy running the company on the net, you are expected to
take what actions you need to take to protect your merchandise. I
do not encourage anyone to steal or commit fraud using the net; and
my only interest in secret-surfer is in providing HONEST people who
want privacy with a little extra measure of it. I want to provide
netters who are afraid of having their IP address or other identify-
ing details about themselves show up in the logs of 'controversial'
web sites with a way to visit sites of interest anonymously. I want
to deny commercial web sites operated for the express purpose of
collecting personal data on netters the ability to do so.
And I will admit to a little bias, my own blind spot as it were: I
am not enthusiastic about the commercialization of the web which has
gone on a few years now. And its nothing personal to you Steve, but
if I can be just one more thorn in their side, one more reason that
it is hard or impractical to do business on the net and a few of
them closed their web sites and left, I'd like that. :) I'd like
to see the net in general and the web in particular go back to the
way things were in the early to middle nineties and before, when it
was used for sharing EDUcational resources. Secret Surfer, or
Operator Pat as I call the thing is first and foremost a way to
provide netters with privacy. If there are some unintended side
affects for commercial sites, well, that's the breaks.
I do not know how well Operator Pat will work with SSL arrangements.
You might want to run some tests against known results and see what
happens. You are the person with the merchandise to protect after
all. Me, I am more interested in protecting the guys who do not want
all the commercial web sites knowing their private business. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Frank <frank@telecom-digest.zzn.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:39:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Secret Surfer Question
Pat responded:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes you can connect to a site which
> requires cookies if you choose. It is up to you if you leave cookies
> turned on or not. Cookies can pose a risk, they can be an invasion
> of privacy.If you choose to visit a site which requires cookies, and
> if you allow cookies on your machine then the site will ask *the
> proxy* if it wishes to have cookies, and you will answer yes, and
> the site will deliver cookies *to the proxy* which is who it thinks
> is calling.
You proceeded to give an example where cookies are indeed correctly
exchanged. But if you try to connect to
http://telecom-digest.zzn.com/email/login/login.asp via the Operator
Pat Secret Surfer page, you will get two cookies successfully
exchanged on the way to the login page, but after you try to log in,
the third cookie is never exchanged, and instead of logging in, it
goes to the errCookie page and says you need to turn on cookies.
This is the problem I was mentioning, because it doesn't only happen
there, but other sites (where a login is required) complain about
cookies too. Somehow, that third cookie gets lost on its way to the
browser, consistently. So I don't think the cookie issue is quite as
straight forward as you imply. Try it (www.my-deja.com is another site
which fails the same way because of cookies).
Frank
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After getting your latest letter, I did
in fact ask Operator Pat to connect my call to My Yahoo, and I got
the same results you got with Deja ... it failed on the third cookie
there also ... that's a shame! :) Then I went and tried it on the
web-based email at http://telecom-digest.zzn.com/email/login/login.asp
and it failed on the third cookie there also ... you caught something
I had not checked before, and I appreciate your diligence. I wonder
what sort of sick person, what sort of Evil Webmaster, would have
stuck those cookies in there like that? :)
It wasn't me. All I can say is that if Operator Pat is unable to
connect your call to any particular site -- including /postoffice, our
very own anonymous email area -- (oooh, that stings!) then you will
just have to browse in the clear for that particular transaction. I'd
like to think you trust me enough to browse in the clear when on the
http://telecom-digest.org site anyway, but then my competitors down
the hall at www.nudeteens-R-us.com (watch them act out! just $39.95
per visit conveniently charged to your phone bill!) feel the same way
I guess.
If http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html helps anyone in the
legitimate way I have intended, feel free to use it as often as you
want. Don't forget I like to eat at places other than Burger King
once in a while also. Thanks. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #190
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 5 02:27:19 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA20946;
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 02:27:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 02:27:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907050627.CAA20946@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #191
TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Jul 99 02:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 191
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Mobile Phones Splash the Canvas of Charlotte Scene (Stan Schwartz)
Re: Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cell Phones Invade Wilderness (J. Nagle)
Re: Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cell Phones Invade Wilderness (S. Cline)
Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Bill Newkirk)
Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (pastark@cloud9.net)
Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Stanley Cline)
Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz (michael@ablecomm.com)
Re: Horrible Data Connection (Dave O'Shea)
Re: Any Other Phone Racers? (michael@ablecomm.com)
Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (L. Winson)
Re: Wanting a Particular Area Code and Call Forwarding (John R. Levine)
Re: Spam Blocking (John R. Levine)
Re: Spam Blocking (Danny Burstein)
Re: Do Not Disturb (Ken M.)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: stannc.no1spam@yahoo.com
From: Stan Schwartz <stannc.no1spam@yahoo.com>
Subject: Mobile Phones Splash the Canvas of Charlotte Scene
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 01:33:49 -0400
They're everywhere
{The Charlotte Observer}, published 07/05/99
By DAVID BORAKS
Staff Writer
Kathleen Zemaitis has owned a mobile phone for five years, but used it
only sparingly until a year ago, when her public relations and
marketing business began keeping her away from her home office. Now
she can't live without it.
``I live in my car, so calling and confirming meetings, discussing
assignments and so on all happens on my mobile phone,'' said the
33-year-old Charlottean. The phone also lets her stay in touch with
her nanny, who cares for Zemaitis' 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old
son.
Zemaitis is among the legions of American mobile phone users -- more
than 70 million at last count. An estimated 40 percent of U.S.
households now own at least one, and analysts say the number of users
is growing 25 percent a year.
Improved technology, lower prices and more services to choose from
have made mobile phones more attractive to consumers as well as
businesspeople, traditionally the primary users.
``It's cheaper now. Wireless is more a daily way of life. It's really
becoming more mainstream,'' said Mark Lowenstein, who studies the
industry for Boston-based research firm The Yankee Group.
Meanwhile, analysts say the trend appears even more pronounced in
fast-growing, economically healthy metropolitan areas such as
Charlotte.
Sprint PCS, one of six competitors in the Carolinas, estimates 29
percent of Charlotteans have mobile phones. Nationwide, 25.6 percent
of Americans had the devices at the end of 1998, up from just 16.6 two
years earlier, said Christopher Larsen, a wireless industry analyst
for Prudential Securities, a New York brokerage.
When only adults are considered, the Charlotte metro area ranked No. 2
in one nationwide survey last year with an estimated 54 percent of
adults owning a mobile phone. Only Chicago was higher. Exact figures
are hard to come by because mobile phone companies won't disclose
their subscriber numbers.
It doesn't take research to figure out that mobile phones are popular
with Carolinians. Just look around.
There's the twentysomething woman at the bar at a trendy Davidson
restaurant, pulling a phone out of her purse and chatting while her
date is in the men's room.
There go dozens of rush-hour drivers, speeding past Duke Energy's
Charlotte headquarters toward highway on-ramps, one hand on the wheel
and the other cradling a phone.
There's the construction worker in line at an I-77 Burger King,
barking Spanish into a Nextel two-way radio/phone to check his
buddies' burger orders.
Sometimes it seems everyone's got a phone in a purse or clipped to a
belt.
Analysts and industry officials aren't exactly sure why mobile phones
are so popular here, though there are plenty of theories.
For one thing, the arrival of four wireless phone competitors here
since 1996 has driven down prices and made the services more
affordable. New and established companies have expanded their networks
of antenna towers beyond cities and highway corridors, so the phones
work in more places than ever before.
Many carriers also have introduced prepaid calling plans designed to
bring in users with credit troubles, college students or others who
want a tight rein on use.
Meanwhile, technological advances have improved voice quality, made
phones smaller, extended battery life and helped lower companies'
costs so they can offer lower prices.
All these factors are combining to broaden mobile phones into a
mass-market phenomenon in Charlotte and elsewhere.
``What's been a sort of a business focus is about to leap into being a
consumer one,'' said Andy Sukawaty, chief executive of Sprint PCS,
which began offering service in North Carolina last fall.
Sprint, AT&T Wireless and other national companies, as well as
regional carriers such as BellSouth Mobility DCS, have tried to lead
the revolution with prices and ad campaigns aimed at consumers.
``It's your life, don't miss it'' was BellSouth's slogan when it began
offering service in the Charlotte area three years ago. Slick
television spots featured soccer moms and commuter dads using their
BellSouth phones.
To reach a mass market, competitors have begun selling their phones
not just through mobile phone stores, but also through mainstream
outlets, including department and consumer electronics stores, office
retailers and even grocery stores.
Said Sprint's Sukawaty: ``We believe this is a lifestyle product, just
like an automobile, just like an oven, or just like a radio. People
are going to want to have these devices in their lives.''
Gadgets to love
New technology also is helping to win converts, even creating fads
among mobile phone fans. Whose phone is smaller? Whose is sexier?
Whose gets e-mail or sends messages?
Next-generation digital phones offer improved voice quality and
battery life. They also are sleeker, smaller and more powerful, able
to double as personal organizers by incorporating calendars, address
books and even rudimentary electronic games.
Unlike traditional cellular phones that sometimes deliver scratchy
signals and even cut off, new phones and systems deliver a signal
that, in some cases, rivals that of a standard land-line telephone.
The new technology, and the extra competition, come as the result of
the federal government's decision four years ago to auction off new
mobile phone licenses in markets across the country.
Until 1995, most major cities had just two traditional cellular
telephone carriers. The auctions have brought new competitors quickly,
so most major cities now have six competitors, including the original
two cellular companies.
The new licenses also have brought changes in technology.
Cellular phones use what's called an analog signal, which converts
conversations into a continuous radio signal that varies as your voice
changes.
The advantage of cellular systems is their age. With a 10- to 15-year
head start in erecting antenna towers, sometimes called cell sites,
they tend to cover a wider area than new digital services.
But the new competitors, known as personal communications services, or
PCS, are catching up quickly.
``It took the cellular carriers from about 1984 to 1994 to get to
about 18,000 cell sites. The PCS carriers have added that in about the
last two years,'' said Larsen, the Prudential analyst.
By law, the new entrants must use next-generation digital technology,
which transmits voices in the binary code of computers, as a series of
zeros and ones. That allows the signal to be compressed so it will use
less energy and a smaller part of the radio spectrum. That makes
digital mobile phone systems more efficient and helps reduce carriers'
costs -- and prices.
Digital technology and other advances, such as longer battery life,
also have transformed the handsets and made them almost a fashion
statement. A couple of years ago, phone makers raced to offer the
smallest and lightest phones. In recent months, high-tech features
such as multiple ringing tones, built-in calendars and address books,
and Internet e-mail capabilities have been all the rage. Some phones
even have built-in Web browsers.
Anytime, anywhere
While lower prices, high-tech phones and new services such as Internet
e-mail are luring new users, the raison d'etre of mobile phones
remains the ability to call and be called anywhere. For people like
Roger Ball, that makes all the difference.
``When mobile phones really came into being in the Charlotte area, it
was a godsend for me and my business,'' said the 46-year-old
commercial photographer in Charlotte.
``If I didn't have it, I would need to sit by my studio phone waiting
for (clients') calls and not getting other things taken care of,'' he
said.
Ball's phone has helped him make deals even while on assignment halfway
across the country.
``I have had art directors from out of town needing to find a
photographer to shoot for them. Being able to contact me on my mobile
while I was on location in another part of the country, and by
referring them to my Web site to view samples of my work, (I was) able
to land the job right then and there,'' he said.
Zemaitis, the Charlotte public relations consultant, said her mobile
phone is indispensable.
``There are some people who just rely on these phones. I'm one of
those. I can't go without it,'' she said.
------------------------------
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cell Phones Invade Wilderness
Date: 5 Jul 1999 01:01:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com> quoted:
> LAKE PLACID, N.Y. (AP) - High above the trees and surrounded by sky,
> the Adirondack peaks can seem far removed from the everyday world.
> Unless, of course, the guy next to you is jabbering on his cell phone.
> Meanwhile, some high-end cell phones can pull in signals from
> satellites, eliminating the need for towers. With the right equipment,
> even the deepest, most remote gulch can be just a phone call away.
Well, no. The highest peaks, yes; the deepest, most remote
gulches, no. For Iridium service, the phone has to be able to see the
satellite, and there isn't always one near the zenith. When you get
above a few GHz, it's strictly line of sight.
Iridium doesn't go through heavy foliage, either. You may
not even be able to get a signal to the sats from within a car.
John Nagle
------------------------------
From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cell Phones Invade Wilderness
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 05:19:38 GMT
Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX)
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:31:39 -0400, Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
wrote:
> Baxter State Park in Maine has banned the use of cell phones on park
> grounds, as it had earlier excluded radios and cassette players.
All I have to say about this: This is *sick* and is going *too far*.
The ONLY places where a ban on cellphone use is at all justified:
* Airplanes (because of interference to ground cell sites, *not*
because of interference to the plane);
* Hospital patient care areas (banning cellphones in locations away
from patient care areas such as the cafeteria and administrative
offices is absurd);
* Certain sensitive computer/telecom equipment rooms;
Restaurants/Theaters/Concert halls/Churches/Funeral homes/etc., no
(common courtesy should reign.);
Cars, no (as long as the phone does not cause the driver to drive
poorly.);
*Public lands*, HELL NO! This is Ocoee[*] all over again. :(
[*] for those that didn't read the Digest in summer 1996:
http://www.roamer1.org/telecom/ocoee/
SC
------------------------------
From: Bill Newkirk <wnewkirk@iu.net>
Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:52:17 -0400
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com
The fuel used these days isn't gasoline but it's about as flammable and
burns w/o color (so you see the uniform melting away but no flames.)
------------------------------
From: pastark@cloud9.net
Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C.
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 05:12:45 GMT
John R. Covert <no.spam.covert.maps.on@covert.org> wrote:
> The notice goes on to say that the parties had entered into a
> settlement as of April 29, 1999 followed by an amended Settlement
> Agreement on May 17th. The settlement consists of credit towards
> Sprint-PCS phones or services for anyone in the class, which consists
> of those who purchased GSM service from Sprint-APC prior to the
> introduction of Sprint-PCS CDMA/AMPS service on April 2, 1998. Sprint
> has also agreed to pay the attorneys bringing the class action suit an
> amount not exceeding $1,190,000 plus interest since March 25th. There
> is a fairness hearing in Baltimore on August 4, 1999.
Note that the Sprint customers get nothing here -- only an exchange of
one service for another -- while the attorneys who instigated the case
clean up to the tune of over a million bucks (plus interest.)
Just to get a handle on this, let's assume they had five attorneys
working full-time on this case for 6 months (which I doubt). That
works out to an annual salary of more than $476,000 each, and it
illustrates what is wrong with the U.S. justice system. Everybody
complains about the "high cost of medical care", but I don't know of a
single M.D. that earns even close to this. I'm married to one, and I
know of a whole lot of M.D.'s that earn about 20% of that amount. We
need HMOs for lawyers!
Pete
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, there are prepaid legal
service plans similar to medical HMO arrangements. Some companies
offer them to their employees via payroll deduction, etc. Most of
those however do not do extended or complex criminal cases; they
seem to mostly handle relatively simple legal matters. PAT]
------------------------------
From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 05:27:10 GMT
Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX)
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 03:27:33 GMT, Sheryl Myers <smyers@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Does anyone know what frequency Orange operates on in Israel (e.g.
> European 900? US 1900? The 1800 they are on in Israel?
European 900 MHz.
SC
------------------------------
From: michael@ablecomm.com
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 02:26:47 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <telecom19.184.5@telecom-digest.org>,
> Unless I am mistaken they have a rather short record time capacity 16
> minutes, I believe, which I consider inadequate. That is the reason
> we have not really looked into them. Also I believe that particular
> phone is a 900mhz/2.4Ghz "hybrid".
I don't know the specifics of _your_ situation, but 16 minutes is
adequate for most users. The typical message today is less than 15
seconds, allowing a good number of incoming messages in addition to the
outgoing message.
Michael N. Marcus
AbleComm,Inc. - www.ablecomm.com -- biggest source of Panasonic phone
system info; discounts for do-it-yourselfers
------------------------------
From: Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Horrible Data Connection
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 21:29:28 -0500
Heather Drury <heather@v1.wustl.edu> wrote in message news:telecom19.
187.13@telecom-digest.org:
> We have just moved into a new house (new for us) and are doing battle
> with Southwestern Bell over our data connection. Basically, sometimes
> it works, sometimes it doesn't and SWBT insists there is no problem.
Oh, I feel your pain!
> We had this very same equipment/modem, etc. at our old house (five
> miles away) and it worked just fine for years.
I think quality of local phone service has replaced the binge-drinking
neighbor as the least favorite after-move surprise.
> We are about 16K feet from the switch. When I connect (using a 56K
> external analog modem), the modem trains and retrains during the
> initial link negotiations. It usually ends up connecting at 24K baud.
> The connection is sporadically ususble up until about 4 o'clock when
> it becomes UNUSABLE (no response for minutes in a UNIX shell) for the
> evening. We have moved the computer to the basement and are connected
> directly to the SWBT network interface (so the problem is not internal
> wiring).
I'm about 3100 feet from the SLC hut that puts us onto fiber for the
haul back to the CO. According to the local techs, Bubba and Elmer,
I'm lucky to be able to break dial tone at that distance. But,
heh-heh, I still pay full price for service - $50 a month per line for
local service only!
I finally broke down and got ISDN service - $172.00 per month. Ouch.
I'll hazard a guess that you have underground wiring which is having
moisture problems -- and as the heat moves away from the ground, the
moisture moves back in.
> What can we do? We are investigating getting a DSL line but aren't
> certain we can get one in our area. This problem has been going on for
> over a month (since 5/27) and SWBT is giving us lip service but not
> taking steps (it appears) to resolve the underlying problem. Are we
> really dead in the water, so to speak?
Yes. Consider ISDN, etc. The official position of SWBell is that
anything above 2400bps should be considered an earth-shattering
miracle. (Needless to say, SBC is not high on my list of
retirement-portfolio stocks) ... try finding out about cable modem
service, etc.
> I will say we have had technician after technician out (who usually
> just complain about non-union techs and how terrible the SWBT
> infrastructure is). We have also had many billing errors (three so far
> on our first bill). All in all, I really can't wait for some other
> carriers to enter our area so we can dump SWBT forever, but in the
> meantime we need a decent data connection.
I finally ended up ordering enough phone lines that SWBell was forced
to lay new cable. Sure enough, that suddenly cleared up the problem. I
can now get an astonishing 26.6kb on a modem!!!!!!!
If I ever did get a v.90 connection here, I'd be very surprised.
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Chip in with neighbors for a fractional T1?
------------------------------
From: michael@ablecomm.com
Subject: Re: Any Other Phone Racers?
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 02:30:25 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <telecom19.176.7@telecom-digest.org>, support@sellcom.com
wrote:
> I was just wondering if there are any other phone systems in the
> "race" as it were with the Siemens 2420/2402 Gigaset and the EnGenius
> .5 mile SN900 Ultra (not that these are really comparable with each
> other).
> I have heard of a Brother 4line system cbelieve that range is one of
> its goals.
I've seen the Brother at Staples, but have not tried it.
Michael N. Marcus
AbleComm,Inc. - www.ablecomm.com -- biggest source of Panasonic phone
system info; discounts for do-it-yourselfers
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson)
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone
Date: 5 Jul 1999 02:44:47 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
> A friend of mine has suggested that I keep a rotary dial telephone on
> hand in case the phone company loses its ability to detect DTMF. Is
> there any validity in this advice?
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.
Today, many people have only cordless phones that require household
current to keep working. What I suggest is that people have at
least one traditional hard wired phone in case of power failure.
Some modern telephones aren't built very well and aren't very
reliable. The traditional Western Electric sets (such as a plain
"500" set) are very tough would make a fine back up phone.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jul 1999 00:06:59 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Wanting a Particular Area Code and Call Forwarding
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> I want a phone number starting with the area code of an adjacent
> county.
Many telcos offer what's called Remote Call Forwarding, which is
basically a phone number that's permanently call forwarded somewhere
else. You pay a monthly fee plus whatever the tolls are for the
forwarded call. It's a regular landline number, so the toll rates are
regular landline toll rates.
If you have a friend who lives in that county, it's usually cheaper to
get a phone line with regular call forwarding installed in his house,
have them send you the bill, and plug in a phone just long enough to
set up forwarding to the desired number. I did that for my old
Cambridge Mass. number for a couple of years.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jul 1999 00:12:05 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Spam Blocking
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> The people that run my e-mail server use a service called ORBS (Open
> Relay Behaviour-modification System), that blocks any message being
> sent through an open relay ...
... including a certain amount of mail that is not spam, since ORBS
lists hosts indiscriminately regardless of whether they've ever
actually sent any spam.
I use RRSS at relays.radparker.org, which is like ORBS but only lists
open relays that have sent at least one spam. It's quite effective,
since there are spam trap addreses that nominate open relays as soon
as they send their first spam.
This site handles mail to telecom-digest.org, so it's protected by
RRSS as well.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although John Levine handles any mail
addressed to @telecom-digest.org, a certain amount of mail also comes
to @lcs.mit.edu as to be expected. It all gets piped to the same filter
rules on this end regardless, then filed various places as a result.
John's filter does pretty well. PAT]
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: Spam Blocking
Date: 5 Jul 1999 02:09:38 -0400
Organization: "mostly unorganized"
In <telecom19.189.13@telecom-digest.org> Keelan Lightfoot <keelan@
mail.bzzzzzz.com> writes:
> The people that run my e-mail server use a service called ORBS (Open
> Relay Behaviour-modification System), that blocks any message being
> sent through an open relay -- This means junk-mail which is sent
> through an unknowing 3rd party server. I have found that ORBS greatly
> reduced the amount of junk-mail I was recieving, as opposed to when my
> server was not using ORBS.
There are various lists of this type. The key one is Paul vixi's RBL
(realtime blackhole list). Your mailserver gets put on this one if
spam has gone through, _and_ you haven't taken immediate steps to
block future incursions. The problem, of course, is that the first
batch has already made it through.
(If your server is on the RBL you'll discover that a *great deal* of
the internet will block your outgoing messages. It is a *very
powerful* weapon)
ORBS is different: it's based on reports (not completely verified -
see below) that a specific mail server is allowing outsiders
(i.e. spammers) to access it to send out their mailte effectively .
There are two key problems with this:
a) The reports, as I mentioned, are not verified. Hence there
is potential for false positives.
b) also.. many servers can "look open" but in reality are
blocking spam. Not to get into all the tricks the good guys can use,
but one example could be a server which allows, say ten 'foreign'
relays/hour - enough for the owner's legit purposes, but pretty
useless for a spammer. A casual investigation of this relay would show
it to be "open".
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
From: Ken M. <pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Do Not Disturb
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 00:25:40 -0400
Organization: Netcom
Reply-To: pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com
Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
> Ken M. <pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Michael Williams wrote:
>>> pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com (Ken M.) wrote in <377B3C1C.7154@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>> Bell Atlantic phone company of Maryland is now offering a new service
>>>> called, "Do Not Disturb." The monthly fee is $3 per month.
>>> Don't like the cost, but this should do it. I like the fact that
>>> you can set this up to be active during only certain times of day,
>>> such as during the legal window for telemarketing calls.
>> Yes it will come in handy. Most of my troublesome calls are usually
>> "Out of Area."
>>> But doesn't this require you to distribute the passcode to
>>> everyone? Perhaps this can best be done by specifying "extension
>>> 1234" when you give out your home phone number.
>> You can compile a list of 15 numbers (local or long distance) that will
>> pass through. The others will have to enter the passcode "after" the
>> announcement.
> Does the software support having an phone number on the list that is
> Caller*ID'ed as PRIVATE (ie: Call Blocked at the caller's end)? This
> is one of my gripes about Caller*ID, Call Blocking (where you can
> supply a list of numbers to not accept calls from) and Anonymous Call
> Rejection - There is no way to REQUEST display/non-blocking of a call
> that is flagged with a do-not-display flag even if by listing the
> number you prove you know it. I have friends who have unlisted/unpub-
> lished numbers and who have the line set to All-Call-Block who forget
> to turn the blocking off when they call certain people (who know the
> number) and thus my Caller*ID box will not display their number.
Robert,
This service will not allow ANY calls to ring your phone unless they
are on the list you compile (15 numbers) or unless they know the
four-digit access code they can enter (after hearing the rejection
recording).
After hearing the recording (one of three) such as, "The person you
are calling is unavailable at this time," there is a five second pause
where they can enter an access code. If they don't enter the code, they
receive a busy signal.
"Private" - "Unavailable" - "Out of Area" calls do not get through!
(ken)
See some sample photos taken with my Olympus digital camera at:
http://www.theupperdeck.com/digitcam/
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #191
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 5 14:06:22 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA07311;
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907051806.OAA07311@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #192
TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Jul 99 14:06:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 192
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telecom Update (Canada) #189, June 28, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement)
Rationale For Class Action Suits (was Re: Death of GSM) (Danny Burstein)
Cellular 911 Position Location Issues (Lauren Weinstein)
Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (Bud Couch)
Maximum ARU Saturation? (Gary Marsh)
Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (Ed Leslie)
Re: Illegal Access of Phone Line (Pete Weiss)
Re: Do Not Disturb (travlinman_mark@my-deja.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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:08:59 -0400
From: Angus TeleManagement <angus@angustel.ca>
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #189, June 28, 1999
************************************************************
* *
* TELECOM UPDATE *
* Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin *
* http://www.angustel.ca *
* Number 189: June 28, 1999 *
* *
* Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by *
* generous financial support from: *
* *
* AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ *
* Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ *
* Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ *
* MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ *
* Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ *
* Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ *
* TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ *
* *
************************************************************
IN THIS ISSUE:
** Newbridge Buys Wireless Broadband Maker
** Look Communications Ownership Restructured
** Saville Systems Sold to ADC
** CAIP ADSL Appeal Turned Down
** Internet Services Deregulated
** Janet Yale to Head CCTA
** NBTel to Test Centrex IP
** Startups to Offer Internet Phone Calls
** Iridium Changes Strategy, Cuts Prices
** Teleglobe Offers Broadband Satellite Links
** Novus, Optel CLEC Tariffs Approved
** Nortel, BellSouth Renew Supply Deal
** Lucent, Ascend Complete Merger
** MaxLink to Use CrossKeys Software
** Newbridge Operations Exec Resigns
** RIM Reports Record Results
** Cogeco Revenue Up 13%
** Call Center Seminar Comes to Toronto
** Telecom Tips, Tricks and Traps
NEWBRIDGE BUYS WIRELESS BROADBAND MAKER: Newbridge Networks will pay
US$490 Million to acquire Stanford Telecommunications of Sunnyvale,
California, a manufacturer of wireless broadband equipment. As part of
the deal, Stanford must sell its military and satellite ground station
businesses to a third party.
LOOK COMMUNICATIONS OWNERSHIP RESTRUCTURED: The CRTC has approved the
transfer of Teleglobe's controlling interest in wireless cable TV
provider Look Communications to a new company which will be two-thirds
owned by Telesystem Financial and one-third by Teleglobe. The change
was necessary because, as a result of last year's merger with Excel,
Teleglobe no longer qualifies as a Canadian corporation under the
Broadcasting Act.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/bcasting/decision/1999/d99152_0.txt
** Unique Broadband Systems (Markham, Ontario) will be the
exclusive supplier of MMDS repeater equipment for Look's
network until December 31, 2000.
SAVILLE SYSTEMS SOLD TO ADC: Saville Systems, which develops billing
systems for telecommunications companies, has been sold to
Minneapolis-based ADC Telecommunications for US$700 Million. Saville
has about 1,400 employees in Canada, divided evenly between Edmonton
and Toronto.
CAIP ADSL APPEAL TURNED DOWN: The CRTC has rejected the Canadian
Association of Internet Providers' proposal that Bell be required to
charge retail customers above-cost rates for high-speed Internet
access, or to offer a wholesale ADSL service to ISPs at 25% off Bell's
retail price (see Telecom Update #163). Below-cost pricing by Bell's
affiliates is a reasonable response to competitive pressure from the
cablecos, says the Commission, and Bell should not be required to
subsidize other ISPs through a wholesale tariff.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0591.htm
INTERNET SERVICES DEREGULATED: The CRTC has confirmed its preliminary
view, expressed last July, that retail end-user Internet services
should no longer be regulated (see Telecom Update #142). It rejected
CAIP's argument that high-speed access should be considered a separate
market, subject to continued regulation.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0592.htm
JANET YALE TO HEAD CCTA: The Canadian Cable Television Association has
named Janet Yale as President and CEO, effective August 1. Yale is
currently Senior Vice-President at AT&T Canada, and previously held
senior posts at the CRTC in both broadcasting and telecom.
NBTEL TO TEST CENTREX IP: NBTel, the New Brunswick operating company
of Aliant Inc, will be one of three worldwide test sites for Nortel's
new Centrex IP system, which provides Centrex features over a managed
IP network.
STARTUPS TO OFFER INTERNET PHONE CALLS: Innofone.com (Toronto) and
Cescom (Montreal) have both announced plans to offer Internet voice
and fax service this year. Innofone says it will begin deployment in
Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver in July; Cescom expects to
offer its first services in August.
IRIDIUM CHANGES STRATEGY, CUTS PRICES: Iridium, the financially
troubled satellite phone company, is changing its market strategy to
focus on specific industrial customers rather than business
travelers. Iridium Canada has reduced its rates to $2.59/minute for
calls within North America and $4.43/minute elsewhere.
TELEGLOBE OFFERS BROADBAND SATELLITE LINKS: Teleglobe is now selling
broadband Internet communications using Intelsat's facilities. It says
that the new 16QAM technology produces "significant bandwidth savings"
for broadband (34 and 45 Mbps) satellite connections. The first
customers are telecom carriers in Korea and Australia.
NOVUS, OPTEL CLEC TARIFFS APPROVED: The CRTC has approved, with
amendments, General Tariffs filed by Novus Telecom and Optel
Communications, defining terms and conditions for interconnecting with
other carriers.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0582.htm
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0590.htm
NORTEL, BELLSOUTH RENEW SUPPLY DEAL: BellSouth Corporation has
extended its purchasing agreement with Nortel Networks for 10
years. Nortel says it could sell BellSouth up to US$5 Billion worth of
equipment over the life of the contract.
LUCENT, ASCEND COMPLETE MERGER: Lucent Technologies has completed its
merger with data networking manufacturer Ascend Communications.
Ascend's Curt Sanford has been named President of Lucent's
8,000-employee InterNetworking Systems group.
MAXLINK TO USE CROSSKEYS SOFTWARE: MaxLink Communications, which now
holds wireless broadband (LMCS) licenses for 207 Canadian markets,
will use software from Kanata, Ontario- based CrossKeys Systems to
allow it to offer Service Level Agreements to large corporate clients.
NEWBRIDGE OPERATIONS EXEC RESIGNS: Bruce Rodgers, VP of Operations at
Newbridge Networks, has resigned his position, but will stay with the
company. The company recently blamed its poor financial results on
operational problems.
RIM REPORTS RECORD RESULTS: Research In Motion (Waterloo, Ontario)
reports a 172% increase over last year in its first quarter
revenues. RIM took in $24.1 Million in the 3 months ended May 31 --
77% of that was from the company's new Interactive Pager.
COGECO REVENUE UP 13%: In the quarter which ended on May 31, Cogeco
Cable had consolidated revenues of $82.9 Million, up from $73.4
Million in the same period last year.
** On May 31, Cogeco had 33,190 customers for its high-speed
cable modem Internet access service, up from 25,690 on
February 28.
CALL CENTER SEMINAR COMES TO TORONTO: The top-rated seminar "Essential
Skills and Knowledge for Effective Incoming Call Center Management"
will be offered in Toronto, July 28-29. Course leader is Henry
Dortmans, President of Angus Dortmans Associates. A course outline and
registration details are available from Incoming Calls Management
Institute at http://www.incoming.com/seminars/essential.html. For a
brochure, call 1-800-672-6177.
TELECOM TIPS, TRICKS AND TRAPS: Until June 30, new subscribers to
Telemanagement receive "Tips, Tricks and Traps," a collection of 22
practical reports and resources by Ian Angus, Lis Angus, and Henry
Dortmans. Included in the collection:
** How the Internet Is Shaking Up Telecom
** How to Sell Your Telecom Projects to Senior Management
** Seven Steps to Successful Phone Bill Audits
To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive Tips, Tricks and
Traps) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit
http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.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 at
http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html
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 1999 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
225.
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.
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: Rationale For Class Action Suits (was Re: Death of GSM)
Date: 5 Jul 1999 03:29:29 -0400
In <telecom19.191.5@telecom-digest.org> pastark@cloud9.net writes:
> Note that the Sprint customers get nothing here -- only an exchange of
> one service for another -- while the attorneys who instigated the case
> clean up to the tune of over a million bucks (plus interest.)
> Just to get a handle on this, let's assume they had five attorneys
> working full-time on this case for 6 months (which I doubt). That
> works out to an annual salary of more than $476,000 each, and it
> illustrates what is wrong with the U.S. justice system.
Let me, on the other hand, posit a very real and current example
(which I'm *sure* most Digest readers have run into). The company I
work for, which has lots and lots of phone lines, both regular, isdn,
t-1s, etc., recently received a bill from [big legit phone company]
asking for payment on a set of circuits.
It certainly sounded real. Fortunately, our accounting division handed
it to our telco pirannha [smirk] who realized these were NOT our lines
AT ALL. These were for isdn "phone numbers" that were not and had
never been ours. But [big telco] still sent a bill to US, under OUR
NAME.
It's very easy to suspect that they did the same to hundreds,
thousands, or maybe more customers, hoping that a fair number woudl
slip through.
So ... we called them. They agreed to drop the charges (note that
_their_ bill had _already_ cost us _our_ time and effort). The next
month we received yet _another_ bill from them.
So I sent off a letter to the NYS PSC, the FCC, and the FTC (Federal
Trade Commission) pointing out the likelihood that this was being done
in a misguided attempt to increase their revenues. (Which is the
polite way of saying that [big telco] was sending out a thousand
improper bills, hoping that ten percent or so would be paid).
Well ... I've just received responses from each of these agencies
telling me that 'we don't handle this problem.' (Rest assured I'm
working on that little diversion).
It certainly seems to me that [big telco] will _continue_ engaging in
this practice until they get stopped. If gov't won't do this, then the
alternative is, I hate to say, a class action lawsuit. And yes, the
lawyers will get rich. So what.
The key point is that once [big telco] gets hit for, say, a 100 million
dollar judgment, then just maybe they'll get their billing system in
order. As it is now, though, I suspect they figure that ten percent of
recipients will pay up, and that they'll make out, dare I use the
term, like bandits.
Oh, and let's not forget that everytime [big telco] sends out one of
these bill, even if we catch it we're out a couple of hours of staff
time.
It's kind of like spammers ... [big telco] has almost no expenses in
sending these out, hence no incentive to not do it ...
In fact, various people (among them the editor of Analog) have
suggested that many companies have a deliberate policy of this sort,
where they 'accidentally' send out excess bills to pre-designated
demographic groups (i.e. the classic "little old lady" would get one,
but they _won't_ send one to a CPA ...), and factor in their rate of
return.
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 99 10:31 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Cellular 911 Position Location Issues
Greetings. This topic has been a recurring one in the PRIVACY Forum,
and is a good example of what I call "data creep"--data collected
originally for one purpose that ends up being used for something else
entirely. There are numerous articles in the Forum archive on the
subject, and my "Daily Reality Report" (in RealAudio) for June 9th was
on this matter:
http://www.vortex.com/rr/060999.ram ("Tracked by Your Cell Phone")
The original FCC push for cell location capabilities was drawn in
terms of 911 emergency situations ("the lost caller" in an accident,
snowdrift, etc.) These are serious situations and such location
capability under such conditions is a useful function with which few
would argue.
But it was only shortly thereafter that the calls for additional
access to the data began. Law enforcement is obviously interested, as
are civil attorneys (who could use the data to try verify whether a
spouse was really where they said they were on a given night, etc.)
Commercial firms have a wide range of applications in mind, including
use of location data to send targeted, highly localized promotional
material to cell phone text displays, depending on where the user was
standing at the moment (this would presumably be a "subscription"
service, but it depends on precise location information to work).
It's important to remember that there are both realtime and
retrospective aspects to this issue. An emergency situation needs
realtime data, as would a manhunt. But many criminal or civil
investigations would want access to logs of historical data regarding
particular cell phone movements, down to whatever level of granularity
(e.g., current location once per minute) that the networks could
provide. This introduces a range of complexities in terms of both the
operational and policy issues surrounding such usage. Concerns over
this sort of retroactive inspection of cellular location data has
already caused some considerable controversies in Europe.
Of course, at least with current technology, while a cell phone is
turned off, it's completely out of the tracking picture. What being
"turned off" might really mean with future units is a subject of some
speculation.
Whether we really end up with GPS receivers in our cell phones (and
how well they'd really work, given current cellular/PCS limitations in
buildings and such) is an open question. But regardless, it's
critical that as new telecom technologies are implemented, that the
policy issues are well considered ahead of time. Where necessary,
legislative controls and safeguards on the application of these
technologies should be implemented in advance of deployments, not long
after the fact.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz"
--- http://www.vortex.com/reality
------------------------------
From: Bud Couch <Bud_Couch@adc.com>
Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 09:58:11 -0700
Organization: ADC Kentrox
> The main impetus for developing this technology was the FCC's
> insistence that a way be found by October, 2001, to locate wireless
> phones placing calls to 911 emergency services within 410 feet, said
> Vannucci. However, the researchers chose at the same time to provide
> for other location needs. So, for instance, a slight adjustment to the
> technique would make it possible to track the location of a wireless
> phone whether it is in use or not.
Lucent ... no, not Lucent, it is a soulless corporation ... the
officers, managers and engineers who "chose to ... track the location
of a phone whether it is on or off" should hang their heads in shame.
The FCC would never dare to mandate this "feature" -- the ability to
track individual citizens without either their knowledge or consent.
Both the legal and political outcry would be immediate and effective.
Did someone of social and political naivete come up with this on their
own, or was it a sub-rosa suggestion from the NSA or one of the other
spook agencies? We'll probably never know, but it makes no difference;
the techniques should not have been thought out by Lucent engineers,
and the concept should have been quashed by Lucent management.
Whatever slight benefit this may provide is more than outweighed by
its potential for mischief. I write this over the 4th of July
weekend. Will we still have something to celebrate when the chains
which are constructed of such links are draped on us and our children?
Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.|
bud@kentrox.com (work) | -Tom Lehrer |
budc@hevanet.com (just me) |"Therefore you're liable!" -EEOC |
|insert legalistic bs disclaimer here |
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On Sunday I briefly editorialized on
the topic, 'what is right about America' and frankly it is getting
harder and harder to find things that are right isn't it ... PAT]
------------------------------
From: Gary Marsh <gmarsh@thezone.net>
Subject: Maximum ARU Saturation?
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 09:54:44 -0230
Organization: Cable Atlantic
Hello,
I'm piecing together a recommendation for a new ARU system, and I need
one tidbit of information: what's the worst port saturation an ARU
should get? I need this number.
Just as an example of what I'm trying to do, here's a table of
estimated port saturations for ports and time periods. "Worst Ever" is
the worst day we've ever had, with the most calls hitting the present
ARU system.
4 port 8 port 12 port 16 port
Daily peak 30.8% 15.4% 10.2% 7.7%
Worst ever 80% 40% 27% 20%
We want this "worst ever" capability to be handled smoothly, as we've
approached similiar figures a number of times during major outages.
Thanks a lot.
- Gary Marsh, gmarsh@thezone.net
- Programmer, Cable Atlantic MIS Group
- Phone: (709) 753-7583 ext. 312
------------------------------
From: EdLeslie@EDU.YorkU.CA (Ed Leslie)
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 12:26:53 GMT
Organization: York University, Ontario, Canada
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 15:21:48 -0500, hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson
Leighton) wrote:
> But a good idea is to have a plain phone somewhere so that when the
> power goes out and your fancy cordless phone doesn't work you can
> still make and receive phone calls.
I have a couple of VTECH 900MHz cordless units which have a "spare
battery charger" in the base unit. The manual reads:
"If you have a fully charged battery pack in the Spare Battery pack
charger and there is a power outage, you will still be able to place
and receive calls on the Handset for up to five hours."
Pretty nifty feature.
EdLeslie@EDU.YorkU.CA <Ed Leslie>
------------------------------
From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss)
Subject: Re: Illegal Access of Phone Line
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 12:03:07 -0400
Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems
(Regarding Mr. Scofield at dodgecity.net who wrote asking for help
about his relatives getting fraudulent long distance calls on their
bill ...)
Also, how long have they "owned" that phone number? Did the previous
owner have a dual-appearance? Does the phone number have 900/976
blocking? While you're at it, get a PIN for your phone account as
well as a PIC freeze.
If you don't accept collect and never use your phone for third-party
billing, then also request billed number screening.
Pete
------------------------------
From: travlinman_mark@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Do Not Disturb
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 06:34:46 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <telecom19.189.2@telecom-digest.org> is written:
> Does the software support having an phone number on the list that is
> Caller*ID'ed as PRIVATE (ie: Call Blocked at the caller's end)? This
> is one of my gripes about Caller*ID, Call Blocking (where you can
> supply a list of numbers to not accept calls from) and Anonymous Call
> Rejection - There is no way to REQUEST display/non-blocking of a call
> that is flagged with a do-not-display flag even if by listing the
> number you prove you know it. I have friends who have unlisted/unpub-
> lished numbers and who have the line set to All-Call-Block who forget
> to turn the blocking off when they call certain people (who know the
> number) and thus my Caller*ID box will not display their number.
Where I live, in Ameritech country we can get Call Screening which they
now refer to as "Selective Call Screening". This gives me ten numbers
that I do not want to receive calls from, private or otherwise. In our
installation of the software (a Seimens Digital) one can add the last
number that called them by dialing 01 at the add number prompt. The
software always says the number you have added is a private number
regardless of weather or not the number was displayed on Caller-ID and
given by *69. Anyway, in the case of a real private number one can
then select the remove a number from list option and enter the known
private number. If the switch says that the number was removed from
your list then you know that it was that particular number with per-
line blocking that made your last call.:)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #192
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 5 22:12:15 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA25806;
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907060212.WAA25806@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #193
TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Jul 99 22:12:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 193
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telecom Update (Canada) #190, July 5, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement)
Re: Voicenet Calling Card Experiences Wanted (Jason Fetterolf)
Trouble Calling From NPA 802 (Vermont) (Peter T)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (Juha Veijalainen)
Bang & Olufsen Cordless Phone (dknyc1@interport.net)
Help! I Paid Good Money For These (Rowena C. Macaraig)
Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (Leonard Erickson)
Re: Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cell Phones Invade Wilderness (J Beckett)
Public Service Message: www.thehungersite.com (Judith Oppenheimer)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:41:06 -0400
From: Angus TeleManagement <angus@angustel.ca>
Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #190, July 5, 1999
************************************************************
* *
* TELECOM UPDATE *
* Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin *
* http://www.angustel.ca *
* Number 190: July 5, 1999 *
* *
* Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by *
* generous financial support from: *
* *
* AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ *
* Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ *
* Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ *
* MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ *
* Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ *
* Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ *
* TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ *
* *
************************************************************
IN THIS ISSUE:
** Telecom Update Takes a Holiday
** Ex-Bell Execs to Lead Hummingbird
** AT&T Opens Local Network in Kitchener-Waterloo
** SaskTel Launches Internet Auction Site
** Community Networks Offered Reduced Rates
** Satellite TV Rivals Expand Service
** Infosat Cuts Satellite Handset Prices
** Canada Payphone Passes 1,000 Installations
** JDS/Uniphase Merger Completed
** Nortel to Equip Qwest for Terabit Transmission
** Regulators Propose E-Stock Exchanges
** Bills for Visually Impaired Customers
** Call Center Educators Form Global Partnership
** Cantel Offers Phone-in-a-Box
** AirIQ Tracking Recovers 94% of Missing Vehicles
** Parke Davis to Head Numbering Consortium
** Bell Canada Ends Trial of NumereX Security
** Look to Retail Through Future Shop
** What Killed the CBTA?
============================================================
TELECOM UPDATE TAKES A HOLIDAY: We're taking a short summer break: the
next issue of Telecom Update will be published on July 19.
EX-BELL EXECS TO LEAD HUMMINGBIRD: Jim Tobin, former head of Bell
Emergis, and John McClennan, former President of Bell Canada, have
been named President and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of Hummingbird
Communications, Canada's third- largest software company. Fred Sorkin
will continue as Chairman and CEO.
AT&T OPENS LOCAL NETWORK IN KITCHENER-WATERLOO: AT&T Canada says it is
now offering local and long distance voice, data, and Internet
services to businesses and government customers in the
Kitchener-Waterloo area of southwestern Ontario, using its own
fiber-optic network and DMS-500 switch.
SASKTEL LAUNCHES INTERNET AUCTION SITE: SaskTel has opened a Canadian
online auction site. Sellers pay $1 per item posted plus a 2.5%
commission to use Clickabid.com.
COMMUNITY NETWORKS OFFERED REDUCED RATES: A consortium of community
network groups says that Rodin Communications (Cambridge, Ontario)
will provide Internet access for up to 80% less than current prices to
community network consortia anywhere in Ontario. See the Regional
Networks of Ontario (http://www.rno.on.ca/) for more information.
SATELLITE TV RIVALS EXPAND SERVICE: Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice
Communications have both announced plans to deliver over 200 channels
this fall, using new, smaller dish antennas. Each is offering free
trade-ins to current users of the other's dishes.
** ExpressVu says it will also offer DirecPC Internet service
this fall.
INFOSAT CUTS SATELLITE HANDSET PRICES: Infosat Telecommunications,
Canadian distributor of Iridium satellite phone services, has cut its
handset prices: the Motorola 9500, formerly $4,800, now goes for
$2,495.
** PageNet, which sells Iridium's paging service, now offers
the Motorola 9501 satellite pager for $499 (down from
$799).
CANADA PAYPHONE PASSES 1,000 INSTALLATIONS: Canada Payphone says it
has now installed more than 1,000 AT&T pay telephones across Canada,
and has contracts for 2,500 more.
JDS/UNIPHASE MERGER COMPLETED: Fiber optic equipment manufacturers JDS
Fitel (Nepean, Ont) and Uniphase Corp. (San Jose) have completed their
merger. Jozef Straus of JDS will be President and COO of the new
company, which will be called JDS Uniphase. (See Telecom Update #168)
NORTEL TO EQUIP QWEST FOR TERABIT TRANSMISSION: Nortel has won a
three-year contract, valued at above US$600 Million, to equip Quest's
network for 1.6 terabit per second (1,600 gigabit) transmission.
REGULATORS PROPOSE E-STOCK EXCHANGES: The Canadian Securities
Administrators have proposed rules to permit Alternative Trading
Systems, which link buyers and sellers of securities through an
electronic network, bypassing stock exchanges.
BILLS FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED CUSTOMERS: A year ago, the CRTC ordered
all Canadian carriers to provide bills in alternative formats, on
request, to visually impaired customers (see Telecom Update
#140). BCT.Telus, MTS, and the Aliant companies report they have
received 49 requests for bills in Braille, 110 for large print, and 10
for bills on computer disk. They will comply with these requests by
this fall.
CALL CENTER EDUCATORS FORM GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP: Maryland-based Incoming
Calls Management Institute has joined with call center specialists in
nine other countries to form ICMI Global Partners, which will deliver
call center management education on a global basis.
http://www.incoming.com
CANTEL OFFERS PHONE-IN-A-BOX: Rogers Cantel customers may now purchase
a packaged wireless handset -- digital (Nokia: $149) or analog
(Audiovox: $49) -- which they take home and activate by phone,
selecting a price plan of their choice.
AIRIQ TRACKING RECOVERS 94% OF MISSING VEHICLES: AirIQ, the Pickering,
Ontario, supplier of satellite-based vehicle tracking service, reports
a 94% recovery rate on missing vehicles carrying its equipment.
PARKE DAVIS TO HEAD NUMBERING CONSORTIUM: Parke Davis, Clearnet's
Director of Intercarrier Relations, has been appointed President of
the Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium.
BELL CANADA ENDS TRIAL OF NUMEREX SECURITY: Bell Canada has ended a
trial of alarm and security technology from Atlanta-based NumereX
Corp. and plans a "tendering process based on new requirements."
LOOK TO RETAIL THROUGH FUTURE SHOP: Look Communications, which
provides wireless-based TV, will retail its products through 35 Future
Shop stores in Ontario and Quebec.
WHAT KILLED THE CBTA? What led the Canadian Business Telecommuni-
cations Alliance to close its doors? In the July-August issue of
Telemanagement, available this week, Ian and Lis Angus analyze why the
CBTA failed and argue that Canada needs a new organization of business
telecom users. Also in Telemanagement #167:
** Lis Angus talks to Telus CEO George Petty about Telus's
plans for national expansion.
** John Riddell profiles 21 present and future suppliers of
alternative local phone service.
To subscribe to Telemanagement call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225,
or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.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 at
http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html
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 1999 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
225.
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.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 14:23:22 -0400
Reply-To: jason@itw.com
From: Jason Fetterolf <jason@itw.com
Subject: Re: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted
Organization: Apollo Concepts
linabo@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has anyone had any experience with a company called VoiceNet? I'm
> looking for a buisness calling card provider for about 3000 cards.
> They seem pretty good, but I'd kinda like some first hand info.
> Does anyone know anything about them??
Yes, I have extensive experience with VoiceNet. Originally just
VoiceNet calling card user, I have become an authorized dealer for
them, and in the three years of representing VoiceNet, there are
several outstanding features which stand out about this card:
1. User friendly - you can choose your own PIN, and can make multiple
calls without re-dialing the PIN # in again. As far as I know, even
the ATT card doesn't have this multiple-call feature that allows the
VoiceNet card users to avoid "voicemail jail".
2. Competitively priced - 14.9 cents a minute, 6 dec billing, NO
surcharge per call. (except FCC mandated payphone fee). No minimums,
and no monthly fees.
3. Reliability - the VoiceNet card's network (Econophone) has been
available to me 99.9 % of the time. They use the Nortel DMS 250 switch
just like the "big boys". I HAVE gotten a sporadic busy signal during
peak times, but a quick re-dial normally would get me through. Voice
quality has always been just as good as the "big three".
4. Customer service - available 24hrs, and very responsive. New card
orders are received at the customers location within 7 business days.
They process changes to your current account very accurately and
promptly.
5. Directory assistance (DA) - at just .75 per call. Very few calling
cards have any DA svcs, and this one has it at a great rate!
6. Conference calling.
7. International origination and termination: You can call from, to,
and within most major countries. eg: Call from UK to US for only 27.5
cents/minute.
8. Fraud protection - VoiceNet has several measures in place to thwart
unauthorized usage or access to the customer accounts.
In summary, I have tried about 35 different competing cards within the
last three years (including ATT, MCI/Worldcom, and Sprint), and have to
say that this is the BEST card that I personally use or recommend to
anyone that needs a reliable, low cost calling card. The enhanced
features and international capabilities make this card a must for any
business looking to * improve the effectiveness* of their personnel.
I hope this info answers your questions.
Jason Fetterolf
Apollo Concepts
610-406-0444
------------------------------
From: Peter T <pjtnews@hotmail.com>
Subject: Trouble Calling From NPA 802 (Vermont)
Date: 5 Jul 1999 15:40:04 -0500
Organization: Together Networks - Burlington, VT.
My company of about 30 people recently got Manhattan 917 NPA digital
PCS phones as a way of keeping in touch with each other while
travelling -- the cell plans are pretty lame up here in VT and digital
is not available. Our roaming charges were astronomical.
We are quite frustrated by our inability to reach our own cellphones
on a reliable basis. The intercept messages vary, but quite often, we
get a switch message that says "your call did not go through, please
try later. 052T" I called our LD operator (AT&T) by dialing 00 on an
outside line and asked for further explanation of this message, but
she pleaded cluelessness.
We have recently experienced this message while trying to call other
parts of the country, namely Montgomery AL (NPA 334) and occasionally
El Paso TX (NPA 915).
Can someone please tell me what the "052T" identifier on the switch
message indicates? I assume our calls are crapping out before even
reaching the intended remote NPA.
-Peter
Systems & Software, Inc. = http://www.mups.com
me = mailto:pjtnews@hotmail.com
------------------------------
From: juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 23:22:58 +0300
Organization: Jkarhuritarit
In article <telecom19.185.10@telecom-digest.org>, PARitter@home.com
says:
> juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen) writes:
>> Military has never used cellular (whatever make/brand/standard) for
>> anything secure.
> Not true at all. In the late '80s, early '90s, Motorola manufactured,
> and multiple US Government agencies (including DoD) used, the
> "Cellular STU-III" which was approved for Top Secret communications.
> This was nothing more than a car-mount cell phone with the same Secure
> Telephone Unit type III used on landline phones (STU-III) built in
The kind of cellular phone you describe is not a standard, off the shelf
cell phone, like GSM phones this thread was discussing. And when
speaking about 'cellular' or 'cell phones' I mean any kind of mobile
phone system (AMPS, NMT, TACS, 'TDMA', 'CDMA', GSM, PCS, etc...), not
just old AMPS or similar system.
In Europe some countries are adopting Tetra systems for police, rescue
and government use. Technology is similar to GSM - well, it uses TDMA
as does GSM, radio cells and encryption. Some network services are
tailored for official use. I have no details on network and its
security, but I'd suppose it is different from GSM and I'd assume it
is not weaker.
Also, as someone pointed out, reqular GSM encryption is an _option_.
Operators may choose not to implement it. In some countries
encryption might be prohibited. If you have a network monitor
activated handset, you can observe the encryption status of your
active call. The Finnish networks I've checked are using encryption.
Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/
Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer
** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect **
------------------------------
From: dknyc1@interport.net
Subject: Bang & Olufsen Cordless Phone
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 20:35:08 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Does anyone have any experience with the Bang & Olufsen new cordless
phone for U.S. use? I am thinking of buying one.
------------------------------
From: Rowena C. Macaraig <wengmacaraig@hotmail.com>
Subject: Help! I Paid Good Money For These
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 05:28:17 -0700
Dear Mr. Townson,
I know that I shouldn't bother you with this but I don't know
anyone who can help me.
I am from the Philippines. A Japanese who came to my country
sold me some Japan made cell phones (DoCoMo & Kyocera). When I brought
the units to a mobile sevice provider, I was told that Japan uses a
different system which is not being used in my country. Our technicians
are not familiar with the Japanese system and the frequency they are
using. Is there a way to convert Japanese standard cellphones to
function in my country? We are able to use all US and European cellphones.
I paid good, hard earned money for those phones. I was hoping to
go into business and sell them here in my country. Can you help me? If
you cannot, perhaps you can refer me to someone who can.
Thank you very much. Please email me.
Weng
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone know how to resolve the
problem this person is having? PAT]
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (was Re: What Do I Ask For?)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 14:32:35 PST
Organization: Shadownet
Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) writes:
> If you are going to use a single-line phone or modem, you have to
> make sure it's wired to provide A-lead control; otherwise, the lights
> won't light when the thing goes off hook (and won't stop flashing if
> you answer from single-line equipment) and trying to hang up may
> actually place the calls on hold instead.
In my experience *many*, if not *most* modems *do* come with A lead
control. And most of the ones that do, won't let you disable it.
This means that if you use the regular four-wire cable they supply you
with, and plug into a jack that either has a second line of the
yello/black pair (RJ-14) or one that has *power* for an old Princess
phone or the like on them, you are going to have some *real* problems.
With the RJ-14, the modem will *short* line two every time it goes off
hook. With the other setup, it'll short the output of that old telco
"wall wart" that's hiding in the basement or wherever.
The first is annoying. The second is downright *dangerous*. That's why
*unless* I'm using a modem on an old key system I make a point of
using a *two* wire phone cable.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:14:33 EDT
From: John A Beckett <jbeckett@southern.edu>
Subject: Re: Guess Where I'm Calling From! Cellphones Invade Wilderness
> *Public lands*, HELL NO! This is Ocoee[*] all over again. :(
> [*] for those that didn't read the Digest in summer 1996:
> http://www.roamer1.org/telecom/ocoee/
I've read this diatribe. It makes sense only if you assume cell coverage
at a reasonable price is a constitutional right anywhere in the USA. The
tower GTE put up back in 1996 has since been removed. It was apparently
there only for the Olympics. US 11/64 along the Ocoee is now blissfully
innocent of cell signals to my knowledge.
I think that's a Good Thing.
/\--. John A. Beckett "Never tire of doing
/ \ ) Southern Adventist Univ. right." 2 Thess. 3:13
/----\---. voice: (423) 238-2701
\ / \ \ FAX: (423) 238-2431
`-' `--' home: (423) 396-2453 jbeckett@southern.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:57:08 -0400
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com
Subject: Public Service Message: www.thehungersite.com
Feed folks, no cost to you.
"At no cost to themselves, visitors to The Hunger Site can donate a
free serving of rice, wheat, maize or other staple food to the
hungry. The site's corporate sponsors pay for the donation. Anyone on
the Internet can make one free donation every day." (quote from
InternetNews.com)
http://www.thehungersite.com
The Hunger Site Home - Donate Food for Free to Give to Hungry People in the
World.
Please share with your friends, and ask them to share with others.
Thanks,
Judith Oppenheimer
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a wonderful service, and I want
to thank you for bringing it to our attention. I'd appreciate it if
every reader today would take a minute now to visit the site and make
a donation. It costs nothing except a click of your mouse when you get
there. Thank you very much. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #193
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 6 16:57:12 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA03154;
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:57:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:57:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907062057.QAA03154@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #194
TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Jul 99 16:57:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 194
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
ITU Announces Official ADSL (Hi-Speed) "Standard" (Danny Burstein)
Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Charles Gimon)
I Need The Telephone Instrument Maintenance Manual (Felix Chang)
CNG Tone Routing on PBX? (ematteso@my-deja.com)
Johnnie Collie (Gregory L. Abbott)
Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (Arthur Ross)
Re: Horrible Data Connection (Herb Stein)
Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz (Steve Winter)
Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (LARB0)
Re: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees (A. Carr)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 23:47:46 EDT
From: Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: ITU Announces Official ADSL (Hi-Speed) "Standard"
(lightly edited/reformatted for distribution)
ITU International Telecommunication Union
United Nations specialized agency for telecommunications
PRESS Release
This press release is published in French, English and Spanish. For
further information, or for additional copies in one of the languages,
please contact the Press Office, International Telecommunication Union.
Telephone: +41 22 730 6039 Telefax: +41 22 730 5939/733 7256
Internet: pressinfo@itu.int Web: http://www.itu.int/newsroom/
(For information media, not an official record)
ITU/99-10 5 July 1999 Original: English
----------------
Affordable Multi-Megabit/s Network Access to Internet via Telephone Lines to
be fostered by single transmission standard
Geneva - The ITU announced today that its Telecommunication
Standardization Sector had approved a set of new world standards
providing Multi-Megabit/s network access via ordinary telephone
subscriber lines by using ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line)
technology thus meeting its commitment announced last October 1. The
approved standards, also called ITU-T Recommendations are effective
immediately.
Systems based upon these ITU-T Recommendations are being introduced
in many countries to provide affordable access to Internet,
teleworking, distance learning, and multi-media services at speeds
many times faster than possible via today's 'dial-up' modems, thus
completing the 'last mile' in high-speed subscriber-to-subscriber data
connections.
"These services answer the urgent need of telecommunications
customers for instantaneous access to multi-media information, and the
approval today is well timed for telecommunications and computer
equipment vendors, service providers and network operators alike,
since many companies are now introducing systems and services on a
large scale, based upon these new world standards for ADSL", said
Peter Wery, Chairman of ITU-T Study Group 15.
The approved ADSL Recommendations establish a set of coordinated
specifications for compatible systems that operate over a range of
bit-rates from less than 1 Mbit/s to about 7 Mbit/s. Furthermore,
these Recommendations have strong commonality with regional ADSL
standards. As a result, work in ITU-T led to world-wide agreement on a
single standard transmission method for ADSL systems, the technical
specifications having been agreed by Study Group 15 last October thus
providing the technical stability required by manufacturers and
service providers to start bringing compatible products to the market.
This single transmission method for ADSL is now in use by network
operators, service providers and telecommunications equipment and
computer systems vendors around the world, facilitating the
interoperability of ADSL systems from different equipment suppliers.
Indeed, several companies have announced progress in demonstrating
multi-vendor interoperability of ADSL systems based upon the earlier
drafts of the ITU-T Recommendations. System interoperability provides
both consumer and business customers with the freedom to choose among
equipment from many different vendors.
The set of the approved ITU-T ADSL Recommendations covers:
* ADSL transmission at rates up to about 7 Mb/s with the use of a
filter to split data from voice-band signals (G.992.1)
* ADSL transmission at rates up to 1.5 Mb/s with a simplified
service installation and reduced modem cost. This typically avoids
the need to install new wire or a splitting filter in the customer
premises (G.992.2)
* Method for DSL systems to negotiate mutually supported operating
modes (G.994.1)
* Reference architecture for ADSL system (G.995.1)
* Test methods for ADSL systems (G.996.1)
* Management of ADSL systems (G.997.1)
"Regarding the future evolution of the family of ITU-T DSL (Digital
Subscriber Line) Recommendations, work is already underway on potential
enhancements, including topics such as even higher bit rates, increased
loop reach, and support of combined voice and data access, for both,
symmetrical and asymmetrical operation", Peter Wery added.
For more information, please contact:
Mr. Richard L. Stuart
Rapporteur Transceivers for subscriber access systems
Tel:+1 410 884 4017 Email: dick_stuart@3com.com
Mr. Andrew Nunn Chairman Working Party 1/15 Tel: +44 1728 830462
Email: andrew.nunn@btinternet.com
Mr. Peter Wery Chairman Study Group 15
Tel: +1 613 763 7603 Email: wery@nortelnetworks.com
Mr. Fabio Bigi Deputy Director
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau
ITU Tel: +41 22 730 5860 Fax: +41 22 730 5853
Email: fabio.bigi@itu.int
Note to Editors:
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is a global
organization where the public and private sectors cooperate for the
development of telecommunications and the harmonization of national
telecommunication policies. It consists of 188 Member States and some 500
Sectors members representing public and private companies and
organizations. Its Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
coordinates the development of global communications standards. ITU-T
Study Group 15, where the work on these specifications has been carried
out, is responsible for the standards development in the area of transport
networks, systems and equipment.
________________
1 See information note to the press 4 of 29 October 1998
------------------------------
From: Charles Gimon <gimonca@mirage.skypoint.com>
Subject: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: 6 Jul 1999 04:20:29 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.
This keeps happening to me:
Friend or acquaintance travels to California. Stays at a hotel, a
friend's house, wherever. Tries to call me, can't get through.
What happened? Turns out, I block all calls that don't transmit caller
ID info. (Works great at weeding out telemarketers.)
The place that they're calling from is set not to transmit caller ID
info.
This happens to me constantly on calls from California, and now from
Washington state. Is it just me and bad luck, or are there lots of
West Coast people who still aren't transmitting the caller ID burp?
Wild new Ubik salad dressing, not | gimonca@skypoint.com
Italian, not French, but an entirely | Minneapolis MN USA
new and different taste treat that's | http://www.skypoint.com/~gimonca
waking up the world! | A lean, mean meme machine.
------------------------------
From: Felix Chang <felix_chang@tnce.com.tw>
Subject: I Need the Telephone Instrument Maintenance Manual
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:01:24 +0800
Hello,
I see about the telephone instrument maintenance manual from web site.
I need it. Other I have a question ask for you that "Flash" if had a
specification in telephone intend to 'Earth".
Thanks!
Regards,
Felix Chang
Telephony & Networking Communication Equipment, Inc.
Addr.: Bldg. 52, 195-31, Sec. 4, Chung Hsin Rd., Chutung, Hsinchu Hsien,
310 Taiwan
Tel: 886-3-5832888 ext. 701
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not at all certain about Mr. Chang's
inquiry. His email arrived here with a lot of gibberish as part of
his address; I assume those were from a Chinese language character set
which will not print out correctly here. I am printing above what I
can from his letter; hopefully someone who speaks his language or has
the correct language support on their computer will correspond with
him then advise me of actions taken or required. I also forwarded a
copy of this to David Massey since Mr. Chang may be referring to one
of the documents on display in our telephone museum exhibit located
at http://telecom-digest.org/tribute PAT]
------------------------------
From: ematteso@my-deja.com
Subject: CNG Tone Routing on PBX?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:10:12 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I need some help here.
I have the following setup:
- DID T1 with 4 digits (ext #) set by CO
- Adtran CSU/DSU
- Mitel SX2000Lite where the DID T terminates
- CallXpressNT with cards that take COV lines
- RightFAX with loop start cards to ONS lines
Here is what needs to be done. Each DID able to receive voice or
faxes. The problem is when I reroute to the voicemail server to
detect if its a fax the AVT Mitel intergration automatically inserts a
3 . So a call to xxx-4444 would be seen by the voicemail as 34444
which is used to route to user voicemail boxes from a trunk call.
I've thought about getting a DID card for the voicemail box but then
voice calls would tie up all my COV ports.
Any thoughts? It seems so simple if the PBX could detect the CNG tones
and route to an alternative route. If not route to the extension. Or
if the Fax server could always get the calls and if it doesnt detect a
CNG tone then reroute to the extension.
Any help would be helpfully. (Replacing existing equipment/software
is not an option).
Thanks,
E!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:19:07 -0700
From: Gregory L. Abbott <gabbott@IPINC.NET>
Organization: Attorney at Law
Subject: Johnnie Collie
Dear Mr. Townson;
I just read your notice regarding Mr. Collie and his alleged scam. I
wanted to take a moment to commend you for alerting as many as possible
to his behavior. I practice in the area of consumer law in the
Portland, Oregon area and can readily attest that no end of people will
get sucked into such operations, even when they should know better. It
simply is human to want to get a bargain, a deal, or, best of all,
something for nothing - and scam artists prey on that exact human
fraility.
I might also suggest contacting the Michigan Attorney General's office.
At least in Oregon, the Attorney General has a special consumer fraud
division set up to take complaints and put a stop to such activities -
be they on the Net or elsewhere. I would think Michigan would as well.
Even the District Attorney's office in that County might well be
interested. Lastly, your readers might be interested in knowing that if
they paid by credit card, they can issue a stop payment on the credit
card, just like a check. There are two different types of stop payments
for credit cards, one of which has to be issued to the consumer's own
credit card provider within 60 days of it first appearing on the bill.
Further, the charge should always be disputed BEFORE any part of the
charge is paid. Nevertheless, even if more than 60 days has gone by,
the consumer who feels ripped off should write his or her own credit
card provider, giving details of the date and charges, and request a
charge back. If the consumer has attempted to resolve the complaint
with the "merchant" first and not gotten satisfaction, the consumer is
then free to request a charge back from the credit card provider -
theoretically, even if it is years past the purchase date. Obviously,
for $20 there are limits as to how much effort it is all worth, but
that, of course, is one of the things Mr. Collie is counting on.
Again, please accept my commendations for exposing Mr. Collie's
operation.
Greg Abbott
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for your kind message. Mr.
Collie of course was just an amateur where that sort of thing is
concerned, but one of an increasing number of scam artists on the
net, not all by any means just little one-man outfits like Collie.
Some are actually much larger and more sophisticated.
Regretably, because the philosophy of some long-long-long time
netizens who carry some weight is that the net could never, ever
possibly survive these days without the massive commercialization
which has occurred, scams like Mr. Collie's are finding it easy to
locate themselves on the net. No, they certainly do not endorse
Collie and similar, but in their desire to convert the net over from
its original, intended and traditional purposes for more than a decade
into one great big electronic shopping mall, they seem to cut some
corners and ignore a few of the problems. They claim to be looking
into the privacy problems, but I don't think they are. I don't think
most of them give two hoots about privacy, except when it comes to
conducting their own meetings in secrecy where they function as
liason between big government and big business gradually removing
the net from users and small ISPs and putting it in the hands of
large companies and large service providers with agendas of their
own which don't include you or me. Surprise! You didn't know that
yet?
Assuming that a large, relatively well-known business has a presence
on the net, and that they are for all intents and purposes honest
with their customers -- a big assumption to be sure in some cases --
there are still some dreadful problems with lack of security and
the casual handling of personal information. I do not think credit
card ordering on the net is safe at all; there are lots of problems
with that. I would never want to use my credit card on the net on
any regular basis and/or tie it in with my name and address. And
that is assuming they are honest, mean well, but just cannot get
their act together. God help us with the dishonest ones out there
of which there are plenty who are slipping in largely unnoticed
because of the federal government's wish to hand the whole thing
over to big business posthaste and a number of 'internet pioneers'
who are willing to go along with it; so willing in fact that they
deliberatly exclude the average netizen -- like Ronda Hauben -- from
attending their meetings or anyone who is likely to report to the
net as a whole what is happening.
In fact, they do not really like it when anyone attends their
meetings, which under the law since the federal government is
extensively involved, should be open to the public. If your name is
{Wall Street Journal} or {New York Times} then you are invited to
attend their meetings since you can be counted on to go back to your
readers chanting the mantra 'Big Business is Good for the Net'. The
excuse they offer for ignoring the law on open meetings is that 'some
of the people in our group are from foreign countries, where they do
not conduct their business in open, public sessions', and some of
these people might be offended if nosey netters or others come along
and ask difficult questions like, 'what the hell are you doing,
stealing our internet to be used for your business operations?'
They assume being large and having an obnoxious attorney and lots
of money they'll get their way here the same as they do in the
physical world. See a domain name you want? ... take it. Need
more bandwidth? Tell a couple of small private websites to get out
of the way. Getting some bad public relations from a user on the
net? Claim that it is all just a bunch of lies, and put some heavy
pressure on the sysadmin to kill the user's account and web site.
Always look for the deep pockets. Don't waste your time suing some
user who cooks carrots and pees in the same pot; buck the chain of
command and go right to the top, threaten them with a massive
lawsuit if they don't get rid of that user, etc.
By the way, I already, just yesterday, got my first piece of hate
mail regards http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html -- an
attorney who says if his client loses five cents as the result of
some fraud committed using Operator Pat as the gateway, I'll get
the suing of my life. I needed a good laugh.
In California for many years, perhaps still, the Commercial Code
required that any business running newspaper advertisements which
solicited money from the public had to, under the law, include their
street address as part of the ad. They could display a PO Box
address and a toll free 800 number prominently in their advertising,
but somewhere a street address and the legally precise name of their
company had to appear. So you would see these full page newspaper
ads extolling one thing or another and a PO Box or 800 number to
reach them, but then way down at the bottom of the page, or perhaps
running sideways along the bottom somewhere in 1/16 of an inch print
would be a *tiny* thing saying, 'CompanyName, Inc, 1234 Main Street'
and nothing else. Is that still the law in California?
Would it be asking too much to require that every commercial site
on the net include somewhere on its web pages, and I do not care if
it is in little tiny print, its exact legal name, its street address,
a non-800 telephone number and the name of its registered agent (this
is usually the attorney representing it) for the purpose of legal
service?
I would like to see the above requirement of every site using .com
in its URL, and/or any site which *requires* cookie-passing as a
condition of participation at the site. If you require cookies and/or
require money at your site, you must be a .com, and all sites that
are .com must display somewhere at their site their street address and
the other details mentioned above. If they do not sell things, require
money to participate or force netizens to accept cookies, then they
should not be in .com which after all does mean COMmercial. If they
do require those things, then netizens should have the right to know
who they are dealing with, and who to see or where to go to get their
money -- or their reputation! -- back if necessary.
The rule would be that .com sites, like any business in the commmunity
do not receive the same degree of privacy as afforded to individuals.
It would be sort of like the requirement we have now for post office
boxes. You may get one and stay private; if you solicit, you lose some
of those privacy rights; anyone can demand to know the name and
address behind the PO Box. We've used that technique a few times here
with spammers, haven't we! (grin) ... Jeff Slaton comes to mind, and
that female impersonator over in Queens, NY who used to flood the net
with his magazine subscription plans while posing as a 'foreign
exchange student' ... remember that joker?
But I seriously doubt any such imposition would be made upon .com sites
since after all, many large corporations are offended even by the
ability of a person like you or me to walk down to the public library,
ask for the index of corporate registered agents, look up a name and
address, then walk over to the attorney's office and hand him legal
service on behalf of his client. A good idea though, but Father Knows
Best, and I doubt he or his children would provide imprimateur and
try to push that requirement on others at their little 'internet for
sale to the highest bidder' meetings. And I seriously doubt if over
the next couple years they will even tolerate newsgroups or mailing
lists like this one at all; they need the bandwidth for other stuff. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 15:35:04 -0700
From: Arthur Ross <a.ross@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet
Bud Couch <Bud_Couch@adc.com> wrote:
> The FCC would never dare to mandate this "feature" -- the ability to
> track individual citizens without either their knowledge or consent.
> Both the legal and political outcry would be immediate and effective.
> Did someone of social and political naivete come up with this on their
> own, or was it a sub-rosa suggestion from the NSA or one of the other
> spook agencies? We'll probably never know, but it makes no difference;
> the techniques should not have been thought out by Lucent engineers,
> and the concept should have been quashed by Lucent management.
Sorry, that's EXACTLY what they have done. I personally believe that
there originally was no nefarious motive on the part of the FCC, but,
as Lauren pointed out elsewhere in that same issue of TD, there is
all sorts of potential for mis-use and abuse, both in real time and
after-the-fact -- "usage creep."
From CFR 47 20.18, 10-1-98 Edition:
"(e) Phase II enhanced 911 services. As of October 1, 2001, licensees
subject to this section must provide to the disignated Public Safety
Answering Point the location of all 911 calls by longitude and latitude
such that the accuracy for all calls is 125 meters or less using a Root
Mean Square (RMS) methodology."
The full text of CFR 47, and other FCC documents and proceedings can be
found on the FCC website (http://www.fcc.gov).
Some recent remarks by the Chairman of the Wireless Bureau (also from FCC
website):
Remarks of Tom Sugrue
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
911 Critical Issues Forum
Integrating Transportation, EMS and 9-1-1: A Vision for the Future
Alexandria, Virginia
May 21, 1999
As prepared for delivery.
Thank you very much for your kind introduction.
I would especially like to thank you on behalf of Chairman Kennard. He
appreciated the invitation to join you today and regretted the fact
that other commitments kept him from being here. Moving forward on
public safety programs such as wireless E911 is one of the Chairman's
highest priorities.
Exactly two years ago today, on May 21, 1997, at a meeting very like
this one, the FCC joined NHTSA and Dr. Martinez to issue a call to
action for implementation of wireless enhanced 9-1-1. Emergencies
occur where there are people, not necessarily where there are phone
lines. Because wireless phones can travel wherever we do, wireless
9-1-1 has proved to be the greatest advancement in public access to
emergency services since the birth of 9-1-1 itself in 1968. Wireless
9-1-1 has saved countless lives and brought help to millions of people
over the years. But, as we recognized in our call to action, a great
deal of planning and work were needed to make wireless technology a
more effective component of the overall system of providing help in
emergencies.
For example, if you call 9-1-1 today on a wireless phone, the 9-1-1
dispatcher will not know where you are, where help is needed. You must
be able to describe your location, or at least where to begin looking,
before help can arrive. This can delay and vastly complicate the work
of emergency response teams. A week ago today, for instance, a man not
far from here in Fairfax was traveling only as far as from his home to
a nearby gas station on a riding lawn mower. It overturned in a ditch
and trapped him underneath. He managed to use his cellular phone to
call 9-1-1, help eventually arrived, and he escaped without serious
major injury. But it took scores of police, aided by a helicopter,
almost an hour to find him. If the 9-1-1 dispatcher had known the
location of his phone, help could have arrived much faster, and that
help could have been, not scores of police, but a single officer. And
not a fleet of vehicles and a helicopter, but one squad car and an
ambulance.
When we joined with NHTSA in 1997, we reported that 47 million
Americans had wireless phones and they made 59,000 emergency calls
each day. Today, the American desire for mobility and communication
has proved so powerful that the number of wireless phones has grown by
57% to over 74 million. And the use of those phones to seek emergency
help has grown even faster. In just those two years, the volume of
wireless 9-1-1 calls has increased by 66%, to over 98,000 calls every
day. Those calls are saving lives, bringing help to people in need,
and preventing crime. As we saw most recently and tragically in
Littleton, Colorado, the wireless phone has become for many Americans,
including our children, the lifeline to help in any emergency.
At the FCC, we have adopted a number of rules designed to improve
wireless 9-1-1 service. For example, our rules require that the
wireless carriers handle all 9-1-1 calls and route them to the 9-1-1
center designated by state and local public safety authorities. And
just last week, the FCC adopted rules requiring manufacturers to
modify analog cellular handsets to help improve 9-1-1 call completion,
allowing 9-1-1 calls to be handled by either cellular carrier. That
proceeding addressed the "dead zone" problem, in which callers may
find themselves unable to complete 911 calls because their preferred
cellular provider does not provide service in a particular geographic
area. The rules we adopted last week will help to improve this
situation by facilitating completion of 911 calls by the other
cellular carrier. This proceeding prompted much debate, and the
Commission -- working in concert with consumer groups, the public
safety community, the cellular industry, and handset manufacturers --
was able to craft a flexible policy which will improve wireless 911
call completion by requiring handset manufacturers to use any one of
three approved call completion modes, at their discretion.
In addition, in what is commonly referred to as Phase1 of our wireless
E911 rules, covered carriers are required, as of April 1 1998, to
provide automatic number identification (ANI) and cell site
information for 911 calls to PSAPS. In what is referred to as Phase II
of our rules, effective October 1, 2001 all covered carriers will be
required to identify the location of mobile units making 911 calls
within a radius of no more than 125 meters.
Unfortunately, Phase I deployment has been slow, and some difficult
issues have arisen as we prepare for Phase II. In addition to the
development of effective location technology, wireless E911 requires
funding mechanisms, upgrading of 9-1-1 equipment to understand and use
wireless location information, coordination with local telephone
carriers and their existing 9-1-1 databases, and the management of
emergency systems to make rapid and effective use of this information.
Many technical, legal, and regulatory questions will need to be
resolved. To take one example, we need to be sure that our rules
permit the most effective technologies to be used to provide location
information, whether that technology resides in the wireless network,
the handset, or both. We should encourage our inventors and
entrepreneurs to surprise us once again with their innovations and
creativity in developing wireless location technology.
These efforts are only one aspect of the Commission's efforts to apply
wireless technology to public safety needs. The Commission will
conclude a proceeding this year which may allocate additional spectrum
to help meet the communications needs of emergency service
agencies. The Commission is also currently studying the Transportation
Department's request to establish an abbreviated three-digit dialing
code that would allow consumers to access intelligent transportation
systems nationwide. Wireless technology can also be used, under our
safety warning system rules adopted earlier this year, to alert
motorists to hazardous road and driving conditions. Jim Schlichting,
Deputy Chief of the Wireless Bureau, will be participating on a panel
following this session, and will provide more information on the range
of activities we are undertaking in this area.
The Commission will once again need to reach out to all the critical
parts of the community represented here today to turn the promise
wireless E911 into lifesaving reality. And we are working diligently
to do precisely that. For example, we are planning to sponsor a forum
in the near future to examine the technical issues of wireless
automatic location information. We expect to pursue other efforts in
the very near term to seek input from the essential participants in
wireless E911 to resolve these issues.
With wireless E911 in place, calls can be routed to the right 9-1-1
center, which can then quickly dispatch the help that is needed, and
only the help that is needed, to exactly the right place. That is the
promise of wireless E911. But it will remain only a promise unless we
succeed in making wireless E911 an integrated part of public safety
programs.
NHTSA is to be complemented for taking a leadership role in promoting
such an integrated nationwide public safety system, with programs such
as its emergency medical services agenda for the future and its trials
of automatic crash notification systems.
These and other initiatives can improve the safety of our highways,
and indeed of our lives wherever we might be. We have made progress in
that direction since our call to action with NHTSA two years ago, but
far more remains to be done. By the time E911 Phase II is scheduled to
be implemented in 2001, there will be over 100 million wireless phones
in use in the United States. In just a few more years, it is likely
that there will be more wireless than wireline phones. We can expect
equally rapid growth in wireless 9-1-1 calls. This means that the
importance of adapting emergency services to wireless E911 will
continue to grow as well.
We at the FCC are resolved to continue working with NHTSA and NENA to
apply wireless technology to the improvement of public safety. In
particular, we recently invited Dr. Martinez to participate in a
Commission meeting next month dedicated to wireless issues, to help
ensure that the vital role of wireless in emergency services and
public safety is given the attention it deserves. To Dr. Martinez,
NENA and to all of you here, representing some of the many
organizations that must work together to realize this vision, we urge
you to continue the vital work of making America a better and safer
place.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.
******** End of Remarks by Tom Sugrue ********
-- Dr. Arthur Ross
2325 East Orangewood Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730
Phone: 602-371-9708
Fax : 602-336-7074
------------------------------
From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein)
Subject: Re: Horrible Data Connection
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 00:49:58 GMT
Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com)
In article <telecom19.191.8@telecom-digest.org>, Dave O'Shea
<daveoshea@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Heather Drury <heather@v1.wustl.edu> wrote in message news:telecom19.
> 187.13@telecom-digest.org:
>> We have just moved into a new house (new for us) and are doing battle
>> with Southwestern Bell over our data connection. Basically, sometimes
>> it works, sometimes it doesn't and SWBT insists there is no problem.
Have you tried another dial-up number to be sure it isn't your provider?
> I'm about 3100 feet from the SLC hut that puts us onto fiber for the
> haul back to the CO. According to the local techs, Bubba and Elmer,
> I'm lucky to be able to break dial tone at that distance. But,
> heh-heh, I still pay full price for service - $50 a month per line for
> local service only!
> I finally broke down and got ISDN service - $172.00 per month. Ouch.
I think mine is about $130 with the stuff you need on it and I'm in
Manchester in St. Louis County.
> I'll hazard a guess that you have underground wiring which is having
> moisture problems -- and as the heat moves away from the ground, the
> moisture moves back in.
>> What can we do? We are investigating getting a DSL line but aren't
>> certain we can get one in our area. This problem has been going on for
>> over a month (since 5/27) and SWBT is giving us lip service but not
>> taking steps (it appears) to resolve the underlying problem. Are we
>> really dead in the water, so to speak?
> Yes. Consider ISDN, etc. The official position of SWBell is that
> anything above 2400bps should be considered an earth-shattering
> miracle. (Needless to say, SBC is not high on my list of
> retirement-portfolio stocks) ... try finding out about cable modem
> service, etc.
I believe SWBT offers ADSL, but I'm told that it's about the same as ISDN.
Better bandwidth though.
>> I will say we have had technician after technician out (who usually
>> just complain about non-union techs and how terrible the SWBT
>> infrastructure is). We have also had many billing errors (three so far
>> on our first bill). All in all, I really can't wait for some other
>> carriers to enter our area so we can dump SWBT forever, but in the
>> meantime we need a decent data connection.
> I finally ended up ordering enough phone lines that SWBell was forced
> to lay new cable. Sure enough, that suddenly cleared up the problem. I
> can now get an astonishing 26.6kb on a modem!!!!!!!
Don't hesitate to call be anytime to hear what I've done. Hint: 2400 baud
modems and FAX are all they guarantee, if that. They take IDSN and ADSL
VERY seriously.
Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
herb@herbstein.com
314 215-3584
------------------------------
From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones: 900Mhz vs. 43-49Mhz
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 01:49:14 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com
michael@ablecomm.com spake thusly and wrote:
> In article <telecom19.184.5@telecom-digest.org>,
>> Unless I am mistaken they have a rather short record time capacity 16
>> minutes, I believe, which I consider inadequate. That is the reason
>> we have not really looked into them. Also I believe that particular
>> phone is a 900mhz/2.4Ghz "hybrid".
> I don't know the specifics of _your_ situation, but 16 minutes is
> adequate for most users. The typical message today is less than 15
> seconds, allowing a good number of incoming messages in addition to the
> outgoing message.
Well, there are those times when one goes out of town or whatever and
the system may well be really needed at such a time. I had always
felt that record time was the drawback to the digitals as compared to
the little 30 minute cassette tape ones.
Now that digital (at least the Siemens anyway) has hit 26 minutes,
it means (to me) that digital has caught up with tape.
Regards,
Steve
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
------------------------------
From: larb0@aol.com (LARB0)
Date: 06 Jul 1999 02:02:11 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone
Five hour backup won't do alot of good when the power is out for one
or two days. With central office power, the phone works fine -
especially since COs have backup generators. During winter ice storms,
we've lost power frequently - once over two days. This is my main issue
regarding wireless and IP telephony - the loss of "lifeline" service.
------------------------------
From: acarr@aol.comnojunk (A. Carr)
Date: 06 Jul 1999 04:55:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Qwest: Raising My Intrastate Rates and Imposing Fees
The Tel-Save long distance service offered to AOL members is the best
I've found. 9 cents per minute day or night on state to state (7 cents
per minute intrastate in Maryland). No minimums and no monthly
fees. Calling card calls are at the same per minute rate with a 30
cent surcharge. Of course you have to subscribe to AOL to get the
service. If you leave AOL, you can keep it, but I think the rate goes
up to 10c per minute.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #194
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 6 19:19:18 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA10536;
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 19:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 19:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907062319.TAA10536@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #195
TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Jul 99 19:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 195
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
A Strange Bit of Candor From AT&T (Wayne Lorentz)
Faulty Vending Machines Block Emergency Calls in Australia (Monty Solomon)
Re: Trouble Calling From NPA 802 (Vermont) (Linc Madison)
Re: Spam Blocking (Barry Margolin)
Re: Spam Blocking (usbcpdx@teleport.com)
Re: Rationale For Class Action Suits (was Re: Death of GSM) (Steve Jarboe)
Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These (Darryl Smith)
Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These (Robert Berntsen)
Re: Search Engine For "thedirectory" Prefix List Requested (usbcpdx@tel)
Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Rick Goddard)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (David Scheidt)
Last Laugh! His Wife is a Computer Hacker (Babu Mengelepouti)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: waynelorentz@/THOUSHALTNOTSPAM/worldnet.att.net (Wayne Lorentz)
Subject: A Strange Bit of Candor From AT&T
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 15:30:34 GMT
Organization: Fairlight Genetics - "Making Perfect People Every Day."
I heard something odd today from an AT&T representative.
Allow me to set this up:
In my experience, Southwestern Bell defies the laws of physics by both
sucking and blowing. They are aware that there is an ongoing problem
with my phone service for which I have placed several repair requests
and talked to a number of technicians, some of whom I have spoken to
on the phone and some who have come to my home. Finally, it was
explained to me that, yes, I do have problems with static on my line,
and yes, dropped calls are an occasional nuisance, and yes, it's hard
for my modem to connect faster than 14.4, but no, there's nothing they
can do about it because even though I live in the downtown of the
fourth largest city in America, and the largest city in their
territory, the phone lines in my neighborhood are old and won't be
upgraded anytime soon. The only viable option presented to me from
SWB to get consistently clear voice phone calls (let alone data) is to
go ISDN because then I get all new wire or fiber or whatever.
To me, this is unacceptable since I'm not a power web surfer, just
someone who wants to call his mother every now and again, and maybe
order a pizza; everything else I can do from my mobile phone. So I
started shopping around. Lo and behold I find out that AT&T is
offering local service in parts of Texas. -Real- local service, not
just re-billing local toll calls, but the whole ball of wax, lines and
all.
So I ring up an AT&T rep who sends me to someone else who sends me to
someone else who is involved with this Texas venture. Here's the
interesting part: She tells me that AT&T is "unhappy" with the way
their local service is going in Texas and isn't taking any new
customers until they work the bugs out of the system. She's not
specific about what problems they're having, but assures me that it
will be offered again around mid- to late-July and that I should try
back.
I'd like to thank AT&T for their honesty. If I could get that kind of
service from Southwestern Bell maybe I wouldn't be looking elsewhere.
Does anyone have AT&T's local service in Texas or have any idea what
the problem is?
If you're interested in the AT&T Texas thingy, the service rep I
talked to gave me the basics on the old system, but couldn't guarantee
it would be the same when the new system debuts. It's a minimum of
$24.25 a month (about $5.00 more than SWB), and costs $39.50 to switch
over. Additional services are...additional, but you can get 11 of the
most popular services in a discounted bundle. I only care about call
forwarding busy/no answer (something else SWB screwed up this month)
so I didn't press further.
Want to try your luck? The number is 800/362-9689. If you press
option 1 for new service, you get a recording saying, "Than you for
calling AT&T. You have reached a number that is not currently in
service." *click*.
Wayne V.H. Lorentz
Television Producer
"Runs with scissors."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 01:37:59 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Faulty Vending Machines Block Emergency Calls in Australia
http://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,66895-105845-751208-0,00.html
Faulty vending machines block emergency calls in Australia
Copyright 1999 Nando Media
Copyright 1999 Associated Press
SYDNEY, Australia (July 3, 1999 11:36 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com)
- A bizarre computer glitch has left soft drink machines calling for
help - literally.
The faulty machines may have placed hundreds of phone calls to police,
ambulance and fire service emergency phone lines, blocking true
emergency calls, The Daily Telegraph reported today.
Thousands of the machines around Sydney are programmed to automatically
call a number at a distribution company when they are near empty.
However, some of the machines dialed a default 000 number, the emergency
number, instead of the distribution company number, Adam Redman,
spokesman for the National telecommunications company Telstra Corp., was
quoted as saying.
Telstra began investigating to find how many of the about one million hoax
or mistake calls a year received by the emergency number were made by
the machines, the newspaper said.
Penny Farrer, a spokeswoman for the emergency service, said the problem
of vending machines dialing 000 was getting worse and spreading to other
electronic devices.
Ian Brown, a spokesman for Coca-Cola Co., said the problem had occurred
in the past, but had been rectified.
Copyright 1999 Nando Media
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 20:05:37 -0700
From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Trouble Calling From NPA 802 (Verm
Organization: LincMad Consulting
In article <telecom19.193.3@telecom-digest.org>, Peter T
<pjtnews@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The intercept messages vary, but quite often, we get a switch message
> that says "your call did not go through, please try later. 052T"
> We have recently experienced this message while trying to call other
> parts of the country, namely Montgomery AL (NPA 334) and occasionally
> El Paso TX (NPA 915).
> Can someone please tell me what the "052T" identifier on the switch
> message indicates? I assume our calls are crapping out before even
> reaching the intended remote NPA.
The "052T" is a network switch identifier, probably one of the AT&T
toll switches. Do you get the same number when you call El Paso as
when you call New York or Montgomery? If so, then there may be a
problem with the AT&T switch on your end. If the numbers are
different for different locations, then there is probably trouble
on the far end.
There are people around here with handy lists of the various switch
identifiers in the AT&T network, so they may be able to give you
more information.
I had quite a lot of difficulty recently trying to reach a couple of
people here locally on the Cellular One network. The call would
never ring, just dead air, but on at least one occasion it did
supervise (bill) even though it never even rang. There was no
recorded message, no ringing, no anything at all. On some occasions
I hung up and redialed and got right through; on other occasions
the problem persisted for as long as I was willing/able to stand
at the payphone.
** 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: replies sent to <Telecom@LincMad-com> will be read sooner!
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Spam Blocking
Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 15:39:41 GMT
In article <telecom19.191.13@telecom-digest.org>, Danny Burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> ORBS is different: it's based on reports (not completely verified -
> see below) that a specific mail server is allowing outsiders
> (i.e. spammers) to access it to send out their mailte effectively .
Another problem with ORBS is that they add indirect relays to their
list. We operate a selective mail relay that we give our customers
access to on demand. If their server is open and forwards the
outgoing mail through our server, both servers get put on the
blacklist. This has happened to us several times. This means that
one of our customers could easily cause a denial of service for many
other customers, simply by removing their own spam blocks and
reporting themselves as a mail relay (I don't think any of our
customers have actually done this intentionally).
Luckily, not too many sites subscribe to ORBS, so the extent of the
denial is somewhat limited. Customers often don't even notice it
until a couple of weeks after we get put in.
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: someone@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Spam Blocking
Organization: As server security goes, it's as if NT wears a 'Kick me' sign.
Reply-To: usbcpdx.teleport.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot )
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 19:28:53 GMT
Do you have a URL for RRSS?
http://www.radparker.org and http://relays.radparker.org do not work.
On 5 Jul 1999 00:12:05 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote:
> I use RRSS at relays.radparker.org, which is like ORBS but only lists
> open relays that have sent at least one spam. It's quite effective,
> since there are spam trap addreses that nominate open relays as soon
> as they send their first spam.
------------------------------
From: Steve Jarboe <sjarboe@mattcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Rationale For Class Action Suits (was Re: Death of GSM)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:40:30 -0700
Organization: Verio
Your state attorney general may be a good start. And sometimes the
bad publicity from the press can help. Maybe the local paper or
television station would be interested in spot checking some customers
and publicizing. I've seen cases where after broadcasting one or two
instances of fraud that many more people check and call in with more.
Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:telecom19.192.2@telecom-digest.org...
> So I sent off a letter to the NYS PSC, the FCC, and the FTC (Federal
> Trade Commission) pointing out the likelihood that this was being done
> in a misguided attempt to increase their revenues. (Which is the
> polite way of saying that [big telco] was sending out a thousand
> improper bills, hoping that ten percent or so would be paid).
> Well ... I've just received responses from each of these agencies
> telling me that 'we don't handle this problem.' (Rest assured I'm
> working on that little diversion).
------------------------------
From: Darryl Smith <vk2tds@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:03:16 +1000
Subject: Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These
I believe that the system being refered to is the PHS - Personal
Handi-Phone System. It is basically a micro-cellular system operating
somewhere above 800 MHz. Cell Size is approximately 200m maximum, and
it is integrated so the phone can operate with home base stations --
that is the mobile will become a cordless when you are near home.
Because of the cell size, any company wanting to implement this in a
city of less than extremely high population densities would loose a
lot of money. I worked out that in Sydney, such a system would loose
US$10 Billion in the first 10 years, if they picked up at least 30% of
the mobile market!!!
PHS also is able to be made small enough to fit into a watch ...
battery life is long, with 40 gram phones available from memory.
Also from memory the base stations are *interesting*. The base
stations are simply plugged into an ISDN phone line, with the 2B+D of
ISDN offering 8 channels. The Air Interface I believe is ISDN too,
with only a rate converter required.
Darryl Smith VK2TDS
Sydney, Australia
------------------------------
From: Robert Berntsen <rb@tandberg.REMOVE.no>
Subject: Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 14:29:23 +0200
Rowena C. Macaraig wrote in message ...
> I am from the Philippines. A Japanese who came to my country
> sold me some Japan made cell phones (DoCoMo & Kyocera). When I brought
> the units to a mobile sevice provider, I was told that Japan uses a
> different system which is not being used in my country. Our technicians
> are not familiar with the Japanese system and the frequency they are
> using. Is there a way to convert Japanese standard cellphones to
> function in my country?
You did not tell what system these phones belong to, and in what
system you want to use them. Generally, the answer is no, it will not
be possible in any economic way to convert to another system.
> We are able to use all US and European cellphones.
I do not think this statement is completely true.
> I paid good, hard earned money for those phones. I was hoping to
> go into business and sell them here in my country. Can you help me? If
> you cannot, perhaps you can refer me to someone who can.
> Thank you very much. Please email me.
> Weng
My advice will be to sell them somewhere where this type of phones are
in use, or perhaps to bring them back and change them into somewhat
else.
Regards,
R.
------------------------------
From: someone@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Search Engine For "thedirectory" Prefix List Requested
Organization: As server security goes, it's as if NT wears a 'Kick me' sign.
Reply-To: usbcpdx.teleport.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot )
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 15:50:13 GMT
Right now, www.thedirectory.org has locked up their search engine ...
so use http://www.lincmad.com/index.html instead until problems are
resolved.
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:01:38 EDT, David Perrussel
<prefix@softhome.net> wrote:
> As some of you who are regulars to the TELCOM DIGEST or the
> comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup may already know, "thedirectory"
> (www.thedirectory.org), the largest listing of Internet Providers and
> web hosting companies, also runs a section on their website where
> people can find ratecenter names for a particular area code and prefix
> (NPA-NXX) combination.
------------------------------
From: ricklg@JAGUNET.COM (Rick Goddard)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:21:06 GMT
Organization: Of the Home
The main issue concerning the explosion potential is an ignition
source near an explosive atmosphere. Low power RF probably isn't a
problem, but smoking or sparks near combustible fumes can cause an
explosion. Sparks can come from a number of sources. I've spent a
number of years developing DOD electronic equipment to meet
MIL-STD-810. One interesting test is the explosive atmosphere test.
This test looks for sparks generated by switches, relays, etc. The
test is performed by placing the equipment in a chamber, adding a
gasoline/air mixture, then operating the unit. Failures can be
spectacular! I suspect the ban may be due to the likelihood of
operating a phone (pushing switches) while refueling. One catch to
this theory is that if the voltage is low enough, there is no spark.
Rick
WA3VTF
Laurel, MD
------------------------------
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: 6 Jul 1999 22:51:04 GMT
Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server
Alan Boritz <aboritz@cybernex.net> wrote:
> In article <telecom19.178.18@telecom-digest.org>, Arthur Ross
> <a.ross@ieee.org> wrote:
>> The concept of "power surge" appeared on earth shortly after the first
>> Star Trek episode, and continues to exist primarily within the minds
>> of all those Trekkies.
> No, Arthur, "surges" have been alive and well for many years before we
> had equipment available to measure them. It's a generic enough term
> to describe stuff like transients that may or may not have substantial
> power behind them.
What I would like to know is what damage can be caused by under-voltage.
I am on the East Coast, and the weather can only be described as
"rather hot". Needless to say, there has been constant transient
power problems today. I have not been watching with a sensitive
instrument, but the lights get noticably dimmer. Right now, I have
all the lights off in my office, so I don't know how they are
behaving. However, I can hear UPSs go beep beep at regular intervals.
I also have an elderly Westinghouse fan, the speed of which is voltage
dependent. It is currently on high, and spining about the speed it
does on low. I also notice that about once a minute it speeds up past
its normal rates.
David Scheidt
dscheidt@enteract.com
Folklore has a long memory, and not much concern for the facts. --John West
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:12:08 -0700
From: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>
Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
Organization: US Secret Service
Subject: Last Laugh! His Wife is a Computer Hacker
Return-Path: <owner-dc-stuff@mailsrv.dis.org>
Delivered-To: dialtone@softhome.net
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 00:53:03 -0700
From: phreaky <hackerelite@deathsdoor.com>
Angry wife a real computer hacker.
GRAFTON, Ohio -- A woman tired of her husband's online chatting
became a computer hacker.
Police said Kelli Michetti grew so upset she hacked the computer
terminal with a meat cleaver.
Michetti, 29, attacked it as her husband fended her off early Sunday,
deputies said.
She said her husband had been online until 4 a.m. the last several
days talking to women.
Michetti pleaded no contest to domestic violence and resisting-arrest
charges. She was fined $200.
Phreak Moi
hackerelite@deathsdoor.com
C921 07AA 2D21 C69E 1613 990D B559 53CB 52F8 92FB
Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wow! The poor guy ... I hope he was not
injured in the hacker attack on his computer. He may have gotten off
sort of lucky; that battle axe he is married to might have decided to
to use the ax on him instead! The female of the species can be very
vicious sometimes.
To make matters worse, as things so often go on the net, he probably
was not talking to a woman at all; he just thought he was ... you
know how that goes on AOL (which is probably where he was) ... where
user honesty and integrity in interactions with other users is an
important part of the Terms of Service.
The poor guy ... I wonder if there was much damage to his computer,
and if he has been able to get back on line yet ... you know his
online 'girl friend' must be wondering why he logged off so suddenly
without notice when they had not yet finished taking care of his
problem ...
So let this be a lesson: if you are on one of those 4 AM Sunday morning
chats on AOL and the connection suddenly drops on the other end,
it may not be the fault of the ISP or AOL at all; maybe a previously
unmentioned husand/wife/parent/significant other walked in the room
and is causing a scene, to put it charitably ... a family in need of
counseling at the very least, I would say.
The poor guy ... I wonder if his wife caught him, ummm, you know ... PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #195
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jul 7 18:55:11 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA02490;
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:55:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 18:55:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907072255.SAA02490@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #196
TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jul 99 18:55:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 196
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules (Mike Pollock)
GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract (Anthony Argyriou)
Weird Wrong Number Calls (Bill Levant)
Asian Telecoms Search (Huck Siang Lim)
Request for Local Calling Area Information (Shawn Chandler)
Private Eyes (Monty Solomon)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Justin)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (joe@fatbug.com)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (John R. Levine)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Anthony Argyriou)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Leonard Erickson)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Matthew Black)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Linc Madison)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com>
Subject: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:31:50 -0400
Organization: It's A Mike!
By BRUCE MEYERSON
AP Business Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Whether it's local or long distance, home phone or pay
phone, it's understood: A call starts with ``hello.'' If there's no
answer, there's no charge.
With mobile phones, the situation can be quite different.
Most mobile phone companies charge from the moment the caller hits the
``send'' button. One industry leader, Sprint PCS, charges for calls
even if there's no answer.
Since companies generally charge for a full minute even when less than
a minute is used, those few seconds when the phone is ringing could
inflate a monthly bill quite a bit.
This is especially true if the caller is paying extra fees for
peak-hour usage, long-distance or calls made far away from home that
trigger ``roaming'' charges of 60 cents or more a minute.
The only nod to conventional telephone wisdom is that most companies
don't charge if there's a busy signal.
These billing policies are spelled out in the contracts signed by
today's 76 million cell phone users - but even some experts and
careful shoppers were surprised to hear of them.
``I had no idea, and I would consider myself as astute on my telephone
charges as anybody,'' said Rex G. Mitchell, an telecommunications
industry analyst with Banc of America Securities in San Francisco and
a former executive with the regional phone company U S West.
``Occasionally, when I'm out of town, I will make a call and look at
the second hand on my watch to keep it under a minute because I'm
paying long-distance or roaming charges,'' said Mitchell. ``But I've
been timing it from `hello' instead of from `send.' I won't make that
mistake now.''
The issue of first-minute billing policies caught the public eye in
recent weeks after Cellular One tried to reduce the free ``ringing
time'' it gives its New England customers to 15 seconds from 30. The
carrier was bombarded by customer complaints, and quickly scrapped the
change.
Many of the million or more people signing up for wireless service
each month focus less on when the call begins and more on how many
minutes are included in their monthly calling plan or the fees for
long-distance and peak-hour calls.
Adam Litwinski, 26, an independent film maker from New York,
disconnected his home phone and uses his wireless for all calls, but
he had no idea he could be charged for unanswered calls.
``I never really paid much attention to it, honestly. I just
assumed,'' said Litwinski. ``It kind of stinks.''
The industry's rationale in treating mobile phones differently from
regular phones is that every wireless call uses the airwaves
regardless of whether the call is successful.
Of course, regular calls also use resources such as space on a
fiber-optic cable. But the companies argue that they have far greater
capacity in their cables than their wireless channels, and that the
demands of carrying a regular phone signal are negligible compared
with a wireless signal.
``You're occupying a channel. So when you make a connection, you get
charged from the inception of when you seize that channel,'' explained
Jeff Battcher, a BellSouth spokesman. ``For the most part, it's always
been that way.''
Sprint PCS is only major company that charges from ``send-to-end''
regardless of whether there's an answer.
Even among companies that only charge when a call goes through,
including AirTouch, Bell Atlantic Mobile, BellSouth Mobility and
Nextel Communications, the meter starts running from ``send,'' not
from ``hello.''
Industry leader AT&T Wireless also starts the clock from ``send,'' but
doesn't charge for incomplete calls made from within a customer's home
region.
Naturally, since many calling plans come with hundreds of minutes to
burn each month, a lot of mobile phone users rarely reach their limit
and don't need to pay additional charges for calls that don't go
through.
Litwinski, for example, pays $100 a month for a Sprint PCS plan with
1,000 minutes of air time so he won't have to worry about how long he
talks or how many calls he makes. ``I never go over,'' he said.
But for those who frequently exceed their monthly allowance or sign up
for cheaper plans with smaller time allotments, those first-minute
charges can be substantial since the average user racks up 100 minutes
a month.
Sheila Adkins, spokeswoman for the Council of Better Business Bureaus
and a Cellular One customer, was also surprised to hear about
``send-to-end'' charges.
``They don't tell you these things. I read my bill. I read all the
flyers. It goes to show, you really have to read your contract.''
Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
------------------------------
From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Subject: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 01:46:47 GMT
Organization: Alpha Geotechnical
Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com
Heard this on TV tonight (Channel 7 - KGO, San Francisco):
A man had a cell-phone from GTE. He dies. His sister tries to cancel
the contract. She is told by customer service rep _and_ cs manager
that she must pay the $108 early termination fee. She tells them she
will call consumer reporter at TV station, they say "go right ahead".
She calls (channel 7's) consumer reporter, and they call GTE. Suddenly
everything is different. She even gets a letter from the president of
the company apologizing, and saying that company policy is to allow
transferring the service to a survivor, or termination of the service
without penalty. She's still not satisfied, and will tell people to
not use GTE if asked.
Comment: if this happened to me, I'd ask why the manager responsible
is still employed, and demand that he be fired.
Anthony Argyriou
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that under the law, when some
person dies, their debts or contractual obligations are dismissed at
the same time. I am not certain if the executor of a deceased person's
'estate' -- if one is appointed -- is under any obligation to pay any
debts outstanding. In other words, I owe you one hundred dollars; I
die before the debt has been paid; you are out of luck since there is
no longer any debt due. If surviving persons benefit from the estate
of the deceased, maybe that is different. i.e. I die, but you continue
to live in a house which was mortgaged in my name alone, or continue
to use an automobile that I was paying for at the time of my death. I
think creditors are entitled to the return of any merchandise which
was unpaid for, especially if the contract states that they retain
full ownership until it is paid completely paid for. If an attorney
would like to comment, I'd appreciate an opportunity to print his/her
remarks on this.
I suppose the cellular phone company could have legally requested that
the telephone they provided as an inducement to receive a signed
contract be returned to them, since the contract was not going to be
honored for its full term. They would have been within their rights to
demand some proof of death; i.e. the usual certificate, to justify
their write-off of any balance due for service rendered to date or any
remaining obligation under the contract.
Far, far, far too many people these days die with little more than
their personal possessions, so limited in value that probate is not
even feasable; an 'estate' is essentially non-existent. Each year in
Chicago, about 300-400 persons die who fall into the 'bag lady' or
homeless person category. Some have identification which shows their
name and perhaps a relative or friend to be notified; the majority do
not have that much. Someone discovers them, the police are called, the
police require an EMT or other medical person to come to the scene
to pronounce, then the police put the remains in the back of the
wagon and drive off with the person. A joke goes like this: why do
wagon men (police officers who drive the paddy wagon around all day)
always smoke cigars? The answer is the cigar smoke neutralizes the
stench from the back part of the wagon.
Off they go to the center for forensic medicine -- what in other
times we called the county morgue -- where they are probed and
examined in the hopes of finding some way to identify them. If they
are identified, fine, if not that's okay also. An attorney is
appointed to represent them and if no one has claimed the remains
within 30-45 days off they go to Homewood, Illinois at Homewood
Memorial Gardens where a section of the cemetery has been set aside
for them in a mass grave with all the cheap little caskets lined
up in a row, a dozen or so at a time. The attorney goes out to
observe the process, along with a rabbi, a priest and some other
minister or church person.
Then once a year, usually in the summer, the 300-400 from the year
before are memorialized in a ceremony at the Chicago Temple Building
conducted by the same three or four people who attended their burial.
The public is invited. The three or four people each make some very
generic remarks suitable for the occasion (I mean, how do you conduct
a funeral or memorial service for a person you know little or nothing
about?) and a reading of the names or identifying characteristics
begins. The ones who's names are known are read first, then the ones
whose names are not known are memorialized stating what is known about
them; i.e. 'an unidentified black female, age apparently in early
twenties, found at (address)'; 'an unidentified white male, age appar-
ently late sixties, with a tatoo on his right arm, found at (address)';
and they just continue their recitation like this for 150-200 unknown
people each year; the ones without names.
The ones that are really difficult to listen to are the ones that go
like this: 'unidentified black male infant, age less than one day old,
found in trash dumpster at (address)'; and there will always be five
or six like that. And the reading of the names or descriptions of the
unidentified persons concludes with the statement that 'although they
are unknown to us and unclaimed by any person, they are known by God
who now claims each of them and will care for them.' The memorial
service ends and everyone goes home in sort of a blue funk, feeling
bummed out and wondering how things have gotten quite to the point
they are in our society that this sort of event has to go on every
year. They are thinking of doing it twice a year so that the reading
of names will not take as long. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 19:47:05 EDT
Subject: Weird Wrong Number Calls
We've been having a weird problem around here lately (well, actually
more than one, but this one's telecom-related ;) ) and I'm wondering
if (a) anyone else is having this one, and/or (b) anyone has any idea
what's up...
Periodically, during business hours, but not always at the same time
of day, a woman calls our (listed) number.
No matter whether I answer, or my wife answers, or the kids answer,
it's always the same thing. She says "Sorry, wrong number" -- WITHOUT
ASKING FOR ANYONE IN PARTICULAR -- and then hangs up.
Her calling number is "unavailable", since *69 returns "this call
cannot be returned because it originated from outside the area ..."
We don't have Caller ID (and don't want to invest in it for this
problem anyway).
Any ideas on why this is happening, who she might be, or how we can
stop it short of either changing our number or siccing the Annoyance
Call Bureau (do they still have those) on her ?
And no, we aren't deadbeats, so she shouldn't be a bill collector or
anything like that.
Bill
------------------------------
Reply-To: huck siang LIM <huck-siang.lim@intecsystems.co.uk>
From: huck siang LIM <huck_siang.lim@ibm.net>
Subject: Asian Telecoms Search
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:44:11 +0800
Hello,
I would to have listings of all telecommunications Operating companies
in Asia countries including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand,
Philippines, Indonesia, China and India. Also, can you please list
out the regulatory body in these respective countries?
I'm doing a research on different interconnect regulations in those
countries.
Many thanks,
h.s. LIM
------------------------------
From: Shawn Chandler <schandler@ciaccess.com>
Subject: Request For Local Calling Area Information
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:51:57 -0400
This message is an update to one appearing in TELECOM Digest back
around February 1997:
I'd appreciate it if everyone could help me out with a project I've
been working on. After searching the Internet and countless phone
calls to different phone companies, i was unable to get a database or
book containing tables for determining whether a call from phone #
xxx-xxxx was local to phone # yyy-yyyy.
In the front of some phone books there are lists of local calling
areas, ie if you live in area code 519 exchange 683, you can call
local to area code 519 exchanges 351,352,354,355,359,380,436,627,692.
What I am currently doing is compiling all the information I have into
a database and program that can do local number look ups. What I'd
really appreciate, is if everyone could look in their phone books and
jot down the local calling areas for all the exchanges in their
area. (If it's not in the phone book, just write down the ones you
know of for sure from memory). I'd like to get the data for all of
North America if possible.
If you can, email the information to me in the following format:
FromAreaCode,FromExchange,ToAreaCode,ToExchange
so since 519-683 can call 519-627 locally, you would enter it as
519,683,519,627
if the call works locally in reverse too, enter it also as
519,627,519,683
(Entering it both ways is important because some areas are local one
way, and long distance in the reverse).
Thanks for everyones time and effort beforehand. I'll upload the
prototype to the TELECOM Digest Archives when it is ready.
Here is a web site that lists the local calling areas by location
names (town, city) but unfortunately it does not have a cross
reference by areacode/exchanges.
http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/Information/NEST/technol/communic/lca/
UPDATE: A protoype program was completed not long after this message
was posted but only token responses came in. Recently a Digest reader
inquired as to whether the program was complete (I'd actually
forgotten about it :)
Now, I thought I'd re-issue the call for Canadian/United States local
calling area information in the above (or easily adapted) format. The
program has many uses such as in fax broadcast programs, auto dialer
programs, mobile computer users, etc. How about some data? :)
Shawn Chandler
schandler@ciaccess.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck with the project Shawn, and
I am looking forward to having it in the Archives. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 01:42:37 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Private Eyes
With so many cameras around, we're probably all in pictures
07/06/99
By Doug Bedell / The Dallas Morning News
Webcams weren't even a dream in 1961 when media wise man Marshall
McLuhan coined the term "narcissus narcosis," a syndrome in which man
finds himself unaware of new technologies that invade every aspect of
his life.
With today's cheap, tiny video cameras and the connectivity of the
Internet, it is possible that someone - or everyone - may be watching at
moments you consider private.
http://www.dallasnews.com/technology/0706tech1webcams.htm
------------------------------
From: raptor@wwa.com (Justin)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Reply-To: raptor@wwa.com
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:46:25 GMT
Organization: Verio
Charles Gimon <gimonca@mirage.skypoint.com> went on and on about:
> Friend or acquaintance travels to California. Stays at a hotel, a
> friend's house, wherever. Tries to call me, can't get through.
> What happened? Turns out, I block all calls that don't transmit caller
> ID info. (Works great at weeding out telemarketers.)
> The place that they're calling from is set not to transmit caller ID
> info.
> This happens to me constantly on calls from California, and now from
> Washington state. Is it just me and bad luck, or are there lots of
> West Coast people who still aren't transmitting the caller ID burp?
My sister lives in California. Apparently CID is blocked by default,
and you have to enable it, if you want it to appear, before you make
the call -- opposite of most areas where you have to block it or it's
sent by default.
Justin
In replies delete X from address
Justin === raptorX@wwa.com
Chicago
http://www.wwa.com/~laser26/
------------------------------
From: joe@fatbug.com
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:33:13 GMT
Organization: http://www.fatbug.com
I have the same problem, with most of my family residing in
California. I've had to reprogram all their speed dials to me with a
*82 in front of it. As was related to me, when CID became available in
California, PacBell had an insert in their bill that that gave
everyone the option of blocking CID info from being passed. The way
that the insert read,"blocking" the info was a way to insure privacy.
With an option of "Do you want privacy or don't you" it's pretty easy
to figure out why *most* of California does not pass CID. -Joe
FREE Telephone equipment classifieds ads at:
http://www.fatbug.com
***Try our KEYWORD NOTIFY option to receive ads that match your search criteria
------------------------------
Date: 6 Jul 1999 22:04:15 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> This happens to me constantly on calls from California, and now from
> Washington state. Is it just me and bad luck, or are there lots of
> West Coast people who still aren't transmitting the caller ID burp?
I suspect it's cheap long distance service with less than perfect
network interfaces.
In any event, it's entirely legitimate not to transmit CLID if one's
network isn't up to it, so it's up to you to decide whether you want
their calls or not.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:59:45 GMT
Organization: Alpha Geotechnical
Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com
Charles Gimon <gimonca@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
> Is it just me and bad luck, or are there lots of
> West Coast people who still aren't transmitting the caller ID burp?
Approximately 50% of PacBell customers have opted for complete
caller-ID "blocking" (non-transmittal). PacBell has even taken to
advertising to get people to use the (not free?) selective caller-id
unblocking. I'd be willing to bet that most of the unblocked customers
are businesses.
No Guns - No Freedom
Know Guns - Know Freedom
Anthony Argyriou
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 03:59:55 PST
Organization: Shadownet
In California, at least, lines *default* to blocking Caller ID. So the
*only* time a call from CA will get thru to you is if the owner has
*explicitly* told the phone company to unblock it.
So they'll need to dial *82 to *unblock* the CID.
*82, wait for dialtone, dial number. And this is a *per call*
unblocking. So they'll have to repeat it every time.
I assume you are "filtering" calls using a modem with CID, or a
computer card that can read the CID info. You might want to upgrade to
something that can do voicemail, or else switch the the phone company's
"block calls with blocked CID" service. That way, at least your callers
will get a message *telling* them that they aren't going to get thru
without unblocking their CID.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 15:38:37 GMT
Unfortunately, IMHO, California legislated that users could disable
transmission of caller ID information. On a per-line basis, subscribers
designate whether transmission is disabled by default. The default
behavior can be overridden with a *XX prefix prior to dialing. My
caller ID transmission is turned on by default and I press *67 to
disable before dialing. I've read statistics of somewhere near 40% or
more have caller ID transmission disabled by default.
Caller ID is a privacy issue that generates heated discussions from
both sides. My feeling is that it should not be possible to block
under ANY circumstance. If you don't want someone to know who's
calling, don't call them. Some argue that they don't want businesses
to get their home number. Most businesses won't bother and those that
will always get it with 800 ANI.
Just as I can look through a window at who's knocking at my door, I
would like to know who's calling before answering a telephone. The most
common argument against mandatory transmission is the battered spouse.
If a spouse has been so battered, why is she/he calling her/his beloved?
If so worried about tracking, have a friend relay a message or call from
a pay phone.
-----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved--
matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and
network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer
california state university |
network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu
1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3
long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 09:58:57 -0700
From: LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Organization: LincMad Consulting
There are two separate issues involved.
ANONYMOUS CALLS (Caller ID info blocked)
Approximately 60% of all residential phones in California have
unlisted numbers. An estimated 80% of all residential phones in
California are set to block transmission of Caller ID by default.
This option can be overridden on a per-call basis by dialing *82.
"OUT OF AREA" CALLS (No Caller ID info sent at all)
This generally happens when someone is calling from behind a PBX
that has been "accidentally" configured not to send any Caller ID
data at all. Curiously, most telemarketers seem not to be in any
great hurry to identify themselves.
** 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: replies sent to <Telecom@LincMad-com> will be read sooner!
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #196
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jul 7 21:18:05 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA08178;
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907080118.VAA08178@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #197
TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jul 99 21:18:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 197
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Stentor Changes and History (J.F. Mezei)
FCC Extra Line Charge (John S. Maddaus)
Re: Spam Blocking (Al Iverson)
Re: Spam Blocking (John R. Levine)
Re: Spam Blocking (Terry Kennedy)
Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (John McHarry)
Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Joseph T. Adams)
Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption (John S. Maddaus)
Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These (John R. Levine)
Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These (Washi Desu)
Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage (Leonard Erickson)
Re: Rotary Dial Telephone (Tony Pelliccio)
Re: Cellular 911 Position Location Issues (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Re: Do Not Disturb (Robert A. Rosenberg)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: J.F. Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
Subject: Stentor Changes and History
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 03:06:47 -0400
Found this interesting news release:
Bell Canada and TELUS Announce New Model for National Network Management
OTTAWA, July 6 /CNW/ - Bell Canada and TELUS today announced that
they have reached agreement on the creation of a new model for
managing national network operations currently performed by Stentor
Canadian Network Management (SCNM). Starting this fall, Bell Canada
will provide national operational support services to TELUS and to
Bell's partners, Aliant Inc. (Island Tel, MTT, Newtel and NBTel),
SaskTel and MTS. This move will be transparent to customers.
Stentor Canadian Network Management, the central organization
created in 1992 to perform these functions, will be wound down by the
end of this year. Many of SCNM's people and functions will be
transferred to Bell Canada and the other SCNM members. In December,
Bell Canada served one-year notice of termination of the Stentor
Connecting Agreement and SCNM Governing Agreement. The parties then
evaluated how best to carry out these functions for the future. They
have come to the conclusion that the new environment calls for a
different model.
``This new model will preserve the seamlessness of our shared
national network, and provide our companies with a cost-effective
approach to managing the changing networks,'' said David Southwell,
Chief Technology Officer of Bell Canada.
``Our goal throughout the transition will be to ensure that these
changes will be completely transparent to our customers,'' said Ian
Mansfield, TELUS Executive Vice President and President, Wireline.
``Customers will continue to benefit from a national
telecommunications network providing unsurpassed reach, service and
reliability.''
Under the agreement, TELUS, Bell Canada and its partners will
continue to work together to honour all contractual obligations to
customers and to meet customer demand. Bell Canada will carry out
national network operations support functions by establishing a series
of commercial service agreements with TELUS and with Bell Canada's
partners. Many of the operations functions will continue to be
carried out by the same people, in the same locations, using the same
assets as today.
Backgrounder
Stentor Canadian Network Management (SCNM) has provided network
operations and support services to its member companies since its
formation in 1992. SCNM also represents its members on common issues
at industry forums such as the CRTC Interconnection Steering
Committee, the Canadian Carrier Services Forum and the Local Number
Portability Consortium.
The member companies are: Island Tel, MTT, NBTel and NewTel
Communications (now Aliant Inc.); Bell Canada; MTS; SaskTel and Telus.
Associate members are Quebec Telephone, NorthwesTel and Telesat.
Summary of functions:
- Network provisioning
- Billing operations and systems support for designated national services
- Fraud detection and control
- Network management and service assurance for long distance voice
services
- Network management and service assurance for national data services
- Year 2000 national project management
- Inter-carrier management
- Management of customer-specific agreements
- Revenue settlement
Milestones:
1932: SCNM predecessor, Trans-Canada Telephone System (TCTS) forms and
completes the construction of Canada's first cross-country network
1958: TCTS launches new trans-Canada microwave network
1973: TCTS launches Dataroute(TM) service - world's first public
nation-wide digital transmission network
1976: TCTS launches Datapac(TM) service - world's first commercial
packet-switched digital transmission network
1979: TCTS's toll network becomes fully digital
1983: TCTS changes its name to Telecom Canada
1990: Telecom Canada members complete continental portion of Canada's
first coast-to-coast fibre optic network - 7,000 km. system is
longest terrestrial fibre optic transmission system in the world
1992: Telecom Canada becomes Stentor Canadian Network Management, as
part of the creation of the Stentor Alliance
1993: HDR2, a high-density hybrid route of fibre optic cable and
high-capacity digital microwave radio, is completed, becoming the
longest SONET-compatible route in the world
1997: Stentor completes Canada's first coast-to-coast ATM network
------------------------------
From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus)
Subject: FCC Extra Line Charge
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:11:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net
Maybe this is old news, or not news at all, but Bell Atlantic just
sent me a notice that my monthly charge was increased retroactive to
January on my second residence line due to an FCC directive allowing
LECs to charge more for the second line. Seems odd to me since I have
not read anything about this in the NG, but then again maybe this was
old news and they only decided to hit us with it now. I think it
amounts to a monthly increase of $3-4. Seemed a little steep.
jmaddaus@usa.net
------------------------------
From: radparker@radparker.com (Al Iverson)
Subject: Re: Spam Blocking
Organization: See sig before replying!
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 19:27:59 -0500
In article <telecom19.195.5@telecom-digest.org>,
usbcpdx.teleport.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot ) wrote:
> Do you have a URL for RRSS?
> http://www.radparker.org and http://relays.radparker.org do not work.
> On 5 Jul 1999 00:12:05 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote:
>> I use RRSS at relays.radparker.org, which is like ORBS but only lists
>> open relays that have sent at least one spam. It's quite effective,
>> since there are spam trap addreses that nominate open relays as soon
>> as they send their first spam.
Somebody made an oopsie. It's http://relays.radparker.com . (not .org)
Or you could have done a search on Yahoo for "radparker"
Al Iverson
radparker.com
Al Iverson -- Web: http://al.radparker.com/ -- Home: Minneapolis, USA
Visit the Radparker Relay Spam Stopper at http://relays.radparker.com.
STOP! Include SWANKY99 in email replies or they may be tagged as spam.
Send me no unsolicited advertising, as I will always return it to you.
------------------------------
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Spam Blocking
Date: 6 Jul 1999 22:20:11 -0400
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> Do you have a URL for RRSS?
> http://www.radparker.org and http://relays.radparker.org do not work.
Sorry, that's http://relays.radparker.com
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: Terry Kennedy <terry@spcunb.spc.edu>
Subject: Re: Spam Blocking
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 09:32:15 GMT
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
> Another problem with ORBS is that they add indirect relays to their
> list. We operate a selective mail relay that we give our customers
> access to on demand. If their server is open and forwards the
> outgoing mail through our server, both servers get put on the
> blacklist. This has happened to us several times. This means that
> one of our customers could easily cause a denial of service for many
> other customers, simply by removing their own spam blocks and
> reporting themselves as a mail relay (I don't think any of our
> customers have actually done this intentionally).
For a *truly* fun time, create a multi-homed host on as many nets as
you can easily scrounge, and report it to ORBS. Watch ORBS turn itself
inside-out trying to figure out what's going on.
[My limit was 6 nets -- which apparently chewed a few hour's worth
time on the ORBS system. But I also played with it, changing the IP
that the relays came from during their probes.]
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
+1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX)
------------------------------
From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:37:07 GMT
On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 22:21:06 GMT, ricklg@JAGUNET.COM (Rick Goddard)
wrote:
> This test looks for sparks generated by switches, relays, etc. The
> test is performed by placing the equipment in a chamber, adding a
> gasoline/air mixture, then operating the unit. Failures can be
> spectacular! I suspect the ban may be due to the likelihood of
> operating a phone (pushing switches) while refueling. One catch to
> this theory is that if the voltage is low enough, there is no spark.
You probably wouldn't find it in a cell phone, but if a low voltage is
driving current through a significant inductance, breaking the circuit
can produce a lovely spark. I can remember my HKN pledge project in
which I used a penlight battery and a buzzer to light NE2s. (HKN is
an EE honorary. You had to build a symbol of the organization that
hangs around your neck, carries its own power, and can light either or
both of two lights. Most used a battery and a couple small lights. I
went for high voltage and neon lights. The irritating noise was an
added bonus.) NE2s only require about 67 volts to ignite, but I would
guess my device could set off an air/fuel mixture if it had to.
------------------------------
From: joe@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams)
Subject: Re: Cell Phones at Gas Stations
Date: 7 Jul 1999 13:54:31 GMT
Organization: Quality Data Division of JTAE
Rick Goddard (ricklg@JAGUNET.COM) wrote:
> operating a phone (pushing switches) while refueling. One catch to
> this theory is that if the voltage is low enough, there is no spark.
Any useful voltage, even 1.5 volts, can produce a nasty spark. Try
shorting a fresh D battery sometime (but don't touch the wire
directly, as it will get very hot very fast, and wear eye and face
protection; it is unlikely but possible that the battery could
explode).
Joe
------------------------------
From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus)
Subject: Re: More on Weak GSM Encryption
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:46:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net
Phillip Ritter <PARitter@home.com> wrote:
> juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen) writes:
>> Military has never used cellular (whatever make/brand/standard) for
>> anything secure.
> Not true at all. In the late '80s, early '90s, Motorola manufactured,
> and multiple US Government agencies (including DoD) used, the
> "Cellular STU-III" which was approved for Top Secret communications.
> This was nothing more than a car-mount cell phone with the same Secure
> Telephone Unit type III used on landline phones (STU-III) built in. I
> believe that the STU series, including the cellular version, were all
> approved for use, and widely used, in NATO and other allied block
> counties countries.
Actually, there was a "suitcase" (read specially constructed) version
which contained a 3 watt motorola transceiver, batteries, antenna and
a STU-III (in our case an AT&T). Weighed close to thirty pounds.
Usually sat in the rear seat with the Admiral/General. Actually, I
rode around with one in my seat for awhile testing performance
enhancement to the modem and compatibility with other models. Not
very portable and severely limited in usage for several reasons:
1) The STU modems were not cellular optimized. Hence a simple blank
and burst command to the analog cellular phone was in fact seen by the
STU as a burst of bit errors, degrading voice quality and in many
cases killing the secure connection.
2) The system was AMPS and could only be used in countries that
supported AMPS standard cellular (which typically left out all OCONUS
operations). It was essentially used in the U.S. only. Some thought
was given to installing mobile cell towers in military transport
aircraft, but was deemed to be to expensive and still to limiting in
range.
3) The STU required modification since it replaced the handset
connected to the Motorola transceiver . Since this "plug" was of
proprietary design, i.e. not a typical RJ, a special interface cable
needed to be developed. The modem also required mods to recognize the
blank and burst commands, at least the more common ones, though this
was not rolled into the majority of the STUs. Don't forget that STUs
are point-to-point. If the STU on the other end didn't support the
enhancments to the modem set-up (and most existing models did not)
then the degradation would still be a problem.
4) There were indeed unique security issues with the cellular
suitcase. It was specially constructed to pass some rigorous testing
required of any secure data device. The analog transceiver introduced
into the mix forced the issue of reducing emanations.
5) These suitcases might still be available, though I understand that
Motorola has introduced a brick version of the STU.
6) As one of three STU manufacturers, I doubt if we sold more than
500 units total.
Regarding the original GSM question, specialized equipment for
monitoring GSM conversations (without the need for the SIM) has been
around for two years or more in various countries. Also, if memory
serves, the original algorithm proposed by the British had a back door
much like the proposed Clipper. The Germans and French (and everyone
else) didn't like the thought of the British being able to listen to
their cellular conversations. GSM nearly didn't get off the ground
because of this issue as the standards were pretty well set. Again,
trusting my memory (which is not what it used to be) the algorithm was
changed. The effect was a weaker algorithm.
John S. Maddaus
jmaddaus@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: 6 Jul 1999 22:18:13 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
>> I am from the Philippines. A Japanese who came to my country
>> sold me some Japan made cell phones (DoCoMo & Kyocera)...
>> We are able to use all US and European cellphones.
> I do not think this statement is completely true.
Pretty close. The Philippines has two AMPS systems and two GSM systems,
so North American AMPS and European GSM phones should work.
>> I paid good, hard earned money for those phones. I was hoping to
>> go into business and sell them here in my country.
I'm afraid he got suckered. Japan has a bunch of networks using old
analog technology and digital adaptations thereof that isn't used
anywhere else in the world. The DoCoMo phones use a scheme called
Highcap/PDC, which runs in the 800 MHz band but isn't compatible with
AMPS. It is very unlikely that these sets can be adapted to work
anywhere other than Japan.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: Washi Desu <washi@washi.nu>
Subject: Re: Help! I Paid Good Money For These
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 16:34:08 +0900
Organization: Washi's Scrapbook
Darryl Smith wrote,
> I believe that the system being referred to is the PHS - Personal
> Handi-Phone System.
The original inquirer said they were "NTT DoCoMo and Kyocera"
phones. NTT DoCoMo is not a PHS carrier (although it has bought out
the NTT PHS subsidiary), and Kyocera is not a carrier at all but a
manufacturer. The phones they make range from PHS to PDC to
CDMA. Since there are several kinds of cellular and micro-cellular
phone systems in Japan, which is currently in a transition phase, it
is impossible to know what system the person bought. In any case, cell
phones in Japan are typically given away or sold well below cost; the
companies then make money from the service itself. Selling someone a
phone without the service is nothing short of a swindle.
Washi Desu, Tokyo
http://washi.nu
------------------------------
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Possible Modem Power Surge Damage
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 04:09:45 PST
Organization: Shadownet
David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> writes:
> What I would like to know is what damage can be caused by under-voltage.
> I am on the East Coast, and the weather can only be described as
> "rather hot". Needless to say, there has been constant transient
> power problems today. I have not been watching with a sensitive
> instrument, but the lights get noticably dimmer. Right now, I have
> all the lights off in my office, so I don't know how they are
> behaving. However, I can hear UPSs go beep beep at regular intervals.
> I also have an elderly Westinghouse fan, the speed of which is voltage
> dependent. It is currently on high, and spining about the speed it
> does on low. I also notice that about once a minute it speeds up past
> its normal rates.
I've read that undervoltage can be *very* bad for motors. And of
course, various electronic gizmos "die" if the voltage drops far enough
for the output of the DC supply they use to drop below a usable level.
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
------------------------------
From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Telephone
Organization: Providence Network Partners
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 03:14:15 GMT
In article <telecom19.194.9@telecom-digest.org>, larb0@aol.com says...
> Five hour backup won't do alot of good when the power is out for one
> or two days. With central office power, the phone works fine -
> especially since COs have backup generators. During winter ice storms,
> we've lost power frequently - once over two days. This is my main issue
> regarding wireless and IP telephony - the loss of "lifeline" service.
With regard to IP telephony -- Cox will be using broadband cable to
carry telephone content. If I look at my HSD cable line, there's a
little parasitic line on the side that carries 48VDC from Cox. I guess
they're planning to do things the right way.
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR
== Trustee WE1RD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:25:56 -0400
From: Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9001@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Position Location Issues
At Mon, 5 Jul 99 10:31 PDT, lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
wrote about Cellular 911 Position Location Issues:
> But many criminal or civil
> investigations would want access to logs of historical data regarding
> particular cell phone movements, down to whatever level of granularity
> (e.g., current location once per minute) that the networks could
> provide. This introduces a range of complexities in terms of both the
> operational and policy issues surrounding such usage. Concerns over
> this sort of retroactive inspection of cellular location data has
> already caused some considerable controversies in Europe.
There is another similar issue brewing. The technology that is being
used to run "EZ PASS" (an automated highway fare collection system)
can also be used to issue speeding tickets if designed for this
purpose. At the current time if you use an EZ PASS lane and do not
have a valid Transponder, a picture of you and the car is taken and a
"fare betting" ticket is issued. If two toll booths are 11 miles apart
and the speed limit between them is 55 MPH, showing up at the second
toll booth earlier than 12 minutes after going though the first means
you were speeding and a picture can be taken as evidence (or just use
the time stamped record that is kept for account purposes). Already
there are cases of the monthly statement being used in court cases
proving that people were places that they claimed not to have been
(just as you suggested in one of your comments about after the event
tracking of people).
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is not a new technique at all
however. About 40 years ago when the Indiana Toll Road opened, running
from South Bend to where it connects with the Chicago Skyway they
were doing the same thing. When you entered onto the toll road at some
point, you were given a ticket stamped with the time and your point of
entry (i.e. the mile marker, or name of the town where you got on).
Payment was made when you got off the toll road. This was a long time
before computers and cameras of course. The exiting agent would take
your ticket and look at a little chart he had which was a matrix of
towns along the way and the mileage between each. It was a simple
matter to divide the distance in miles by the number of minutes which
had expired to detirmine the 'average' speed the motorist was traveling.
Since one side of Indiana is in a different time zone than the other
end, they had to calculate the absolute! number of minutes which had
passed, and it had best be at least 120-150 minutes at minimum, from
the eastern starting point at the Ohio border to the Illinois border,
a mile per minute being quite fast enough in the eyes of the law. They
made allowances for the (mechanical) clocks at each end being slightly
off since the agents letting cars on had to stamp the tickets by hand
and they tended to stamp up several at a time to have ready as traffic
entered, handing one to each driver, etc.
As a result, the rest stops along the way would frequently have people
sitting in them, drinking coffee or whatever and waiting for enough
time to pass that they could exit without a problem. If you exited the
toll road 'too soon', the agent was authorized write down your license
plate number and hand you a citation. The citation, which gave the
specifics of your offense had various payment options. The least
expensive option was 'if you do not wish to contest this matter, you
may pay the agent twenty dollars. Be certain to obtain your copy of
the receipt, and that it has your license number, name and form of
identification presented clearly written on it and that it has been
registered by the agent.' (This prevented a few (only a few?) dishonest
agents from making a little extra money each day. I suspect more than
a few motorists for reasons of their own were quite happy to
collaborate with the agent at a discounted price so they could be on
their way without 'a lot of paperwork neither of us want'.
Another payment option allowed the motorist to check off a box on
the citation marked 'guilty' and submit his payment by mail to the
clerk of the court somewhere. A third option was to take the citation
in person to someplace where they had what was called 'cafeteria court'
and wait in line there. When your turn came, you went up to the
judge and pleaded your case. You could claim the agent's indicia on
the original entrance/exit ticket was incorrect, or give whatever
other excuses you wanted. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not,
depending on how the judge was feeling that day. If you could prove
there was an emergency ('my wife was having a baby') they would give
you a pass that time. Most motorists simply found it more convenient
and less expensive to sit in the parking lot at the Howard Johnson's
restaurant on either end and wait a few minutes before continuing
their journey. All this was just for the 'average motorist' since the
state police troopers also were on the toll road and in the event
they stopped your car for speeding it was handled through police
channels. Naturally if they chose to search your car and found
anything else of interest or any outstanding warrants, all bets were
off, you might never make it to the other end of the toll road.
The Indiana Toll Road toll collectors have been computerized for a
number of years now; I do not know how they handle speeders any
longer. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:25:08 -0400
From: Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9001@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Do Not Disturb
At Mon, 05 Jul 1999 06:34:46 GMT, travlinman_mark@my-deja.com wrote
about Re: Do Not Disturb:
> In article <telecom19.189.2@telecom-digest.org> is written:
>> Does the software support having an phone number on the list that is
>> Caller*ID'ed as PRIVATE (ie: Call Blocked at the caller's end)? This
>> is one of my gripes about Caller*ID, Call Blocking (where you can
>> supply a list of numbers to not accept calls from) and Anonymous Call
>> Rejection - There is no way to REQUEST display/non-blocking of a call
>> that is flagged with a do-not-display flag even if by listing the
>> number you prove you know it. I have friends who have unlisted/unpub-
>> lished numbers and who have the line set to All-Call-Block who forget
>> to turn the blocking off when they call certain people (who know the
>> number) and thus my Caller*ID box will not display their number.
> Where I live, in Ameritech country we can get Call Screening which they
> now refer to as "Selective Call Screening". This gives me ten numbers
> that I do not want to receive calls from, private or otherwise. In our
> installation of the software (a Seimens Digital) one can add the last
> number that called them by dialing 01 at the add number prompt. The
> software always says the number you have added is a private number
> regardless of weather or not the number was displayed on Caller-ID and
> given by *69. Anyway, in the case of a real private number one can
> then select the remove a number from list option and enter the known
> private number. If the switch says that the number was removed from
> your list then you know that it was that particular number with per-
> line blocking that made your last call.:)
Thank you for mentioning this. This validates my impression that my
request SHOULD be possible (I'm not talking feasible/practical since
that is a different issue). As to what I am asking for, it needs to
be an instant system not one that is after the fact like yours. I
want to not block a private number if it is on my list. I also want
to override the do not display bit under the same conditions. For the
display requirement, I'm willing to required keying in the number
while for the "do not block" one the "add last number" feature should
be allowed (since it does not reveal the number to me so there are no
privacy violation issues).
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #197
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 8 00:00:48 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA15073;
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907080400.AAA15073@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #198
TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Jul 99 00:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 198
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Caller ID Extends its Reach to Police Work (Stan Schwartz)
Want to Stop Caller ID? *67 Can be a Quick Fix (Stan Schwartz)
Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet (Bud Couch
Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911 (Jennifer Case)
Re: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted (Julian Thomas)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Steven Lichter)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Anthony Argyriou)
Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules (Anthony Argyriou)
Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract (John R. Levine)
Help From PBX Guru Needed (Afam Edozie)
PBX Tie Trunk (Keelan Lightfoot)
Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information (Steven J. Sobol)
Re: Weird Wrong Number Calls (Mark Brader)
Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information (L. Winson)
Re: Looking For Rack Fastener Seen at Networld (Mike Lieman)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stan Schwartz <stannc@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: stannc@noispam.yahoo.com
Subject: Caller ID Extends its Reach to Police Work
By MARK FRITZ
Los Angeles Times
A scientist named Terry Spontarelli met a girl on America Online and
set a time for a tryst in a Tulsa, Okla., motel. She was 13, he was
35, and she'd skipped school by pretending to be sick. Sometime during
her encounter with the Ph.D., she made a pre-emptive phone call to her
mother at work. She pretended she was still at home, ready for a nap.
Like a lot of people who pick up a phone these days, the girl
underestimated the endlessly mutating power of the technology she was
using. She didn't know that her mother's company, a collection agency,
had installed Caller ID, and that police would soon be banging on a
door at the motel.
Spontarelli pleaded guilty to various state and federal crimes for
having sex with a minor. He was sentenced in June to 10 years in a
federal penitentiary and another 10 in Oklahoma state prison. ``If the
mom hadn't had Caller ID at her work, we wouldn't have known where this
girl was meeting this adult, this child molester,'' Assistant U.S.
Attorney Susan Morgan said in Tulsa.
The Caller ID box -- and the even more widely available keystroke
services that copy what it does -- is only one part of a brutally
competitive communications industry that is moving faster and marketing
harder than lawmakers, lawmen, lobbyists and civil libertarians can
control.
As it has exploded across the country, Caller ID is having an almost
daily effect on police work, in some cases putting sleuthing powers
once held by police in the hands of the victims, sometimes even
entangling cops when they go carelessly undercover.
The fluid ease of Caller ID has, likewise, opened up a new set of moral
debates in some communities about hot lines for suicide, rape, domestic
abuse, drug and other crimes that depend on the promise of anonymity.
``How many people think about that when they call somebody? That the
person on the other end instantly has their phone number and possibly
their name and address?'' said Peter Crabb, a Penn State psychologist
who studies the effect of technology on human behavior.
Here, from the last month alone, is a sampling of true crime stories
from the world of Caller ID:
A New Jersey high school teacher who claimed she took a phone call from
somebody who threatened to blow up the school was arrested after Caller
ID showed there was no such call. Schools nationwide have scrambled to
install Caller ID because of the rash of copycat threats after the
April massacre at a Colorado high school.
A 15-year-old boy with a long juvenile record of crime told his father
he was spending the night at his older brother's house. Caller ID
indicated otherwise, and the man tracked his son to a hotel in downtown
Cleveland, where the boy had spent the night having sex with his
state-assigned social worker. Suzanne Smithers, a 47-year-old married
mother of three, was sentenced to two years in prison for corrupting a
minor.
In Galveston, Texas, Mark Dixon went on trial for helping his
girlfriend kill her husband. Barbara Holder was convicted of capital
murder in March. Police say the pair conspired to make the nearly
90-stroke stabbing of Curtis Holder, 47, look like a robbery, but their
story unraveled three days later when Holder told a neighbor watching
one of her children that she was calling from the police station when
Caller ID showed she was really at a local motel.
An Ohio man was sentenced to six months in jail for repeatedly phoning
in sick to his job as a Hamilton County janitor. Michael Leedy, 45,
took a month of paid sick leave last year, which the county's Caller ID
system indicated had been regularly called in from his other job across
town.
A pair of purported neo-Nazi skinheads, 19-year-old James Ronald Romo
and a juvenile, were arrested in connection with the abduction, robbery
and savage beating of an Orange County, Calif., man who believed he was
targeted because he was gay. The suspects had returned a call that came
in on the beeper they had stolen from the victim. The Caller ID log led
police to the motel where the suspects were staying.
The signs that many people are oblivious to a world in transition are
legion.
``We got a window of a year or two until everyone figures it out,''
said Sgt. Mike Tully, a detective in Colonie, N.Y., outside Albany.
When it comes to somewhat more organized crime, the private sector has
often been a lap or two ahead of police agencies. Though many are
reluctant to talk about it, different police agencies have devised
various ways of outfoxing the increasing cleverness of Caller IDs.
``We have drug cases we work all the time, and we have to be careful
with who we call,'' said Mickey Hawkins, head of the FBI office in
Tulsa. ``We use a device that gives a different number.''
Even false numbers can be figured out by state-of-the-art Caller ID
systems if the address it digs up is the local precinct house.
While budget-bound police departments clamor for upgrades, or are even
unaware that they need them, some law officers insist that drug rings
snap up the latest in technology being offered by the firms competing
to destroy each other with nifty new products.
``That's the flip side of it,'' said Lt. Steve Heider, a Colonie
detective. ``Especially in drug enforcement, they (the villains) get
more technical than we do years ahead of time.''
Even cops who use phone cards or credit cards should be wary, because
such cards increasingly carry identifying information.
One carrier's Caller ID service actually flashed ``U.S. Government''
when a federal credit card was used to book a call.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stan Schwartz <stannc@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: stannc@noispam.yahoo.com
Subject: Want to stop Caller ID? *67 can be a quick fix
(some interesting mis-information in the last paragraph about unlisted
numbers being "protected?" from Caller ID. Not where I come from
-Stan)
Los Angeles Times
Though many Americans may not realize it, virtually every call to a
911 system instantly identifies the caller's location. Now, many
telephone users have the same power.
Even people who don't own Caller ID in most places can punch the
``star'' sign and two digits to purchase the number of the heavy
breather who just hung up or even initiate a trace that alerts police.
Most users can dial ``star'' 67 to avoid being identified by Caller
ID, abut they are increasingly finding systems set up to refuse those
calls, and, in some instances, even trace them.
All these services cost money, and it's one of the most lucrative parts
of the business.
About 15 percent of telephone users have the box, and virtually all
users have ability to block or trace calls. Hoping to make Caller ID as
ubiquitous as call waiting, phone companies have just begun offering a
combo package that allows people to see the name of the waiting caller.
There are movements afoot in some states to give documented victims of
stalking or domestic abuse the ability to create false caller
identities. Several states, including Oklahoma and Tennessee, recently
passed laws prohibiting telemarketers from blocking their IDs, and most
others are considering it.
Unlisted numbers supposedly are protected from Caller ID, though Kansas
state lawmakers earlier this year held hearings on why some supposedly
unlisted numbers, including a legislator's, showed up on Caller ID
boxes.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In that final paragraph, my understanding
is that all telephone numbers -- unlisted/non-pub or otherwise -- will
display on a caller-ID unit unless the caller takes care to include *67
at the start of each call. Its just that knowledge of the number itself
is frequently of no value if the number is non-pub since reverse lookups
generally won't produce any name or address to go with it. Still, it
never hurts to include *67 if anonymous calling is needed.
Also, we have discovered something which may turn out to be important
in some cases: if you have call waiting and do not wish to be disturbed
you can of course do *70 at the start of each call. There are some
phone switches however which (read carefully!) only recognize the first
special instruction given. You might for example wish to be both
anonymous and undisturbed in your call, so you would do *67*70xxx-yyyy.
That should work fine, and you do not have to wait for the 'three beep
tones' when one is finished before continuing with the next. My modem
for example just blasts out *70xxx-yyyy to my local ISP without any
pause in dialing.
Where the problem arises however is given your 'druthers, if your local
phone switch only accepts one special instruction in dialing, would
you rather have it ignore *67 or *70 ... (grin, but not a very
enthusiastic one) ... ditto things like speed dialing which may be
a star followed by a single digit, or call forwarding which is *72 in
most places. Believe it or not, reports have arrived which say that
the combination *72*67*8 actually causes all incoming calls to be
forwarded immediatly to speed dial 8 AND TO ALWAYS BE PASSED ANONYMOUSLY
as though *67 was used each time. Not on every phone switch; not in
every generic of the software. The other way around, privacy is given
on the initial call to set up call forwarding, but never again.
Some have found that while on a call, flashing for a three-way
dialtone followed by *67-number, the *67 is ignored totally, but that
if you do *67-first party, flash, second party, the privacy instruction
is carried over to the addition on the three-way call automatically
as if, so to speak, the 'master call' or the connection in control of
it all is privacied, then any add-ons along the way are also. You
might want to see what different combinations and different arrangements
of the dialing string work or do not work in your community. I think
it is a good general rule of thumb that if you intend to use more than
one special option on a call or series of calls, that *67 be first in
the string always. While a command like *70 can be inserted in a
dialing string after the fact and still take effect, if so much as the
first digit of a number has been dialed, *67 attempts will be in vain.
You knew of course, I assume, that if you have three-way calling, you
can flash at any time during the call and insert *70 for the remainder
of the session to busy out further call-waiting.
If *67 is a regular part of your phone routine, check to see how it
works on your phone switch regards absolutely needing to be the first
thing dialed in order for it to 'stick', and how it is handled on
three-way calling, etc. T'would be a pity if you were in the middle
of a call only to find out *67 had gotten lost or ignored somewhere
along the way, wouldn't it! And see if you can force privacy to
stay in effect on calls you forward, and if the switch forwards *your*
number on call forwarding or the *true number* of the person calling. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Bud Couch <Bud_Couch@adc.com>
Subject: Re: Satellite GPS Can Locate Wireless Phones Within 15 Feet
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 10:21:31 -0700
Organization: ADC Kentrox
Arthur Ross wrote:
> Bud Couch <Bud_Couch@adc.com> wrote:
>> The FCC would never dare to mandate this "feature" -- the ability to
>> track individual citizens without either their knowledge or consent.
> Sorry, that's EXACTLY what they have done.
> From CFR 47 20.18, 10-1-98 Edition:
> "(e) Phase II enhanced 911 services. As of October 1, 2001, licensees
> subject to this section must provide to the disignated Public Safety
> Answering Point the location of all 911 calls by longitude and latitude
> such that the accuracy for all calls is 125 meters or less using a Root
> Mean Square (RMS) methodology."
The key to this is "location of all 911 calls", whereas the Lucent
"enhancement" does not require a 911, or actually, any, call to be in
progress. By the simple fact of carrying a cell phone, your personal
location can be determined. Now, from a technical point of view, this
is a logical extension, and was probably not exceptionally difficult
to do. But from a political policy point of view it is negligent, at
best, and criminal at worst.
If I really let my paranoia run, I can see where it would not be
difficult to set the unit into a micropower "sleep" mode with the
power switch; a mode in which it would not routinely contact the local
cell, but which would respond to a specific "location" code command.
Then the only way to defeat the system would be to remove the battery.
I dread the day that carrying a cell phone with the battery disconn-
ected becomes a criminal act.
Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.|
bud@kentrox.com (work) | -Tom Lehrer |
budc@hevanet.com (just me)|"Therefore you're guilty!" -EEOC |
|insert legalistic bs disclaimer here |
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well we can fix you anyway. New cell
phones will be required to have a tiny little battery inside them
just like laptop computers have to keep the clock running and things
having to do with passwords in the BIOS stored, etc. That battery
will get its charge from the bigger battery which you propose to
take out. So I don't believe we will have any trouble out of you or
people that think like you do. And we will not allow any tampering
with cell phones or computers at all. All of them (phones and comp-
uters) will be licensed by the government and programmed in the ROM
or read only memory to report their location at all times and what
tricks their human owners are engaged in. Not only will it be against
the law to remove the battery from your cell phone, it will be against
the law to disconnect your computer from the phone line, or disconnect
its microphone or camera attachments. Sound okay to you?
There may even be a law which requires people to carry a working,
charged-up cell phone with them at all times. If you are considered
a suspicious or dangerous person, you will be required to remain
within view of your computer's digital camera at all times, so your
computer can report to the appropriate authorities anytime you try
to think or act for yourself without permission.
I was a little disturbed to read the other day that there have been
some experiments at a couple web sites with not only just being
content with raping your hard drive, but they are actually looking
around to find out if you have a video camera attachment. If so,
they want to have the ability to secretly turn it on as well as
the computer's microhone. You know, issue remote commands from their
end telling your computer to activate those devices.
Maybe I should save this for a Last Laugh sometime, but about a
month ago I was chatting with this young, sort of semi-illiterate
fellow on the computer who had sent me an instant message asking some
questions. He did not realize that I had met him personally not too
long prior, and that I knew what he looked like. So I started
playing some games on his head (grin) ... telling him what he looked
like, about how tall he was, etc.
He was shocked ... 'how would you know something like that?' ... and
of course I explained to him that his computer had been programmed to
watch him at all times and report whatever he was doing. 'Your
computer watches you and your friends and listens to what you say, and
then reports it to the proper authorities. The computer sees
everything; it tells other computers about you, what you look like and
stuff that you do, and anyone like myself who wants to find out merely
has to call secretly into your computer and ask it for all the
details. When you turn it off it relays back to other computers that
you are trying to hide from it, or doing something that you shouldn't
do. The computer knows all about you.'
And then I added sort of worried-sounding, "Oh, darn, it saw me" ...
and explained that 'there is a computer in the other room that has
been trying to take a picture of me for several days ...'
I had said enough accurate information describing him that he did not
know what to think, but finally he said, 'I am not sure if I should
believe you or not ...' I suspect he got very paranoid, based on
the rest of his chat with me. I assured him that as long as he kept
his computer totally unplugged and all the cables disconnected and
put the computer itself in a closet when not in use, it would not
be able to spy on him or his friends and 'file its daily reports
with other computers'.
Poor guy ... I am sure he has told all his friends by now about how
he found out his computer was spying on him and watching him when he
didn't know it. Well, we are not quite that far advanced in our
technology yet, but we are getting pretty close, aren't we. Allow a
few more years for things to fall into place. Meanwhile, I'll be
seeing you again as we surf the shopping mall, err, I mean the web. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:53:28 -0400
From: Jennifer Case <jennifer.case@telops.gte.com>
Reply-To: <jennifer.case@telops.gte.com>
Subject: Re: Bell Geolocation Technology Pinpoints Wireless 911
Herb Stein (herb@herbstein.com) wrote:
> I don't want them to find me! If they can find me in an emergency
> situation they can find me when I didn't brush my teeth! BIG BROTHER --
> I'd sooner not be found.
> In article <telecom19.185.5@telecom-digest.org>, J.F. Mezei
> <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> I may be thick, but do they seriously expect to retrofit all handsets to
>> incorporate that mini-GPS unit and logic ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>> I was really hoping that they would have use network infrastructure to
>> locate the SIGNAL. Heck, an imprecise measurement would be sufficient
>> if emergency vehicles were equipped with a locator device to pinpoint
>> that phone's location. Analog phone networks have had this equipment
>> for a long time to find fraudsters.
I'm sure Jon Charleston's family don't share your sentiments.
It's too bad that can't perfect the technology and mandate regulations so
they can only find you if you let them, i.e. dial 9-1-1.
=============================
Cell phone does not help man killed in crash
11 April 1999
Associated Press
FORT WAYNE, Ind. - A man who died in a car accident used his cellular
phone to call for help, but police couldn't locate him in time.
Jon Charleston, 49, of Fort Wayne died Friday morning when his sport
utility vehicle rolled into a ditch along Washington Center Road.
Police said Charleston called 911 with his cell phone, but he didn't
know where he was - probably because he was disoriented from the
crash.
Officers kept Charleston on the phone line. Then, police used sirens
and listened over the phone line to try to locate the wreckage. They
were not successful.
The county's 911-tracking system, designed to trace cell phone calls
to a specific radar tower and the area nearby to give police the
location of stranded motorists, did not work. Charleston's cell phone
was not upgraded to be compatible with the tracking system, Sheriff
Jim Herman said.
So, knowing only that Charleston had been driving toward Aboite from
St. Joseph Township, officers began searching any possible roads he
could have driven. Officers used their sirens, hoping Charleston would
hear them and be able to direct officers to where he lay trapped.
It took emergency crews almost two hours to find Charleston. He died
on the way to Parkview Hospital in Fort Wayne.
------------------------------
From: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas)
Subject: Re: VoiceNet Calling Card Experiences Wanted
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 22:52:57 GMT
In <telecom19.193.2@telecom-digest.org>, on 07/05/99 at 02:23 PM,
Jason Fetterolf <jason@itw.com said:
> 2. Competitively priced - 14.9 cents a minute, 6 dec billing, NO
> surcharge per call. (except FCC mandated payphone fee). No minimums, and
> no monthly fees.
Er -- if this is www.voicenet.com then the above is true only if you
have a local access number for VOICENET. Nothing about 800 access on
the web site.
Julian Thomas: jt 5555 at epix dot net http://home.epix.net/~jt
remove numerics for email
Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
I don't do Windows, but OS/2 does.
------------------------------
From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter)
Date: 08 Jul 1999 00:25:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Here is a good one. Pacific Bell switchroom telephones are blocked by
default. I found that out when I had to call home while working in
one, my phone blocks anything without CID.
The only good Commercial E-mailer is a dead one, Have you hunted one down
today?
Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the
Apple II and Mac. 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server.
------------------------------
From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:47:07 GMT
Organization: Alpha Geotechnical
Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com
black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) wrote:
> Just as I can look through a window at who's knocking at my door, I
> would like to know who's calling before answering a telephone.
This argument is specious. If I look out my window (or peephole) at
someone knocking at my door, I don't get the person's address.
Anthony Argyriou
------------------------------
From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:51:26 GMT
Organization: Alpha Geotechnical
Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com
Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com> wrote:
> NEW YORK (AP) - Whether it's local or long distance, home phone or pay
> phone, it's understood: A call starts with ``hello.'' If there's no
> answer, there's no charge.
> With mobile phones, the situation can be quite different.
> Most mobile phone companies charge from the moment the caller hits the
> ``send'' button. One industry leader, Sprint PCS, charges for calls
> even if there's no answer.
When I temped at GTE Mobilenet in Pleasanton, CA (510 back then), we
were told that call charges began with the connection, unless you rang
the other phone for more than one minute (12 to 13 rings), then they'd
start charging you regardless.
Anthony Argyriou
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 1999 20:57:09 -0400
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that under the law, when some
> person dies, their debts or contractual obligations are dismissed at
> the same time. I am not certain if the executor of a deceased person's
> 'estate' -- if one is appointed -- is under any obligation to pay any
> debts outstanding.
Of course the estate has to pay the debts. Otherwise banks wouldn't
give mortagages to anyone over the age of 19.
What I do think is the case is that if the assets of the estate are
insufficient to pay the debts, then the creditors are out of luck and
can't come after the survivors for the rest.
I do agree that this particular story is pretty stupid, even for our
pals at the Great Telephone Experiment.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
------------------------------
From: Afam Edozie <afam@marketing4technology.com>
Subject: Need Help From PBX Guru
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 19:02:28 +0100
Organization: Virgin Net
Hi,
I'm looking for a PBX for a project, but have very little technical
(or pricing) knowledge.
I'm hoping some one my drop me an email so that I could ask a few
detailed questions.
Thanks,
Afam Edozie
Virgin Biznet
Tel: 0171 664 6059
Fax: 0171 664 6066
Email: afam@london.virgin.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 02:05:25 -0700
Subject: PBX Tie Trunk
From: Keelan Lightfoot <keelan@mail.bzzzzzz.com>
I am interested in putting a tie trunk between two 1970's PBXen, in
two towns 15 km (~9 mi) apart. The CO is in one town (Let's say B),
and I am in town A. There is an unexpected hitch, though. The cable
from my town 'dives' into a grey, air conditioned building between the
two towns and again emerges, following the poles to the CO. My
question is, what would most likely be inside that grey building?
There are about 100 subscribers in my town.
If that building contains a multiplexer/Amplifier of sorts, would it
still be possible for the guys at Brand X telco to create a
uninterrupted copper line between towns A and B, right up to my house?
(I have what would appear to be a 25 pair cable terminating on the
pole in my back yard -- I am the second to last subscriber on the
north end of their network).
The next problem -- What kind of amplification would my tie trunk
signal possibly need to travel the 15km, if any? Also, what would the
monopolizing beasts at Brand X telco ask from me ($ - monthly) for
this service?
- Keelan Lightfoot
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol)
Subject: Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information
Date: 8 Jul 1999 00:28:00 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:51:57 -0400, schandler@ciaccess.com allegedly said:
> This message is an update to one appearing in TELECOM Digest back
> around February 1997:
> I'd appreciate it if everyone could help me out with a project I've
> been working on. After searching the Internet and countless phone
> calls to different phone companies, i was unable to get a database or
> book containing tables for determining whether a call from phone #
> xxx-xxxx was local to phone # yyy-yyyy.
As an ISP I would find this extremely useful.
However, with all the CLECs who've entered my area (and, undoubtedly,
yours too), and the rate at which new NXX's are introduced within a
given area code, it might be rather difficult to maintain such a
database.
When there's a question, I just tell people to dial zero from the
phone they are using to dial the destination number; give the operator
their number and the number they're calling; and ask if it's a toll
call. After all, you know what happens when you ass-u-me! :) (you end
up with an angry customer who has a big long-distance bill)
That having been said, I wish you much success with the project and I
will try to get as much info to you as I possibly can.
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
------------------------------
From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Weird Wrong Number Calls
Date: 7 Jul 1999 20:39:06 -0400
Bill Levant writes:
> Periodically, during business hours, but not always at the same time
> of day, a woman calls our (listed) number.
> No matter whether I answer, or my wife answers, or the kids answer,
> it's always the same thing. She says "Sorry, wrong number" -- WITHOUT
> ASKING FOR ANYONE IN PARTICULAR -- and then hangs up.
One obvious possibility is that there is a number that she calls
regularly that is NOT answered with "Hello", but in some other manner
well known to her. (For example, she calls her husband at his company
and knows that they'll always with the company name.) And of course
Bill's number is similar to this other number. And the woman is used
to getting a lot of wrong numbers because her phone has a balky key
and she hasn't gotten around to having it fixed (or it's her
employer's phone and they refuse to fix it), or because she has a
physical disability in her hands, or whatever. So she doesn't want to
waste anyone's time, and hangs up quickly when it happens.
Mark Brader | "I always hoped that when someone quoted me
Toronto | it would be because I said something profound."
msbrader@interlog.com | -- Chris Volpe
My text in this article is in the public domain.
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson)
Subject: Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information
Date: 8 Jul 1999 00:36:44 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
> What I am currently doing is compiling all the information I have into
> a database and program that can do local number look ups.
I hate to be a dead fish, but I think the magnitude of data for a
project like this would make it an almost impossible task, for the
following reasons.
The Philadelphia area phone book alone, with the various message
unit groups, has many 9x12" pages in fine print detailing the various
call zones. Even if you to include message units as "local" and
include only "toll", there is still an enormous complexity since
every suburban town has its own matrix. And there are lots of towns.
I shudder to think of the New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles
charts.
Making the project even tougher is that new competing telephone
companies might not use the same local zones as the established
Bell companies do.
Compounding the problem is that different calling plans have different
local plans. Premium call plans do not charge for message unit calls
("Metropolitan Flat Rate Service"). And there are even higher premium
plans that allow free calling in otherwise short distance toll zones.
In other words, having a table look up say "local" is essentially
meaningless because (a) are message units "local"?; and (b) each
calling plan varies the definition. To yield an accurate answer you'd
have to provide for every plan offered in that exchange. It can get
very complex.
Because of the area code splits, all exchange combinations must be
both area code and exchange. That's a lot of keying.
Phone companies are constantly adding new exchanges and area codes.
Maintaining the table would be tough.
Lastly, phone companies are always tinkering with the calling areas.
The database would be obsolete by the time it was done.
------------------------------
From: mikelieman@albany.net (Mike Lieman)
Subject: Re: Looking For Rack Fastener Seen at Networld
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:33:05 GMT
Organization: Lieman Systems Development
Reply-To: mikelieman@albany.net
www.markertek.com has them.
klein_larry@hotmail.com (Larry Klein) wrote:
> I can describe it though. There are 2 pieces. The first piece looked
> almost like a set screw but had an untreaded area where the rack gear
> would sit while mounting the rack piece. The second piece was a
> cylindrical cap that cinched the gear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- I Miss Jerry -|- TECHNOLOGY: No Place for Wimps! -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- <mailto:mikelieman@albany.net> <http://www.albany.net/~msl> -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- PGP Fingerprint: C43E 7FAB E5C6 873F 8531 8B24 DC98 0BC9 63F5 4005 -
- (c) 1998 Mike Lieman "For Non-Commercial, Home-Use Only" -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #198
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 8 04:40:04 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA23969;
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 04:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907080840.EAA23969@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #199
TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Jul 99 04:40:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 199
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Computer Science and Government: ARPA/IPTO Draft For Comment (Ronda Hauben)
Re: Stentor Changes and History (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Spam Blocking (Jim Rusling)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Dean Forrest Wright)
Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information (Michael G. Koerner)
Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules (Matt)
Joey Lindstrom is Not a Racist (Bob Goudreau)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Computer Science and Government: ARPA/IPTO Draft For Comment
Date: 8 Jul 1999 02:12:31 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Reply-To: rh120@columbia.edu
Computer Science and Government: ARPA/IPTO (1962-1986)
Creating the Needed Interface
by Ronda Hauben
rh120@columbia.edu
Mr. McCormack. The important thing about a man in science is
that he must have demonstrated ability to think originally,
isn't that right.
Mr. Marchetti. Yes
Mr. McCormack. They are discovering things and looking ahead
maybe 10 and 20 years sometimes.
Mr. Marchetti. That is right
[Riehlman Comm. hearing, pg. 249]
During the war there developed a partnership between
military men and scientific men. It was not brought about
automatically; it is not a thing that occurs readily. These
men come from different backgrounds, and it is hard for
each group to understand the other....I can say to you that
the morale of the scientists today as I meet them is so low,
so low that while they will not refuse to serve, they will
serve without enthusiasm and without fruitful inspiration.
[Vannevar Bush, Riehlman Comm hearing 1954,
pg. 454-455]
ARPA is considered throughout the field as being the main
supporter and perhaps the most important force in the course
of U.S. and probably world history in the computer....the
country never would have grown in the computer field the way
it did if it hadn't been for ARPA."
[Ibid., pg. X-22. Discussion with Dr. L. Roberts,
April 23, 1974]
1. Preface
This paper is a beginning effort to explore the role of the
U.S. government in building the Internet. The Information Processing
Techniques Office (IPTO) created within the Advanced Research Projects
Agency (ARPA) in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is the early and
most significant institutional form of this role. Working within this
institution, scientists provided leadership in creating the new field
of computer science and in giving birth to the Internet. Understanding
the role of government in the creation and development of the Internet
involves exploring the interface between the computer scientists
working as part of IPTO and the military officers in the DOD. More
fundamentally, this interface is actually an interface between the
computer science community and the U.S. government.
During much of its 25 year existence, from 1962-1986, the
Information Processing Techniques Office funded and provided
leadership, not only for the creation of the new field of computer
science, but also for a large number of significant accomplishments in
this field. Among these accomplishments are the creation of
time-sharing and interactive computing, of packet switching
networking, VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration), AI (Artificial
Intelligence), the ARPANET, and perhaps most sensationally, of the
Internet. Also, under its direction and support, interactive computing
and the Internet have spread into many aspects of our society and
lives.
And yet the Office of Information Processing Techniques was ended
in 1986. This raises the question of how did it provide the leadership
to make such accomplishments possible? And then, if it was successful
in doing such important feats, why was it ended?
Before the creation of ARPA, and IPTO, there was concern within
the scientific community and in the U.S. government about how to
fashion an appropriate peacetime institutional form within government
to support basic scientific research. ARPA/IPTO succeeded in a
significant way in providing such a form, but it also encountered
problems that eventually ended its existence. This paper suggests
that study of IPTO's birth, development and ending will be helpful in
trying to determine what institutional form within the U.S. government
is necessary to continue to provide leadership for computer science
research and for the continued growth and development of the Internet.
The development and problems of the National Science Foundation
(NSF) are also relevant research questions to be studied toward
determining what form of institution is needed for the future. However,
since such important developments in computer science were made under
leadership from ARPA/IPTO, it is more important to explore how this
happened. Future study is needed, however, to examine the extent to
which the NSF contributed to this effort and the problems this agency
encountered that prevented any greater contribution.
To state the problem more simply, I am proposing that there is a
need to study ARPA/IPTO, both its achievements and the problems it
encounter, as it presents important experience toward determining how
to design a U.S. government institution to support the continued
development of basic research in computer science. This study is also
important to provide an answer to the question of how to design a
government institution to provide the needed continued oversight and
support for scaling and other critical functions for the child of
computer science and the IPTO, i.e. for the Internet. This paper is
intended as a contribution.
URL for full paper: http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/arpa_ipto.txt
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:28:14 CDT
From: Mark J Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: Stentor Changes and History
In the press release that J.F. Mezei posted on the changes to Canada's
Stentor Consortium, there is a mention of the formation of the
original predecessor to Stentor, way back in 1932 -- as well as some
other information on the name changes or re-organizations of what has
become Stentor:
"1932: SCNM predecessor, Trans-Canada Telephone System (TCTS) forms
and completes the construction of Canada's first cross-country
network" (SCNM = Stentor Canada Network Management)
"1983: TCTS changes its name to Telecom Canada"
"1992: Telecom Canada becomes Stentor Canadian Network Management, as
part of the creation of the Stentor Alliance"
Three years ago, back in May 1996, I had prepared and posted a special
report for the TELECOM Digest and Archives regarding the history and
development of the Canadian telephone network, which I called "Stentor,
Bell Canada, Independents - Some History", found in the TELECOM Archives:
http://telecom-digest.org/archives/history/stentor.bell-canada
In the fourteenth paragraph, I mention that the TCTS was formed or created
in 1931:
"In 1931, Bell Canada and the dominant provincial telcos formed the
'Trans-Canada Telephone System' (TCTS). One of TCTS' major goals was
to form a truly Canadian coast-to-coast telephone toll/transmission
network, which was accomplished during that year. Prior to the
completion of the TCTS network, long-haul telephone calls from one end
of Canada to another had to traverse through AT&T's Long-Lines in the
US. TCTS became known as Telecom-Canada in the late 1970's or early
1980's, and reorganized as Stentor around 1992/93."
After I had finished preparing the report and sending it to the TELECOM
Digest and Archives, I subsequently discovered in further research that
there even was a predecessor to the Trans-Canada Telephone System! It was
bascically the same type of organization, which was preparing for an
eventual coast-to-coast intra-Canada network of toll lines and trunks. In
the early 1920's, there was formed the "TAC", Telephone Association of
Canada, which was the association of the dominant provincial-based telcos.
It appears that the TAC of the 1920's evolved into the TCTS of the 1930's
through early 1980's.
Incidently, the original member telcos of what was the TCTS did _NOT_
include what has become NewTel (Newfoundland) nor IslandTel (Prince
Edward Island); nor QuebecTel (partially held by GTE - serving parts of
eastern Quebec) nor NorthwesTel (in the northern territories and the
northern part of British Columbia) -- the first two later on becoming full
members of TCTS / Telecom Canada / Stentor, the latter two later on
becoming "associate" members of Telecom Canada / Stentor.
Since my original historical report on the telephone industry in Canada,
to date 1996, there have been many changes and further developments as
was announced yesterday regarding the "reformation" of what has been
Stentor. Many of these developments and changes have been reported by
others in this Digest, particularly by Ian Angus' "Canadian Telecom
Updates" which can also be found at: http://www.angustel.ca
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: jim.rusling@usa.net (Jim Rusling)
Subject: Re: Spam Blocking
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 02:36:47 GMT
Organization: Mustang Information Systems, Mustang, OK
Reply-To: jim.rusling@usa.net
someone@teleport.com wrote:
> Do you have a URL for RRSS?
> http://www.radparker.org and http://relays.radparker.org do not work.
Try http://relays.radparker.com/
Jim Rusling
Mustang Information Services
Mustang, OK
http://jrusling.home.mindspring.com
------------------------------
From: Dean Forrest Wright <dean@imt.net>
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: 8 Jul 1999 03:16:41 GMT
Organization: Wright Engineers P.C.
If the central office "anonymous call blocking" feature is being used,
only calls marked "Private" (that is, those intentionally blocked on a
per-call or per-line basis) will be blocked. "Out-of-Area" calls
(those from PBXs or from areas unequipped for caller ID) are NOT
blocked by this feature. To the best of my knowledge, FCC rules have
mandated that only those lines whose owners make an explicit request
are to be line-blocked.
The privacy issue is one of varying sensitivity in various states. As
stated, California is one of the states where privacy is an utmost
concern. The language and tone of the notifications sent by the
telephone company to its customers has a great bearing on the number
of customers who choose to block caller ID from their lines. In the
case of California, some of the notices were very strongly worded and
resulted in a large percentage of customers requesting line blocking.
I recently participated in the roll-out of caller ID in a small town
in the Northwest. The notice sent to the customers was patterned on
that used by a California telco. Guess what -- nearly every customer
elected line-blocking.
Dean Forrest Wright, P.E.
Telecommunications (Central Office Equipment) Engineer
dean at imt dot net
"When one lacks a sense of awe, there will be disaster"
------------------------------
From: Michael G. Koerner <mgk920@dataex.com>
Subject: Re: Request For Local Calling Area Information
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 22:15:54 -0500
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com
Shawn Chandler wrote:
> This message is an update to one appearing in TELECOM Digest back
> around February 1997:
> I'd appreciate it if everyone could help me out with a project I've
> been working on. After searching the Internet and countless phone
> calls to different phone companies, i was unable to get a database or
> book containing tables for determining whether a call from phone #
> xxx-xxxx was local to phone # yyy-yyyy.
> In the front of some phone books there are lists of local calling
> areas, ie if you live in area code 519 exchange 683, you can call
> local to area code 519 exchanges 351,352,354,355,359,380,436,627,692.
> What I am currently doing is compiling all the information I have into
> a database and program that can do local number look ups. What I'd
> really appreciate, is if everyone could look in their phone books and
> jot down the local calling areas for all the exchanges in their
> area. (If it's not in the phone book, just write down the ones you
> know of for sure from memory). I'd like to get the data for all of
> North America if possible.
Ameritech has this info for the states in their service area on their
website ( http://www.ameritech.com ) as a 'look-up', however, they no
longer include it in their 'books'. They also seem to limit number of
'look-up's to about 8-10 'originating' NXXs at a sitting. Their info
seems to be quite accurate and current to within about 2-3 months.
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
------------------------------
From: Matt <mbartlett@cyberdude.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 23:27:16 -0400
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
See following link, Sprint doesn't charge for unanswered calls:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990707/mo_sprint__1.html
Matt
Mike Pollock wrote in message ...
> By BRUCE MEYERSON
> AP Business Writer
> NEW YORK (AP) - Whether it's local or long distance, home phone or pay
> phone, it's understood: A call starts with ``hello.'' If there's no
> answer, there's no charge.
> With mobile phones, the situation can be quite different.
> Most mobile phone companies charge from the moment the caller hits the
> ``send'' button. One industry leader, Sprint PCS, charges for calls
> even if there's no answer.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I also recieved on Wednesday night a
note from someone with essentially the same correction, saying that
Sprint does not charge for unanswered calls. So my apologies are
extended to Sprint for misrepresenting them in the matter. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:54:53 EDT
From: Bob Goudreau <goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Joey Lindstrom is Not a Racist
[Wow. Mr. Editor, I regret the level of flames that have arisen
in this thread, but I welcome the chance to turn discussion back
to telecom-relevent topics such as US-->Caribbean long distance rates
and dialing prefixes...]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I regret it also. I regret it
so much in fact I had to think a bit to decide if I wanted to toss
your latest note on this in the bit-bucket or print one hopefully
last, final commentary. This has to be it however. I have mail
stacked all over here waiting to be printed. No more on this topic.
Thank you Joey, thank you Bob. PAT]
----------------------------------
Joey Lindstrom <Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU> wrote:
>> But how much is "too great"? Please be specific, using hard numbers
>> of minutes and cents. So far, none of the people who have snidely
>> dismissed the rates to Caribbean NANP members as too high but who
>> still want Canada to be 1+ dialable have ever put forth any
>> *objective* criteria that could be used to decide which NPAs "deserve"
>> the privilege of 1+ dialing and which do not. I will repeat the
>> challenge I originally offered, and which no one has yet answered with
>> any specific facts or numbers:
> Let me sum up your challenge the way I and many others here interpreted
> it, and you tell me where I've gone wrong, ok?
>> I feel that any argument in favour of forcing Caribbean countries to
>> be 011 dialable is racist because the people there have dark skin,
>> particularly since many of the people putting forth that argument are
>> in favour of keeping Canada 1-dialable, and Canada is mostly white. It
>> is up to you to prove me wrong."
[My full original text follows:]
> Except that people who keep making this argument seem to feel that
> Canada doesn't qualify as "international", and have never met my
> earlier challenge of enumerating exactly what objective criteria
> should be used for deciding which NANP countries should be dialable
> using 1+10D and which should not. Absent such clear rules, the only
> fair thing to do would be to require 011-1- on calls to *all*
> international destinations, Canada included.
> Yet for some reason, some people seem to feel that it would be a Bad
> Thing to make it as difficult to dial those rich white Canadians as it
> they'd like for it to be when dialing those poorer, predominantly-black
> NANP countries in the Caribbean. I find the attitude somewhat remin-
> iscent of the way that certain long distance carriers disable
> calling-card calls to specific countries when the calls originate from
> certain "red-lined" ethnic neighborhoods.
Please note that I certainly did not object to "ANY argument in favour
of forcing Caribbean countries to be 011 dialable", or even to all
arguments banning Caribbean countries from being 1+ dialable. That's
why I described as "fair" the alternative plan that would ban 1+
dialing for *all* foreign countries, putting both Canada and the
Caribbean on a equal footing by requiring 011-1 dialing from the US.
The attitude I was attempting to criticize is the one that proposes
unequal treatment of dialing to various NANP countries without
explaining how or why those countries should be classified into
either the favored or unfavored category.
> If you wish to assert that people are being racist, PROVE IT!
You're right. I was wrong to bring up the parallel to the ethnic
redlining case, and I hereby apologize to any who was offended.
I deserve the proverbial forty lashes with a wet noodle, as Ann
Landers says when she admits she goofed.
>> The recent proclivity of US callers to being more cavalier about their
>> 1+ dialing (the "heck, it only costs ten cents a minute these days"
>> attitude) is hardly something that the Caribbean countries or their
>> telcos can be blamed for.
> The countries, no. The telcos, yes.
I don't understand the logic here. The reason that US callers have
become more cavalier about 1+ dialing is because domestic long distance
rates have fallen dramatically in the past decade. It's hard to credit
or blame any foreign telco for inventing this new cavalier attitude.
Certainly, certain foreign telcos (only some of which serve NANP
nations) benefit from "entertainment" businesses which encourage more
inbound calls to the country; every major carrier in the world likes
to have more traffic, and it's up to the telco and its home
jurisdiction's laws to decide whether it wants to share any of the
ensuing revenues with the companies that drummed up the new business
for them in the first place. The fact that some of those entertainment
firms find it cost-effective to set up a remote-call-forwarding regime
to direct incoming calls to service reps who are located elsewhere is
really beside the point, as the firms are the ones who have to bear the
cost of the forwarding, which is hence invisible to the end-user. It
has always been more expensive to dial the Caribbean islands than to
dial most of the US, even back in the days of the old 809 NPA.
>> And yet US-based sex-line operators are not the ones who would suffer
>> the most from being made completely undialable from US (even via 011-1),
>> as advocated by the earlier poster; the island residents would be worst
>> affected.
> I don't know who advocated that (making these countries completely
> undialable) but can you honestly see THAT coming to pass?
I certainly hope not. But the fact remains that someone (indeed, the
very person I was responding to in my article you originally flamed)
*did* in fact advocate exactly that in Volume 19, Issue 100:
> Certain nations, it seems to me, should be put on notice that their
> free ride in country code 1 will soon be over -- shape up or they'll
> be kicked out for bad behaviour. The FCC could mandate that direct
> dialing end, the NANPA administrator could deallocate the codes, and
> that would, by and large, be that. No more scam artists hiding behind
> the illusion that they were in the United States. No more sponging
> off the country code 1 international gateways, either.
That's the sentiment that I dislike -- the suggestion that only the
opinions of the US (and perhaps Canada) should count for anything
within the NANP, and that all the smaller members can be almost
casually kicked out (or given dialing prefixes that are effectively
equivalent to being kicked out) on the basis of allegedly failing to
meet some standard that isn't even spelled out for them.
> No, what
> most of us who are espousing this view are advocating is requiring that
> these countries go to 011 dialing. All this does is add international
> toll-alerting to calls made to those countries. Nobody would be made
> to suffer simply because people in the US who might want to call them
> are being given a heads-up that the call they're about to make is *NOT*
> domestic. And this is why calls to Canada should, too, be 011 -
> there's a higher rate involved. Not nearly as much higher, but higher.
> If I live in Stoke-on-Trent in England and I place a call to Dublin,
> Ireland, it goes as an "international" call (dialed with the "00"
> prefix, followed by country code 353, then the city and local numbers)
> and the rates are higher. Logical?
Indeed, which is why I specifically said that, if 1+ dialing to any
NANP country was going to be banned, "the only fair thing to do would
be to require 011-1- on calls to *all* international destinations,
Canada included."
> I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that I am not racist and that my
> reasons for advocating 011 dialing for all international calls is for
> the reasons I've already delineated, and for no other. I also believe
> the same holds true for everyone else who has posted in favour of this
> plan, but of course I cannot claim to know the minds of others.
But I have not criticized the "uniform treatment" plan (the one that
requires 011-1 even for Canada). In fact, I took great pains to
distinguish it from the "non-uniform treatment" plan (in which only
Canada gets to keep 1+) in my original complaint. I have not slighted
the motives of proponents of the "uniform treatment" plan.
>> I will also point out you have broken the two rules yourself. If, as
>> you claim above, you advocate that Canada not be given any special
>> exemption from a blanket "all international calls require 011" rule,
>> then you are clearly not among the group of people I was berating
>> above, those who want to keep 1+ dialing for Canada and domestic calls
>> only but who refuse to explain exactly why Canada alone qualifies for
>> such an exemption. Your subject line is therefore a nonsensical
>> strawman, evidence of your propensity to be "too easily annoyed" by
>> barbs that were not even directed at you. And the fact that you did
>> not read carefully enough to notice the distinction I made between the
>> "011 for all int'l calls" group and the "Canada exemption" group is
>> itself quite annoying.
> As to both charges, my defence is in my previous paragraph. You've
> made allegations that, if not strongly refuted, will STICK, regardless
> of their merit. I chose to refute them even though you claim that I
> wasn't an intended target of your scattergun approach - because even
> though not a target, I still got hit.
Um, you simply were *not* a target, intentional or otherwise, and if
you or anyone else in the "uniform treatment" camp feels like they
got "hit", then I doubly apologize for not making it clearer that my
original criticism was only directed to a portion of the other camp;
I thought that the original wording was clear enough, but apparently
it's not.
> Now, getting to the actual issues involved here, my argument is that
> calls to Canada should be 011-dialed because of the higher rates.
> Others feel that the rates are not sufficiently higher to warrant this,
> and there's merit to this as well - after all, many US carriers charge
> higher rates to call Hawaii and Alaska, should we have to call those
> places with 011?
> An additional argument in favour of keeping Canada 1- dialable, just to
> play devil's advocate, can be summed up in three words: "Free Trade
> Agreement".
Sounds like a devilish non-sequitur. For one thing, the US has FTAs
with other countries that have never been 1+ dialable (such as Israel),
and countries which are no longer 1+ dialable (Mexico, as you note).
And the absence of the US/Canada FTA until the 1980s did not prevent
1+ dialing between the two countries before then. Thus, 1+ dialing is
neither necessary nor sufficient for free trade, and vice versa.
Besides, as we see with the Mexican example, having an FTA with the
US does not guarantee that international call rates will drop to
levels comparable to US domestic long distance.
> You asked for a threshold number at which point we decide a call should
> be 011 dialable or 1 dialable. I'm not a telecom insider so all I can
> offer is my opinion, but how about 100%? That is, if a call to a
> destination costs 100% more (or higher) than an interstate call
> between, say, New York and LA, then maybe we need 011 for toll
> alerting.
Would this apply to everyone in the US (in which case, which carriers'
rates are you using in the ratio?), or just to people whose LD plans
reach that ratio, or what? Note that there is a wide variation, based
on carrier and plan. For an example of how high domestic long distance
can get, consider that AT&T has just announced that it is cutting the
weekday daytime rate of its basic (non-discount) service from 28+ cents
per minute to 26 cpm. For an example of how low Carribbean LD can get,
recall Mark Cuccia's posting pointing out that LCI/Qwest offers rates
of 32 cpm from the US to the Bahamas, or 40 cpm to Bermuda. Is the
rule for 011-1 vs. 1+ dialing going to vary from subscriber to
subscriber and from hour to hour, based on their LD plan's rate ratio
at any given point in time? I'd prefer to see a single national norm
instead.
But I do thank you for at least proposing the beginnings of an actual
measurable criterion for winnowing 1+-eligible nations, incomplete
though it may be. So far, it's the *only* I've seen anyone advance.
(Earlier suggestions about only allowing 1+ dialing based on amorphous
subjective criteria such as asserting that only Canada is
"well-behaved" don't seem particularly measurable.)
>> To others who are members of that group, and who genuinely have no
>> biases based on race or national origin, I do apologize --
> Ah ... a partial retraction. That's nice. Now would you care to name
> the remaining people who your apology is not extended to, and/or offer
> some proof that they are, in fact, racist? Your accusation is still
> out there and I for one would like to see you either prove it or
> retract it completely.
Consider my comment withdrawn, and see above for apology.
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did someone mention issue 100 above?
My goodness, has this thread been going on that long? I must have
lost track of the time. I am tired now and want to quit hearing about
it. My thanks to Bob and Joey for helping make this Digest such a
forum for diverse opinions. Unlike a dry, technical journal for
telephony, we have so much more interesting reading here, don't we?
And I am saying that in all sincerity: my thanks to every one of
you whose interesting thoughts and ideas and experiences put in
writing were responsible for telecom-digest.org reaching a record
number of 'hits' today ... over eight thousand. And if you have not
yet (or recently) visited an affiliated web site, 'Internet Historical
Society / Internet Pioneers' I invite you to do so today. The listing
of links to documents relating the net's history over the past thirty
years is quite large with many you may not have seen before. Please
visit http://internet-history.or (or) http://internet-pioneers.org
and learn where we came from. Goodnight! PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #199
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 8 16:30:06 1999
Received: (from ptownson@localhost)
by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA20054;
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:30:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:30:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199907082030.QAA20054@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #200
TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Jul 99 16:30:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 200
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
GTE Sues Insurer Over Year 2000 Liability (Paul Robinson)
Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract (Robert Bonomi)
Selective Call Screening (Peter Simpson)
Re: Weird Wrong Number Calls (Bill Ranck)
Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Dave O'Shea)
Calling Number ID in California (Lauren Weinstein)
Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules (Stanley Cline)
Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules (David Clayton)
RelTec Termination Blocks & Alternatives (Sue)
Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Steve Winter)
Publisher Must Lay Down the Law (Monty Solomon)
Need Help Identifying Switchboards (Virgil Calejesan)
Re: Last Laugh! His Wife is a Computer Hacker (Steven J Sobol)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 765
Junction City, KS 66441-0765
Phone: 415-520-9905
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having
been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then.
Our archives are available for your review/research.
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* 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: rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson)
Date: 08 Jul 1999 12:18:22 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: GTE Sues Insurer Over Year 2000 Liability
According to an article at UK Internet News Service Silicon.com,
http://www.silicon.com/a31386 GTE is suing Allendale Mutual Insurance
(AMI) over Year 2000 remediation costs under the "Imminent Loss"
clause where an insured spends money immediately to fix a problem now
rather than do nothing and file an even larger claim with the insurer
for worse damages later.
This ability to file for recovery of so-called Year 2000 or "Y2K"
costs is considered by some to be a "loophole" in the usual laws
regarding what a company can recover for under such provisions. The
example given of where such a clause would normally be used would be
in marine insurance where a company cleans up an oil spill immediately
instead of filing a claim which would involve even larger damages than
if the problem were fixed immediately.
In the UK the equivalent provision is based on a law called the "Sue
and Labour Clause," because a company, in order to immediately repair
or mitigate damages may have to "'sue, labour or travel' if necessary
to protect these interests," but it is considered unlikely that
companies there would use that provision for recouping Y2K remediation
costs.
This particular feature of Imminent Loss coverage is not all that
unusual. For example, I have automobile insurance with GEICO. Unlike
most people, I have actually read my insurance policy. The company
will not pay any liability until after it is informed of and either
they determine they are are valid or a court imposes damages EXCEPT
that it will reimburse me for out-of-pocket costs of first aid paid by
me at the time of the accident to cover injuries occurring then, which
makes sense, i.e. it's cheaper to pay back the minor costs for that
than to have the person be injured even worse and thus make the total
costs higher for the insurer.
Article URL: http://www.silicon.com/a31386
Most people are aware of the issue of why there is a Y2K problem but
I'll restate it for the record. The following are my comments
unrelated to the above article.
Some computer programs such as credit-card processing systems,
insurance and mortgage systems calculate differences between dates for
purposes of determining interest and amounts due.
Some internal microprocessors use dates or times to determine how long
industrial processes such as the cracking of crude oil into gasoline
and kerosene are to be performed. Elevators, traffic lights, and
electric power grids may compare dates to determine rush periods and
reschedule service to accomodate those extra loads in some areas and
reduce service in areas where the load isn't going to be used.
For example, during daylight hours, most electricity is consumed by
offices, and telephone circuits are used by businesses in commercial
districts to make calls. At night, those circuits are unused as most
people are at home and using the phones (and lights and air conditioning)
in their houses. Telephone circuit use is extremely high on certain
days such as Mother's Day because of people contacting loved ones (and
because the rates are often lower).
The routines to determine what date it is and whether certain things
need to be done is called "date sensitive." Many computer programs
that are date sensitive were designed to use a 6-digit date such as
05/20/66 to represent May 20, 1966 or 07/08/99 to represent today,
July 8, 1999. If I subtract 123198 from 010199 that indicates that
one day has passed. However, next year, subtracting 123199 from
010100 may be misread as indicating 99 years have passed, causing
anything from errors which could cascade to other parts, to complete
stoppage or failure of the program, microprocessor or system in use.
If a program or embedded microprocessor does not use dates at all or
doesn't calculate with them it is not date sensitive and is immune to
the Y2K problem. Not counting the cost of repairing software
programs, the problem is also that there were several billion
microprocessors sold for use in everything from the microwave oven and
VCR you probably have at home, to the control units in cars, airplanes
and power plants. Most will probably not use dates or might only be
interested in the day of the week which can simply be added from one
day to the next. Some might be badly effected. Problem is
identifying what will work because it is not date sensitive, what can
or must be repaired, what has to be replaced, and what can be worked
around.
Paul Robinson
RFC1394A@AOL.COM (Formerly PAUL@TDR.COM, TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM,
TDARCOS@DIGEX.NET and others)
"If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that people do not learn the
lessons that history teaches us."
------------------------------
From: bonomi@ns2.agresource.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: GTE Cellular Tries to Hold Dead Man to Contract
Date: 8 Jul 1999 11:43:45 GMT
Organization: Not Much
This makes one thing _awfully_ obvious --
Do *NOT* rely on PAT for legal advice.
Facts:
_Most_ time-payment contracts have a clause in them that makes
the *ENTIRE* amount "immediately due and pauable" upon the death
of the person.
*ALL* contracts, unless they have _specific_ language in them to the
contrary, survive the death of one of the signatory parties.
Upon a death, the liability for fulfilling the contract reverts to the
*estate* of the person, to be settled out of that person's assets.
If there aren't enough assets to settle all the debts, things are handled
in what is essentially a bankruptcy liquidation.
Before a claim, of any sort, can be paid from the estate assets, there
must be verifiable documentation of the debt. A 'verbal only' loan --
the "Hey Jim, can I borrow $20 till payday", or similiar, *is* out-of-
luck.
Barring 'special circumstances' -- things like significant procedural
errors on the part of the executor -- the executor is not personally
liable for any debts of the deceased.
Debts _do_not_ 'transfer' to the beneficiaries, *unless*they*
*voluntarily*accept*them*.
The _primary_ job of the executor is to see that all the 'claims'
against the deceased -- which are now claims against the *estate* --
are settled; such that the 'free and clear' assets can be distributed
to the beneficiaries, as declared in the will, or lacking that, as
specified by statute. The actual 'distribution' is a relatively
trivial matter -- getting everything identified, and cleared up so
that the distribution _can_ be made is the big time-consumer.
This entire matter was just (within approximately the last 30 days)
discussed in detail in 'misc.legal.moderated'. It should be _trivial_
to find all the special circumstances stuff, etc. on somewhere like
Deja News.
The cell-phone company _was_ on firm -legal- ground with their first
attitude. They, =almost=invariably=, 'voluntarily' release the (now
deceased) user from the contract as a matter of public relations policy,
there's a budget item for 'good will'.
For _real_ grins (not!), try dealing with a long-term "health club"
contract, or (even worse) an extended lessons course from a 'martial
arts' training studio. Many, albeit _not_ all, of these kinds of
places make the *bulk* of their revenues from folks who sign up for
services and do _not_ use them. They're usually in small-claims court
*every*day*, with a bunch of 'breached' contracts that they're seeking
court-ordered enforcement of payment on. I sat through about 50 of these
proceedings one day (in virtually _no_ case did the defendant even appear),
waiting for a case, where I was a witness, to be called.
Death does -not- slow them down, _at_all_.
PAT's (mis-i)information, below, is _flat-out_ wrong. as any competent
legal counsel will tell anyone.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for writing. I *did* ask for
someone with knowledge on the topic to respond didn't I ... and I am
glad you did. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Peter_Simpson@ne.3com.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:34:36 -0400
Subject: Selective Call Screening
I think there may be an opportunity for a product here.
One that would sit between your phone and your telephone line and allow
you to control who gets to make your phone ring.
It would:
- allow you to program time periods during which certain levels of
restriction would apply (dinner, for example ... no "out of area" calls
allowed.)
- allow you to maintain a list of "blocked" numbers and "desired"
numbers.
- assign unique "ring patterns" to certain calling numbers.
- support "access codes" and default messages for restricted numbers
("sorry, we don't accept unidentified calls" or "if you're not a
telemarketer, press 1 now")
In short, a device much more powerful than we have seen to date. The
technology exists, and I'm sure, as the number of telemarketers
continues to increase, so will the market for a device like the one I
want :-)
Peter
------------------------------
From: Bill Ranck <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Weird Wrong Number Calls
Date: 8 Jul 1999 13:01:47 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Bill Levant <Wlevant@aol.com> wrote:
> Her calling number is "unavailable", since *69 returns "this call
> cannot be returned because it originated from outside the area ..."
> We don't have Caller ID (and don't want to invest in it for this
> problem anyway).
I think that caller ID would not help since *69 uses the same
mechanism for retrieving the number. You would get an "unavailable"
from caller ID as well. If I'm wrong about that, someone please
let me know.
> Any ideas on why this is happening, who she might be, or how we can
> stop it short of either changing our number or siccing the Annoyance
> Call Bureau (do they still have those) on her ?
Well, maybe, if you are quick enough to interrupt her before she
hangs up you could ask. I think the phone company will track
annoyance calls for you. I can think of all sorts of possible
reasons why this might be happening, some innocent, some not.
> And no, we aren't deadbeats, so she shouldn't be a bill collector or
> anything like that.
Oh, the bill collectors would definitely want to talk to you, not
just hang up.
Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center
------------------------------
From: Dave O'Shea <daveoshea@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID?
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:34:28 -0500
Dean Forrest Wright <dean@imt.net> wrote in message news:telecom19.199.4@
telecom-digest.org:
> If the central office "anonymous call blocking" feature is being used,
> only calls marked "Private" (that is, those intentionally blocked on a
> per-call or per-line basis) will be blocked. "Out-of-Area" calls
> (those from PBXs or from areas unequipped for caller ID) are NOT
> blocked by this feature. To the best of my knowledge, FCC rules have
> mandated that only those lines whose owners make an explicit request
> are to be line-blocked.
The statement about ACR (anonymous call rejection) and "out of area"
calls is correct. Telemarketers have gotten smart, though, and usually
do their best to make sure their calls appear as "out of area". At
least one RBOC (Ameritech?) is offering a service which intercepts
"out of area" calls, and requires the caller to give a voice
identification, which is then played for the recipient of the call
before making the connection.
Of course, I say just ban telemarketing outright. I can recoup lost
money from a crummy product, but I *can't* ever recover the time that
someone wastes.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 99 22:50 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Calling Number ID in California
Greetings. A few facts about Calling Number ID (CNID) here in California:
- There is not per-line blocking by default. Customers choose the setting
that they want. Given that such a high percentage of numbers here are
non-pub/unlisted, it's not surprising that a very high percentage have
chosen per-line blocking. There is no recurring charge for your blocking
choice, though I believe there are some charges associated with changing
it after the initial selection (which I believe may be waived by the
telcos in some cases, especially if you're choosing unblocking...)
- Usage of CNID in California is fairly low -- logical given the point
above. Local telcos have been promoting anonymous call blocking and
suggesting in their literature that it's "less hassle" to stay unblocked
normally and use per-call blocking when desired, though most subscribers
have not chosen to heed this advice. Overall, CNID just hasn't made major
inroads here compared with some other areas.
- There is no charge to use either per-call blocking or per-call unblocking.
- At the risk of rehashing an old discussion, the fundamental flaw with
CNID is that it identifies a line at a particular location, NOT the
person making a call. An individual or business may wish to make outward
calls on private, unlisted lines, while incoming calls are routed through
a PBX or switchboard. They may have no problem at all with revealing
their identity, but shouldn't be forced to reveal the particular internal
number from which they are calling. Similarly, if someone is visiting at
someone else's house, or a doctor's office, or whatever, it shouldn't be
required that they reveal that location to the callee--it's none of the
callee's business *where* the caller happens to be at the moment, and in
fact in some situations that information could be very invasive.
There are a few situations where CNID even in its current form has proven
useful here -- especially in automated forwarding to cellular phones and
such. But in all these cases, direct use of the *82 per-call unblocking
code can enable the specialized functions when really necessary.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz"
--- http://www.vortex.com/reality
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 00:45:21 -0400
From: Stanley Cline <sc1@roamer1.org>
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
Organization: how, with all the spam?
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules
Mike Pollock quoted:
> ``send'' button. One industry leader, Sprint PCS, charges for calls
> even if there's no answer.
Not true. I am a SPCS customer and have never, ever been charged for
unanswered calls while in SPCS coverage.
However, there are plenty of carriers that charge people ROAMING on
their networks for *all* calls (including calls to 611 and sometimes
even 911, and calls routed to fraud protection features), or at the
very least for busy signals and unanswered calls. These include ALLTEL
and US Cellular, among others.
> Even among companies that only charge when a call goes through,
> including AirTouch, Bell Atlantic Mobile, BellSouth Mobility and
> Nextel Communications, the meter starts running from ``send,'' not
> from ``hello.''
About the only carriers that start billing from the time the other end
answers are GSM carriers, such as Powertel (I'm also their customer)
and Omnipoint. Two major GSM carriers, PacBell and VoiceStream, do
send-to-end billing, however. GSM phones do not tie up a channel to
deliver busy signals; they do tie up a channel during ringing time,
but IIRC, GSM networks can be configured to not do that either.
SC
------------------------------
From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Companies Go by Own Rules
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 10:29:13 GMT
Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd.
Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Mike Pollock <pheel@sprynet.com> contributed the following:
> Most mobile phone companies charge from the moment the caller hits the
> ``send'' button. One industry leader, Sprint PCS, charges for calls
> even if there's no answer.
> Since companies generally charge for a full minute even when less than
> a minute is used, those few seconds when the phone is ringing could
> inflate a monthly bill quite a bit.
In Australia mobile calls (for new contracts) are now being charged by
the second (with a flagfall) rather than in 30 second blocks (which had
a fair amount of the consumers grinding their teeth at paying for
something they didn't use).
And if they tried to charge for no answer calls ... well I just don't
want to think of the outcry!
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
------------------------------
From: Sue <suzs@mailexcite.com>
Subject: RelTec Termination Blocks & Alternatives
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 15:26:01 -0700
Organization: PA. USA
Hi, I have been looking for Reliable (also called RelTec) Termination
Blocks ... part no. 2377R-250-AB
Reliable cannot manufacture them in the time frame that we need them,
so I have been looking for alternatives. These blocks are pre-wired,
and have a "quick clip" termination .... we call it bifurcated. We
like these blocks because we are able to bridge dial tones and it is
simple to monitor (you don't need a special tool or adapter).
If anyone has any ideas -- I'm not interested in AT&T 110's -- I would
appreciate it. I have been looking at Krone, but have not seen them
in person.
Thanks,
Sue
------------------------------
From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter)
Subject: Moderator's View on Net Commerce
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 06:25:43 GMT
Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM
Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com
TELECOM Digest Editor wrote to Gregory L. Abbott saying something like:
> there are still some dreadful problems with lack of security and
> the casual handling of personal information. I do not think credit
> card ordering on the net is safe at all; there are lots of problems
> with that. I would never want to use my credit card on the net on
> any regular basis and/or tie it in with my name and address.
But, Pat, would you then not take that same credit card and hand
it to a minimum wage employee in some store (or over the phone)?
Credit card companies have a lot of procedures in place to protect
cardholders. What are you afraid might happen (that would not
be refunded to you if fraud became evident)?
Regards,
Steve
http://www.sellcom.com
Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices.
SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering
Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM
New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In an actual, physical store setting,
there are several safety features available, regardless of the wages
paid to the clerk or the clerk's own ethical standards of behavior.
For starters, I can notice if two charges slips instead of one happen
to be 'accidentally' imprinted, and call the clerk's attention to it.
Which is not to say I cannot get my money back later, its just easier
for someone who is on a limited income and budget like myself to not
have to take that extra step at a later time. On the net, if someone
is 'sniffing' for credit cards, it is not the fault at all of the
merchant that someone intercepted my number, in effect printing up
a charge slip twice, but I cannot even tell it is being done or
take steps to correct it.
Look at what happened to amazon.com recently. Some guy in South
America or someplace sniffed out the bank account numbers of several
of their customers then looted all the customers' money. Customer
finds out about it only when the money is long since gone. In a
store I can *see* the clerk attempt to do those things and put a
stop to it. amazon.com of course has no intention of making any
restitution; they didn't steal the money. SSL just simply is not a
very safe way to pass account numbers. Oh, the businesses on the
net are trying to convince everyone it is, since that is about the
only way they have to do business at present, but based on what we
know about net technology today, SSL just doesn't cut it.
Because in an actual store the merchant's agreement with his credit
card processor will likely call for the presence of actual plastic,
and a form which has been imprinted with numbers and signed by an
actual customer, there is less risk of later abuse. If I make an
actual purchase, an imprint of the card and a signature are available.
If then at a later time a second charge comes through with a sales
draft that only has the handwritten number on it and a bogus looking
signature, it is very obvious that fraud has occurred.
Since I was actually in the physical premises transacting business, I
know where they are physically located and can return if necessary to
discuss with them dissatisfaction about the merchandise and/or some
fraud which appears to have taken place on my account.
Two, I can examine the merchandise in real time, up close, prior to
paying for it. I can see how it works, if it will function as desired
for the situation, if the clothing will fit me, if the flowers are
really as nice at hand as they appear in the picture on the computer
screen, if the people appear to be as honest in person as they purport
to be when hidden behind their keyboard, and things like that.
You may say well, if the widget does not work as you thought, or will
not work in your application, or if the clothes do not fit you or if
the flowers are all dead and wilted, just return them and get your
money back. That's all very well and good, but I would not be out the
money to start with if I had been able to test the widget, try on the
clothing or smell and admire the flowers.
If I shop via the computer, you are going to go in your stockroom to
fill my order and possibly pick the one item you've been trying to get
rid of for six months and foist that off on me. If I come in your
store on the other hand, I will look through the shelves and stacks of
items and pick the one *I* want, regardless of what you may have
laying around that is stained, or partially not working, or returned
by a previous purchaser without its manual and a couple of its parts
(i.e. power cord or a knob) missing. No fault of yours maybe that the
previous customer bought the item, got his dirty hands all over it then
returned it to you for credit, but you still want to get rid of that
one. You are going to charge my credit card the minute that merchandise
is being processed, and you are going to make part of the terms of sale
that it is my problem if/when the delivery company actually gets it here
and if they get it here in one piece or not. Don't keep bothering us
here at the web site about it, go talk to your local Fedex office.
My experience has generally been to date that if one does business
with a merchant in an actual physical location where one can examine
the merchandise first, pay for it, take it away with him and if it is
necessary, return it and receive credit for it, things just seem to
go a little smoother. There are exceptions of course; there are stores
I would never want to go in to, or have anything to do with. My exper-
ience has generally been to date that if fraud is going to occur, it
will most likely occur on the net rather than in person. On the net,
it appears fraud is evenly distributed about fifty/fifty between customer
and merchant. In a physical setting the ratio is closer to about ninety/
ten with customers doing most of the rip-offs while the merchant,
because of his situation as a sitting duck where anyone can find him
less likely to perpetrate a scam.
So you say well fine, the credit card company is there to protect you,
and the same rules generally apply to 'debit cards' issued by banks
under the VISA/MC brand name, so even if the payment comes out of your
checking account at the time of purchase you should be covered, right?
Whether its the clerk in the store who steals your money, the store
which sells you shoddy merchandise or some charlatan setting up shop
on the net, the credit card/bank people will make it all good, right?
Let me quote you an excerpt from a 'not-for-publication' letter I got
in email from someone a couple weeks ago ... (you know I get a truck
load of mail everyday, right, from people I've never heard of in my
life who write, 'Dear Mr. Townson, blah-blah and etc, please tell me
what to do ...')
This older -- by her own admission -- lady, living on a fixed income
(not all netizens work for a large company in an executive position
making a hundred thousand dollars per year with six computers at their
home or are employed by universities to sit in their office and
meditate most of the day inbetween checking news on their computer and
paid several thousand dollars per month in salary for doing same)
wrote and said this:
From: Witheld at request
Subject: Doing Business on the Net
Date: 30 Jun 1999 07:45:00 CDT
My kids were on my case for the longest time to get a computer,
learn about the Internet and use it. They brought me a computer
so I started using it and looking at things on the net. I was
at one site where they were taking a survey and as their 'way
of saying thanks' for taking part they offered to send me some
reference books for the cost of shipping. Before I retired, I
was a school teacher, and I do enjoy reading and having up-to-
date reference materials in my personal library. Their books
arrived in a week or two; it was really not the kind of quality
I wanted, so I just tossed them out and figured you what you
pay for and all I had paid them was five dollars 'shipping'
fee, or so I thought.
On the Friday night which started the three-day Memorial Day
weekend I went to the (town name) bus station to get a ticket;
I was going to my daughter's place for a couple days to visit,
and my debit card from (bank name) would not work, which I
could not understand at all. I tried to call the bank, which
was already closed for the weekend and all I could reach was
the automated service which reads off your balance and your
most recent transactions. According to the bank, I had a
balance of zero, with two recent ACH (automated clearing house)
withdrawals that zeroed me out.
I was able to reach someone at the bank Saturday morning, and
all they were able to tell me was that 'someone' had authorized
the automatic debits, they did not know who. They said ACH was
closed on weekends but they would investigate it for me on
Tuesday and find out what happened. On Tuesday I got a call from
someone at ACH who said they would look into it, and the next
day, Wednesday, they called again and said they would reverse
the charge and put the money back. On Thursday it was actually
in my account and considered 'clear' for use.
Meanwhile, there I sat from Friday night through Tuesday morning
with a couple dollars in loose change to do with as I pleased.
You can't argue very well with an ATM machine which says your
balance is zero and won't dispense a couple of twenty dollar
bills or the price of a bus ticket. On Tuesday the lady at the
bank said to me, 'just go ahead and write a check for cash; we
know you, we would always pay your checks, or come down and I
will okay the teller cashing a check for you.' I do not really
like the idea of kiting checks, its dishonest, but a guy at
the store near me took a check for some groceries.
On Wednesday, the ACH people said the money had been taken by
the company on the internet web site where I took that survey,
but they said I need not worry about it, that they had ways
of their own to deal with those 'fraud hives which are springing
up all over the net' which is the term they used to describe it.
They were most nice about it and effecient, but that was little
help to me over the three day weekend just passed when they were
closed and I had a couple dollars in dimes and nickles to last
me a few days.
An old saying goes like this, 'Burn me once, shame on you for
taking advantage of my stupidity. Burn me a second time, shame
on me for not learning a lesson the first time.' I will be very
reluctant to ever again give any personal data about myself or
any financial information on the internet. I went back to that
web site just curious to see what they would have to say to me
now when I told them I found out what they had done
[editor's note: she is still a bit naive about the web]
and all I got there was a mostly blank screen with a large
number '404' in the center and a message saying that the
web page I was requesting had been removed or expelled or
something like that and that no forwarding or other information
was available. It did not say it could not be found, it said
the people who own the internet computer network discontinued
service to that company, erased all of their web pages and would
not allow them to be there any longer.
[editor's note: I assume she is referring to the ISP at the
web site where the scam was operating]
I have been reading your telephone newsletter for awhile now
because when my husband was alive he worked for the (name of)
Bell Telephone Company in (town). Please do not print this or
at least do not use my name. I do not want to get mixed up in
any trouble or have any more fuss with it, but I did want to
mention what happened to me."
----------------------
Does that answer your questions, Steve? No one is saying *you* or
any net business in particular is bad. Just the insecurity of
supposedly 'secure transactions' combined with society's bent for
defrauding one another when its easy to hide, and the inherent
inability for a consumer to touch, examine and test the product being
purchased when on the net create a very volatile situation, one that
I don't wish to be part of.
Not only that, but late last night, when it was time for my midnight
nourishment, I waddled off down the street to the corner gas station
and convenience store, for my supply of gas station style microwave
sandwhiches, cigarettes and pastries for this morning's breakfast
only to reach the cash register and discover I had left my wallet
with my ATM card and all my money where I live. The clerk (and what
do you expect in those places overnight?) was an eighteen year old
kid earning minimum wage, on probation for some petty offense some-
where. He said to me "Oh, that's okay Mr. Townson. I know you and you
are a very cool guy. You can bring the money to my boss in the
morning or to me tomorrow night. We trust you. Those doughnuts you
have are left over from this morning, so I will only charge you
half price."
Any businesses on the net using that same protocol? (snicker) PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:09:21 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Publisher Must Lay Down the Law
by Oscar S. Cisneros
3:00 a.m. 6.Jul.99.PDT
While the press and the tech world concentrated on the Microsoft
antitrust trial, a quieter legal battle was being waged for access to
society's source code: the full text of the law.
The case involved West Publishing, a tremendously powerful
legal-information vendor that claimed a copyright on law's written
word as printed in its publications. For generations, the
Minnesota-based company jealously guarded its role as the almost
exclusive publisher of federal court opinions.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/20492.html
------------------------------
From: Virgil Calejesan <dishin@hotmail.com>
Subject: Need Help Identifying Switchboards
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 07:27:25 PDT
Hello,
I'm working at the Louisville Science Center of Kentucky and we have
in our Collections 2 switchboards: a Western Electric PBX switchboard
and a magneto switchboard. Besides that, I have not been able to find
any information on them and I'm not even sure of their names. I was
wondering if you had any information on switchboards and switchboard
history in general or if you could point me in any direction. I was
hoping I could find pictures of switchboards so I could identify which
ones we have. The magneto switchboard has no labels or markings on it
and I can't find many leads. Thank you for your time.
Virgil Calejesan
727 West Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers, please assist this man with
whatever help you can give. Our telephone museum exhibit located at
http://telecom-digest.org/tribute might also have some information. PAT]
------------------------------
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! His Wife is a Computer Hacker
Date: 7 Jul 1999 03:04:04 GMT
Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET
On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:12:08 -0700, dialtone@vcn.bc.ca allegedly said:
> GRAFTON, Ohio -- A woman tired of her husband's online chatting
> became a computer hacker.
Ah, yes. This happened just around the corner from me. :) Was reported a
couple days ago in the _Cleveland Plain Dealer_.
Moral of the story (at least as reported by the PeeDee): keep a check on
your Internet usage, don't let it become an addiction ...
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wow! The poor guy ... I hope he was not
> injured in the hacker attack on his computer. He may have gotten off
> sort of lucky; that battle axe he is married to might have decided to
> to use the ax on him instead! The female of the species can be very
> vicious sometimes.
I think she sliced the power cord. Which, when you think about it,
might not have been a good idea. Anyone know if stainless steel is a
good conductor of electricity? ;)
> The poor guy ... I wonder if his wife caught him, ummm, you know ... PAT
Yuck.
*shudder*
North Shore Technologies: We don't just build websites. We build relationships.
(But not with spammers. Spammers get billed a minimum of $1000 for cleanup!)
888.480.4NET [active now, forwards to my pager] - 216.619.2NET [as of 7/1/99]
Proud host of the Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail - www.spamfree.org
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, one good thing about hot chat
all night on AOL; it keeps the guys busy and occupied in a wholesome
way and out of the commercial web sites where they might get their
money stolen or their identities abused. Trying to keep a straight
face here, but I really better close this issue while I am ahead. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #200
******************************